    [Senate Hearing 107-312]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 107-312

    AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2002

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2330/S. 1191

     AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
     AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
             YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2002, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                      Commodity Futures Trading Commission
                           Department of Agriculture
     Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
                           Farm Credit Administration
                           Nondepartmental witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

     Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
                                     senate

                                     ______

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    70-706 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2002
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         TED STEVENS, Alaska, Chairman
    THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi            ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
    PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico         ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland
    RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama           HARRY REID, Nevada
    JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire            HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah              PATTY MURRAY, Washington
    BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado    BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas          RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    MIKE DeWINE, Ohio                    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
                                         MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
                       Steven J. Cortese, Staff Director
                     Lisa Sutherland, Deputy Staff Director
                     Terry Sauvain, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

      Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies

                      THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman
    ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania          HERB KOHL, Wisconsin
    CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri        TOM HARKIN, Iowa
    MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky            BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
    CONRAD BURNS, Montana                DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
    LARRY CRAIG, Idaho                   RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
    TED STEVENS, Alaska                  TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
      (ex offico)                        ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
                                           (ex offico)
                               Professional Staff

                               Rebecca M. Davies
                            Martha Scott Poindexter
                                   Les Spivey
                               Rachelle Schroeder
                           Galen Fountain (Minority)
                            Jessica Arden (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                             Angela Lee (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Wednesday, April 25, 2001

                                                                       Page
    Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary...............     1

                             Thursday, May 3, 2001

    Department of Agriculture: Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services   161

                             Thursday, May 10, 2001

    Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
      Administration.................................................   279

        Material Submitted by Agencies Not Appearing for Formal Hearings

    Department of Agriculture:
        Rural Utilities Service......................................   367
        Agricultural Research Service................................   373
        Rural Business-Cooperative Service...........................   377
        Natural Resources Conservation Service.......................   381
        Office of Communications.....................................   385
        Office of the General Counsel................................   386
        Office of the Chief Financial Officer........................   399
        National Agricultural Statistics Service.....................   402
        Agricultural Marketing Service...............................   405
        Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service...................   409
        Office of Inspector General..................................   419
        Food Safety and Inspection Service...........................   429
        Food and Nutrition Service...................................   440
        National Appeals Division....................................   443
        Economic Research Service....................................   444
        Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.   448
        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration......   451
        Office of the Chief Information Officer......................   460
        Departmental Administration..................................   468
        Rural Housing Service........................................   472
        Farm Service Agency..........................................   477
    Related Agency: Farm Credit Administration.......................   481
    Additional committee questions: Cooperative State Research,
      Education, and Extension Service...............................   487
    Nondepartmental witnesses........................................   733
    Related Agency: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.............   942

    AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 25, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 1:35 p.m. in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cochran, Bond, Craig, Kohl, Harkin,
    Dorgan, Durbin, and Johnson.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. ANN M. VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF
                AGRICULTURE
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST
            STEPHEN B. DEWHURST, BUDGET OFFICER

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. The committee will please come to order.
    It is my pleasure to convene in our first hearing of the year,
    and to welcome to the subcommittee having jurisdiction over the
    Department of Agriculture and Related Agencies budget for
    fiscal year 2002 the new Secretary of Agriculture, Ann Veneman.
    We appreciate the cooperation of you and your staff in our
    review of the President's budget that has been submitted to the
    Congress for its consideration.
        We notice that you have accompanying you today Keith
    Collins, the Department's chief economist, and Stephen
    Dewhurst, who is the budget officer for the Department. I have
    had an opportunity to review your prepared statement, which I
    appreciate your submitting to the committee, and an outline of
    the President's budget request for the Department of
    Agriculture and the other agencies that come within the
    jurisdiction of this committee.
        I think there is a compliment that is deserved at this
    point, and that is that in this submission there is a proposal
    to increase funding to cover mandatory pay increases, and to
    continue essential investments in technology that are important
    to the effective and efficient operations of all agencies of
    the Department.
        The budget maintains staffing levels for essential agency
    functions, and it also requests resources to support nutrition
    assistance programs to protect the safety of our Nation's food
    supply, to support agriculture trade initiatives, to deal with
    emerging pest and other challenges to agriculture and our food
    supply. Most of these proposed increases are offset by proposed
    reductions in some ongoing programs and other congressionally
    mandated additions to the budget.
        We know we have some new challenges that are being faced by
    this Department, and your statement touches on them. Bovine
    Spongiform Encephalopathy, better known as mad cow disease or
    BSE, and the recent outbreak of foot and mouth disease in
    Europe, which poses threats not only there but probably around
    the world, requiring new initiatives and vigilance and efforts
    to make sure that those problems don't occur here.
        We look forward to discussing that with you as we review
    the Department's budget today, and we encourage you to provide
    us with whatever additional comments you think would be helpful
    to our understanding of this budget request.
        I am happy now to yield to our distinguished Ranking
    Member, my good friend from Wisconsin, Senator Kohl.

                         STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL

        Senator Kohl. I thank you so much, Senator Cochran. It is
    good to join you and all members of the subcommittee as we
    begin work on the agriculture appropriations bill for fiscal
    2002. I would also like to recognize our two newest members,
    Senators Johnson and Craig.
        Secretary Veneman, I especially want to welcome you, along
    with Mr. Collins and Mr. Dewhurst. It is good to have all of
    you here, and I look forward to your comments. Every year, it
    seems, we talk about the current crisis facing American
    agriculture. Unfortunately, this year is no different.
    Commodity prices remain at historic lows. Devastating animal
    disease is loose in the world and threatens our shores,
    recurring drought has again gripped the south and, as we speak,
    flood waters continue to consume farmland in Wisconsin and
    throughout other Midwestern States, and this is only April.
        The President's proposed USDA budget provides $72 billion
    in appropriations for fiscal year 2002. That is a reduction of
    $563 million from last year's appropriated level, without even
    counting emergency funds enacted last year. Of the total
    proposed, $14.1 billion is discretionary spending. While the
    President has claimed to hold overall spending to a 4.4 percent
    increase, it appears that USDA programs have been held to a
    lower position of importance within Government than other
    areas. This is a fact I find troubling, given the wide range of
    issues now facing the rural sector.
        While I agree that meaningful income tax relief is very
    important, farm income tax relief presumes that there is farm
    income to be taxed, and an estate tax relief may benefit a
    handful of individual farmers but would have very limited
    effect on the overall farm sector.
        On the other hand, the programs funded by this
    subcommittee, such as research, conservation, marketing and
    others, do provide all farmers with tools that can help raise
    farm income and help farmers withstand the misfortunes of
    nature and disrupted markets. A 4.4 percent increase would be
    modest indeed, and a reduction would be disturbing.
        I note the Secretary's commitment to open markets and the
    need to tear down trade barriers. I applaud that commitment and
    hope it applies equally to domestic as well as foreign markets.
    Today in this country, a regional market barrier has been built
    that puts Wisconsin and other States' dairy products at great
    risk. This is an unacceptable situation, and I fully expect the
    USDA to support all U.S. agriculture and work to tear down all
    trade barriers, foreign and domestic.
        The President's budget also provides $36.6 billion for USDA
    nutrition programs, the largest single area of spending in the
    USDA budget. These important programs provide a safety net for
    the most vulnerable children and adults and, while most of them
    involve mandatory spending, it is important to remember that
    they are subject to appropriations and the scrutiny of this
    subcommittee. Whether the issue is the nutritional quality of a
    school lunch or the level of WIC participation, this
    subcommittee is charged with the responsibility to ensure that
    every American shall have access to a healthy meal.
        So Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership and your
    assistance. I look forward to working with you and all members
    of the subcommittee this year as we review the President's
    budget and set priorities based on the real needs of rural
    America.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Kohl.
        Senator Bond.

                STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER ``KIT'' S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    Secretary Veneman, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the
    subcommittee. One of the most important ingredients of being a
    good Secretary of Agriculture is timing, and with prices now in
    the tank you have got a real opportunity to be the true heroine
    for agriculture if they just turn around, so the Secretaries
    may or may not have an ability to impact farm income, but
    unfortunately you always take the blame, and so there is
    opportunity and there is hope ahead.
        The critical ingredient to success, however, is a
    willingness to use your position forcefully as an advocate for
    farmers, and that will mean keeping your eye and a hammer on
    other agencies who don't always have the best interests of
    farmers at heart, and keeping your eye on our friends at OMB
    who are sometimes accused, fairly enough, I would say, of
    knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. A lot
    of people have a high regard for your understanding of and
    commitment to trade expansion, and yesterday you and I
    discussed the promise that plant biotechnology holds in
    improving human health, the environment, diversifying ag uses,
    and improving production for the hungry in the world.
        U.S. Agency for International Development had a group of
    scientists from Kenya, South Africa, Uganda and elsewhere in
    town yesterday to discuss the critical need to make new
    technology available to the poor, the sick, and the hungry in
    impoverished regions of Africa. It is clear to me that, while
    the wealthy, well-fed in Europe want a technology-free zone in
    Europe, the impoverished, hungry people in Africa are anxious
    to have the benefits that science can bring to them.
        I have also taken a number of trips to Southeast Asia. They
    are particularly interested in trade and technology, and I hear
    more and more people say that, while we don't want to ignore
    Europe entirely, time will be spent much better on focusing on
    Asia, Latin America, and Africa, where our markets may be the
    most productive. If Europe wants to be isolated and cultivate
    more hysteria and nonsense than farmland, then we ought to look
    at regions that value science more than politics.
        I do have one parochial issue. It is a favored farmer and
    environment-friendly program called Agroforestry. This
    subcommittee has funded research for a number of years, and
    while I know you will be a strong supporter of Agroforestry and
    its multiple benefits for farmers and the environment, for
    cleaning of the waters of our Nation, it is identified in the
    budget for a rescission.
        Now, we go through this exercise every year with OMB, but
    since I have a better understanding of what may be your
    priorities and perhaps the President's than OMB does, I am
    certainly going to urge the chairman and the Ranking Member to
    reject the proposal for a rescission.
        Finally, while you are in great demand, I do want to call
    your attention to an invitation you have received to attend the
    World Agriculture Forum taking place May 20 through 22 in St.
    Louis, Missouri. There will be a number of world leaders,
    including heads of State, deputies, ministers of agriculture
    chief executive officers, scientists, farmers, and others, and
    I hope you can look at that invitation and see if you will take
    advantage of that opportunity.
        Since I have imposed upon the goodwill of the chairman and
    the Ranking Member and the committee members, I will extend to
    all of you an invitation to join us in St. Louis to talk about
    agriculture and world trade in agriculture May 20 through 22.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Bond. In recognizing
    Senators alternatively, one side of the aisle to the other, in
    the order in which they attended the hearing, I would now
    recognize Senator Johnson for any opening statement he may
    have.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Senator
    Kohl, I appreciate this opportunity to serve on the
    Appropriations Committee, on the Agricultural Subcommittee in
    particular. I look forward to working with the leadership of
    the committee and all members. This is of immense importance to
    my home State of South Dakota and, I think, to the Nation at
    large.
        As a new member, I will focus a lot of my time to learning
    and listening, but I do very much appreciate this opportunity
    to participate in this hearing. I want to welcome Secretary
    Veneman to this hearing as well. Ms. Veneman is known as a
    Californian, but we in South Dakota claim some credit as well,
    as her Dutch ancestors homesteaded in Charles Mix County in
    South Dakota. There are not a lot of peaches being raised in
    South Dakota, as there are in California, but we are proud to
    have that claim to Ms. Veneman's heritage.
        I look forward to the testimony today on a range of issues.
    Obviously, tax relief is a matter of significant importance to
    us all, but it is also important that it be balanced with the
    needs to address other key priorities in this Nation, among
    them, agriculture and rural America, food safety, rural
    development, conservation, and other high priorities that I
    think people, rural and urban alike, share a concern for.
        I am somewhat concerned about the reductions in
    conservation efforts at USDA, and I look forward to your
    testimony in that regard, as well as I am concerned about
    funding levels for our antitrust and concentration efforts at
    USDA.
        One area that I have a parochial concern as well, although
    not entirely just for South Dakota, has to do with the status
    of our CRP wetlands six-State pilot project, which has had
    bipartisan support, would utilize the CRP in a fashion which
    would address some of our wetlands controversies we have had in
    the prairie pothole region in particular. The rule has not yet
    been published, and it is imminent. Our farmers across the six
    States of the Northern Plains are looking forward to that as an
    additional tool.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        It is a proposal that was put together by a group of some
    30-plus rural and agricultural organizations in South Dakota as
    part of an out-of-court settlement. Any time you can get the
    Sierra Club, the Farm Bureau, and the Farmer's Union all to
    agree on a conservation initiative of this sort, I think we
    ought to move forward with it, and it is my hope that we can
    work with the Secretary to get those proposals published in the
    very near future.
        So again, I welcome the Secretary to the committee, and
    look forward to my participation on this subcommittee.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Johnson.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson

        Thank you Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl and members of the
    subcommittee, it is an honor to participate in my first appropriations
    subcommittee hearing on agriculture. I am pleased by the reception that
    my colleagues on this panel have extended to me, and I look forward to
    working with all of you to complete work on a thoughtful, balanced
    budget for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the
    many important programs under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee.
        I also thank Secretary Ann Veneman for offering testimony on USDA's
    proposed budget for fiscal year 2002, and I look forward to working
    with her to assure this subcommittee provides the investments necessary
    to keep rural America strong, now and into the future. Madam Secretary,
    I enjoyed meeting with you in January--prior to your confirmation by
    the Senate Agriculture Committee--and I expect to follow-up with you
    today on some of the issues and priorities we discussed at that time.
    Mr. Chairman, I want to make a special note at this point that while
    Senator Feinstein may take great pride in the fact that our new
    Secretary of Agriculture is indeed from a California peach-growing
    region, I am proud that Secretary Veneman has South Dakota ties too. In
    fact, her Dutch ancestors homesteaded in Charles Mix County near
    Platte, South Dakota. That was a long time ago, and there's not much
    peach growing in Charles Mix County, but nonetheless, we're proud of
    her connection to our South Dakota. Finally Madam Secretary, I again
    invite you back to your ancestral State, where we can discuss issues of
    importance to South Dakota's farm families and rural communities.
        Regarding USDA's budget proposal for fiscal year 2002, I appreciate
    the President's desire to fund national priorities in a restrained way
    so as to provide significant tax relief to America's working families.
    I too am on record in support of a significant tax cut. Yet, we must
    address the budget and tax cut in a balanced fashion, assuring efforts
    are made to pay down the federal debt and fund key programs--such as
    agriculture, conservation, rural development, and food safety just to
    name a few--which are essential to the well-being of our country.
        In an initial analysis, USDA's proposed budget adequately addresses
    some of our agricultural, trading, and food safety priorities. Yet, I
    believe it fails to make some specific and significant investments in a
    secure farm safety net, conservation programs, efforts to restore
    marketplace competition, and rural development.
        Moreover, despite the fact that over 20 major farm and commodity
    groups in the country--from Farm Bureau to Farmers Union, and including
    cattlemen, pork producers, corn, wheat, dairy, soybeans, cotton, rice,
    sugar producers, and others--have asked for increased support for a new
    farm bill and additional emergency aid for farmers and ranchers at
    levels similar to that of last year, the proposed USDA budget includes
    no support for a new farm bill or room for emergency aid--save the so-
    called contingency reserve. We will discuss this specific issue in
    greater detail at next week's subcommittee hearing on the farm economy
    and assistance for farmers and ranchers. Yet, our past experience of
    enacting multi-billion ad hoc emergency bills, while ignoring even
    modest changes to the farm bill, has proven costly to taxpayers,
    unpredictable for farmers, and not sustainable nor responsible in terms
    of long-term policy. That said, I am disappointed that USDA's budget
    does not include funding for a new farm bill that will ensure economic
    security for family farmers, ranchers, and rural communities now and
    into the future. I look forward to working with you, Madam Secretary,
    and the members of this subcommittee to help develop an adequate
    disaster bill for 2001 and sustainable new farm bill.
        I am specifically concerned about the cuts or elimination of funds
    in fiscal year 2002 for important conservation programs such as the
    Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and
    the Emergency Conservation Program. Farmers, other landowners, and
    society as a whole continue to desire more options to ensue the proper
    stewardship of our nation's soil and water resources. With agricultural
    conservation programs oversubscribed by nearly six times the available
    funding, this is clearly the wrong direction to take with conservation
    funding, and I plan to work in the subcommittee to secure funds that
    promote greater use of conservation programs instead of cutting or
    eliminating them altogether.
        Madam Secretary, we have visited about a new pilot program I pushed
    last year to enroll farmed wetlands in the continuous Conservation
    Reserve Program (CRP)--which was enacted with some help from Senators
    Harkin, Kohl, Cochran, and Daschle. This two year pilot program was
    created by farmers and conservationists in South Dakota, and it would
    permit up to 500,000 acres of farmed wetlands to be enrolled under CRP
    in six states of the Prairie Pothole Region. Unfortunately, the rule to
    begin the process for farmers to sign-up for the program has yet to be
    published in the Federal Register. While the severe and wet weather in
    South Dakota and other reaches of the country have delayed planting
    decisions and inadvertently could permit some to enroll in this
    program, further procrastination on the finalization of this rule will
    only hurt the chances for this program to succeed. I urge you to work
    with the appropriate agencies within USDA to ensure the rule for this
    CRP-wetlands pilot project is published in the Federal Register and
    that sign-up commence as soon as possible.
        On the other hand, I wish to thank you Madam Secretary for the
    steps you've taken within USDA to prevent outbreak of diseases such as
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or ``mad cow'' disease and Foot
    and Mouth Disease (FMD) in the United States. Only three states raise a
    more sizable calf crop than that reared by South Dakota's cattle
    ranchers. Livestock production and processing contributes over $3
    billion to South Dakota's economy each year. An outbreak of either
    disease would have crippling consequences for the hard-working families
    raising cattle, sheep, and hogs in South Dakota. Under your leadership,
    USDA currently enforces a ban on the import of ruminant animals and
    animal products (primarily beef-based) into this country, and you've
    taken steps to ban the import of all animal and animal products from
    the European Union (EU), in response to the spread of FMD. Moreover,
    under the leadership of Chairman Cochran, the fiscal year 2001
    Agriculture Appropriations bill provided USDA with $85 million for
    preventative animal health monitoring and surveillance operations in
    the U.S.
        In the context of the appropriations process, I believe this
    subcommittee may need to plan to provide additional funding both in
    fiscal year 2002--and potentially accelerated funding this year--for
    APHIS, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and other appropriate
    federal agencies that must work to prevent FMD and BSE outbreaks in the
    U.S. I have already met with FDA officials to discuss these issues, and
    look forward to Secretary Veneman's views today.
        I am pleased that USDA's budget request for fiscal year 2002
    increases funding for disease prevention. In fact, you seek to increase
    the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) budget by $174
    million from fiscal year 2001, up to an $849 million total for fiscal
    year 2002.
        This should authorize additional resources to increase inspection
    personnel that protect against animal and plant diseases like FMD at
    major U.S. ports of entry. Specifically, USDA can hire approximately
    350 additional personnel at critical ports and international airports
    to protect against pests and diseases. I am equally pleased with your
    requested $13 million in additional program support to strengthen the
    Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program (AQI), which helps protect
    the U.S. against animal diseases like FMD and BSE. Finally, in regards
    to increases in Agricultural Research Service (ARS) efforts to prevent
    diseases, I support your request for an increase of $5 million for BSE-
    related research.
        In addition to greater investment in USDA disease prevention
    efforts, I have encouraged my Senate colleagues and you, Madam
    Secretary, to consider S. 280, my bipartisan legislation calling for
    beef, pork, and lamb country-of-origin labeling. This bill, the
    Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001, ensures that consumers have
    knowledge about the true origin of the meat they feed their families.
    The legislation provides consumers with the confidence that meat
    products labeled as originating from the U.S. are, in fact, from
    animals born, raised, and slaughtered in the U.S.
        While I would not suggest that my bill is necessary from a food
    safety standpoint (because the majority of current live animal and meat
    imports meet U.S. inspection and safety standards), I would assert that
    my legislation would empower consumers to make informed choices about
    meat products. Furthermore, I would observe that the pure standard in
    my bill for defining a meat product as being from the U.S. would reward
    domestic producers for their herd health and production practices,
    capitalize upon current USDA and FDA safeguards, and help prevent
    unwarranted consumer fear about U.S. meat.
        We cannot underestimate the need to be very vigilant about the
    health of domestic livestock herds and the safety of domestically
    produced meat. I look forward to working with both of you to ensure
    Congress takes the appropriate measures this year to deal with FMD and
    BSE prevention, surveillance, monitoring, and control operations.
        Rural Development (RD) initiatives provide incentives for the
    creation and expansion of value-added agricultural ventures in South
    Dakota, and help furnish critical infrastructure and telecommunications
    support to rural areas of our country. I am concerned by the $2.5
    billion cut to RD programs within USDA's budget. Because rural America
    depends upon a diverse economic engine to run smoothly, I am hopeful
    this subcommittee will work to restore funding to some of the key RD
    programs this year.
        In concern to investments in Cooperative State Research Extension
    and Education Services (CSREES), the partnership between USDA and our
    land-grant university system is one of the most important investments
    we can make to ensure a strong rural America. In South Dakota, South
    Dakota State University (SDSU) and the Cooperative Extension Service
    are efficiently and effectively capitalizing upon the federal CSREES
    funds allocated to them to invest in educational opportunities for
    young people, to ensure a dependable food supply, to foster economic
    development, and to promote sustainable agricultural production while
    protecting our soil and water resources all at the same time. While
    USDA's proposed (CSREES) budget maintains formula funds at $544
    million--imperative to SDSU because these funds comprise thirty-eight
    percent of our extension service budget--I will be supporting an
    increase of $200 million in the CSREES budget to invest in student
    learning, a dependable food supply, rural community economic
    development, and sustainable agricultural production.
        This increase is necessary to build upon the success stories told
    time and time again in South Dakota and across the country, and I'd
    like to cite just two of many examples in my State.
        In South Dakota, these formula funds allow for a program entitled
    ``Putting Youth Back in Sports'' that teaches sportsmanship, honesty,
    and fairness to young people involved in athletics and other extra-
    curricular activities. This innovative program also addresses the role
    parents and other adults play in serving as responsible role models,
    therefore ``Putting Youth Back in Sports'' works with parents,
    teachers, coaches, and others to ensure everyone knows how to be a
    ``good sport.'' As a result, nearly 10,000 people in South Dakota
    completed this program last year, and SDSU has been invited to bring
    the program to Penn State.
        Additionally, CSREES funds allowed SDSU to establish a Standardized
    Performance Analysis (SPA), a record keeping analysis for cow-calf
    ranchers in South Dakota. This SPA permits individual ranchers to
    calculate operational costs on a per-cow and per-calf basis, and as a
    result, identify a specific break-even value allowing ranchers to take
    steps to reduce costs and increase potential profit-making opportunity.
        These and many other innovative programs benefit from CSREES funds,
    which promote projects in South Dakota that serve it's citizens through
    and educational process that helps them improve their lives by applying
    unbiased, scientific knowledge focused on needs and issues. That is why
    I will support an increase for fiscal year 2002. Thank you Mr.
    Chairman, this concludes my opening statement but I look forward to
    addressing Secretary Veneman with some questions in relation to these
    and other matters.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY E. CRAIG

        Senator Cochran. Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Secretary
    Veneman, thank you for being with us today. I look forward to
    your testimony. I read your prepared remarks. You have just
    returned from Quebec and I have just returned from Brussels.
    You engaged Brazil and Argentina in discussions dealing with
    their extended agricultural capabilities, and I engaged Fran
    Krischler, the EU's ag minister.
        Out of those two conversations, I suspect we in this
    country have got to decide where we're going to go with
    agriculture as it relates to what our public policy will be in
    the near and the long term. We are going to start looking at
    that soon, and I would suggest that we will find it extremely
    difficult to continue to simply serve an ag policy, which means
    write a check to every producer and make it larger every year
    so that they can balance the books. That will not continue to
    work, and somehow we have got to wrestle our way out of that.
        I think that Senator Dorgan and I had a rather interesting
    awakening a a few years go when, as cochairs of the WTO Caucus,
    we engaged a fellow by the name of Pascal Lame, and after we
    had roughed him up for a bit he looked us all in the eye and
    chuckled a bit, and he says, you do not understand us, do you.
    We in Europe have decided to protect the pastoral beauty of our
    agricultural landscape, and therefore we will provide for our
    farmers and we will pay them directly for that purpose. We
    believe it is good social policy in Europe, so the only thing
    that you have left for us to debate is the subsidy that we may
    or may not do as it relates to moving product into the world
    market.
        In other words, he said, hands off our domestic policy. We
    have made our decision. I think that is changing now in the EU
    as new countries come in and those countries come with a large
    agricultural portfolio.
        At the same time, it is without question going to be
    demanding of us to look into our crystal balls and decide how
    we are going to deal with agricultural policy in this country
    as it relates to a producer-producer relationship, and
    certainly the well-being of our country and our consumers. I
    don't have an answer to that, and my guess is you probably
    don't, either, but maybe collectively in the next year we will
    work that out.
        In the meantime, we need to continue a level of support for
    agriculture that at this time is at or below break-even,
    depending on the specific commodity, few of them above that
    line, and all of that extremely important to individuals within
    the industry itself, but collectively to our States and to our
    country.
        I look forward to your testimony. More importantly, I look
    forward to working with you in the long-term as we wrestle
    through these issues.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Craig.
        Senator Dorgan.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN

        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and
    again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for convening this hearing.
    Madam Secretary, thank you for being here, and welcome.
        Abraham Lincoln created what is now the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture, with nine employees back in the early 1860's. I
    understand we now have more than 97,000 employees, including
    the forest service, some 35,000 plus in the forest service. My
    feeling is, the only reason to have a Department of Agriculture
    is to preserve the network of family farms in this country.
        I would prefer to use the term family farmer than just,
    quote, agriculture, unquote, because I think corporate America
    would farm America from coast to coast, given their own
    interests. I am interested in preserving the network of family
    producers in this country, and if we are not about doing that,
    then as far as I am concerned we probably could shut down USDA.
    If we want to do that, let us have an operational statement
    that our goal is to create, or rather to preserve, a network of
    family producers in this country on rural lands.
        My colleague from Missouri mentioned timing, and certainly
    timing is important. There is an old story about a Cherokee
    Indian chief who said, the success of a rain dance depends a
    lot on timing. I suspect that is true, and it is certainly
    true, perhaps, with the stewardship of the Secretary of
    Agriculture. It is also true that initiative is critically
    important. The question for us is, do we have good intentions,
    number 1, and number 2, are we pursuing good policy?
        Our family farmers are in some very serious trouble, and
    have been for some long while. The current farm program was
    written when the price of wheat was over $5 a bushel. It
    collapsed quickly, and every single year we have had to play
    catch-up with some emergency help.
        Last week, I was in Stanley, North Dakota. A young high
    school boy who had written me a letter came up and introduced
    himself and asked if I remembered him. I said I did. He wrote
    me a plaintive letter saying, I live on the farm with my
    family. He said, my dad can feed 180 people, and he can't feed
    his family. I told him that, I remember that letter. That is
    not a letter someone would easily forget. But he was describing
    the difficulty of trying to operate a family farm when prices
    for that which they produce are so far below their cost of
    production.
        This budget that we're talking about is far short of what
    is needed. It is not reflective of what we need. We need to
    write a new farm program, and then we need to fund a
    countercyclical program in the farm program that will help
    family farmers when times are tough.
        We also need to target that help. I do not want to see
    stories on television about the millions and millions of
    dollars we give to the largest producers in America. That does
    not make any sense. Corporate agrifactors will do just fine,
    thank you. They have got plenty of financial strength to do so.
        But I look forward to working with you on a range of these
    issues. I would say I support expanded trade, but I do not
    think we are going to trade our way out of this problem. I
    support tax incentives that are well-constructed, but I think
    my colleague, Senator Kohl, said it correctly. The fact is, the
    tax breaks are not going to help a whole lot if you do not have
    income, especially income tax breaks do not help much if you do
    not have income. We need to work together and find a way to
    decide whether we have, as an operational statement for
    describing the purpose of USDA, that we want to preserve a
    network of family farms in this country's future.
        If we do that, if we decide that is a goal, then let us
    work together to make that happen with a farm program that
    finally works. If not, maybe we ought to close the doors down
    there and save some money.

                               Prepared Statement

        I do not mean to end this on a down note. I think there is
    plenty of hope if we work together, and if we are willing to
    find the resources to try to preserve our family farmers. It is
    not the case that they are like the little old diner that is
    left behind when the interstate came through and all that is
    left is some nostalgia about what was the part of our culture.
    They are an important part of this country and an important
    part of its future, but they will not be around unless we take
    affirmative action and the right initiatives and the right
    policy courses.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        Mr. Chairman, today this Subcommittee begins to officially
    scrutinize the United States Department of Agriculture budget that the
    President released a couple of weeks ago. Quite frankly, I am very
    disappointed that the President has targeted the Agriculture budget for
    some of the largest spending cuts in his overall budget--cuts that we
    all know are mainly necessary to pay for his massive tax cut. All of us
    involved in Agriculture recognize the bleak economic climate in rural
    America. We can all agree that this segment of the national economy did
    not fare all that well in the last decade.
        Commodity prices collapsed four years ago and have remained
    stagnant ever since. Repeated weather disasters have ravaged the nation
    from coast to coast. Even now, the upper Midwest river systems are
    flooding while news reports tell us daily about water shortages and
    drought in Florida and the Western United States. Few would deny that
    family farmers and those whose businesses are dependent on them in
    rural America continue to face tough economic circumstances right now,
    and are in no shape to be neglected by USDA.
        Put bluntly, the conditions--low prices and adverse weather--that
    warranted three emergency farm assistance packages totaling $25 billion
    these past three years are still in place. USDA's Chief Economist
    recently stated that net cash farm income for 2001 will plummet $4
    billion below the average of the 1990's if no emergency help is
    enacted.
        Despite this fact, the Administration has proposed a budget for
    USDA that drastically curtails expenditures. Tax relief for farmers is
    touted as a benefit that will more than compensate agriculture for this
    neglect.
        However, to have a tax problem requires income, and most American
    farmers are suffering from a lack of income. Tax breaks are not a
    replacement for sound farm policy. To be more specific, collectively
    since 1980, deductible farm expense has exceeded farm income which
    means that the nation's farmers as a whole had a net taxable ``loss''
    for the 20 year period. Recent tax records show that seventy-three per
    cent of farm sole proprietors either reported a farm loss or have no
    federal income tax liability. To say that farmers ought to blindly
    support the Administration's fiscal year 2002 USDA budget proposal
    because they have a ``stake'' in the overall budget objectives of the
    President--mainly his tax cut--is stretching things just a bit.
        The Administration has proposed deep cuts in conservation and
    foreign food aid budgets. The program levels for rural development and
    research will also be significantly reduced under the Administration's
    recommendation. They remain silent about any need for emergency
    assistance for family farmers should commodity prices remain stagnant
    at these collapsed levels or weather disasters continue to plague the
    countryside.
        USDA's proposed budget is naive in that it proposes to ignore the
    economic realities of rural America. Economic forecasts for agriculture
    remain bleak for the 2001 growing season and beyond due to the
    continuation of collapsed commodity prices, while input costs--most
    notably fuel and fertilizer--skyrocket. If we fail to offer adequate
    support for agriculture, massive farm failures will surely occur. Such
    failures would cripple rural America's economy and could further dampen
    the general economy, something we must prevent during this time of
    national economic uncertainty.
        I am confident my colleagues will agree with me and that this
    Subcommittee will address the inadequacies of the Administration's
    proposed USDA budget for fiscal year 2002.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD J. DURBIN

        Senator Cochran. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kohl, and
    my colleagues. Secretary Veneman, welcome to the hearing. I am
    glad to see you are joined by two stalwarts, Mr. Collins, who
    has served as an economist for a long time--I have known him
    since my days in the house--and Steve Dewhurst, who I think
    started in the early Grover Cleveland administration----
        Senator Durbin.--He has continued on with distinction every
    single year. You are lucky to have to two of them by your side.
        Madam Secretary, I would like to follow through with a
    comment as well about the emergency situation we face. We have
    faced emergency assistance for farmers for the last several
    years that has literally meant whether or not those farmers
    survive or not. In Illinois and across the farm belt the
    Federal payments have accounted for half the net farm income.
    The farmers literally would not have survived without it.
        Now, on top of that, Mother Nature has thrown us another
    challenge with the flooding in the Midwest. I was on the phone
    a few minutes ago with Joe Allbaugh of FEMA who is on his way
    to Illinois. Over 28,000 acres have been flooded now, and will
    be affected in terms of crop planting.
        I would like to issue a personal invitation to you, Madam
    Secretary, if you would consider it, to come to Illinois and
    come to the flooded areas to meet with the farmers and farm
    families. There are some important questions they would like to
    ask of you, of the administration, concerning their future.
    They took a look, or at least their farm organizations have
    taken a look at the proposed budget and are concerned as to
    whether or not there has been a sufficient amount of money set
    aside for emergency purposes. There is an inadequate amount
    from where I am sitting, but perhaps there is another view of
    this. We would like to offer you the opportunity to come and
    speak to that.
        Second, I would like to say that I noted in many of the
    introductory comments here how often the issue of food safety
    has come up. It is interesting, in a country with the safest
    food supply in the world, that we want to do better, and we are
    conscious of challenges that other countries and other people
    are facing.
        I have introduced three pieces of legislation. I would like
    to ask your Department to review and see if you might support.
    One of them relates to the whole question of the food that is
    being imported into this country, the National Food Security
    and Safety Act, to strengthen our national defenses against mad
    cow disease and related threats. It uses sound science, and I
    hope good common sense, to make our borders more secure,
    improve our surveillance activities, and remove from the food
    supply for humans any animals, some animal-derived materials
    that could potentially spread mad cow disease.
        I am also working on the Genetically Engineered Foods Act.
    I noticed last night, perhaps you saw it, Frontline had a
    program relative to this whole issue of biotech, which is
    extremely controversial. Senator Bond has been a leader in
    speaking out on this, as others have. We want to make certain
    that we have the safest food supply and use the best science to
    not only feed America, but to feed the world.
        Finally, I would like to commend to you a position that was
    taken by President Bush during his campaign but not by the
    Democratic candidates. It was a position that I have been
    espousing for some time, and it addresses the fact that we
    currently have Federal food safety fragmented in 12 different
    Federal agencies with 35 different laws and 28 different House
    and Senate subcommittees with jurisdiction and oversight. Is it
    any wonder that we have conflicting, overlapping, and
    oftentimes amusing contradictions in the law when it comes to
    the safety of our food?
        This administration I think can make history by finally
    bringing together all of the different food safety aspects of
    the Federal Government into one scientifically driven agency
    that will combine the mission of food safety so that people
    across America and around the world know that we are absolutely
    doing our very best. I have been working on this for several
    years, and I would be anxious to work with you on that in the
    future.

                               Prepared Statement

        The last point I will make is this. It is more global.
    After our visit to Africa a little over a year ago, I came back
    absolutely overwhelmed with what I had seen with the AIDS
    epidemic, and I am heartened by comments from my colleagues
    like Senator Frist and others, Senator Lugar, who believe, as I
    do, that with the largesse in the United States we have an
    opportunity and an obligation to try to help those in other
    countries who are braving this type of epidemic and other
    health problems. I hope that we can find ways to work together
    to expand our assistance in this area.
        I thank you for joining us.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin

        Chairman Cochran, thank you for holding this important hearing
    today. I look forward to working with you, Senator Kohl, and my
    Subcommittee colleagues on the fiscal year 2002 (fiscal year 2002)
    Agriculture Appropriations bill.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome USDA Secretary Ann Veneman to
    the hearing this afternoon. Although she may be a new secretary, she is
    not new to USDA or to agricultural issues. I enjoyed working with her
    during her stint as Deputy Secretary in the early 1990s. Madam
    Secretary, I look forward to working with you and the team you're
    assembling at the Department. I'm certainly familiar with the gentlemen
    you've brought with you today, Chief Economist Keith Collins and Budget
    Officer Steve Dewhurst. I always enjoy their budget insights.
        I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to talk about
    some very important issues that affect the Department and my home state
    of Illinois.
        First, I've noticed that the Department's fiscal year 2002 budget
    contains no emergency funding. The Administration is relying on its
    proposed National Emergency Reserve Fund or Contingency Reserve Fund--
    neither of which exist at this time--to provide farmers with federal
    assistance.
        The proposed Emergency Reserve Fund would only be given $5.6
    billion in fiscal year 2002 to respond to all types of disasters,
    including floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and the kinds of
    emergency payments farmers will need. While I am open to efforts to
    prepare for unexpected emergencies, the continuing farm slump is
    different. We know the need. Congress has appropriated more than $5.6
    billion for farm assistance alone in each of the years since the farm
    economy's downturn began.
        As for offering the Contingency Reserve Fund as an option for
    funding, this approach pits farm aid against Medicare, Social Security
    and defense spending needs. I wonder, how is relying on these reserve
    funds, which compete with other national needs, a responsible method
    for ensuring our farmers get the support they desperately need?
        I raise this point because as we speak, western Illinois and
    eastern Iowa residents are battling another Mississippi River flood.
    The Illinois Department of Agriculture tells me that many farmers have
    canceled orders for inputs such as fertilizer and chemicals and are
    delaying the planting of crops in anticipation of possible flood damage
    to their property. Record crests are expected today and the FEMA
    director will travel to the Quad Cities on Thursday to assess the
    damage. Already, 28,600 acres of cropland in ten Illinois counties have
    been affected, according Illinois Emergency Management Agency.
        And just like we can't accurately predict floods, other natural
    disasters or poor crop conditions could emerge through the planting
    season and into fall harvest throwing our agricultural economy for yet
    another loop. We need to be prepared.
        Congress has provided approximately $25 billion in emergency
    agriculture aid since 1998. Farm groups have requested up to a $12
    billion increase in the agriculture budget for fiscal year 2002 in
    anticipation of another year of depressed commodity prices and higher
    input costs. The Senate passed an amendment to the budget resolution
    that would allow for $9 billion in additional emergency agricultural
    assistance this fiscal year. I supported that measure.
        My colleagues will not be shocked to learn that government payments
    in 2000 made up nearly half of net farm income. The USDA predicts that
    without government payments, farm income will fall in 2001 to $4.1
    billion. A recent study by the University of Illinois shows that
    Illinois farm income is up slightly in 2000, but that government
    payments still account for 21 percent of gross farm returns. In fact,
    many families have to go off the farm to earn money to pay for simple
    living expenses and income and Social Security taxes.
        Having said that, I think it's important for all of us to realize
    that the 1996 Farm Bill was not written in stone. It can and should be
    changed. I believe we must start now by reforming Freedom to Farm
    because clearly it has failed to meet the most basic needs of
    producers. Restoring the farm safety net, targeting payments to farmers
    in need, and ensuring that livestock producers are not left behind
    should be the first steps.
        We must also work to both open and broaden markets for American
    agricultural products and find appropriate alternative uses. More
    specifically, I hope that my colleagues in Congress, and in the Bush
    Administration, will make every effort to expand the role of ethanol in
    the reformulated gasoline program. Knowing what we know about MTBE,
    this should be a top priority. I believe expanding ethanol's role is a
    win for our farmers, a win for the environment, and a win for the rural
    economy.
        We have a great deal to do and a very short year in which to
    accomplish these initiatives for rural America and our farm families.
    It's time for Congress to roll up its sleeves and get to work.
        Now, I'd like to mention food safety.
        Our country has been blessed with one of the safest and most
    abundant food supplies in the world. We have the science and know-how
    to make it even safer. And as the public learns of global threats to
    diseases like mad cow and foot and mouth and new, unfamiliar
    technologies--like genetically engineered crops and animals--we need to
    make sure that public confidence in food safety remains high.
        I recently announced that I will soon introduce the National Food
    Security and Safety Act to strengthen our national defenses against mad
    cow disease and related threats. This bill will apply sound science and
    good common sense to make our borders more secure, improve our
    surveillance activities, and remove from the food supply for humans and
    animals some animal-derived materials that could potentially spread mad
    cow. We'll also get these same materials out of non-food items, like
    cosmetics and medicines.
        I also plan to reintroduce the Genetically Engineered Foods Act.
    While I strongly support biotechnology, I've seen farmers in Illinois
    and throughout the country get hurt by some grave mistakes made by
    others. We must be able to better assure farmers of an available market
    for biotech crops, and assure consumers of the safety and effective
    oversight of this new technology. My bill will accomplish both these
    goals.
        All food safety threats--whether salmonella or mad cow--are made
    more difficult to manage by our highly fractured food safety system.
    Currently, federal oversight for food safety is fragmented with at
    least 12 different federal agencies, 35 different laws governing food
    safety, and 28 House and Senate subcommittees with food safety
    oversight. With overlapping jurisdictions and scattered
    responsibilities, federal agencies often lack accountability on food
    safety-related issues.
        For that reason, I will also be reintroducing the Safe Food Act.
    This legislation would unite food safety and inspection activities in a
    single agency with a clear mission to protect the public health. While
    the details of a new structure need to be developed in an open,
    participatory process, one of the best things we can do to protect the
    public health and save lives is unite federal food safety activities in
    one agency.
        I want to work with you and others in the Administration to design
    and implement a more streamlined system to strengthen food safety and
    better protect public health. I hope the Department will continue to
    explore this idea and work with me on ensuring that our food supply is
    the safest in the world.
        Secretary Veneman, as you may know, the Department has been working
    in Chicago and the surrounding suburbs to help eradicate the Asian
    Longhorned Beetle. The City of Chicago and the State of Illinois have
    been battling these pests for over three years now. Both APHIS and the
    Forest Service have been invaluable partners in this effort. I'm
    pleased to see that the Department's Budget includes more than $49
    million for efforts to fight Beetles in Illinois and New York.
        I hope the Department will continue to work with the Illinois
    Delegation on the innovative Illinois Rivers 2020 program, a federal-
    state initiative designed to restore and enhance the Illinois River
    Basin.
        Allow me to touch briefly on Africa. As you probably know, I was in
    Africa in January of last year and had an opportunity to see U.S. food
    aid programs in action. I was impressed and heartened by direct feeding
    programs as well as programs that sell U.S. food products at low cost
    to finance development projects. But I was overwhelmed by the impact of
    AIDS on Africa--particularly by the millions of children being left
    orphaned by the epidemic and the devastating impact on African
    countries' economies.
        I believe U.S. food aid could be used to target communities heavily
    affected by AIDS. Last year, I supported a provision that passed in the
    final bill to use $25 million-worth of surplus commodities in the
    416(b) program for food aid, or to be monetized for development
    projects, for communities heavily impacted by AIDS. I would like to
    know what progress USDA has made in disbursing these funds and what
    kind of projects PVOs and the World Food Programme suggested. I would
    like to get the Department's views on the potential for U.S. food aid
    being used more broadly to help those children, families, and
    communities affected by AIDS in Africa and elsewhere in the world.
        Finally, Madam Secretary, I have asked in the past that the
    Department specifically request funding to implement the U.S. Action
    Plan on Food Security. I'm very interested in how you think the United
    States can meet the commitments we made to reduce world hunger at the
    1996 World Food Summit. So far, our action plans have appeared to be
    only a list of the programs we already have, but we have not made much
    progress toward the goal of cutting in half the number of
    undernourished people by 2015.
        Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to raise these
    issues.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator. Madam Secretary, our
    Ranking Member is not going to be able to return to the
    committee after we go vote--we have a vote that has now begun
    on the Senate floor--so I am going to recognize him for the
    purpose of asking a couple of questions, which I hope you can
    answer; Then we can take a break and go vote, and we will come
    back and resume our hearing and hear your statement and have
    additional questions.
        Senator Kohl.

                             Foot and Mouth Disease

        Senator Kohl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesies.
        Madam Secretary, I appreciate your comments on the steps
    necessary to avoid an outbreak on foot and mouth disease or
    similar animal diseases in our country. If an outbreak were to
    occur in my State, which relies on the dairy industry, the
    consequences would be absolutely devastating, as I pointed out
    in my April 7th letter to you. In that letter, I also mentioned
    a troubling story on this subject that appeared in Wisconsin
    State Journal on April 4 which reported shortfalls in the
    inspection procedure at U.S. points of entry, so Madam
    Secretary, have you had a chance to review that story, and
    would you please respond to the concerns it raises, and if a
    confirmed outbreak of foot and mouth disease were to occur in
    this country what USDA procedures are in place for disease
    containment?
        Secretary Veneman. Thank you, Senator. As you probably
    know, foot and mouth disease has taken up a considerable amount
    of time for us in the Department of Agriculture since we
    assumed office, with the outbreak that occurred in the U.K. and
    continues to show new cases every day.
        We have been watching this issue very, very closely, and
    taking considerable action with regard to foot and mouth
    disease. Initially we suspended the imports of products from
    any foot and mouth disease country as well as all of the EU,
    following the outbreak in Europe.
        We have strengthened the number of inspectors that we have
    at ports of entry. We have increased our inspection at
    airports. We have increased public service announcements. We
    have increased the number of personnel at ports and airports.
    We have added about $32 million from our AQI user fees to add
    inspectors toward this effort, so overall we have been
    continually reviewing the programs that we have for exclusion.
        In addition, we are looking at all of the issues that we
    have with regard to preparedness should an outbreak occur, and
    that means working interagency with other agencies to make sure
    that we are totally prepared in the unfortunate event that we
    might get an outbreak.
        We have strengthened our relationship with the States and
    the State veterinarians to ensure that all of our programs are
    working in coordination. We have taken a number of steps with
    regard to constantly retooling our programs, looking into how
    we can strengthen them, because we know how devastating this
    disease can be to the United States, whether it is in your
    State, the dairy States, in my home State of California, or
    around the country, or to all of the livestock herds we
    currently have in so many parts of the country today.
        This would impact seriously on almost every State, and so
    we are very cognizant of the importance of our vigilance.
        As I said, if we did confirm an outbreak we would hope that
    it could be contained and eradicated very quickly, and we are
    constantly reviewing our systems to make sure we are working
    together with our States and all of the resources that we have
    in the U.S. to ensure that we could act quickly, and in the
    unfortunate event that we got it, to eradicate it quickly.
        Senator Kohl. I would just ask one other question and
    submit the others for the record, as well as a letter from
    Senator Wellstone.
        [The letter follows:]

                     Letter From Senator Paul D. Wellstone

                                                        April 23, 2001.
    Hon. Herb Kohl,
    Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and
            Related Agencies, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.
        Dear Herb: I understand your Committee is hearing testimony from
    Secretary Veneman this week regarding the fiscal year 2002 Budget. As
    you know recent flooding has ravaged a number of Minnesota communities.
    I would appreciate your informing the Secretary of the current
    situation in Minnesota as it relates to agriculture.
        Continued extremely wet conditions over the weekend of April 22nd
    have made planting conditions quite difficult. Approximately 5 to 8
    inches of snow fell in central Minnesota, and over 4 inches of rain
    fell covering much of central and southeast portions of the state.
    Prior to this weekend's precipitation, the following state-wide
    estimates were provided by the Minnesota Farm Service Agency (FSA): $1
    million in structure damage (farm buildings, bins, storage facilities,
    etc.) and 8,000 acres of Conservation Reserve Program flooded out.
        Minnesota FSA estimates that approximately 1.5 million acres of
    farm land have been flooded. Additionally 10 million acres are
    saturated, with no capacity to absorb any more moisture. The largest
    portion of the 11.5 million flooded and saturated cropland are along
    the Minnesota and Mississippi Rivers. The current cold and wet
    conditions increase the risk of another occurrence of the perennial
    scab and blight that affect small grains.
        Furthermore FSA predicts delays in planting will result in a marked
    shift from corn to soybeans, due to a shorter growing season for
    soybeans. Minnesota already has seen an approximate 35 percent shift
    from traditional corn acres to soybean acres for this crop year because
    of favorable loan rates for soybeans. These projected shifts have
    already depressed the soybean market.
        Thank you for your assistance on this matter. As additional
    information becomes available I will keep the Committee informed.
                Sincerely,
                                                     Paul D. Wellstone.

                               Cranberry Industry

        Senator Kohl. Madam Secretary, the cranberry industry
    continues to face record low prices and problems related to
    oversupply. Wisconsin is the leading cranberry producing area
    in the country. The current crisis has devastated producers in
    my State. Currently, I know that you are reviewing a Cranberry
    Marketing Committee proposal for volume reduction to stabilize
    market conditions this year. Since it is obviously important
    that planning decisions be concluded soon, can you provide a
    timetable by which you will have made a decision on this
    matter?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, Senator, I am aware of this issue
    and the fact that there are industry proposals. The industry is
    not exactly united on this issue. We are looking at the issue.
    We hope to have a decision very soon. I understand very clearly
    the need to act with some urgency on this issue, and the fact
    that we have to have a timely decision. We will address this
    issue within a matter of days.
        Senator Kohl. I thank you so much, and I thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Kohl. The committee
    will stand in recess. We will go over and vote on the
    legislation on the floor, and we will reconvene within a few
    minutes.
        The committee will please come to order. I am pleased to
    continue our hearing. I apologize for having to suspend while
    we went over and voted on the legislation on the floor of the
    Senate.
        We are pleased to have before the committee today Secretary
    Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture. We have had opening
    statements from our committee members and a couple of questions
    from the Ranking Member. Madam Secretary, we are pleased to
    receive your statement at this time, and we will have a few
    questions following your statement. Your written statement is
    being included in full in the record, so we encourage you to
    make whatever summary comments you think would be helpful to
    us.

                        Secretary Veneman's oral remarks

        Secretary Veneman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I was going
    to say members of the committee, but I will just say Mr.
    Chairman for now. It is an honor for me to appear before you
    today to discuss our 2002 budget for the Department of
    Agriculture, and as was indicated early on, I am lucky to have
    the two gentlemen with me, both of whom are long-time employees
    of the Department. Steve Dewhurst, our budget officer, and
    Keith Collins, our chief economist. I am going to make a
    relatively brief statement, and then we will all be available
    to respond to questions, and I appreciate you taking my full
    statement for the record.
        I want to begin by thanking this committee for its support
    of USDA programs and for the long history of effective
    cooperation between the committee and the Department. I enjoyed
    a productive relationship with this committee when I was Deputy
    Secretary in the early nineties, and I want to preserve and
    strengthen that relationship in the future. I look forward to
    working with you, Mr. Chairman and all the members of the
    committee toward that objective.
        As you know, the details of the President's budget
    proposals were released on April 9th. For the activities within
    the jurisdiction of this committee, the Department is
    requesting appropriations for the year 2002 which total $72
    billion, an increase of $883 million for the Department's
    ongoing programs. It is important to note that in 2001 there
    was more than $4 billion appropriated for emergencies. This
    budget does not include approximately $3 billion of that
    spending appropriated for the Department, because it was mostly
    one-time emergency spending where the missions have been
    completed.
        By any measure, this is a responsible, yet restrained
    budget. It meets the President's objectives of slowing the
    growth of Federal spending, funding urgent national priorities,
    achieving historic levels of debt reduction, and providing tax
    relief. Farmers and other beneficiaries of USDA programs all
    have a stake in these objectives.
        As you know, the Department is responsible for a very
    diverse set of programs. It is always difficult to find the
    appropriate balance for funding them. Nevertheless, we have
    tried very hard to provide adequate funding for the most urgent
    issues facing American agriculture, and we look forward to
    working with the committee as it proceeds through the year 2002
    budget process.
        However, I do want to emphasize that in order to get growth
    of spending under control, it is important that the levels that
    we are recommending to you today be supported. This budget was
    developed to include sufficient funding to carry out key
    priorities, including:
        First making sure we have the funding and legal authorities
    we need to strengthen our agricultural quarantine inspection
    activities and combat pest and disease infestations;
        Provide overseas marketing intelligence and technical
    expertise needed to support agricultural trade;
        Implement the new Agricultural Risk Protection Act so the
    farmers will have the benefits of improved crop insurance as
    soon as possible;
        Provide adequate funding for our food safety activities,
    particularly the meat and poultry inspection workforce of the
    Food Safety Inspection Service;
        Support our food assistance programs at levels consistent
    with the anticipated need for these programs;
        Provide adequate funding for the Department's rural
    developments activities, with particular emphasis on water and
    sewer facilities, rural housing, and efforts to improve access
    of rural areas to technology, particularly the Internet;
        Provide continued support to landowners, farmers, and
    ranchers through the Department's conservation programs, and
    redirect USDA research into important new ares.
        With your permission, I would like to briefly make some
    additional comments on a couple of the areas that I just
    mentioned. As you know, there has been much attention this year
    devoted to issues such as foot and mouth disease and bovine
    spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, particularly given the
    heightened concerns about the situation in Europe. Preventing
    the introduction of these diseases into the U.S. is the best
    way of dealing with these threats.
        I have said many times that pests and animal disease
    prevention and eradication programs are the very infrastructure
    to protect production agriculture. For 2002, we are requesting
    an increase of $174 million in appropriations for APHIS
    programs which will allow us to continue emergency programs
    underway in 2001.
        Specifically, we are requesting almost a 40-percent
    increase over the 2000 levels for the agricultural quarantine
    inspection, or AQI program, in order to increase the level of
    inspections along U.S. borders and ports of entry. In order to
    provide more inspection resources at borders and ports of entry
    as soon as possible, I have authorized use of an additional $32
    million of AQI user fees for 2 years, beginning in fiscal year
    2001.
        Using these two sources of additional funding, we will be
    able to increase staffing in the AQI program by over 900 by the
    end of 2002, more than 35 percent higher than 2000. We have
    also taken a number of other actions in response to the
    outbreak of foot and mouth disease abroad. We have tightened
    regulations to prohibit shipments of livestock products from
    high-risk countries, strengthened Federal, State, and industry
    coordination, implemented education campaigns, and dispatched
    U.S. experts to provide technical assistance overseas.
        All of these measures have been taken to reduce risk, and
    we continue to review and examine all existing programs to
    ensure this Department has all the necessary means to (1)
    prevent the possible entry of foot and mouth disease, and (2)
    ensure that if we ever faced an emergency, that we will have
    the resources and capabilities to quickly contain and
    eradicate.
        Concerning BSE, we are proposing a research initiative for
    the Agricultural Research Service to determine the nature and
    transmission of the disease, and to develop improved detection
    and diagnostic tools. Early detection of the disease before
    symptoms appear is a priority, both to eradicate the disease
    and prevent hazardous products from entering the food chain.
        Concerning food safety, this budget does not propose any
    new user fees for meat, poultry, or egg inspection. However, it
    does request additional funding to support a workforce
    sufficient to meet industry demand for inspection services so
    that there is no disruption in slaughter plant operations due
    to a lack of inspectors. Our goal is to make sure the food
    supply is safe, and to protect it from the variety of hazards
    that pose a threat. In that regard, we are also currently
    conducting a review of our food safety programs to ensure
    regulations and programs are meeting the goals of protecting
    consumers.
        We believe this budget carries out the President's
    commitment to expand markets for American agricultural
    products. I have personally spent a lot of my time over the
    years dealing with trade matters, and I want to make sure the
    Department is well-equipped to do the job in this area. In this
    regard, I would like to emphasize the importance of funding our
    request to bolster the Department's capability to address
    technical trade issues and to strengthen our market
    intelligence capabilities at our overseas posts.
        In addition, we are proposing funding for our credit,
    market development, and export enhancement programs at or above
    2001 levels. We also will be aggressively pursuing
    international negotiations to reduce trade barriers and open
    markets for our farmers and ranchers.
        Finally, I would mention a couple of points on the farm
    assistance side. Farmers have been through some tough economic
    times in the past several years, and there is continuing
    uncertainty about the future. We are closely monitoring the
    crop and market conditions and if additional assistance is
    needed we will work with the Congress to determine the nature
    and extent of that assistance.
        There has been an extremely heavy workload in our county
    office service centers assisting farmers. We expect the heavy
    workload to continue into 2002, although with some moderation.
    In order to deal with providing adequate assistance to farmers,
    we will need greater funding for the salaries and expenses in
    the Farm Service Agency.
        As noted in the budget request, we have proposed some
    additional funding to properly implement the reformed crop
    insurance programs authorized by Congress last year. As well,
    additional funding is included to assure that farmers have
    access to the credit they may need to carry out their farming
    operations.

                               Prepared Statement

        With that, Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my statement. I am
    looking forward to working closely with the committee on the
    year 2002 budget. I know that one of the first things we can do
    to help the committee is to make sure you have all the
    information that you need to proceed to make decisions about
    the budget. You have received our budget justifications and
    other supporting material. If there is additional information
    that you need, please do not hesitate to let us know.
        Now, we would be glad to respond to any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Ann M. Veneman

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is an honor for me to
    appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    Department of Agriculture. I have with me today our Chief Economist,
    Keith Collins, and our Budget Officer, Steve Dewhurst.
        I want to begin by thanking this Committee for its support of USDA
    programs and for the long history of effective cooperation between this
    Committee and the Department in support of American agriculture. The
    Department had a strong relationship with this Committee when I was
    Deputy Secretary in the early 1990's. I want to preserve and strengthen
    that relationship in the future. I look forward to working with you,
    Mr. Chairman, and all the Members of the Committee toward that
    objective.
        As you know, the details of the President's Budget Proposals were
    released on April 9th. For the activities within the jurisdiction of
    this Committee, the Department is requesting appropriations in 2002
    which total $72.7 billion. This is a reduction of $3.3 billion from the
    levels enacted by the Congress in 2001. However, it is important to
    remember that the 2001 figure includes over $4 billion in emergency
    appropriations. When this factor is considered, the actual budget for
    the Department's on-going programs reflects an increase in 2002 of $883
    million.
        By any measure, this is a restrained budget.
        In developing the 2002 budget, the objectives of the President were
    to slow the growth of Federal spending, fund urgent national
    priorities, achieve historic levels of debt reduction and provide tax
    relief. Farmers and other beneficiaries of USDA programs all have a
    stake in these objectives. Farmers especially will benefit from the
    elimination of the estate tax and from the proposed establishment of
    tax-deferred risk management accounts.
        Restraint of Federal spending is important. Federal spending has
    grown substantially in recent years. Left unchecked, Federal spending
    would far exceed the Budget Enforcement Act baseline over the next 10
    years. USDA has contributed to this growth of Federal spending. Now, we
    must contribute to budget restraint.
        Restraining the budget is not easy. The Committee is aware that
    USDA has one of the most diverse sets of programs in the Government.
    Developing a budget for this Department always involves difficult
    questions of finding the appropriate balance among all of these
    programs within a reasonable budget figure.
        We have tried very hard to provide adequate funding for the most
    urgent issues facing the constituents of the Department. I realize that
    there are some reductions proposed in this budget which will cause
    concern. We are more than happy to discuss those matters and to work
    cooperatively with the Committee as we proceed through the 2002 budget
    process. However, I want to emphasize that we share the President's
    commitment to assuring that the total USDA budget does not exceed the
    levels recommended to you today.
        As we developed this budget, I focused my attention on a number of
    key concerns. Specifically, I wanted to be sure that this budget had
    the necessary resources to:
      --Provide the overseas market intelligence and technical expertise we
            need to support agricultural trade;
      --Implement the new Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 so that
            farmers will have the benefits of improved crop insurance as
            soon as possible;
      --Make sure we have the funding and legal authorities we need to
            strengthen our agricultural quarantine inspection activities
            and combat pest and disease infestations;
      --Provide adequate funding for our food safety activities,
            particularly the meat and poultry inspection workforce of the
            Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS);
      --Support our food assistance programs at levels consistent with the
            anticipated need for those programs;
      --Provide adequate funding for the Department's rural development
            activities, with particular emphasis on water and sewer
            facilities; rural housing; and efforts to improve the access of
            rural areas to technology, particularly the internet;
      --Provide continuing support to landowners, farmers, and ranchers
            through the Department's conservation programs; and
      --Redirect USDA research into important, new areas.
        With your permission, I will now provide an overview of how I
    believe this budget responds to each of these important needs.
                     farm and foreign agricultural services
        As you know, farmers have been through some tough economic times in
    the past several years, and there is continuing uncertainty about the
    future. Although the situation has improved for some commodities, there
    is continued weakness in certain sectors of the farm economy. The
    Department will be closely monitoring crop and market conditions over
    the coming months. If additional assistance is needed, we will work
    with the Congress to determine the nature and extent of that
    assistance. The President's overall budget includes a contingency
    reserve which could be used for this purpose. In the meantime, there
    are a number of specific proposals in this budget which I would commend
    to the Committee's attention.
        The Administration has established an ambitious trade expansion
    agenda. USDA will be a full and active participant in that effort. The
    reasons for doing so are clear. With more than 95 percent of the
    world's population living outside the United States, the future
    prosperity of the American farm sector depends upon reducing trade
    barriers and increasing access to new markets in the expanding global
    economy.
        USDA's trade expansion efforts will involve a coordinated
    Department-wide effort. One of the highest priorities will be
    international trade negotiations that provide the opportunity to
    achieve further reductions in trade-distorting agricultural policies,
    ensure fairer competition in global markets, and open new markets for
    our farmers and ranchers.
        As the Committee is aware, multilateral negotiations to further
    liberalize agricultural trading practices are already underway under
    the auspices of the World Trade Organization. The United States has
    offered a set of ambitious proposals for the negotiations that provide
    for the elimination of export subsidies, improved market access through
    reduced tariffs and increased quotas, reform of state trading
    enterprises, tighter rules on trade-distorting domestic support, and
    facilitation of trade in the products of new technologies. The
    Department will be working closely with the Office of the U.S. Trade
    Representative to secure an agreement which incorporates those
    objectives.
        Negotiations also are underway to achieve a Free Trade Area of the
    Americas by 2005. For agriculture, the objectives of the negotiations
    include eliminating export subsidies that affect trade in the
    Hemisphere, identifying other trade-distorting practices in order to
    bring them under greater discipline, and ensuring that sanitary and
    phytosanitary measures are based on science and conform with Uruguay
    Round principles. Latin America and the Caribbean region are expected
    to be among the most promising growth markets for U.S. agricultural
    products in the coming years, and we need to ensure that American
    agriculture has maximum access to those markets.
        In addition to negotiating new agreements, the Department will be
    working hard to ensure that our trading partners comply fully with
    existing trade agreements and do not institute technical barriers to
    trade that run counter to the spirit of those agreements. Technical
    trade issues, such as those related to food safety and biotechnology,
    are among the fastest growing and most sensitive issues affecting
    agricultural trade today. It is critical that regulatory actions taken
    by our trading partners do not impede U.S. exports and that they comply
    with Uruguay Round trade disciplines. It is also important for the
    United States to participate actively in the international
    organizations that set the technical standards that govern agricultural
    trade.
        The Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) is the Department's lead
    agency in implementing many of our international programs and
    activities. For 2002, the budget provides appropriated funding of $126
    million for FAS. This is an increase of $6.4 million above the 2001
    level. This additional funding is provided to bolster FAS' capabilities
    to address technical trade issues and to strengthen FAS' market
    intelligence capabilities at its overseas posts. The emergence of
    increasingly complex trade policy and food security issues in recent
    years has led to a dramatic increase in workload at the agency's
    overseas offices. Meeting these priority workload demands in addition
    to regular commodity reporting, marketing, and representation duties
    has overwhelmed FAS in a number of key locations. We will be focusing
    our efforts on 14 important markets around the world where
    opportunities to expand U.S. agricultural exports appear to be the
    greatest.
        Beyond these specific proposals, the budget also includes adequate
    funding for our export promotion and market development programs. The
    sustained effort of these programs is needed if we are to benefit from
    the market opportunities which become available. The Department's
    Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program, the Market Access
    Program, and the Quality Samples Program are estimated at $120 million
    in the budget, the same level as 2001. The Department's Export
    Guarantee Programs are estimated at $3.9 billion, an increase of more
    than $100 million above the current estimate for 2001. Finally, funding
    for the Export Enhancement Program is estimated at $478 million which
    is the maximum level authorized by statute and the same as 2001; and
    funding for the Dairy Export Incentive Program is estimated at $42
    million, slightly above the current estimate for 2001.
        The budget includes a commitment to take a further look at the
    Department's foreign food assistance programs to be sure they are
    effective in achieving their objectives. The study has not yet been
    designed, but I believe it is in everyone's interest to make sure that
    these programs will meet the Nation's needs for the foreseeable future.
    For instance, we want to ensure that these programs significantly
    benefit farmers, target necessary humanitarian feeding needs and avoid
    adverse commercial impacts.
        The budget for this Mission Area also includes other important
    proposals. Full funding is included for implementation of the reformed
    crop insurance programs authorized by the Congress last year. The
    budget includes increases of $250 million in mandatory spending to
    finance the additional subsidies involved in this program and $9
    million in discretionary spending to provide the administrative money
    required by the Risk Management Agency to be sure this program is
    properly implemented.
        With respect to the Farm Service Agency (FSA) salaries and expenses
    activities, the 2002 budget proposal will support about 5,900 Federal
    staff years and 11,500 non-Federal county staff years, including about
    2,000 temporary county staff years. The heavy county office workload
    resulting from the weakened farm economy of the past few years is
    expected to continue into 2002, although with some moderation. The 2002
    budget proposes to increase FSA salaries and expenses funding by almost
    $120 million, the largest salaries and expense budget increase in USDA.
    As a result, FSA temporary staffing will be maintained at about twice
    the levels of the pre-crisis period of 1996-1998.
        We have also budgeted almost $4 billion in farm credit programs to
    assure that farmers have access when necessary to Federally-supported
    operating, ownership, and emergency credit. This action alone requires
    an increase of $68 million in the discretionary budget.
                       marketing and regulatory programs
        Critical issues of pest and disease control are the primary
    responsibility of the APHIS. For APHIS' salaries and expenses, we are
    requesting a $174 million increase over 2001. Outbreaks of bovine
    spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or ``mad cow disease'' and foot-and-
    mouth disease (FMD) in the European Union and other countries
    underscore the need to protect our borders from animal and plant
    threats. Preventing the introduction of these devastating pests and
    diseases is the most cost-effective approach to deal with such threats.
    As a result, the APHIS budget provides increased funding for the
    Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program along U.S. borders and
    ports of entry. Funding for the AQI program in 2002 will be almost 40
    percent higher than 2000 and authorized staffing will be increased over
    900 staff years--more than 35 percent higher than 2000. Part of this
    increase results from the additional $8.4 million requested for the
    taxpayer supported inspection activities at the Canadian and Mexican
    borders. Another part of the increase results from my recent
    authorization to expand the user fee supported inspection services by
    $32 million through 2002. These activities will increase inspection
    personnel to protect against animal and plant diseases, such as, foot-
    and-mouth, at major U.S. ports of entry.
        In the face of threats from FMD and BSE, USDA has increased its
    vigilance to prevent such diseases from entering the United States.
    Live ruminants and their products were already prohibited from all EU
    countries due to risks associated with BSE. With the outbreak of FMD
    there, USDA has temporarily restricted the importation of live swine
    and swine products from the EU as well. This action is in addition to
    our standing restrictions on specified imports from other countries
    that have FMD. USDA has also intensified scrutiny and inspections at
    ports of entry, enhanced anti-smuggling operations, engaged in a public
    education campaign to raise travelers' awareness, enhanced
    communication with States and the livestock industry, and furthered our
    emergency preparedness. Finally, I asked a top California State
    veterinarian to come to USDA to assist APHIS in our FMD exclusionary
    planning activities.
        With respect to pest and disease outbreaks, the 2002 budget
    requests appropriations to continue funding for several eradication
    programs that had been started with funds transferred from Commodity
    Credit Corporation (CCC). These continuing activities can no longer be
    considered ``emergencies.'' These appropriations will fund eradication
    of 9 pest and disease outbreaks, including Mediterranean fruit fly,
    citrus canker, Asian Long-horned Beetle, and bovine tuberculosis. For
    any new emergency pest and disease outbreak, we are requesting
    continuation of our legal authority to use CCC funding.
        I would also direct the Committee's attention to other important
    proposals in this area. For instance, the budget for the Grain
    Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) includes $1.2
    million to facilitate U.S. grain exports by helping resolve recurring
    international grain quality issues and by enabling GIPSA certification
    laboratories to meet revised international certification standards.
        The budget for the Agricultural Marketing Service includes an
    increase of $4 million to develop the agency's capability to test bio-
    engineered fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds to support labeling
    programs aimed at differentiating bio-engineered commodities from
    conventional commodities. Also, the budget includes an increase of $1
    million to expand the agency's involvement in international standard
    setting activities to ensure that U.S. interests are represented during
    the development of agricultural standards that have an impact on export
    opportunities for U.S. producers.
                                  food safety
        Ensuring the safety of the food we eat is vital to American
    agriculture and consumers. There is no question that USDA must and will
    carry out its duties to protect the food supply from the variety of
    hazards that threaten its safety.
        Unlike some recent budgets, this budget does not propose user fees
    for meat, poultry, and egg inspection. Instead, we are requesting
    appropriations of $716 million, an increase of $21 million over the
    2001 level. The budget includes an increase for pay and benefits that
    is necessary to support FSIS workforce, including approximately 7,600
    meat and poultry inspectors. The agency estimates that this level of
    inspectors is necessary to meet industry demand for inspection services
    without disruption.
        The 2002 budget for FSIS also includes an increase to improve the
    agency's capability to detect residues in meat products being exported
    to the EU. This will comply with EU requirements and protect these
    exports.
        The 2002 budget also includes an increase to review foreign
    inspection systems to assure they meet U.S. requirements. The requested
    increase will enable FSIS to strengthen efforts to conduct follow-up
    investigations of foreign systems found to have problems meeting U.S.
    requirements. The increase will also enable FSIS to increase the number
    of on-site audits of countries requesting initial certification to
    export to the United States.
                     food, nutrition, and consumer services
        The budget includes $36.6 billion for the Department's nutrition
    assistance programs. This is about 50 percent of the total
    appropriations we are requesting from this Committee.
        The Food Stamp Program is funded at $21 billion. This includes
    funds to cover an anticipated food cost increase of 3 percent and an
    estimated additional increase of 800,000 participants. These figures
    are consistent with the overall economic projections in the President's
    budget. In addition, $1 billion is requested for a contingency reserve.
    While use of the reserve is not anticipated, it would be available in
    the event that unforeseen economic changes would increase demand for
    the program.
        The Child Nutrition Programs are budgeted under current law at
    $10.1 billion, about $550 million more than the 2001 estimate. This
    estimate is based on increased participation and an adjustment for the
    Consumer Price Index for Food Away From Home. The Department will
    continue to work with the States to improve the nutritional quality of
    school meals and to help strengthen program integrity.
        For the Special Supplemental Program for Women, Infants, and
    Children (WIC), the budget requests $4.1 billion, an increase of $94
    million over the 2001 appropriations, which will support a monthly
    average of 7.25 million participants, the same level expected in 2001.
    Funds are included to continue efforts to implement electronic benefit
    transfer (EBT) for WIC. EBT is expected to improve efficiency not only
    at the grocery checkout, but also within WIC clinics where the cards
    can greatly simplify identification and clerical tasks. The budget also
    funds the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program at $20 million, the same as
    the 2001 level.
                       natural resources and environment
        The 2002 budget request in the conservation area recognizes the
    importance the public has placed on natural resource concerns, as well
    as the need to protect the conservation partnership that has evolved
    over the years between the Department and conservation districts and
    farmers.
        For the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the budget requests
    $927 million in appropriated funding. This includes $678 million for
    conservation technical assistance (CTA) which represents the foundation
    of the Department's conservation partnership. The CTA request includes
    an increase of $44 million for technical support of the Conservation
    Reserve Program (CRP). This is necessary because the 1996 Farm Bill
    imposed significant restrictions on the availability of CCC funds to
    support services such as conservation technical assistance for the CRP.
    Any funds not needed for this purpose will be available to support
    other high priority on-going conservation activities, such as waste
    management plans for animal feeding operations.
                               rural development
        The 2002 budget will allow USDA to continue to play a significant
    role in the development of Rural America. The 2002 budget requests $2.4
    billion in budget authority to finance $12.4 billion in rural
    development loans and grants.
        The 2002 budget supports almost $5 billion in loans and grants for
    rural utilities, including $2.6 billion in loans for electric
    generation and transmission facilities, $500 million in loans for
    telecommunication systems, over $300 million for distance learning and
    medical link facilities, and $1.4 billion in loans and grants for water
    and waste disposal systems.
        The 2002 budget also includes a proposal to provide permanent
    authority for financing broadband transmission and local dial-up
    Internet service in rural areas. The 2001 Agriculture Appropriations
    Act authorized a pilot program that would support $100 million in loans
    and $2 million in grants for these services. These levels would be
    maintained in 2002. This program will narrow the gap in access for
    rural areas to the digital world of telecommunications.
        The 2002 budget supports almost $5.8 billion in loans and grants
    for rural housing. About $4.2 billion of this amount is for loans for
    single-family housing, and will provide home-ownership opportunities
    for an estimated 56,000 rural families.
        Rental assistance payments would be increased from $679 million in
    2001 to $694 million in 2002. These payments are used to reduce the
    rents of the low-income occupants of USDA financed rental projects. The
    beneficiaries of this program have an average income below $8,000. USDA
    maintains a portfolio of projects with about 430,000 units of housing
    for low-income families. This multifamily portfolio has an outstanding
    indebtedness of approximately $12 billion. Rental assistance payments
    serve the dual purpose of protecting USDA's investment in these
    projects, while keeping rents affordable for very low income families.
        The budget supports a total of $1.1 billion for rural business and
    cooperative programs. The biggest program in this area is our
    guaranteed loan program for business and industrial development.
    Subsidy costs for this program are rising largely because defaults are
    higher than expected. For this reason, the 2002 budget proposes that
    the fee charged for these loans be increased from 2 percent to 3.25
    percent. This increased fee is consistent with what other lenders are
    charging and will permit us to provide a $1 billion business and
    industry (B&I) guaranteed program.
        The 2002 budget also discontinues funding for direct B&I loans.
    Direct loans were first introduced in 1997. Since then, demand has
    never reached the authorized loan level of $50 million. Further, the
    subsidy rate has increased dramatically due to increased defaults. This
    indicates that the program is not achieving its goal to provide long-
    term, stable jobs in rural America.
                       research, education, and economics
        To maintain and strengthen U.S. farmers' current competitive
    advantage in world markets will require investments in new technology.
    To meet these needs within a restrained budget, we must take a hard
    look at priorities.
        The 2002 budget for this Mission Area totals $2.1 billion including
    mandatory research grants. This is a reduction of 7 percent from 2001,
    but about the same level as provided in 2000. There are increases for
    selected programs and to cover pay costs. Proposed reductions are
    limited to earmarked projects and facility construction.
        The 2002 research budget for the Agricultural Research Service is
    $916 million, an increase of 2 percent above 2001. The budget includes
    $15 million for work on bio-based products and bioenergy to overcome
    technical barriers to low-cost biomass conversion, $12 million for
    additional work to prevent and control exotic diseases and pests with
    special emphasis on BSE, $7.5 million to support work on biotechnology,
    including the development of databases and tools to store, analyze, and
    interpret genomics data for plants, animals, and microbes.
        The 2002 budget request for the Department's extramural grants
    programs is nearly $1 billion, a reduction of 12 percent from 2001 due
    almost entirely to discontinuing earmarked projects. Formula-based
    programs to the land grant university system are continued at the 2001
    level. The $544 million requested for these programs represents over
    one-half of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
    Service budget for 2002. The budget also proposes to maintain funding
    for the competitive National Research Initiative at the 2001 level of
    $106 million and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
    at $120 million.
                            departmental management
        The Departmental staff offices provide leadership, coordination,
    and support for all administrative and policy functions of the
    Department. These offices are vital to USDA's success in providing
    effective customer service and efficient program delivery. Salaries and
    benefits often comprise 90 percent or more of these offices' budgets,
    leaving little flexibility to reduce other expenditures when salary
    costs increase. Thus, the 2002 budget proposes additional funding to
    cover pay costs, enabling these offices to maintain staffing levels
    needed to provide oversight and coordination for management initiatives
    and activities within the Department. The primary objective is to make
    the Department an efficient, effective, and discrimination-free
    organization that delivers the best return on the taxpayers'
    investments. In this area, we will be focusing on:
      --Implementing a civil rights policy that affirms that discrimination
            will not be tolerated and that complaints will be resolved on a
            timely basis.
      --Completing installation of the common computing environment in USDA
            local offices so that customers will have the ability to access
            information and download and file program applications and
            other forms electronically by the summer of 2002.
      --Strengthening information security to safeguard the delivery of
            services over the Internet while protecting USDA information
            systems from costly hacker attacks.
      --Implementing modern management systems to provide timely and
            reliable information on USDA's finances, people, and purchases.
      --Continuing the renovation of the 70-year-old South Building in
            USDA's Washington complex to address safety and health hazards
            and enable access to modern technology.
        The budget also includes $71 million to maintain staffing levels
    for the Office of Inspector General (OIG). Public health and safety
    issues will continue to be a priority for OIG audits and
    investigations.
        That concludes my statement. I am looking forward to working
    closely with the Committee on the 2002 budget so that we can better
    serve those who rely on USDA programs and services.

                             Foot and Mouth Disease

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. I
    think you have given a good overview of the budget request of
    the administration and emphasized a number of areas of concern
    in the general public's mind, and also here in the Congress.
    One, of course, that is at the top of the list, the foot and
    mouth disease issue. Recently I was reading in one of our major
    daily newspapers a story about the administration's assessment
    of the threat in terms of whether it was likely or not likely
    that we would see an outbreak of foot and mouth disease here in
    the U.S., and the headline said, administration fears outbreak
    is likely. I read the article and couldn't find anybody in
    there quoted as saying that. As a matter of fact, those who
    were quoted and who had statements attributed to them from the
    Department of Agriculture were saying that it was not likely.
    If you had had to write that headline, given the information
    that you have, would you have said that it's likely or not
    likely?
        Secretary Veneman. I would not have said that it is likely.
    As I said in my statement, Mr. Chairman, we are doing
    everything that we can to assure that we protect against
    getting the disease, but at the same time, we are doing
    everything we can to make sure that in the event that we were
    to get any kind of outbreak, that we would be prepared to
    quickly respond and eradicate so that we would not have the
    situation, hopefully, that we have all seen in the U.K.

                                Budget Revision

        Senator Cochran. I know that the budget contains requests
    for research dollars at Plum Island, the New York facility that
    I think has the major responsibility for research in this area.
    Is the budget submission going to be revised in any way, given
    the instances of changes or new discoveries that are being made
    that would require more funds for any of the projects and
    programs that would deal with this problem?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, as I indicated in my statement, we
    have added $32 million to help us hire additional people to
    work at the ports, inspectors and so forth. That money has come
    from our user fee account. It will not require an additional
    appropriation.
        In addition, we are continually reviewing our programs and
    looking at whether or not we need additional resources. If it
    is determined, we will come back to the committee to discuss
    those needs.
        Senator Cochran. I think I can assure you for the committee
    that we would be responsive and quickly move to act on any
    supplemental request if you feel that that should be included.
    I know that we are going to have a supplemental submitted that
    will include the Department of Defense, and there may be other
    priority areas for funding consideration. I think we would move
    quickly to include whatever is needed and justified.

                                  Food Safety

        In another area, food safety, the inspection of our own
    domestically produced processed foods, there has been a good
    deal of attention paid in recent years. Senator Durbin in his
    comments talked about the fact that more consolidation and
    streamlining needs to be done in this area, but in connection
    with the funding of the new programs that rely on emerging
    technologies to discover contamination in foodstuff that is
    processed here in our country. Do you think the budget that is
    submitted contains enough funding to guarantee that we will
    continue to have the safest and most wholesome food supply in
    the world?
        Secretary Veneman. First I would simply start out by saying
    that we are very committed to the issue of food safety in the
    Department of Agriculture, and we take our responsibility in
    that regard very seriously.
        As you know, we have the oversight responsibility for meat
    and poultry inspection in the USDA. A number of other food
    safety authorities are contained in the FDA. We have fully
    funded the projected number of inspectors that we believe will
    be needed over fiscal year 2002, and we have done that without
    proposing any user fees to do it, so we do believe that the
    Food Safety and Inspection Service is important, and will be
    funded at levels which will support it.
        I might ask Steve Dewhurst to give you a little more
    specificity on the budget for FSIS.
        Mr. Dewhurst. With respect to food safety, we spend about
    $90 million a year in the Agricultural Research Service in the
    food safety area. We spend about $35 million a year through the
    Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
    with the university system in food safety, and we are spending
    an increasing amount now, up to about $6 million a year, in the
    Agricultural Marketing Service in testing products for residue
    and for contaminants. The overall food safety activities of the
    Department are funded in this budget in ways that do not reduce
    them from the prior year. It is a very substantial commitment.
        There is an increase in the FSIS budget of about $20
    million. A large part of that is for the protection of the
    inspection workforce, but there is some money in the FSIS
    budget to improve their technical capability to identify
    residues in the meat supply. They have a scientific laboratory
    that will be upgraded in this budget.
        Senator Cochran. Almost invariably, when we report a bill
    from this subcommittee and from the full committee to the floor
    of the Senate, there is a temptation for Senators to want to
    add money for all the good-sounding things, and food safety is
    one of them. We invariably see amendments well-argued to add
    money. That was one reason I wanted to ask the question, to be
    sure that we have in the bill sufficient funds to take care of
    the challenges and problems in this area. I do not think any
    Senator wants to undercut this program, or to underfund this
    program.

                            Food Assistance Programs

        There is a similar concern in food and nutrition programs,
    too. We want to be sure that we fully fund the programs to feed
    those who are unable to provide for their own nutrition needs.
    I am talking about food for everything from the breakfast and
    lunch programs in our schools, to the food stamp program and
    the women and infants feeding program, all of which are very
    important. I notice in your statement you point out that $36.6
    billion is requested for funding those programs, and it
    reflects nearly half of the total amount requested in this
    entire bill, so I want to ask that question about those
    programs as well.
        Are your requests adequate to take care of the anticipated
    needs in that program? You do have almost like a mandatory
    program, obligations to pay what somebody is entitled to under
    the food stamp program, so are you satisfied with the
    estimates, that this budget is based upon sound estimates of
    expected needs?
        Secretary Veneman. I think they are based upon the
    estimates that have been traditionally used to determine food
    stamp needs, and we have fully funded what we anticipated the
    levels will be needed for food stamps. That is on the mandatory
    side of the budget. The WIC budget, which is on the
    discretionary side of the budget, shows an increase of $94
    million, for a total of $4.1 billion, and we believe, that that
    will be adequate to fund the number of WIC desired participants
    for the fiscal year.

                              Disaster Assistance

        Senator Cochran. Last year, Congress ordered disaster
    assistance payments and economic loss payments made to
    distressed farmers because of drought conditions and other
    weather-related problems that production agriculture faced last
    year. We were late with some of those programs in that the
    regulations under which the funds were disbursed were late
    being drafted.
        This was before you came into office, so it is not your
    fault, but the purpose of my inquiry right now is, have we
    gotten to the point now where we see the funds that have been
    appropriated by Congress for this purpose are being paid to
    farmers? Are there any further hangups or problems that we need
    to address in a supplemental way to deal with last year's
    declared emergencies?
        Secretary Veneman. Senator, when we came to the Department
    there were a number of these regulations yet to be completed.
    As far as I know, I think we had all of those regulations
    completed within about 60 days. Most of the programs now that
    were authorized then, the payments are now in the process of
    being made under these programs.
        Mr. Dewhurst. We made about $3\1/2\ billion in payments
    against those programs and, of course, the key program, the
    crop loss payment program, was not capped in the legislation,
    so we can use whatever money is necessary to make those
    payments so we should be able to cover the needs in that area.
        Secretary Veneman. Keith Collins has one additional point.
        Mr. Collins. There is one program left that we are still
    working on, and that is the one that would pay farmers for
    quality losses as a result of last year. That is a very
    difficult one, because we have to spend a fair amount of time
    figuring out what a quality loss is. That is the last of 15 or
    so major programs that the Farm Service Agency has to get out.
        Senator Cochran. Of the moneys appropriated by Congress to
    be paid out, how much did we appropriate that has not been paid
    out? Do you know what that number is, and do you recommend a
    rescission or a deferment?
        Mr. Dewhurst. Senator, direct assistance to farmers, the
    estimate was $3,542 million. That was an estimate. We have paid
    about $3\1/2\ billion so far. We have additional authority to
    put out additional money if we get valid claims under the crop
    loss disaster program, so essentially we can meet the need, and
    we have implemented the entire program.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Craig.
        Senator Craig. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                  Potato Wart

        Secretary Veneman, I understand a letter has gone to the
    Canadians in relation to potato wart.
        Secretary Veneman. Yes, Senator. Over the last several
    weeks we have been dealing with the Canadians on the issue of
    potato wart and the fact that it was found on Prince Edward
    Island.
        There has been a lot of debate back and forth about what
    kind of measures would provide the level of protection that is
    needed to make sure that this disease does not spread from
    Prince Edward Island and the place where it was found to other
    parts of Canada and, indeed, into the U.S. Our scientists have
    been negotiating with Canada for a number of weeks on this
    issue.
        We had our team of scientists come back together over the
    last week or 10 days and look at additional ways in which we
    might provide the level of protection we would need for
    potatoes to move off of Prince Edward Island to ensure that the
    risk of moving that disease was as small as possible. As a
    result of discussions that were held yesterday, the scientists
    have come to terms on an agreement that would allow movement
    from Prince Edward Island subject to meeting very stringent
    standards on cleanliness.
        As you know, this disease is carried in the soil. Subject
    to the cleaning of the potatoes to stringent standards there
    would be allowance for these potatoes to move into other areas
    of Canada. In addition, potatoes for table use only could be
    moved into the United States if they are washed and what is
    called desprouted. We have discussed this with a number of
    scientists. They are satisfied that it provides the level of
    protection, and there will be a joint exchange of letters
    between the two countries finally resolving this issue for the
    2000 year crop.
        Senator Craig. So at least the scientists are jointly
    agreeing. The Canadians have not yet accepted, or is that joint
    agreement, that action an acceptance?
        Secretary Veneman. The final documents are in the process
    of being drawn up as we speak. They may be completed by now.

                         Expedited Approval of Requests

        Senator Craig. On March 7, the Idaho delegation submitted
    to you a request for the expedited approval of conservation
    reserve program, emergency haying, and grazing. The reason for
    that is severalfold. As you know, we are in a drought
    environment in the intermountain West as we speak, or the
    Pacific Northwest. That, coupled with about 1.3 million acres
    of land in Idaho that burned last year in the worst fire season
    ever, of which about 69,000 acres was private grazing, and of
    which about 37,000 acres cannot be grazed in 2001.
        It is also true of a substantial number of public acres
    that can now not be grazed this year because of last year's
    fires. In addition, 227,000 acres of that land burned about--
    almost 200,000 cannot be grazed.
        We believe that the emergency flexibility is necessary. we
    have got livestock men and women who are now ready to turn
    their cattle out onto the range, and some of them have no range
    to return to. We would hope that we could get your look at that
    right quickly and get a response to that request.
        Secretary Veneman. We will expedite the review of this
    request. I know that there have been a number of emergency
    situations around the country where our FSA people in the field
    are reviewing requests, looking at the damage, and we will be
    looking at the emergency programs that might be applicable.

                         China Importation of Potatoes

        Senator Craig. Last year also, I guess it was August 1,
    APHIS announced China was open to the importation of potatoes.
    I found it quite interesting that Alaska, a great potato-
    producing State, along with Washington and Oregon, were the
    only three States recognized. Idaho for some reason did not
    find its way onto that list. We would suggest that we do grow a
    few more potatoes in Idaho than they do in the Mattanuska
    Valley of Alaska, and so therefore it would be appropriate that
    we might appear on that list. We hope you would review that.
        Secretary Veneman. We certainly will, Senator.
        Senator Craig. Thank you much. My requests are simple ones.
        Senator Cochran. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

                   Environmental Protection and Conservation

        Madam Secretary, I have noted in the budget in several
    areas relating to environmental protection and conservation
    that you are proposing to eliminate some programs that have
    been around for a while--the wetland reserve program, wildlife
    habitat incentives program, the environmental quality
    incentives program, and conservation reserve program. Senator
    Harkin I am sure will follow through on this.
        Senator Harkin. Do you want my chart?
        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Harkin, for bringing our
    chart.
        I would like to ask, Madam Secretary, at a time when
    farmers certainly across the Midwest are facing extreme
    difficulties in making a living, to the point where they are
    relying on the Federal Government for more than half of their
    income, do we not run the risk, if we eliminate these
    environmental protection and conservation programs, that we
    will be giving at least a tacit approval to farmers planting
    land or using land that frankly is not in the best long-term
    interest of America?
        These conservation programs I think are especially
    important when the economy is in a very difficult time for our
    farmers. Do we not run the risk, without these programs, of
    creating incentives, the wrong incentives for farmers to plant
    fragile land?
        Secretary Veneman. Senator, first of all I would say that
    we take our environmental responsibilities in the Department
    very seriously, and we have a number of programs that assist
    farmers that are very beneficial to, as you say, protecting the
    land, because the farmers certainly have a vested interest in
    protecting the resources upon which they rely to produce their
    products.
        A number of these programs that have been discussed--and I
    have been asked this question several times--have reached their
    authorized levels for funding under the last farm bill. We do
    not have any additional acres to enroll. I will ask Mr.
    Dewhurst to address the specifics of the budget for the
    programs that you mentioned.
        Mr. Dewhurst. In the wetlands reserve program, the
    statutory limit on acreage is 1,075,000 acres. There was an
    increase approved by the Congress for this fiscal year to get
    to that number, and that additional acreage of 100,000 acres
    will be signed up this year. At that point we will be against
    the acreage limit, and so there is no authority in current law
    to add more acres.
        In the wildlife habitat incentives program and the farmland
    protection program, there were cumulative funding limits in the
    farm bill for those programs, and we are against those limits.
        In the conservation reserve program we have approximately
    33 million acres in that program. We have a current statutory
    cap of 36\1/2\ million acres for that program. The budget
    assumes that we will have an additional sign-up in fiscal year
    2002 to add those acres to the CRP program, and there is
    appropriated money requested in the budget for the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service to be sure that they can provide
    the technical assistance and support of that CRP sign-up, but
    beyond that, of course, there is no authority and therefore
    there is no proposal in the outyears.
        Senator Durbin. I thank you, and I thank you, Madam
    Secretary. I would have thought that it would have been sound
    policy for the administration to come forward and acknowledge
    the limits on authority, but also the backlog of applications
    on all of these programs that indicate a genuine interest by
    farmers and producers across America to set land aside that
    might otherwise cause environmental damage.
        Instead what we have seen is kind of a closing of the door.
    Basically saying this is the end of the program as we see it. I
    will not dwell on that. If you would like to respond, I would
    be happy to allow it at this point, and then I would like to
    ask another question.
        Secretary Veneman. Senator, I would not say it is a closing
    of the door. It is certainly a recognition of what the limits
    are, but secondly it is a recognition that we are going to be
    looking at--and I say we, meaning the administration and the
    Congress are going to be looking at the farm bill for the year
    2002. I have had discussions with many groups, with many people
    in Congress, there is a great interest in making sure that we
    address many of the environmental programs, that we look at new
    ways, new kinds of programs in the environmental areas, and we
    certainly look forward to working with you to look at new
    opportunities in that regard.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you.

                                  Food Safety

        On the issue of food safety, I want to commend your
    decision on April 5. I do not know the background, and perhaps
    this is your first chance publicly to explain it. When you came
    to the testing of salmonella contamination for ground beef in
    the school lunch program, there was a posting on the USDA web
    site on March 30 to indicate that there would be an end to zero
    tolerance testing for salmonella in ground beef used in the
    school lunch program.
        That sent a shock wave across the country, because people
    were very concerned that we might be compromising the safety of
    food for our children, some of the most vulnerable in our
    society, and there was really no explanation for it. I commend
    you again for announcing that you reversed the decision. I
    think at the time someone said it was made at a lower level and
    it never reached your office. Could you comment about how such
    an important decision could be made at that level, and what is
    your approach going to be when it comes to these issues of food
    safety in the school lunch program and other areas of
    jurisdiction?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, as I said earlier, Senator, we
    take food safety issues very seriously. This issue is difficult
    to understand, because most people believe that it would have
    been a regulation. This actually was a contract standard for
    purchases of product for school lunch, and the contract
    standards were drawn up in the Agricultural Marketing Service
    rather than in the food safety or the nutrition areas. It was
    in the Agricultural Marketing Service, and they were looking at
    a different approach to the standard, which would have measured
    for a number of the microbiological indicators of salmonella
    but not the test result for salmonella itself.
        I was unaware of that decision at the time it was posted on
    the web. When I was made aware of it we pulled it back and went
    back to the old contract. We are now reviewing that.
        One of the other issues, of course, was that it did not
    have concurrence of all the parties who were interested in this
    issue, and so we pulled that back and we are now working with
    all of the interested parties to determine whether or not there
    is a common ground with regard to this issue that will provide
    a complete level of protection for our schoolchildren. This
    again was a contract standard. That is why it was done at the
    level of this.
        Senator Durbin. I do not want to jump ahead, but are you
    saying that the basic policy decision is still in play and
    still being considered that the Department may reach the same
    conclusion, or a slightly different conclusion? What is your
    hope in terms of outcome here?
        Secretary Veneman. Well, what is being looked at is the
    overall contract standard for purchases of ground beef--making
    sure that the contract standard has the greatest amount of
    protection that we can ask for in terms of a contract. We are
    looking at what fast food restaurants do in terms of what they
    demand, in terms of their suppliers, and we are looking as the
    customer of the product, and so we want to make sure that our
    contract standard is consistent with what we need to do, and
    what will provide the level of protection that we need for our
    children.
        Senator Durbin. Can families across this country be
    confident that when this is over that the standard we will use
    for ground beef and other food in the school lunch program will
    be at least as safe, if not safer, as that used by commercial
    entities across this country?
        Secretary Veneman. Yes.

                                    Starlink

        Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about the biotech area. When
    it comes to StarLink, for example, I made an inquiry of the
    agencies that are involved in StarLink and was surprised to
    find a real lack of coordination. The USDA, the Food and Drug
    Administration, the EPA, all clear a biotech crop like
    StarLink, and I think you understand the contamination of
    StarLink has caused a great deal of economic loss and concern
    across America. I would like to ask you if you would consider,
    early in your administrations, looking to a coordination when
    it comes to this type of biotech product. I sense that there
    just is not enough communication, and I am fearful if we do not
    understand the implications of this, either from an economic or
    scientific perspective.
        Secretary Veneman. Senator, I think that is a very
    important issue, and I agree with you. When I was in the
    Department in the late eighties, early nineties, the issue of
    biotech at that time was just how we were going to regulate it
    within the U.S. Government. At that time, there was very
    coordinated approach with FDA, EPA, and the USDA in terms of
    setting up the regulatory structure under which agricultural
    biotechnology would be regulated.
        Since I have been back in the administration, of course,
    the StarLink issue has continued to be fairly significant. As
    you know, we had the issue of trying to get the seed out of the
    system for this year, and USDA agreed to purchase the seed that
    was in the hands of various distributors, but I will tell you
    that we also are increasing coordination all the time among
    these three agencies and among other agencies as well that have
    an interest, because so many of these issues now impact trade
    and other issues.
        We have had, actually this week, a Cabinet-level
    coordinating meeting on these biotechnology issues and how we
    are going to move forward and work together on them, but I can
    assure you that we in the administration are working very
    closely together, recognizing that we need a very strong,
    coordinated system to deal with these issues.

                           Global Feeding Initiative

        Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two last
    comments and yield to my colleagues. I have worked with former
    Senators McGovern and Dole and my colleagues Senators Harkin
    and Leahy and Lugar and others on the feeding program, the
    international feeding program. The last administration by
    administrative decision moved money into this option that we
    could send some foodstuffs abroad, particularly for children,
    really focused on countries of greatest need, such as those
    that have been ravaged by the AIDS epidemic. We are going to be
    introducing formal legislation next week as a group on the Hill
    here, and I sincerely hope you will take a good look at this. I
    hope the administration can support this bipartisan effort.

                                  WIC Funding

        The last point that I will make, and then, of course, any
    closing comment I will leave to the Secretary. When it comes to
    WIC funding I have a concern. The concern is, although there is
    an increase in WIC funding in your budget, if we take the
    unemployment figures that have been projected by the
    administration for this year and look back to the history of
    the program as to the number of people who enroll in the
    program with that level of unemployment, then the amount of
    money that you are suggesting we appropriate this year will be
    inadequate.
        For example, in 1998, when unemployment was at the same
    level as the administration is projecting for the year 2002,
    WIC participation averaged 7.37 million per month. As I
    understand it, your budget projects that only 7.2445 million
    women, infants, and children can be served with the current
    budget.
        I would hope you will keep a close eye on this, because if
    we do not make a quick recovery and see higher unemployment, I
    think the demands in this program will grow, and we certainly
    want to make sure the nutritionallob needs of children and
    pregnant women are taken care of.
        Secretary Veneman. We do--Senator, I do believe WIC is a
    very important program. I was surprised during my briefings
    yesterday to learn that almost 50 percent of the children born
    in this country have some kind of WIC assistance.

                           Global Feeding Initiative

        As to the global feeding initiative, we have allocated $300
    million this year as a pilot program for that initiative. I am
    looking forward to meeting next week, I think, with Senator
    McGovern to further discuss this issue.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Senator Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

                                Trade Sanctions

        Again, Madam Secretary, welcome. Let me ask a number of
    questions in some policy areas. Number 1, you devoted a fair
    amount of your presentation to the issue of trade, opening
    foreign markets and so on. As you know, I have spent a great
    deal of time and in fact on this subcommittee offered
    amendments that became the subject of substantial controversy
    dealing with sanctions against other countries. That includes
    sanctions with respect to food and medicine. I am wondering if
    you have any information about this administration's
    inclination of lifting especially food and medicine sanctions
    dealing with all countries, including Cuba.
        Secretary Veneman. Senator, as you know, this
    administration has supported no new unilateral sanctions. I do
    not anticipate that the sanctions with regard to Cuba would be
    lifted at this point unless there was some kind of change in
    the structure of the Government there.
        Senator Dorgan. But those of us in Congress will attempt to
    remove the impediment that was created last year in our
    legislative initiative. That impediment makes it appear as if
    there will be an opportunity to sell some food into the Cuban
    market, whereas, in fact, we will not be selling food into the
    Cuban market. My question is, for those of us who are
    attempting to remove that restriction, will the administration
    be supportive, or will it be opposing us?
        Secretary Veneman. I have not talked recently with people
    to know exactly what the administration position is, but I can
    certainly reiterate that the position has been that they do not
    support any new unilateral sanctions.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand. Would you make some inquiries
    and get back to me to let me know what we might expect.
        Secretary Veneman. Certainly.
        Senator Dorgan. I think it is immoral for this country, and
    I feel that with respect to any administration, to use food and
    medicine as weapons in the use of sanctions. I think it is not
    the right thing for this country, and it does not matter what
    other country we are talking about, it is not an endorsement of
    a foreign leader whose policies we have great problems with, or
    a foreign leader we may very well disrespect.
        It has to do with sick, hungry, and poor people. When we
    impose sanctions that include food and medicine, especially
    food, we take aim at a dictator some place, and we end up
    hitting poor people, sick people, and hungry people, and we
    have to stop it. We know enough now to stop it.
        So I am going to attempt once again to remove that
    roadblock, and I would hope for your support and the
    administration's support.

                             Agricultural Research

        Let me ask a question or two about the issue of
    agricultural research. One of the top scientists at North
    Dakota State University told me on several occasions that we
    have had in recent years the fusarium head blight which is
    called scab. We have had the worst crop disease in a century in
    our State. The result is, we have had to rely on a robust
    amount of agricultural research at our research institutions to
    try to respond to it.
        As you know, the President's budget calls for a cut of
    close to $190 million in research related to education
    programs, which would result in curtailing or eliminating some
    of these programs and projects that are very important in
    agricultural research. Can you speak to that for a moment? It
    seems to me that this is ill-advised, and can you tell me some
    of the administration's thinking in the preparation of a budget
    that would cut that amount of money for research?
        Secretary Veneman. The primary cuts in the research budget,
    as I understand it, are mandates that were put in the budget,
    and not proposed by the administration. I think it has been
    traditionally the way that the administration has proposed
    budgets, is that they have not put in those mandates, and I
    think those are the major cuts.
        Senator Dorgan. Might I ask also your judgment about
    agricultural research? Would you not agree that at a time when
    we are trying to battle some pretty significant crop diseases,
    that we would want to maintain a robust agricultural research
    function?
        Secretary Veneman. Absolutely. I think research is very
    important, and I think it is particularly important in the
    areas you are bringing up. Pest and disease prevention and
    eradication is very important, as we have talked about, the
    animal diseases we tend to deal with since we have been here.
    Crop diseases and pests are significant issues for American
    agriculture.
        As I said in my opening statement, pest and disease
    prevention and eradication really are the infrastructure of
    what protects our agriculture in this country, and we need the
    research to support that.
        I also think that we need to be targeting our research to
    address issues such as food safety, to address issues such as
    environmental issues that agriculture is facing, to look at new
    technologies, new uses, and alternative uses for agricultural
    products. So certainly research is important. In terms of
    biotechnology as well, we were talking earlier about some of
    the biotech issues, and so research in all of those areas are
    ones where we think our priority should be.

                              Quality Loss Program

        Senator Dorgan. Let me ask on the quality loss program
    which I helped create along with my colleagues on this
    subcommittee. This is the one area of help for family farmers
    that is not yet available and the payments for that have not
    yet gone out. Can you give us a timetable for that? When do you
    expect the quality loss program will be ready to provide some
    help to family farmers?
        Secretary Veneman. I am going to have Mr. Collins address
    some of the issues on that program.
        Mr. Collins. I regret I cannot give you a timetable as I
    sit here.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Collins, I cannot hear you.
        Mr. Collins. I regret that I cannot give you a timetable as
    I sit here at the moment. We continue to work on that. It is
    difficult, because we have to establish how we measure quality
    and what the benchmark of quality is. That is what the producer
    would have produced otherwise, but we are working on that very
    diligently. We have a team from all over the country that is
    working on that.
        Senator Dorgan. But you can narrow it down. I mean, is it a
    week, a month, a year? I assume it is not a year.
        Mr. Collins. It will not be a year.
        Senator Dorgan. Are we within days or weeks of having this
    completed so that some payments can go out to farmers?
        Mr. Collins. I cannot tell you the answer to that. It is
    certainly something that is the highest priority we have at the
    moment. It is the last of these 15 or so programs that we have
    been putting together.
        Senator Dorgan. But somebody must have some notion. Are we
    within weeks, or is it going to be months? What is the
    objective?
        Mr. Collins. As soon as possible, in the near term.
        Senator Dorgan. But you are a trained economist.
        Mr. Collins. I am, but I am not, unfortunately, writing
    this reg.
        Senator Dorgan. But somebody is, and I am not trying to be
    confrontational, but somebody needs to give me some notion. Is
    this going to be within a month or so? What can farmers expect
    here? We have got a lot of them that are almost flat on their
    back, and they are into spring planting. The lenders do not
    have the foggiest notion what is going to happen this year with
    respect to a farm price support program.
        Mr. Collins. I will tell you there are a number of
    particular problems with this that we are still working on, and
    I hope that we will finish them very shortly. One, for example,
    is hay. Hay is probably going to be the biggest commodity we
    deal with under this quality loss program. Hay has not been
    part of our crop disaster programs frequently in the past, and
    so we have got a lot of pioneering work to do here. I am not
    trying to equivocate. I am just telling you that we are working
    on this as diligently as we can. We understand the needs of
    American producers and we are going to get this out absolutely
    as soon as possible.
        Senator Dorgan. Secretary Veneman, any comment on that?
        Secretary Veneman. What I have been told is similar to what
    Mr. Collins has said. There have been some difficult issues
    with regard to this particular program. Because it is a pioneer
    program, we have never really dealt with this kind of
    calculation before, and it is not an easy thing to do. I would
    be happy to have our staff come and brief your staff on some of
    the issues we are encountering, if you would like that.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me just say to you, I understand this
    is not a program without difficulty. I am just trying to get a
    sense on behalf of our producers out there what your goal might
    be in trying to sift through all of these difficulties.
        Secretary Veneman. Our goal would have been to have it out
    within the 60 days that we got most of the other regs out, but
    because we cannot--our folks have not been able to work out the
    calculation on this. It has not been an easy one, and I frankly
    have not been given any timetable.
        Mr. Collins. I would also mention, there is software
    development problems. I understand what you would like, Mr.
    Dorgan. We would like to be able to tell you. The problem is,
    if I tell you next week and we do not meet next week, then it
    creates a lot of difficulties.
        Senator Dorgan. I understand why you are hedging, and you
    understand why I am asking, so we have reached a perfect
    balance here.
        We actually have both studied economics, have we not?
        Mr. Collins. Well then, we are very clear with one another.
        Senator Dorgan. If I might, Mr. Chairman, do I have another
    moment to ask another question?
        Senator Cochran. No more economic questions.
        You go ahead.
        Senator Dorgan. Let me quote Mr. Collins in testimony he
    provided recently. He said, a strong rebound--is it okay to
    quote an economist?

                        Farm Programs Emergency Funding

        Senator Dorgan. He said, a strong rebound in farm prices
    and income from the marketplace for major crops appears
    unlikely, at least over the next couple of years, in the
    absence of major global shortfall in crop production, and then
    he went on.
        Given that testimony, I would ask Secretary Veneman, would
    it not be preferable to acknowledge now that we may have to
    provide some emergency funding in the farm program, rather than
    take the position well, let us just wait and see?
        The problem is, all the farmers in this country, the family
    farmers who are relying on a farm program to help them through
    tough times and through collapsed prices are now going into
    spring planting after they have been to the bank. Neither they
    nor their banker have the foggiest idea what kind of assistance
    might be available this year outside of the Freedom to Farm
    bill, which in itself, as you know, is going to call for
    decreasing payments.
        So would it not be better, given Mr. Collins' testimony
    that it is unlikely that we are going to see strength in the
    marketplace, would it not be better just to say to the farmers,
    look, the Secretary and the administration understand we are
    going to have to do something to provide some countercyclical
    help this year in the form of emergency help?
        Secretary Veneman. Senator, this is an issue or a question
    we have certainly gotten many times and, as you know, when the
    President addressed the Congress, he set aside nearly $1
    trillion for emergencies, a savings account for the Government
    to deal with emergencies, and one of the emergencies he
    articulated that might be eligible for that savings account,
    that special, almost trillion-dollar fund, was agriculture.
        As you know, the Congress has not really dealt with these
    emergency situations until August or September after they see
    what the crop looks like, after they see what the emergency
    really is, what the disasters are, and then the Congress has
    dealt with that.
        The administration, because of the uncertainties of what
    the situation may be, what the emergency may be, has not at
    this point in time proposed any additional funding, but again,
    that nearly trillion-dollar reserve is available, and
    agriculture is one of the issues that will be considered as a
    part of that.
        Senator Dorgan. That is an understandable position. I
    understand the rationale for making that judgment and saying
    what you said. But then, is it not also understandable for you
    to say, although we will not make that decision today, we want
    to send a signal to farmers across this country that if we have
    a tough crop, if we have collapsed prices through this fall,
    this administration stands prepared to work with Congress to
    develop an emergency fund and an emergency program?
        The reason I ask that is, you have indicated in your speech
    recently there is no assurance of Federal help in the future,
    and that creates the uncertainty out there that people are
    concerned about. I am just wondering if there is a contingency
    fund, in fact- and there is some dispute about whether that is
    not medicare trust funds, but if there is, in fact, a
    contingency fund, would you say to farmers today that if things
    remain as they are, prices are continued low, and we have the
    problems that we expect and Mr. Collins predicts, that the
    administration stands ready to work with the Congress on
    emergency help for farmers this year?
        Secretary Veneman. Yes, and I think I said that I believe
    that there is certainly a good likelihood that we will see
    additional emergency assistance this year, and we certainly
    would stand ready to work with the Congress in that regard once
    we determine what the needs and the emergencies are.
        Senator Dorgan. And be supportive of that?
        Secretary Veneman. Yes.
        Senator Dorgan. As I indicated when I made my opening
    statement, you have assumed a challenging job in challenging
    times. You and I could spend a lot of time, but I will not
    continue further, except to make one additional comment. There
    are a number of things where we would have disagreements.

                              Rural Telephone Bank

        For example, the rural telephone bank, zeroing out that
    program I think is a mistake. Those of us who come from rural
    America and understand the need to avoid having a digital
    divide, and the need to especially have rural telephone
    companies play a significant role in the development of
    advanced telecommunications services all across the country
    know that we are going to need to rely on the rural telephone
    bank program. We are going to have to try to add back--I mean,
    I do not want to zero that out, so there are areas of
    disagreement.
        I think we can have a discussion about them as we go along,
    and I would say, as I said when I started, my main concern here
    is family farms. Those families are living out there trying to
    make a go of it. This country will lose something very
    important if we do not get a program to help family farmers
    through tough times. The current farm program does not work. We
    have demonstrated that year after year, unfortunately, with
    emergency needs.
        But, I hope to work with the chairman who, in the time that
    I have been on this subcommittee, has done an excellent job. He
    has worked with us as we go into conference to help provide
    some emergency help and has recognized what is going on in this
    country. We hope to be able to work with you to do that, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator Dorgan. I appreciate
    your kind comments, and I look forward to working with you and
    all the other members of this subcommittee to craft a bill that
    we can present to the full committee that will reflect the
    legitimate needs of production agriculture, and also reflects
    our concern for carrying out the responsibilities of law in a
    lot of other areas. We have mentioned a good many of them
    today.
        Madam Secretary, my impression is that you are off to an
    excellent start as Secretary of Agriculture, and I commend you
    for the good job you are doing and the way you are going about
    trying to identify problems and find the right solutions and be
    a real leader in the Department of Agriculture.
        I want to also let you know that you made the newspaper
    back in Jackson, Mississippi, today. This is your photograph,
    and it is a story that was released by the Delta Council up in
    Cleveland, Mississippi, saying that you would be the speaker at
    the group's annual meeting on May 24. That is really good
    judgment.
        Secretary Veneman. As I recall, Senator, you made that
    request at my confirmation hearing.
        Senator Cochran. It is very unique how this works out.
        I hope you enjoy your trip to Mississippi and all goes
    well. I am sure it will.
        Secretary Veneman. And I am taking my assistant, Hunt
    Shipman, with me.
        Senator Cochran. Then you will not need a map of the local
    roadways if you have him along.

                         Additional committee questions

        There may be additional questions that will be submitted to
    the Secretary from members of the subcommittee, and we hope you
    will be able to respond to them in a reasonable time. Thanks
    again for participating and cooperating with our committee.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

               animal plant health and inspection service (aphis)
        Question. What is the projected need for predator control funding
    for fiscal year 2002 for wolf activities in Wyoming, Idaho, and
    Montana? What is the projected need in Minnesota, Michigan, and
    Wisconsin?
        Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services--(FWS) gray wolf
    reintroduction in Wyoming (Yellowstone National Park) and Idaho has
    been so successful that wolf populations have expanded beyond original
    introduction site boundaries. From an original reintroduction of 66
    wolves in 1995 and 1996, the FWS now estimates there are between 360-
    405 wolves in these two States. In addition, naturally occurring wolf
    populations in Montana have grown from an estimated 25-50 wolves in the
    early 1990s, to approximately 80 to 100 wolves today according to the
    FWS. In total, FWS estimates there are approximately 440-505 wolves in
    the Northern Rocky Mountain area and that the total number of wolves
    will triple in the next several years. APHIS received $1,000,000 in
    fiscal year 2001 for predator/wolf control in Idaho, Montana, and
    Wyoming which we allocated equally among the three States. We are
    evaluating the impact of these expanding wolf populations and our
    ability to provide adequate service with the increased funding.
        The Minnesota wolf population has steadily increased from
    approximately 1,200 wolves in 1979, found only in the remote
    northeastern parts of the State, to approximately 2,600 wolves now.
    This population increase has caused a significant southern expansion
    with a contiguous range now covering approximately 40 percent of the
    State. Wisconsin began to monitor the wolf populations in 1979, with an
    initial report of 25 animals. In the late 1980s, this population began
    to steadily increase and there are approximately 250 wolves now. In
    1995, wolf discoveries occurred in areas south of the northern
    Wisconsin region. As wolves began to occupy northern Wisconsin,
    individual wolf observations occurred in the Upper Peninsula of
    Michigan. The FWS now estimates that approximately 200 wolves inhabit
    the Upper Peninsula. With such a large and ever expanding natural
    population of gray wolves, we have been addressing wolf impacts in
    Minnesota since the mid 1970s. The population growth and expanding
    range have resulted in wolves moving into Wisconsin and Michigan.
        Question. What is the amount of funding in the baseline and the
    President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the protection of
    sunflowers and rice from blackbirds?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request contains
    the following funding levels to protect sunflowers and rice from
    blackbirds (which are amounts that the Congress appropriated in the
    form of directives in previous years): in fiscal year 1989, APHIS
    received $368,000 for blackbird control in North Dakota and South
    Dakota; in fiscal year 1994, APHIS received $50,000 for blackbird
    control in Arkansas, $50,000 for blackbird control in Illinois, and
    $120,000 for controlling blackbird damage to rice in Louisiana. APHIS
    commits these funds to Congressionally directed activities, such as the
    cattail management program in the Dakotas and to protect sprouting rice
    in Louisiana.
        Question. APHIS has asked for comments on its notice in the Federal
    Register for protection of sunflowers from Red-Winged Blackbirds in
    North Dakota, South Dakota, and Minnesota. Should APHIS determine that
    lethal and non-lethal techniques will be used to control blackbirds,
    will the funding requested in the fiscal year 2002 budget suffice?
        Answer. APHIS is evaluating the need to manage blackbird damage for
    the protection of sunflower crops. As part of that evaluation, APHIS
    personnel are conducting an environmental analysis of proposed actions
    which may include lethal control methods, non-lethal control methods,
    or a combination of both. Because of the range of issues that the
    public has raised through the public participation process, APHIS has
    decided to develop an environmental impact statement (EIS) to
    thoroughly analyze the issues and any proposed alternatives for
    managing the blackbird damage.
        Question. As the budget for inspection has increased for animal
    welfare, has the agency seen an increased need for funding for
    enforcement and prosecution? If yes, at what amount does the fiscal
    year 2002 President's request fund enforcement and prosecution?
        Answer. The increases in funding for Animal Care over the past
    couple of years and the resulting increase in the number of Animal Care
    Inspectors in the field will correlate with a need for more enforcement
    and prosecution. Fiscal year 2002, the President's request would fund
    enforcement and prosecution at $6,601,000, an increase of $352,000 over
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Please provide information on the pilot project which was
    funded as a result of the provision in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture
    appropriations act which required a pilot project on development of
    non-lethal wildlife predation control methods in four states associated
    with livestock operations.
        Answer. The Minnesota wolf population has steadily increased from
    approximately 1,200 wolves in 1979, found only in the remote
    northeastern parts of the State, to approximately 2,600 wolves now.
    This population increase has caused a significant southern expansion
    with a contiguous range now covering approximately 40 percent of the
    State. Wisconsin began to monitor for wolf populations in 1979, with an
    initial report of 25 animals. In the late 1980s, this population began
    to steadily increase and there are approximately 250 wolves now. In
    1995, wolf discoveries occurred in areas south of the northern
    Wisconsin region. As wolves began to occupy northern Wisconsin,
    individual wolf observations occurred in the Upper Peninsula of
    Michigan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now estimates that
    approximately 200 wolves inhabit the Upper Peninsula. With this
    expanding natural population of gray wolves, we have been addressing
    wolf impacts in Minnesota since the mid 1970s. The population growth
    and expanding range have resulted in wolves moving into Wisconsin and
    Michigan. As the wolf population increases, so does the number of
    depredation incidents against livestock. We project our responses to
    wolf complaints in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will reach 289
    during fiscal year 2001, a 26 percent increase since fiscal year 1999.
        The FWS gray wolf reintroduction in Wyoming (Yellowstone National
    Park) and Idaho has been so successful that wolf populations have
    expanded beyond original introduction site boundaries. From an original
    reintroduction of 66 wolves in 1995 and 1996, the FWS now estimates
    there are between 360-405 wolves in these two States. In addition,
    naturally occurring wolf populations in Montana have grown from an
    estimated 25-50 wolves in the early 1990s, to approximately 80 to 100
    wolves today according to the FWS. In total, FWS estimates there are
    440-505 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain area and that the total
    number of wolves will triple in the next several years. APHIS--
    responsibility has increased significantly as a result of the wolf
    recovery efforts in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. We project our
    responses to wolf complaints in these States will reach 244 during
    fiscal year 2001, a 116 percent increase since fiscal year 1999. APHIS
    received $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 for predator/wolf control in
    Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming which was allocated equally among the three
    States. We are evaluating the impact of these expanding wolf
    populations and our ability to provide adequate service with the
    increased funding.
        Question. Please update the subcommittee on the status of the
    construction of the bison quarantine facility and the Environmental
    Impact Statement (EIS) that will be implemented by the National Park
    Service.
        Answer. During calendar year 2000, APHIS, along with several other
    Federal Agencies, were involved in negotiations with the State of
    Montana to finalize a long term management plan for bison. The Record
    of Decision (RoD) on the EIS for bison management was released in
    December 2000. Since completion of the ROD, program officials have
    begun implementing the long term bison management plan. Among other
    items, the bison management plan includes increasing monitoring and
    surveillance of cattle in the area. Although the plan does not address
    the immediate need for a bison quarantine facility, it does allow for
    the consideration of this facility, if needed, at a later date. In the
    interim, program officials are using an APHIS funded and Montana
    operated capture facility in Horse Butte for the capture and sampling
    of bison.
        While the plan is not intended to be a brucellosis eradication
    plan, it is intended to be a plan for the management of bison in the
    Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) to prevent transmission of brucellosis
    from bison to cattle. Our next step will be working with the other
    Agencies to develop a plan for eliminating brucellosis from the bison
    and elk populations of the GYA.
        Question. Please provide the amount requested (by line item) in the
    fiscal year 2002 President's budget for Foot and Mouth Disease.
        Answer. APHIS has requested $3,839,000 under the Foreign Animal
    Disease/Foot-and-Mouth Disease line item for fiscal year 2002. This
    request is for ongoing cooperative programs in Colombia, Mexico, and
    Panama.
        Question. Please provide an update on the Texas and Michigan
    problems with bovine tuberculosis. What does the fiscal year 2002
    President's budget request contain to address bovine tuberculosis (by
    line item)?
        Answer. Of the 10 dairy herds currently located in the El Paso
    milkshed area, 2 are infected with tuberculosis. Most of these 10 herds
    have had recurring infections over the years. Only one herd has
    remained infection free. Recent studies have demonstrated a high
    probability that the recurrent infections in El Paso are linked to the
    high prevalence of tuberculosis in the dairies located near Juarez,
    Mexico. To address this problem, along with several others such as
    infection in wildlife, the Secretary of Agriculture declared an
    emergency in October 2000 and transferred $54 million from the
    Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). Congress appropriated an additional
    $6 million towards this effort in the fiscal year 2001 Miscellaneous
    Appropriations Act. These funds will allow the Agency to implement a
    comprehensive bovine tuberculosis eradication plan which will include
    eliminating infected and high risk dairy herds in the El Paso milkshed
    area. By eliminating these herds, APHIS will create a buffer zone in
    the El Paso area to protect the U.S. cattle population. APHIS expects
    to begin eliminating these herds in August 2001. These funds have also
    allowed APHIS to address bovine tuberculosis in Michigan's wildlife
    population including enhanced surveillance in wildlife and domestic
    livestock, and depopulation. To date, close to 444,000 bison, cattle,
    and goats in Michigan have been tested for bovine tuberculosis. Twenty-
    seven of these animals (from 13 herds) were found to be disease
    positive. Of the 13 herds, 11 were depopulated and 2 are on the ``test
    and remove plan''. In the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget request,
    APHIS requests $18.6 million to continue this effort.
        Question. Has the new Administration revisited the Clinton
    Administration's recommended guidelines for the use of lost income
    compensation to control and eradicate emergency outbreaks of pests and
    diseases? Has the new administration solicited input from the
    authorizing committees, state government officials, and experts in
    academia and the private sector as recommended by the Chairman of the
    House Agricultural Appropriations?
        Answer. We are reviewing the issue now and intend to work with the
    Office of Management and Budget to determine an appropriate position.
    Once we finish that review, we will share the position with the
    appropriate Members and Committees of the Congress.
        Question. What amount does the President's fiscal year 2002 budget
    request contain for the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) for
    the National Veterinary Services Laboratories?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request contains
    $744,000 for the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP), of which
    $497,000 is for diagnostic support at the National Veterinary Services
    Laboratory.
                   food safety and inspection service (fsis)
        Question. What level of funding will be spent on ratite and squab
    inspection in fiscal year 2001 and how much is budgeted for these
    activities for fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. FSIS received $2.5 million in its fiscal year 2001
    appropriation to conduct mandatory ratite and squab inspection. The
    Agency implemented regulations governing this activity on April 26,
    2001; mandatory inspection of both species commenced on that date.
    Costs associated with the development of the mandatory inspection
    regulation, and with inspection implementation itself, are estimated to
    be $2.5 million in 2001 and 2002.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2002 budget request earmark FSIS
    dollars for the in-distribution program? How much?
        Answer. The 2002 budget does not earmark dollars for an in-
    distribution program.
        Question. What is the new Administration's philosophy regarding
    testing for E.coli 0157.H7 at the retail level? Does the Bush
    Administration plan to continue to test at the retail level or will it
    increase testing more in the distribution chain? Would more testing
    during the distribution help to discover the contaminated product
    sooner?
        Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service plans to reassess
    its E. coli O157:H7 testing program. While this review is ongoing, the
    administration does not plan to make any changes in the current testing
    program and will wait for the results to determine how best to proceed
    on a scientifically sound basis.
        Question. Does the new administration at the agency plan to work
    with the meat industry and retailers to minimize the risk of E.coli
    0157.H7? If yes, how will the agency proceed?
        Answer. Yes, we plan to work with all stakeholders to minimize the
    risk of E. coli O157:H7 and all pathogens found in meat and poultry.
    Industry has made several suggestions on changes that could be made to
    the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule as well changes to microbiological
    testing. Some of their suggestions will be discussed at the upcoming
    National Advisory Committee for Meat and Poultry Inspection in early
    June.
                 natural resources conservation service (nrcs)
        Question. Why is there an undistributed amount of funding,
    $2,776,188, for the Forestry Incentives Program for 2001?
        Answer. The $2,776,188 represents the carryover amount from the
    fiscal year 2000 Forestry Incentives Program activities. All monies
    have since been released to the states and no reserve is retained at
    the national level.
                           farm service agency (fsa)
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request proposes
    $3 million for the state mediation program. The budget justification
    notes mention that 2 more states will be approved for participation in
    2001. Which states are going to be approved? How much funding is needed
    to approve all of the pending applications?
        Answer. Six states have either submitted or indicated that they
    would be submitting an application for certification. They are
    California, Colorado, Maine, New York, Mississippi and Tennessee.
    California was recently approved to participate in this program and
    decisions on approving the additional applications will be made soon.
        The pending applications can be approved without additional
    funding. If they are approved, funding for fiscal year 2002 could be
    prorated.
                      agricultural marketing service (ams)
        Question. Please update the committee on the implementation of the
    Microbiological Data Program (MDP). Are microbiologists involved in
    sampling, testing?
        Answer. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has been involved
    in a number of activities in preparation for implementing the
    Microbiological Data Program (MDP). I have asked AMS to provide a
    status of their activities for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        AMS has established the infrastructure to implement MDP. AMS
    completed cooperative agreements with the ten participating States.
    These agreements delineate the responsibilities of AMS and the
    participating States regarding sampling, testing, reporting
    requirements, and quality assurance. The agreements, totaling $4
    million are with the agriculture departments of California, Colorado,
    Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, Washington,
    Wisconsin, and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (for
    sampling). All states will be testing samples except for Maryland
    (samples shipped to Ohio) and Texas (samples shipped to AMS Eastern
    Laboratory).
        The work plan for fiscal year 2001 was completed in cooperation
    with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)/Center for Food Safety and
    Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
    The plan requires the quantitative determination of Escherichia coli,
    as an indicator organism and the identification of Salmonella spp. The
    sampling design is based on the statistically reliable parameters
    employed by AMS' Pesticide Data Program (PDP). The number of source
    samples to be collected is based on State populations, ranging from 14
    source samples in California to 2 in Wisconsin and Colorado, for a
    maximum of 62 source samples per month per commodity. Each source
    sample consists of 3 sub-samples. Samples are all collected within a
    state on the same day to create a testing set that meets the
    appropriate quality control requirements. The probability of selecting
    a site for sampling in a State is based on the volume of product at the
    site and was developed using the expertise of the National Agricultural
    Statistics Service. This sampling method will enable data users to make
    national inferences based on the data. All samples are collected
    aseptically, based on random selection at terminal markets and major
    distribution centers.
        The system for sample collection and testing practices was placed
    in effect April 16 with collections of leaf and romaine lettuce as
    separate commodities. Domestic and imported tomatoes were added on May
    1 and celery is scheduled for August 2001. The commodities were chosen
    for inclusion into MDP based on national consumption data in
    consultation with FDA and CDC. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP
    protocols) were developed for sampling, testing, and data reporting and
    are being tested during the first several weeks of sample collection. A
    final system should be in place by June. A proficiency testing system
    is also under development, slated for implementation later this fiscal
    year. A data system to handle electronic information transfer similar
    to the system in effect for PDP is under development, with segments to
    be developed by contract. An interim system for data transfer is in
    effect until a combined comprehensive PDP-MDP system is completed with
    state-of-the-art software design.
        AMS established agreements with the Agricultural Research Service
    and Pennsylvania State University for serotyping of isolates and
    antibiotic resistance profiling as part of the baseline and research
    objectives of the Program.
        AMS has four microbiologists assigned to handle SOP development and
    technical aspects of the program. In addition, the eight states engaged
    in daily testing activities have trained microbiologists and have
    developed expertise in microbial and pathogen determinations. AMS is
    also using the PDP sampling infrastructure and data transfer expertise
    in order to have consistent operation of both programs with the
    respective participating states.
        Question. As part of the MDP, the Subcommittee understands that the
    data from this program will be made available to state public health
    agencies for food safety decision-making purposes. However, any
    premature or incorrect announcement by a public health official
    regarding microbiological information can prove to be a major setback
    to public health and economically harmful to the impacted industries.
    Has this issue been considered and what safeguards are in place in
    respect to this issue?
        Answer. The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has held
    discussions with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and
    participating States. The States will adhere to their current internal
    guidelines concerning actions regarding the confirmed determination of
    a pathogen. From the present testing requirements, this implies the
    determination of Salmonella. The FDA has requested data at three-month
    intervals for information purposes. These safeguards should avoid
    premature actions regarding pathogen determinations.
        Question. Industry has applied to AMS for a petition to create a
    certification labeling program for ``USA BEEF''. When will this
    petition be accepted so that consumers will be able to purchase beef
    labeled ``USA BEEF?''
        Answer. At about the same time that industry groups petitioned the
    Department to create a process-verified program, ``Beef: Made in the
    USA'', a conference committee report was issued accompanying the
    Agricultural Appropriations Act of 2000. The conference committee
    report directs the Department to determine the best terms to use on
    labels to inform consumers that the beef products are U.S. products.
    The report stated that the lack of clarity regarding the definition of
    the terms ``U.S. cattle'' and ``U.S. fresh beef products'', hinders the
    ability of U.S. producers, who raise and handle cattle from birth to
    slaughter, to promote their products. At this time, an advanced notice
    of a proposed rulemaking is under consideration by the Department for
    addressing these issues. In light of these developments, the Department
    informed the industry coalition that sent the petition that the
    petition will not be addressed until the issues raised by Congress are
    addressed.
                               food stamp program
        Question. A USDA report dated January 2001, regarding the Food
    Stamp Program's Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) system, indicates
    that forty-one states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have
    operational food stamp EBT systems, and that thirty-nine of those
    systems are operating statewide. What is the current status of the nine
    states which had not completed the implementation of an EBT system as
    of the date of this report?
        Answer. EBT is a high priority for the Department. EBT is expected
    to improve the efficiency of the program and help identify and control
    fraud. Thirteen State agencies (11 States, 2 Territories) did not have
    contracts for Statewide EBT implementation as of the last status
    report. Theses were California, Delaware, Guam, Indiana, Iowa, Maine,
    Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, Virginia, the Virgin Islands,
    and West Virginia. Although without Statewide EBT contracts, California
    and Iowa have EBT operations in limited areas.
        Currently, Indiana, Nevada, and Virginia have approved contracts
    with Citicorp. Indiana began its pilot May 1, 2001. Nevada and Virginia
    are scheduled to begin pilot operations in October 2001. The remaining
    States/Territories--California, Guam, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi,
    Montana, Nebraska, the Virgin Islands, and West Virginia--are in some
    stage of planning or procurement for Statewide systems. However, there
    is a wide range of activity among these States and some are not likely
    to meet the October 2002 deadline unless they work aggressively to
    secure a contract for EBT implementation.
        Delaware selected E-Funds as its EBT contractor but broke off
    negotiations when prices were significantly above the Federal cost cap.
    Delaware subsequently has asked for a waiver from the EBT mandate,
    citing excessive costs associated with EBT as the reason.
        Question. Will all states have an operating EBT system by October
    2002, as mandated by Welfare Reform?
        Answer. EBT implementation is a high priority for the Department.
    The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) continues to work towards the goal
    of Nationwide EBT by the October 2002 mandate and in particular, we are
    working with States that have obstacles to EBT implementation. However,
    State agencies without a contractual agreement in place very soon will
    have difficulties meeting the October 2002 deadline.
        Delaware selected E-Funds as its EBT contractor but broke off
    negotiations when prices were significantly above the Federal cost cap.
    Delaware subsequently has asked for a waiver from the EBT mandate,
    citing excessive costs associated with EBT as the reason.
        Other State problems include the lack of staff resources, budget
    constraints, insufficient infrastructure, the lack of technical
    expertise, competing priorities, and the sheer lack of time to complete
    implementation by October 2002.
        Question. One projected benefit of the EBT system is the decreased
    possibility of fraud within the Food Stamp Program. An Associated Press
    article dated April 10, 2001, revealed that a New York food stamp
    recipient discovered an additional $221,382 in her food stamp benefits
    account after making a purchase with her EBT card. What has been done
    recently to fight error and fraud within the entire Food Stamp Program,
    and specifically the EBT system?
        Answer. The instance you cite of the overpaid recipient was, upon
    investigation, found to be an error in the retailer's point-of-sale
    device which caused an incorrect balance to print on the receipt. The
    incorrect amount was shown as a cash benefit to the recipient, not a
    food stamp benefit. Since then, steps have been taken to correct the
    error, however, at no time did the recipient actually have this amount
    in her account.
        Overall, EBT has contributed to reducing fraud by creating an audit
    trail which helps pinpoint illegal transactions. It also allows
    recipients as well as retailers to be identified and sanctioned for
    trafficking violations using the transaction data. EBT States continue
    to expand their use of the data and to refine the techniques associated
    with analysis of transaction data.
        In addition to these advantages of EBT, we continue to assist
    States in reducing the causes of overpayment and underpayment error,
    including identifying ``best practices'' by low error States. We are
    also expanding our use of the existing databases to identify and remove
    prisoners, deceased persons, and cases of duplicate participation from
    the rolls, and to follow up with sanctions and recoupment of
    overpayments, as necessary. Another tool in the collection of
    overpayments is the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), which is responsible
    for a growing percentage of total collections by intercepting tax
    refunds an other payments otherwise due the overpaid individual
        Question. On December 27, 2000, the Food and Nutrition Service
    placed in the Federal Register a notice of availability of research
    grants to improve Food Stamp Program Access through Partnerships and
    New Technology. These competitively awarded grants would be 100 percent
    funded by the Federal Government with no matching requirement. How many
    of these grants have been awarded?
        Answer. Fourteen grants have been awarded, totaling $3.6 million.
        Question. What have been the findings of the research projects
    funded by these grants?
        Answer. As the program has only recently been initiated, it is too
    soon to report findings. However, grant recipients are required to
    submit periodic progress reports, and at the end of the two year grant
    period, final reports will be submitted assessing the impact of the
    grant projects.
        Question. Does the Department support continued funding for these
    research grants?
        Answer. The Department's 2002 request includes the base funding
    from which these grants were funded in 2001. A decision on how best to
    utilize these funds will be determined following the enactment of our
    appropriations for 2002, and will take into consideration the success
    of these activities to date, and other potential activities.
                            child nutrition programs
        Question. The President's Budget suggests an increase of $2,000,000
    to enhance integrity in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). How
    would this funding be used to enhance the integrity of the NSLP?
        Answer. The $2,000,000 requested would be used to improve the
    integrity of the NSLP by exploring potential improvements to the
    process used by schools and school districts to certify students for
    free and reduced price meals. FNS is seeking ways to provide these
    benefits to needy children without providing them to non-needy
    children, and doing so in a manner that is manageable for schools
    operating the NSLP.
        FNS is operating a number of pilot projects designed to test
    alternative approaches to the existing NSLP application and
    verification process. The agency's current plan is to use a significant
    portion of the requested funding to collect information on income from
    a sample of parents whose children are in pilot schools, along with a
    sample of parents whose children are not in pilot schools, in order to
    provide an independent source of income data to compare to the
    application process. While this remains, in our judgment, the best
    option for using this funding to enhance NSLP integrity, USDA intends
    to continue to gather information from the pilots and other sources on
    this important issue. Our ongoing work with State officials and other
    Federal agencies continues to reveal new opportunities for system
    improvement. By the time of final appropriation, it may be more
    appropriate to focus these resources on activities that begin to
    address the issue operationally.
        Question. What is the estimated cost of each activity?
        Answer. The proposed income data collection analysis and reporting
    described above would cost roughly $1.5 million, but could range as
    high as $2.0 million. As noted previously, we intend to reassess our
    efforts as the pilot projects and other information-gathering
    continues, and consider using these funds for promising strategies to
    improve operations, as appropriate.
        Question. The School Breakfast Pilot Program is now fully funded.
    Please provide the Subcommittee with an update on this pilot program.
        Answer. Work on the pilot is progressing well. The six
    participating school districts were announced on May 15, 2000.
    Elementary schools within each school district were paired and randomly
    assigned to the control (regular School Breakfast Program) or treatment
    (universal-free breakfast program) group. Seventy control and 73
    treatment school units are participating in this project.
        Implementation of the universal-free breakfast program began in
    School Year 2000-2001. Five of the six selected school districts began
    implementation at the start of the school year; the sixth began
    implementing the universal-free breakfast program at the end of
    October, 2000.
        The evaluation contractor, Abt Associates, Inc. a Cambridge,
    Massachusetts research firm, was competitively selected to conduct the
    evaluation, and the contract was awarded on June 26, 2000. Abt is
    currently collecting first-year implementation data in the six school
    districts. Data is being collected on about 30 students from each
    school for a total of 4,290 students. Student outcome measures include
    achievement test scores, cognitive performance scores, classroom
    behavior, attendance and dietary intakes. Program operations data,
    including implementation methods and operating costs, are also being
    collected.
        Administrative data will be collected during School Years 2001-2002
    and 2002-2003. Follow-up implementation data will also be collected
    during the third year of implementation (School Year 2002-2003). An
    interim project report will be available in Summer 2002, and the final
    report in Summer 2004.
    special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
                                     (wic)
        Question. On December 11 of last year, President Clinton issued a
    memorandum on improving immunization rates for children at risk. In
    that memorandum, agencies were directed to ``include a standardized
    procedure as part of the WIC certification process to evaluate the
    immunization status of every child applying for WIC services using a
    documented immunization history.'' While the WIC program has served an
    appropriate role in child immunization screening and referral, a policy
    that might make WIC certification contingent on immunizations or
    require WIC clinics to evaluate and be held accountable for every
    participating child's immunization status could prove too burdensome
    and impose potential troubling liability issues on WIC caseworkers.
    What is the status of USDA's efforts to implement this Presidential
    directive?
        Answer. As directed by the Executive Memorandum, USDA is working
    with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to ensure
    that the actions outlined in the Presidential directive are taken in a
    manner ``consistent with the mission'' of each agency. A partnership
    consisting of USDA, CDC, the National Association of WIC Directors,
    American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), Association of State and
    Territorial Health Officials, Association of Immunization Managers, and
    Every Child By Two is providing guidance and assistance to implement
    current and future WIC immunization linkages to meet the directives of
    the Executive Memorandum.
        A draft policy memorandum, written in collaboration with partners,
    was distributed to partners and State WIC agencies for comment in
    February 2001. The policy memorandum outlined procedures for
    immunization screening and referral in the WIC Program, as directed by
    the Executive Memorandum. In response to comments, the policy
    memorandum is being redrafted and will be issued in June 2001. The
    policy memorandum makes it clear that (1) WIC certification is not
    contingent on immunization status or the attainment of immunization
    records, and (2) as an adjunct to health services, the WIC Program's
    role in immunization screening and referral is to support existing
    funded immunization activities. Increased WIC involvement in
    immunization screening and referral should not result in reduced
    efforts or costs incurred for immunization services and programs that
    have primary responsibility in this area.
        The policy memorandum includes a minimum screening protocol,
    developed in conjunction with CDC and AAP, specifically for use in WIC
    Programs where children are not screened and referred for immunizations
    by other means. The purpose of the minimum screening protocol is to
    identify children who may be at risk for under immunization. It is not
    meant to fully assess a child's immunization status, but allows WIC to
    effectively fulfill its role as an adjunct to health care by ensuring
    that children who are at risk are referred for appropriate care. In
    State or local areas with documented vaccination coverage rates 90
    percent or greater in WIC children by 24 months of age, there will be
    no requirement to implement the procedures set forth in the policy
    memorandum.
        Through a ``Dear Colleague'' letter to its State immunization
    program grantees, CDC will ensure that Immunization Programs coordinate
    with WIC to provide the following: cooperative planning and budgeting
    that supports WIC screening and referral; adequate and appropriate
    referral information and networks; training of WIC staff; and other
    activities necessary to ensure that a comprehensive screening and
    referral system is in place that supplements WIC's limited role and
    responsibility in this area.
        Question. What is the status of the Department's efforts to seek
    reimbursement from other agencies for health care services provided
    through the WIC program?
        Answer. A partnership consisting of USDA, Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention, National Association of WIC Directors, American
    Academy of Pediatrics, Association of State and Territorial Health
    Officials, Association of Immunization Managers, and Every Child By Two
    is finalizing a National strategic plan to improve immunization
    coverage rates of children participating in WIC. One of the goals of
    the strategic plan is to obtain adequate funding and/or reimbursement
    for WIC immunization activities so that WIC funds and staff time
    available for nutrition services are not reduced.
        The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) issued a WIC Cost Allocation
    Guide in November 1999 as a resource for WIC State and local staff. The
    guide describes acceptable methods to ensure that a State or local
    agency's WIC Program grant or subgrant is only charged for WIC's fair
    share of allowable costs.
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests continued funding
    for WIC electronic benefit transfer (EBT) systems. What is the status
    of WIC EBT efforts? What has been accomplished with the additional
    funding provided for this purpose for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Currently, there are 14 WIC State agencies at various
    stages of planning, developing, and implementing EBT systems. This
    includes 1 State agency that has nearly completed statewide roll-out, 3
    States with operational EBT pilot systems, 2 States preparing to launch
    pilots before the end of 2001, 2 States preparing to launch pilots in
    2002, and 6 States preparing to launch pilots in 2003. Fiscal year 2001
    funds for WIC EBT will be used for up-front development costs, and will
    be awarded through a competitive grant proposal and evaluation process
    to WIC State agencies that have made significant progress toward
    implementing EBT systems.
        Question. What is the status of the draft proposed rule on the WIC
    food prescription (package)?
        Answer. The Department has drafted and entered into clearance a
    proposed rule addressing changes in the WIC food packages. The rule is
    currently awaiting review by policy officials of the Bush
    Administration.
        Question. What is the status of the scientific examination of the
    WIC food prescription anticipated to be undertaken under the auspices
    of USDA's Western Human Nutrition Research Center?
        Answer. Further work on this project was suspended pending policy
    review by the Bush administration. Before continuing the study, the new
    team needs to determine the extent to which the study can and will fill
    the scientific gaps. We will be taking a look at this when we are fully
    staffed.
     cooperative state research, education, and extension service federal
                   administration and special research grants
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Federal administration/special research grant.
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research. (For extension activities: What is the national, regional, or
    local need for this project?)
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date? (For extension activities: What was the
    original goal of this program and what has been accomplished to date?)
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001, for this
    work?
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided, by fiscal year?
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date of the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Sent to the Senate under separate cover.
         cooperative state, research, education, and extension service
                        sustainable agriculture research
        Question. For fiscal year 2002, the Congress provided increased
    funding for sustainable agriculture to focus on organic farming to
    serve an expanding and increasingly active constituency of producers
    and consumers. Can you give the Committee an update on this new
    initiative?
        Answer. The increase in fiscal year 2001 funding over fiscal year
    2000 for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, SARE,
    program has been used for a range of high-priority projects in
    accordance with the guidance from the Senate appropriations report,
    which stated, in response to the targeting of the SARE increase to
    organic agriculture in the fiscal year 2001 President's Budget:
         ``Increased funds provided for sustainable agriculture research
    and education should include, but in no way be limited to, projects on
    organic agriculture. While organic production practices are included
    under the umbrella of sustainable agriculture, it is critical that
    funding increases be directed also to research on broader sustainable
    agriculture production systems and practices. The Committee also
    directs the Department to allocate a portion of funding increases to
    on-farm demonstration and producer-research projects.''
        The increased funds are being used to support some projects in
    organic agriculture, particularly in the SARE southern region, which
    established organic agriculture as one of five priority areas for
    fiscal year 2001 competitive grants, and which held a region-wide
    training conference on organic agriculture for Extension and other
    agricultural professionals. Competitive grant projects in other regions
    that could not have been supported, had fiscal year 2001 funding not
    increased, include several on crop and market diversification in both
    field crops and specialty crops, sustainable production of crops
    including cotton and tomatoes, several projects in the Pacific Islands,
    and a project to encourage farmer-directed research and networking.
        Increased support of on-farm, producer-led research is taking place
    not only through the last project noted above, but also through
    increased allocations toward producer grants in each region, either in
    fiscal year 2001 or planned for fiscal year 2002. In addition, the SARE
    Northeast region is allocating SARE Professional Development Program--
    Extension--funds to increasing the interaction of Extension and other
    agricultural professionals with producers engaged in SARE-sponsored on-
    farm research, and the SARE Southern region is piloting a program of
    on-farm research grants targeted at Extension agents and other agency
    and private-non-profit personnel who work closely with farmers in on-
    farm research.
        Other uses of the increased Extension funds in the SARE
    Professional Development Program include a partnership with the
    Extension Indian Reservation Program to enhance sustainable agriculture
    professional development with Native American communities, and
    competitive grant projects on a range of professional development
    topics ranging from assisting private landowners with resource-
    conserving management practices, to producing and marketing ethnic and
    specialty vegetables. Additional resources are also being targeted to
    enhance program evaluation.
                  native american institutions endowment fund
        Question. Beginning in fiscal year 2001, 1994 Institutions were
    given the authority to use funds available from the Native American
    Institutions Endowment Fund to support facility infrastructure. How
    many of the 1994 Institutions have elected to use these funds for
    facility requirements?
        Answer. The Conference Report states, ``For the Native American
    Institutions Endowment Fund authorized by Public Law 103-382 (7 U.S.C.
    301 note), $7,100,100: Provided, That hereafter, any distribution of
    the adjusted income from the Native American Institutions Endowment
    Fund is authorized to be used for facility renovation, repair,
    construction, and maintenance, in addition to other authorized
    purposes.'' The 1994 Institutions have expressed strong interest in
    using the adjusted income from the Native American Institutions
    Endowment Fund for facility requirements. The fiscal year 2001 adjusted
    income from the Endowment Fund will not be available until late in the
    year. Thus, these funds will be available for facility requirements
    after the end of fiscal year 2001 and beyond.
                          1890 land-grant institutions
        Question. Provide a list, by 1890 Institution, of the renovation
    and construction projects funded in fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year
    2000, the funds provided for each, and the amount required in future
    years to complete the project.
        Answer. Awards are made for the acquisition and improvement of
    agricultural and food sciences facilities and equipment, including
    libraries, so that the 1890 land-grant institutions and Tuskegee
    University may participate fully in the production of human capital in
    the food and agricultural sciences. These activities are ongoing and
    are proposed in a five-year plan of work. The table below indicates the
    past, current and proposed appropriations to complete activities under
    the current five-year plan of work.
        [The information follows:]

                                                     1890 FACILITIES
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal year--
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------    Total
                                            1998         1999         2000         2001         2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alabama A&M University............     $403,755     $449,013     $666,710     $675,111     $675,111   $2,869,700
    Tuskegee University...............      403,755      449,013      666,710    675,1 1 1      675,111    2,869,700
    University of Arkansas at Pine          387,818      430,036      658,969      666,395      666,395    2,809,613
     Bluff............................
    Delaware State University.........      310,482      337,479      621,209      623,880      623,880    2,516,930
    Florida A&M University............      408,640      454,830      669,083      677,783      677,783    2,888,119
    Fort Valley State University......     4.18,874     502,73.1      688,627      699,788      699,788    3,039,811
    Kentucky State University.........      497,465      560,587      712,229      726,362      726,362    3,223,005
    Southern Univer-  sity............      379,624      420,281      654,989      661,914      661,914    2,778,722
    University of Maryland Eastern          356,775      393,076      643,890      649,419      649,419    2,692,579
     Shore............................
    Alcorn State University...........      392,395      435,487      661,192      668,898      668,898    2,826,870
    Lincoln Univer-  sity.............      495,381      558,109      711,217      725,223      725,223    3,215,153
    North Carolina A&T State Univer-        511,065      576,736      718,817      733,779      733,779    3,274,176
     sity.............................
    Langston University...............      399,604      444,071      664,694      672,841      672,841    2,854,051
    South Carolina State Univer-  sity      394,830      438,385      662,374      670,229      670,229    2,836,047
    Tennessee State University........      455,003      510,031      691,604      703,140      703,140    3,062,918
    Prairie View A&M University.......      570,689      647,775      747,798      766,411      766,411    3,499,084
    Virginia State University.........      430,885      481,317      679,888      689,950      689,950    2,971,990
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Subtotal....................    7,247,040    8,088,960   11,520,000   11,686,234   11,686,234   50,228,468
                                       =============================================================================
    Federal Administration............      301,960      337,040      480,000      486,926      486,926    2,092,852
                                       =============================================================================
          Total.......................    7,549,000    8,426,000   12,000,000   12,173,160   12,173,160    52,321320
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          agriculture in the classroom
        Question. Please provide a description of expanded outreach
    activities being financed with the additional funds provided for fiscal
    year 2001 for the Agriculture in the Classroom program.
        Answer. The additional funding for fiscal year 2001 for the
    Agriculture in the Classroom program was exceptionally helpful in
    broadening the reach of the program across the Nation. New initiatives
    were chosen in close collaboration with the National Agriculture in the
    Classroom Consortium. Ongoing outreach activities that were
    strengthened include the annual Agriculture in the Classroom National
    Conference, the Agriculture in the Classroom web site, and catalyzing
    State Agriculture in the Classroom Directors to play a more active
    leadership role. The additional funding also served new outreach
    activities, as follows:
        Four sets of teaching materials were developed to support the
    Listening to the Prairie education program developed by the Agency's
    Sustainable Agriculture Research and Extension staff in collaboration
    with the Smithsonian Institution. The Listening to the Prairie display
    will tour selected libraries throughout the Nation over the next two
    years. The teaching materials will be used by elementary, middle
    school, and high school teachers whose classes visit the traveling
    display.
        Work was begun on the development of a comprehensive scientific and
    educational review of teaching materials and preparation of a Resource
    Guide for Agriculture in the Classroom Teachers. The Guide will reduce
    redundancy, increase the use of high quality teaching materials, and
    assure that teaching materials are scientifically sound, educationally
    appropriate, and meet new and enhanced State learning standards
        Funds will be used in cooperation with the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, and the Office of the Science and
    Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State to develop outreach
    activities for Global Science and Technology Week, May 6-12, 2001. To
    highlight the international nature of science and the importance of
    math and science education in today's era of globalization, a special
    edition of the ``Agriculture in the Classroom Notes Newsletter'' was
    prepared and distributed, a mobile science laboratory visited a
    Washington, DC elementary school, career opportunities in the food and
    agricultural sciences were highlighted, and acknowledgment of the work
    of the Classroom teachers provided by a Nobel Laureate was distributed.
        Funds were also committed to support education research to
    determine the effectiveness and impacts of Agriculture in the Classroom
    programs in five States. This work will determine characteristics of
    successful and effective programs, and will be used to further develop
    and strengthen Agriculture in the Classroom in states desiring to
    expand their programs.
                                  rural health
        Question. Please give the Committee an update on the Louisiana and
    Mississippi rural health projects.
        Answer. The Rural Health and Safety Education Extension Project
    funds health and safety education in Mississippi and Louisiana. These
    programs are recruiting students to the health professions and
    promoting rural practice by new health care providers to mitigate
    health risk factors.
                               current activities
        In Mississippi, the Mississippi State University Extension Service
    coordinates the Mississippi Rural Health Corps with the state's 15
    community and junior colleges. The purpose of the endeavor is to
    improve rural health through the education of Mississippi residents and
    the training of health care professionals in rural practice. Various
    health and economic development related organizations, in the public
    and private sectors, have worked with the Corps in support of its
    goals.
        A variety of educational outreach activities provide the foundation
    for this program. The cornerstone of the program, training of nurses
    and allied health professionals, provides scholarships/loans to
    students willing to commit themselves to a period of service in rural
    Mississippi upon graduation. In addition, health education, the
    development of community-based healthcare coalitions, the Rural Medical
    Scholars program, and the Rural Health Explorers program have been
    instrumental in strengthening the health sector of Mississippi. This
    program also works with the Mississippi Rural Health Association to
    improve the health status of rural Mississippians.
        A Community College Network connects the state's community and
    junior colleges, the Mississippi Extension Service, and the University
    of Mississippi Medical School. This technology connects multiple sites
    to conduct administrative and educational activities.
        The Nurse Managed Family Care Center program conducted by Southern
    University and A & M College addresses health promotion and disease
    prevention for vulnerable populations residing in rural and inner city
    communities in southern Louisiana. This program is a collaborative
    effort of the Extension Service and the School of Nursing at Southern
    University. Services offered include health assessments, health
    training, teaching, and other health-care professional referrals. The
    services are provided through a nurse-managed center in a non-
    traditional setting--center and a mobile health unit. The mobile unit
    serves persons in a 50-mile radius of the School of Nursing. Quality,
    cost-effective, community-based primary health care services are being
    offered where graduate nurse faculty, nursing students, and physicians
    located in community health outreach centers assist women, children,
    and the elderly in understanding and utilizing self-care health
    practices.
        Services include: physical examinations, childhood vaccinations,
    height and weight, blood pressure, and vision screenings. Health
    education is provided to participants to enhance health promotion and
    disease prevention by increasing self-care capabilities. Health
    education topics include nutrition, safety, breast self-examination,
    dental health, hypertension, and diabetes.
                                accomplishments
        In fiscal year 2000, 426 scholarship/loans were made to nursing and
    allied health professional students enrolled in the state's community
    college system and 6 loans were awarded to community college nursing
    faculty members seeking advanced degrees. The loan recipients must
    commit themselves to a period of service in rural Mississippi upon
    graduation. Project funds provide a portion of the faculty salaries for
    the Mississippi Rural Health Corps. Through health education, skills
    training programs reach youth, parents of young children, adults with
    chronic diseases, and elder caregivers. Annually, the health education
    programs reach 60,000 families. Youth have improved their decision
    making skills related to health issues and adults have learned how to
    deal effectively with emergencies and practice family safety. The Corps
    has facilitated the formation of more than 30 community-based health
    care coalitions.
        Two newer additions to the Mississippi program include the Rural
    Medical Scholars and the Rural Health Explorers programs for youth. The
    Rural Medical Scholars program works with high school students who have
    an interest in being physicians in rural Mississippi. Students
    participated in a 6-week residential experience at Mississippi State
    University. The students completed two pre-med courses, ``shadowed''
    physicians, and attended a lecture series for aspiring physicians.
        The Scholars program has been expanded to include a Rural Health
    Explorers component for high school students with a more general
    interest in health care careers. The Explorers take one course, either
    anatomy or physiology, tour hospitals, interact with health care
    professionals, and talk with community college representatives about
    academic requirements for health care careers.
        In Louisiana, the Nurse Managed Family Health Care Center served
    400 Headstart students. In addition, 250 clients received health
    screening, health teaching, follow-up and referral services.
        This program provides clinical settings for faculty and students.
    In this setting, research is generated and students and faculty can
    test nursing theories and models of practice. This project has strived
    to develop culturally appropriate educational materials and delivery
    methods. Graduates of the nursing program are better prepared to work
    with vulnerable population groups and function effectively in a variety
    of rural and inner-city settings.
    Funds Distribution
        The Rural Health and Safety Education Extension Program is funded
    at $2,517,329 for fiscal year 2001. The Mississippi Rural Health
    Corps--Mississippi State University Extension Service--program receives
    about $2.1 million of the total. Funds under this project will be used
    for salaries/wages, fringe benefits, college scholarships/loans, the
    Rural Medical Scholars program, the Rural Health Explorers program, the
    Community College Network, and administrative costs such as equipment,
    materials and supplies, travel, and publication/printing costs.
        The Southern University and A & M College Nurse Managed Family
    Health Care Center program receives about $0.4 million. Funds under
    this project will be used for salaries/wages, fringe benefits,
    equipment, materials and supplies, travel, and publication/printing
    costs. Both projects show 100 percent match with non-Federal funds.
        Question. With each case of food borne illness costing $1,300 in
    medical expenditures and lost productivity it is easy to understand why
    food safety is seen as a top priority for the Cooperative State
    Research, Education, and Extension Service. Please provide a listing of
    the food safety research projects funded through the Special Grants,
    National Research Initiative, Fund for Rural America, and Initiative
    for Future Agriculture and Food Systems programs in each of fiscal
    years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Include a description of the research work
    and the cost of the research project?
        Answer. The Food Safety Program is a competitive and special grant
    program that consists of several components. A list of projects grouped
    by component is provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Institute                                                                                    Title                                                                   Amount
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS--1999

    Kansas State University.......................  Ecology of E-coli 0157:H7 in Beef Cow-Calf Operations from Ranch Through Feedlot....................................................     198,347
    Iowa State University.........................  Operation of Food Irradiator........................................................................................................     187,120
    University of Georgia.........................  Alliance for Food Protection........................................................................................................     140,340
    The Pennsylvania State University.............  Milk Safety.........................................................................................................................     233,900

             SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS--2000

    Kansas State University.......................  Ecology of E-coli-0157:H7 in Beef-Cow Operations from Ranch Through Feedlot.........................................................     198,326
    University of Georgia.........................  Alliance for Food Protection........................................................................................................     140,325
    Iowa State University.........................  Operation of Food Irradiator........................................................................................................     187,100
    Pennsylvania State University.................  The Penn State fiscal year 2000 Milk Safety Research Program........................................................................     278,311
    University of Alaska-Fairbanks................  Seafood Quality and Safety Program Projects.........................................................................................     327,425

             SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS--2001

    Cornell University............................  Food Safety Consortium, New York entitled: ``Listeria monocytogenes subtyping database for control of foodborne listeriosis''.......     266,592
    Kansas State University.......................  Ecology of E-coli 0157:H7 in Beef-Cow Operations from Ranch Through Feedlot.........................................................     197,871
    Iowa State University.........................  Operation of Food Irradiator........................................................................................................     210,004
    University of Georgia.........................  Alliance for Food Protection........................................................................................................     140,003
    North Dakota State University.................  Intelligent Quality Sensors (IQS) for Safe Food Products............................................................................     132,535
    The Pennsylvania State University.............  The Penn State fiscal year 2001 Milk Safety Research Program........................................................................     350,007

          NATIONAL RESEARCH INITIATIVE--1999

    Chapman University............................  Irradiation in a Combination Approach to Enhance Vegetable Safety...................................................................     128,000
    University of Delaware........................  Recalcitrance of Clostridium perfringens to High Hydrostatic Pressure Processing....................................................      95,000
    University of Florida.........................  Are Virulent Strain-Specific DNA Sequences of Vibrio vulnificus Essential for Virulence?............................................     150,000
    University of Georgia.........................  Inactivation of Pathogens on Alfalfa Seeds Treatments for Fresh Produce.............................................................     114,319
    University of Georgia.........................  Improving Pathogen Decontamination..................................................................................................     185,000
    University of Hawaii..........................  Genetic Markers and Pathogenisis Features of Listeria monocytogenes serotype........................................................     220,000
    University of Idaho...........................  Identifying Factors that Promote Clearance of E. coli. 0157:H7 from Cattle..........................................................     265,000
    Illinois State University.....................  Molecular Mechanisms of Psychrotrophy in Listeria monocytogenes.....................................................................     253,000
    Purdue University.............................  Molecular Biology of Fumonisin Biosynthesis in Gibberella fujikuroi.................................................................     100,000
    Kansas State University.......................  Ecological Distribution of E. coli. 0157:H7 Strains in Agricultural Environments....................................................     210,000
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration.............  Characterization of Multiple Fluoroquinolone Resistance Among Bacterial Pathogens...................................................     157,000
    Mississippi State University..................  Detection of Viable Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli using Polymerase Chain Reaction and RNA-based Polymerase Chain Reaction......     111,000
    University of Nebraska........................  Extrusion Processing as a Means of Reducing Fusarium Mycotoxins in Cereal Foods.....................................................     128,000
    Rutgers; The State University of New Jersey...  A Membrane Fluidity Model for Sensitivity of Foodborne Pathogens to Preservatives...................................................     230,405
    Cornell University............................  Specific Detection and Typing of Vibrio parahaemolyticus serotype 03:K6.............................................................     110,065
    Cornell University............................  Novel Strategies for Determining Thermal Destruction of Mycobacterium paratuberculosis..............................................      87,784
    Cornell University............................  Transmission of Listeria monocytogenes in Food Systems..............................................................................     192,000
    North Carolina State University...............  Modeling Bacterial Pathogen/Biocontrol Competition with Changing Temperature........................................................     117,369
    North Carolina State University...............  A Salmonella-based Vaccine to Prevent E.coli 0157:H7 Infection in Cattle............................................................     200,000
    North Carolina State University...............  Characterization of Genes Regulating Aflatoxin Biosynthesis.........................................................................     220,000
    The Ohio State University.....................  Development and Validation of Instruments to Evaluate Food Safety Education.........................................................     200,000
    University of Rhode Island....................  Optical Biosensor Detection of Food Pathogens Based on Direct Measurement of Antibody/Antigen Binding...............................     180,000
    Clemson University............................  Evaluation of Jenseniin G as a Potential Food Preservative..........................................................................      90,000
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State          Mechanism of Pathogen Survival During Microwave Thermalization......................................................................     123,000
     University.
    Washington State University...................  Molecular Characterization of the Campylobacter jejuni Adhesin to Fibronectin.......................................................     195,000
    University of California......................  Ecologic Assessment of Salmonella Enteritidis var Typhimurium in a Dairy Milk Shed..................................................     600,000
    Colorado State University.....................  New Methods for Risk Analysis of Infectious Animal Diseases Affecting Food Safety...................................................     359,515
    University of Georgia.........................  Following Resistant Salmonella Through The Food Chain: A Molecular Ecology Approach.................................................     814,564
    University of Illinois........................  Molecular Epidemiology of Salmonella Transmission in Swine Production Systems.......................................................     885,294
    Michigan State University.....................  Risk Factors for Samonella and Campylobacter Infections and Drug Resistance in Dairy Cattle.........................................     765,447
    University of North Carolina..................  Microbial Contamination of Produce: A Field Study in the Lower Rio Grande...........................................................     416,572
    The Ohio State University.....................  Ecology of Antimicrobial Resistance of Enteric Salmonella and E. coli in Cattle Operations..........................................     771,868
    The Ohio State University.....................  Dynamics of Campylobacter Transmission on Poultry Farms.............................................................................     384,284
    Washington State University...................  Effect on Water Chlorination on Prevalence of E.coli 0157:H7 and Campylobacter in Feedlot Cattle....................................     325,528
    University of South Alabama...................  Novel Molecular Approaches to Eradicating E. coli 0157 From the Bovine GI...........................................................     230,810
    University of Arizona.........................  Effect of Phagosome Activities on Campylobacter jejuni pathogenesis.................................................................     250,000
    University of Arkansas........................  Immunoelectrochemical/Optical Biosenser with a Capillary Bioseparator/Bioreactor for Rapid Detection of Pathogens in Poultry and         130,000
                                                     Meat Products.
    University of California......................  Factors Affecting Colonization of Plants By Human Pathogenic Bacteria...............................................................     275,000
    University of California......................  DNA Adenine Methylase Mutants of S. typhimurium as Modified Live Vaccines in Calves.................................................     310,000
    University of Delaware........................  Mortality Kinetics of Bacterial Populations Exposed to High Pressure................................................................     230,000
    University of Florida.........................  Microbiological Safety of Citrus Fruit For Juice Processing.........................................................................     200,000
    University of Florida.........................  Phase Variation and Expression of Capsular Polysaccharide in Vibrio vulnificus......................................................     260,000
    Iowa State University.........................  Persistent Colonization by E. coli 0157:H7 in Ruminants.............................................................................     185,000
    University of Illinois........................  Genetic Determinants of Salmonella in Chickens and Mice.............................................................................     195,000
    University of Illinois........................  Sources of Genetic Resistance to Reduce Fumonisin in Corn-based Foods...............................................................     175,000
    New England Medical Ctr.......................  The Effect of Antibiotics on Shiga toxin Phage Movement in Ruminants................................................................     240,000
    University of Maryland........................  Characterization of Multiple Antibiotic Resistance Among Enterohemorrhagic Escherichia coli.........................................     250,000
    University of Maine...........................  A Sensitive, Accurate and Rapid Method for Detection of Foodborne Pathogens.........................................................     180,000
    Michigan State University.....................  Incorporating Humidity into Microbial Inactivation Models for Convection Cooking of Meats...........................................     130,000
    Michigan State University.....................  Genetics of Zearalenone Biosynthesis and Grain Colonization by Gibberella zeae......................................................     200,000
    North Carolina State University...............  RNA Aptamers for Food Safety Diagnostics............................................................................................     145,000
    North Dakota State University.................  Safety Food Preservation............................................................................................................      60,000
    University of Nebraska........................  Genetics and Ecology of E. coli 0157................................................................................................     215,000
    Bowling Green State University................  Identification of Salmonella adhesins for colonization of chickens..................................................................     135,000
    University of Tennessee.......................  The Role of Catabolite Repression in Closstridium perfringens Food Poisoning........................................................     240,000
    Texas A&M University..........................  Verification of Safe Cooking Endpoints in Beef and Pork by Multiple Antigen ELISA...................................................     150,000
    Texas A&M University..........................  Minimizing Salmonella Enteritidis Invasion During Induced Molting...................................................................      79,190
    University of Wyoming.........................  LC/MS Equipment Research Enhancement For Department of Veterinary Sciences..........................................................      50,000
    University of Illinois........................  Epidemiology and Ecology of Antibiotic Resistance Determinants on Dairy Farms.......................................................   1,391,326
    University of Nebraska........................  A Novel Strategy to Test and Monitor Beef Feedlot Food-Safety Control Points........................................................     953,735
    New England Medical Center....................  National Pediatric Diarrhea Surveillance Study......................................................................................     937,473
    Kansas State University.......................  Epidemiological Aspects of Combining E. coli 0157:H Control Programs and Feedlot Performance........................................     231,483
    University of Minnesota.......................  Food-Borne Antibiotic-Resistant and Extraintestinal Pathogenic E. coli..............................................................     542,357

      INITIATIVE FOR FUTURE AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
                     SYSTEMS--2000

    University of Georgia.........................  Safe Produce Production Using Manure................................................................................................     560,000
    Texas A&M University..........................  Improving the Safety of Fruits and..................................................................................................   4,100,000

       SPECIAL RESEARCH FOOD SAFETY GRANTS 1999
                     (Competitive)

    University of Arizona.........................  Role of irrigation water in contamination of Import and Domestic Fresh Food.........................................................     275,000
    University of Arkansas........................  An Electrochemical Method to Destroy Pathogenic Bacteria in Brine Chilling Water for Cooked Poultry and Meat Products...............     194,668
    University of Arkansas........................  Non-destructive rinse sampling--Immunoblot quantitation of RTE foods for bacterial pathogens........................................     160,000
    California Polytechnic State University.......  Processing Parameters and GMPs for Optimal Application of Ozone in Food Processing..................................................     117,648
    National Food Processors Association            Quantitation of Listeria monocytogenes In Ready-to-Eat Foods and Risk Assessment....................................................     340,000
     Foundation.
    University of Georgia.........................  Validation of jerky processing for Small-Scale and Home Processors..................................................................      92,763
    Iowa State University.........................  Characterization of Antimicrobials and Risk Assessment of Listeria monocytogenes on Hot Dogs........................................     275,000
    Iowa State University.........................  Real-Time Detection of Fecal and Ingesta Contamination..............................................................................     151,876
    Kansas State University.......................  Post-process Pasteurization of Packaged, Ready-to-eat Meat Products for Control of Listeria monocytogenes...........................     124,026
    Michigan State University.....................  A time-temperature integrator to validate Salmonella destruction in beef patties....................................................     184,807
    University of Minnesota.......................  Control of Calicivirus Contamination of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables in Food Service Establishments..................................     210,000
    University of Minnesota.......................  Use of bacteriocins to control food-borne Pathogens in Vegetables...................................................................     157,136
     Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station.....  CCP Identification and Validation During Poultry Production and Processing..........................................................     249,481
    Rutgers University............................  Implication of Manure and Irrigation Water on contamination of Produce in the Field.................................................     188,422
    Cornell University............................  Survival of Foodborne Pathogens in Untreated Manure and Manure Applied to Soil......................................................     151,684
    North Carolina State University...............  Human Disease Risk from RTE Foods Contaminated by Poor Handling Practices...........................................................     377,503
    Oklahoma State University.....................  Lactobacilli to Control Salmonella & E. coli 0157:H7 in Fresh Cut Produce...........................................................      69,619
    Clemson University............................  In-package pasteurization and food grade Film Agents for Pathogens on Meat Products.................................................     145,984
    Texas A&M University..........................  Contamination During Production of Domestic and Imported Cabbage and Melons.........................................................     263,920
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State          Surface Sampling and Ultraviolet Light Treatment of Raw Produce.....................................................................     185,575
     University.
    University of Wisconsin.......................  Sensitization of E. coli 0157:H7 on Fruits and Vegetables to Halogenated Sanitizers.................................................     149,191
    University of Wisconsin.......................  Critical Limits for Land-Spread Manure To Ensure Vegetable Crop Safety..............................................................     163,193
    University of Wyoming.........................  Control of Foodborne Pathogens in Minimally Processed Ready-to-Eat Meatproducts.....................................................      88,019

     FOOD SAFETY AND QUALITY NATIONAL INITIATIVE--
                         1999

    American Samoa Community College..............  Expanding Food Safety Education in American Samoa...................................................................................      30,000
    Auburn University.............................  Food Safety Education for 4-H Groups in Alabama.....................................................................................      30,000
    Alabama A&M University........................  Training Food Handlers in Elderly Care Facilities Using HACCP.......................................................................      30,000
    Tuskegee University...........................  Church-Based Food Safety Education for Rural African American Youth.................................................................      30,000
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks...............  FSQ-POW--Telephone Outreach and Publication Development.............................................................................      30,000
    University of Arkansas........................  Safe at the Plate-Food Safety Programs for Arkansas.................................................................................      30,000
    University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff..........  HACCP/Safe Food Capacity Building Project...........................................................................................      30,000
    University of Arizona.........................  Safe Food 2000--Food Safety and Quality.............................................................................................      30,000
    University of California......................  Developing Food Safety Ed. Programs Sanitation & Food Handler Training..............................................................      30,000
    The University of California..................  Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD)......................................................................................     200,000
    Colorado State University.....................  Colorado Food Safety and Quality Education Program..................................................................................      30,000
    University of Connecticut.....................  1999 Food Safety POW Projects.......................................................................................................      30,000
    Delaware State College........................  Enhancing Seafood Safety and Quality in Delaware....................................................................................      30,000
    University of Delaware........................  Food Safety Education of Youth and Foodservice Employees............................................................................      30,000
    University of the District of Columbia........  DC Coalition for Food Safety Education..............................................................................................      30,000
    University of Florida.........................  The Florida Food Safety and Quality Plan of Work....................................................................................      30,000
    University of Florida.........................  Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD)......................................................................................     100,000
    Florida A&M University........................  A Food Safety Education Program for Florida Consumers...............................................................................      30,000
    Fort Valley State.............................  Peach County Food Safety Education and Training Program.............................................................................      30,000
    University of Georgia.........................  Food Safety and Quality Plan of Work................................................................................................      30,000
    University of Hawaii..........................  Improving Food Safety and Quality Through Ed. Prgms. & Technology...................................................................      30,000
    University of Idaho...........................  Food Safety Education for Idaho Consumers...........................................................................................      30,000
    University of Illinois........................  Cooking Meat Safe Program...........................................................................................................      30,000
    Purdue University.............................  Maximizing the Effectiveness of Food Safety Training in Indiana.....................................................................      30,000
    Iowa State University.........................  Web-Based Food Safety & HACCP Ed. for Foodservice Operators.........................................................................      30,000
    Kansas State University.......................  Kansas Food Safety Plan of Work Projects............................................................................................      30,000
    University of Kentucky........................  Statewide Food Safety Campaign From Farm to Table...................................................................................      30,000
    Louisiana State University....................  Food Safety and Quality Plan of Work Project........................................................................................      30,000
    Southern University and A&M College...........  In-Service Food Safety & Quality Training for Ext. Field Staff & Volunteers.........................................................      30,000
    University of Maine...........................  Food Safety POW Ed./Resources-Maine (Food Safety Power/Maine).......................................................................      30,000
    University of Maryland........................  A Food Safety Mgmt. Program--Processors, Food Handlers, & Educators.................................................................      30,000
    University of Massachusetts...................  Food Safety Educ.: Solving Problems through Practice & Partnership..................................................................      30,000
    Michigan State University.....................  Food Safety Education for Consumers and Food Professionals..........................................................................      30,000
    College of Micronesia.........................  Reduction of Food-Borne Illness in Palau............................................................................................      30,000
    University of Minnesota.......................  Minnesota Food Safety Plan of Work..................................................................................................      30,000
    Mississippi State University..................  Food Safety Certification for Permitted Food Service Establishments.................................................................      30,000
    University of Missouri........................  Missouri Outreach Plan of Work 1999-2000............................................................................................      30,000
    Lincoln University............................  FS&Q POW Proposal--Food Safety and You..............................................................................................      30,000
    Montana State University......................  Montana's Food Safety Education in Training.........................................................................................      40,000
    University of Nebraska........................  Enhancing HACCP Implementation in Nebraska Food Systems.............................................................................      30,000
    University of Nevada..........................  Food Safety Self-Study Module.......................................................................................................      30,000
    University of New Hampshire...................  New Hampshire Food Safety Programs--From Farm to Table..............................................................................      30,000
    Rutgers University............................  The Development of a Good Agricultural Practices Training Program...................................................................      30,000
    New Mexico State University...................  HACCP & Food Safety Ed. for Restaurant Managers & Employees.........................................................................      30,000
    Cornell University............................  Providing Safe Food for the Homeless and Destitute..................................................................................      30,000
    North Carolina A&T State University...........  North Carolina Food Safety Education Program for the Youth..........................................................................      30,000
    North Carolina State University...............  Communicating Food Safety Concepts..................................................................................................      30,000
    North Carolina State University...............  Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD)......................................................................................     200,000
    North Dakota State University.................  Food Safety Education for North Dakota Handlers.....................................................................................      30,000
    Northern Marianas College.....................  Handle the Safe Way.................................................................................................................      30,000
    Ohio State University.........................  HACCP-Based Food Handler Training for Ohio..........................................................................................      30,000
    Oklahoma State University.....................  Food Safety and Quality Plan of Work Project........................................................................................      30,000
    Oregon State University.......................  Oregon Plan for Promoting Food Safety...............................................................................................      30,000
    Pennsylvania State University.................  Enhancing the Safety of the Pennsylvania Food System................................................................................      30,000
    University of Puerto Rico.....................  Food Safety and HACCP Education.....................................................................................................      30,000
    University of Rhode Island....................  Food Safety Education Program.......................................................................................................      30,000
    Clemson University............................  Continuation of Food Safety Education in South Carolina.............................................................................      30,000
    South Carolina State University...............  Reducing Foodborne Illness Among the Elderly and Farmers............................................................................      30,000
    South Dakota State University.................  Applied Food Safety Ed. Programs for Middle & High School Youth.....................................................................      40,000
    University of Tennessee.......................  HACCP Training for Food Svc. & Train the Trainer for County Faculty.................................................................      30,000
    Texas A&M University..........................  Reaching the Foodservice Industry & Youth with Food Safety Education................................................................      30,000
    Prairie View A&M University...................  Reduction of Food-Borne Illness.....................................................................................................      30,000
    Utah State University.........................  Plan of Work for Food Safety in Utah: Farm to Table.................................................................................      30,000
    University of Vermont.........................  Food Safety Vermont, 2000...........................................................................................................      30,000
    VPI & State University........................  Food Safety For Farmers, Processors, Distrs., Consumers & Inspectors................................................................      30,000
    Washington State University...................  Food Safety Education in Washington State...........................................................................................      30,000
    West Virginia University......................  Food Safety in West Virginia........................................................................................................      30,000
    University of Wisconsin.......................  Food Safety Ed. & Training for Small-Farm Apple Processing Industry.................................................................      30,000
    University of Wyoming.........................  Food Safety and Quality Plan of Work Project........................................................................................      30,000

     NATIONAL INTEGRATED FOOD SAFETY INITIATIVE--
                         2000

    University of Alaska-Fairbanks................  Simplifying HACCP: An Interactive Software Prgm. for CCP Analysis of Recipes........................................................      50,000
    Auburn University.............................  Ethnic/Cultural Food Safety/Preservation Training Program S.D. Tribal Colleges......................................................     100,000
    Tuskegee University...........................  An Education and Outreach Center on Food Safety for Small Processors................................................................     100,000
    University of Arkansas........................  Operation Food Safety--Arkansas Public Schools......................................................................................      49,483
    University of Arizona.........................  HACCP for Small and Very Small Meat and Poultry Processors in Arizona...............................................................      99,988
    University of California......................  California Small Farm Food Safety Project...........................................................................................     181,291
    Colorado State University.....................  Food Safety Works: A Certificate Training Program for Welfare to Work...............................................................      53,966
    University of Connecticut.....................  Food Handler Education and Training for Hispanic Consumers and Youth................................................................     100,000
    University of Connecticut.....................  Food Safety Distance Education and Training.........................................................................................      59,902
    University of the District of Columbia........  Food Handler Education for Small Non-Commercial Service Agencies....................................................................      60,000
    University of Florida.........................  A National Science and Education Conference: Toward Implementing the ``Guide to Minimize Hazards on Fresh Fruits''..................      39,500
    University of Florida.........................  National Food Safety Database for Food Safety Information and Program Evaluation....................................................      52,500
    University of Georgia.........................  National Center for Home Food Preservation..........................................................................................     280,000
    University of Georgia.........................  Food Handler Education for Consumers and Youth Using Fight Bac! Video Curricula.....................................................     248,911
    University of Illinois........................  Partnership for Food Safety Certification Over the Worldwide Web....................................................................      59,330
    Purdue University.............................  Food Safety Education for High-Risk Audiences: Prenatal to Preschool................................................................     100,000
    Iowa State University.........................  Web-Based Reporting System: Indicator Facilitation for Food Safety & Quality Program................................................      40,000
    Kansas State University.......................  Veterinarian HACCP Training Program for Reducing ON-Farm Foodborne Pathogens........................................................      59,811
    Kansas State University.......................  Food-A-Syst for Food Producers and Home Food Preparers..............................................................................     100,000
    University of Kentucky........................  Development of Comprehensive HACCP Technical Support System.........................................................................     135,000
    Southern Univ. and A&M College................  Circle of Food Safety for Children, Families, and Communities.......................................................................      60,000
    Michigan State University.....................  HACCP Curriculum for Bay Mills Community College....................................................................................      50,000
    Michigan State University.....................  Fresh Juice HACCP Alliance and Train-the-Trainer Program............................................................................     109,090
    Michigan State University.....................  Food Handler Educational Training for Consumers and Youth in Poultry Areas..........................................................      99,850
    College of Micronesia.........................  Reducing Waterborne Disease in the Marshalls........................................................................................      24,390
    University of Minnesota.......................  Woodlands Wisdom: Holistic Approach to Food Safety Education........................................................................      99,980
    University of Minnesota.......................  Preserving Food Safety..............................................................................................................       9,865
    University of Minnesota.......................  Keep It Hot, Keep It Cold...........................................................................................................      21,767
    Alcorn State University.......................  Establish a Food Safety/Quality Assurance Prgm. for Small-Scale Farmers & Cooperatives in Mississippi...............................      88,200
    Lincoln University............................  Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Safety for Small Missouri Farms...........................................................................      87,376
    University of Nebraska........................  Food Safety and Limited Resources Management Collaborative Education Program........................................................      57,106
    University of Nebraska........................  HACCP Implementation/Mgmt. for Small Meat & Food Processors in 4 Midwest States.....................................................     200,000
    New Mexico State University...................  Trilingual (Navajo, Spanish and English) Games and Interactive Activities for Fight Bac! Outreach to Hard-to-Reach..................     100,000
    New Mexico State University...................  Navajo Food Safety--Pesticide Safety, Integrated Pest Mgmt. & Livestock Quality.....................................................      94,130
    Cornell University............................  An Internet Based Distance Education Seafood HACCP Alliance Training Program........................................................      51,378
    Cornell University............................  Reducing Microbial Risks in Fruits/Vegetables with Good Agricultural Practices in US................................................     731,481
    North Carolina State University...............  Development of Food Safety Educ. Prgm. for Congregate Nutrition Site Participants...................................................      23,811
    Ohio State University.........................  A HAACP-Based Plan for Ensuring Food Safety in Distribution, Shipping, and Retail Establishments....................................     119,650
    Ohio State University.........................  Program Indicators and a Web-Based Reporting System for the FSQ Initiative..........................................................      75,960
    Oregon State University.......................  Development and Delivery of HACCP Models for the Vegetable Sprout Industry..........................................................      97,599
    Oregon State University.......................  Native American Storytelling Teaches Food Safety in Oregon and Alaska...............................................................      86,287
    University of Tennessee.......................  Web-Based Food Safety Training to Vocational High School Teachers...................................................................      52,693
    Tennessee State University....................  Are They Effective for African American? Food Safety Messages.......................................................................      59,950
    Texas A&M University..........................  System Food Safety Education for Retail Employees...................................................................................      53,626
    Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State        Train-the-Trainer in SQF 2000: An Integrated HACCP Program..........................................................................     100,000
     University.
    Washington State University...................  HACCP Training and Development for the Lopez Island Food Processing Center..........................................................       8,992
    West Virginia University......................  Unsafe Temperatures in Home Refrigerators...........................................................................................      19,000
    University of Wisconsin.......................  Linking Food Safety to Farm-A-Syst/IPM to Reduce Microbial/Pesticide Risks in Apples................................................     150,000
    University of Wisconsin.......................  A National Risk Assessment Tool for Consumer Food Safety............................................................................     100,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  usda epscor
        Question. Please provide a chart listing, by state, the number of
    proposals submitted to each of the USDA EPSCoR award areas, and the
    number of those proposals which received funding for each of the past
    three fiscal years.
        Answer. A list of EPSCoR awards by state is provided under the
    National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program--NRICGP.
        [The information follows:]

                                             NRICGP STRENGTHENING STATISTICS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            1998                  1999                  2000
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Proposals    Awards   Proposals    Awards   Proposals    Awards
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    AK:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          O          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          0          0          2          0          1          1
        Standard..................................          1          0          1          1          1          0
    AL:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          3          3          0          0
        Seed......................................          4          1          1          0          1          1
        Standard..................................          4          0          4          0          1          1
    AR:
        Sabbatical................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          3          1          3          0          2          1
        Seed......................................          3          3          5          1          6          0
        Standard..................................         12          3         12          2         16          6
    CA:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          2          1          2          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          4          1         10          7          1          0
    CO:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          1          1          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          1          0          3          0          3          2
    CT:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          2          2          1          0
        Seed......................................          3          0          4          4          2          2
        Standard..................................         15          4          7          4          7          1
    DC:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          1          1
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          2          0          1          1          1          1
    DE:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          0          1          1          1          1
        Seed......................................          4          2          3          0          4          1
        Standard..................................          7          1          8          4          3          1
    FL:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          3          0          1          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          2          0          2          0          2          0
    GA:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          2          0          1          1
        Seed......................................          2          0          2          0          2          2
        Standard..................................          0          0          3          1          3          1
    HI:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          2          1          2          2
        Seed......................................          2          0          5          0          3          2
        Standard..................................          4          1          5          4          4          1
    IA:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          2          0          3          1          1          1
        Standard..................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
    ID:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          3          2          3          3          1          1
        Seed......................................          3          1          0          0          2          1
        Standard..................................         10          6         10          4          5          2
    IN:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          O          0          2          0          1          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
    IL:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          6          3          1          1
        Seed......................................          1          0          0          0          1          0
        Standard..................................          1          0          2          0          1          0
    KS:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          3          1          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          1          1          1          0
    KY:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          1          1
        Equipment.................................          2          0          0          0          1          1
        Seed......................................          0          0          0          0          3          2
        Standard..................................          0          0          3          0         15          6
    LA:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          1          0
        Seed......................................          1          0          2          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          2          0          2          0          1          0
    MA:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          0          0          1          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          0          2          0          1          1
        Standard..................................          0          0          3          1          4          0
    MD:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          0          1          0          1          0
        Standard..................................          2          1          2          0          1          0
    ME:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          1          1          1          1
        Seed......................................          5          2          4          2          1          0
        Standard..................................          0          0         12          4          7          3
    MI:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          2          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          1          1          0          1          0
        Standard..................................          1          0          3          1          1          0
    MN:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          1          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          3          0          1          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          2          0          2          0
    MO:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          1          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          3          1          2          1          1          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          2          2          2          0
    MP:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
    MS:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          2          1          4          4          1          1
        Seed......................................         10          2          8          2          3          1
        Standard..................................          9          1          7          2          5          1
    MT:
        Sabbatical................................          2          2          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          4          2          5          4
        Seed......................................          7          4          4          3          7          5
        Standard..................................          8          0          5          3         10          4
    NC:
        Sabbatical................................          1          0          1          1          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          3          2          7          3          2          0
        Standard..................................          2          0          2          1          2          0
    ND:
        Sabbatical................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          5          0          6          2          3          2
        Seed......................................          5          3          6          2          3          0
        Standard..................................          7          2          7          1          9          3
    NE:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0  .........  .........
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0  .........  .........
        Seed......................................          1          0          0          0  .........  .........
        Standard..................................          1          1          1          0          1          0
    NH:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          1          1
        Equipment.................................          2          2          3          1          0          0
        Seed......................................          5          2          4          1          0          0
        Standard..................................          3          3          3          2          5          3
    NJ:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          2          0
        Seed......................................          0          0          2          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          O          0          0  .........  .........
    NM:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          1          0          1          1
        Seed......................................          0          0          2          1          2          1
        Standard..................................          2          0          1          0          1          1
    NV:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          2          1          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          0          0          1          1          1          1
        Standard..................................          3          2          6          1          5          1
    NY:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          1          1          1          1
        Seed......................................          4          0          7          3          5          1
        Standard..................................          6          3          4          3          1          0
    OH:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          2          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          2          0          3          0          2          1
        Standard..................................          1          0          2          0          1          0
    OK:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          5          3          1          0
        Seed......................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
    OR:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          0          0          0          1          1
        Seed......................................          1          0          1          1          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
    PA:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          1          0          1          1
        Seed......................................          4          2          2          O          2          0
        Standard..................................          3          1          3          0          2          1
    PR:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          1          1
        Seed......................................          0          0          2          0          1          0
        Standard..................................          1          0          0          0          1          0
    RI:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          4          3          6          4          2          2
        Seed......................................          5          2          1          0          2          2
        Standard..................................          4          1          5          3          4          0
    SC:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          4          2          2          2          1          0
        Seed......................................          9          2          9          5          3          0
        Standard..................................         17          1          8          3         11          1
    SD:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          1          1          0          0
        Equipment.................................          3          2          6          2          5          3
        Seed......................................          6          1         10          2          5          2
        Standard..................................         12          1          9          1         10          3
    TN:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          7          4          1          1
        Seed......................................          5          0          2          1          1          0
        Standard..................................          3          2          1          1          1          0
    TX:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          1          1          1          0
        Seed......................................          4          0          3          1          2          0
        Standard..................................          2          0          0          0          5          3
    UT:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          2          1          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          2          2          0          0
        Seed......................................          4          1          5          2          0          0
        Standard..................................          7          1         12          3          0          0
    VA:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          2          0          2          0
    VI:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Seed......................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
    VT:
        Sabbatical................................          1          1          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          1          0          1          1          1
        Seed......................................          4          2          4          2          2          2
        Standard..................................          2          0          6          3          3          2
    WA:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          2          1          1          1          1          1
        Seed......................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
        Standard..................................          0          0          0          0          0          0
    WI:
        Sabbatical................................          1          0          0          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          0          0          1          0
        Seed......................................          2          0          3          0          2          1
        Standard..................................          0          0          3          1          2          1
    WV:
        Sabbatical................................          0          0          1          0          0          0
        Equipment.................................          0          0          3          1          2          2
        Seed......................................          4          1          6          2          3          1
        Standard..................................          8          3          3          3          0          0
    WY:
        Sabbatical................................          1          0          1          1          0          0
        Equipment.................................          1          0          1          0          5          3
        Seed......................................          2          0          1          1          4          2
        Standard..................................          3          1          1          1          9          3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           economic research service
        Question. In the President's budget an increase is requested to
    continue the retail meat purchase price reporting system in which a
    large portion of the increase is for data purchase from retailers. How
    do you plan on protecting the confidentiality of the retailers that the
    information is being purchased from?
        Answer. Ensuring data confidentiality has been an important goal
    from the start of the project to collect retail scanner data. In order
    to reassure stores about the confidentiality of this process, the
    initial data collection and processing will be handled by a third-party
    contractor. Many stores now sell scanner data to market information
    firms who process the data and re-sell statistics to food and package-
    good manufacturing firms. This contractor will provide us with summary
    statistics, not individual store data. There will be no way to identify
    firm-level information from the data received from the third-party
    contractor. Information will be further analyzed and summarized before
    it is posted to the ERS website for public consumption.
        Question. Can you elaborate on the development of additional
    information regarding retail price measurements and price transmissions
    between retail, wholesale, and the farm level.
        Answer. The Mandatory Livestock Price Reporting Act of 1999
    requires USDA to provide better information on the average prices paid
    for cuts of meat and the sales volume moving through grocery stores.
    Currently, the only public source of retail food prices is the Bureau
    of Labor Statistics (BLS). This information is limited and the efforts
    of the Economic Research Service will provide better price information
    on retail meats. According to ERS, the price reporting system will
    significantly improve the quality of price measurement at the retail
    level. We will know more about price transmissions from wholesalers to
    grocery stores, but at this point efforts are not focused on improving
    price data from the farm to wholesale level. Early research on price
    transmission should identify whether the new retail price data shows a
    different pattern of price adjustment than retail prices calculated
    using BLS procedures.
        The present data-collection systems do a poor job of tracking meat
    products once they leave the wholesale level. Currently, we do not know
    how much meat goes to retail grocery stores versus other areas, such as
    food service or exports. According to ERS, the new process of using
    grocery store scanner data is designed to better capture the average
    price that consumers pay for meat cuts. For instance, BLS prices are
    recorded as of a particular point in time and no adjustments are made
    to prices for a variety of consumer discounts, which are captured
    through scanner data. Also, price data collected by BLS is not
    associated with quantities sold. Not only will the scanner data provide
    better data on meat prices, it will provide data on the weight and type
    of cuts of meat. Thus, the new process will weight the prices by sales
    volume. Consumers are likely to buy less of a product when its price is
    high than when it is low. We expect that the average price paid for
    meat cuts will be lower using this method than the average price
    reported by BLS for meat cuts.
        Question. Do you foresee any shortfalls in the implementation of
    this program if new funds are not provided.
        Answer. Without new funding, we would be unable to purchase data
    and improvements to price reporting would be limited. The kind of data
    required to improve price reporting as intended by the Mandatory Price
    Reporting Act is available only from commercial sources. Commercial
    purchase of data on retail prices and quantities of variable weight
    meat products will be the largest part of the annual expenses--
    approximately $1 million per year.
        Question. For the past three years the Economic Research Service
    (ERS) has been given the responsibility to manage the research program
    for the nation's food assistance programs. With a $3 million decrease
    in funds proposed in the fiscal year 2002 budget, how will this affect
    the ongoing research programs carried out by ERS and how will it affect
    full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel requirements?
        Answer. The President's budget for fiscal 2002 proposes to split
    the research funds with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) so that
    FNS can undertake necessary short-term programmatic information
    collections, policy studies and budget analyses. FNS studies are highly
    targeted and typically address a narrow program or policy related issue
    that are best handled by the program agency. This change will not
    affect ERS staffing because those researchers who would have been
    monitoring outside contracts will be redirected to high priority
    internally conducted research.
        Question. Will there be a need to improve coordination between the
    Economic Research Service and the Food and Nutrition Service given the
    proposed sharing of research program monies?
        Answer. While there will continue to be a need to closely
    coordinate research between the two agencies, we anticipate that this
    split will actually reduce the especially high degree of coordination
    needed for the short-term, highly programmatic studies that are
    currently being directed by the Economic Research Service.
        Question. How does ERS prioritize the research projects it conducts
    for other USDA agencies and other organizations with the agency's
    normal workload?
        Answer. In developing its research program, ERS attempts to
    anticipate the program and policy issues that USDA agencies will likely
    have to confront in the near future. ERS also seeks input from a broad
    constituency of policy officials, researchers, practitioners,
    advocates, industry groups, and service providers, and hosts a series
    of round-table discussions with representatives of these constituents
    to identify crucial research and policy information needs.
         Question. What are the research priority areas for fiscal year
    2002?
        Answer. In general, ERS priorities include, among others, improving
    our understanding of the effects of trade agreements on agricultural
    markets, improving the effectiveness of polices designed to ensure a
    safe food supply, assessing the impacts of alternative farm production
    management systems and analyzing market trends for genetically modified
    crops. I will have ERS supply more specific information for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        Assessing the adaptation of the U.S. food and agricultural sector
    to changing market structure and post-WTO and post-NAFTA trade
    conditions. This includes analyzing factors that drive change in the
    structure and performance of domestic and global food and agriculture
    markets, and analyzing how global environmental change, international
    trade agreements, and foreign trade restrictions affect U.S.
    agricultural production, exports, imports, and income. A critical
    component of analysis of the implications of rapid structural change in
    food and agricultural markets is the ERS request for funding to improve
    the price reporting of meat products.
        Building the analytical and empirical base for improving the
    efficiency and effectiveness of public policies and programs designed
    to protect consumers from unsafe food. This includes analyzing the
    benefits of safer food, such as reducing direct medical costs and
    indirect costs associated with productivity losses from foodborne
    illnesses caused by microbial pathogens, and estimating the costs of
    alternative food safety policies.
        Analyzing factors affecting dietary changes and trends in America's
    eating habits, including impacts on agricultural producers and the
    structure of the food industry, and providing economic evaluations of
    nutrition and food assistance programs, such as factors determining
    changes in Food Stamp program participation. The three research
    emphases for food assistance and nutrition studies conducted under the
    Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP) are diet and
    nutrition outcomes, food program targeting and delivery, and program
    dynamics and administration.
        Assessing the profitability and environmental impacts of
    alternative farm production management systems, including the cost-
    effectiveness and equity dimensions of public sector conservation
    policies and programs. ERS is also putting increased priority on
    understanding and analyzing trends in adoption of genetically modified
    crops and the emergence of markets for both genetically modified and
    non-genetically modified commodities.
        Identifying how investments, technology, employment opportunities
    and job training, Federal policies, and demographic trends affect rural
    America's capacity to prosper in the global marketplace. This includes
    analysis of rural financial markets and how the availability of Federal
    credit, public spending, taxes, and regulations influence rural
    economic development.
        Conducting the economic analysis required to support litigation of
    the Pigford Consent Decree which is from a class action lawsuit that
    alleges racial discrimination of USDA farm loan and benefit programs.
    ERS' role, for which it is requesting an increase of 600,000 is to
    generate an objective estimate of economic damages in each particular
    case using a consistent, understandable, and defensible methodology
    that is based on standardized farm accounting procedures.
        Question. How much ERS research is conducted in-house and how much
    is contracted out?
        Answer. The ERS research program is predominantly an in-house
    program supplemented with a number of small cooperative agreements with
    land-grant university researchers, with the exception of the food
    assistance research program. Currently, about 80 percent of the food
    assistance research is conducted outside the agency and 20 percent is
    conducted in-house.
                              agriculture research
        Question. What is the specific program rationale for terminating
    the following research projects being carried out by the Agricultural
    Research Service?

    Bioinformatics................................................  $474,000
    Biobased technology...........................................   284,000
    Biomass-based energy..........................................   900,000
    Citrus canker................................................. 4,740,000
    Citrus tristeza...............................................   740,000
    Exotic pest diseases.......................................... 1,247,000
    Pierce's Disease.............................................. 1,896,000
    Avian Leukosis--J Virus.......................................   250,000
    Fusarium Head Blight..........................................   798,200

        The Committee notes that these research initiatives are budgeted
    also as increases in the fiscal year 2002 request.
        Answer. The first seven items on the list are Special Research
    Grants funded under CSREES. No funding is proposed for these Special
    Research Grants in the fiscal year 2002 Cooperative State Research,
    Education, and Extension Service budget request. This action is
    consistent with the Administration's belief that the most effective use
    of taxpayer dollars is through competitively-awarded, peer-reviewed
    grants that meet National goals. Alternate funding from formula
    programs, State and local governments, and private sources could be
    used to support aspects of this program deemed to be of a priority at
    State and/or local levels.
        The last two items on the list are Agricultural Research Service
    projects. A Congressional program increase of $249,450 for research on
    avian leukosis J virus (an emerging virus infection that causes cancer-
    like-disease and production problems in chickens) was approved in
    fiscal year 2001. This increase was not included in the President's
    Budget for fiscal year 2002. Plans are to use available resources on
    research issues of higher national priority. ARS does, however, have an
    ongoing research program on avian retroviruses including avian leukosis
    J virus at the ARS Avian Diseases and Oncology Laboratory in East
    Lansing, Michigan. This ongoing research program will continue to
    provide necessary research information that will help the poultry
    industry in their efforts to control this important disease.
        A Congressional program increase of $798,200 for research on
    Fusarium Head Blight was approved in fiscal year 2001. This increase
    was not included in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2002. Plans
    are to use these available resources on research issues of higher
    national priority.
        Question. What is the status of each of the ARS projects funded for
    fiscal year 2001? In many cases, ARS is to hire scientists to implement
    the research required under the Act. By project, what is the status of
    hiring new scientists?
        Answer. ARS plans to hire approximately 100 additional scientists
    in order to implement increases provided in 2001 for budget initiatives
    and new projects established by Congress. The status of new ARS
    scientists being hired due to all fiscal year 2001 increases is
    provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                                 STATUS OF SY RECRUITMENT
                                               [Fiscal Year 2001 Increase]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Location                             Job title                          Recruitment status
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ithaca, NY.......................  Cat 4 Bioinformatics..................  Certificate issued 5/8/01.
    Leetown, WV......................  Research Geneticist (Animal)..........  Vacancy announcement closed 3/20/01.
    Wyndmoor, PA.....................  Chemist/Food Technologist.............  Position description is being
                                                                                finalized; Selection has been made.
    Beltsville, MD ANRI/FTSL.........  Microbiologist/Food Technologist......  Vacancy announcement closes 6/11/01.
    Beltsville, ANRI/FTSL............  MD Microbiologist/Food Technologist...  Vacancy announcement closes 6/25/01.
    Beltsville, MD ANRI/ISL..........  Agricultural Engineer.................  Completed. Filled by internal
                                                                                reassignment Biomed. Eng.
    Wyndmoor, PA.....................  Research Chemist......................  Readvertisement closed 4/19/01;
                                                                                Certificate issued 4/24/01.
    Beltsville, MD ANRI/AMBL.........  Research Chemist......................  NPS disapproved proposed position
                                                                                Description 5/8/01. Supervisor is
                                                                                Making changes.
    Plum Island, NY..................  VMO and Microbiologist................  Tentative effective date of 7/10/01.
                                                                                Microbiologist. Action pending.
    Montpellier, France..............  Entomologist..........................  Position description being prepared.
    Beltsvillle, MD PSI/CAIBL........  Research Chemist......................  Recruitment action received.
                                                                                Selection made.
    Leetown, WV......................  Research Physiologist.................  Certificate issued 4/4/01.
    Orono, ME........................  Soil Scientist........................  Certificate issued 4/16/01.
    University Park, PA..............  Soil Scientist/Agronomist.............  Recruitment action pending
    Frederick, MD....................  Plant Pathologist.....................  Certificate issued 5/7/01.
    Kearneysville, WV................  Plant Geneticist/Molecular Biologist/   Certificates issued 4/16/01 and 5/9/
                                        Plant Pathologist.                      01.
    Beltsville, MD ANRI/PBSEL........  Research Molecular Biologist..........  Vacancy announcement closed 5/7/01.
    Ithaca, NY.......................  Ecologist.............................  Selection effective 2/11/01.
    Beltsville, MD Nat'l Arb/F&N.....  Research Agronomist...................  Position moved to the National
                                                                                Arboretum. Supervisor is writing the
                                                                                position description.
    Struttgart, AR...................  Research Fishery Biologist............  Certificate issued 4/13/01.
    Athens, GA.......................  Veterinary Medical Officer............  Student trainee to be converted
                                                                                (pending graduation)
    New Orleans, LA..................  Agricultural Engineer.................  Recruitment action initiated.
    Winter Haven, FL.................  Research Chemist......................  Closed 4/9/01; SME reviewing
                                                                                applications.
    Auburn, AL.......................  Molecular Biologist/Microbiologist....  Selection made; EOD 6/3/01.
    Miami, FL........................  Research Geneticist...................  Selection made; EOD 11/5/00.
    Starkville, MS...................  Res. Plant Pathologist/Physiologist...  Selection made; EOD 9/10/01.
    Las Cruces, NM...................  Research Textile Technologist.........  Selection made; EOD 4/22/01.
    Las Cruces, NM...................  Agricultural Mechanical Engineer......  Certificate issued 3/28/01.
    Booneville, AR...................  Research Animal Scientist.............  Drafting vacancy announcement
    Athens, GA.......................  Res. Food Tech/Agricultural Engr......  Certificate issued 4/6/01.
    Athens, GA.......................  Res. Food Tech/Agricultural Engr......  Announcement closes 5/29/01.
    College Station, TX..............  Microbiologist........................  Selection made; EOD 3/11/01.
    Athens, GA.......................  Microbiologist........................  Certificate issued 2/26/01;
                                                                                interviews being conducted.
    Lubbock, TX......................  Microbiologist........................  Certificate issued 4/13/01.
    Athens, GA.......................  Research Physiologist.................  Certificate issued 4/6/01.
    Athens, GA.......................  Res. Plant Pathologist/Microbiologist.  Closed 3/26/01; SME reviewing
                                                                                applications.
    Little Rock, AR..................  Immunologist..........................  Closed 5/25/01.
    Florence, SC.....................  Soil Scientist........................  Selection made; EOD 4/22/01.
    Gainesville, FL..................  Research Entomologist.................  Certificate issued 3/30/01.
    Auburn, AL.......................  Soil Scientist/Res. Agon./Res. Hydr...  Readvertised; Closed 4/30/01;
                                                                                Certificate issued 5/11/01.
    Stoneville, MS...................  Res. Geneticist/Animal Scientist......  Selection made; EOD pending receipt
                                                                                Of PhD in September 2001.
    Tifton, GA.......................  Research Plant Pathologist............  Certificate issued 4/5/01.
    Las Cruces, NM...................  Rangeland Scientist/Ecologist.........  Closed 5/25/01.
    Las Cruces, NM...................  Research Plant Physiologist...........  Closed 5/25/01.
    Las Cruces, NM...................  Research Hydrologist..................  Selection made; EOD 5/6/01.
    Las Cruces, NM...................  Range Scientist.......................  Selection made, EOD 4/22/01.
    Stoneville, MS...................  Research Entomologist.................  Readvertised; closed 6/15/01.
    Stoneville, MS...................  Research Geneticist (Plants)..........  Selection made; tentative EOD 8/26/
                                                                                01, pending ad hoc panel.
    Stoneville, MS...................  Research Plant Pathologist............  Certificate issued 3/23/01.
    Stoneville, MS...................  Research Geneticist (Plants)..........  Certificate issued 3/29/01.
    Lubbock, TX......................  Research Plant Physiologist...........  Certificate issued 3/29/01.
    Lubbock, TX......................  Soil Scientist/Microbiologist.........  Certificate issued 3/27/01.
    MS State, MS.....................  Agronomist............................  Selection made; EOD 6/17/01.
    Stoneville, MS...................  Research Biologist (Weed Ecology).....  Certificate issued 4/6/01.
    Ft. Pierce, FL...................  Microbiologist/Res. Plant Pathologist.  Closed 6/4/01.
    Ames, IA.........................  Veterinary Medical Officer............  Announcement being drafted.
    Ames, IA.........................  Microbiologist........................  Recruitment period extended.
    Ames, IA.........................  Entomologist..........................  Announcement closed 6/1/01.
    Ames, IA.........................  Immunologist..........................  Filled.
    Peoria, IL.......................  Genet/Mycotox./Plant Pathologist......  Closed 6/9/01.
    Peoria, IL.......................  Biochemist/Molecular Biologist........  Closed 6/15/01.
    E. Lansing, MI/Avian Disease       Geneticist............................  Closed 5/18/01.
     (Listed under Headquarters).
    W. Lafayette, IN.................  (2) Positions--Crop Production........  No recruitment action initiated.
    Madison, WI......................  Soil Scientist........................  Announcement closes 7/2/01.
    Madison, WI......................  Chemist...............................  Announcement closed 6/4/01.
    Albany, CA.......................  Research Chemist/Res. Entomologist....  Announcement closing date extended to
                                                                                5/14/01.
    Albany, CA.......................  Ecologist.............................  Certificate Issued 2/27/01.
    Albany, CA.......................  Research Chemist......................  Vacancy announcement sent to target
                                                                                location for clearance before
                                                                                recruitment action initiated.
    Albany, CA.......................  Microbiologist........................  Certificate Issued 5/1/01.
    Parlier, CA......................  Plant Pathologist.....................  No recruitment action has been
                                                                                initiated.
    Parlier, CA......................  (2) Entomologist......................  No recruitment action has been
                                                                                initiated.
    Pullman, WA......................  Research Plant Pathologist............  Certificate Issued 4/27/01.
    Pullman, WA......................  Veterinary Medical Officer............  Vacancy announcement sent to
                                                                                targetlocation for clearance before
                                                                                recruitment action initiated.
    Fresno, CA.......................  Soil Scientist........................  Certificate Issued 3/7/01.
    Davis, CA........................  Research Gen./Phy.....................  Announcement closed 6/1/01.
    Prosser, WA......................  Research Gen..........................  Certificate Issued 4/9/01.
    Aberdeen, ID.....................  Geneticist............................  No recruitment action initiated.
    Hilo, HI.........................  Research Horticulturist...............  Announcement closed 4/2/01.
    Burns, OR........................  Rangeland Scientist...................  Selection made; EOD 4/8/01.
    Pullman, WA......................  Research Plant Pathologist............  Announcement closed 5/7/01.
    Clay Center, NE..................  Bioinf./Comp. Spec....................  No recruitment action initiated.
    Logan, UT........................  Bee Research..........................  No recruitment action initiated.
    Fargo, ND........................  Geneticist............................  Announcement closed 5/21/01.
    Fargo, ND........................  Gen./Plant Pathologist................  No recruitment action initiated.
    Clay Center,.....................  NE Microbiol./VMO.....................  Certificate Issued 2/21/01.
    Ft. Collins, CO..................  Weed Sci./Ecologist...................  Vacancy reannounced. Closed 6/11/01.
    Sidney, MT.......................  Entom./Weed Sci.......................  Recruitment pending.
    Grand Forks, ND..................  Geneticist............................  No recruitment action initiated.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Describe current research and funding for Foot-and-Mouth
    Disease (FMD). What are your priority research issues? What progress
    has been made to date on each research project?
        Answer. Current ARS research priorities are: 1) development of
    highly specific and rapid diagnostic technology, and 2) development of
    a vaccine that can be deployed in case of an outbreak. The current ARS
    funding for the Foot-and-Mouth Disease research program is $5,230,800.
    ARS has developed and is currently validating a highly specific nucleic
    acid on-site detection technology that allows minimally trained
    personnel using a briefcase-sized device to definitively identify FMD
    virus on the farm within an hour. This on-site technology can also be
    adapted to screen imported carcasses for animals that have been
    previously infected with FMD and also for animals that have been
    vaccinated against the disease. ARS will test two promising vaccine
    candidates. The first is a synthetic peptide vaccine produced by a
    company on Long Island, New York. The technology is based on research
    conducted by ARS scientists at Plum Island Animal Disease Center
    (PIADC) over the past 20 years. The company indicates that this vaccine
    protects swine and has been selling the product in Taiwan and China.
    ARS is currently proposing to work with this company to examine the
    vaccine's protective ability for cattle and sheep and to determine if
    the virus is carried by vaccinated animals that were later exposed to
    infection. This peptide vaccine would be the only readily available
    product should the U.S. urgently need to vaccinate animals with a type
    of virus vaccine not present in the North American Vaccine Bank. The
    second candidate vaccine is an ARS-developed adenovirus vectored
    (genetically engineered) FMD vaccine that has been shown to protect
    swine in laboratory studies. This work will be extended to tests in
    cattle and sheep to determine if all species are protected. These
    vaccines differ in several features and need to be compared for
    efficacy, particularly for their ability to protect under outbreak
    conditions.
        CSREES provides only limited funding for research directly focused
    on the virus itself through the National Research Initiative which must
    go to the ARS facility at Plum Island. In addition, CSREES has funded
    four additional projects related to FMD which are primarily focused on
    economic impacts of the disease and the evaluation of potential
    management response systems that might be employed in the event of an
    outbreak of FMD. Three of these projects are funded through Formula
    Funds--Hatch and Animal Health--and one with funds from the National
    Research Initiative. All of the projects are located at the University
    of California-Davis.
        Question. How are U.S. Foot-and-Mouth Disease research, control and
    eradication activities coordinated with those of Great Britain, Canada
    and others? Have these countries applied the same technologies and
    strategies as would the U.S. under similar circumstances?
        Answer. ARS research supports the regulatory activities of APHIS in
    control and eradication of FMD. ARS also has collaborative research
    with Great Britain and other nations. ARS is developing new rapid
    diagnostic capabilities to test for FMD and is working with Great
    Britain to evaluate the technology. ARS coordinates its vaccine
    research with APHIS priorities for vaccines. ARS conducts collaborative
    research with several nations that have endemic FMD including South
    Africa to develop new vaccines that can be produced in those nations.
        APHIS coordinates its Foot-and-Mouth Disease program with many
    countries. The Agency has provided a support role to Great Britain
    during its most recent outbreak. In general, APHIS coordinates its
    animal health activities with other member countries of the
    International Organization of Epizootics (OIE). The OIE is the
    internationally recognized standard-setting body for diagnostic testing
    and vaccines. Through this organization, APHIS also helps to establish
    international guidelines for surveillance and monitoring. Great Britain
    and other members of the World Trade Organization abide by the
    standards of the OIE.
        In the countries of the Western hemisphere, APHIS actively
    coordinates FMD research, control, and eradication activities. Mexico
    and the U.S. have had a joint commission since 1948, with an APHIS co-
    director stationed in Mexico City. APHIS also works closely with Canada
    through the North American Animal Health Committee. The two countries
    do test exercises and perform outbreak scenarios where they recently
    tested their vaccination programs. Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. share
    the North American Vaccine Bank, which contains many prevalent strains
    of FMD ready in the event of an outbreak in any of the three countries.
        Due to the threat of FMD coming overland, APHIS maintains bilateral
    agreements with each country of Central America. In Panama, APHIS
    performs FMD laboratory testing, monitoring, and surveillance
    activities through the US-Panama Cooperative Program for the Prevention
    of Foot-and-Mouth Disease, with the goal of preventing outbreaks from
    coming in from Colombia.
        In South America, where FMD is endemic, APHIS is involved in
    bilateral as well as regional programs to prevent FMD. APHIS has been
    working in Colombia on maintaining a barrier for FMD on the Panama-
    Colombia border. The Agency also supports the hemispheric plan, based
    on Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, Peru, and Venezuela working together to
    eradicate FMD. Eradicating FMD from the hemisphere would greatly reduce
    the risk of an outbreak in the United States.
        Question. Should the U.S. find FMD within its borders next week,
    how would APHIS and other agencies utilize and deploy existing research
    detection and vaccine technologies? What actions would the U.S.
    implement?
        Answer. If APHIS were to confirm an outbreak of FMD in the United
    States, APHIS would respond according to the Agency's FMD response
    plan. Because specific outbreak situations vary, and each State's
    emergency response capabilities differ, APHIS' FMD response plan is
    designed to be flexible and dynamic. APHIS' FMD response plan taps
    State and Federal resources as available, and allows the Agency's
    animal health expertise and coordination skills to fill any remaining
    gaps. After identification of disease subtype, APHIS would activate the
    FMD vaccine bank, order vaccine doses, and consider using the vaccine
    as a tool in our eradication effort. APHIS would also work with the
    Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to transfer technology from the
    laboratory which has been proven to be useful in our response effort,
    to the field. An example of this technology is the use of rapid
    detection tests.
        Upon the initial confirmation of FMD, APHIS and State officials
    would immediately begin investigating the source and trace all animals
    that may have come into contact with the disease. These officials
    apprise both State and Federal officials on the status of their
    investigation and will also initiate emergency response efforts at the
    State and local level. These measures include notifying State
    agriculture and, if necessary, public health officials of the disease
    detection, securing the biosecurity of the affected site including
    depopulating the whole herd, establishing and maintaining animal
    movement quarantines, and alerting officials in neighboring States.
        APHIS would expect to pay fair market value for all animals,
    products, or articles destroyed as part of an FMD eradication program.
    Additionally, the Agency would pay for certain directly associated
    costs like cleaning and disinfection of affected premises and care and
    feed for vaccinated animals until they are destroyed, should we employ
    that eradication tool. The basic principle is to ensure that owners do
    not have to incur out of pocket costs or suffer the loss of the value
    of their animals. The policy would cover animals, products, or articles
    we must destroy regardless of where we find them.
        Question. Your budget recommends an increase of $5 million for
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), or ``Mad Cow Disease'' which,
    to date, has had a devastating impact on Great Britain and Europe. Have
    USDA scientists been engaged in research collaboration with these
    countries concerning these outbreaks? What actions would the U.S. take
    under similar circumstances?
        Answer. ARS has no research effort specifically targeted to the
    unique problem of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). ARS
    scientists at the Animal Disease Research Unit (ADRU) in Pullman,
    Washington are currently collaborating with their counterparts at the
    National Center for Foreign Animal Disease, Winnipeg, Canada and the
    Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, U.K. and USDA-APHIS to
    validate reagents that potentially can be used for BSE surveillance.
    These reagents, which bind to the causative agent of disease (prions),
    were developed from research to test for scrapie, a TSE disease of
    sheep directly related to BSE in cattle. This test, known as the third-
    eyelid-test, is the only practical live animal test for scrapie disease
    in sheep. At the Western Regional Research Center, Albany, California,
    ARS has initiated a research program to develop methods to detect for
    the presence of ruminant proteins and central nervous system (CNS)
    tissue in animal foods and feeds. Prohibition of feeding ruminant
    derived tissues to cattle is known to be an effective way of breaking
    the chain of transmission of BSE disease. If a TSE of cattle (BSE) were
    found in the U.S., slaughter and restriction on movement of ruminants
    and ruminant byproducts should be based on environmental monitoring as
    well as conventional epidemiology and diagnostics. USDA will provide
    the appropriate regulatory and action agencies, and the pharmaceutical
    industry the tools to identify and contain any potential exposure of
    humans to infectious materials.
        The CSREES role in the instance of an outbreak of BSE would be to
    provide funding to scientists in various research centers, including
    Federal facilities to conduct needed research as determined by mutual
    consultation with ARS and APHIS.
        Question. USDA/ARS is funding research on Transmissible Spongiform
    Encephalopathy (TSE). Where is this research conducted? How much is
    currently spent on TSE? Please describe these programs. Are there other
    TSEs which we are not funding? How much funding is required to put a
    meaningful TSE research program in effect?
        Answer. ARS conducts Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE)
    research on scrapie in sheep, and chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer
    and elk, both naturally occurring TSE diseases within the U.S. This
    research is conducted at the National Animal Disease Center (NADC) in
    Ames, Iowa, and the Animal Disease Research Laboratories (ADRL) in
    Pullman, Washington. ARS funding for this research is currently $2.6
    million. The research programs focus on: (1) developing control
    measures for sheep scrapie and CWD through improved diagnostic tests,
    defining genetic (prion) susceptibility, and defining the routes of
    transmission through cells and secreted molecules; (2) developing and
    validating the nictating membrane biopsy (third-eyelid-test) for the
    preclinical diagnosis of scrapie in sheep; (3) determining if U.S.
    agents that cause Spongiform Encephalopathy in sheep and mule deer will
    cause a disease in cattle resembling BSE; (4) determining if the agent
    of CWD will cause scrapie in sheep; and (5) developing diagnostic
    methods that can detect TSE in live and dead animals. Currently, ARS
    has no research effort specifically targeted to the unique problem of
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle. The recently
    published report (May, 2001) from the ARS-BSE workshop indicated
    several critical research priorities that need to be immediately
    addressed in order to provide new tools for use in prevention and
    controls strategies to further reduce the risk of TSE diseases in the
    U.S. Current funding levels must be significantly increased in order to
    address these priorities. To initiate these research priorities is
    outlined in the agency's fiscal year 2002 budget includes an increase
    of $5 million for BSE research.
        The following table shows research and control funds for BSE and
    other TSEs, by agency.

                   UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE--TRANSMISSIBLE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHIES
                                                [In thousands of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           2000        2001 Estimate    2002 Budget
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Research: Agricultural                       0               0           5,000
     Research Service
        Control: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.........              78              78              78
    Other Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies:
        Research:
            Agricultural Research Service...........................           2,589           2,622           2,622
            Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension                 325             388             294
             Service................................................
        Control: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.........          16,072           8,983          21,942
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, USDA TSEs..........................................          19,064          12,071          29,936
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. How does TSE and BSE differ? How much reliable
    information does the scientific community (here and abroad) have on BSE
    and TSE?
        Answer. Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE's) are a
    family of progressive, degenerative, fatal neurological diseases that
    affect both animals and humans. TSE's take their name in-part from the
    brain lesions that these diseases cause, the lesions leaving the brain
    with numerous holes, giving the appearance similar to that of a sponge.
    The modified host protein or prion hypothesis is generally the accepted
    theory as regards to the nature of the infectious agents. The major
    animal forms of these diseases are bovine spongiform encephalopathy
    (BSE) in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, chronic wasting disease
    (CWD) in deer and elk, transmissible mink encephalopathy (TME), and
    feline spongiform encephalopathy (FSE), which is the expression of BSE
    in domestic cats. The human forms of these diseases are Creutzfeldt-
    Jacob disease (CJD), new-variant Creutzfeldt-Jacob disease (nvCJD)
    whose causative agent is indistinguishable from BSE, Gerstmann-
    Strausslaer-Scheinker syndrome (GSS) the familial form of CJD, fatal
    familial insomnia (FFI) an inherited TSE similar to familial CJD, and
    Kuru, a TSE restricted to the Fore people of New Guinea and spread by
    ritualistic cannibalism.
        There has been considerable research effort by the scientific
    community to understand specific TSE's. Expert reports are available
    from the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology in the U.S.
    and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food (MAFF) in the U.K.
    Kuru is now primarily of historical importance since cannibalism is
    prohibited. Although scrapie was first recognized in the U.K. and other
    Western countries more than 250 years ago, the means of natural
    transmission have still not been fully defined. It is thought to be
    spread most commonly from ewe to offspring and to other lambs through
    contact with the placenta and placental fluids. Studies have found no
    scientific evidence that scrapie poses a risk to human health. ARS has
    developed the first practical preclinical test for the disease. CWD was
    first recognized in the U.S. in 1967. It naturally affects free ranging
    deer and Rocky Mountain elk. The origin of CWD and routes of
    transmission are not known. There is no reliable test for CWD in the
    live animal and post mortem testing involves the detection of the agent
    in the central nervous system. CWD is not a USDA program disease and
    legal tests for diagnosis of disease in clinical and preclinical deer
    and elk are not yet validated. BSE as a clinical disorder in cattle was
    first reported in the U.K. in 1986. BSE is thought to originate from
    contamination of feed by infectious material in meat and bone meal from
    rendered livestock. The infectious agent appears to be an infectious
    ruminant protein (Prp-sc) recycled through the rendering process. The
    BSE is thought to have originated in sheep and jumped the species
    barrier into cattle. A novel TSE of humans, nvCJD was reported in 1996.
    This disorder is believed to have arisen by ingestion of tissue or food
    products contaminated with the transmissible agent of BSE.
        Despite research efforts there are still many critical questions
    and issues relative to TSE's. These include: determining the nature,
    structure and function of the TSE agents; what is the mechanism of
    transmission of TSE agents, and how does the species barrier to
    transmission of TSE's work; developing methods to detect and type TSE's
    both pre-clinically, postmortem, and in feeds and foods; how does TSE
    disease occur; how do host genetics influence TSE disease
    susceptibility; what is the epidemiology of TSE diseases; and can
    methods to inactivate the TSE agents be developed.
        Question. Your budget proposes to define the nature, transmission,
    detection and diagnosis of BSE. Please describe in detail the planned
    implementation of the proposed research. Where will this research be
    done in the U.S.?
        Answer. The ARS research implementation plan for BSE includes
    several projects. One set of projects is an integrated approach for
    improved detection of BSE and will be conducted at the ARS Animal
    Disease Research Unit (ADRU), Pullman, Washington and the Western
    Regional Research Center (WRRC), Albany, California. ARS research will:
    (a) validate the gold standard assay for TSEs; (b) develop a system for
    differentiating the TSEs endemic to North American ruminants from BSE;
    (c) develop methods for real-time testing of cattle in slaughter
    facilities; and (d) develop methods for detecting PrP-TSE (prion
    proteins) in materials not intended for human food. The plan includes
    collaboration with the National Center for Foreign Animal Disease
    (NCFAD), Winnipeg, Canada, to test postmortem samples and validate the
    final reagent set and protocol. BSE test validation will include brain
    samples from cattle exhibiting neurologic signs and previously examined
    by histology and immunohistochemistry. The ARS laboratory in Pullman,
    WA is also collaborating with Colorado State and Wyoming State
    Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratories (CS-WSVDL) for PrP-TSE detection and
    pathology, CJD testing, and diagnostic methods development in brain
    tissue from deer and elk. The CS-WSVDL will assist in validation of a
    live-animal test for scrapie and a preclinical test diagnostic or
    slaughter test. ARS is collaborating with the University of Washington
    to develop rodent detection assays of infectivity and with Washington
    State University to develop specific reagents, monoclonal antibody to
    PrP-TSE.
        Another set of ARS projects focuses on development and validation
    of detection methods for TSEs in live animals and will be conducted at
    the National Animal Disease Center (NADC), Ames, Iowa. ARS will also
    determine whether imported sheep were infected with BSE or another TSE.
    Research will be carried out in the Virus and Prion Diseases of
    Livestock Research Unit at NADC in collaboration with APHIS National
    Veterinary Services Laboratory, Ames, Iowa and Veterinary Laboratories
    Agency, Weybridge, U.K. The NADC is collaborating with the Veterinary
    Laboratories Agency (V L.A), Weybridge, U.K., using postmortem samples
    to validate the final reagent set and protocol. This collaboration will
    provide U.S. researchers access to otherwise unavailable infected
    cattle and tissues.
        Question. What other Federal agencies are involved in BSE and TSE
    research and control activities? How is ARS coordinating its research
    with CDC, HHS, FDA, etc.? How much money is being spent by the Federal
    Government for research and control activities for these diseases
    overall? Who is coordinating the U.S. effort in these areas?
        Answer. Federal agencies that have an interest in TSE/BSE research
    and control include: USDA-ARS, USDA-APHIS, USDA-FSIS, CDC, FDA-CFSAN,
    FDA-CVM, NIH, and the Department of State. Coordination of USDA efforts
    is through the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture. ARS is
    prioritizing and coordinating its research activities with other
    Federal agencies through specific workshops organized at the agencies
    highest level. Workshop reports are circulated in a timely manner to
    all interested Federal agencies and stakeholders. The total funding for
    all Federal Government efforts is unknown, however, ARS funding for TSE
    research is currently $2.6 million.
        With regards to specific agency involvement: ARS conducts
    Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) research on scrapie in
    sheep, and chronic wasting disease (CWD) in deer and elk, both
    naturally occurring TSE diseases within the U.S. ARS has no research
    effort specifically targeted to Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE),
    however, ARS scientists collaborate with their counterparts at the
    National Center for Foreign Animal Disease, Winnipeg, Canada,
    Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, U.K. and USDA-APHIS to
    validate reagents that potentially can be used for BSE surveillance.
    USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service inspects all cattle before
    they can be approved for use as human food; use of cattle with
    unidentified neurological diseases is prohibited. The USDA's Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) enforces explicit import
    regulations covering animals and animal products offered for import
    into the United States to prevent the importation of foreign exotic
    diseases such as BSE. USDA-APHIS prohibits the importation of live
    ruminants from countries where BSE is known to exist in native cattle.
    APHIS controls the importation of live ruminants and most ruminant
    products from all of Europe. APHIS also implements an aggressive BSE
    monitoring program examining the brains of cattle exhibiting various
    abnormal behaviors, including neurological symptoms. No evidence of BSE
    has been found in these U.S. cattle specimens.
        Agencies within the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
    have a long-standing commitment to research, epidemiological studies
    and consumer protection involving BSE and variant and classic CJD. The
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prohibits the use of most mammalian
    protein in the manufacture of animal feeds given to ruminant animals,
    such as cows, sheep and goats. The regulation also requires process and
    control systems to ensure that feed for ruminants does not contain the
    prohibited mammalian tissue. This prohibition is a preventative measure
    designed to protect animals from potential transmissible degenerative
    neurological diseases such as BSE and to minimize any potential risk to
    humans. If a case of BSE were found in the United States, these
    measures would also help to prevent the spread of BSE through feeds in
    U.S. cattle. FDA issued guidelines to blood centers to reduce the
    theoretical risk of transmission of vCJD to recipients of blood
    products. This precautionary measure recommended procedures for
    deferring potential donors who may have been significantly exposed to
    food and other cattle-derived products in BSE-endemic countries. FDA's
    present guidelines ask blood centers to exclude potential donors who
    have spent six or more cumulative months in the U.K. between January 1,
    1980, and December 31, 1996, from donating blood. Further revision to
    this guidance may be forthcoming with new information regarding other
    countries' BSE experiences. FDA's TSE Advisory Committee recently
    offered advice on revising the guidelines to include potential donors
    who have lived an aggregate of 10 years in France, Ireland and
    Portugal. FDA also provides guidance on the use of bovine materials
    from countries affected by BSE in non-food products, for example
    gelatin from bones for oral consumption or cosmetic use. The Center for
    Disease Control (CDC) conducts regular surveillance for any trends and
    current incidence of vCJD among humans in the U.S. The National
    Institutes of Health (NIH) conducts research on various TSE's: BSE,
    CJD, vCJD and related neurological diseases through their Maryland and
    Rocky Mountain Laboratories. NIH has a particular interest on the
    molecular biology of prion protein folding and its role in the
    induction of TSE disease.
        Question. There are a number of plant and animal diseases of
    critical economic importance to American agriculture. Some of these
    diseases have become noteworthy recently. Please provide the Committee
    with the current status of research projects and current funding (by
    Agency) for each project listed: Citrus Canker, Citrus Tristeza,
    Pierce's disease, Avian Newcastle disease, Bovine Tuberculosis, Johne's
    disease, African Swine Fever, West Nile Virus, Avian Influenza, Plum
    Pox Virus, Asian Longhorned Beetle and Wheat Scab.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001, $4,739,550 was appropriated for the
    Citrus Canker Special Research Grant. The grant proposal was received
    on January 30, 2001 and the proposal is undergoing programmatic review.
    In fiscal year 2001, $740,368 was appropriated for the Citrus Tristeza
    Special Research Grants. The grant proposals were due by February 15,
    2001, and the proposals are undergoing programmatic review. In fiscal
    year 2001, $1,895,820, was appropriated for the Pierce's Disease
    Special Research Grant. The grant proposal was received on January 24,
    2001, and is awaiting administrative review and final signature. In
    fiscal year 2001, $324,285, was appropriated for the Bovine
    Tuberculosis Special Research Grant. The grant proposal was received on
    March 12, 2001, and is awaiting administrative review and final
    signature.
    Current status of research on Citrus Canker:
        ARS is conducting research on citrus canker at Ft. Pierce, Florida,
    and Beltsville, MD, in support of regulatory and action agencies to
    control this devastating disease. These include: biological control
    methods to stop or slow the spread of the disease; molecular and
    genetics approaches to determine virulence factors; epidemiological
    methods to better understand the disease cycle and dissemination
    characteristics; and early detection technologies. Current fiscal year
    2001 funding: $315,000.
    Current status of research on Citrus Tristeza Virus (CTV):
        ARS scientists at Ft. Pierce, Florida, are identifying exotic CTV
    strains and vectors which threaten citrus production. The biological
    diversity and molecular basis of pathogenicity and virulence among
    strains are being determined. Regulatory actions are being supported by
    determining the genetic, epidemiological, biochemical, and serological
    characteristics of CTV. Researchers at Frederick, Maryland, are
    studying vector transmission characteristics of CTV. ARS laboratories
    at Fresno, California, and Beltsville, Maryland, are examining the
    diversity of CTV strains and developing improved methods for
    maintaining and storing isolates, and determining their host range.
    Current fiscal year 2001 funding is $2,320,000 for all locations.
    Current status of research on Pierce's Disease:
        To combat Pierce's Disease and the vector transmitting it, research
    is being coordinated at the Horticultural Crop Research Laboratory at
    Parlier, California. Research includes efforts to better understand the
    causative bacterium's host range and potential pathogenicity for
    California crops, particularly grapes. Epidemiology of the disease is
    also being determined. Current fiscal year 2001 research funding is:
    $1,098,000.
    Current status of research on Avian Newcastle disease:
        The ARS research program on avian Newcastle is directed to: improve
    diagnostic tests; develop improved vaccines; determine genetic and
    biologic mechanisms controlling Newcastle Disease Virus (NDV)
    virulence; use molecular epidemiology to determine origin of NDV
    strains and predict geographic spread; identify and characterize
    molecular markers for NDV pathotyping; and determine the frequency and
    mechanisms for NDV persistence in clinically normal poultry. Current
    fiscal year 2001 funding is $786,000.
    Current status of research on Bovine Tuberculosis (TB):
        ARS in collaboration with industry, APHIS, other Federal agencies,
    and State and university cooperators developed a joint regulatory and
    research strategy for TB in livestock, deer, and elk. Under ARS
    scientific leadership, research goals were established to: (1) define
    interactions between cattle, white tailed deer, and elk and M. bovis;
    (2) develop and improve tests for diagnosis of M. bovis infection in
    these species; and (3) develop improved methods for strain
    differentiation of M. bovis isolates. ARS recently initiated research
    to address the diagnosis, pathogenesis, and epidemiology of TB in white
    tailed deer and to develop vaccines to control tuberculosis in deer.
    Current fiscal year 2001 funding is $1,432,000.
    Current status of research on Johne's disease:
        The ARS program on Johne's disease (a bacterial disease caused by
    M. paratuberculosis) is conducted at the Bacterial Disease of Livestock
    Research Unit at the National Animal Disease Center, Ames, Iowa. The
    program's objectives are: (1) to sequence the complete genome of M.
    paratuberculosis, (2) develop highly sensitive and specific diagnostic
    technology and study of host immune responses during the different
    stages of disease, (3) determine shedding of M. paratuberculosis in
    milk of naturally infected cows at the farm level and evaluate survival
    of M. paratuberculosis in milk after heat treatment, and (4) identify
    immunogens of M. paratuberculosis by random and directed expression
    library immunization (DNA vaccines). Current fiscal year 2001 funding
    is $1,618,000.
        A new focus is being added to the ARS research program at the
    Western Regional Research Center in Albany, California, includes
    testing for the presence of M. paratuberculosis in animal manure. The
    testing in this program results from the need to develop the knowledge
    and technology to prevent the transmission of epizootic pathogens,
    including M. paratuberculosis, from animal manure to food products for
    human consumption.
    Current status on African Swine Fever:
        ARS program on African swine fever (ASF) is conducted at the Plum
    Island Animal Disease Center. The research is focused on: (1)
    identification of pathobiologically significant ASF genes that might
    assist in developing a disease control strategy, and (2) Defining
    protective immune responses to ASF virus and other significant foreign
    animal disease threat agents. Current fiscal year 2001 funding is
    $6,400,000.
    Current status of research on West Nile Virus (WNV):
        Advanced mosquito trapping methods developed by ARS scientists in
    Gainesville, Florida, are being used in New York City, in association
    with the Wildlife Conservation Society. In fiscal year 2001, methods
    will be developed for the same purpose in Connecticut in cooperation
    with the Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station. Also, an
    alternative (non-pesticidal) technology for control of the larval
    stages of mosquito WNV vectors is being tested. Additionally, ARS
    scientists at the Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL)
    examined the susceptibility of chickens, to answer questions about
    viremia, incubation period, clinical signs, and antibody response. Both
    chickens and turkeys developed high viremias and shed virus in feces.
    Contact birds remained healthy and virus-free. The ARS, Arthropod-Borne
    Animal Diseases Research Laboratory (ABADRL), Laramie, Wyoming, has all
    arthropods viruses in their research mission. The laboratory is
    conducting research at the request of APHIS to develop a WNV vaccine.
    Current fiscal year 2001 funding is $798,000.
    Current status of research on Avian Influenza:
        The ARS program on avian influenza is conducted at the Southeast
    Poultry Research Laboratory (SEPRL) in Athens, Georgia. The program is
    focused on issues related to epidemiology, molecular virology, vaccines
    and pathogenesis of avian influenza. The United States, Mexican, Hong
    Kong and Italian virus isolates received from APHIS are being
    classified for disease-causing potential at the SEPRL. Scientists at
    SEPRL are developing and evaluating techniques to predict which mild
    forms of virus will change to more deadly virus. ARS is collaborating
    with private industry on recombinant and inactivated vaccines and
    improved diagnostic tests for avian influenza. ARS is also evaluating
    new vaccines to protect U.S. poultry from the threat of Hong Kong H5N1
    and other types of avian influenza should they be introduced to the
    U.S. Current fiscal year 2001 funding is $1,391,000.
    Current status of research on Plum Pox Virus (PPV):
        The ARS research program on PPV is focused on improved detection
    and characterization, virus-vector transmission, and enhancement of
    germplasm for resistance, through both biotechnology and conventional
    breeding techniques. ARS scientists at Frederick, Maryland, and
    Kearneysville, West Virginia, are developing this integrated disease
    management system to support ongoing eradication efforts and to
    minimize the impact of the disease. Current fiscal year 2001 funding:
    $1,232,000.
    Current Status of research on Asian Longhorned Beetle (ALB):
        ALB systematics and identification keys have been developed by the
    Systematics Entomology Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. Two ALB pheromones
    have been discovered and are being patented (A347907) by the Chemicals
    Affecting Insect Behavior Laboratory, Beltsville, MD. Previously, it
    was not believed that the beetles communicated by smell. The chemicals
    will be developed into a trap for monitoring. Researchers at the
    Beneficial Insects Introduction Research Laboratory, Newark, DE, have
    shown that adult beetles disperse nearly one mile each year, rather
    than 100 yards as previously thought. This information has resulted in
    a widening of the beetle containment zone by APHIS. Using novel
    acoustic tools developed at Newark, DE, researchers were able to detect
    beetles in living trees in the field. The practicality of using this
    approach for monitoring is being investigated. Two natural enemies of
    ALB have been discovered in China by researchers at Newark and are
    being evaluated as biocontrol agents. Current fiscal year 2001 funding
    is $821,000.
    Current status of research on Wheat Scab:
        Improved resistance to Wheat scab, (Fusarium head blight), is being
    developed at the ARS Cereal Disease Laboratory at St. Paul, Minnesota.
    Research at Peoria, Illinois is being conducted to determine the
    genetics of toxin biosynthesis and genetic variability in the pathogen
    is being studied at ARS locations in Fargo, North Dakota and Albany,
    California. ARS researchers in Raleigh, North Carolina and Beltsville,
    Maryland are improving disease control strategies and researchers at
    Madison, Wisconsin are examining the effects of the disease on nutrient
    and seed quality. Finally, ARS participates in the U.S. Wheat and
    Barley Scab Initiative which is a consortium of Federal, state, and
    private researchers, growers, and others concerned about the losses
    caused by scab in wheat and barley. The research initiative focuses on
    six distinct program areas: Variety development and coordinated
    screening nurseries; Epidemiology (how scab develops, spreads) and
    disease management; Food safety, toxicology, and utilization;
    Biotechnology; Chemical and biological control, and Germplasm
    introduction and evaluation. Researchers from 22 states and 6 locations
    within ARS are involved. Current fiscal year 2001 funding for all wheat
    scab research is $8,818,600.
        Question. Describe for the Committee the status and corresponding
    funding for these projects carried out by APHIS. To what extent does
    APHIS carry out methods development and scientific services for these
    projects.
        Answer. The APHIS Plant Methods Development program provides
    advanced scientific and technological capabilities to protect and
    improve U.S. agriculture. Methods development supports APHIS programs
    by optimizing existing pest management practices and by developing new
    technologies for pest exclusion, detection, survey, and management.
    This is accomplished by evaluating biocontrol organisms, evaluating new
    biological and chemical materials, adapting or inventing equipment,
    providing technical consultation and training, collecting and
    disseminating pertinent information, and integrating technological
    advancements into integrated pest management systems. APHIS conducts
    cooperative programs with State and local agencies and organizations to
    control or eradicate plant pests and diseases, and to control or
    eradicate animal diseases.
        The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the principal research
    agency of the Department of Agriculture charged with conducting
    research to expand the knowledge and technology necessary to maintain
    and increase the productivity and quality of crop plants, and animals,
    and animal products. ARS provides research on broad regional and
    national problems; research to support Federal action and regulatory
    agencies; and expertise to meet national emergencies. ARS conducts
    research to find ways to protect plants from diseases, insects, and
    weeds. ARS also conducts research to assure the quality and safety of
    animal products used as food for humans; and research to reduce losses
    due to pathogens, diseases, parasites, and insect pests.
        The citrus canker methods development APHIS has funded thus far is
    still in its early stages and has not yielded any significant results.
        In regard to citrus tristeza, APHIS has worked on the control of
    brown citrus aphid, the vector for this disease. APHIS supported some
    studies in Florida with pathogens that can be applied in a manner
    similar to an insecticide spray. Also, APHIS funded a small ($50,000)
    cooperative agreement with the University of Florida to learn more
    about the vector. APHIS has only recently begun to work on Pierce's
    Disease and its vector, the Glassy-winged Sharpshooter (GWSS) in
    California. APHIS has teamed up with both the private sector and the
    Agricultural Research Service to look at ways of identifying this
    disease more quickly for the growers. Also, APHIS has also begun to
    seek ways to separate the pathotype that attacks grapes from the one
    that attacks citrus, almonds and oleanders. Additionally, APHIS is
    working on developing the use of airborne spectral analysis systems to
    detect this disease early in the disease cycle before it becomes a
    source of inoculum for other vines. This work is being funded by
    approximately $250,000 for APHIS. In addition, APHIS provided ARS with
    $150,000 for their work in this area, and the one private group is
    willing to work with APHIS for now at no cost to the Government. APHIS
    also awarded approximately $5.2 million to universities in California
    through a competitive grant process.
        In fiscal year 2000, APHIS spent approximately $1 million on
    methods development to address Plum Pox Virus (PPV). APHIS gathered
    preliminary data on population dynamics and seasonal distribution of
    aphid species in infected orchards in Pennsylvania. Also, APHIS
    determined that none of the weed species in the heavily infected
    orchards carry the virus. In addition, APHIS determined the incidence
    of PPV within infected orchards through an intensive survey and this
    helped us tailor our survey plan in Pennsylvania and nationally. Our
    data also indicates that the mild D Strain of PPV is the only strain
    involved in this infestation. APHIS is coordinating with the
    Agricultural Research Service to determine future plum pox methods
    development and research needs. APHIS anticipates continuing to conduct
    confirmatory tests for new finds; typing the finds to strain, and
    acting as a back-up to the State-run labs; establishing laboratory
    testing standard operating procedures and quality control protocols;
    evaluating known foreign strains to determine strain differences which
    may determine the infection pathway into the United States; and
    ensuring State laboratories conducting routine PPV diagnostic tests
    meet established quality control standards. Laboratory testing for PPV
    identification is a crucial element in the survey program because
    infected plant material cannot be reliably identified based on visual
    symptoms.
        APHIS recently allotted $1.6 million to the Forest Service for
    Asian Longhorned Beetle. This funding will support continued ALB
    research conducted by the U.S. Forest Service on attractant activity;
    detection technology detection technology, including the development of
    acoustical detection tools; DNA characterization of ALB populations and
    biotypes; development and evaluation of control technologies, including
    new research to develop biologically-based control technologies (field
    testing of four species of nematodes, microsporidia and Bt
    biopesticide); methods and protocols for monitoring ALB in the urban-
    wildland interface; improved rearing methods for quarantine
    populations; continued development and evaluation of trap designs; and,
    new studies to understand dispersal and life history in natural
    forests. Forest Service research is conducted in quarantine and in
    China, and in collaboration with the Agricultural Research Service,
    APHIS methods development, and U.S. and Chinese university scientists.
    This research will not yield any meaningful results until perhaps
    fiscal year 2003. APHIS does not fund any research projects on Wheat
    Scab.
        While APHIS does not fund any research projects on Avian Newcastle
    disease, Johne's disease, African Swine Fever, West Nile Virus (WNV),
    or Avian Influenza (AI), its National Veterinary Services Laboratories
    (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa, does conduct diagnostic testing on sample
    submissions through routine monitoring and surveillance. In fiscal year
    2000, APHIS used $375,000 in contingency funds to test serum and tissue
    samples at NVSL from approximately 440 clinically-ill equine in 30
    different states for WNV. In fiscal year 2001, APHIS will use $400,000
    for this same purpose. In addition, APHIS tested 1,457 specimens from
    live-bird markets in the Northeastern United States for AI. The Agency
    isolated AI subtype H7N2 from 1 of the 439 specimens from New Jersey
    and 104 of the 900 specimens from New York. Specimens from Connecticut
    (16), Massachusetts (76), New Hampshire (2), and Rhode Island (24) were
    negative for AI. In fiscal year 2000, APHIS spent $100,000 to support
    bovine tuberculosis research activities. APHIS provided these funds to
    Michigan State University to study the transmission of tuberculosis in
    Michigan's free ranging white-tailed deer population. In fiscal year
    2001, APHIS received $53 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation
    to accelerate the eradication of bovine tuberculosis. Another $7
    million was received from the fiscal year 2001 Miscellaneous
    Appropriations Act. Of this $60 million, close to $200,000 will be
    spent on evaluating promising field diagnostic tests such as skin
    testing and $165,000 will be spent on evaluating promising vaccines.
        Question. Please describe for the Committee the beginning point in
    which methods development or technical services aspects of the APHIS
    mission occurs for these projects?
        Answer. APHIS is subject to the Federal appropriations process, and
    must therefore identify its methods development needs approximately 2
    years before the funds are made available. The ``beginning point'' from
    a functional perspective is when APHIS identifies a programmatic need
    in an activity, such as domestic, international, or port operations,
    APHIS' first look at available technologies, contact experts and
    researchers (internationally as well as scientists within this country,
    including the Agricultural Research Service) in the subject area, and
    determine whether solutions can be implemented to preclude the entry of
    pests or diseases, to detect and to identify new ones or those of
    programmatic significance, and to eradicate or suppress them where they
    occur. In some cases, if technology is available but merely needs to be
    slightly adapted for implementation, then APHIS may commit the
    necessary resources to do so. If the programmatic needs are such that
    immediate solutions can not reasonably be implemented with minor
    modification of a technology, or the scope is such that APHIS does not
    have adequate resources to address the issue, then APHIS would attempt
    to communicate these more ``long-term'' research needs to our sister
    agencies and researchers both within the United States and abroad.
                     national plant germplasm system (npgs)
        Question. Last year, the Department stated that a static budget for
    the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) would have severe
    programmatic ramifications throughout the NPGS. Did the USDA request an
    increase for the NPGS for fiscal year 2002 in its request to OMB and,
    if so, how much did the USDA request for fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. Because of the change in Administration, the sequence of
    events used to develop the fiscal year 2002 budget was somewhat
    different from the usual process. Without a full complement of policy-
    level officials, much of the budget was developed through negotiations
    directly between the Secretary and the Office of Management and Budget.
    Much of this abbreviated budget development process took place during
    the weeks between inauguration and the release of the President's
    budget blueprint on February 28, 2001. As a result, there is not a set
    of formal agency and Department-level proposals.
        Question. Last week, the USDA Advisory Committee on Agricultural
    Biotechnology agreed to recommend that funding be doubled for the
    National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). What steps will you take to
    implement this recommendation?
        Answer. The recent recommendations of the USDA Advisory Committee
    on Agricultural Biotechnology (ACAB), together with the
    Administration's strategic plans and budgetary targets, and input from
    other customers, cooperators, and stakeholders will be taken into
    account when formulating the Agency's fiscal year 2003 budget request.
    The Agency will continue to provide requested information to the ACAB
    regarding the NPGS's status. The Secretary will review the agency's
    request in the overall context of priorities for all of the
    Department's missions.
        Question. Traditionally, the NPGS has supported food, feed, and
    fiber security in the U.S. Today, we have the most stable food supply
    in the world. Why is the NPGS important and what is the cost to the
    Nation of not supporting the NPGS to the extent requested by the ARS?
        Answer. Genetic raw materials, water, air, soil, sunlight, and
    management practices comprise the agricultural production system that
    sustains humanity, and currently provides the United States with an
    affordable, highly diverse, and nutritious diet. Although the U.S.
    today has perhaps the most stable food supply in the world, its systems
    of renewable resource production and land stewardship face formidable
    challenges in the new millennium. Among the most exacting challenges is
    successfully adapting to the accelerating rates of change in factors
    affecting agricultural productivity. Climatic extremes may now occur
    more frequently due to human activities. Water and soils are being
    depleted more rapidly. As global agricultural production incorporates
    more fertilizers, herbicides, or pesticides, water and soils are also
    increasingly threatened by pollution. Unless new technologies,
    including new crop varieties derived from germplasm in the NPGS, are
    developed and utilized, the costs to the Nation may be environmental
    deterioration that threatens agricultural production. In addition,
    regulations and other proposed remedies for those phenomena that may
    rapidly complicate resource management, food and fiber production, and
    processing will be other costs. Environmental deterioration and the
    preceding complications, in turn, may result in more rapidly increasing
    prices paid by consumers, more volatile commercial markets, reduced
    profits for producers, and a narrower competitive edge for U.S.
    products in world markets. More costly food may result in less
    nutritious diets for the poor.
        Globally, natural plant communities and landscapes that contain
    potentially useful plants are disappearing. Burgeoning human
    populations worldwide are increasingly urban, with cities now occupying
    ever more hectares of formerly productive agricultural land. As a
    result, rates of agricultural productivity can be raised only if the
    remaining land under cultivation yields more agricultural production.
    New, more intensive production practices implemented throughout the
    Nation (e.g., higher density plantings, reduced tillage and chemical
    inputs) place new demands on crops. Formerly minor pathogens are now
    economically important because of changing production practices. New,
    more virulent genetic variants of already important pathogens and pests
    are cause for grave concern. These provide an impetus for assaying NPGS
    germplasm for new sources of host-plant resistance. Furthermore,
    economic constraints to agricultural profitability underscore the
    immediate need for value-added and alternative crops for increasing the
    monetary return to producers (especially in rural areas), and for
    efficiently diversifying the productive capacity of U.S. agriculture.
    The NPGS will likely be the sources for such new crops.
        The rapid destruction of natural habitats and agricultural
    productive capacity may be most extreme in the developing countries,
    where a wealth of genetic resources vital to U.S. agriculture is
    endangered. Essentially all the major crops we grow and use originated
    there. Consequently, the stability of U.S. agriculture is based
    primarily on crops that were imported long ago and on their continual
    genetic improvement via more recently acquired genes conserved in the
    NPGS collections. The cost to the Nation of not adequately supporting
    the NPGS may be extinction of these resources, or inaccessibility
    caused by lack of operating funds. That may increase the genetic
    vulnerability of agriculture to rapidly evolving pests, pathogens,
    environmental changes, and to competitive market demands, which change
    continually and rapidly according to consumer preferences and advances
    in processing technology. The demands placed on U.S. agriculture by a
    rapidly changing world can only be met by technologies that optimally
    harness the inherent genetic potential of NPGS germplasm so as to
    maximize profits, security of supply, price stability, market
    competitiveness, and avoid crop losses from genetic vulnerability. More
    rapid and efficient methods for identifying useful properties of
    germplasm, and for manipulating genetic and genomic material and
    information, are required. These new methods will include more
    effective breeding strategies and more comprehensive knowledge of crop
    genomic structures. The new scientific approaches of genomics and
    biotechnology, when applied to NPGS germplasm, are critical for
    developing improved crops that enable producers to maximize yields of
    high-quality products, but minimize chemical input, water and soil
    depletion, water and soil contamination, as well as production costs.
        Paradoxically, sole reliance on the preceding methods of genetic
    improvement may lead to superior but excessively narrow genetic bases
    for crop gene pools. As a result, the Nation's future food, fiber,
    feed, ornamental, and industrial product supply may become more
    vulnerable to rapidly changing pathogens, pests, or environmental
    extremes. It may be less abundant, nutritious, and diverse, hence less
    capable of adapting to changing regulatory concerns or to global change
    in climates and commercial markets. The cost to the Nation of such
    developments would be catastrophic. Adequate funding is needed for the
    NPGS in order to ensure that accessions are available for distribution,
    and that essential germplasm acquisition, maintenance and regeneration,
    preservation and conservation, and characterization and evaluation
    activities are carried out. Consequently, the NPGS, which furnishes the
    means for broadening crop genepools, is crucial to developing safer,
    more secure, and more efficient agricultural systems. Its genetic
    resources are literally the basis of U.S. agriculture.
        Question. For fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, the
    agricultural appropriations bills provided increases for the NPGS of
    $1.75 million and $3 million, respectively. Please provide the
    subcommittee with a detailed list, by NPGS site, of where the
    additional funds were spent, for what purposes the funds were used, and
    whether the additional funds were critical for maintaining or improving
    the program level at the particular site.
        Answer.
    Fiscal year 2000 ($1.75 million gross allocation).
        Albany, CA: ($250,000 gross).--This funding increase enabled a
    scientist and support staff to be hired to characterize, with leading-
    edge genomic approaches, small grains (wheat, rye, and barley) genetic
    resources. The research will also help develop more effective and
    efficient genetic markers to facilitate small grains agronomic
    evaluation and breeding. Furthermore, it will expand bioinformatics/
    database development and refinement efforts for linking the GrainGenes
    genome database more closely to small grains germplasm databases such
    as the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN) in the U.S. and
    the International Center for Maize (Corn) and Wheat Research (CIMMYT)
    wheat database system. The additional resources are crucial for
    enabling the NPGS to intensify its program of genetic and genomic
    characterization of small grains germplasm with leading-edge tools and
    technologies, such as nucleotide sequencing and comparative genomic
    approaches.
        Ft. Collins, CO: ($250,000 gross).--The funding increase enabled
    one research scientist and one support scientist to be hired to develop
    and apply long-term preservation protocols for clonal and desiccation-
    resistant seed germplasm. The budgetary increase was crucial for
    supporting research wherein ``stress'' genes in blackberry were
    isolated; mechanisms whereby cells of mint adapt to ultra-cold
    temperatures were elucidated, and which resulted in new methods for
    long-term preservation of garlic bulbs and embryos of citrus, coffee
    and wild rice. A technician was hired to strengthen the clonal
    preservation operations and additional part-time staff were hired for
    seed quality evaluation. The technician was important for increasing
    the National Seed Storage Laboratory's (NSSL's) capacity to store
    clonal germplasm over the long-term, for a few species, and the
    additional temporary staff increased the efficiency for storage of
    seed.
        Ames, IA: ($250,000 gross).--Prior to the fiscal year 2000
    increase, the NPGS site at Ames, IA, required funds to maintain the
    then current operations and staffing levels, due primarily to increased
    personnel and operating costs. The budget increase in fiscal year 2000
    supported two additional temporary Federal support staff, two
    additional student support staff, purchased much-needed equipment, and
    covered wage and benefit increases for that year.
        Columbia, MO: ($250,000 gross).--For maize (corn) germplasm,
    characterization, evaluation, and enhancement of the large NPGS
    collection of this crop are priority needs. The fiscal year 2000
    funding increase expands efforts to evaluate and characterize poorly-
    studied NPGS maize germplasm for genes conditioning adaptation,
    productivity, and host-plant resistance to major pathogens and pests of
    maize. The new funds enable researchers to employ up-to-date genetic/
    genomic technology to detect latent genetic diversity in maize, and to
    develop genetic markers closely associated with agriculturally-
    important traits, so that the markers can facilitate incorporation of
    such traits into adapted germplasm. Together with cooperators
    throughout the U.S., scientists in Columbia are conducting one
    component of the GEM Project, which is genetically enhancing public
    maize germplasm by incorporating genetic diversity from unadapted
    germplasm for productivity, quality, and resistance to biotic and
    abiotic stresses. Finally, these funds are supporting a collaborative
    effort among personnel at Columbia, MO, Ames, IA, and elsewhere to link
    the MaizeDB database more closely to maize germplasm databases such as
    the NPGS-wide GRIN database and the System-wide Information Network for
    Genetic Resources (SINGER) databases for the international agricultural
    research centers, especially the CIMMYT maize database.
        Beltsville, MD: ($250,000 gross).--This increase enabled the NPGS's
    database system GRIN (Germplasm Resources Information Network) to
    retain the requisite staffing level, to purchase maintenance agreements
    for the GRIN's hardware and software, and to fund critical operating
    expenses. Had these funds been unavailable, three permanent staff
    members may have been terminated and software and hardware maintenance
    may have been deferred.
        Ithaca/Geneva, NY: ($250,000 gross).--The budgetary increase was
    partially devoted to hiring a molecular biologist and a laboratory
    technician to develop DNA technologies to more efficiently and
    effectively preserve tomato, onion, cole crops, winter squash, and
    buckwheat germplasm. The remaining funds were applied to updating aging
    seed production equipment and facilities, and to upgrading computer
    software and hardware for seed germplasm data management capabilities.
    The budget increase was essential for preserving and improving the
    quality of the seed germplasm collection at this site so that it began
    to approach international standards for viability, phytosanitation, and
    availability.
        Pullman, WA: ($250,000 gross).--This budget increase was partially
    devoted to establishing a new greenhouse manager position that is very
    important for enhancing operational efficiency. Also, a research
    geneticist was hired to expand genetic marker and comparative genomic
    characterization for cool season legumes, dry beans, beets, forage
    legumes and grasses, etc. The additional funds were integral for
    developing, maintaining, and enhancing genetic marker and genomic data
    management and bioinformatic capabilities by enabling continual
    upgrading (both technical, and in terms of additional data) of software
    and hardware, for germplasm data management.
    Fiscal year 2001 ($2,993,400 gross):
        Phoenix, AZ: ($149,600 gross).--The fiscal year 2001 budget
    increase was critical for expanding germplasm evaluation or
    characterization research to identify or characterize new sources of
    agronomically important traits in Pima cotton, and for the new crops
    guayule (source of hypoallergenic rubber), and Lesquerella (new oilseed
    crop). The additional funds are enhancing this site's capabilities to
    regenerate, store, and/or maintain guayule and Lesquerella germplasm so
    that more is available to researchers and breeders. New cotton,
    guayule, and Lesquerella germplasm will be acquired to replenish
    current supplies, or to fill genetic gaps in the collection.
        Davis, CA: ($199,600 gross).--Because of long deferred repair and
    maintenance of facilities, vehicles, and implements due to many years
    of fiscal deficits, the fiscal year 2001 increase was applied mainly to
    renovating and repairing basic infrastructure at this site. One
    temporary technical staff was hired for orchard maintenance, where
    personnel are still needed. Next year, the infrastructure renovation
    should be complete, and the new funds will be applied to characterizing
    germplasm. Currently, only the walnut and fig collections are well-
    described. Without such genetic descriptions and characterizations,
    germplasm users lack the means for efficiently selecting material for
    their purposes. The fiscal year 2001 funds will be critical for hiring
    a scientist specializing in germplasm characterization to generate data
    crucial for efficient management and use of germplasm, so that
    potential users have descriptive data available to select material with
    certain characteristics, rather than to pick, almost randomly, from
    names on a list, without recourse to additional information.
        Riverside, CA: ($199,600 gross).--The new funds enabled the
    recruitment of a plant pathologist to increase the amount of pathogen
    testing and elimination in citrus (orange, lemon, lime, grapefruit and
    related species), thereby addressing the critical need to increase the
    amount of germplasm available to breeders and researchers, as well as
    increasing the germplasm that this site could acquire.
        Ft. Collins, CO: ($199,600 gross).--The fiscal year 2001 increase
    enabled hiring of a support scientist and technician. The support
    scientist serves as an instrumentation specialist for the entire NSSL
    research effort, enabling research integration that has facilitated
    study of the effects of provenance on propagule quality, the results of
    which may lead to more consistent survival of seeds following ultracold
    storage. The technician helped establish gene expression analysis and
    cloning, important molecular approaches for studying plant acclimation
    to drought and cold. The fiscal year 2001 funds will add another
    scientist to the clonal plant preservation program to help adapt and
    modify protocols for preserving vegetatively propagated plant
    germplasm, thereby enabling the ultracold storage of a variety of
    clonal crop germplasm.
        Washington, D.C.: ($149,600 gross).--The fiscal year 2001 budget
    increase has expanded the volume of woody ornamental germplasm
    accessions actively managed, which will make more germplasm available
    to the scientific community. It has provided funding critical for
    expanding the current effort to coordinate the North American Plant
    Collections Consortium (NAPCC), and enabled stronger linkage between
    the former and the U.S. National Arboretum's woody germplasm management
    effort. The additional funds have expanded efforts to modify current
    protocols or develop new methods for optimal woody ornamental germplasm
    management, including new molecular marker assay systems, and have
    expanded the scope and volume of data and information management
    activities.
        Griffin, GA: ($299,300 gross).--The fiscal year 2001 funds were
    critical for expanding the volume of germplasm accessions available to
    the scientific community, developing new methods for optimal germplasm
    management, and expanding the data management program. Operating funds
    for each germplasm curator were quadrupled, enabling an increase in the
    amount of germplasm regenerated and otherwise managed. A germination
    technician is being hired to conduct germinations needed to set
    accurate regeneration priorities and provide users with higher quality
    seed. A retired agronomist's position was re-filled, which bolstered
    management of the warm-season forage and turf grass national
    collection. Temporary summer help will handle the increased amount of
    germplasm regenerated. Without the additional funds, regenerations
    would have been severely reduced or eliminated because there would have
    been no labor to plant, manage, harvest, and thresh seed from
    regenerated accessions. The new program for seed germination program
    and quality would not exist. The curatorial staff would have been
    insufficient to handle the workload.
        Ames, IA: ($239,500 gross).--The fiscal year 2001 funding increase
    provided additional seed storage, seed processing, lab equipment, and
    office resources for integrating the Genetic Enhancement of Maize (GEM)
    Project into this site's overall operational framework. The new funds
    were critical for hiring an additional temporary Federal employee and
    additional student labor. It funded normal wage and benefit increases,
    and covered a 50 percent increase in energy costs. These funds were
    critical for building capacity to increase germplasm regeneration,
    evaluation, characterization, and distribution efforts.
        Aberdeen, ID: ($219,500 gross).--Many of the new funds purchased
    critical equipment (e.g., planter and thresher) and supplies critical
    for germplasm management. Four full-time Federal technical positions
    will strengthen operations at this wheat, barley, oats, and rice
    germplasm site. All of the preceding progress was dependent on the new
    funds.
        Urbana, IL: ($199,600 gross).--The new funds enabled the soybean
    germplasm program to buy a new high purity seed thresher and a new
    vehicle for field work. Additional temporary personnel were hired to
    assist in processing seeds, and a new permanent technician position was
    established. Before the fiscal year 2001 increase, the entire budget
    was devoted to salaries and utilities; the increase was critical for
    providing an operating budget for germplasm management and research.
        Ithaca/Geneva, NY: ($124,800 gross.--Note that this location
    received an additional $249,600 gross for germplasm management via a
    separate fiscal year 2001 budget line) Some of the budgetary increase
    was devoted to hiring a permanent field technician and part-time field
    assistance, leasing beehives for controlled pollination, and to DNA
    technology development. The new resources helped the genebank approach
    the international standards for seed viability testing, whereby all
    seed lots have known germination rates and procedures have been
    established for determining viability as a normal part of the
    management process. Furthermore, the amount of germplasm available to
    the scientific community has increased, as has the volume of associated
    characterization and evaluation data. Scientists and technicians were
    hired to amplify the apple, grape, and tart cherry germplasm management
    effort, and to develop and deploy DNA markers to assess genetic
    diversity in fruit germplasm.
        Corvallis, OR: ($219,500 gross).--Many of the new funds will
    support temporary technical personnel to assist in the field and
    greenhouse management of strawberry and other berry and nut germplasm.
    Additional funds will expand the critical effort to evaluate small
    fruit and mint germplasm for horticultural merit. The remainder of the
    increase will bolster budgets for travel, staff training, supplies,
    equipment, utilities, and maintenance. This funding increase was
    critical to maintaining operational capacity of this genebank. Without
    this increase, key permanent positions would have been terminated,
    because of the budgetary impact of this year's increased energy and
    fuel costs.
        Charleston, SC: ($149,600 gross).--The fiscal year 2001 increase to
    the U.S. Vegetable Laboratory expanded germplasm evaluation research on
    sweet potato, cole crops, melons, peppers, and southern peas. This
    research is identifying or characterizing new sources of
    horticulturally important traits. Whenever possible, these or
    previously identified priority traits are being incorporated into
    enhanced breeding lines of the preceding crops, so as to make superior,
    better-documented germplasm accessions available to breeders and plant
    scientists.
        College Station, TX: ($249,500 gross).--Funds will initially be
    used to expand greenhouse space, and to expand germplasm regeneration
    and characterization efforts. The increase enabled the continued
    employment of a staff member who was scheduled to be terminated in
    April 2001, due to lack of funds. The pecan orchards could be
    fertilized this year, greatly aiding trees that were unfertilized last
    year and stressed by last year's drought. Top priorities are hiring
    seasonal help at two worksites (Brownwood and College Station, TX) and
    buying equipment key for more efficient operations. The pecan/hickory
    orchards are not irrigated, and acquiring a reliable irrigation system
    is critical for the long-term security of the collection.
        Pullman, WA: ($244,500 gross).--The funds devoted to Pullman and a
    worksite at Prosser covered additional personnel costs and general
    operations support that is crucial for both germplasm maintenance and
    research.
        Madison/Sturgeon Bay, WI: ($149,600 gross).--Most of the new funds
    were devoted to hiring additional personnel, buying needed equipment,
    and conducting long-deferred facility upgrades. A scientist is being
    recruited to manage research and evaluation projects, and part-time
    labor is being hired to conduct additional genetic analyses, seed
    increases, etc., for the national potato germplasm collection. The new
    funds were critical for remodeling and outfitting this site's
    laboratory to conduct molecular marker analyses, enabling more rapid
    progress assessing the optimal genebank management practices for
    maximizing the capture and preservation of genetic diversity.
        Question. It is our understanding that many sites are unable to
    fill positions of persons who have retired because of the lack of
    funding necessary to meet cost of living increases, escalating energy
    costs, and maintenance of NPGS facilities. Please provide the
    subcommittee with a list by site of positions terminated within the
    past two fiscal years and that will be terminated during fiscal year
    2002 unless the site receives an increase in funding.
        Answer. Permanent positions at NPGS sites have been abolished not
    only after incumbents retire, but also after they leave voluntarily to
    take other jobs, etc. Furthermore, to manage increasing costs with a
    static budget, many site managers exercise fiscal prudence by hiring
    temporary rather than permanent staff to provide the budgetary
    flexibility needed. But offering temporary rather than permanent
    appointments makes recruitment of high-quality staff difficult.
        Davis, CA.--Because of the current level of financial support for
    this site, and uncertain future energy prices, fiscal prudence dictated
    that a new technician position be a temporary, rather than permanent
    appointment, so as to provide budgetary flexibility to redirect
    resources to maintaining living collections that require constant
    maintenance.
        Riverside CA.--One technician position was terminated in fiscal
    year 2000 when the incumbent transferred. Unencumbered funds were used
    to renovate and upgrade a high-volume air-conditioning system. With the
    fiscal year 2001 increase, the technician position may be re-
    established, but probably as a temporary appointment, so as to conserve
    funds to cover substantially higher energy costs, inflation and cost-
    of-living increases.
        Ft. Collins, CO.--Following the retirement of one incumbent, one
    research scientist position was terminated this fiscal year, leaving a
    void in this site's capability to conduct research on seed physiology
    and molecular biology relevant to more than 90 percent of the NPGS
    collection. Without funding increases in fiscal year 2002, increased
    operating expenses will necessitate abolishing one technician position,
    four temporary student positions, and one visiting scholar position.
    Loss of those positions will impede critical research on
    cryopreservation, and on other innovative, more efficient means for
    conserving germplasm.
        Griffin, GA.--During the past two fiscal years, five temporary
    technical positions were terminated and three permanent positions were
    hired in replacement. Unless another budget increase occurs in fiscal
    year 2002, fewer temporary workers will be hired, reducing the number
    of germplasm samples that can be regenerated, and the scope of
    laboratory operations.
        Hilo, HI.--One permanent technical position was terminated when the
    incumbent transferred. Because of funding constraints, only two \1/2\
    time, temporary technicians could be hired in replacement, which does
    not satisfy the ongoing need for two additional, permanent technical
    assistance positions to address key, core managerial functions.
        Ames, IA.--Following retirement of a research entomologist in
    fiscal year 2001, funds encumbered by that position were devoted to
    support a new breeder/coordinator position for the Genetic Enhancement
    of Maize (GEM) program. If the GEM receives no new resources in fiscal
    year 2002, either the research entomologist position will not be re-
    established, or the new breeder/coordinator position will go unfilled.
    If no additional resources are not forthcoming, two or three temporary
    technical support positions would be terminated each year for the
    foreseeable future, and germplasm management operations would diminish.
    There would be little or no opportunity to adopt new technologies, such
    as geographical information systems (GIS) information systems and
    molecular markers to germplasm management.
        Corvallis, OR.--One graduate research assistant position and one
    temporary technical assistant position were terminated during the past
    two fiscal years, because of lack of fiscal resources. Without an
    additional base fund increase, a permanent field manager position may
    be eliminated during fiscal year 2002.
        Mayaguez, PR.--After retirements during the past two fiscal years,
    two administrative positions were terminated so as to meet increased
    indirect research costs.
        College Station, TX.--Retirement of a technician in fiscal year
    2000 caused personnel reassignments, with the net loss of an employee
    to the pecan germplasm management program. The impending termination of
    a full-time non-Federal employee was at least temporarily avoided by
    the fiscal year 2001 budget increase, but it may be threatened if no
    budget increase occurs in fiscal year 2002. The cotton germplasm
    program anticipates retirements of four support staff by 2002; with
    current budget levels, some of the former positions would be
    terminated.
        Question. Have the escalating energy costs had an effect on the
    ability of the NPGS sites to maintain their program effort?
        Answer. The effects of escalating energy costs on NPGS sites are
    highly variable throughout the U.S. Some effects have been direct,
    e.g., higher costs for running cold rooms, natural gas for drying
    harvested crops, and fuel for gasoline/diesel-powered machinery. The
    effects have also been indirect, e.g., higher costs for goods and
    services due to increased energy prices. Most of these items are
    essential so higher costs divert funds from other uses, e.g., research,
    non-essential maintenance, etc.
        The NPGS sites in California have been affected the most severely;
    average cost increases for electricity of nearly 50 percent are
    forecast for the next year. At Davis, CA, cost estimates for goods and
    services procured locally have increased more than 10 percent in the
    last three months. At the NPGS sites in Riverside, CA, and Parlier, CA,
    the more immediate threats are not increased power costs but, rather,
    power outages. Parlier is suffering from ``rolling blackouts'', which
    affect computer use, and reduce the effectiveness of climate control in
    growth chambers, refrigerators and freezers. Without power to run the
    greenhouse cooling system at Riverside, high temperatures might kill
    citrus trees, and months of pathogen testing might be lost because some
    assays require consistently cool temperatures. Loss of power might also
    destroy DNA samples and expensive chemicals stored in refrigerators and
    freezers. Should power costs in CA continue to increase substantially,
    fewer funds would be available to hire temporary employees and for
    operations, with the result that germplasm management efforts would
    diminish.
        The NPGS site at Mayaguez, PR, has suffered a 57 percent increase
    in electricity costs during the last few months. These costs are
    projected to continue for the foreseeable future. As a result, planned
    purchases of farm equipment may be postponed, and fewer temporary field
    laborers may be hired, thereby slowing the rate of progress with key
    managerial tasks.
        Similarly, the NPGS site at Urbana, IL, is planning for a 55
    percent increase in energy costs for the coming fiscal year by altering
    plans for future operations. Without the fiscal year 2001 budget
    increase, no funds would have been available to pay for the increased
    cost of running the germplasm storage building.
        Energy costs have increased at the Ames, IA, site 50 percent so far
    during fiscal year 2001, due to rising fuel, fertilizer, utility,
    transportation, and plastic products costs. When electricity rates are
    re-negotiated later this year, utility costs may double, necessitating
    redirection of funds.
        Energy surcharges for transportation of goods and materials, plus
    direct increases in gasoline, propane, electricity, travel, and postal
    costs have occurred at the NPGS site at Corvallis, OR. The energy rates
    are forecast to double next year, necessitating that funds must be
    diverted from performing non-essential maintenance to pay for the
    forecast increased utility costs.
        Utility costs comprise much of the cost of running the National
    Seed Storage Laboratory at Ft. Collins, CO. Actual usage of steam and
    water for the first six months of fiscal year 2001 indicates that the
    costs of these utilities will double, thereby reducing the amount of
    funds available for other operating expenses, temporary research
    appointments, etc.
        At College Station, TX, the cost of operating greenhouse and cold
    rooms for cotton may rise by up to 100 percent, but cost estimates are
    still preliminary. Energy costs this year for the pecan program have
    increased 46 percent. To reduce energy costs, more plants have been
    transferred from greenhouses to the field, with a concomitant increase
    in plant mortality. This increased cost is met from the operating
    budget, reducing the amount of maintenance that can be conducted on
    facilities and equipment, and the amount of additional summer labor
    that can be hired.
        Question. Do you have materials in the NPGS that are at risk for
    loss? If we lose germplasm due to the lack of regeneration, is it
    always possible to replace it? What percentage of NPGS germplasm is not
    in long-term, back-up storage?
        Answer. Duplicate germplasm samples and duplicate copies of
    databases maintained in at least two physically-separate locations
    represent perhaps the most effective safeguards against the risk of
    catastrophic loss from weather-related causes, other natural phenomena,
    equipment failure, and human activity, be it intentional or
    unintentional.
        It is not always possible to replace germplasm samples that are
    lost due to lack of regeneration when they are not duplicated within
    the NPGS, obtainable from other germplasm collections or genebanks
    within the U.S. or internationally, currently grown by farmers or
    produced by seed companies or nurseries, or if they are extinct in
    nature, as is the case with some wild species. Some of the genetic
    components of the ``lost samples'' may be conserved in other,
    genetically closely-related samples. But the degree of genetic
    redundancy between such samples may be quite variable and
    unpredictable. Consequently, germplasm managers in general do not
    assume that genetically closely-related samples necessarily contain
    precisely the same genetic components of the ``lost samples,'' some of
    which may be key to current and future genetic improvement crops.
        At present, ca. 20 percent of the seed samples and ca. 86 percent
    of the clonally-propagated samples in the NPGS collection of 430,000
    samples are not duplicated in long-term storage, and consequently, are
    at a higher risk of catastrophic loss than are the duplicated samples.
    Some of the samples that are not duplicated within the NPGS are
    duplicated in other nations (e.g., the NPGS pineapple collection is
    duplicated in Martinique) or at International Agricultural Research
    Centers (IARCs). But, with increasing fiscal shortfalls at other
    institutions, the NPGS cannot assume that duplicates of ``lost''
    germplasm can be readily obtained elsewhere.
        As the preceding data indicate, the risk is greatest for clonally-
    propagated germplasm. With many clonal crops, long-term ``backup''
    methods (e.g., cryopreservation) do not exist; more funds are needed
    for NPGS researchers to develop this technology.
        Germplasm may also be at risk from slower, more insidious processes
    such as gradual loss of viability, loss of genetic integrity,
    infectious disease, etc., that deteriorate the quality of germplasm and
    associated data.
        Question. What percentage of accessions is unavailable for
    distribution and why are they unavailable?
        Answer. For the NPGS as a whole, approximately 15.5 percent of the
    nearly 436,000 total accessions is unavailable for distribution.
    Notably, the percentage of accessions unavailable varies widely across
    the different crops and sites of the NPGS (see table below). For
    example, nearly all of the pecan accessions at the Brownwood/College
    Station site are available for distribution, whereas in contrast nearly
    all citrus accessions are not currently available.
        For the most part, the accessions are unavailable because they
    consist of too few seeds or plants, and/or because of uncertain
    viability and disease status. Lack of personnel and operating funds for
    standard seed and clonal increases, for special propagation techniques
    (e.g., tissue culture), and insufficient field and greenhouse space are
    the most common causes for such unavailability. Many of the unavailable
    accessions are wild species; they often require scarce greenhouse space
    for seed increase, prohibitively expensive special techniques for
    propagation, or funds for research to develop such techniques.
        Some discussion of certain figures listed below is warranted. The
    unavailable maize genetic stocks in Urbana are primarily newly received
    materials, many from NSF-funded plant genome projects, that require
    seed increase before sufficient quantities are available for
    distribution to users. The many unavailable citrus accessions are
    largely result from their uncertain disease status; quarantine
    restrictions for citrus are manifold. Transport of citrus across state
    lines is highly regulated, and until funds are available for disease
    indexing, most of the accessions cannot be transported to researchers
    in Florida, Texas, etc. In crops other than citrus, quarantine
    restrictions also contribute to germplasm being unavailable for
    distribution. The percentage of accessions unavailable for regeneration
    is provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                                         Percent unavailable
            Selected NPGS site                                    accessions
    Brownwood/College Station, TX (pecan).........................       >1
    Davis, CA (tomato)............................................       3.1
    Sturgeon Bay/Madison, WI (potatoes)...........................        5
    Hilo, HI (tropical fruits)....................................        5
    Aberdeen, ID (small grains)...................................        8
    Pullman, WA (plant introduction station)......................       10
    Griffin, GA (plant introduction station)......................       15
    Davis, CA (fruit and nut, clonal).............................       22
    Geneva, NY (plant introduction station).......................       28
    Urbana, IL (maize genetic stock)..............................   ca. 40
    Riverside, CA (citrus)........................................   ca. 95

        Question. For fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001, please provide
    the dollar amount and overall percentage of the NPGS budget spent on
    each of the following categories related to germplasm: maintenance,
    regeneration, evaluation, acquisition, and characterization.
        Answer. Of the total $26.7 million allocated to the NPGS in fiscal
    year 2000 about 63 percent ($16.9 million) was devoted to germplasm
    conservation and preservation, which includes the activities of
    maintenance and regeneration. $3 million (11 percent) was devoted to
    germplasm acquisition, and the remaining 26 percent ($6.8 million) was
    devoted collectively to germplasm characterization and evaluation,
    categories that often overlap substantially. In fiscal year 2001 a
    total of $32.2 million is currently allocated to the NPGS with 62
    percent ($19.9 million) devoted to germplasm maintenance and
    regeneration, and $3.3 million (10 percent) to germplasm acquisition.
    The remaining 28 percent ($9 million) was devoted collectively to
    germplasm characterization and evaluation, categories that often
    overlap substantially. At specific NPGS sites (e.g., plant introduction
    stations, crop-specific collections of clonal germplasm, grains,
    oilseeds, etc.) that both maintain and regenerate germplasm, the
    budgetary percentage devoted to maintenance and regeneration may be 75
    percent or higher.
        Question. Do you have sufficient resources to manage the materials
    that are in the quarantine centers in a manner that fulfills the
    demands of the users? Have materials died in quarantine centers? Are
    the materials made available to the requesters in a timely manner?
        Answer. In general, the Plant Germplasm Quarantine Office/National
    Plant Germplasm Quarantine Center (PGQO) in Beltsville, MD, can manage
    the plant germplasm in quarantine successfully, provided the amount of
    germplasm in the PGQO does not exceed current capacity, which is
    determined primarily by the funding available for personnel,
    operations, and facilities. To ensure that its capacity is not exceeded
    by demand, the PGQO is establishing annual quotas for each type of
    germplasm. These were communicated to germplasm users in May 1999 and
    put into effect starting in fiscal year 2000. The quotas vary somewhat
    over years based on factors such as the germplasm in the quarantine
    testing ``pipeline'' at the beginning of the year, changes in testing
    protocols, and changes in program goals.
        No significant germplasm losses have occurred in the potato, sweet
    potato, rice, or sugarcane held by the PGQO. In the past, fruit tree
    accessions in the PGQO orchards were lost because of inadequate care,
    and insufficient attention to matching the work load with the resources
    available to tend to this germplasm. These problems were addressed and
    loss has been minimal during the recent years of orchard testing.
        Some replicates of accessions have been lost to herbicide injury
    but, in these cases, a sufficient amount of backup material was
    available to repeat the tests as necessary. Occasionally, replicate
    samples of blackberry, raspberry, or currant perish from winter damage
    in the screenhouses. But, these samples are ``backed up'' so the
    accession is not lost, but its release from quarantine is delayed
    because the tests must be repeated. Losses from winter kill have been
    minor during recent years because of mild weather, and improved
    horticultural care. Sweet potatoes, Irish potatoes, and currants are
    backed-up in tissue culture for additional security.
        The stone fruit (cherry, peach) quarantine program is conducted
    entirely in greenhouses and screenhouses, where germplasm loss is
    relatively rare, but does occur occasionally because of several factors
    that are not unique to PGQO: (1) the inherent difficulty of maintaining
    trees in pots for years; and, (2) cherry and peach accessions received
    by PGQO as budwood are often difficult to propagate, especially after
    days in international transit, and may die before they are established.
        Germplasm is made available (``released'') from quarantine as
    rapidly as quarantine regulations and/or ``pathogen clean up'' permit.
    The only crop with a backlog of accessions awaiting quarantine testing
    is rice, with a 4,000 accession backlog. The rice backlog can be
    addressed if the testing protocol is being revised to continue
    quarantine testing at Beltsville with seed production of quarantined
    accessions in North Carolina (where rice is no longer grown
    commercially). For other crops, the release/backlog situation is
    summarized below:
      --Pome fruits (apples, pears, quince) are now released
            ``provisionally'' within one year if the first round of testing
            is negative and if the propagative material is available. Under
            the ``provisional release policy,'' germplasm users can
            propagate and evaluate the germplasm prior to its final release
            from quarantine. This policy has been very popular with
            germplasm users, and is feasible because of the PCR test for
            phytoplasmas. Final release still requires at least 3-5 years
            because test trees must produce fruit for evaluation of
            symptoms: there is no technological substitute for the fruit
            evaluation.
      --Stone fruits (cherry, peach) are also provisionally released after
            one year, but full release requires at least 3-5 years for
            germplasm imported as budwood. But germplasm imported as seed
            can be released sooner (12-18 months) because less testing is
            required.
      --Sugarcane imported from other nations requires 18-24 months in
            quarantine, whereas sugarcane shipped interstate (e.g,
            Louisiana to Florida) requires 12-18 months. Current molecular
            technology will probably not accelerate the release time,
            although the former may improve the accuracy of test results.
      --Rice cannot be released from quarantine until it sets seed, which
            can require 100 to 240 days, depending on the specific
            germplasm. Notably, quarantine testing could be conducted
            entirely from in vitro tissue culture and germplasm released in
            30 days but, because it would be distributed in the form of
            tissue-cultured plantlets rather than true seed, the user
            community has not been interested in this method.
      --The quarantine process for potatoes and sweet potatoes require 18-
            24 months; tests require one year and are repeated. The testing
            required for true potato seed is substantially less than for
            potato tubers.
      --The quarantine process for currants and gooseberries requires 3-5
            years, necessitated by waiting for plants to fruit so they can
            be evaluated for the reversion virus. There is a PCR-based test
            for the reversion virus but APHIS has not accepted it, although
            Agriculture Canada has done so. The PCR test could enable
            provisional release after one year, if the propagative material
            is available.
      --The quarantine process for raspberries requires about 3 years.
        Question. With current resources, are you able to take advantage of
    modern molecular techniques to accelerate the rate of quarantine
    testing for crops such as rice, apples, cherries, sweet potatoes, and
    others?
        Answer. Molecular diagnostic techniques alone may not accelerate
    the final release of germplasm from quarantine but they may accelerate
    the provisional release of germplasm, as described above for pome and
    stone fruits. The tests will detect target pathogens that have been
    thoroughly characterized genetically, but not other ``exotic''
    pathogens which are often essentially unknown scientifically, except
    for symptoms on the plant or fruit. Thus, molecular diagnostic tests
    will not completely replace the time-consuming visual observations of
    plants currently required by APHIS regulations. Consequently, the speed
    of the entire quarantine process may be more closely related to
    principles of scientific risk assessment and/or the field and
    greenhouse capacity, rather than to modern molecular technology.
        Despite the preceding factors, the current staffing level at the
    Plant Germplasm Quarantine Office (PGQO) does not enable the PGQO to
    take full advantage of molecular diagnostic techniques.
      --Pome (apple, pear) and stone fruits (cherry, plum, peach).--The
            polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test for phytoplasmas and
            molecular hybridization assays for viroids have enabled
            provisional quarantine release within one year, providing
            adequate budwood is available. Additional technical assistance
            is needed to fully utilize new greenhouse and screenhouse
            space, implement more fully this molecular testing program, and
            further accelerate the quarantine process.
      --Stone fruits.--Implementation of a PCR-based test for sharka (plum
            pox) could supplement the plant graft testing on indicator
            species, but would require additional resources for
            implementation, and additional technical assistance to fully
            utilize new greenhouse and screenhouse space.
      --Sugarcane.--Current quarantine testing relies on observations of
            symptoms on greenhouse-grown plants, which is not ideal for
            sugarcane. Molecular tests for Fiji virus (Oceania) and
            sugarcane mosaic gemini virus (Africa) are under development at
            PGQO. Implementing these tests, which might result in
            provisional quarantine release, will require additional staff
            resources for the PGQO.
      --Rice.--Molecular techniques are not required to accelerate pathogen
            diagnostic testing with rice, because the key pathogens are
            readily culturable bacteria. Additional technical assistance is
            needed to fully utilize new greenhouse and screenhouse space
            for the rice quarantine program.
      --Currants and gooseberries.--A PCR-based assay for the reversion
            virus in these plants should be implemented, but this will
            require APHIS approval and additional staff resources for PGQO.
      --Potatoes and sweet potatoes.-- A PCR-based test for phytoplasma
            should be implemented to improve the accuracy and reliability
            of the potato/sweet potato pathogen detection, but would not
            necessarily accelerate the rate whereby germplasm is released
            from quarantine. Additional technical assistance is needed to
            fully utilize new greenhouse and screenhouse space and to
            bolster this molecular testing program.
        Question. Have the germplasm materials at the Griffin, Georgia, and
    Pullman, Washington, facilities been tested for viability?
        Answer. Of the 68,900 germplasm accessions at Pullman, WA, 32.2
    percent have undergone germination testing at Pullman during the 11-
    year period of 1991-2001. Most of the germination tests were conducted
    during the last 6 years (1995-2001). Roughly one-half of the 68 percent
    of the collection that has not been tested recently comprises samples
    of legumes, which often survive 40 years or more in storage.
        During the last 11 years, few of the more than 81,000 seed-
    propagated accessions at Griffin, GA, have undergone germination
    testing at Griffin; approximately 60 percent of the samples stored at
    Griffin have been tested recently for viability at the National Seed
    Storage Laboratory (NSSL), Fort Collins, CO, which provides important
    information for managing Griffin collection. There are 686 clonally-
    propagated sweet potato accessions at Griffin that are regularly
    checked visually for health and vigor.
        Duplicate samples of 77 percent of the seed-propagated accessions
    from Griffin, GA, and 85 percent of the accessions from Pullman have
    been deposited at the NSSL, Ft. Collins, CO. The viabilities of many,
    but not all, of these duplicate samples were tested by NSSL before
    being deposited in long-term storage and the germination information
    made available to curators at Griffin, GA, and Pullman, WA, as was
    mentioned above.
        Question. Do all the facilities have viability testing plans and
    procedures in place and do they have the resources sufficient to follow
    such plans and procedures?
        Answer. No, not all of the NPGS facilities have viability testing
    plans and procedures in place, as some sites (e.g., Palmer AK;
    Columbus, OH; Parlier, CA) were only recently established, and the
    precise scope of their germplasm holdings is still under consideration.
    The preceding sites are still in the process of securing needed
    equipment, facilities, and other infrastructure. Some years ago, the
    NPGS conducted a system-wide effort to ensure that each existing NPGS
    site had an operations manual that included such viability testing
    plans and procedures. As a result, the ``older'' NPGS sites generally
    do have such plans and procedures in place, especially for major crops,
    where there may be extensive information regarding the expected long-
    term seed viability. In contrast, for wild species, or for ``minor/
    specialty crops,'' such as many ornamental species, viability testing
    procedures have not yet been developed, so no testing procedures exist.
    More resources are needed to conduct research at NPGS sites and
    elsewhere to develop those standard assays.
        The linchpin of the NPGS's viability testing program is the
    National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) at Ft. Collins, CO, which
    preserves the ``base'' collection which holds duplicate samples of NPGS
    germplasm as a back-up to materials at the active sites. The NSSL
    conducts viability tests on all seed samples when they are initially
    received for deposit in long-term storage. NSSL's plans and procedures
    stipulate viability monitoring every 15 years for all samples with a
    viability percentage of 85 percent or higher when last tested. Due to
    budgetary limitations, this target has not been attainable, and the
    NSSL must rely on an outside laboratory to conduct at a fee about 2,500
    tests each year. Although germination tests are standard, seed vigor
    testing would also be desirable, but insufficient funds are available
    to initiate such testing.
        The NSSL's research program develops for the NPGS viability
    monitoring tools to predict longevity so that monitoring frequency is
    optimal, and to measure changes in viability non-destructively. At
    present, the NSSL scientific staff is insufficient for developing
    efficient and non-invasive viability assays for seeds, or to develop
    molecular markers that evaluate genetic and environmental influences on
    seed quality. Furthermore, development of viability assays for wild
    species and ``minor crops'' is limited by insufficient quantities of
    seeds or other propagules for experimentation. Currently, technical
    staff is insufficient for mass producing experimental propagules, which
    involves very labor intensive procedures.
        The resources available for implementing established viability
    plans and procedures vary considerably across the ``active'' NPGS
    sites, i.e., those that distribute seeds, tubers, and cuttings directly
    to scientists. Thanks to funding increases in fiscal year 2000 and
    fiscal year 2001, the genebank at Ithaca/Geneva, NY, has resources to
    implement testing plans and procedures aimed at maintaining seed
    germplasm collections at international standards. Similarly, potato
    samples at Madison/Sturgeon Bay, WI, are tested at least every five
    years, and this site currently has sufficient funds to conduct research
    on improving germplasm viability and on improving the efficiency of
    viability assessments. The site at Pullman, WA, has sufficient
    personnel, germination testing facilities, and testing protocols to
    assess seed viability, but there is a significant backlog of samples
    needing viability testing (over 60 percent of the collection). During
    this last fiscal year, resources were redirected for added support for
    viability assessment, but this site still needs one additional half-
    time worker to conduct requisite viability testing. The small grains
    collection at Aberdeen, ID, has a plan in place to monitor viability of
    all cultivated accessions every 10 years. For the wild relatives of
    crops, monitoring does not begin until the seed is at least 20 years
    old because most of the wild seed seem to retain viability longer. At
    Urbana, IL, funds are available for regrowing soybean samples every ten
    years and those of wild soybean relatives every 15 years, so that
    nearly all samples are of sufficiently high quality for distribution.
        The NPGS site at Ames, IA, has developed detailed guidelines for
    viability testing that include a flow chart enabling planning and
    tracking the testing process for each accession, and recording all
    germination methods used. Each accession is tested generally at five-
    year intervals, although this interval can be reduced or lengthened,
    based on experimental results. Thanks to development of new custom
    software, and bar coding, the testing efficiency and accuracy have
    increased, thereby increasing the number of tests performed per year.
    There are still backlogs of germination tests for certain crops, and
    appropriate tests do not exist for all the species conserved but, as a
    whole, a recent assessment of this program found that the testing
    program is nearly meeting its goals.
        Prior to the fiscal year 2001 budget increase, the Griffin, GA,
    site had no funds, personnel, facilities, equipment, or supplies
    available for germination tests. Established plans or procedures ``in
    place'' had little meaning because there were no means for conducting
    such tests. With the budget increase, a germination testing program is
    being established, but with suboptimal technical support and equipment.
    Consequently, it will require years to test the many (81,000 samples)
    there, and also test newly acquired or regrown samples.
        Viability of cotton seeds are tested when materials are backed-up
    at NSSL, because the active site at College Station, TX, lacks
    resources for such testing. Such assays are crucial with some of the
    wild species with limited periods of seed viability, but resources are
    lacking for research in this area. Similarly, at Mayaguez, PR, lack of
    funds, personnel, and the large size of the collection has impeded
    progress with viability testing on sorghum, 5,000 of which may have
    very poor viability.
        For some clonally propagated crops maintained in orchards (e.g.,
    citrus), visual monitoring is sufficient for assessing viability. Staff
    at Davis, CA, and at NSSL are conducting pilot cryopreservation
    experiments on cherries and grape, but results to date have been
    disappointing. Pilot studies on embryo culture methods for fruit and
    nut crops have begun. Genetic fidelity testing for cherries and grapes
    is underway, and may have immediate impact on management methods. At
    College Station, TX, water delivery to orchards and greenhouses is the
    primary threat to maintaining pecan and hickory germplasm. Resources
    are lacking to monitor water quality.
        Question. What percentage of the NPGS collection requires timely
    regeneration to maintain its genetic integrity? With current resources,
    and at the current rate of regenerating accessions, how long would it
    take the ARS to regenerate those accessions?
        Answer. In our response, we assume that 1) ``timely'' means
    ``during the next 2-5 years'' (consistent with the 1997 GAO study of
    the NPGS), and 2) ``regeneration'' is relevant for the 400,000 + seed-
    propagated NPGS germplasm accessions. Because of the variable quality
    and quantity of data available, the accuracy and precision of the
    following percentages vary. Across the NPGS, the median percentage of
    collections that require regeneration during the next 2-5 years seems
    to be about 30 percent. The percentage information is provided for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

                                                        Estimated percentage
                                                      requiring regeneration
                                                         during the next 2-5
            Selected NPGS collections                                  years

    Tomato genetic stock (Davis)..................................     20-50
    Soybean (Urbana)..............................................        50
    Cotton (College Station)......................................     50-60
    Seed-propagated fruits and nuts (Corvallis)...................        50
    Seed propagated accessions (Ames).............................        20
    Seed propagated accessions (Griffin)..........................        30
    Seed propagated accessions (Geneva)...........................      2-97
    Small grains (Aberdeen).......................................       8-9
    Seed propagated accessions (Mayaguez).........................     10-50
    Seed propagated accessions (Pullman)..........................         3
    National Seed Storage Laboratory (Ft. Collins)................        30

        Regeneration rate is determined not only by fiscal resources
    available for that activity, but also strongly by the biological
    properties of each crop (breeding system, genetic constitution, growth
    rate, duration, etc.). Therefore, information for representative
    individual seed-propagated crops is presented. Because of the variable
    quality and quantity of data available, the accuracy and precision of
    the following figures vary. Across the NPGS, the median period required
    to regenerate these accessions seems to be more or less 9 years. But,
    importantly, for a substantial proportion of these accessions,
    especially of wild species (e.g., tomato, potato), research and
    development will be required to first develop methods for successful
    regeneration. The estimated years required to regenerate accessions is
    provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Estimated years required to
           Selected NPGS collections              regenerate accessions
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tomato genetic stock (Davis)...........  3-7
    Soybean (Urbana).......................  5
    Cotton (College Station)...............  10-15
    Seed-propagated accessions (Corvallis).  No resources are currently
                                              available for regenerating
                                              those accessions.
    Seed propagated accessions (Ames)......  2-23
    Seed propagated accessions (Griffin)...  12-15
    Seed propagated accessions (Geneva)....  1-25
    Small grains (Aberdeen)................  5-10
    Seed propagated accessions (Mayaguez)..  10
    Seed propagated accessions (Pullman)...  7-10
    National Seed Storage Laboratory.......  Regeneration of base (Ft.
                                              Collins) collection is
                                              conducted at active sites.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. What resources are needed to develop the methodology to
    ensure long-term preservation of the viability of the clonally and seed
    propagated material in storage?
        Answer. Resources are needed not only to develop effective seed
    storage or orchard/greenhouse preservation protocol (e.g.,
    cryopreservation, green-house pot culture) that preserves viability,
    but also for more efficient methods (less time, less cost, fewer
    materials) of long-term preservation. In many cases, resources are
    needed to test the genetic fidelity/authenticity of stored materials.
        The National Seed Storage Laboratory (NSSL) at Ft. Collins, CO, is
    the NPGS central site for long-term germplasm preservation. Although
    cryopreservation protocols exist for propagules (sexually or asexually
    derived) innately extremely tolerant of low temperature or moisture
    stresses, and for propagules sensitive to these stresses but, because
    of their small size (<1,000 cells), are amenable to other approaches,
    there are hundreds of species and tens of thousands of samples, for
    which cryopreservation methods are lacking. Despite some progress, many
    barriers remain for efficient cryopreservation of the former samples,
    and too few scientists are addressing these problems.
        Plant material may often be insufficient for such experiments
    because methods are usually labor intensive; there is usually
    insufficient support staff to implement procedures on the wide scale
    required. More support scientists are needed to apply technology and
    more technicians are needed to enhance propagule production and
    processing and to implement a viability-monitoring program. Staff
    support is needed for further research on documentation of stress
    physiology of uncharacterized species before they are placed in a
    routine storage environment, on greater longevity of propagules so that
    monitoring and regeneration frequencies can be extended, on greater
    capabilities to regenerate large quantities of high quality propagules,
    on assessments of genetic diversity within and among accessions and
    genetic shifts resulting from storage so that the size of collections
    can be optimized, appropriate samples can be archived, species or
    varieties lacking preservation protocols can be prioritized, and the
    impact of mortality on genetic diversity can be assessed.
        Specific preservation protocols must be developed for species
    represented by more than 30,000 NPGS samples. Clonal protocols for
    liquid nitrogen storage are very specific to species or sub-species;
    these protocols must be adapted for hundreds if not thousands of
    species. A nondestructive seed viability monitoring test is needed to
    reduce the destruction of seeds during testing. The research to develop
    the latter will require extensive resources in addition to time to
    adapt protocols for germplasm storage.
        NPGS sites that primarily manage clonally-propagated germplasm face
    many of the same resource issues. Current funding at Riverside, CA, is
    insufficient for developing methods for storing citrus seeds at
    cryogenic temperatures, so all citrus germplasm is maintained clonally
    as orchard trees, which is expensive. Similarly, much of the tropical
    germplasm at Hilo, HI, and Mayaguez, PR, is preserved in orchards or in
    pots in greenhouses. Resources are needed to develop reliable methods
    for long-term cryopreservation of tropical/subtropical clonally-
    propagated fruit germplasm at both sites. Thanks to research conducted
    previously at Hilo, HI, pineapple, breadfruit, and tea are stored in
    tissue culture for the medium term, but limited storage space and
    personnel impede progress. Funds for additional technical assistance
    are needed to back up in cryogenic storage and in vitro culture more of
    the small fruit and nut samples at Corvallis, OR. For fully a half of
    the collection, scientific techniques must be developed to do so.
    Additional facilities (a tissue culture lab facility), an additional
    scientist, technician, supplies, and equipment (growth chambers,
    laminar flow hood, microscopes) are needed at Ithaca/Geneva, NY, for
    long-term storage of clonally-propagated grape germplasm as buds or
    other tissues.
        At Pullman, WA, continued development of infrastructure through
    capital improvements is needed to expand and improve greenhouse,
    screenhouse, and growth chamber space needed to develop seed increase
    protocols, or where the actual increases are conducted, because the
    accessions are either not adapted to the local area or because of
    diseases (primarily vial). Greenhouse seed increase provides not only
    the best yields per plant per accession, but also by far the best
    quality of seed. Similarly, at Aberdeen, ID, the paucity of greenhouse
    space is limiting the rate for regenerating the backlog of wild
    species.
        For pecans and hickory, additional resources are needed to develop
    molecular genetic tools for analyzing the structure of genetic
    diversity in native populations. Such data will help with establishing
    a viable in situ conservation strategy, which would be the best for
    these native tree species. The research also may help establish
    improved, ex situ plantations selected for improved performance in
    particular geographic regions (from which continued selection can
    contribute to long-term regional improvement), for verification of
    cultivar identity, as well as for the long-term development of marker-
    aided selection to improve the efficiency of the breeding program. The
    molecular marker work is funded by a grant that expires this year. At
    current budget levels, there are no resources to continue using the
    markers in routine assays.
        Sufficient resources are available to preserve the viability of
    clonally-and seed-propagated potato germplasm at Madison/Sturgeon Bay,
    WI. However, additional resources are needed to develop genetic markers
    for assessing the genetic fidelity/authenticity of stored potato
    germplasm. Similarly, the system for long-term preservation for cotton
    at College Station, TX, seems to be adequate, except that additional
    resources would be welcome for more rapidly moving new materials
    through the seed increase and document phases to be incorporated into
    the long-term base collection.
        Methods are available for ensuring long-term preservation for the
    vast majority of species maintained at Ames, IA. But for some crops,
    appropriate protocols are not yet available. Staff at that site
    collaborate with staff at NSSL on those issues. Resources are currently
    unavailable to examine the genetic component of longevity under actual,
    long-term storage conditions, and genetic shifts in accessions as a
    result of the regeneration process itself, both independent of, and
    related to, genetic shifts under long-term storage conditions.
    Relatively few accessions at Ames, IA, are maintained vegetatively but
    they often possess special characteristics, for which reliable safe,
    long-term preservation methods are lacking. Such germplasm is
    maintained in field and greenhouse plantings, with no organized system
    of off-site backup. Little is known about their long-term health, with
    respect to the broad range of microbes present as latent infections for
    extended periods of time.
        The costs of ongoing, long-term planting or long-term maintenance
    in the greenhouse vary widely depending on re-propagation frequency,
    adaptation to field conditions, etc. Nevertheless, reliable protocols
    for slow-growth, in-vitro shoot-tip culture or cryogenic preservation
    of buds could decrease per unit preservation costs. Such protocols are
    generally lacking and, even when they are available, two important
    issues remain: (1) how easily can generic protocols be modified to work
    well on a broad range of genotypes, and (2) do the plants that are
    recovered after storage preserve the genetic integrity of the source
    material?
        A research geneticist, additional lab technicians, and updated DNA
    sequencers are needed in Griffin, GA, to test the genetic authenticity
    of clonal germplasm stored in tissue culture and in the greenhouse.
    Methods for maintaining sweet potato via cryopreservation rather than
    the current labor-intensive tissue culture system are needed, not only
    to save time and money, but to reduce the risk of losing valuable
    germplasm. Increased funding for the molecular lab would also increase
    testing for duplication and genetic redundancy, which not only increase
    storage and regeneration costs, but also hamper evaluation efforts
    wherein genetically identical accessions may be assessed. Similarly, no
    genetic fidelity tests are conducted on sorghum in Mayaguez, PR, which
    is especially worrisome for accessions with low viability. Additional
    resources are needed for that genetic testing.
        Question. Does the NPGS have the resources to effectively use
    geographic information system tools to identify gaps in the U.S.
    collection?
        Answer. In addition to the resources available for geographical
    information systems (GIS) analyses, methodological and data quality
    factors may strongly affect how effectively GIS can identify genetic
    gaps in the NPGS's collection. Of course, the resources that have been
    available historically may have strongly affected the preceding
    factors.
        First, for each crop or species under consideration, the strength
    of the association between genetic variation and ecogeographical
    factors must be determined before GIS analyses of ecogeographical data
    can be considered a reliable means for predicting genetic divergence or
    diversity. There are few resources throughout the NPGS to hire
    personnel with GIS expertise to integrate genetic diversity data with
    geographic information. NPGS sites such as at Ft. Collins, CO, have the
    potential to utilize the GIS to reduce duplication, improve the quality
    of the collection through core subsets, and identify locations for
    growout that would be cost efficient, but they lack funding for
    personnel to generate such genetic data, or with needed GIS background
    or computer skills.
        Second, basic information about the degree of reliability for the
    ecogeographical information itself is generally lacking. GIS relies on
    the accuracy of the available latitude and longitude data to identify
    sites that environmental factors suggest may contain genetic variation
    valuable to sample. For example, the ecogeographical information
    available for the pecan and hickory collection at College Station, TX,
    lacks the precision needed for GIS analyses. Development of such
    information, a long-term project, is required for this site to use GIS
    techniques to integrate ecogeographical information with molecular
    estimates of genetic variation. The major limitations to progress are
    insufficient resources for personnel.
        Third, lack of latitude/longitude/elevation data, or any accurate
    location data at all, may simply preclude use of GIS to analyze many
    thousands of older accessions (e.g., in citrus). As funds permit,
    locations such as Ames, IA, and Beltsville, MD, are retrospectively
    determining the latitude and longitude of the origin of NPGS
    accessions. But additional resources are needed for permanent data
    entry specialists to do that, and to computerize descriptive
    information recorded only on paper. But, in contrast, the Aberdeen, ID,
    site had sufficient resources to map almost all possible germplasm
    samples by their latitude and longitude with GIS software and
    electronic gazeteers.
        Finally, lack of resources for identifying the optimal GIS approach
    and for confirming the validity of initial experiments may impede
    application of GIS to identify genetic gaps in the NPGS collection. For
    example, at Beltsville, MD, inadequate resources for technical support
    is greatly limiting implementation of an original approach for applying
    GIS technology to identify gaps in the NPGS collections and
    prioritizing acquisition needs. Resources are similarly lacking at
    Pullman/Prosser, WA, and at the soybean collection at Urbana, IL. In
    general, throughout the NPGS there are few resources for applying
    existing techniques to the many important crop genepools and very
    limited capacity for developing more sophisticated tools for more in
    depth analysis of collections, needs, and priorities.
        Question. Does the NPGS have the resources to analyze the plant
    collections for gaps and the resources to prioritize the collections
    using this procedure?
        Answer. As with the preceding question, factors other than resource
    availability, such as methodological and data quality issues, may be
    key for developing the means for applying GIS and molecular genetic
    analyses to managerial/curatorial decision-making, such as gap analyses
    and setting priorities for germplasm management.
        First, let us presume that ``gaps'' mean absence from the
    collections of key genes, genotypes, varieties, etc. Before GIS
    technology can be applied to identifying gaps, and the technological
    merit of this approach assessed, basic information is needed regarding
    the genetic structure of crop genepools and their distribution in
    nature, farmers' fields, and in gene banks. Besides the major crops,
    relatively little is known about the total genetic diversity of other
    crop species; the genetic diversity within and among populations/
    accessions of a species; the number of accessions needed to fully
    represent the genetic diversity of a species; and the relationship
    between morphological traits, environmental plasticity and genetic
    diversity. Molecular analytical procedures must be developed for each
    species so that genetic relationships among genebanks samples can be
    estimated.
        For example, little or nothing is known of the genetic diversity in
    many wild perennial sunflowers. A gap in the genetic coverage of the
    NPGS collection of wild relatives of sorghum is suspected, but a lack
    of genetic data makes it difficult to confirm this or to estimate the
    size of such gap. The current status of ``wild'' citrus and date palms
    in nature is unclear, and political barriers currently impede access to
    some nations where these crops originated. Much descriptive literature
    on these crops is very old (1800's) and probably not always accurate.
    Similarly, taxonomic treatments for many minor (especially tropical)
    and even some major crops are currently insufficient to identify gaps.
    Up-to-date taxonomic classifications, accurate data on native
    distributions, and access to important taxonomic reference data, all
    critical for analyzing gaps, may be lacking. With the current level of
    support, the staff of taxonomists associated with the NPGS struggles to
    adequately meet the ever-increasing demands for taxonomic data.
        In some NPGS sites, lack of resources impedes the ability to
    conduct gap analysis with GIS and/or molecular approaches. At Pullman,
    WA, resources are needed to format the passport data so that it can be
    analyzed by GIS. Furthermore, once passport data are ready, both
    morphological and molecular markers must be combined in databases. For
    many of the species within its collection, NPGS lacks sufficient
    scientific staff or molecular genetic labs with high throughput
    capabilities to perform the prerequisite genetic assays. This is
    especially the case for large collections, e.g., 30,000 + sorghum
    samples managed at Mayaguez, PR, and Griffin, GA, where resources are
    not available to analyze the entire collection for gaps.
        Resources are lacking to continue molecular analyses, funded by a
    competitive grant, that are providing critical baseline genetic data
    for pecans and hickories at College Station, TX. Furthermore, permanent
    ``in-house'' personnel trained in plant population analysis and
    interpretation are needed there. The genebank at Corvallis, OR, lacks
    resources for molecular analysis of temperate fruit or nut collections
    to identify gaps. Additional molecular tools, in conjunction with
    extant information on morphological traits and ecogeographical
    location, would provide a more precise estimate for genetic diversity
    in the collections. Where, such as at Aberdeen, ID, the necessary
    ecogeographical baseline data and GIS tools are available for
    initiating GIS assisted gap analyses, resources (money and techniques)
    may be lacking to evaluate samples at the molecular level and thereby
    identify gaps.
        Limited genetic resources, often from competitive grants, have been
    available for NPGS scientists to complete an extensive survey of potato
    genetic variability and systematic relationships during the last 15
    years, providing a detailed accounting of the gaps in the NPGS and
    other potato germplasm collections. Also, some ``gap analyses'' (that
    have not employed GIS) have been conducted on very small plant
    collections, where they also uncovered putative duplicates/
    redundancies, which may occur especially in poorly-characterized
    collections of clonally-propagated crops. For example, molecular
    analyses detected little genetic variation among samples of tannier at
    Mayaguez, PR. Analyses may also be conducted at the level of species,
    e.g., the Beltsville, MD, site is determining the presence or absence
    of wild crop relatives and the number of accessions for these species
    in the NPGS collections, then will use GIS tools to analyze the
    ecogeographic origin of existing accessions as a first step in the
    analysis of gaps and prioritization of acquisition needs.
        In some cases, molecular analyses have successfully detected gaps
    in genetic diversity, and resources were available for NPGS scientists
    to collect new material to fill those gaps. A comprehensive molecular
    analysis of the pea collection at Pullman, WA, revealed that newly
    discovered genetic variants almost always occurred in samples from
    Turkey. As a result, several collecting expeditions were mounted in
    Turkey until it was believed that the genetic gap was filled.
    Similarly, genetic research at Davis, CA, with wild relatives of the
    cultivated grape identified species that may be of special interest to
    grape breeders. As a result, scientists are planning to collect wild
    grape species from Armenia, and assess its diversity. Also, plans are
    underway to collect wild Chinese grape species in danger of extinction
    in nature. There are few Chinese grape samples in the NPGS, and those
    sample's properties suggest that this poor representation represents a
    major gap.
        Question. What is the status of international efforts to exchange
    germplasm and is any germplasm located outside of the U.S. at a risk of
    loss? What agencies or entities are involved in assessing whether
    germplasm is at a risk of loss on an international basis?
        Answer. During the last decade--especially during the last five
    years--developments in international and national legislation and
    diplomatic agreements have complicated, or sometimes precluded, free
    international exchange of germplasm. Part of this trend is the result
    of the philosophical change from considering germplasm the ``common
    heritage of humankind,'' to formal recognition of nations' sovereignty
    over the germplasm within their own borders. The Convention on
    Biological Diversity (CBD) and other legislation now require that
    ``prior informed consent'' and arrangements for ``benefit sharing'' be
    established before germplasm can be exchanged. Although such provisions
    are considered by some as the basis for durable germplasm conservation
    and exchange, to some extent, they have slowed the rate of germplasm
    exchange, and sometimes impeded the ability of scientists to visit
    endangered locales and at least perform a ``triage'' to save crop
    germplasm. Negotiations that precede plant exchange are now
    considerably longer, more complicated, and consequently germplasm
    exchange may be more expensive than ever before.
        Outside of the United States, destruction of natural and
    agricultural habitat and of traditional cultures is proceeding at an
    accelerated rate that threatens germplasm. Although other nations
    (especially in the developing world) have established genebanks and
    reserves for natural vegetation, on a global scale, the capacity to
    manage germplasm in gene banks or in reserves has probably not
    increased substantially. At present, many genebanks in other nations
    have very limited capacity, and conservation reserves are often not
    adequately managed. Also, on a global scale, enhanced capacity in some
    nations (e.g., several developing nations) has been ``canceled out'' by
    lost capacity in other nations (e.g., Russia, some nations of the
    Former Soviet Union), by cutbacks in funding to some of the CGIAR
    centers, etc. Consequently, germplasm outside of the U.S. is still at
    risk. As limited resources permit, staff of the NPGS are working with
    officials in Russia and elsewhere to place duplicate germplasm samples
    in the NPGS for safekeeping.
        Finally, economic ``globalization'' has benefitted many worldwide
    through substantial expansion in international trade and through
    development of transportation infrastructure (e.g., roads, airfields,
    navigational channels), affording ever easier access to previously
    remote regions that may facilitate germplasm collection, tourism,
    agricultural development, etc. But, this access has also increased the
    danger to germplasm in nature, as formerly pristine regions are
    converted from traditional agriculture and/or natural habitats to more
    intensive agricultural and forestry practices. Concurrently, the
    traditional cultures of indigenous peoples, and their rich lore about
    plant uses, may be lost. Lastly, penetration into pristine regions
    provides invasion routes for additional exotic, invasive species which
    may rapidly deteriorate the landscape and endanger potentially valuable
    germplasm of traditional crops and their wild relatives.
        The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), an
    international agricultural research center (IARC) supported by the
    World Bank through the Consultative Group for International Agriculture
    Research (CGIAR), has as part of its mission the monitoring of
    germplasm loss internationally. Similarly, the Food and Agricultural
    Organization of the United Nations (FAO) maintains the World
    Information and Early Warning System (WIEWS) to disseminate information
    about germplasm at risk, and as an instrument for the periodic
    assessment of the state of the world's crop germplasm. The USDA/ARS
    National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) collaborates closely especially
    with IPGRI on projects to assess the status of germplasm in specific
    crops, e.g., peanuts. The U.S. government provides 20 percent of the
    funding for the FAO, and the NPGS contributes information to the WIEWS.
        Question. What is the availability and condition of collections at
    the international agricultural research centers and have the
    collections been evaluated adequately?
        Answer. The availability and condition of the crop germplasm
    collections at the international agricultural research centers (IARCs),
    and the degree to which germplasm has been evaluated adequately, varies
    widely from IARC to IARC, and across the individual crop collections at
    each IARC. For some crops, samples from the IARCs are generally readily
    available, although they may not be adequately evaluated. Recently,
    there has been a very active exchange of dry bean germplasm between
    NPGS at Pullman, WA, and scientists at CIAT, an IARC in Colombia. At
    other IARCs, unless NPGS scientists have established a collaborative
    research effort with that IARC's scientists, germplasm access may be
    problematic. Access by U.S. researchers to germplasm in IARCs or held
    by other countries may be seriously compromised as a result of the
    forthcoming FAO International Undertaking, which will regulate
    worldwide access to plant germplasm.
        The quality of germplasm collections at the IARCs is highly
    variable. It is generally believed that resources for periodic
    viability testing of the collections held at the IARC's does not exist,
    therefore viability testing is not done. It is difficult to monitor the
    condition of collections without that information, but resources are
    generally not going to germplasm viability testing or regeneration on a
    routine basis at these centers. The NPGS site at Beltsville, MD, is
    assessing the quality of IARC collections with respect to species
    representation, numbers of accessions per species, geographic origin of
    accessions, etc. Eventually, this information may be used to compare
    the contents of IARC collections with contents of the NPGS collections
    to identify ``global'' gaps, redundancies etc.
        Collections of cool-season legumes (chickpea, lentil, pea) at the
    International Center for Agricultural Research in Desert Areas (in
    Syria) and the International Center for Research in the Semi-Arid
    Tropics (in India) seem to be of generally high quality, and readily
    accessible to researchers. The International Center for Maize (Corn)
    and Wheat Research (CIMMYT) has excellent germplasm storage facilities,
    but the condition of their collections is directly related to their
    condition at the time of deposit, and varies greatly. In contrast,
    there are few germplasm collections of tropical/subtropical fruits at
    IARCs and they may not be of high quality or adequately evaluated.
    Banana and cacao may be exceptions, but even collections of these crops
    may deteriorate due to unstable political climate and lack of funding.
    Many clonal collections of tropical fruit crops in IARCs are
    unreplicated and accessions grafted into different and unknown
    rootstocks, thereby greatly complicating evaluations.
        A molecular assessment of the genetic diversity in crops in both
    the IARC and U.S. collections would help the U.S. assess its needs, the
    countries where it could expect to exchange germplasm, and its
    interdependence on any countries holding valuable collections or wild
    relatives in situ. For example, additional evaluations of horticultural
    merit are needed for collections of white potatoes and sweet potatoes
    at the International Potato Center (CIP, in Peru), Furthermore,
    germplasm in most of the other IARCs and in national collections have
    not been evaluated well, or at all, for conditions and traits of
    benefit to U.S. needs. Indeed, most of the samples in IARC genebanks
    have not been evaluated adequately for performance under temperate
    conditions.
        Finally, for some globally important crops, there are no IARC
    collections. For all practical considerations, the NPGS collection at
    College Station, TX, serves as the international collection for cotton,
    and the collection at Urbana, IL, serves a similar role for soybean.
        Question. If there is not a substantial increase in the NPGS budget
    of $20 million as ARS requested, what are some of the forecast
    ramifications?
        Answer. As mentioned in answer to a previous question, there were
    no formal agency or Departmental budget requests. The ramifications of
    a static NPGS budget for fiscal years 2002-2006 can be forecast from
    both a fiscal and a programmatic standpoint. From a fiscal standpoint,
    consider the current budget of $32.2 million, and assume the following:
    (1) inflation reduces purchasing power at a rate of 2.6 percent per
    year (the mean calculated from annual estimates for this period in the
    fiscal year 2001 Budget Analytical Perspectives); and (2) personnel
    costs increase by 3.4 percent per year (the mean calculated from annual
    estimates for this period in the fiscal year 2001 Budget Analytical
    Perspectives). Given the preceding figures, and a static budget during
    fiscal years 2002-2006, the purchasing power of the NPGS budget would
    decrease by 14 percent from inflation. During the same period, the
    current percentage (15 percent) of the NPGS budget devoted to non-
    salary items (equipment, operations, travel) would decrease by 18
    percent to 13 percent. Adjusted for inflation, the non-salary budget
    would effectively be reduced to less than 10 percent of the total NPGS
    budget. And, at certain NPGS sites, that percentage would be
    substantially less than 10 percent.
        A static budget during fiscal years 2002-2006 would have severe
    programmatic ramifications throughout the NPGS. The budgets of some
    sites are already running deficits that are accompanied by substantial
    programmatic effects. Funding at many sites would be insufficient not
    only for salaries of temporary employees, but also for some permanent
    curatorial staff. At many sites, no funds would be available for
    utilities, travel, operations, facility repairs or expansion, supplies,
    or equipment. Position vacancies would be abolished to provide funds
    for operations.
        With a static budget during fiscal years 2002-2006, the NPGS would
    by necessity focus nearly exclusively on providing security for
    databases and for germplasm stored in coldrooms, greenhouses, and field
    plantings. Purchase of equipment key for germplasm security might be
    precluded. Acquisition of endangered germplasm would slow or cease, as
    would evaluation of germplasm for agronomically or horticulturally
    valuable traits. The rate of duplicating (backing-up) germplasm and
    testing it for health, viability, or genetic integrity would slow or
    cease. Germplasm would move through the quarantine process more slowly,
    or not at all. Germplasm currently at risk would perhaps be endangered
    further, whereas additional germplasm might also be endangered. As the
    funds available for maintaining each accession shrank, the supply of
    germplasm would shrink, which would limit germplasm distribution, and
    impede the progress of important research and breeding programs. Should
    additional funds become available in later years, they would initially
    be devoted to restoring the NPGS to its state in fiscal year 2002,
    rather than to progress on new initiatives.
        A static budget would preclude the NPGS from exploiting the new
    tools of genomics and biotechnology to develop more effective and
    efficient means of maintaining and regenerating germplasm. The
    ramifications would be especially severe for clonally-propagated crops,
    many of which cannot now be preserved by long-term tissue culture or
    cryopreservation.
        Lastly, there is currently more demand (more frequent requests, and
    more samples per request) from scientists for germplasm for research,
    and more public interest in conserving genetic diversity and in
    exploiting it for crop improvement, than at anytime in the past. For
    example, soybean farmers through the United Soybean Board and state
    checkoffs have been and still are investing millions to exploit soybean
    germplasm. Researchers are already finding new genes for improved
    levels of disease resistance and yield. Genomic technology is
    identifying loci and allelic variants important for yield, seed
    composition, disease resistance and other economically important traits
    in soybean, tomato, and other crops. The major funding increases for
    plant genomic research at NSF will generate many new specialized
    genetic stocks for the NPGS to manage. For example, NSF-funded research
    will generate at least 50,000 new maize (corn) genetic stocks, which
    would more than double the size of the NPGS maize stock center. Just
    when researchers can use germplasm more effectively and efficiently
    than ever before, just when its clientele is demanding more from the
    NPGS, and just when the NPGS, if sufficiently funded, could deliver
    more than ever before to its customers, the NPGS would struggle just to
    maintain staff, facilities, and germplasm.
        Question. If NPGS received an increase of $10 million for fiscal
    year 2002, what would you be able to accomplish with the additional
    resources?
        Answer. An NPGS-wide $10 million funding increase would enable the
    NPGS as a whole to accelerate substantially its progress in all facets
    of plant genetic resource management. As a result, the time needed to
    regenerate accessions that are endangered because of low seed number or
    viability would be shortened dramatically, thus safeguarding much of
    the germplasm currently at risk. An additional 6-7 scientists could be
    hired. The number of permanent, full-time technicians, information
    management personnel, or support scientists could be increased by about
    40. At sites that employ substantial crews of part-time or seasonal
    workers, many more of these workers would be hired.
        More germplasm would be safeguarded by newly developed
    cryopreservation and in vitro culture technologies. The genetic
    diversity in entire collections could be characterized by new, high
    throughput methods for assessing genetic diversity. Funds would be
    available to adapt the latest technology of genomics and bioinformatics
    to germplasm management by hiring scientists trained in genome
    analyses, bioinformaticists, and computational biologists. New,
    specialized databases would be constructed to meet specific user needs.
    Some genebanks would have the resources to begin to distribute
    germplasm in the form of isolated, purified DNA for molecular studies.
        Costly new specialized facilities, e.g., specialized greenhouses,
    screenhouses, growth chambers, and laboratories, could be constructed.
    New greenhouses and screenhouses are needed throughout the NPGS,
    especially if new funding were available to intensify germplasm
    regeneration, maintenance, and quarantine programs. With crops that are
    cultivated worldwide, the genetic variability and ecological adaptation
    within the crop are so broad that no one site is suitable for
    cultivating all varieties in the field, so some must be grown in
    greenhouses. Furthermore, until in vitro culture techniques are
    developed for particular clonally-propagated germplasm, greenhouses and
    screenhouses can serve as back-up sites for accessions that are now
    maintained solely in orchards at other sites.
        Question. Does the NPGS have sufficient resources to handle the
    projected increase in specialized genetic stocks generated by the
    publicly funded plant genome programs? Please provide the dollar amount
    and the percentage of the NPGS budget for specialized genetic stocks on
    a location-by-location basis.
        Answer. During the next decade, the specialized genetic stocks and
    research tools produced by public plant genome projects supported by
    the National Science Foundation and USDA/National Research Initiative
    (NRI) will substantially increase the size of the NPGS's specialized
    genetic stock collections. If the funding currently available for
    supporting these stock collections does not increase proportionately,
    then resources will not be sufficient for optimally conserving and
    distributing these valuable research tools.
        For example, managers of pea, common bean, and lettuce genetic
    resources at Pullman, WA, are being asked to curate numerous special
    genetic stocks developed for gene mapping and characterization projects
    supported primarily by the NRI, but the personnel, equipment, and
    facilities currently are insufficient to do so. Current funding and
    facilities devoted to tomato and potato genetic stocks would need to be
    expanded extensively to handle thousands of new genetic stocks that may
    be generated by public tomato or potato genome projects.
        Genome projects will increase the numbers of maize (corn) genetic
    stocks enormously. One large maize genome project funded by NSF in 1999
    is generating ca. 50,000 new genetic lines. As a result, the maize
    genetic stock collection at Urbana, IL, will require at least one
    additional technician and accompanying increased budget for operations
    to manage those lines alone. As the stocks arrive during the next few
    years, additional climate-controlled seed storage space must be
    available, which will require construction. New greenhouses are needed
    for cultivating some of the new stocks safely. Thus, the impact of this
    one project on the NPGS will be on the order of $50,000-$75,000
    annually, adjusted upward for inflation, for the foreseeable future.
    And that quantity reflects only increased operational costs: capital
    improvements (greenhouse, cold storage space) would further increase
    the total cost. The current ARS base budget for the maize genetic stock
    collection does not suffice even for handling the new genetic stocks
    generated just by that one (albeit large) project. It is uncertain how
    many more such projects will be funded by NSF or NRI in the future, but
    each has the potential of increasing the demand on the NPGS's resources
    by a similar amount.
        Similarly, funds have not been available to maintain cotton genetic
    stocks at College Station, TX, that cannot be managed according to
    routine procedures for this crop. It is anticipated that a number of
    publicly-funded cotton genome projects will deposit genetic stocks in
    the collection, especially because the projects are supported by grant
    funds, which will expire soon.
        Soybean genetic stocks currently comprise little of the soybean
    collection at Urbana, IL. It is uncertain whether the numerous soybean
    genome projects will greatly increase the number of genetic stocks
    incorporated into that collection. At present about 1.4 percent of the
    100,000+ samples at the National Small Grains Collection at Aberdeen,
    ID, are genetic stocks. Current resources are sufficient to manage
    these stocks.
        Furthermore, resources are needed to conduct research (at Ft.
    Collins, CO, and elsewhere) on how to effectively conserve some genetic
    lines with altered synthesis of and response to plant growth
    regulators. Their seeds are not amenable to conventional storage.
        A summary of the fiscal resources devoted specifically to managing
    genetic stock collections is provided, site by site. One research
    project at Urbana, IL, is devoted completely to managing such a
    collection (for maize, i.e., corn). For other crops, genetic stock
    collections are often considerably smaller than that for maize, and
    these efforts are thoroughly integrated with much larger general crop
    germplasm management efforts. In these cases, a relatively small
    percentage (<10 percent) of total funds in the relevant research
    project is devoted specifically to managing genetic stocks. For the
    total NPGS budget of ca. $32 million, an estimated $587,600, or 1.8
    percent, is devoted to managing crop genetic stocks.
        [The information follows:]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Percent of
                                                 relevant
                                                 research
                      Site                        project          Funds
                                                devoted to
                                              genetic stocks
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aberdeen, ID (wheat and barley).........             6.0         $83,900
    Urbana IL (maize).......................           100.0         357,200
    Urbana, IL (soybeans)...................             4.0          27,700
    Ithaca/Geneva, NY (tomato) (funds                    6.7          54,300
     transferred to University of
     California, Davis, CA).................
    College Station, TX (cotton)............             4.0          58,800
    Pullman, WA (pea).......................             0.3           5,700
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

          agricultural research service (ars) buildings and facilities
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a $44
    million reduction in funding for Agricultural Research Service
    buildings and facilities. The President's budget blueprint indicates
    that the Department will conduct a comprehensive review of overall
    facility needs. Agriculture research facilities have been reviewed on
    numerous occasions. The last I am aware of was submitted in August of
    1999 by the Strategic Planning Task Force required by the 1996 Farm
    Bill to conduct a study of USDA research facilities and report back to
    the Secretary of Agriculture and the Congress. Why is a new,
    comprehensive facilities' review needed? What does the Administration
    hope it will accomplish that the others did not? What guidance has been
    given for this review; who will conduct the review; and when is it
    expected to be completed?
        Answer. Comprehensive review of USDA research facilities is needed
    as part of the Administration's review of budget proposals and
    priorities for preparation of the fiscal year 2003 and future budgets.
    Although no formal guidance has been issued regarding the review of
    facility needs, it is anticipated that existing reports will be
    utilized for this review. Updated information is required, however, to
    determine long-term cost commitments for projects, utilization rates
    for existing space, and other determining factors that impact capital
    investment decisions. In addition, an analysis of research program
    priorities as they relate to facility condition should be part of our
    new analysis.
        Question. The Congress has initiated funding for a number of
    projects which are needed and supported by the Department and the ARS
    even if they do not make the Administration's priority list for
    inclusion in the President's budget request. Given budgetary
    constraints, these projects have been funded incrementally over a
    number of years. A number of projects funded in past appropriations
    Acts can now be completed if the final increment of construction
    funding is provided for fiscal year 2002. Given the investment made to
    date and to avoid further escalation in total cost, wouldn't it make
    more sense to complete these projects rather than to initiate new
    projects or new phases of projects as the President's fiscal year 2002
    budget proposes?
        Answer. There are times when priorities change or when projects are
    recognized as local or regional priorities when they are not part of
    the national research agenda established in the annual budget process.
    Projects chosen for funding in the 2002 budget are those serving
    national needs, including the major regional research centers of the
    Agricultural Research Service. Most of these projects are continuing
    long-term modernization efforts at existing facilities. While prior
    year investment to fund construction projects is an important factor
    and requires our prudent review, the ultimate goal of completion does
    not serve as the decisive measure when determining priority for funding
    proposals.
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests $3.762 million to
    continue modernization of the Plum Island Animal Disease Center in
    Greenport, NY. Research on foot-and-mouth disease and other foreign
    animal diseases that are an ongoing threat to livestock is currently
    conducted at this location. Are the current facilities at Plum Island
    adequate to conduct this work?
        Answer. The requested modernization of the Plum Island Animal
    Disease Center (PIADC) in Greenport, New York is an essential component
    of the requirement to ensure the successful research on Foot-and-Mouth
    Disease (FMD) and other foreign animal diseases. The facility, although
    safe, is not a state-of-the-art facility. The high containment animal
    housing space is limited and currently is being used for research on
    FMD. Modernization of these research and diagnostic facilities is
    critical if we are to meet the threats posed by exotic foreign animal
    diseases to U.S. American agriculture and to human health worldwide, as
    PIADC is the only Federal U.S. facility where research of this caliber
    can be conducted.
        Question. Funding of $20.5 million has been provided to date for
    the Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis, CA. It was my
    understanding that the project scope had been down-sized to enable the
    project to be completed within the funds appropriated. The fiscal year
    2002 budget requests $5 million to restore the facility to its original
    scope. Why?
        Answer. The Agricultural Research Service was appropriated
    $20,350,000 for the design and construction of this facility. However,
    because of escalating building and construction costs in California,
    the facility's original scope had to be reduced from 49,000 GSF to
    43,000 GSF to meet the funding available for this construction project.
    While such a down-sized facility would still accommodate the projected
    staffing level of 16 scientists, the ARS space allocations would be
    reduced for most functions, including lab space, human studies space,
    offices and storage areas. Moreover, the down-sized facility would not
    provide room for future program growth which could only be accommodated
    in space in other university-owned buildings on the UC-Davis campus.
    The benefits of consolidation in a single facility--to ARS and UC-Davis
    campus--would be foregone.
                        information technology/security
        Question. On April 30, 2001, the Chicago Tribune reported that due
    to lax computer security, the National Agricultural Statistics Service
    (NASS) has left highly sensitive crop forecasting data vulnerable and
    open to hackers and others who would want to profit from having access
    to such data. What has the Department done to investigate this matter
    and what steps has it taken to ensure that vital data such as this
    throughout the Department and at its data center in New Orleans and
    Kansas City are adequately protected from unauthorized access and
    misuse?
        Answer. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) has
    examined the issues raised in the Chicago Tribune article and informed
    me that the allegations are misleading. This is due, in part, to
    misunderstandings of NASS security procedures and the perceived threat.
        Both OCIO and Office of Inspector General (OIG) have concluded
    their reviews of this issue. OIG has issued an opinion that NASS
    information is secure. They offered some recommendations to further
    tighten security and OCIO is working to help strengthen NASS's security
    program in identified areas. In addition, security reviews have been
    concluded at the Department's major centers. I will have OCIO provide
    more specific information on these security issues.
        [The information follows:]
        OCIO is currently working with the General Accounting Office (GAO),
    which has begun its own review of NASS security practices. Information
    related to the NASS crop forecasting process and security of the
    forecasting data has been provided. In addition, NASS systems are
    currently on OCIO's oversight review plan. A comprehensive security
    review will be conducted following the conclusion of the GAO review.
        In November, a site assessment team, comprised of security
    specialists, conducted an onsite security risk assessment at the USDA
    National Finance Center (NFC). The team reviewed NFC's computer and
    telecommunications environment. Additionally, they interviewed security
    personnel to determine if security measures, both in place and planned,
    are adequate to protect the integrity, availability and safety of NFC's
    information resources. The review established a security baseline for
    measuring progress at NFC and resulted in numerous findings, most of
    which were easily remedied. Others, however, will require additional
    follow-up efforts to adequately mitigate. Follow-up configuration
    management training also resulted from this review. None of the
    vulnerabilities found related to the potential compromise of NASS data.
        The Cyber Security Program Office staff recently concluded security
    reviews (both physical and cyber-security) of IT facilities at the
    National Information Technology Center (NITC) in Kansas City. The NITC
    review assessed security measures already in place and planned for
    NITC. The review was conducted to determine if measures are adequate to
    protect the information resources hosted at NITC, and also establishing
    a security baseline for measuring future progress and mitigating risks.
    This review was similar to one conducted recently at the National
    Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans and is part of Cyber Security's
    risk-based security review program.In addition, contracted security
    specialists recently completed an exhaustive study of NITC security
    requirements and existing security controls. Recommendations for
    improvement in NITC security posture have been delivered and are
    currently under consideration by NITC and OCIO management. These
    recommendations include an analysis of alternative methods for
    encrypting sensitive data managed by NITC systems.
        Question. Over the last several years we and others have raised
    questions and expressed concerns about USDA's management of and plans
    associated with its multibillion dollar effort to modernize business
    processes and information technology for its county based agencies.
    What assurances can you give us that this critical effort is on track
    and is being managed in a cost-effective and efficient manner?
        Answer. The USDA Chief Information Officer has been assigned direct
    management responsibility for the information technology portion of the
    Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI) and has taken steps to
    ensure that this effort is managed cost-effectively and efficiently. A
    central management structure, headed by an Office of the Chief
    Information Officer (OCIO) executive and assisted by a central project
    management office manages the effort. The OCIO has also engaged
    experienced private-sector support to provide assistance. According to
    OCIO, integrated project plans are being used to ensure that the
    project is managed in an efficient and cost effective manner. Funds
    provided by the Congress for this initiative are being managed by the
    OCIO, and the National Food and Agriculture Council and the OCIO
    develop budgets and monitor spending. Status reports are prepared and
    circulated internally, and OCIO also submits quarterly reports to
    Congress on implementation of the Common Computing Environment.
        Question. For some time, USDA has been trying to improve its
    financial management systems, which includes implementing its
    Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS). Where does USDA stand
    in resolving its financial management problems?
        Answer. USDA is making significant progress in implementing FFIS.
    The Department's largest agencies are now using FFIS, and by October 1,
    2002, all USDA agencies will be using FFIS. FFIS is intended to be the
    foundation for other departmentwide or ``corporate'' systems
    initiatives needed to ensure that the program and financial data fed
    into FFIS is reliable. The Department has been formulating plans for
    these corporate systems and will be implementing them in the coming
    years. We will also address agency-specific financial reporting
    problems, which together with improved financial management systems,
    should improve our audit opinion in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Where does USDA stand on implementing the Freedom to E-
    File Act for enabling farmers and others to access and file paperwork
    electronically with the Department? Does USDA plan to implement GAO's
    recent e-File report recommendations?
        Answer. In the short term, we are continuing to expand the number
    of redesigned forms available on the common Service Center e-Government
    web site. The initial requirement of the Freedom to E-File Act was met
    through the deployment of commonly used Rural Development, Farm Service
    Agency, and Natural Resources Conservation Service forms to this site.
        USDA is in agreement with the recommendations in a recent GAO
    report on our implementation of the Freedom to E-File Act. A senior
    executive is leading our e-Government efforts. He is working with
    agency e-Government executives on department-wide and agency-specific
    plans to implement e-Government programs and processes, consistent with
    legislative requirements and GAO recommendations.
        Question. Table 22-1 of the President's budget shows that total
    information technology (IT) investments for USDA will increase from
    $1.383 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $1.488 billion in fiscal year
    2002. What are the major and significant projects that will be
    supported by the fiscal year 2002 funding level requested? Did USDA's
    CIO and Executive Information Technology Investment Review Board
    (ITIRB) review and approve each one as part of USDA's fiscal year 2002
    capital planning and investment control process? Were any problems
    identified as part of their review of these projects and, if so, what
    actions were taken to address them? Which funded projects were not part
    of USDA's fiscal year 2002 capital planning and investment control
    process, and why was each project excluded from this process?
        Answer. I will have the Chief Information Officer provide that
    information for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        USDA's CIO and Executive Information Technology Investment Review
    Board (EITIRB) reviewed and prioritized all major projects as part of
    USDA's fiscal year 2002 capital planning and investment control
    process. A project is defined as ``major'' if it meets one of several
    criteria, such as having a total life cycle cost greater than $50
    million, has a significant multi-agency impact, is mandated by
    legislation, or is identified as a priority by the Secretary.
    Significant investments are those which do not meet the criteria to be
    classified as ``major'', but are still deemed significant to an
    agency's business processes. The EITIRB does not review significant
    projects although these projects are still part of USDA's Capital
    Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) Process. Significant investments
    are reviewed at the agency level, and OCIO is working with agencies to
    ensure that each agency has set up IT executive review boards to review
    and approve significant and other information technology investments.
    Significant investments are also reviewed by the CIO through USDA's IT
    Investment Moratorium. Small IT projects and activities that are
    neither classified as major or significant, as defined by the Office of
    Management and Budget are not part of the CPIC process.
        Issues or concerns raised during the EITIRB's review are addressed
    by meeting with affected investment principals, requesting improved/
    clarifying documentation of proposed alternatives, and monitoring of
    progress to meet agreed upon objectives. Investment activities may be
    restricted until all conditions are met.
        Following is a list of the major and significant information
    technology investments proposed as part of the fiscal year 2002 budget
    for the record.
               major it investments proposed for fiscal year 2002
        Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.--FSA-CORE Accounting System
    (CORE); FSA-Processed Commodities Inventory Management System FNS/AMS/
    FSA; RMA-Emerging Information Technology Architecture; RMA-
    Infrastructure Modernization, Support, and Training (IMST).
        Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services.--Food Stamp Program
    Integrated Information System (FSPIIS) Redesign; Special Nutrition
    Programs Integrated Information System (SNPIIS) Redesign; Food
    Acquisition Tracking and Entitlement System (FATES) FNS/AMS/FSA; Agency
    Financial Management System (AFMS); FSPIIS Legacy System; SNPIIS Legacy
    System; Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT)--Grants to States; Advanced
    Planning Documents (APDs)--Grants to States.
        Food Safety.--FSIS Automated Corporate Technology Suite (FACTS);
    FSIS-Field Automation Information Management (FAIM).
        Natural Resources and Environment.--FS-Project 615 (IBM) FS IT
    Infrastructure; FS-Integrated Personnel System (IPS); FS-Connect Human
    Resources; FS-Timber Information Management (TIM); FS-INFRA; FS-Natural
    Resources Information System (NRIS); NRCS-New Combined Administrative
    Management System (CAMS-HR) NRCS/FSA/RD; NRCS-Data Acquisition.
        Research, Education, and Economics.--REE Information System
    (REEIS).
        Rural Development.--Dedicated Loan Origination and Servicing System
    (DLOS); New Guaranteed Loan System RD/FSA; Rural Utility Loan Servicing
    System; Program Funds Control System RD/FSA; Automated Multi-Housing
    System.
        Marketing and Regulatory Programs.--AMS-Livestock Mandatory Price
    Reporting; APHIS-Integrated System Acquisition Project (ISAP).
        Departmental Administration.--Integrated Acquisition System (IAS);
    Employment Complaints Tracking System (ECTS).
        Staff Offices.--OCIO-Universal Telecommunications Network (UTN);
    OCIO-Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCM-IT); OCIO-Capital
    Planning and Investment Control WI-TIPS (CPIC); OCFO-Foundation
    Financial Management Information System (FFIS); OCFO-Payroll Engine;
    OCFO-Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
            significant it investments proposed for fiscal year 2002
        Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services.--FSA-Grain Inventory
    Management System (GIMS); FSA-Management of Agricultural Credit Systems
    (MAC); FSA-Debt and Loan Restructuring System (DALRS); FSA-Farm Loan
    Information and Delivery System; FSA-Farm and Home Plan (FHP); FSA-
    Guaranteed Loan System (GLS); FSA-Cotton Management Systems (CMS); FSA-
    AMTA Enrollment and PFC Payments System; FSA-Acreage Reporting and
    Compliance Systems; FSA-Automated Price Support System (APSS); FSA-
    Geological Information System (GIS); FSA-Common Computing Environment
    (CCE) Hardware and Software; FSA-Information Systems Security Program;
    FSA-Field Office Telecommunication; FSA-Field Office Voice and Data
    Support; FSA-LAN, MAN, WAN, and Server Hardware; FSA-Microcomputer
    Hardware--KC Complex; FSA-PC Software and Support; FSA-Service Center
    Hardware Maintenance; FSA-Provide Microcomputer Hardware and Software;
    FSA-LAN/WAN/Voice Project--Service Center Implementation; FAS-Financial
    Accounting and Reporting System (FARS); FAS-Overseas Computer Systems;
    FAS Core Information and Communication Systems; FAS-Wide E-Commerce
    (GPEA & FFMIA Implementation).
        Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services.--EBT-FNS Direct Operations;
    EBT--Account Management Agent (AMA); Food Program Information
    Infrastructure Modernization (FPIIM); FSP--Certification and Issuance
    Support (DRS, CRIMS); FSP--Store Tracking, Authorization and Redemption
    System (STARS); Automated Funds Control System (AFCS).
        Food Safety.-- Performance Based Inspection System; Laboratory
    Information Management System Security.
        Natural Resources and Environment.--Forest Service FFIS; FS-
    National Financial Applications; FS-Central Accounting System (CAS)
    Feeders; FS-Automated Timber Sale Accounting System; FS-Budget & Ledger
    System for CAS; FS-Enterprise-wide Data Warehouse; FS-Budget
    Formulation & Execution System; FS-Automated Land Project (ALP); FS-
    Weather Information Management System (WIMS) FS-Resource Ordering and
    Status System (ROSS); FS-Forest Inventory & Analysis; FS-Radio
    Communication; NRCS-Financial Management Information System--Legacy;
    NRCS-Water and Climate Information System; NRCS-Strategic Analysis and
    Assessment Information System; NRCS-Telecommunication Infrastructure.
        Research, Education, and Economics.--ARS-Radio Program; ARS-
    Integrated Program Management System (RMIS redesign); ARS-
    Biotechnology; Cooperative Research, Education, and Extension
    Management System (C-REEMS); NASS-Estimates Processing and
    Dissemination; NASS-Census and Survey Processing Systems; NASS-
    Information Technology Support and Delivery; NASS Research System.
        Rural Development.--Program Loan Accounting System RD/FSA;
    Centralized Help Desk; Data Warehousing; Paperwork Elimination; Credit
    Reform.
        Marketing and Regulatory Programs.--Automated Targeting System
    (ATS); Wildlife Services MIS 2000; Port Information Network Operations
    (PIN-Ops); Market News.
        Question. USDA's Chief Information Officer's (CIO's) fiscal year
    2002 budget shows that more that $60 million in working capital funds
    will be used for IT projects in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002.
    What specific IT projects were funded out of the Department's working
    capital fund in fiscal year 2001 and which specific projects have been
    approved for fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. The Office of the Chief Information Officer uses working
    capital funds to support both the National Information Technology
    Center (NITC) and the Telecommunications Services and Operations (TSO).
        The NITC provides enterprise server services and application
    development services to governmental agencies both inside and outside
    the Department of Agriculture. The NITC does not fund projects per se.
    NITC is a data center and provides data center services to USDA and
    non-USDA customers on a competitive, 100 percent fee-for-service basis.
    NITC services include a wide range of IT infrastructure support to
    achieve effective mission performance and program delivery for customer
    agencies. According to OCIO, current major initiatives NITC is
    undertaking include: cyber security and disaster recovery planning, and
    continuing to strengthen its IT infrastructure to support customers'
    needs as they move to e-Government service delivery.
        TSO's working capital fund operational projects are based on
    continuing upgrades to support wide area network services, local area
    network systems, and a variety of other telecommunications services.
    According to OCIO, TSO efforts are now focused on the USDA Universal
    Telecommunications Network which will provide all USDA agencies with
    cost-effective wide area network services, and improving basic local
    area network services.
        Question.--The fiscal year 2002 budget for USDA's CIO shows $7.6
    million in capital equipment under the working capital funds. What will
    these funds be used for?
        Answer. I will have the Chief Information Officer provide that
    information for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        USDA's CIO fiscal year 2002 capital equipment under the working
    capital funds breaks down as follows:

    Enterprise Server Services--NITC..............................$6,425,000
    Application Development Services--NITC........................   250,000
    Business Services--TSO........................................    40,000
    Network Engineering--TSO......................................   375,000
    Computer Services Unit--TSO...................................    55,000
    Network Services--TSO.........................................   500,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

            TOTAL................................................. 7,645,000

        Funds expended for capital equipment maintain the dependability and
    cost effectiveness of NITC data center hardware and software. As new
    technology is released, NITC upgrades enterprise server configurations
    to keep current, vendor-supported versions of hardware and software for
    the NITC customers. In addition to purchasing enterprise server CPU
    hardware/software, NITC is also purchasing environmental control
    equipment, data storage equipment, mid-range computer technology,
    telecommunications equipment, LAN server equipment, web security and
    application development tools. All of these capital equipment outlays
    are in response to customer demands and, as stated previously,
    replenished every year on a 100 percent fee-for-service basis.
    Furthermore, these expenses are depreciated to NITC customers over a
    period of time.
        TSO's working capital fund estimated capital investment dollars for
    fiscal year 2002 will be used to upgrade existing systems and to
    purchase essential equipment including: Oracle software upgrade, test
    bed server, integration of the video system infrastructure, South
    Building renovation (new switches) phase III, three firewalls, Local
    Area Network (LAN) upgrade, intrusion detection, spare router cards,
    and a network modeling tool suite.
        Question. USDA's CIO budget shows that a total of $3,383,045 of Y2K
    emergency supplemental funds remain to be obligated in fiscal year
    2001. Why are these funds still needed and for what specific purposes
    will they be used?
        Answer. According to OCIO, the Department of Agriculture fiscal
    year 2001 carryover balance is targeted for continued Year 2000
    conversion activities in fiscal year 2001, along with payment of
    services rendered but not yet billed to the Department, including
    telecommunications services. The dollars being spent are targeted
    toward a wide spectrum of non-mission critical Year 2000 compliance
    expenditures, which include scientific and laboratory equipment
    upgrades, hardware upgrades and replacements, software upgrades and
    replacements, telecommunication system remediation and program
    management.
        Question. USDA's budget shows that $2.036 million of the remaining
    ADP cap was still unobligated as of the beginning of fiscal year 2001.
    What's the status of these funds and what activities will they fund?
        Answer. The $2.036 million remaining under the CCC ADP cap will be
    expended by the end of fiscal year 2001. The funds under the ADP cap
    will be used to cover essential basic operating costs and maintenance
    of legacy systems.
                 government performance and results act (gpra)
        Question. What are USDA's key performance goals for improving the
    management and use of information technology throughout the Department
    during fiscal years 2001 and 2002?
        Answer. The following are USDA's information technology goals and
    performance goals for fiscal years 2001 and 2002:
      --Establish a common computing environment for USDA Service Centers,
            which includes hardware, software, security, websites,
            telecommunications and databases.
      --Transition to an e-Government environment.
        Question. What key goals were not met and why?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, key IT goals for the Department were
    set forth in the OCIO annual performance plan; all key targets were met
    or exceeded. The Department will evaluate its success in meeting the
    above performance goals at the close of Fiscal years 2001 and 2002 and
    make information available on the goals achieved and not achieved at
    those points.
            service center modernization initiative (scmi) and plan
        Question. USDA funds its Service Center Modernization Initiative
    (SCMI) effort through various appropriations and accounts. This
    includes Common Computing Environment (CCE) direct appropriations,
    obligations from other appropriation accounts, emergency and
    supplemental funding provisions, additional contributions/funds from
    FSA, NRCS and RD's salaries and expense and other accounts, and from
    CCC ADP and other section 11 accounts. Provide a consolidated table
    related to the Service Center Modernization Initiative that will
    include all such accounts for Fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. Also
    include unobligated balances, a justification for each of the fiscal
    year 2002 budget items, an explanation of how they relate to the
    overall effort, and whom at the department is responsible for managing
    and overseeing each of these funds.
        Answer. The Service Center Modernization Initiative (SCMI) is
    critical to making the Department's field office structure leaner, more
    efficient, and customer-focused. Significant progress has been made in
    collocating FSA's, NRCS', and RD's field offices into one-stop USDA
    Service Centers. Key to the success of the SCMI is the establishment of
    a common computing environment (CCE) that allows the Service Center
    agencies to share information and reduce the redundant requests, office
    visits, and paperwork faced by customers participating in multiple
    programs. CCE is also critical to meeting the requirements of the
    Freedom to E-File Act e-Government. I will have the detailed
    information you requested provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                 SERVICE CENTER MODERNIZATION FUNDING SOURCES AND LEVELS
                                                 [Dollars in Thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Estimate       President's
                                Activity                               Actual fiscal    fiscal year    budget fiscal
                                                                         year 2000         2001          year 2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BPR/Management:
        Business Process Reengineering:
            FSA.....................................................          $6,249          $3,303         $11,350
            NRCS....................................................           3,400           3,100           1,700
            RD......................................................           1,800           3,300           2,429
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Sub-Total.............................................          11,449           9,703          15,479
                                                                     ===============================================
        Change Mgt./Program Mgt:
            FSA.....................................................           1,050             437             266
            NRCS....................................................             710             295             180
            RD......................................................             457             190             116
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Sub-Total.............................................           2,217             922             562
                                                                     ===============================================
              Total BPR/CM..........................................          13,666          10,625          16,041
                                                                     ===============================================
    Integrated Technology:
        Common Computing Environment:
            CCE Funds...............................................           2,201          69,768          44,369
            FSA.....................................................           7,229           4,600           4,600
            NRCS....................................................           6,999           3,000           3,880
            RD......................................................           1,929           3,800           4,600
              Sub-Total.............................................          18,358          81,168          57,449
                                                                     ===============================================
    Telecom.Lan/WAN/Voice:
            CCE Funds...............................................               0               0          15,000
            FSA.....................................................           1,734           3,640           4,313
            NRCS....................................................           1,783           3,505           3,269
            RD......................................................           1,733           2,129           2,419
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Sub-Total.............................................           5,250           9,274          25,001
                                                                     ===============================================
              Total, Integrated Technology..........................          23,608          90,442          82,450
                                                                     ===============================================
    Base Data Acquisition (BDA):
            FSA.....................................................           1,713           1,919           5,153
            NRCS....................................................          15,350          15,680          16,090
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, BDA............................................          17,063          17,599          21,243
                                                                     ===============================================
    Funding Source Totals:
            CCE Funds...............................................           2,201          69,768          59,369
            FSA.....................................................          17,795          13,899          25,682
            NRCS....................................................          28,242          25,580          25,119
            RD......................................................           5,919           9,419           9,564
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Grand Total...........................................          54,337         118,666         119,734
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Note: Fiscal year 2001 and 2002 levels subject to change based on
    availability of agency contributions. Totals may not add due to
    rounding. FSA's funding comes from its salaries and expenses account,
    RD's funding comes from its salaries and expenses account, and NRCS's
    funding comes from its conservation operations account.
        (a) Includes fiscal year 2000 appropriation provided to the Office
    of the Secretary for CCE that was obligated in fiscal year 2000 and
    fiscal year 2001 as well as funds appropriated to the CCE account.
    Fiscal year 2001 amount includes $40 million provided through the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations act and $19.5 million in emergency
    funding.
        Business process reengineering involves teams of Service Center
    employees reviewing their agencies' business practices and determining
    how these practices can be streamlined or improved to provide better
    service. Currently, there are about 20 active projects in various
    stages of development focusing on core business areas such as lending,
    managing risk, conservation and environment, community development and
    outreach, and administration. Each of these projects is led and funded
    by one of the Service Center agencies.
        Change management and program management refers to the overall
    coordination of SCMI activities carried out by the National Food and
    Agriculture Council (NFAC) staff. It supports customer service
    training, communications activities and special projects. Funding is
    contributed by the Agencies and managed by the NFAC staff.
        The Integrated Technology funding area provides for the IT
    infrastructure needed to modernize Service Center program delivery
    operations. The Information Technology Working Group (ITWG) established
    by the USDA CIO manages this effort and funding. This category is
    further broken down into the CCE Hardware/Software component and the
    Telecom/LAN/WAN/Voice component as follows:
      --Common Computing Environment (CCE).--The CCE is providing Service
            Centers with common and updated information systems by
            acquiring and deploying the servers, workstations, printers,
            software, and other tools necessary to maximize program and
            customer service, as well as other administrative efficiencies.
            Improvements include employee access to email, the Internet,
            and software productivity tools (e.g., word processing) that
            will save both employee and customer time. CCE also provides
            the technical infrastructure necessary for the use of
            Geographical Information Systems (GIS) in the Service Centers.
            A priority for fiscal year 2002 is the acquisition of
            application servers to support reengineered business processes
            and geographic information systems.
      --Telecom/LAN/WAN/Voice.--The Service Center agencies' existing
            telecommunications capacity, or bandwidth must keep pace with
            the growing customer, partner, business, and legislative
            demands for electronic access. This project will enable the
            Agencies to improve network capacity and performance in support
            of customer demands and the requirements of legislative
            mandates.
        Base data acquisition funds will allow us to continue the
    development of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data layers. GIS
    will provide Service Center agencies with the ability to improve
    customer service in many ways. For example, determinations of field
    measurements, classifications and uses will be more accurate and
    timely. Base data funding is managed by each Agency. Coordination
    occurs through an interagency GIS team that also coordinates with other
    USDA agencies and external partners. While we have made significant
    progress, we will need your continued support over the next few years
    to complete key data layers and implement our reengineered processes.
    Fiscal year 2002 funding will maintain the current level of NRCS base
    data acquisition, but will accelerate the FSA Common Land Unit
    digitizing that is a key data layer needed by all three agencies.
        Question. What kinds of technical refreshments are planned over the
    next several years for the thousands of high-end desk-top computers,
    notebooks, workstations and peripherals already purchased and deployed
    and how much will it cost?
        Answer. USDA recognizes the need to regularly refresh technology
    components as they age and has included that concept in long range
    plans. We will be determining our fiscal year 2003 needs for technology
    refreshment during the budget process this summer. The initial
    priorities will be to replace workstations purchased early in the CCE
    implementation.
        Question. What is the current status and estimated completion date
    associated with implementing each of the major projects identified in
    USDA's December 2000 Service Center IT Modernization Plan?
        Answer. An integrated project plan has been developed for each of
    the nine projects Individual tasks needed to complete this projects are
    built around the overall milestones laid out for the various components
    of the Common Computing Environment (CCE). Specific information is
    provided for the record.
        [The information follows.]
    Fiscal year 2001
        March 31, 2001--Deploy AS 400 servers to FSA to ensure connectivity
    to legacy systems and provide a basis for migrating program
    applications. STATUS: Completed.
        April 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001--Pilot test telecommunications
    alternatives and develop Internet plan to upgrade capacity to support
    e-Business and agency web applications. STATUS: Underway, pilot will
    continue into the fall of 2001, plan will be complete in September
    2001.
        April 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001--Conduct comprehensive
    information and systems security planning and analysis. STATUS:
    Underway, on schedule.
        May 2001 to September 2001--Provide necessary systems and end-user
    training to support fiscal year 2001 initiatives. STATUS: On schedule.
        June 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001--Acquire and deploy remaining
    workstations. STATUS: On schedule, deployment may continue into
    October.
        June 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001--Support targeted
    implementation of selected technologies (GPS, digital cameras, etc.)
    STATUS: On schedule, team finalizing requirements.
        June 30, 2001 to September 30, 2001--Acquire GIS enterprise
    license. STATUS: On schedule, procurement process initiated.
        July 31, 2001 to October 31, 2000--Deploy Electronic Access
    Initiative investments and fund a second round of investments to
    provide a secure web environment to support e-Government STATUS: On
    schedule.
        October 2000 to November 2001--Acquire and deploy shared network
    servers in all offices to enable enterprise-wide information sharing,
    common email, and remote management of workstations STATUS: Pilot
    installation completed and operational. Anticipate meeting end dates.
    Fiscal year 2002
        October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002--Acquire and deploy
    application/GIS hardware and software nationwide; deploy enterprise-
    wide GIS software.
        October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002--Provide comprehensive end-
    user training to support the fiscal year 2002 initiatives listed above.
        October 1, 2001 to September 30, 2002--Make the capital investments
    needed to upgrade telecommunications to support Internet and web
    applications.
        Question. Does USDA still plan to have the SCMI completed and fully
    operational in 2002? If not, when will it be completed and how much
    will it cost in total to complete it?
        Answer. The basic CCE infrastructure will be in place by the end of
    fiscal year 2002 with requested funding. Once the basic infrastructure
    is in place, additional investments will be considered to maintain the
    infrastructure and provide supporting devices that will enhance the
    capability and efficiency of the SCMI.
        Question. The December 2000 plan also notes improved productivity
    at Service Centers by virtue of deploying a set of common tools such as
    e-mail, office automation software, secure Internet access and sharing,
    telecommunications, and business applications. Are USDA service
    centers' employees presently using these common tools? If not when will
    service center employees be able to use each of these tools?
        Answer. According to OCIO and Service Center agency
    representatives, the Service Center agencies are now using shared
    telephone systems, data connections, internet access, common
    workstation software such as word processing and spread sheet and other
    applications. They are also using common GIS software, common web tools
    and equipment and common data definitions, data warehouse tools,
    administrative software and other tools. A common customer information
    management application is nearing completion, as are other shareable
    business applications. The employees are also supported by a common
    Help Desk system. With the deployment of the network servers by the end
    of fiscal year 2002, the employees will be on the same e-mail and
    messaging system and share new and sophisticated security tools.
        Question. USDA's budget says that the Department is in the final
    stages of determining the cost effectiveness of placing an application
    server in every location or clustering them in fewer locations. When
    will USDA complete this analysis and what potential cost savings exist
    should the Department consolidate and employ more centralized server
    operations using larger capacity servers wherever possible? Did USDA
    perform a similar study before buying network servers for every
    location and, if not, why?
        Answer. According to OCIO and Service Center agency
    representatives, the Common Computing Environment Applications
    Architecture that is scheduled for completion by the end of this year
    will address the question of centralizing or distributing application
    server operations. Potential cost savings have not been determined, but
    will be defined when this study is completed.
        I have also been informed that a similar analysis was completed
    prior to the acquisition of the network servers. The analysis
    determined that the use of the current telecommunications facilities
    would have resulted in a delay of over 20 minutes for an employee
    requesting a typical customer file from a remote server. The cost of
    increased bandwidth telecommunications service was compared to placing
    servers at individual offices in the study, and it was determined that
    increased telecommunications was much more than the purchase of
    individual servers. An additional consideration was the continued
    ability to service customers even if the network connection became
    inoperable.
        Question. Are the Service Center IT agencies using existing USDA
    contract vehicles or their own separate contracts to acquire the same
    or similar technologies and if so what's the rationale and cost
    implications for doing so? Has the CIO's office reviewed and approved
    using separate contract vehicles?
        Answer. According to the Chief Information Officer, whenever
    possible, USDA Service Center agencies use existing USDA or other
    Federal Government contract vehicles to acquire goods and services. As
    of this date, existing contracts have been used for all CCE purchases.
    We expect to continue that approach unless there is a special need that
    cannot be met with an existing contract. The USDA CIO reviews and
    approves all contract purchases.
        Question. Since 1995, USDA has had various efforts underway to
    reengineer business processes and reform service delivery in county
    offices across the U.S. Which business processes have USDA successfully
    reengineered for each of the farm service agencies? What efficiencies,
    savings, or benefits to customers have been gained as a result of each
    reengineered business process? When will USDA complete reengineering
    the remaining ones?
        Answer. I will have information on past reengineering efforts
    provided for the record. We will continue to build on these efforts
    through IT innovation and the implementation of e-Government
    initiatives.
        [The information follows:]
        The USDA Service Center agencies have made significant progress in
    business process reengineering (BPR). The agencies initial BPR projects
    documented the requirements for the current round of CCE equipment that
    is being deployed. These projects include the GIS based Customer
    Service, Wetland and Easement Toolkits that automate conservation
    planning and wetlands and environmental assessments. The Service Center
    Information Management (SCIMS) and Land Use projects, which provide the
    foundation for the agencies to manage customer and land records, are
    nearing completion. SCIMS will enable FSA, NRCS, RD and the
    Conservation Districts to fully share information and coordinate to
    improve service to customers. The agencies have developed and continue
    to evolve a common set of administrative processes including the
    Combined Administrative Management System (CAMS) which initially
    automates shared human resources management functions, the Office
    Information Profile (OIP) which provides information on offices, and
    common directives. OIP and CAMS are currently being integrated. These
    systems provide foundations on which the agencies will build.
        Business process reengineering is an ongoing process, and work
    continues on a number of other projects. Following are two examples.
      --Rural Development has made significant progress in reengineering
            and deploying applications such as the Guaranteed Loan and
            Multi-family Housing systems. It has also made significant
            progress in developing a common data warehousing systems that
            can help associate program data with demographic information.
      --The Service Center agencies and their partners have developed an
            agreed upon set of data standards and definitions that enable
            the sharing of data. The agencies are developing a Resource
            Data Gateway for the creation and distribution of GIS data to
            the Service Centers and customers.
        Through the Electronic Access Initiative, the Service Center
    agencies are working together to provide the infrastructure needed to
    enable customers to do business with the Department electronically and
    are planning to bring more services the Internet. These plans represent
    the next phase of agency business process reengineering. Customer
    benefits and cost savings are beginning to be realized. For example, an
    NRCS soil conservationist reports that more conservation filter strip
    designs can be offered to customers because GIS has helped reduce the
    time it takes to develop them.
                             freedom to e-file act
        Question. When the Freedom to E-File Act is fully implemented, how
    will farm services be improved and what specific business processes
    will be automated as a result? To what extent will farmers and others
    covered under the act still have to visit a service center to
    participate in USDA's programs?
        Answer. Once the Act is fully implemented it is envisioned that the
    Service Center agencies and Risk Management Agency will provide
    services using both electronic and traditional methods to meet the
    varying needs of its customers. Some customers will conduct business
    solely via the Internet while others will continue to conduct business
    in the more traditional paper-based fashion or through a combination of
    electronic and traditional. The choice of the number of visits the
    customer makes to the office site will ultimately rest with the
    customer. Eventually, virtually no trips to the USDA service centers
    will be required to conduct transactions. There will still be a need
    for some customer visits in June, 2002.
        According to OCIO, most of the service center agencies' business
    processes are already automated in some manner. However, the migration
    to on-line delivery of information and services will impact virtually
    every one of the agencies' processes where interaction with the
    customer is required. These processes will have to be revamped in a
    manner that reasonably ensures customer understanding and successful
    use in the non-service center environment.
        Question. What steps are being taken by the Department to ensure
    that USDA meets the Freedom to E-File Act legislative deadlines of
    December 1, 2001 and June 20, 2002 for providing farmers and others
    covered under the act the ability to file electronically for services
    with the Department? What has been accomplished so far?
        Answer. The Department's e-Business Executive and the OCIO are
    working with Service Center Agency program and IT leaders to develop a
    comprehensive e-Government strategy and project plan within an overall
    framework which addresses common issues such as infrastructure,
    policies, training, and agency-specific program delivery requirements.
    The major accomplishment so far is that FSA, NRCS, and RD deployed a
    common Internet web site to meet the first set of requirements of the
    Freedom to E-File Act, which enables agricultural producers and RD
    customers to access and download forms used to participate in the
    agencies' respective programs and services. Additionally, RMA developed
    its implementation plan and sent guidance to private insurance
    providers on what they need to do to conduct transactions
    electronically by December 2001.
        Question. GAO made a series of recommendations to help USDA better
    ensure success in meeting the provisions of the Freedom to E-File Act.
    Where does the department stand on implementing each GAO
    recommendation?
        Answer. USDA agrees with the recommendations of the GAO report,
    that both the development of a comprehensive plan and the assignment of
    a senior-level official with overall responsibility, authority, and
    accountability for the effort, is necessary to ensure the Service
    Center agencies, together with the RMA, meet the tight deadlines of the
    Act.
        We have a Senior Executive, as well as an executive working group
    coordinating efforts in the Department. We received OMB approval of
    resubmitted RD forms in March and are in the process of completing a
    comprehensive plan to meet the requirements of the Freedom to E-File
    Act.
      electronic service, e-gov, and government paperwork elimination act
                                     (gpea)
        Question. The Internet and other new technologies have made new
    demands on government agencies to greatly expand their ability to
    provide electronic services to the public. Where does USDA stand in
    developing and implementing an overall e-Gov strategy to help guide its
    e-Gov transition? What major obstacles are there to providing these
    kinds of electronic services at USDA and what efforts are underway to
    address them?
        Answer. The Department is working to develop a framework for
    planning and implementing e-Government initiatives. According to the
    Chief Information Officer, this e-Government framework will serve as a
    blueprint of policies and procedures that articulates a defined vision
    and strategy to ensure a common understanding regarding e-Government
    and will give agencies knowledge with which to make good business
    decisions.
        The major obstacles identified by OCIO and agencies include the
    resource-intensiveness of efforts, the need to organize activities
    across the Department, and the difficulty of authenticating the
    transmission of sensitive data. A readiness assessment of the agencies
    and customer groups relative to their capability to engage in e-
    Government will be conducted. We expect that more specific obstacles
    and challenges will be identified in this assessment relating to
    organizational and technical readiness to implement e-Government
    initiatives. We will also be evaluating the funding requirements and
    the need to scale existing telecommunications capabilities.
        Question. The Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)
    specifically requires each agency, including USDA, to implement
    procedures necessary to offer secure electronic services for all its
    components and offices by October 2003. What progress has USDA made to
    implement GPEA?
        Answer. USDA agencies developed initial plans for complying with
    GPEA in October 2000. These plans identified business processes deemed
    important to automate in accordance with OMB guidance. OCIO has been
    conducting customer service visits to each of the Department's agencies
    to understand the type of information, guidance, and support the
    agencies need to ensure good planning that leads to successful
    implementation. OCIO is currently working with agency representatives
    to prepare a comprehensive e-Government framework of policies and
    procedures for the department. Efforts of agencies showing significant
    progress, including the Foreign Agricultural Service, Animal Plant and
    Health Inspection Service, and E-File Act agencies, will serve as a
    model for the rest of the Department in developing the framework and
    meeting GPEA requirements.
        Question. Obviously, building and supporting a secure and private
    communications network infrastructure and electronic records management
    process will be of the utmost importance. What specific steps is the
    department taking to provide these very basic kinds of assurances to
    USDA customers and the public?
        Answer. The strengthening of computer security and protection of
    the privacy of information in the Department's computer systems is a
    top priority. USDA agencies have been actively engaged in security
    planning at both the department and agency levels. The Department will
    continue to address security needs and privacy issues through close
    collaboration between the Secretary, OCIO, and individual USDA
    agencies. I will have the Chief Information Officer provide more
    detailed information for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        Long-term objectives are concentrated around building the
    compatible architectures of security, IT, and telecommunications which
    are flexible and capable of meeting both the service level requirements
    and the security requirements. With contractor assistance we will
    establish the telecommunications and security baselines, establish our
    technical options, and develop a security selection matrix and a
    security architecture maintenance process.
        USDA has also taken important steps to implement its comprehensive
    action plan to strengthen Cyber Security. In fiscal year 2001, the
    Department has expanded the Cyber Security Program Office and begun
    implementation of key programs under its comprehensive security
    framework. The Associate CIO is working with the CIO, who also serves
    as the Department's Senior Official for Privacy Policy, and individual
    agencies to assure the privacy of customer and other confidential data
    maintained in USDA information systems.
        Short-term objectives are concentrated around securing the outer
    perimeter of the Departments telecommunications backbone network and
    addressing immediate security needs. Specific steps include:
      --Improving current delivery of services over the Internet. This is
            being accomplished by deploying additional firewalls, filtering
            in routers, and intrusion detection systems across the backbone
            network that together provide a much-improved level of network
            security.
      --Improving network oversight. OCIO has purchased and installed
            scanning and penetration testing tools which are used to
            provide constant network monitoring.
      --Developing specific security architecture components to meet short
            term needs which will be compatible with our long-term
            architecture goals.
        In addition, the OCIO has been engaged with the USDA agencies to
    raise their awareness of the need to address electronic recordkeeping
    and to include electronic records requirements into both current and
    future systems design. Agencies have also been provided information on
    the migration of data and information from legacy to new systems and
    that the associated costs must be planned for as part of the system
    development life cycle costs. The need for long-term retention of
    records, such as loans that can span in excess of 40 years, is under
    discussion. Of concern is the need to plan for the verification,
    validation and authenticity, and the storage media as records as
    migrated from one systems to another.
        USDA also has Departmental policy on electronic recordkeeping
    requirements. The USDA Department Records Officer has been actively
    engaged in external electronic recordkeeping groups to ensure USDA's
    policies address the current and future environments. While progress
    has been made, as USDA moves toward a broader electronic environment,
    where paper records are no longer the record copy, much more needs to
    be done. To further address this need, OCIO recently established an e-
    Government Program staff to further address electronic records
    requirements. OCIO will be forming a team of agency business experts,
    information technologists, and records officers to address electronic
    recordkeeping requirements in the Internet environment. To this end,
    USDA is exploring the need for a corporate information infrastructure
    and taxonomy to address common records disposition requirements. This
    corporate approach will enable USDA to address electronic recordkeeping
    issues more quickly and provide a common approach for USDA employees
    and a common message to USDA's customers regarding USDA's commitment to
    best recordkeeping requirements in the electronic environment.
                      information technology (it) security
        Question. Were security plans developed for all new IT investments
    approved for fiscal year 2002? If so, how and by whom were these plans
    evaluated, reviewed, and approved?
        Answer. According to the Chief Information Officer, security
    requirements for USDA's Capital Planning and Investment Control Process
    were recently enhanced. More rigorous security requirements have been
    included to ensure that plans for all new systems identify specific
    security controls, costs, and schedules. This will ensure that security
    requirements are adequately addressed during the review of USDA
    information technology investments and that the Department will have a
    baseline from which to monitor security progress.
        Both the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and the
    Office of Inspector General (OIG) have concluded their reviews of this
    issue. OIG identified several weaknesses and NASS has already corrected
    most of them and aggressively implemented plans to correct the rest. In
    addition, security reviews have been concluded at the Department's
    major centers. I will have OCIO provide more specific information on
    these security issues.
        According to OCIO, this year agency security plans were required to
    be signed by the respective agency head before submission to OCIO,
    thereby ensuring senior management scrutiny. All plans are initially
    assigned to a staff security specialist for review, followed by review
    by the Associate CIO for Cyber Security. If necessary, the submitting
    agency will be contacted for amplification or clarification prior to
    approval.
        Question. USDA has been criticized in the past for having
    significant computer security weaknesses and in January 2001, GAO
    designated computer security at USDA as a major performance and
    accountability challenge. What management priority has the Department
    assigned computer security and where does USDA stand on implementing
    each of GAO's and the USDA OIG's recommendations?
        Answer. The protection of the security and privacy of USDA
    information resources is a top management priority. The Department
    developed a comprehensive action plan to strengthen Cyber Security and
    has taken important steps to implement the plan. The Department's
    Associate CIO for Cyber Security is leading a corporate approach to
    protecting USDA information resources and is working with the CIO and
    individual agencies to assure the privacy of customer and other
    confidential data maintained in USDA information systems. The
    Department will continue to address security needs and privacy issues
    through close collaboration between my office, OCIO, and individual
    USDA agencies. I will have the Chief Information Officer provide more
    detailed information for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        USDA's ``Action Plan to Strengthen USDA Information Security''
    provides a sound strategy, based on the best practices of leading
    organizations, for identifying computer security vulnerabilities and
    implementing mitigation procedures and mechanisms. Both the GAO and
    USDA's OIG have favorably reviewed this plan and have recommended
    implementation. Progress OCIO has made to implement its cyber security
    plan and address GAO and OIG recommendations include:
      --The centralized management focus of the cyber security program will
            be strengthened and expanded to provide additional oversight
            and hands-on problem solving. This central management strategy
            will position USDA to be in accordance with oversight guidance,
            the requirements of legislative mandates, and the strategies
            practiced by many of the most successful government and private
            security organizations. Recent additions to the Cyber Security
            Program Office staff provide the Department with the expertise
            and experience necessary to improve USDA's cyber security
            posture.
      --With funds provided in fiscal year 2001 to implement a Department-
            wide Risk Management program, the Cyber Security Program Office
            has contracted to develop risk assessment checklists, issue
            guidance, conduct training, and work directly with OCIO and the
            agencies in conducting risk assessments. Agencies will
            ultimately be responsible for conducting and funding agency
            risk assessments and providing the results of those risk
            assessments to the central Cyber Security Program Office. Risk
            assessments and subsequent data analyses will form the basis
            for the decision-making process required to protect USDA's
            critical cyber infrastructure.
      --The OCIO Cyber Security Program project plan also calls for a major
            effort in fiscal year 2001 to refine the requirements for
            security architecture and begin its design and implementation.
            With these funds, contract expertise will be employed to assist
            with the refining of USDA security requirements, establishment
            on the Department's security baseline and the development of a
            security architecture methodology. Design and implementation of
            the security architecture will follow.
        With funds specifically designated for these programs, OCIO's Cyber
    Security Program Office will continue to build on its work in the areas
    of risk management and security architecture development. Specific
    vulnerabilities and weaknesses cited in the most recent OIG review
    focuses on operational security controls and procedures. This review
    cited a large number of security weaknesses, some of which are highly
    sensitive. Most of the items identified by OIG have been corrected or
    mitigated.
        Question. How much will be spent in fiscal year 2002 across USDA on
    information security management for staff, software, and other related
    expenses? [Please break out the number of information security
    management staff in and total security dollars spent at each agency and
    office.]
        Answer. In large part, the cost for security of USDA information
    technology systems is not accounted for separately from overall capital
    investment costs. This is consistent with past Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) direction. OCIO is currently working with agencies to
    develop an accurate estimation of fiscal year 2002 security
    expenditures. We will forward that information when it is available.
        Question. What has USDA done to identify, track, and correct
    security weaknesses and vulnerabilities that exist throughout the
    Department? How many such instances have been reported since the
    beginning of fiscal year 2000, by each fiscal year, and by mission
    area/agency/staff office?
        Answer. The Department is working to correct vulnerabilities
    identified by GAO and OIG as well as by the Cyber Security Program
    Office. Vulnerabilities are identified through audits, security
    reviews, and the scanning of our information systems. The CIO has
    informed me that while we do not have information in the format you
    requested, we do have information on vulnerabilities and efforts are
    underway to improve the way risks are tracked and managed. I will have
    that information provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        The OIG just completed an assessment of 1,200 of USDA's devices and
    found 3,300 high and medium security vulnerabilities within seven
    agencies. Their evaluation concluded all agencies tested had poor
    controls over physical and logical access to sensitive data and
    systems. The Cyber Security Program Office is implementing
    comprehensive programs to manage risks and work with agencies to
    correct vulnerabilities.
        In fiscal year 2001, the Cyber Security Program began onsite
    reviews as part of the new Risk Management Program. Recognizing that
    comprehensive and thorough risk assessments of USDA's information
    assets must become an integral part of IT management within the
    Department, the OCIO Cyber Security Program began conducting onsite
    reviews at critical USDA facilities. Thus far, comprehensive
    assessments have included the National Finance Center and the National
    Information Technology Center. Vulnerabilities identified thus far,
    when added to those identified by GAO and OIG, total approximately
    3,800.
        The Department tracks and is working to correct operational
    security weaknesses identified by OIG and the Cyber Security Program
    staff. Vulnerabilities are identified through audits, security reviews,
    network scans, and intrusion detection monitors. Specific
    vulnerabilities and weaknesses cited in the most recent OIG review
    focuses on operational security controls and procedures. This review
    cited a large number of security weaknesses, some of which are highly
    sensitive. Most of the items identified by OIG have been corrected or
    mitigated. If the Committee desires, I will have the OCIO Cyber
    Security staff provide a briefing on the state of USDA computer system
    vulnerabilities.
        Also in fiscal year 2001, the Cyber Security Program initiated its
    development of risk assessment tools as part of its Risk Management
    Program. The Cyber Security Program Office has made significant
    progress in developing the methodologies and tools required to perform
    effective risk assessments of the Department's information assets.
    Contract support has been obtained to develop risk assessment tools and
    to work directly with USDA agencies in conducting actual risk
    assessments. These risk assessment tools will be used to assess
    existing mission critical systems as well as future IT acquisitions.
    Contracts call for all risk assessment tools to be field-tested and
    independently appraised.
        Funding received in fiscal year 2001 for staffing the OCIO Cyber
    Security Program has allowed USDA to add security specialists with the
    experience and expertise needed to train and counsel agency security
    staffs. Over the past year, experts in the fields of configuration
    management, mainframe and desktop security, physical security, risk
    management, network security, and other disciplines have been hired to
    both oversee the Department's Cyber Security Program and assist agency
    security specialists meet their respective security responsibilities.
        Question. Have all USDA computer system and networks that handle
    highly sensitive data, including NASS information, been tested for
    vulnerabilities and risks? If so, what general types of problems were
    identified and what types of steps are being taken to address them?
        Answer. USDA's Computer Security Program is following a risk-based
    facility review program to fully assess USDA's critical infrastructure.
    Computer security measures have been evaluated at our major data
    centers and NASS. This strategy involves on-site reviews of major USDA
    information management facilities based on their relative criticality
    to the organization. According to the Associate CIO for Cyber Security,
    facilities of the highest priority will be reviewed twice each year,
    and less critical facilities will be reviewed once each year. At the
    same time, the Cyber Security Program Office is implementing essential
    security programs and projects that include security risk management, a
    security architecture, configuration management, physical security
    management, intrusion detection and prevention, system certification,
    disaster recovery, and security standards and enterprise-side controls.
    I will have the CIO provide more specific information.
        [The information follows:]
        Vulnerabilities identified by OCIO, GAO and OIG generally fall into
    the following categories:
      --Corrective actions for known vulnerabilities are not being
            implemented.
      --Inadequate skills within USDA's security program to implement and
            maintain security devices and procedures.
      --Low level of management attention to security requirements.
      --Inadequate resources to acquire, implement and manage necessary
            security controls.
      --Pressures arising from legislation and customer demand to move to
            new technologies that are inherently riskier without proper
            attention to security.
      --Inadequate network and system access controls.
      --Transmission of sensitive information in unencrypted formats.
        To support current and future delivery of services over the
    Internet, USDA must develop a comprehensive electronic security
    architecture. Activities to improve the USDA security architecture thus
    far include deploying: 1) additional firewalls, 2) filtering in
    routers, and 3) intrusion detection systems that together provide a
    much-improved level of network security.
        Funding was received in OCIO's fiscal year 2001 budget specific to
    the development of a USDA Security Architecture; a contract effort has
    begun to assist the Cyber Security Program staff with security
    architecture design. Additionally, the Department has already
    established firewalls across its telecommunications backbone network,
    procured system monitoring and evaluations tools, and is negotiating
    for a Department-wide contract to provide intrusion detection
    mechanisms. These devices will allow OCIO staff to participate in
    active network monitoring. Collectively, these security controls
    provide a more strict and coordinated enforcement of network access and
    use.
        The OCIO has initiated a backbone security program to address a
    broad range of security issues. This program is designed to establish
    security standards and policies, identify and install security
    mechanism and tools and engage agencies in the application of uniform
    procedures that, collectively, will provide a rigorous set of standard
    security controls to ensure the integrity, availability and
    confidentiality of information transmitted across the Department's
    network. Specific activities planned or underway include:
      --Encryption.--The objective of this initiative is to identify a set
            of common encryption requirements that will ensure the safety
            of data transmitted across the USDA telecommunications backbone
            network. These requirements will address information asset
            classification, assessment of vulnerability, physical and
            logical controls, and the tools and procedures necessary to
            provide a rigorous process designed to eliminate the risk of
            fraud and misuse of sensitive information.
      --Network Security.--The USDA Network Security program is designed to
            implement security tools, procedures and policies designed to
            deter unauthorized and potentially damaging access to the
            Department's backbone telecommunications network. These
            mechanisms will provide both preventative and detective
            controls through a consistent monitoring and filtering system
            that will ensure the safety and reliability of information as
            it traverses the network. Additionally, the Department has
            requested additional support from law enforcement in
            investigating unauthorized access to our computer systems.
        OCIO has already deployed firewalls, filtering in its routers, and
    intrusion detection systems that together provide a much-improved level
    of network security. For the USDA Telecommunications Backbone Network,
    firewalls have now been installed at every Internet access point.
    Scanning procedures and tools are in place and reports are produced
    daily. Three separate ISS scan tools and other security monitoring
    tools have been purchased and installed at USDA's headquarters complex.
    These devices will allow OCIO staff to participate in active network
    monitoring. Collectively, these security controls will provide a more
    strict and coordinated enforcement of network access and use.
      --Electronic Access Security Design.--The objective of the Electronic
            Access Security Design initiative is to engage contractors to
            work with security and network personnel in USDA county-based
            agencies (RD, FSA, and NRCS) and the OCIO to develop and
            recommend a comprehensive information security program for
            Internet/Intranet/Extranet services (Web Farms) and to
            standardize security-related efforts. Outcomes expected from
            this effort include 1) a generalized logical architecture; 2) a
            physical implementation of the logical architecture including
            integration testing in a laboratory environment, and: 3) a
            generalized support infrastructure including staffing,
            policies, procedures, and management processes.
        Agreement has now been reached on a USDA Web Farm architecture. At
    a minimum, all internet-based implementations must agree with the
    standards established for USDA firewall settings. Virtual Private
    Network's (VPN's) established to transmit sensitive data will follow
    the methodology already established within USDA for VPN tunneling. This
    will provide for secure data designations ranging from anonymous to
    ``non-repudiation''. Web Farm transmissions will be built on a
    standardized TCP/IP protocol stack and will require the segregation of
    public service traffic and USDA internal services. USDA services will
    be accessed only through authorized paths.
        In addition to the logical controls and security personnel
    requirements, OCIO is currently in the process of establishing physical
    security standards for all Web Farm development. These standards,
    developed in conjunction with USDA's physical security staff, will set
    forth the minimum physical security requirements that must be met prior
    to implementation. The physical security requirements will be finalized
    by the end of fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How is the Department overseeing the expanded use of
    electronic technologies to ensure there are adequate levels of security
    and privacy over Department-wide information resources?
        Answer. Our Chief Information Officer is working closely with the
    Department's IT and business leaders to ensure adequate security and
    privacy as we expand the use of technology in conducting business. USDA
    must ensure the privacy of customer information, customer transactions,
    and other sensitive data it maintains. OCIO is currently in the process
    of updating functional requirements, position descriptions, and skill-
    set requirements for personnel who will be assigned responsibility for
    managing privacy issues. Comprehensive security policies and programs
    are also being implemented at the Department-level to ensure a
    corporate approach to mitigating security weaknesses and protecting
    customer privacy. Right now a risk management program and security
    architecture are under development and more programs are planned in
    implementing the Department's comprehensive security action plan.
        According to the CIO, to ensure adequate security in meeting the
    mandates of the Freedom to E-File Act, cyber security program staff
    members have worked closely with Service Center agencies' personnel to
    develop and begin implementing a comprehensive Web Farm architecture
    with adequate security controls. This architecture utilizes common
    hardware, software, configurations, security, policies and procedures,
    and staffing to ensure an orderly transition to delivering services
    over the Internet.
             usda's foundation financial management systems (ffis)
        Question. When does USDA anticipate fully implementing FFIS and how
    much will the system cost to develop and operate once its completed?
        Answer. FFIS will be fully implemented in all USDA agencies on
    October 1, 2002. An assessment is underway to determine the full
    operational costs once all seventeen USDA agencies/organizations are
    implemented and in full operation.
        Question. How much does USDA plan to spend in fiscal year 2002 to
    further implement its FFIS and related improvements?
        Answer. The USDA fiscal year 2002 FFIS implementation budget is
    $17,468,700. Agencies have additional costs as they make improvements
    to their systems, which feed data to FFIS.
        Question. How many agencies are currently using FFIS to input their
    financial information, and when does the Department expect all
    agencies/offices to be using FFIS?
        Answer. There are currently eight USDA agencies using FFIS. All
    USDA agencies are expected to be using FFIS by October 1, 2002.
                    information technology (it) contracting
        Question. How much does USDA expect to spend in fiscal year 2002
    for IT contractor support services by mission area/agency/office, and
    how much was spent for such services in fiscal year 2000/2001?
        Answer. The Chief Information Officer provided the following table,
    which shows the fiscal year 2000, and estimated 2001 and 2002 funding
    for USDA IT contractor support services by agency:

                                          USDA SUPPORT SERVICES COSTS BY AGENCY
                                                  [Millions of Dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                 Agency                                    2000            2001            2002
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Agricultural Marketing Service..................................            $4.0            $4.8            $1.7
    Agricultural Research Service...................................             3.8             4.2             4.1
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service......................             3.7             3.5             3.6
    Coop State Research, Education, & Extension.....................             2.1             3.0             3.4
    Departmental Administration.....................................             4.9             7.3            13.9
    Economic Research Service.......................................             0.4             0.2             0.2
    Farm Service Agency.............................................            49.7            37.8            53.8
    Food and Nutrition Service......................................            10.5             9.9            12.0
    Food Safety and Inspection Service..............................             5.1             6.1             6.1
    Foreign Agricultural Service....................................             7.2            10.0            10.1
    Forest Service..................................................            59.0            55.2            62.8
    Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Admin....................             0.1             0.1             0.1
    National Agricultural Statistics Service........................             0.6             1.2             1.9
    National Appeals Division.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Natural Resources Conservation Service..........................            12.8             8.7             7.2
    Office of Budget and Program Analysis...........................  ..............  ..............             0.6
    Office of Communications........................................             0.0             0.0             0.0
    Office of General Counsel.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Office of Inspector General.....................................             0.1             0.1             0.2
    Office of the Chief Economist...................................  ..............             0.1             0.1
    Office of the Chief Financial Officer...........................            31.7            28.9            19.2
    Office of the Chief Information Officer.........................            26.4            32.6            29.4
    Risk Management Agency..........................................            10.8             7.1            15.5
    Rural Development...............................................            13.7            34.4            25.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
    U.S. Department of Agriculture..................................           246.6           255.2           271.3
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. To what extent has USDA analyzed and assessed
    opportunities to outsource additional IT support services over the next
    several years? What specific areas would such outsourcing cover and
    what are the expected costs/benefits?
        Answer. USDA has conducted its fiscal year 2000 FAIR Act Inventory
    as required and identified IT jobs that could potentially be
    outsourced. The OCIO and individual agencies are preparing to conduct
    cost comparisons for jobs in the Inventory. Once these studies are
    conducted, we will be able to identify costs and benefits of
    outsourcing these IT positions.
                        chief information officer (cio)
        Question. What has the CIO identified as its major/key performance
    goals for fiscal year 2002?
        Answer. I will have the Chief Information Officer provide that
    information for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        OCIO's performance goals for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002
    are as follows:
        Goal 1: Enhance Customer Service and Operational Support.
        Performance Goals:
      --Support the USDA Enterprise Architecture.
      --Develop new services and increase OCIO customer base for existing
            services.
      --Improve customer service quality.
      --Develop and implement USDA Universal Telecommunication Network.
      --Improve performance of existing network through enhanced network
            management capabilities.
        Goal 2: Improve and Enhance Information Technology Capital
    Investments Process and The Skills of the Information Technology
    Workforce.
        Performance Goals:
      --Enhance the Capital Planning and Investment Control Process by
            increasing use of USDA's I-TIPS.
      --Increase the number of corporate projects and information systems.
      --Complete USDA IT skills assessment.
      --Develop an IT Workforce plan.
        Goal 3: Effective Stewardship through Enterprise Program Management
    Performance Goals:
      --Develop and implement a common computing environment infrastructure
            for USDA's Service Centers which includes the whole package of
            hardware, software, security, websites, telecommunications and
            databases, but excludes the development of applications.
      --Transformation to a fully integrated e-government environment.
        Goal 4: Develop, Implement and Maintain a Secure and Confident IT
    Environment while Protecting Privacy.
        Performance Goals:
      --Provide policy, guidance and training to strengthen USDA
            information security to all USDA agencies.
      --Evaluate all mission critical information systems and identify all
            vulnerabilities.
      --Develop mitigation plans for vulnerabilities discovered through
            formal threat assessments.
      --Develop policies and guidelines that provide agencies with security
            standards and repeatable procedures that ensure information
            assets remain safe and available.
        Question. What are the total costs in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
    year 2002 to operate the National Information Technology Center located
    in Ft. Collins, Colorado? (identify and include all categories of
    costs) What is the rationale and justification for maintaining the
    separate Ft Collins office and has USDA performed any cost/benefit
    studies of maintaining this separate office rather than performing its
    functions out of the CIO's headquarters office in Washington D.C.?
        Answer. The NITC program in Fort Collins (NITC-FC) is an
    organizational division of NITC but is a separately funded activity
    within USDA's Working Capital Fund. NITC-FC obtains all of its funding
    through memorandums of understanding and reimbursable agreements with
    customer agencies that choose to use NITC-FC's services. It receives no
    appropriated funds. The Department maintains the Ft. Collins, Colorado,
    location because that is where many of its customers and the projects
    it supports are located. I will have the CIO provide more information
    for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        The budgeted costs for NITC-FC for fiscal years 2001 and 2002 are
    as follows:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                  Cost Category                    2001            2002
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Federal Personnel Costs.................      $3,792,000      $3,932,000
    Contract Services.......................       2,499,000       2,570,000
    Rents, Communications, Utilities........         348,000         356,000
    Equipment and Depreciation..............         154,000         267,000
    Travel and Transportation...............         145,000         149,000
    Software and Supplies...................         100,000         102,000
                                             -------------------------------
          Total.............................       7,038,000       7,376,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        No formal cost benefit studies have been conducted since a data
    center consolidation study was performed by Booz, Allen and Hamilton,
    Inc., in 1985. This study provided the basis for the current NITC
    organizational structure.
        USDA continues to maintain this development staff in Fort Collins,
    Colorado because many of the customers and major projects supported by
    this staff are also located in Fort Collins, including the Forest
    Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service and others. This allows NITC direct
    access to customers and helps to reduce costs including travel and
    long-distance communications. NITC's high-quality, low-cost information
    technology (IT) services have resulted in many new projects for the
    Fort Collins division over the last decade. Many of the applications
    that the NITC Fort Collins division supports are national applications
    that are used by all USDA agencies and other Federal agencies, such as
    the General Services Administration's FTS 2001 applications.
        The overall cost of living is lower in Fort Collins than the
    Washington, D.C. area. This allows NITC to recruit and retain both
    Federal and contractor positions at a much lower cost to customers.
    Fort Collins is part of the Rest of the U.S. (RUS) locality pay
    structure and has lower salary and benefit costs than the D.C. area.
    Contractor support costs are also lower than they would be in D.C.,
    which saves customers additional money.
                         telecommunications management
        Question. Several years ago, the Department said that it spent more
    than $200 million annually for telecommunications services. How much
    does USDA currently spend on telecommunications each year? (Please
    break these costs out by major category and by mission area, agency,
    and office.)
        Answer. I will have the CIO provide that information.
        [The information follows:]
        The following amounts consist of local and long distance services
    (not including international) for voice, data and video
    telecommunications (other than radio) developed in January 2000.

    USDA Telecommunication Costs

                              [Millions of Dollars]

    Foreign Agricultural Service:                           Fiscal year 2000
                                                                      $2.326
        Farm Service Agency.......................................    58.024
        Risk Management Agency....................................     6.621
    Food, Nutrition & Consumer Services: Food & Nutrition Services     1.069
    Food Safety: Food Safety & Inspection Service.................     0.650
    Natural Resources & Environment:
        Forest Service............................................    48.900
        Natural Resources Conservation Service....................    24.170
    Research, Education & Economics:
        Agricultural Research Service.............................     7.369
        Coop State Res, Edu, & Ext Service........................     1.378
        Economic Research Service.................................     4.348
        National Agricultural Statistics Service..................     2.288
    Rural Development: Rural Development..........................    14.713
    Marketing & Regulatory Programs:
        Agricultural Marketing Service............................     3.257
        Animal & Plant Health Inspection..........................    11.790
        Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Admin..............     0.829
    Departmental Administration: Departmental Administration......     0.784
    Departmental Staff Offices:
        Office Chief Financial Officer \1\........................     1.714
        Office General Counsel....................................     0.322
        Office Inspector General..................................     0.986
        Office Communications.....................................     0.311
        Office Chief Information Officer \1\......................    15.324
        National Appeals Division.................................     0.266
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

            SDA Total.............................................   207.439

    \1\ Numbers reflect total Appropriated and Working Capital Funding.
    These numbers are not adjusted for collections.

        Question. Where does USDA stand with respect to implementing all of
    GAO's recommendations for improving Department-wide management of
    telecommunications?
        Answer. According to OCIO, USDA has achieved closure on most GAO
    recommendations concerning Department-wide management of
    telecommunications. Open recommendations remain in the following two
    GAO telecommunications audits:
      --AIMD-95-203--USDA Telecommunications: Better Management and Network
            Planning Could Save Millions
      --AIMD-98-131--USDA Telecommunications: Strong Leadership Needed to
            Resolve Management Weaknesses, Achieve Savings
        I will have the Chief Information Officer provide the status of
    these open recommendations for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        AIMD-95-203.--During fiscal year 2000, three of five open
    recommendations from AIMD-95-203 were closed. The two open
    recommendations can be summarized as follows:
      --Establish and implement procedures for reviewing telecommunications
            resources at offices that USDA plans to close or relocate.
      --Develop Departmental policy requiring agencies to establish
            management controls over the acquisition and use of
            telecommunications resources.
        Recommendations and Actions Taken.--These two recommendations
    require that telecommunications inventory and compliance activities be
    undertaken. Following guidance provided by GAO, OCIO is working to
    leverage existing Service Center agency review efforts to address
    compliance requirements. OCIO is working with USDA agencies through the
    Telecommunications Mission Area Control Officers to develop an
    inventory system. Both of these activities are resource intensive,
    requiring sufficient funding, staffing, and time to complete.
        AIMD-98-131. The purpose of this audit was to emphasize
    recommendations from previous audits:
      --AIMD-95-97 USDA Telecommunications: Missed Opportunities to Save
            Millions
      --AIMD-95-203 USDA Telecommunications: Better Management and Network
            Planning Could Save Millions
      --AIMD-96-59 USDA Telecommunications: More Effort Needed to Address
            Telephone Abuse and Fraud
        Recommendations and Actions Taken.--Over the past 18 months, OCIO
    has been aggressive in taking the steps necessary to obtain closure of
    two of the audits (AIMD-95-97 and AIMD-96-59). As noted under AIMD 95-
    203, OCIO has efforts underway to address the inventory and compliance
    issues needed to close the two remaining open recommendations. Based on
    feedback from GAO, AIMD-98-131 should be closed when AIMD-95-203 is
    closed.
                               year 2000 rollover
        Question. USDA has reported to OMB that it spent almost $200
    million to address the Year 2000 problem. What type of accounting
    controls existed over these funds and what lessons were learned from
    accounting for these emergency-type funding initiatives at USDA?
        Answer. According to the Chief Information Officer, USDA
    established an accounting management program to monitor the tracking
    and use of all supplemental emergency funding in the department. This
    program used an on-line reporting capability, supported by the National
    Finance Center (NFC), to track financial obligations. Once an agency
    entered an obligation into the system, the transaction was tracked to
    completion. The CIO noted that a key lesson learned from accounting for
    emergency-type funding initiatives for was that having central control
    of funds is essential to oversight and investments.
        Question. We understand that USDA hired a contractor to audit
    agency Year 2000 expenditures. When was this audit completed and what
    were the results?
        Answer. The audit activity on USDA's Year 2000 expenditures is
    ongoing and scheduled for completion by May 31, 2001.
                              unobligated balances
        Question. Provide actual/estimated fiscal year-end 2000, 2001, and
    2002 unobligated balances, by account, with an explanation of amounts
    in excess of 10 percent of the total funding available at the beginning
    of the fiscal year.
        [The information follows:]
     explanation of unobligated balances in excess of 10 percent of total
                                funds available
    Farm Service Agency
      --Agricultural Conservation Program. This program is no longer
            authorized and USDA cannot obligate additional funds. The
            objectives of this program were incorporated into the
            Environmental Quality Incentives Program which is funded by the
            Commodity Credit Corporation.
      --Emergency Conservation Program. Unobligated balances are needed in
            the event of unforeseen emergencies dealing with cases of
            severe damage to farmlands and rangelands resulting from
            natural disasters.
    Risk Management Agency
      --Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Fund. The estimated unobligated
            balances are roughly equivalent to the FCIC's outstanding
            capital stock of $500 million.
    Foreign Agricultural Service
      --Salaries and Expenses. The unobligated balance includes $4 million
            for the Cochran Fellowship Program, about $6 million from the
            Department of State for overseas security enhancements, and
            about $15 million from the Agency for International
            Development. The funds will be used to conduct required future
            activities.
        Public Law 480.--More than 85 percent of the fiscal year 2000
    unobligated balance represents Title I amounts for the Russia Food
    Assistance Program that will be obligated prior to the end of fiscal
    year 2001. The remaining amounts are for Titles II and III.
    Rural Development
      --Rural Housing Assistance Grants. Of the amount available for
            carryover, 80 percent of the total is for natural disasters
            which has had few requests for funding.
      --Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Community Grants. There are
            balances because of a delay in the clearance of the regulations
            needed to initiate the program for the Round II EZ/EC's.
      --Rural Economic Development Grants. The funds for the Rural Economic
            Development Grants are provided from the interest differential
            on Rural Utilities Service (RUS) borrowers' cushion of credit
            accounts. Under the Cushion of Credit Payment Program, RUS
            borrowers are authorized to make voluntary advance payments on
            their loans and receive 5 percent interest on those advance
            payments. These advance payments, called ``cushion of credit''
            payments, are held in the Rural Electrification and
            Telecommunications Liquidating Account. This account is
            credited monthly with a sum determined by multiplying the
            outstanding cushion of credit payments made after October 1,
            1987, by the difference between the average weighted interest
            rate paid on outstanding certificates of beneficial ownership
            issued by the Fund and the 5 percent rate of interest provided
            to RUS borrowers on cushion of credit payments. At the end of
            the fiscal year, the cushion of credit payments in the Rural
            Electrification and Telecommunications Liquidating Account are
            transferred to the Rural Economic Development and Grants and
            used to make grants the next fiscal year.
      --National Sheep Industry Improvement Center Revolving Fund. For the
            fund, $25 million has been appropriated. The funds are
            authorized to carry out the authorized programs and activities
            of the Center without fiscal year limitation. Of the $25
            million available to date, $14 million was obligated to an
            intermediary to make direct, indirect, and guaranteed loans.
            Also, $4.8 million is being used for grants for marketing and
            promotion of lamb meat. The remaining funds will be used to
            carry out the intent of the revolving fund.
    Natural Resources Conservation Service
      --Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations. NRCS does not record an
            obligation until a Federal contract has been awarded, a project
            agreement has been executed, a cooperative agreement has been
            signed by the sponsor, or a long-term contract has been signed
            by the participant. It often takes a great period of time to
            accomplish this due to the complexity of the work. Some of the
            unobligated balances are due to an emergency supplemental that
            was passed later in the fiscal year.
      --Forestry Incentives Program. NRCS does not record an obligation
            until a forest management plan is developed and approved. It
            often takes a great period of time to accomplish this due to
            the complexity of the work.
      --Great Plains Conservation Program. This NRCS program is now
            conducted under the authority of the Environmental Quality
            Incentives Program. The unobligated balances will be maintained
            until all existing contracts are modified or expire.
      --Colorado River Basin Salinity Program. This NRCS program is now
            conducted under the authority of the Environmental Quality
            Incentives Program. The unobligated balances will be maintained
            until all existing contracts are modified or expire.
      --Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. NRCS does not record an
            obligation until the wildlife habitat development plan is
            finalized. It often takes a great period of time to accomplish
            this due to the complexity of the work.
      --Rural Clean Water Program. No needs are anticipated for the
            remaining unobligated funds because the implementation period
            for all projects has ended. The final payments have been made
            and the program will be closed out in 2001.
    Agricultural Research Service
      --Building and Facilities. Most of the balances in this account are
            for facilities projects that are awaiting additional
            appropriations in order to fully fund a complete segment of the
            project; waiting for completion of design work in order to
            award construction contracts, or currently in various phases of
            construction and funds are being obligated as the work
            progresses.
    Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
      --Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems. The 2002 Budget
            provides that 2001 unobligated balances carry over to fund the
            program in 2002 and postpone spending the new $120 million to
            be appropriated for 2002 until 2003.
    Agricultural Marketing Service
      --Marketing Services. The unobligated balances in this account are
            reimbursed funds collected from fees paid by the agricultural
            industry customers for cotton and tobacco grading services. A
            balance is maintained to cover a 3 or 4 month reserve for
            unforeseen liabilities.
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
      --Building and Facilities. Most of the balances in the account are
            for facilities that are in various phases of construction or
            repair and are being obligated as the work progresses.
    Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration
      --Inspection and Weighing Services. A balance is maintained to cover
            a 3 or 4 month reserve for unforeseen liabilities.
        Fund for Rural America.--The 2002 Budget provides that 2001
    unobligated balances carry over to fund the program in 2002 and
    postpone spending the new $60 million to be appropriated for 2002 until
    2003.

                  UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE UNOBLIGATED BALANCES BY ACCOUNT: END OF YEAR
                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Agency or Item                             2002 actual   2001 estimated  2002 estimated
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FARM SERVICE AGENCY:
        Salaries and Expenses.......................................              13               0               0
        Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund Program Account..........             100               0               0
        Conservation Reserve Program................................               1               0               0
        Agricultural Conservation Program...........................              45              45              45
        Emergency Conservation Program..............................              67              62               0
    COMMODITY CREDIT CORPORATION:
        Commodity Credit Corporation................................           1,065           1,385           1,385
        CCC Export Loans Program Account............................             345             345             345
        Farm Storage Facility Loans Program Account.................               8               0               0
    RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Fund.............             284             458             501
    FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE:
        Salaries and Expenses.......................................              25              25              25
        Scientific Activities Overseas (Foreign Currency Program)...               1               1               0
    PUBLIC LAW 480:
        Title I:
            Program Account.........................................             371               0               0
            Ocean Freight Differential Grants.......................              85               0               0
        Title II & III Grants.......................................              91  ..............  ..............
    RURAL DEVELOPMENT: Rural Community Advancement Program..........              11               3               3
    RURAL UTILITIES SERVICE: Distance Learning and Telemedicine                    3               0               1
     Program........................................................
    RURAL HOUSING SERVICE:
        Rural Housing Assistance Grants.............................              10               0               0
        Rental Assistance Program...................................              14               0               0
        Rural Housing Insurance Fund Program Account................              24               0               0
    RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE:
        Rural Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Community Grants.........              13               0               0
        Rural Economic Development Grants...........................               7               4               4
        National Sheep Industry Improvement Center..................               9               5               5
    FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE:
        Food Stamp Program..........................................              92             263             298
        Child Nutrition Programs....................................             410             347               3
        Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,                 2               0               0
         and Children (WIC).........................................
        Commodity Assistance Program................................               7               5               0
        Food Donations Programs.....................................               1               0               0
    NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE:
        Conservation Operations.....................................              11               0               0
        Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations...................              65               0               0
        Forestry Incentives Program.................................               3               0               0
        Resource Conservation and Development.......................               1               0               0
        Great Plains Conservation Program...........................               3               3               3
        Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program...............               1               1               I
        Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.........................               1               0               0
        Rural Clean Water Program...................................               5               5               5
    FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE..............................              17              17              17
    AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE:
        Salaries & Expenses.........................................               6               0               0
        Buildings and Facilities....................................             109             133             114
    COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE:
        Research and Education Activities...........................              67               9               9
        Extension Activities........................................               2               2               2
        Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems..........             120             120             120
        Buildings and Facilities....................................               3               0               0
    AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE: Marketing Services..............              43              43              43
    ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE:
        Salaries and Expenses--Appropriated.........................              35              72              72
        Buildings and Facilities....................................              16               9               2
    GRAIN INSPECTION, PACKERS AND STOCKYARDS ADMIN: Inspection and                 6               6               6
     Weighing Services..............................................
    OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY.........................................              14               2               1
        Fund for Rural America......................................              60              60              60
    DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATION:
        Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments....              16              16              16
        Hazardous Materials Management..............................               I               1               I
    OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER.........................               3               0               0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter

                                     dairy
        Question. Milk prices dropped to $9.63 per hundredweight at the end
    of 1999, the lowest price in 21 years (since August of 1978). This was
    a drop of $7.71 from December of 1998, when the price was $17.34. Over
    the past several years, price swings of 30 to 40 percent from one month
    to the next have become common.
        Agriculture is the largest industry in Pennsylvania and dairy is
    its single largest component. Pennsylvania is the fourth largest dairy
    producer in the nation and there are approximately 9,900 dairy farms
    which produce $1.73 billion worth of milk each year. Over the past
    decade, however, Pennsylvania has lost an average of 300-500 farmers
    per year. Between 1993 and 1998, Pennsylvania lost 11.4 percent of its
    dairy farmers. While facing record low prices, Pennsylvania farmers
    often have to deal with droughts, other natural disasters, high feed
    and transportation costs and other variables that challenge their
    ability to sustain their farms. Pennsylvania dairy farmers continue to
    face low farm prices for their milk. What action is the Administration
    taking to help dairy farmers who are facing record low milk prices?
        Answer. USDA has purchased 300 million pounds of nonfat dry milk
    and 11 million pounds of cheese, so far in fiscal year 2001 (October 1-
    April 30), in order to support the price of milk used for manufactured
    products above $9.90 cents per hundredweight. Expenditures of about
    $400 million are expected for dairy product purchases under the price
    support program during fiscal year 2001. An additional $6.7 million has
    been spent in the Dairy Export Incentive Program to aid in making
    export sales of dairy products during fiscal year 2001. An additional
    allotment for further export aid will become available July 1, 2001.
        The Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program made payments to dairy
    producers of nearly 65 cents per hundredweight (cwt) on up to 39,000
    cwt of milk production. Expenditures under this program are nearly
    complete and total about $665 million.
        The national average all-milk price for CY 2001 is expected to be
    $1.70 cents per cwt higher than it was in CY 2000. This should increase
    dairy farm income from milk sales by about $2.6 billion, or 13 percent.
    During the first quarter this year, ``all milk price'' was $1.63 per
    cwt above the same period last year.
        Question. What is the relationship between the price paid by
    consumers for milk in retail settings to the price received by dairy
    farmers for providing the milk?
        Answer. There seems to be a limited relationship between retail
    price of milk and the prices received by farmers. In the short term,
    changes in prices received by farmers may not be reflected in the
    retail prices consumers pay. Economic studies on milk retail-farm gate
    price spread indicate that the farmer share of the retail milk prices
    is nearly 30 percent. Other factors such as the processing,
    transportation, distribution, wholesaling, marketing, advertizing,
    profits, etc. make up the rest. However, over the long-run, consistent
    changes in prices received by farmers get reflected in the retail
    price, i.e., a consistent increase or decrease in prices received by
    farmers will result in increase or decrease in retail prices, though
    the magnitude of the change may be different due to other components of
    the price spread. Market observations suggest that due to market forces
    and nature of the business practices, the reaction time is shorter for
    price increases compared to price decreases. Once increased, the
    downward adjustment of prices is ``sticky.''
        Question. According to a recent General Accounting Office report
    (GAO-01-326), milk protein concentrate (MPC) imports grew rapidly
    between 1990 and 1999, and nearly doubled between 1998 and 1999. Many
    people involved in the dairy industry are concerned about the safety of
    MPC and circumvention of regulations prohibiting use of MPC in cheese
    production. Are these concerns valid and what activities is USDA
    undertaking to respond to these concerns?
        Answer. As noted in the GAO report, the Food and Drug
    Administration found no violations of the use of imported MPCs in
    standardized cheese production in fiscal year 1999. The report does
    point out, however, that Vermont State inspectors in the year 2000
    found two cheese plants that were using imported MPCs to make
    standardized cheeses in violation of Federal and state regulations, and
    that both of these plants discontinued the practice when issued warning
    letters by the State. FDA also has the responsibility of ensuring
    compliance of imported dairy products with U.S. public health
    requirements. Regarding the safety of MPCs, the GAO report states that
    ``FDA officials told us that these imports pose little food safety risk
    and therefore receive minimal monitoring.''
        Question. What actions are currently being taken by USDA or other
    departments and agencies in coordination with USDA to defend U.S.
    farmers against Foot and Mouth Disease and Mad Cow Disease?
        Answer. USDA has taken a number of recent actions to defend U.S.
    farmers against FMD and bovine spongiform encephalopathy, commonly
    referred to as mad cow disease. USDA has placed additional personnel at
    high-traffic international ports of entry to assist with passenger
    clearance, cargo inspection, cleaning and disinfection, and mail and
    small package inspection. As part of these efforts, approximately 350
    additional staff are being hired, and USDA has authorized the use of an
    additional $32 million from APHIS--user fee account to support this
    personnel increase through fiscal year 2002. APHIS is also accelerating
    the training and placement of supplementary detector dog teams at key
    air and cargo ports.
        Since the first detection of FMD in the UK, USDA has been
    coordinating and meeting regularly with regional USDA officials, their
    counterparts with the U.S. Customs Service and the Department of
    Defense, State agriculture and veterinary officials, university
    experts, and airline/travel industry representatives.
        APHIS has also held conference calls with State agriculture
    commissioners about USDA exclusion efforts. State agriculture
    commissioners were given the opportunity to ask APHIS officials
    questions about preparedness and response efforts should FMD ever be
    detected in the United States. APHIS officials have also met directly
    with State officials on several occasions.
        To assist with preparedness, the National Association of State
    Departments of Agriculture is exploring acceptable methods of carcass
    disposal in each State. State officials have been asked to assume that
    the largest herd in the State has to be depopulated and carcasses
    disposed of as close to the premises as possible. This planning will
    greatly assist any future efforts to eradicate a foreign animal disease
    by depopulating and disposing of infected or potentially exposed
    animals.
        APHIS continues to coordinate the weekly deployment of U.S.
    veterinary teams to the UK. These teams, comprised of State and Federal
    veterinarians, are providing assistance with the FMD eradication
    program there. Returning team members are bringing back important
    information with regard to containing and eradicating an FMD outbreak.
    APHIS will continue to coordinate these assistance efforts for as long
    as requested by UK officials.
        The Tripartite Exercise 2000, an FMD outbreak simulation involving
    Canada, Mexico, and the United States, resulted in a committed effort
    by all three countries to collaborate on efforts to prevent FMD in
    North America. As a result of lessons learned during the exercise,
    APHIS has updated its FMD response plan to incorporate new information
    about communication and vaccination in the event of an outbreak.
        USDA has also embarked on an aggressive public information campaign
    in regard to FMD. These efforts have included posting additional
    advisory signs in airports, broadcasting public service announcements,
    and establishing an information hotline and website to inform the
    public of the steps that they can take to prevent FMD from entering the
    United States.
        USDA has implemented numerous prevention, surveillance, and
    education measures to prevent the occurrence of BSE in our country's
    livestock population. Since 1989, we have severely restricted imports
    of cattle, other ruminants, and ruminant products from countries where
    BSE is known to exist. As a further precaution, we expanded the
    prohibition in 1997 to include the importation of all ruminants and
    most ruminant-origin products from European countries, including
    countries where BSE has not been reported. As of December 7, 2000, we
    have also prohibited all imports of rendered animal protein products,
    regardless of species, from Europe. This ban followed the determination
    by the European Union that some of this material was potentially cross-
    contaminated with the BSE agent.
        APHIS and FSIS conduct an active surveillance program for BSE. The
    surveillance program includes monitoring of field cases of cattle
    exhibiting signs of neurological disease, cattle condemned at slaughter
    for neurologic reasons, rabies-negative cattle submitted to public
    health laboratories, neurologic cases submitted to veterinary
    diagnostic laboratories and teaching hospitals, and sampling of cattle
    that are nonambulatory (downer cattle/fallen stock) at slaughter. APHIS
    and FSIS have also cooperatively drafted an emergency response plan to
    be used in the event that a case of BSE is detected in the United
    States.
        APHIS established a TSE (transmissible spongiform encephalopathy)
    Working Group in the late 1980s to study the issues surrounding this
    group of degenerative neurological diseases. TSEs include BSE and
    scrapie, a disease that affects sheep and has been present in the
    United States since at least 1947. The TSE Working Group makes policy
    recommendations for preventing BSE from entering the United States and
    serves as a liaison to Federal and State agencies to coordinate all
    efforts against BSE. Members of the Working Group also work with
    industry representatives and foreign governments to provide accurate
    technical information about TSEs.
    special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
                                     (wic)
        Question. Concerns have been raised by the National Association of
    WIC Directors and other groups regarding the Administration's WIC
    participation projections for fiscal year 2002, upon which the budget
    request is predicated. How confident is the Administration in its
    projected average monthly participation of 7.25 million women, infants
    and children in this important program?
        Answer. At this time we believe the Administration's projected
    average monthly participation of 7.25 million for fiscal year 2002 is
    accurate. However, projection of future WIC participation is inherently
    difficult and changes in economic conditions could impact demand for
    services. The Department plans to closely monitor the Program's
    participation over the next several months.
        Question. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania joined the Farmers
    Market Nutrition Program in 1989. Since that time, the program has
    provided WIC recipients the opportunity to purchase fresh food directly
    from local farmers. The Administration's budget includes approximately
    $20 million for this crucial program, including $9,956,000 from any
    funds not needed to maintain current WIC caseload levels. Given the
    importance of this program to so many low-income women and children
    throughout the nation, are you concerned about a funding shortfall that
    may occur if WIC caseload increases do not allow for transfer of this
    necessary additional $9.956 million?
        Answer. At this time, the Department believes that projected WIC
    caseload can be supported with funding levels requested in the fiscal
    year 2002 President's Budget request. However, should actual WIC
    participation exceed our projections, appropriations language that
    makes funding for the WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP)
    contingent on WIC Program caseload may be problematic for the FMNP in
    fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig

      national nutrition monitoring system and the discontinuation of the
       usda survey, the continuing survey of food intakes by individuals
                                    (csfii)
        Question. In fiscal year 2000, USDA announced plans to discontinue
    its food consumption survey, the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
    Individuals (CSFII) due to lack of adequate funding. It is my
    understanding that in the absence of CSFII, USDA plans to rely on
    dietary data collected by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services (DHHS). There is concern that without CSFII, USDA can no
    longer be assured it will receive the types of data needed in a timely
    fashion to support the multi-faceted functions of the Department.
        Without the USDA data, how can USDA monitor and evaluate programs
    and how can we have access to the information we need to make
    programmatic adjustments to maximize benefit and minimize cost?
        Answer. The USDA will not discontinue its food intake survey. The
    USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and the Department of Health
    and Human Services (DHHS) National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
    have been planning over the past three years the integration of the
    Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals (CSFII) and the
    National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) as set forth
    in the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990.
    In the CSFII/NHANES integrated survey, the USDA will collect, process
    and analyze exactly the same information as the USDA had collected
    previously in a free standing CSFII. The data will be collected and
    processed using the USDA developed methodology and will be released in
    the same time frame as was previously released for the CSFII. In
    addition, the benefits of the integration allow for continuous annual
    collection of the data (as opposed to periodic collection previously),
    a full second day of data collection from all respondents, conversion
    of the foods consumed into approximately 50 percent more nutrients, an
    improved multipass method of dietary intake collection, and for the
    first time a linkage between the intake of foods and medical and
    diagnostic information for all respondents.
        USDA is committed to collecting the important information provided
    by the CSFII. Integration with the NHANES survey will allow the Agency
    to perform this task with currently available funding; enhancing data
    that historically was collected by both the USDA and DHHS.
        Question. My understanding is that both USDA and DHHS surveys
    collected dietary data on 5,000 individuals creating a 10,000 sample
    size. Since DHHS isn't planning to increase their sample size to
    compensate for the loss of the 5,000 household CSFII sample, what are
    the implications of losing half of the total number in the sample?
        Answer. Ideally, the sample size should be much larger than even
    the 10,000 number. In recent conversations with Statistics Canada, we
    have learned that their national food consumption survey is planned at
    30,000 respondents. While it is true that in the past both the NHANES
    and the CSFII included 5,000 respondents per year, both surveys were
    not necessarily ongoing at the same time. In addition, both surveys
    were periodic in that data collection proceeded for three years and was
    typically followed by a period of several years where no data were
    collected. So, in any given year, there could have been no data
    collected, 5,000 respondents, or a maximum of 10,000 respondents. While
    it is true that the integration of the two surveys will reduce the data
    collection to a maximum of 5,000 respondents, one of the benefits of
    the joined survey activities is that CSFII data will be truly
    continuous i.e., it will be collected every year. Furthermore, a single
    method of data collection should mitigate some of the inconsistencies
    that have been well noted between the CSFII and NHANES in the past.
    Ideally, however, increasing the sample size of the survey, which would
    be easy to do with the merged survey, would be highly desirable to
    continue to monitor the food intake of populations at risk. The issue
    of what is an adequate sample size is an important one; these
    nationwide food consumption surveys are extremely expensive to conduct.
        Question. What data, or types of data, were collected by USDA in
    CSFII that will not be collected in the DHHS survey?
        Answer. The combined survey will produce data that was not
    available previously including continuously collected data, a much
    enhanced nutrient analysis of foods consumed and important health
    information on respondents. In the CSFII/NHANES integrated survey, the
    USDA will collect, process, and analyze exactly the same information as
    the Agency had previously collected in a free-standing CSFII. The major
    concern with the combined survey is information on seasonal variation
    in diets. This concern arises out of the fact that the data for day one
    of the survey will be collected in the NHANES mobile trailers, which
    are driven to the locations of data collection. Because of the reliance
    on the trailers, the ability to collect data in the middle of winter in
    cold climates is somewhat limited. USDA and DHHS are aware of this
    limitation and we have planned accordingly. DHHS has winterized the
    trailers and has made adjustments in scheduling in order to provide
    more cold weather data collection. In addition, we think that we will
    collect the information that we need on seasonal variation by
    collecting the second day of food intake data by telephone, which is
    obviously not going to be affected by weather. Telephone data
    collection works well with NHANES (approximately 85 percent response
    rate).
        Data collected in the past has formed the basis for the Household
    Food Consumption Survey (HFCS). USDA is committed to collecting these
    data and we believe we can collect and release them similarly to what
    has been done in the past. These data were collected periodically by
    telephone from the CSFII respondents. The data now will be collected
    from the 5,000 integrated survey respondents.
        Question. Given the many competing interests and various health
    measurements and assessments performed in the DHHS survey, can USDA
    guarantee that questions of interest to USDA always will be included in
    the DHHS survey?
        Answer. While the nutrition component of the NHANES is small
    relative to the overall scope of the NHANES, it is an essential
    component. USDA has worked with DHHS for the past 4 years to develop
    and implement the integrated survey and both parties have been
    cooperative and made concessions to each other to accommodate the needs
    of customers and stakeholders of both surveys. This dialog and joint
    planning has been helpful to allow us to focus on what are the
    important pieces of information that are needed by the USDA for those
    who have relied on the CSFII. Throughout the planning process we have
    held numerous stakeholder meetings to ensure that we are aware of the
    needs of users of the data. It is interesting to note that several of
    the major users of the CSFII data have in the past been financial
    supporters of NHANES. It is also interesting to note that although
    there seems to be widespread support by USDA stakeholders for the
    merged survey, many of the concerns that have been raised would not
    have been met with a free standing CSFII, such as continued over
    sampling of children as was done by USDA in response to a one year
    appropriation. If at any time in the future, the USDA perceives that
    the needs of the users of our data are not being met, we will look at
    other ways of collecting the data.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                             foot and mouth disease
        Question. Madame Secretary, I appreciate your comments in regard to
    the question I verbally posed about the steps necessary to avoid an
    outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease, or similar animal diseases in this
    country. As I mentioned, if an outbreak were to occur in my state, with
    its reliance on the dairy industry, the consequences would be
    absolutely devastating, a fact I also pointed out in my April 17th
    letter to you.
        In that letter I mentioned a troubling story on this subject that
    appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal on April 4th which reported
    shortfalls in the inspection procedures at U.S. points of entry. That
    story made reference to specific incidents at O'Hare International
    Airport, which may be representative of international airports around
    the country. For example, a traveler who had been in the British
    countryside had to insist repeatedly to airport officials that special
    steps were necessary to disinfect her shoes. It should be recognized
    that many travelers to rural England spend time in the proximity of
    livestock (such as at a rural Bed and Breakfast) without necessarily
    considering their experience as being a ``farm'' visit.
        While your response to my question provided general information, it
    did not specifically answer the question I asked. Have you had a chance
    to review that story and would you please respond to the concerns it
    raises regarding travelers like Ms. Randall and whether USDA has taken
    actions either internally or with other agencies to assure that
    incidents like the one reported will not occur?
        Answer. We are concerned about such reports and continue to work
    with related agencies to reduce such incidents. All international
    travelers must state on their Customs declaration form whether or not
    they have been on a farm or in contact with livestock and if they are
    bringing any meat or dairy products from their travels back with them.
    The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is working
    closely with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and U.S.
    Customs Service to ensure that they refer all passengers, who check
    ``yes'' to the agriculture question #11 on the Customs declaration, to
    an APHIS official. APHIS officials will inspect travelers' baggage if
    they indicate they have been on a farm or in contact with livestock. We
    have determined that footwear that is clean (i.e., no appearance of
    manure, dirt, or other particulate matter) does not provide the
    appropriate conditions (i.e., moisture level, pH, and temperature) for
    the FMD virus to survive. Footwear that appears dirty can provide the
    appropriate conditions for carrying FMD and must be disinfected with
    detergent and bleach. To accommodate passengers who are still concerned
    that they could be carrying FMD after we inspect their footwear and
    determine there is no risk, APHIS inspection policy now states that our
    inspectors will disinfect their footwear at their request.
        Question. If a confirmed outbreak of Foot and Mouth Disease were to
    occur in this country, what USDA procedures are in place for disease
    containment? In other words, what specific actions does USDA have as
    planned contingencies if an outbreak were to occur? Would USDA plan to
    offer compensation to affected livestock producers? How would USDA
    prevent the transportation of infected cattle within the United States?
    How would USDA handle infected herds? Would there be whole herd
    slaughters as we have witnessed in the UK?
        Answer. If APHIS were to confirm an outbreak of FMD in the United
    States, APHIS would respond according to the Agency's FMD response
    plan. Because specific outbreak situations vary, and each State's
    emergency response capabilities differ, APHIS' FMD response plan is
    designed to be flexible and dynamic. APHIS' FMD response plan taps
    State and Federal resources as available, and allows the Agency's
    animal health expertise and coordination skills to fill any remaining
    gaps.
        Upon the initial confirmation of FMD, APHIS and State officials
    would immediately begin investigating the source and trace all animals
    that may have come into contact with the disease. These officials
    inform both State and Federal officials on the status of their
    investigation and will also initiate emergency response efforts at the
    State and local level. These measures include notifying State
    agriculture and, if necessary, public health officials of the disease
    detection; securing the biosecurity of the affected site including
    depopulating and disposing of the whole herd and cleaning and
    disinfecting premises; establishing and maintaining animal movement
    quarantines, and alerting officials in neighboring States and the
    international community. Upon spread of the disease, APHIS and States
    would enhance surveillance efforts, expand quarantines as needed,
    conduct a comprehensive public media campaign to alert the public on
    the signs and transmission of FMD. After identification of the subtype,
    APHIS would activate the FMD vaccine bank, order vaccine doses, and
    consider the use of vaccines as a tool in the eradication effort.
        USDA has developed a compensation policy with the Office of
    Management and Budget and with input from other interested parties. The
    goal of this policy is to ensure that an outbreak is located and
    diseased or exposed animals are destroyed as soon as possible. For
    that, we need the full cooperation of all producers. For animals
    depopulated to eradicate a disease, USDA has traditionally paid an
    indemnity approximating the fair market value of the animals. We intend
    to provide compensation for the fair market value of animals
    depopulated due to FMD, possibly including other specific direct costs
    incurred by producers. We will provide more comprehensive information
    on our compensation policy in the near future.
        Question. Please provide information regarding new technologies
    (including vaccines) that have been or are being developed to combat
    Foot and Mouth Disease or similar animal diseases.
        Answer. ARS has developed and is currently validating a highly
    specific nucleic acid on-site detection technology that allows
    minimally trained personnel using a briefcase-sized device to
    definitively identify FMD virus on the farm within an hour. This on-
    site technology can also be adapted to screen imported carcasses for
    animals that have been previously infected with FMD and also for
    animals that have been vaccinated against the disease.
        ARS will test two promising vaccine candidates. The first is a
    synthetic peptide vaccine that is being produced by a company on Long
    Island, NY. The technology is based on research conducted by ARS
    scientists at Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) over the past
    20 years. The company has data to indicate that this vaccine protects
    swine from Type O FMD virus and has been selling the product in Taiwan
    and China. ARS is currently proposing to work with this company to
    examine the vaccine's protective ability for cattle and sheep and to
    determine if the virus is carried by vaccinated animals that were later
    exposed to infection. This peptide vaccine would be the only readily
    available product should the U.S. urgently need to vaccinate animals
    with a type of virus vaccine not present in the North American Vaccine
    Bank. The second candidate vaccine is an ARS-developed adenovirus
    vectored (genetically engineered) FMD vaccine that has been shown to
    protect swine in laboratory studies. This work will be extended to
    tests in cattle and sheep to determine if all species are protected.
    These two vaccines may differ in their ability to protect livestock in
    case of an outbreak and will be compared for likely efficacy in those
    conditions.
        ARS also has a modest program on Vesicular stomatitis viruses
    (VSV); these are insect-transmitted viruses that cause vesicular
    disease in cattle, swine, horses and humans, and are clinically
    indistinguishable from foot-and-mouth disease. The ARS program on VSV
    is conducted at: (1) the Arthropod-Borne Animal Disease Research
    Laboratory (ABADRL), Laramie, Wyoming where scientists are
    investigating the role of biting arthropods in VSV transmission; and
    (2) at PIADC, Greenport, New York where researchers are determining
    genomic information useful for detecting exotic strains of VSV, and
    tracking the origin of VS strains causing outbreaks in the U.S. In
    addition they are carrying out pathogenesis studies in livestock that
    will be useful for development of vaccines and therapeutic agents.
    There are no VSV vaccines commercially available in the U.S. The
    livestock industry is reluctant to use traditional killed-virus
    vaccines because vaccinated animals would be serologically
    indistinguishable from infected ones, which would have important trade
    implications.
                              emergency assistance
        Question. We have all seen on recent national news broadcasts the
    flood waters that have been sweeping down the Midwest along the
    Mississippi, Wisconsin, Red Rivers and others. This year, the
    Mississippi River is cresting at record levels and lands in my state
    are still underwater and will be for some time. We don't know yet how
    badly scoured those lands will be or how costly the repair and recovery
    costs will be.
        I have received a letter from Senator Wellstone from my neighboring
    state of Minnesota who reports that on top of already dismal
    conditions, just this last weekend the central part of his state
    received 5 to 8 inches of snow, and an additional 4 inches of rain fell
    over central and southeast Minnesota affecting literally millions of
    acres of farmland and posing increased threats from scab and other
    grain disease this year if, in fact, farmers are able to put a crop in
    the soil.
        Secretary Veneman, I understand that the President's budget
    includes $5.6 billion that can be made available to help people recover
    from the sort of devastation we are now seeing in the upper Midwest. It
    is also my understanding that that amount, $5.6 billion, is the total
    for all government agencies and programs for recovery from natural
    disasters. How will USDA determine among all agencies how much of that
    $5.6 billion should be allocated for agriculture related losses?
        Answer. The $5.6 billion National Emergency Reserve would provide
    for additional needs arising for major disasters above and beyond
    normal and average needs. The budget provides for average funding needs
    for disaster related programs such as USDA's fire fighting program,
    FEMA's disaster assistance and others. The allocation of funds from the
    Emergency Reserve would be proposed by the President and acted upon by
    the Congress. USDA will, of course, monitor disaster related conditions
    and needs related to its programs.
        Question. Are there any other sources of funds within the budget
    available if recovery needs exceed $5.6 billion?
        Answer. The President's Budget also provides for a contingency
    reserve to allow for unanticipated priority spending needs including
    such things as emergency farm economic and disaster assistance.
        Question. If there are no additional funds budgeted, then it would
    appear we are sending a message that Federal assistance to flood and
    storm victims may not be provided at levels similar to previous
    disasters. Do you believe that is fair to victims today, or do you
    believe that victims of, say for example Hurricane Floyd or the Grand
    Forks flood of 1997 were over compensated?
        Answer. The budget does provide funding for various governmentwide
    disaster relief programs such as FEMA disaster assistance, USDA and DOI
    firefighting, and SBA disaster loans at levels commensurate with normal
    or average needs. The proposed Emergency Reserve is an attempt to
    provide a mechanism to meet major unexpected needs without resort to
    unplanned supplemental emergency programs which may be disruptive to
    overall budget planning and discipline.
        Question. Does USDA have plans to assess the damage from current
    flood events and report those findings to the Congress with a request
    for supplemental funding? If so, how soon may we expect to receive such
    a request?
        Answer. USDA is monitoring the flooding situation closely. However,
    funding needs assessments can only be made after the flood waters have
    receded. For the Emergency Watershed Protection (EWP) program, initial
    funding requirements will be determined within a few weeks of the water
    receding and the sites becoming accessible for technical evaluations.
        Question. In what ways and how soon may victims of the current
    flooding in the Upper Midwest expect assistance from USDA?
        Answer. We are continuing to monitor this situation, but cannot yet
    determine the extent of potential needs.
        Question. Does the Bush Administration plan to respond to disaster
    needs occurring during fiscal year 2001 in a way that might differ from
    future years? If so, explain.
        Answer. It is too early to determine whether or how planning in
    future years might be changed.
        Question. Does USDA have plans to alter its policy in regard to
    disaster assistance to areas where there is a history of natural
    disasters, such as in frequently flooded areas? If so, how might that
    policy change?
        Answer. We need to review this concern, before determining whether
    it is reasonable to explore any change in policy.
                                 dairy compacts
        Question. Secretary Veneman, when we visited shortly after your
    confirmation as Secretary, I voiced my objection to the Northeast Dairy
    Compact and to the imposition of domestic trade barriers generally.
    Aside from the basic policy and constitutional questions that surround
    the issue of diary compacts, dairy producers in Wisconsin are at risk
    of losing their livelihoods due to the market distorting features of
    the existing compact and face even more stringent difficulties if there
    were an expansion of compacts in other states.
        Do you accept, as a matter of policy, that U.S. dairy producers in
    one region of the country should be allowed to suffer financial ruin
    due to market distorting features imposed on them by producers in
    another region of the country?
        Answer. U.S farm policy in general during the past several years
    has been to increase the role of market forces in determining what
    commodities are produced and consumed and in determining how much is
    produced and consumed. We think that in general that is the appropriate
    guiding principle for fostering an efficient farm sector. This applies
    to dairy as well. However, we recognize that adjustments in dairy
    policy toward market orientation have been gradual and that is not
    inappropriate given the nature of the dairy sector. With specific
    regard to the Northeast Dairy Compact, a number of studies have shown
    it has probably increased prices to consumers in the region, increased
    prices received by producers who sell milk in the Compact area and has
    slightly reduced prices to producers elsewhere. None of these studies
    have taken into account the recent supply control measures instituted
    in the Northeast Compact which may mitigate the effects on producers
    elsewhere. We are aware that GAO is currently studying the Northeast
    Compact and await its findings.
        Question. Do you believe it is consistent with the Bush
    Administration's policy on free trade that we should seek free trade
    abroad, but not free trade at home?
        Answer. We believe that in the long run free competitive markets
    both domestically and internationally are the appropriate goals to be
    moving forward. Having said that we are also cognizant of the costs of
    adjustment which would be affected by changes in policy.
        Question. What would be the Bush Administration's view if the
    Northeast Dairy Compact was the creation of the European Union rather
    than a collection of states in this country? Would WTO principles apply
    in such a case?
        Answer. The Northeast Dairy Compact acts to manage the market for
    producer milk within its region rather than to place direct
    restrictions on trade. It is our view that such Compacts are not
    inconsistent with WTO principles, and although questions have been
    asked about the Northeast Compact by other WTO members, no serious
    allegations of noncompliance have been made against it.
        Question. President Bush in Canada last week worked toward an
    agreement for Trade in the Americas to tear down trade barriers in this
    hemisphere. Does that agreement pertain to trade within the United
    States and if so, would it not be inconsistent with dairy compacts?
        Answer. Interstate commerce within the United States is protected
    and regulated as provided for under the Constitution, and would not be
    limited or otherwise affected by the proposed Free Trade Area of the
    Americas or any other international trade agreement.
        Question. Don't you believe it would be much more productive to
    develop a dairy policy that is national in scope that would treat all
    dairy producers fairly than one that pits one group of producers
    against another? Do you have any suggestions on how such a policy
    should be crafted? Are you willing to work with us toward the
    development of such a policy?
        Answer. We will be willing to work with the Congress and all
    affected interests to search for an appropriate national policy for
    dairy. As your question indicates, the varying regional interests in
    dairy production make the formulation of a reasonable national policy
    challenging.
                           national appeals division
        Question. I have previously been concerned about a large number of
    decisions favorable to farmers by regional hearing officers being
    overturned by the Director of NAD. I also understand that NAD-wide
    training was held last year, emphasizing the planning and conduct of
    appeal hearings, including on-line training. What percentage of NAD
    employees have attended this training, and what benefits has NAD seen
    as a result of this?
        Answer. According to NAD management, more than ninety-nine percent
    of NAD hearing officers attended NAD training conferences in 2000 and
    2001. NAD's on-line training program is not yet complete. NAD is
    balancing available funds for training between providing traditional
    forms of training and continuing development of the on-line training
    program in fiscal year 2001. The training conferences emphasized
    listening, writing, format, reasoning, finding of fact, conclusions of
    law, judicial demeanor, subpoenas, hearing procedure and similar
    hearing- and determination-related matters.
        As a result of training, NAD management says it is seeing
    improvements in the work of many hearing officers. NAD management
    reports that many hearing officers have applied the lessons of the
    training to hearing appeals and writing determinations. Hearings are
    more professional and determinations are better written with improved
    reasoning.
        Question. Please provide information on how this training, and
    NAD's transition to its final rules published in June 1999, have
    affected the hearings process and outcomes, and how USDA has worked to
    ensure there is no bias against producers.
        Answer. The Department will work hard to ensure that the NAD
    appeals process is fair and impartial. I will have NAD provide more
    specific information on its training program, final rules, and how the
    Department has worked to ensure there is no bias against producers.
        [The information follows:]
        The effects of training on the hearings process include increased
    professionalism in the way hearings are conducted and improvements in
    how determinations are written and supported by sound reasoning. The
    final rule involved only minor changes to the interim rule under which
    NAD operated since 1996. Changes implemented in the final rule involved
    the need for a personal signature in certain cases where it was not
    specified in the interim rule, options available to the hearing officer
    when a party fails to appear for a hearing, and delineating the status
    of third parties and interested parties. Overall, issuance of final
    rules had little substantive impact on the hearing process or the
    outcome of appeals.
        NAD works to prevent bias through quality control procedures
    involving review of hearings and determinations to assure that all
    parties are treated alike and that all determinations are based solely
    on the application of the applicable regulations to the facts of the
    case. The Director has issued specific guidance in a NAD Directive,
    ``Disqualification or Recusal from an Appeal,'' No. 99-08, dated March
    19, 1999. Bias is not established by any recitation of numbers or
    percentages of determination results, but in a failure to conform to
    the highest standards of integrity and objectivity in applying the law.
    NAD adheres to such standards.
                     office of the chief financial officer
        Question. Please provide an update on the status of the current
    USDA financial management audit.
        Answer. On February 26, 2001, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
    (USDA) Office of Inspector General issued a disclaimer of opinion on
    the USDA Consolidated Financial Statements for fiscal year 2000.
    However, three of the Department's components--the Food and Nutrition
    Service, the Rural Telephone Bank; and the Federal Crop Insurance
    Corporation--received unqualified audit opinions and substantial
    progress has been made in improving the audit results of our other
    agencies. A variety of efforts are underway to resolve the Department's
    financial reporting issues, and we are hopeful that these efforts will
    result in an improved audit opinion on the USDA consolidated financial
    statement for fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How have the results of these audits, over the past three
    years, compared to other Federal agencies?
        Answer. USDA received disclaimers of opinion on its consolidated
    financial statements for fiscal years 1998, 1999 and 2000. Of 24 major
    Federal agencies producing audited financial statements, seven, four,
    and two others in addition to USDA received disclaimers in 1998, 1999,
    and 2000 respectively.
                          common computing environment
        Question. Please provide an update on establishment of the Common
    Computing Environment.
        Answer. Since fiscal year 1998, the Service Center agencies (the
    Farm Service Agency, Rural Development, and the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service) have been replacing old, out-of-date and
    incompatible workstation computers with modern, common computing
    environment (CCE) workstations as part of the Department's Service
    Center Modernization Initiative. With requested resources in fiscal
    year 2002, we intend to complete the basic CCE infrastructure with the
    procurement of application servers and increased telecommunications
    capacity. I will have more detailed information provided for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]
        Priorities in fiscal year 2002 will include: increasing the Service
    Center agencies' telecommunications capacity and network security to
    allow customers to transact business electronically and acquiring high
    capacity servers needed to support the reengineered business processes.
        The CCE workstations have identical software consisting of office
    automation applications, such as word processing, and base program
    application software needed by one or more of the agencies. This common
    workstation and common ``core'' load of software make these machines
    interchangeable and provide employees with software that is in general
    use by the customer base and partners. It is anticipated that the
    remaining workstations will be procured in July/August 2001.
        Network servers will provide full communications and connectivity
    of the Service Center workstations to the local and wide area networks.
    Network services that will be provided by these servers include
    security and access control, business quality electronic mail, printer
    and peripheral access, file storage and backup, and the management of
    local data for all employees within the Service Center. These servers
    also provide the mechanism for remote system management and
    configuration of the desktop and portable workstations. Currently,
    without the network servers, an update or fix of software on the
    workstations requires that an IT support person visits each office
    location and take each machine offline for about 1\1/2\ hours to
    perform the work. With the servers, these updates can be done remotely,
    from one location and during off hours so that no downtime or onsite
    work is required. Deployment of the network servers will begin later
    this year.
        Additional funds from the Service Center agencies will complement
    the fiscal year 2002 CCE funding request by supporting continued
    business process re-engineering, data acquisition and training needed
    to reap the benefits of the new technology, as well as maintenance and
    support of existing legacy systems.
            agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments
        Question. I understand Phase One of the South Building Renovation
    is complete, and the contract bid period for Phase Two of the
    Renovation is currently underway. Please provide an estimated timetable
    on when Phase Two will be completed, and what the renovations entail.
        Answer. Bids were received on April 13, 2001, for the Phase Two
    construction contract. Excluding delays due to unforeseen conditions,
    completion is scheduled for 1 year from the start date, with occupancy
    beginning in the summer of 2002.
        The Phase Two renovation work includes total demolition of the
    existing interior construction of wing 4, except for First Floor
    historic preservation considerations involving existing corridor walls
    and doorways. The contract entails abatement of hazardous materials--
    asbestos and lead paint; upgraded mechanical, electrical,
    telecommunications and plumbing systems; new fire alarm and sprinkler
    systems; accommodations for persons with disabilities; and improved
    space tailored to the needs of the tenant agencies.
                         office of the general counsel
        Question. Last year, OGC was provided with $500,000 in emergency
    funds to be used on activities relating to concentration and
    consolidation of agricultural businesses. Please provide an update on
    how these funds have been used to date, and plans for expending any
    remaining funds.
        Answer. According to the OGC, these funds will be used to hire
    additional attorneys to handle regulatory and enforcement cases arising
    from concentration specifically in the livestock and poultry
    industries. Two new attorneys will be coming on board within the next
    several weeks to augment the legal staff handling concentration-related
    cases, and OGC is also seeking to hire up to two additional new
    attorneys for this work.
                  outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers
        Question. I understand that the majority of projects funded with
    section 2501 funds were completed in fiscal year 2000. Please provide
    information on new and completed projects funded in fiscal year 2001
    with section 2501 dollars.
        Answer. I have been informed that all but one of the section 2501
    projects were completed in fiscal year 2000. One project will complete
    its 5-year project with funding from fiscal year 2001 monies. A request
    for new project proposals, will be issued soon, and the remainder of
    the fiscal year 2001 funds will be awarded to the selected proposals
    later this year.
        Question. Were all available funds committed?
        Answer. Except for the one project which will complete its 5-year
    project with fiscal year 2001 program funds, none of the fiscal year
    2001 funds have been committed yet. We expect to commit them later this
    year.
        Question. Please provide information on the requirements for
    receiving this money, as well as examples of successful and
    unsuccessful uses of section 2501 funds.
        Answer. The Request for Proposals for new section 2501 projects
    will be announced shortly. To receive funds, applicants will need to
    show that they can responsibly meet the intent of the program--that is,
    to provide outreach and technical assistance to socially disadvantaged
    farmers and ranchers to help them own and operate farms and ranches and
    to participate in agricultural programs. We will provide a few examples
    of completed projects for the record.
        [The information follows.]
        Alabama A&M University developed a program of technical assistance
    to reverse the decline in the number of socially disadvantaged farmers
    and ranchers in its area and improve family living conditions. It
    increased the information available to the participants and increased
    their participation in Federal and local assistance programs.
        Delaware State University and the University of Maryland Eastern
    Shore worked together to build small-scale agriculture and coordinate
    markets for farm products in their area. They provided intensive
    training in farm production and improved the financial planning of the
    participants. These participants played an important part in the
    economic revitalization of their small communities.
        Langston University (Oklahoma) provided technical assistance in
    farm management and alternative use and non-farm activities, which
    improved farm income through better management and financial analysis
    and expanded the alternatives for part-time and off-farm employment.
        Lac Courte Oreilles Objibwa Community College (Wisconsin) developed
    and implemented an agricultural and resource management program that
    integrated modern technology with traditional practices in farming and
    marketing activities. The project contributed to a more diverse and
    sustainable local farm economy.
                              agriculture research
        Question. There is a growing concern that funding for agricultural
    research is not keeping pace with needs, nor keeping in line with
    research in other sectors. For example, the President's budget requests
    funding of $969 million for the Agricultural Research Service and $994
    million for the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
    service, the two primary research agencies of USDA. When compared to
    other agencies such as the National Science Foundation or the National
    Institutes of Health, the total funding for USDA research is often the
    same level as the annual increases in the non-ag sector. This problem
    presents the reality of an exodus of skilled ag researchers to fields
    of science where Federal funds are more readily available. Also, at a
    time when emerging plant and animal pest and disease issues, plant and
    animal genetics issues, food safety issues, and a host of other
    challenges are facing U.S. farmers, this drain of expertise and overall
    lack on an adequate research base is most troubling. Can you explain
    why the administration has not placed a greater emphasis on
    agricultural research and why it lags so far behind the Federal
    research support in the non-ag sectors?
        Answer. Maintaining and strengthening the competitive advantage of
    U.S. farmers will require investments in new technology. To meet these
    needs within a restrained budget, we have taken a hard look at
    priorities. The President's Budget provides funding to cover increased
    pay costs for in-house agricultural research and redirects priorities
    to fund increases in selected National priority areas. Proposed
    reductions are limited to earmarked projects and facility construction.
        Question. Did you express to OMB or the White House during the
    development of the fiscal year 2002 budget the need to bring
    agricultural research more in line with other Federal research efforts?
        Answer. Due to the change in Administration, much of the budget
    development for the 2002 President's budget was held in a few weeks
    directly following the Presidential Inauguration. I was assisted in
    negotiations by a small transition subcabinet-level policy staff.
    During this brief period of discussions, we focused on negotiating for
    funds to support my highest priority research initiatives. These
    initiatives include research on mad cow disease, biotechnology risk
    assessment, biobased products, maintaining a broad range of extramural
    research and education programs, and other high priority initiatives.
        Question. Do you think that current levels of agricultural research
    are adequate to meet the challenges facing the U.S. farm sector today?
        Answer. The research agencies consistently meet the challenges that
    arise with today's ever-changing global farm economy, including
    addressing needs ranging from organic production, to improved pest and
    disease control, to bioengineered foods. Research programs must serve
    small and minority farmers; sustain the rural economy and provide
    opportunities for growth; and support efforts to further develop
    markets locally and abroad. These programs must and do provide the
    scientific basis for a multitude of programs, such as producing high
    quality foods, examining human nutrition, developing sound production
    practices that minimize environmental impacts and emphasize economics,
    and numerous other areas important to the agriculture system, in the
    field, in the home, and elsewhere. By maintaining a balanced portfolio
    of extramural grants and in-house research funding, the Department is
    able to manage its research program in order to address high priority
    research areas identified by our stakeholders in the U.S. farm sector.
                           economic research service
        Question. Please provide information in regard to the coordination
    of ERS with FNS on establishing studies and evaluations priorities on
    the subject of nutrition.
        Answer. The Economic Research Service works closely with the Food
    and Nutrition Service (FNS) in identifying and setting research
    priorities. FNS is the primary client for these studies and thus
    receives considerable weight in determining priorities for research. In
    addition to an annual written list of research priorities provided by
    FNS to ERS, ERS staff are in almost daily contact with FNS about
    prioritizing its research needs. ERS also seeks input from other
    stakeholders including Congress, researchers, practitioners, advocates,
    industry groups, and service providers.
                         agricultural research service
        Question. Please provide an update on activities regarding
    Integrated Farming Systems programs in Wisconsin or other states.
        Answer. The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) at the U.S. Dairy
    Forage Research Center (USDFRC), the University of Wisconsin (UW) and
    the Michael Fields Agricultural Institute (MFAI) all continue to
    conduct research in a cooperative project on integrated farming systems
    in Wisconsin. The USDFRC is in the process of hiring an agroecologist
    and a research geneticist to join the integrated farming system
    project. The USDFRC conducts research on (1) developing low-input
    management of intensive grazing systems, giving emphasis to procedures
    that provide needed supplements to growing and lactating dairy cattle
    without nutrient buildup in pastures and loss to the environment; (2)
    evaluating and developing cropping systems that provide quality feed
    for profitable dairy farms in an environmentally safe manner; (3)
    developing strategies for managing nutrients in crop-livestock systems
    with special emphasis on animal manure to, at minimal cost, maximize
    nutrient recycling and minimize environmental risks; (4) investigating
    surface loss of phosphorus and nitrogen from pasture paddocks that have
    been managed in different ways; and 5) cooperate in a multi-agency/
    institute project on farm diversification--"Small Grains Initiative,''
    the goal of which is to incorporate small grains and legumes into a
    normal corn-soybean rotation while taking into account both production
    and marketing objectives. Researchers at other ARS locations are also
    cooperating in this last project and with MFAI on topics such as soil
    quality. This group has also received USDA grant funding to expand
    their efforts to develop cropping systems utilizing cover crops and
    manure to optimize nitrogen and phosphorus use while minimizing their
    loss to leaching and runoff.
        One of ARS' National Programs is entitled, ``Integrated
    Agricultural Systems.'' ARS research on ``integrated farming systems''
    is a major activity across the country. This National Program is unique
    in that it addresses the context in which research is conducted as well
    as the scope of the research. Attributes of projects in the Integrated
    Agricultural Systems National Program include among others: active
    producer/stakeholder participation; determination of interactions among
    components; involvement of interdisciplinary teams and multi-
    organizational collaborators; optimum use of long-term studies; use of
    natural ecological and biological resources whenever appropriate; and
    consideration of economic, environmental, community, and social
    concerns. The Administration's 2002 budget recommendations for the ARS
    Integration of Agricultural Systems budget line item include an
    increase of $484,000 for estimated pay cost increases in an effort to
    maintain the current level of scientific staffing in ARS.
        Although it would be difficult for any one project to have all
    these attributes, there are ongoing ARS-led Integrated Agricultural
    Systems projects throughout the country that have many of these
    characteristics. For example, a project in Georgia, focusing on the use
    of cover crops and biocontrol, involves three ARS locations, three
    universities, a number of nongovernment organizations (NGOs) including
    Community in Schools and the Georgia Conservation Tillage Alliance, and
    multiple farmers with research sites on their farms. Another project
    led by ARS researchers in Ames, Iowa, is using farmers, consultants,
    university researchers, and NGOs, to develop environmentally sound and
    profitable farming systems for the highly erodible deep loess soils of
    the Cornbelt. An activity lead by scientists at the ARS unit in Mandan,
    North Dakota, in cooperation with seven other ARS Great Plains
    locations and numerous university cooperators and producers, is doing
    research on soil quality, cropping systems, and integrated crop-
    livestock production. One outcome, just released, is the decision
    support aid called ``Crop Sequence Calculator'' which enables northern
    plain farmers to choose the most profitable crop rotations based on
    their specific situation. More than 5,000 copies have already been
    distributed. Multiple ARS units across the Pacific Northwest, led by
    researchers in Corvallis, Oregon, are cooperating with other government
    agencies, NGOs, producers, and environmental groups to develop cropping
    systems compatible with salmon restoration. These, as well as other
    sustainable agricultural projects, are being conducted to meet the
    needs of ARS stakeholders expressed at the National Program workshops
    to address their integrated systems needs.
             agricultural research service buildings and facilities
        Question. Please provide an update on activities regarding planned
    improvements of the Cereal Crops Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin.
        Answer. ARS retained an architect-engineer to review the facility
    conditions and needs to support the research program at the Cereal
    Crops Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. The feasibility study
    identified three options to meet the needs of the program. The facility
    report requested by Congress is currently being reviewed in the
    Department. The report will assess the needs for the facilities in
    Madison, Wisconsin and provide current information on costs for the
    project.
        Question. Please provide an update on activities regarding the
    National Animal Disease Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, including ARS
    coordination with APHIS regarding this facility.
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, ARS and APHIS agreed to develop a
    preliminary combined modernization plan. In combining modernization
    efforts of both agencies, efficiencies can be realized by consolidating
    facilities, and phasing of construction can be simplified by
    eliminating the need for swing space. Combining efforts also presents
    the opportunity to create a world class facility consisting of new,
    state-of-the-art structures for biocontainment research, diagnostics,
    and vaccine evaluation. New construction allows the structures to be
    optimally sited along an upgraded infrastructure spine; provides
    increased security, operations and maintenance efficiencies; and
    results in an enhanced research environment. The facility report
    requested by Congress was submitted on May 25, 2001. The report
    assesses the needs for the facilities in Ames, Iowa and provides
    current information on costs and scheduling for project alternatives.
          cooperative state research, education, and extension service
        Question. Please provide information on Special Research Grants
    which as of fiscal year 2001 have received funding through this account
    for at least four consecutive years and suggest other USDA grant
    programs for which these projects could compete.
        Answer. Based on our funding history records, there are over 100
    special grant projects which have been funded for the last four years.
    A table showing funding over the past four years for these grants is
    provided below for the record.
        Some of these grants might qualify for funding under other grants
    programs administered by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and
    Extension Service--CSREES. CSREES administers programs related to a
    wide variety of national problem areas, including those that have a
    water quality, food safety, plant and animal genomics, biotechnology,
    or new uses focus. Many of the special grants projects tend to fall
    under these types of broad focus areas. However, the special grants
    provide earmarked funds for specific locations, without benefit of a
    competitive process including merit and peer review. Investigator-
    initiated basic research might qualify for support under broad national
    priorities of the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
    Program. In addition, the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food
    Systems gives priority to proposals that successfully integrate
    research, extension and education and/or address the concerns of small
    and mid-sized producers and land managers (especially in natural
    resource management and farm efficiency and profitability). The goal of
    IFAFS is to award large grants to multi-state, multi-institutional, and
    multi-disciplinary projects; preference will be given to those
    projects. Requests for proposals are modified each year to address the
    highest priority concerns for the U.S. agriculture and food system.
    CSREES administers a number of smaller programs that support work that
    is generally related to special grant topics, such as pest management
    and control programs, which might be funded under Improved Pest
    Control. These programs support alternative pest management practices.
    In addition, the Crops at Risk from Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA--
    Implementation and Risk Mitigation for Major Crops supports alternative
    pest management practices for crops at risk from loss of pest controls
    due to the FQPA. Food safety and water quality grants might also be
    supported under the programs under the Integrated Activities account.
        [The information follows:]

      COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE RESEARCH
                AND EDUCATION ACTIVITIES SPECIAL RESEARCH GRANTS
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     1998       1999       2000       2001
                                    Actual     Actual     Actual    Estimate
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aegilops cylindricum (WA;           346        360        360        359
     Jointed Goatgrass).........
    Aflatoxin, Illinois.........        113        113        113        131
    Agricultural                        131        131        131        131
     diversification, Hawaii....
    Agricultural diversity/Red          250        250        250        374
     Riv C (MN/ND)..............
    Agriculture based indust.           200        250        250        349
     lubricants (IA)............
    Alliance for food protection        300        300        300        299
     (NE,GA)....................
    Alternative crops, North            550        550        550        624
     Dakota.....................
    Alternative salmon products         400        400        553        644
     (Alaska)...................
    Anml. Sci. Food Safety Con.       1,521      1,521      1,521      1,631
     (AR, KS, IA)...............
    Apple fireblight (MI, NY)...        500        500        500        499
    Aquaculture, Louisiana......        330        330        330        329
    Aquaculture, Stoneville,            642        592        592        591
     Mississippi................
    Aquaculture Prod. and Mrktg.        600        750        750        748
     Dev. (WV)..................
    Babcock Institute, Wisconsin        312        400        510        599
    Ctr. for animal health &            113        113        113        113
     prod. (PA).................
    Center for rural studies,            32        200        200        200
     Vermont....................
    Chesapeake Bay aquaculture..        370        385        385        391
    Competitiveness of ag.              677        680        680        679
     products, WA...............
    Cool season legume research,        329        329        329        328
     ID & WA....................
    Cranberry/blueberry disease         220        220        220        220
     & breed, NJ................
    Dairy and meat goat research         63         63         63         63
     (TX).......................
    Delta rural revitalization,         148        148        148        205
     Mississippi................
    Drought mitigation (NE).....        200        200        200        200
    Ecosystems (AL).............        500        500        500        499
    Environmental research (NY).        486        486        400        399
    Environmental risk factors/         100        100        170        227
     cancer (NY)................
    Expanded wheat pasture, (OK)        285        285        285        292
    Feed barley for rangeland           600        600        638        692
     cattle, MT.................
    Floriculture (Hawaii).......        250        250        250        249
    Food & Ag Policy Institute,         800        800        800        948
     IA, & MO...................
    Food irradiation, IA........        200        200        200        225
    Food Marketing Policy               332        400        400        494
     Center, Connecticut........
    Food processing center,              42         42         42         42
     Nebraska...................
    Food Systems Research Group,        221        225        425        499
     Wisconsin.,................
    Forestry, Arkansas..........        523        523        523        522
    Fruit & vegetable market            296        320        320        347
     analysis...................
    Generic commodity                   212        212        198        198
     promotions, research and
     evaluation, NY.............
    Global Change...............      1,000      1,000      1,000      1,431
    Grain Sorghum, Kansas.......        106        106        106        106
    Grass seed cropping for             423        423        423        422
     sustainable ag.............
    Human nutrition, IA.........        473        473        473        472
    Human nutrition, LA.........        752        752        752        750
    Human nutrition research, NY        622        622        622        621
    Hydroponic tomato production        140        200        200        100
     (OH).......................
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance        1,184      1,184      1,184      1,239
     for Biotech................
    Improved dairy management           296        296        296        397
     practices, PA..............
    Improved fruit practices....        445        445        445        444
    Institute for Food Science &        950      1,250      1,250      1,247
     Enginr., AR................
    Integrated production               161        180        180        180
     systems, Oklahoma..........
    International arid lands            329        400        400        494
     consortium.................
    Iowa Biotechnology                1,564      1,564      1,564      1,561
     Consortium.................
    Livestock and Dairy Policy          445        475        475        569
     (NY and TX)................
    Lowbush blueberry research          220        220        220        259
     (ME).......................
    Maple research (VT).........        100        100        100        119
    Michigan Biotech. Consortium        675        675        675        723
    Midwest Adv. Food                   423        423        423        461
     Manufacturing Allianc,.....
    Midwest agricultural                592        592        592        645
     products (IA)..............
    Milk safety, Pennsylvania...        268        250        298        374
    Minor use animal drugs......        550        550        550        549
    Molluscan shellfish (OR)....        400        400        400        399
    Multi-commodity research            364        364        364        363
     (OR).......................
    Multi-cropping strategies           127        127        127        127
     for aquaculture............
    National Bio. Impact                254        254        254        253
     Assessment.................
    Nematode resist. genetic            127        127        127        127
     engineering, NM............
    Nonfood ag products,                 64         64         64         64
     Nebraska...................
    Oil from desert plants (NM).        175        175        175        175
    Organic waste utilization           100        100        100        100
     (NM).......................
    Pasture and forage research         225        225        225        249
     (Utah).....................
    Peach tree short life, South        162        162        162        179
     Carolina...................
    Pest control alternatives,          106        106        106        117
     SC.........................
    Phytophthora root rot, NM...        127        127        127        138
    Plant, drought, and disease         150        150        213        249
     resist. gene cataloging
     (NM).......................
    Potato research.............      1,214      1,300      1,300      1,447
    Preharvest food safety, KS..        212        212        212        212
    Preservation & processing,          226        226        226        226
     OK.........................
    Rangeland ecosystems, NM....        185        200        200        299
    Regional barley gene mapping        348        400        425        587
     project....................
    Region. implications of farm        294        294        294        293
     prgs, MO, TX...............
    Rice Modeling, AR...........        296        296        296        295
    Rural Development Centers...        423        523        523        522
    Rural policies institute....        644        644        644        820
    Russian Wheat Aphid.........        200        200        200        249
    Seafood harvesting, proc.,          305        305        305        304
     mkt. (MS)..................
    Small fruit research (OR,           212        300        300        324
     WA, ID)....................
    Southwest Consortium for            338        338        338        368
     plant genetics and water
     resources..................
    Soybean cyst nematode (MO)..        450        475        475        599
    STEEP III-water quality in          500        500        500        499
     Northwest..................
    Sustainable agriculture (MI)        445        445        445        444
    Sustainable agriculture (PA)         94         95         95        100
    Sustainable agriculture              59         59         59         59
     systems (NE)...............
    Sustainable pest mgt-dryland        400        400        425        461
     wheat (MT).................
    Swine waste mgmt. (NC)......        300        500        500        499
    Tillage, silviculture, waste        212        212        212        212
     mgmt (LA)..................
    Tropical & subtropical            2,724      2,724      2,724      3,854
     research...................
    Vidalia onions (GA).........         84        100        100        249
    Viticulture consortium (NY,         800      1,000      1,000      1,497
     CA, PA)....................
    Water conservation, (KS)....         79         79         79         79
    Weed control (ND)...........        423        423        423        435
    Wheat genetic research (KS).        261        261        261        260
    Wood utilization............      3,536      5,136      5,136      5,773
    Wool research (TX, MT, WY)..        300        300        300        299
                                 -------------------------------------------
          Total, Special             42,598     46,323     46,953     52,304
           Research Grants......
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               wildlife services
        Question. Please provide an update on the agencies' non-lethal
    control activities and, in particular, the pilot programs in up to four
    states as provided in Public Law 106-387.
        Answer. APHIS has taken steps to begin the project. APHIS has
    written a study protocol that will provide a statistically meaningful
    evaluation of the relative effectiveness of non-lethal predator
    management methods only versus the integrated approach of lethal and
    non-lethal management methods. This study is in addition to a broader,
    continuing research and methods development program APHIS conducts to
    protect livestock, crops, and human health and safety. APHIS devotes
    over 75 percent of their research effort to non-lethal development
    activities. APHIS has consulted with staffs of Senators Boxer and
    Smith, as well as with representatives from Defenders of Wildlife and
    the Humane Society of the United States, to identify the non-lethal
    methods to evaluate. The protocol calls for a four-year evaluation
    involving eight to twelve ranches each in California, Idaho, and West
    Virginia. The project is designed to evaluate both non-lethal and
    integrated management methods for two years on each ranch.
        Question. Please provide information regarding the Wildlife
    Services activities in regard to wolf predation issues and control
    efforts in the Upper Midwest, including Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
    Michigan, and please compare the activities in that region with similar
    operations in the Rocky Mountain states.
        Answer. The Minnesota wolf population has steadily increased from
    approximately 1,200 wolves in 1979, found only in the remote
    northeastern parts of the State, to approximately 2,600 wolves now.
    This population increase has caused a significant southern expansion
    with a contiguous range now covering approximately 40 percent of the
    State. Wisconsin began to monitor for wolf populations in 1979, with an
    initial report of 25 animals. In the late 1980s, this population began
    to steadily increase and there are approximately 250 wolves now. In
    1995, wolf discoveries occurred in areas south of the northern
    Wisconsin region. As wolves began to occupy northern Wisconsin,
    individual wolf observations occurred in the Upper Peninsula of
    Michigan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) now estimates that
    approximately 200 wolves inhabit the Upper Peninsula. With this
    expanding natural population of gray wolves, we have been addressing
    wolf impacts in Minnesota since the mid 1970s. The population growth
    and expanding range have resulted in wolves moving into Wisconsin and
    Michigan. As the wolf population increases, so does the number of
    depredation incidents against livestock. We project our responses to
    wolf complaints in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan will reach 289
    during fiscal year 2001, a 26 percent increase since fiscal year 1999.
        The FWS gray wolf reintroduction in Wyoming (Yellowstone National
    Park) and Idaho has been so successful that wolf populations have
    expanded beyond original introduction site boundaries. From an original
    reintroduction of 66 wolves in 1995 and 1996, the FWS now estimates
    there are between 360-405 wolves in these two States. In addition,
    naturally occurring wolf populations in Montana have grown from an
    estimated 25-50 wolves in the early 1990s, to approximately 80 to 100
    wolves today according to the FWS. In total, FWS estimates there are
    440-505 wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountain area and that the total
    number of wolves will triple in the next several years. APHIS--
    responsibility has increased significantly as a result of the wolf
    recovery efforts in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. We project our
    responses to wolf complaints in these States will reach 244 during
    fiscal year 2001, a 116 percent increase since fiscal year 1999. APHIS
    received $1,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 for predator/wolf control in
    Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming which was allocated equally among the three
    States. We are evaluating the impact of these expanding wolf
    populations and our ability to provide adequate service with the
    increased funding.
                                 animal welfare
        Question. It has been brought to my attention that in the past
    several years, there have been a variety of instances in several
    states, including Missouri and Minnesota, in which USDA Animal Care
    Inspectors had found no cases of noncompliance at facilities with
    significant animal welfare problems, or where sanctions for
    noncompliance have been lax or unenforced. Please provide me with
    detailed information on how the USDA administers and enforces sanctions
    to Animal Welfare Act violators, and how you ensure that Animal Care
    Inspectors are completing detailed inspections of animal facilities.
        Answer. APHIS conducts regulatory activities which ensure the
    humane care and treatment of animals and horses as required by the
    Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966 as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131-2159). These
    activities include inspection of certain establishments which handle
    animals intended for research, exhibition, and sale as pets.
        APHIS uses a variety of methods to assure that AWA inspections are
    thorough, complete, and conducted in a consistent, uniform manner. We
    rely heavily on proper training to insure that each animal care
    inspector has the background and knowledge to conduct a proper
    inspection. With fiscal year 2001 approximately halfway complete, the
    program has conducted three training courses for inspectors so far this
    year. One course concentrated on research facilities, and the other two
    focused on basic inspection techniques. APHIS also held a regional
    conference for animal care inspectors this year which included training
    designed to promote consistent, high quality inspections.
        APHIS recently published an Animal Care Inspection Manual which
    outlines inspection procedures and also contains a checklist for
    inspectors to assure that they have covered all areas of the
    regulations that are pertinent to the facility being inspected. To help
    ensure that Animal Care Inspectors are completing detailed inspections
    of animal facilities, each inspector is supervised by a Supervisory
    Animal Care Specialist who conducts periodic reviews of the inspection
    process, and accompanies inspectors on actual inspections. These
    supervisors also review a random number of reports from each inspector
    to assure they are done properly and cover all areas prescribed in the
    AWA regulations.
        With our recently developed Animal Care data base, we are able to
    statistically monitor the field inspection process by determining how
    many and what type of violations are written by each inspector, the
    number of inspections conducted, and other useful information to more
    effectively assure the inspections are conducted properly and
    thoroughly.
        Enforcement activities are carried out by a separate investigative
    and enforcement (IE) staff funded under the Animal and Plant Health
    Regulatory Enforcement line-item. Animal Care program officials refer
    alleged violations identified during inspections to our investigative
    and enforcement unit for investigation. Headquarters IE staff review
    the completed investigative reports, and initiate an appropriate action
    based on a number of factors including the gravity of the violation,
    prior history, and size of the business.
        Less serious infractions may be settled with an official notice of
    warning, while more serious cases may be resolved at the Agency level
    through stipulated civil penalty agreements with the violator or
    through formal administrative action before an Administrative Law
    Judge. Stipulations allow alleged violators to pay a fine, have their
    license suspended, or both, in lieu of formal administrative
    proceedings. Cases that warrant formal prosecution undergo Departmental
    review for legal sufficiency prior to issuance of a formal
    administrative complaint. Formal cases may be resolved by license
    suspensions, revocations, cease-and-desist orders, civil penalties, or
    combinations of these penalties through administrative procedures.
    APHIS also uses innovative settlements where appropriate to encourage
    compliance. In innovative settlements, the Agency allows a portion of
    the civil penalty to be used by the licensee or registrant to provide
    training or make repairs and/or upgrades to facilities to help ensure
    future compliance with the Act.
        Question. I have been informed that the Animal Welfare Information
    Center has received an appropriation of $750,000 to perform its
    activities without an increase in over a decade. It is also my
    understanding that more than 50 percent of the AWIC budget is
    transferred to the National Agricultural Library and Agricultural
    Research Service for overhead costs. Please explain why AWIC must
    provide such a large amount of its budget for AWI and ARS overhead
    costs.
        Answer. The National Agricultural Library received an appropriation
    of $750,000 in fiscal year 1986 to support an information service at
    NAL. There have been no increases in the base appropriation since then
    and several mandated permanent reductions have resulted in an overall
    decrease in the original appropriation of about 9 percent. To clarify,
    NAL and ARS do not take 50 percent of the budget for overhead. ARS,
    however, applies a 10 percent across-the-board assessment for overhead
    to support the agency's overall program and administrative management
    activities. The remaining 90 percent is allocated directly to the AWIC
    and the other NAL program and administrative activities that support
    the AWIC.
                              cranberry purchases
        Question. The fiscal year 2001 Act provided $30 million for the
    purchase of surplus cranberries. Please provide an update on those
    activities and please provide information in regard to how those funds
    have been directed toward the actual purchase of fruit (as directed by
    statute) and for the costs of processing (as has been reported).
        Answer. As of May 16, 2001, AMS has purchased 32.7 million pounds
    of cranberry juice concentrate at a cost of $16.2 million. In addition,
    the agency has purchased 3.25 million pounds of dried cranberries at a
    cost of $5.5 mil., and 7.36 million pounds of canned cranberry sauce at
    a cost of $3.4 mil. The agency is currently offering to purchase 4.05
    million pounds of cranberry juice at an estimated cost of $1.7 million.
    AMS buys processed cranberry products and does not track the cost of
    processing separately from the cost of the fruit.
        AMS is committed to purchasing $30 million surplus cranberries as
    directed by the Act. However, purchases are dependent on USDA's ability
    to find sufficient outlets that can take the product. AMS is working
    directly with the Food and Nutrition Service in this effort.
        Although some portion of the funds available must be spent on
    processing to procure product in a form that is acceptable to
    recipients, the Department has donated sucrose for use in the
    production of cranberry juice concentrate to maximize the amount of
    cranberries that are being purchased.
                     conservation crp technical assistance
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget includes an appropriated
    amount to cover the cost of technical assistance associated with the
    Conservation Reserve Program. Previous to the 1996 Farm Bill, mandatory
    funds were available for technical assistance in this regard, but
    imposition of the Section 11 cap by the authorizing committee created
    the funding difficulties resulting in your 2002 request. Since this
    problem is a direct result of action by the authorizing committee, why
    did the President not submit a request to the authorizing committee to
    strike the cap they imposed?
        Answer. Many of the conservation programs funded by the Commodity
    Credit Corporation, such as the Conservation Reserve Program, expire
    with the 1996 Farm Bill. Discussions regarding the appropriate farm
    policy for the future are underway and will continue this year. The
    request for CRP technical assistance funding under the Conservation
    Operations account addresses the short-term needs for fiscal year 2002.
             rural development rural community advancement program
        Question. EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman recently stated
    that one reason for reviewing the arsenic level standard for drinking
    water was her concern that since arsenic levels are more prevalent in
    individual private wells than public drinking systems, the Bush
    Administration did not want to take action that might force public
    systems to close and make Americans more reliant on private well
    sources of drinking water.
        If this is the Administration's concern, why was there not a
    substantial increase in the budget to allow more Americans access to
    public water systems in rural areas?
        Answer. The Administration's position is that these standards need
    to be examined based on the best science available and that they need
    to be realistic in terms of what can be achieved by communities that
    rely on a public drinking water system. While USDA's water and waste
    disposal program certainly helps rural communities obtain clean and
    safe drinking water, most projects require these communities to pay a
    fairly substantial portion of the cost for both constructing and
    operating a system. Consequently, the level of funding for the program
    is only one of the considerations that needs to go into the decision on
    these standards.
        Question. To what extent are arsenic levels a problem in rural
    areas, especially in areas where no public systems are now available?
        Answer. A May 2000 study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey
    found that about 10 percent of the samples it took had an arsenic level
    exceeding the World Health Organization 19s provisional guideline. The
    samples were taken in about 24 percent of U.S. counties.
        Question. Please provide information on the backlog of applications
    for the water and wastewater loan and grants program.
        Answer. As of March 2001, there were 1,445 applications for water
    and waste disposal loans, totaling about $2.2 billion, and 734
    applications for water and waste disposal grants, totaling about $757
    million.
                             rural housing service
        Question. Calculations based on USDA estimates received last year
    show that the average home under the Section 502 program is financed
    for just over $60,000. Is this calculation correct, and if not, what is
    the average amount of a direct loan, and a guaranteed unsubsidized
    loan, under the Section 502 Rural Housing Loan program?
        Answer. Direct Section 502 loans averaged close to $65,000 for
    fiscal year 2000 and are estimated to average about $67,000 for 2002.
    Guaranteed loans, which are unsubsidized and tend to serve borrowers
    with more income than direct loan borrowers, averaged about $74,000 for
    2000 and are estimated to average about $78,000 for 2002.
                            rural utilities service
        Question. Please provide information regarding the ability of rural
    electric providers to cope with increasing energy costs?
        Answer. The President's energy task force report will address the
    root cause of the problems the Nation, including rural America, is
    experiencing due to increasing energy costs. The President has spoken
    repeatedly about his concerns for long-term solutions, including the
    development of additional power generating capacity. USDA's Rural
    Utilities Service (RUS) is already experiencing an increase in
    applications for generation projects. Demand side management is also
    necessary. RUS recently published proposed changes in its regulations
    to facilitate such action.
        Question. What has been the effect of electric power deregulation
    on rural electric cooperatives?
        Answer. Rural electric cooperatives with outstanding loans or loan
    guarantees from RUS are not regulated by the Federal Regulatory Energy
    Commission (FERC). However, they are impacted by FERC initiatives
    relating to the prices of electricity sold in wholesale markets, from
    which the cooperatives buy a portion of their power. Further, virtually
    all RUS borrowers are dependent upon transmission services to reach
    their customers. However, it appears that deregulation is not
    encouraging new providers to enter rural areas. In Pennsylvania, for
    example, 2 years after all the State's rural electric cooperatives
    elected to open their systems to full retail competition, not a single
    competitive provider has applied to serve these cooperatives.
        Question. To what extent do rural electric providers have access to
    their own generation sources and for those that do not, are they being
    provided adequate access to other sources?
        Answer. Nationwide, electric cooperatives, including rural electric
    cooperatives, generate about 55 percent of the power they need to serve
    their retail customers. The rest is obtained from wholesale markets. So
    far, the electric cooperatives have been able to secure the electricity
    they need to keep the lights on for their customers--but, in some
    instances, the purchases of peaking power on the spot market have come
    at a very high price.
        Question. What percentage of Rural America has access to internet
    and broadband communications capabilities on a scale comparable to most
    urban areas in this country?
        Answer. While an estimated 39 percent of rural households have some
    type of access to the internet, the quality of that access is, in many
    cases, far less then that in urban areas. For example, most users are
    able to connect to the internet at a minimum transmission rate of 28
    kilobits per second, which is three times faster than the capacity of
    many rural phone lines. Further, only 7.3 percent of rural household
    have access to broadband services.
                                human nutrition
        Question. For many Americans, USDA nutrition programs are the only
    guarantee that they will have access to at least one nutritious meal a
    day. However, recent accounts of increased demands at food banks,
    questions about the quality of food children consume at school, and
    similar stories raise concern that some people, especially those most
    vulnerable, may be falling through the cracks.
        Answer. The Department is keeping a close eye on the needs of the
    most vulnerable Americans, and we will take steps to help ensure that
    they have access to what they need to be properly nourished.
                        school breakfast start-up grants
        Question. In my state of Wisconsin, I worked last year to help
    encourage schools to participate in USDA school breakfast programs as a
    way to help ensure that more children start their school day ready to
    learn. Can you please provide an update on how the Department is
    working with the State of Wisconsin on this program?
        Answer. On February 12, 2001, FNS entered into a Grant Agreement
    with the Department of Public Instruction, the State agency that
    administers Child Nutrition Programs in Wisconsin. The Agreement was
    entered into pursuant to provisions in Public Law 106-387, the
    Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, which
    directed the Secretary to provide Wisconsin with $500,000 for school
    breakfast startup grants in the State. Under the terms of the
    Agreement, the State agency will provide grants to eligible school food
    authorities to help cover costs associated with implementing a School
    Breakfast Program (SBP) in currently non-participating schools.
        The grant funds may be used for any local level costs that are
    allowable, reasonable, and necessary for a school to implement the SBP
    and, therefore, extend program benefits to a greater number of eligible
    children. The Agreement will require the State agency and school food
    authorities receiving funds to obligate those funds no later than
    September 30, 2002. The State agency will report on the use of the
    funds quarterly and will submit annual project reports describing the
    activities accomplished using the funds. FNS has provided the State
    agency with guidance, when requested and remains available to provide
    any assistance that the State may require.
                    nutritional value of assistance programs
        Question. There has recently been a lot of publicity about the
    nutritional value of foods consumed by children, especially while they
    are at school. Would you please provide your views on the adequacy of
    the nutritional value children are receiving, especially while at
    school?
        Answer. The Child Nutrition Programs offer children meals that are
    affordable, convenient, and consistent with the Dietary Guidelines for
    Americans. I know that nutrition education is a top priority of the
    Department and is incorporated into all of the nutrition assistance
    programs.
        The results of two recent reports sponsored by FNS provide some
    insight into the adequacy of the nutritional value of children's diets.
    Children's Diets in the Mid-1990s: Dietary Intake and Its Relationship
    with School Meal Participation shows that on average, children's
    reported daily mean intakes of most vitamins and minerals exceed the
    Recommended Dietary Allowances. Only a small percentage of children met
    the dietary recommendations for intake of total fat, saturated fat,
    fiber, and sodium. The school meal programs play a substantial role in
    the diets of school-aged children. Students who participate in both the
    school lunch and breakfast programs are more likely to meet the dietary
    standards for a variety of vitamins and minerals than students who
    participate in neither program. Participants also have a higher mean
    intake, at school and over 24 hours, of total fat, saturated fat,
    fiber, and sodium.
        The School Nutrition Dietary Assessment Study-II indicates that the
    average meals offered in the National School Lunch Program and School
    Breakfast Program are both high in nutritional quality and well-
    balanced across a number of key nutrients. Since the implementation of
    the School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children in 1995, schools have
    significantly reduced the amount of fat and saturated fat in school
    meals, although the average school lunch still falls short of meeting
    the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommendations for fat and
    saturated fat. These improvements have been accomplished while
    maintaining the overall nutrient contribution of the school meals.
                            seniors' farmers market
        Question. Last year, USDA developed a special farmers market
    program to help make fresh produce available to senior citizens. The
    program not only provided special benefits to seniors, it also helped
    provide an additional outlet for farmers products. Wisconsin is one of
    the states that is participating in this program. However, you have
    eliminated this program in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Please provide
    an overview of how this program will operate this year and explain why
    you did not choose to continue it next year.
        Answer. The Seniors Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot Program
    (SFMNPP) operates in 36 locations--30 States, 5 Indian Tribal
    Organizations and the District of Columbia. The program provides
    resources in the form of fresh, nutritious, unprepared, locally grown
    fruits, vegetables, and herbs from farmers' markets, roadside stands
    and community supported agriculture programs to low-income seniors. It
    also increases the domestic consumption of agricultural commodities by
    developing or aiding in the expansion of domestic farmers' markets,
    roadside stands, and community support of agriculture programs.
        The 36 locations are: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California,
    Chickasaw Nation (Oklahoma), Connecticut, District of Columbia,
    Florida, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (Michigan),
    Hawaii, Illinois, Inter-Tribal Council of Michigan, Iowa, Louisiana,
    Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi Band
    of Choctaw Indians, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
    York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Osage Tribal Council (Oklahoma),
    South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West
    Virginia, and Wisconsin. A summary of the highlights of each program is
    attached.
        As you know, funding for the SFMNPP comes from the Commodity Credit
    Corporation and does not require an appropriation. The SFMNPP was
    funded as a pilot program by the previous Administration. No decision
    has been made by the current Administration as to the continuation of
    the pilot program beyond fiscal year 2001.
                 the emergency food assistance program (tefap)
        Question. It has come to my attention that food banks and other
    food distribution agencies have or may have to turn back donated food
    items because they do not have adequate resources for transportation
    and distribution costs. Please provide information on why this problem
    has suddenly become so serious.
        Answer. The flow of USDA commodities available to the Emergency
    Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) increased significantly in fiscal year
    2001. This increase was due in part to the enactment of the
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-224).
        In addition to the $100 million worth of commodities purchased in
    fiscal year 2001, it is estimated that the bonus commodities that will
    be delivered to TEFAP State agencies in 2001 will exceed $225 million.
    Included in this amount is the majority of bonus fruits and vegetables
    purchased for domestic consumption mandated by Public Law 106-224, the
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000. The Act required the
    Secretary to purchase specialty crops that experienced low prices
    during the 1998 or 1999 crop year. These commodities are provided in
    addition to commodities donated by other sources and make up a portion
    of the total amount of food distribution through the TEFAP distribution
    network.
        Question. Are there available resources within USDA to help these
    local organizations?
        Answer. All of the $45 million in TEFAP administrative funds
    appropriated under the 2001 appropriations bill has been allocated to
    State agencies, which in turn allocate most of these funds to local
    organizations. Although available resources are very limited, the
    Department is in the process of examining the possibility of providing
    additional funding to support the distribution of TEFAP commodities.
        Question. What funding would be necessary to ensure that local
    agencies have the necessary means to transport and distribute food
    donated through TEFAP?
        Answer. The flow of USDA commodities available to the Emergency
    Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) increased significantly in fiscal year
    2001, and this has led a number of States to express concern about
    administrative funding. All but a few of the 25 or so States responding
    to an informal survey report a shortage of administrative funding. The
    majority complain of serious strains on transportation, storage, or
    distribution. About a quarter of respondents have had to become more
    particular about which foods they will take, selecting only the most
    popular commodities for fast turnover; and a quarter also report that
    they will not be able to take any more bonus foods this year, citing
    lack of administrative funds.
                                  wic program
        Question. The President's budget proposes funding for the WIC
    program at a level intended to serve 7.25 million people, the same
    number of people the Administration expects to serve in fiscal year
    2001. What is the expected carryover of funds into fiscal year 2002
    based on USDA's most recent data?
        Answer. The budget estimates that about $136 million from fiscal
    year 2001 will be available for use in fiscal year 2002. The actual
    amount is dependent on participation and costs in fiscal year 2001. We
    believe the $136 million is a good estimate of the effects of costs and
    participation in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. What has been the historical relationship been between
    WIC participation and the unemployment rate? Do you believe there is a
    correlation between these two indicators?
        Answer. I believe that unemployment does effect income eligibility.
    However, income eligibility is only one of the eligibility criteria
    used for participation in the WIC Program.
        For most of WIC's history, participation was constrained by
    funding, and so did not respond to economic factors such as the
    unemployment rate. Therefore, it is correct that for most of WIC's
    history, participation did not tend to increase when unemployment went
    up, nor decrease when unemployment went down.
        In 1997, WIC participation peaked at 7.4 million. After this,
    despite the absence of a clear funding constraint, participation fell
    slightly. It may be reasonable to assume that at this point,
    participation changes were more directly related to economic
    conditions. While the data from 1997 to 2001 suggests a relationship
    between unemployment and participation, these data are not adequate to
    permit construction of a model of that relationship that would enable
    us to ``tie'' changes in WIC participation to changes in the
    unemployment rate with any reasonable degree of accuracy.
        It should also be noted that analyses of participation should
    consider factors other than economic changes that could affect
    participation decisions (eg., changes in program rules, welfare reform,
    etc.).
        Question. Was the Administration's budget forecasts that the
    unemployment rate will rise in fiscal year 2002 to 4.6 percent taken
    into consideration when formulating the fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    WIC Program?
        Answer. Although data from 1997-2001 suggest a positive
    relationship between unemployment and participation, these data are not
    adequate to permit construction of a model of that relationship that
    would enable us to ``tie'' changes in WIC participation to changes in
    the unemployment rate with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Such a
    model would be needed in order to factor changes in the unemployment
    rate into budget requests for WIC. The President's budget was
    constructed to maintain projected average fiscal year 2001
    participation of 7.25 million.
        Question. Is it the view of the Administration that if WIC
    participation demands increase as a result of higher levels of
    unemployment, adequate resources should be made available to cover the
    increased program demand?
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2002 request was
    constructed to maintain projected average fiscal year 2001
    participation of 7.25 million. There are currently no waiting lists for
    the WIC program and, at present, we believe that the President's budget
    request for fiscal year 2002 is sufficient to continue to meet demand
    for the WIC program. However, we are aware that substantial changes in
    economic conditions may effect demand for the program. We plan to
    monitor the situation closely, and work with Congress to ensure that
    the program is funded at an appropriate level.
        Question. Please provide an update on WIC referral services and, in
    particular, the status of the Presidential Memorandum on the subject of
    childhood immunization.
        Answer. USDA is working with the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention to implement the directives outlined in the Executive
    Memorandum. A partnership composed of representatives from the National
    Association of WIC Directors, American Academy of Pediatrics,
    Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, Association of
    Immunization Managers, and Every Child By Two is providing guidance and
    assistance to implement current and future WIC immunization linkages to
    meet the directives of the Executive Memorandum. A working group of
    this partnership is finalizing a National strategic plan to improve
    immunization coverage levels of children participating in WIC.
        A draft policy memorandum, written in collaboration with partners,
    was distributed to partners and State WIC agencies for comment in
    February 2001. The policy memorandum outlined procedures for
    immunization screening and referral in the WIC Program, as directed by
    the Executive Memorandum. In response to comments, the policy
    memorandum is being redrafted and will be issued in June 2001.
                      child and adult care feeding program
        Question. Section 101 of Public Law 106-554, Division B, Title I
    expanded the eligibility criteria for participation in the Child and
    Adult Care Feeding Program (CACFP). Please provide information
    regarding USDA implementation of this provision including the number of
    CACFP providers and program beneficiaries have been made eligible under
    this new criteria.
        Answer. The Department issued its implementation memorandum
    governing these expanded eligibility requirements to all CACFP State
    administering agencies on January 19, 2001. This memorandum laid out
    the basic eligibility requirements established in Public Law 106-554,
    contained guidance necessary for States to administer the program in
    the newly-eligible centers and reminded States of the importance of
    acting quickly to seek out, train and approve eligible centers. On
    February 26, 2001, the Department followed up the initial guidance with
    additional guidance based on questions received from States during the
    implementation process.
        The Department has estimated the total number of potentially
    eligible centers to be approximately 4,600 and the number of children
    enrolled in those centers to be about 323,600. While we do not have a
    formal vehicle for collecting data on the number of centers actually
    participating under the expanded eligibility criteria, we do have
    anecdotal information suggesting that this number is considerably less
    than the eligible universe--probably no more than 130. State agencies
    are dealing with these eligibles in a number of different ways. Some
    are actively recruiting centers while others have done relatively
    little in this regard. For the most part, these States believe that the
    effort required to approve, train and monitor an entirely new group of
    centers which may be on the program for a relatively short period of
    time is not the best use of administrative resources, given the demands
    put on them under the CACFP Management
        Question. Does the Bush Administration support making this change
    permanent and if not, please explain.
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request did not
    include funding for extending this provision beyond the current fiscal
    year. However, we have not taken a final position on this issue and
    will not do so until the Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services policy
    team is in place.
        Question. The Senate Report to accompany Public Law 106-387
    includes language urging FNS to provide technical assistance and
    guidance to states that do not maximize the number of children served
    under CACFP and to pool certain Title XX funds with CCDBG funds to meet
    the technical requirement of current law. Please provide information
    regarding implementation of this directive.
        Answer. Over the past several years, the Department has provided
    guidance and technical assistance to State agencies relative to the
    pooling of Title XX funding. Initial guidance was issued to all Child
    and Adult Care Food Program State administering agencies on July 6,
    1999. Copies of that guidance have also been provided to the Congress.
    That guidance was also re-issued on April 6, 2000.
               agricultural trade dairy export incentives program
        Question. You have stressed the importance of international trade
    as a means to improve net farm income. I agree that we should pursue an
    aggressive strategy with our trading partners and we must remain
    vigilant that our agricultural trade interests are not compromised by
    long-term objectives of other sectors of the U.S. economy here at home.
        One of the programs available to you now is the Dairy Export
    Incentives Program (DEIP). Over the past few years, significant
    quantities of U.S. dairy producers were allocated for shipment under
    DEIP, but for a number of reasons, those quantities were not shipped.
    Later, the U.S. dairy industry sought to have those quantities
    reallocated for shipment under DEIP, but were told by the USDA that
    once allocations were issued, they could not be reissued regardless of
    whether they had been shipped or not. In explanation, we were told that
    during negotiations with our trading partners an agreement was reached
    that precluded reallocation under DEIP. However, in spite of our
    repeated requests, no documentation was provided that expressly laid
    out this agreement.
        Do you believe that the practice of not reallocating unused DEIP
    quantities if the initial allocation was not shipped is consistent with
    U.S. trade objectives?
        Answer. In response to a request included in the conference report
    accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, the
    Department provided the Committees on Appropriations a report outlining
    USDA's position not to reallocate awarded but unshipped dairy product
    tonnage under the DEIP. The report concluded that authorizing the
    export of awarded but unshipped dairy product tonnage from as far back
    as 5 years ago would be inconsistent with the established U.S.
    methodology for reporting export subsidies to the WTO and would likely
    be viewed by our trading partners as an attempt to circumvent our
    subsidy reduction commitments. As the report indicated, such an action
    would provide limited economic benefit for U.S. dairy farmers.
        We are now engaged in negotiations in the WTO to further liberalize
    trade in agricultural products, including the elimination of export
    subsidies. Taking steps that would be viewed by many as a circumvention
    of our current export subsidy commitments would be detrimental to our
    efforts in those negotiations. For these reasons, the reallocation of
    prior-year unshipped DEIP allocations would be inconsistent with U.S.
    trade objectives.
        Question. Do you intend to continue the practice of not
    reallocating DEIP quantities under these circumstances?
        Answer. With respect to the reallocation of quantities from
    previous years, no change of policy is anticipated. However, at this
    time, the Department is reviewing whether or not a modification of
    program operations for DEIP could be made to allow for the re-
    announcement of canceled tonnage within the confines of an allocation
    year. Preliminary discussions have already taken place with the
    industry.
        Question. If you do intend to continue this practice, will you
    please provide to the Committee a copy of the express agreement that
    requires you to do so?
        Answer. As indicated above, the Department is currently reviewing
    its allocation and reallocation procedures.
                       milk protein concentrates (mpc's)
        Question. Dairy producers in Wisconsin and across the country are
    becoming increasingly alarmed by the level of MPC's being imported into
    the U.S. Is it the view of the Bush Administration that MPC imports are
    not subject to WTO requirements or should they be included as part of
    this country's dairy import strategy?
        Answer. Milk Protein Concentrates are subject to a U.S. tariff
    commitment in the WTO to limit the import duty to 0.37 cents per
    kilogram. At the time of the Uruguay Round, this product was
    specifically provided for in our tariff schedule and was not subject to
    any import quotas of the type that were converted to tariff rate quotas
    (TRQs) under that agreement. Consequently, MPCs were not included in
    our dairy TRQs. The United States expects other countries to adhere to
    their international market access commitments just as other countries
    expect the United States to comply with its commitments. Changes in
    these commitments would require agreement with affected countries on
    compensation. Consequently, changes to these international obligations
    must be considered carefully, within the context of our overall World
    Trade Organization commitments.
        Question. Please provide the Committee with information regarding
    the levels of MPC imports, the countries from which those imports
    originate, and the U.S. market use of these products.
        Answer. Following are two tables showing 1999 and 2000 MPC imports
    by source and the monthly pattern of MPC imports through February 2001.
    Please note that following the pattern of the GAO report, these tables
    exclude the casein product also called milk protein concentrate. If
    that product were included it would add another 9,800 tons to the 1999
    total and another 11,900 tons to the 2000 total.
        According to the monthly data, starting in August 2000, the level
    of MPC imports began to decline, largely mirroring the upturn in
    international prices for nonfat dry milk (NDM). The strong upturn in
    international prices for NDM appears to have sharply reduced the
    incentive to produce and export MPCs.
        We have no quantitative data as to what products are manufactured
    using imported MPCs. The GAO study suggested a rather wide range of
    products with the higher protein MPCs directed towards health and
    nutrition foods.
        [The information follows:]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Cumulative to date                                       December
                                                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                      Quantity                    Value                   Quantity                    Value
           Commodities Imported and Area/Countries of Origin                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              01/1999-12/  01/2000-12/  01/1999-12/  01/2000-12/
                                                                                                  1999         2000         1999         2000         1999         2000         1999         2000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    MK PC,WHT/NS,NES...............................................           M0404901000 MT  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    North America..................................................                       01  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Canada.........................................................                     1220        3,420        2,234    7,753,190    5,063,093          386            0      880,494            0
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total North America......................................  .......................        3,420        2,234    7,753,190    5,063,093          386            0      880,494            0
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
    South America..................................................                        4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Argentina......................................................                     3570            0           54            0      240,098            0            0            0            0
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total South America......................................  .......................           54            0      240,098            0            0            0            0
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
    European Union.................................................                       05  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Sweden.........................................................                     4010           98            0      187,154            0            0            0            0            0
    Denmark........................................................                     4090           80          961      136,116    1,892,826            0           24            0       52,812
    United Kingdom.................................................                     4120           66          101      137,345      222,319           40            0       75,838            0
    Ireland........................................................                     4190        9,775        6,917   31,949,864   21,531,018        1,598          137    5,634,161      646,243
    Netherlands....................................................                     4210        4,560        5,193    7,937,645   10,377,645          334           18      590,883       62,057
    Belgium-Luxembourg.............................................                     4230           19          180       33,026      253,500            0            0            0            0
    France.........................................................                     4270          339          931      894,105    2,408,474          100           60      324,416      239,478
    Germany........................................................                     4280        5,261        7,018   10,242,886   14,466,304          315           53      621,177      135,063
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total European Union.....................................  .......................       20,197       21,300   51,518,141   51,152,086        2,387          271    7,246,475    1,135,653
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
    Other West Europe..............................................                       06  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Switzerland....................................................                     4410           52        1,229       89,264    2,587,046            0          215            0      450,632
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Other West Europe..................................  .......................           52        1,229       89,264    2,587,046            0          215            0      450,632
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
    Eastern Europe.................................................                       08  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Hungary........................................................                     4370          416        1,267    1,713,861    4,642,414           58          166      216,000      394,285
    Poland.........................................................                     4550          875           59    1,543,932      175,067           95            0      241,311            0
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Eastern Europe.....................................  .......................        1,291        1,326    3,257,793    4,817,481          153          166      457,311      394,285
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
    Former Soviet Union............................................                       07  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Estonia........................................................                     4470          300           80      577,282      161,275           40            0       70,191            0
    Lithuania......................................................                     4510           49          168      205,758      316,239           17            0       71,379            0
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Former Soviet Union................................  .......................          349          248      783,040      477,514           57            0      141,570            0
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
    Oceania........................................................                       14  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
    Australia......................................................                     6020        4,967        6,936   13,853,645   22,122,035          468           16    1,633,175       32,84E
    New Zealand....................................................                     6140       14,601       19,352   44,998,189   66,387,470        1,741        2,294    4,502,027    6,978,951
                                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Oceania............................................  .......................       19,568       26,287   58,851,834   88,509,505        2,210        2,310    6,135,202    7,011,795
                                                                    ================================================================================================================================
          Grand Total..............................................  .......................       44,877       52,677  122,253,262  152,846,823        5,192        2,962   14,861,052    8,992,365
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                MONTHLY PRECEDENCE REPORT
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Month                                 1998         1999         2000         2001
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Quanity (In Metric Tons)

    JAN.........................................................        1,709        2,664        5,337        2,598
    FEB.........................................................        1,578        2,992        5,731        2,988
    MAR.........................................................        1,711        3,335        5,957  ...........
    APR.........................................................        1,274        2,642        3,693  ...........
    MAY.........................................................        1,743        3,082        5,938  ...........
    JUN.........................................................        2,329        4,256        4,846  ...........
    JUL.........................................................        3,033        3,940        5,242  ...........
    AUG.........................................................        2,805        3,588        2,992  ...........
    SEP.........................................................        3,975        4,179        2,684  ...........
    OCT.........................................................        3,294        3,684        3,744  ...........
    NOV.........................................................        2,650        5,322        3,549  ...........
    DEC.........................................................        2,828        5,192        2,962  ...........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Year Total............................................       28,929       44,877       52,677  ...........

                         VALUE (In Dollars)

    JAN.........................................................    6,306,753    6,785,701   14,210,345  ...........
    FEB.........................................................    5,655,386    7,555,518   16,937,948  ...........
    MAR.........................................................    6,404,701   10,326,470   17,018,990  ...........
    APR.........................................................    5,537,792    8,063,621    9,990,919  ...........
    MAY.........................................................    6,761,583    8,675,193   16,293,460  ...........
    JUN.........................................................    8,725,857   10,896,440   14,447,008  ...........
    JUL.........................................................   10,281,507   10,473,084   14,842,574  ...........
    AUG.........................................................    7,578,441    9,140,663    8,836,276  ...........
    SEP.........................................................   11,490,923   11,642,285    8,467,512  ...........
    OCT.........................................................   10,856,055   10,099,492   10,948,316  ...........
    NOV.........................................................    8,688,697   13,733,743   11,861,106  ...........
    DEC.........................................................   10,845,303   14,861,052    8,992,369  ...........
                                                                 ---------------------------------------------------
          Year Total............................................   99,132,998  122,253,262  152,846,823  ...........
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide an estimate on the level to which these
    imports are affecting U.S. dairy producer prices.
        Answer. It is our understanding that imported MPCs primarily
    substitute for NDM as a source of protein in beverage and food
    processing uses. MPC imports would therefore to some extent displace
    surplus NDM into CCC inventories as provided for under the dairy price
    support program. Currently and in recent years, the CCC purchase price
    places a floor under domestic NDM prices. Therefore, we believe
    imported MPCs have limited effect on U.S. dairy producer prices at
    present.
        Question. Please provide information regarding potential food
    safety and animal health-related issues as they pertain to MPC imports,
    including contamination through the packaging or shipment of such
    products.
        Answer. The public health aspects of MPC imports and use come under
    the purview of the Food and Drug Administration, but so far as we are
    aware no problems have been identified, whether through direct use of
    through packaging or shipment.
        Animal health aspects of imported MPCs and of dairy products
    generally come under the responsibility of APHIS. As you are aware,
    APHIS has greatly stepped up its operations to guard against Foot and
    Mouth Disease (FMD) contamination from dairy and animal product imports
    generally from affected countries. We are confident the measures
    implemented by APHIS are providing adequate protection against FMD
    contamination and other disease threats to U.S. animal agriculture.
                                   sanctions
        Question. What is the view of the Bush Administration in regard to
    making it easier for U.S. farm products to gain access to markets in
    Cuba?
        Answer. The policy with regards to exporting farm products to Cuba
    was spelled out in the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement
    Act of 2000. Among other things, the legislation partially eases 40
    years of trade sanctions for agricultural products by allowing U.S.
    companies to export agricultural products to Cuba, including agencies
    of the Cuban government, subject to certain restrictions. These
    restrictions generally revolve around the prohibitions on export
    financing by U.S. banks and the prohibition on any form of government
    assistance to facilitate U.S. exports. U.S. tourism to Cuba remains
    prohibited as does the prohibition on any imports from Cuba. The Bureau
    of Export Administration at the Department of Commerce is working
    diligently to finalize the new regulations required to implement the
    new policy.
        Question. If agricultural trade restrictions with Cuba were
    relaxed, which U.S. farm commodities would primarily benefit?
        Answer. Cuba currently imports roughly $600 million worth of
    agricultural products a year. If agricultural trade restrictions were
    completely relaxed and Cuba were willing to import from the United
    States solely on the basis of sound economics, the United States would
    quickly become a significant supplier of wheat, feedgrains, rice,
    vegetable oil, beans, meat and dairy products. Cuba cannot produce
    enough of these products to meet its domestic needs and must source
    them from competitors that we believe would have a difficult time being
    competitive with U.S. offerings.
        Question. Is it the view of the Bush Administration that free and
    open trade is an important step toward economic recovery of the farm
    sector and if so, should Cuba not be part of that strategy?
        Answer. The Administration absolutely views free and open trade as
    vital to the economic interest of America's agricultural producers. It
    is for this reason that it is pursuing further multilateral trade
    liberalization through the WTO negotiating process as well as through
    regional pacts such as the FTAA. However, as was recently affirmed by
    the democratically elected Heads of State in the Final Declaration from
    the Summit of the Americas, regional integration in the hemisphere
    requires respect for democratic values. The rule of law and strict
    respect for the democratic system are, at the same time, a goal and a
    shared commitment and are an essential precondition of participation in
    the Summit of the Americas process. Yes, we look forward to the day
    when free and open trade is possible between the U.S. and Cuba, not
    just for agricultural products but for all products. However, the Cuban
    government must change its policies and embrace the democratic
    traditions referred to in the Final Declaration.
                          humanitarian food assistance
        Question. Although the USDA 2002 budget for the appropriated level
    of Public Law 480, Title II is the same as fiscal year 2001, previous
    year balances will not be available in 2002, resulting in an overall
    program level reduction. This is occurring at time when world wide
    demand, especially in areas like Africa, are growing. Why does the USDA
    budget for fiscal year 2002 not provide, at least, the fiscal year 2001
    program level for Public Law 480, Title II?
        Answer. In order to meet the goal of restraining the growth in
    spending, some programs were continued at current funding levels. These
    include the Public Law 480 foreign food assistance programs, for which
    budget authority is maintained at the same level provided by Congress
    in 2001.
        Question. Does the Department intend to utilize Section 416(b)
    authorities in fiscal year 2002 as a means to provide humanitarian food
    assistance? If not, please explain.
        Answer. Our ability to provide donations of food commodities under
    the authority of section 416(b) in fiscal year 2002 will be determined
    in large part by the availability of domestic commodity surpluses. The
    domestic supply situation will not be known until the fall, and at that
    point the Administration can be expected to make a decision on the
    level and extent of section 416(b) donations in 2002.
        Question. Does the Department support the international school
    lunch program as envisioned by former Senators McGovern and Dole? To
    what extent should the United States be a participant in this effort?
        Answer. The Department is in the process of carrying out the Global
    Food for Education Initiative (GFEI) on pilot basis. Once the pilot
    program is completed and evaluated, the Administration will be in a
    position to decide whether the GFEI should be continued and on what
    scale.
        With respect to U.S. participation, it is probably vital to any
    global school feeding effort as envisioned by the Senators. As you
    probably know, the United States is the world leader in providing
    global food assistance, and our leadership in such a global effort
    would be needed as a catalyst to encourage other countries to
    participate.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin

                                      wic
        Question. Please clarify the budget's treatment of funding for the
    Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC).
    The budget indicates an increase of about $94 million for WIC compared
    to fiscal 2001. However, other budget documents indicate an increase of
    $44 million in outlays, or according to the USDA budget summary, an
    increase of $49 million in program level.
        In any case, I am concerned that the requested amount is not
    adequate to keep up with the needs of the program's beneficiaries,
    especially if unemployment levels reach those assumed in the budget
    itself. I have received an estimate that as a result some 100,000 to
    200,000 eligible women, infants and children who would receive
    assistance if funding were adequate will not receive assistance.
        For the past several years, Congress, working with the
    Administration, has provided funding to allow WIC to serve essentially
    all eligible women, infants and children. It very strongly appears that
    the current budget proposal would back away from this commitment. Will
    you provide an explanation of the budget request for WIC funding and
    the adequacy of that request to serve all eligible WIC recipients?
        Answer. The Administration's fiscal year 2002 request was
    constructed to maintain projected average fiscal year 2001
    participation of 7.25 million. There are currently no waiting lists for
    the WIC program and, at present, we believe that the President's Budget
    request for fiscal year 2002 is sufficient to continue to meet demand
    for the WIC program. However, the Department is aware that substantial
    changes in economic conditions may effect demand for the program. We
    plan to monitor the situation closely, and work with Congress to ensure
    that the program is funded at an appropriate level.
        Question. Does the budget figure for WIC take into account the
    impact of the assumptions in the budget regarding unemployment levels?
        Answer. Although data from 1997-2001 suggest a positive
    relationship between unemployment and participation, these data are not
    adequate to permit construction of a model of that relationship that
    would enable us to ``tie'' changes in WIC participation to changes in
    the unemployment rate with any reasonable degree of accuracy. Such a
    model would be needed in order to factor changes in the unemployment
    rate into budget requests for WIC. The President's budget was
    constructed to maintain projected average fiscal year 2001
    participation of 7.25 million.
        Question. Will you commit to working with this Committee to make
    sure we keep our longstanding commitment to WIC?
        Answer. The Department plans to closely monitor WIC Program
    participation and economic conditions during the course of the year and
    work with Congress to ensure that the program is funded at an
    appropriate level.
                foreign market development (cooperator) program
        Question. I am quite concerned about the level of funding in the
    budget for the Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program. In the
    past there have been carryover funds that helped to maintain the
    resources to support this important program. However, it does not
    appear that those carryover funds are available for fiscal 2002.
        Please describe the resources that will be available to the FMD
    (Cooperator) Program in fiscal 2002 under the proposed budget and
    explain whether with this level of resources it will be possible to
    maintain fully the current programming levels for the program.
        Answer. The CCC budget for fiscal year 2002 includes $27.5 million
    for the FMD program, the same level as fiscal year 2001. We believe
    that with these funds, coupled with available carryover balances,
    current marketing plan levels can be maintained through fiscal year
    2002.
                     microbiological performance standards
        Question. I want to commend the Administration for moving forward
    with the appeal of the Supreme Beef case. I am sure you were offered
    many different opinions on whether USDA should appeal.
        As I have said to you before, we need to have the most effective
    and scientifically sound microbiological performance standards
    possible. We need to continue to improve the standards that we have.
    But those standards absolutely must be enforceable. I have no doubt we
    can come up with better standards that all sides can support. However,
    some are fundamentally opposed to having any enforceable performance
    standards.
        Is the decision to appeal the Supreme Beef decision a reflection of
    the Department's commitment to enforcing its microbiological
    performance standards?
        Answer. The notice of appeal by USDA of Supreme Beef Processors,
    Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture was filed on September
    8, 2000. Under this Administration, required filings continue to be
    made by USDA and the appeal is moving forward.
        Question. Do you support the current Salmonella performance
    standard?
        Answer. The Salmonella performance standards were based on the best
    available estimates of national product prevalence (i.e. the percentage
    of product with Salmonella). The prevalence of Salmonella on raw meat
    and poultry products continues to decline by as much as half on raw
    chicken, for example. CDC reports sustained reductions in foodborne
    illness as well.
        As you know, language accompanying the 2001 Agriculture
    Appropriations Act directed the Food Safety and Inspection Service to
    ask the National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for
    Foods (NACMCF) and the National Research Council of the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS) for an evaluation of the role of
    scientifically determined criteria, including microbiological criteria,
    in the production and regulation of meat and poultry products. The
    information from these reports combined with the best available science
    will guide the Department's decisions on the Salmonella performance
    standards.
        Question. Do you have plans for revising it?
        Answer. USDA will continually review the performance standards to
    ensure that all food safety policies are based on sound scientific
    principles. Further, language accompanying the 2001 Agriculture
    Appropriations Act directed FSIS to ask the National Advisory Committee
    on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) and the National
    Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for an
    evaluation of the role of scientifically determined criteria, including
    microbiological criteria, in the production and regulation of meat and
    poultry products. FSIS is discussing the initiation of a study with
    NAS. Also, FSIS has also asked the Micro Committee to review and
    evaluate the Salmonella performance standards. Specifically, the NACMCF
    will advise FSIS on the use of indicator organisms as opposed to a
    specific pathogen, like Salmonella; whether it is scientifically
    appropriate and wise from a public health standpoint to incorporate
    regional and seasonal variations into performance standards; how
    quantitative baseline prevalence data should best be used to develop or
    modify performance standards; and what other key considerations are
    involved in using risk assessments to develop performance standards.
     national animal disease center: ars and aphis facilities at ames, iowa
        Question. The Appropriations Committee in the fiscal 2001
    Appropriations measure required a report on the need and options for
    moving ahead with this project that was due on March 1. I understand
    that the draft report just went to OMB on April 20.
        Clearly, the entire nation has become keenly aware of the costs and
    problems that can occur because of animal diseases. We can have great
    damage to animal agriculture and in some circumstances we face real
    risks to human health as well.
        A highly respected international peer review group that USDA
    created to look at the draft report indicated that the need to move
    forward was urgent and should be considered an emergency, that the
    inadequacy of some of the facilities is astounding, that there is
    severe vulnerability, that current studies are restricted, and that the
    status quo is not an option. The group also indicated that the
    improvements would facilitate United States animal exports--which could
    presently be at some risk because of the poor quality of the existing
    facilities.
        The group fully endorsed the draft plan's finding that the merging
    of the National Animal Disease Center and APHIS' Center for Veterinary
    Biologics and the National Veterinary Services Laboratories was the
    preferred option.
        Will you give your personal attention to completing and releasing
    the required report as soon as possible and, more importantly, will the
    Administration support the work that is necessary at Ames, Iowa
        Answer. The report, which was due March 1, 2001, was finally
    transmitted to the Congress on May 25, 2001. Delays were incurred in
    completing the report since the report dealt with major animal research
    and diagnostic facility needs of the Agricultural Research Service
    (ARS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The
    report was devised through a series of meetings and reviews between the
    two agencies as well as consultants in Washington, D.C. and in Ames,
    IA. The report provides for several alternative plans ranging in cost
    from $430 million to $548 million.
                                    listeria
        Question. Earlier this year, USDA published a proposal to require
    ready-to-eat meat and poultry processing plants to test for Listeria
    species in their plants. The rule would require plants producing hot
    dogs and deli meats to perform Listeria testing; however, the testing
    would be so infrequent that its value would be minimal. Plants would
    test for Listeria only one to four times a month, despite the fact that
    a lot of product can be produced during that time. This testing
    frequency is significantly less than that which many processors
    voluntarily follow today. Is one to four tests per month adequate to
    assure control of Listeria?
        Answer. As part of the rulemaking process, FSIS has specifically
    requested public comment on the proposed testing frequencies. FSIS has
    held a scientific conference and a public meeting to discuss the
    proposed provisions, especially those that would require certain
    establishments to conduct environmental testing for Listeria.
        FSIS also presented the proposed testing requirements and related
    scientific issues to the National Advisory Committee for
    Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) for review. FSIS has
    extended the comment period for the proposed rule for 60 days to
    incorporate issues raised at a technical conference and public meeting
    on the proposed rule held May 8-10, 2001, here in Washington.
        Question. Is more testing necessary to rapidly identify when plants
    are not controlling Listeria?
        Answer. As part of the rulemaking, we encourage the industry and
    the public to provide any available information on alternative testing
    protocols that FSIS should consider in developing a policy for
    controlling Listeria contamination in ready-to-eat meat and poultry
    products.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        Question. I see that the Rural Utilities Service budget has been
    cut by $164 million for fiscal year 2002. This is cause for concern to
    those of us who represent rural America.
        Let me give you just one example: Many rural areas have slow
    Internet service and need help achieving high-speed, broadband Internet
    access. It's highly unlikely that the private sector is willing to
    invest funds to bridge this digital divide. The Rural Telephone Bank
    program is the logical tool for meeting this need, but the
    Administration has eliminated this program. Don't you agree that high-
    speed broadband Internet access is crucial to any region's economic
    viability?
        Answer. I certainly agree that rural America needs to have access
    to the Internet in order to share in the benefits of our information-
    oriented economy. Some rural areas already have such access, however,
    in general rural areas do not have the same access as many urban areas.
        Question. If you do agree, isn't it necessary for USDA to continue
    to provide funding for the Rural Telephone Bank?
        Answer. The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) is an important source of
    funding for telecommunications. However, it is not necessary for USDA
    to continue to provide the financing for the RTB to make loans. Current
    law requires that the RTB be privatized and that process has already
    begun. The Administration's budget proposal to not provide the
    financing for RTB loans is intended to accelerate the privatization
    process. The RTB has the ability to obtain financing from the private
    sector.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin

                             emergency reserve fund
        Question. The Emergency Reserve Fund only provides $5.6 billion for
    fiscal year 2002. And the Contingency Reserve Fund pits farm aid
    against Medicare, Social Security and defense spending needs. How is
    relying on the reserve funds a responsible method for ensuring our
    farmers get the support that they need?
        Answer. In the long run, the better way to ensure that producers
    get the appropriate support is to develop improved ongoing programs
    which eliminate the necessity to rely heavily on year-to-year ad hoc
    emergency assistance. The improvements in crop insurance programs made
    by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 was a step in that
    direction. In any case there is a likelihood that some, as yet hard to
    estimate, level of additional emergency assistance may be needed this
    year and/or next year. The budget, at least, attempts to recognize and
    allow for this contingency by identifying the Contingency Reserve. This
    is preferable to completely ignoring the possibility of emergency
    spending needs as has been done in some prior years. As for the $5.6
    billion Emergency Reserve Fund for coping with major natural disasters,
    it is based on historical data and should be adequate for most
    circumstances for the disaster relief and related programs it
    addresses.
                        value-added cooperative funding
        Question. The Rural Business-Cooperative Service implemented a new
    grant for value-added cooperatives this year. These Value-Added
    Agricultural Product Market Development Grants have been popular. In
    Illinois, we have producers who want to form ethanol co-ops and
    producers who want to form the first farmer-owned pork processing plant
    in the country. However, there is no funding provided for these grants
    in the fiscal year 2002 budget. Will the Administration support
    additional funding for these grants?
        Answer. The Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development
    Grant program was authorized by the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
    2000. That Act also provided funding for the program, which is why
    there is no discretionary funding request for funds in the President's
    2002 budget.
                        rural economic area partnership
        Question. The Southeastern Illinois Regional Planning and
    Development, the Greater Wabash Regional Planning, and the Southern
    Five Regional Planning and Development Commissions are seeking a Rural
    Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Zone designation for a 17-county area
    in Southern Illinois. I strongly support their request. When will USDA
    review this application/request and render a decision? Has the
    Department designated a staff person to work with these Illinois groups
    to compile the necessary information and offer technical assistance?
        Answer. USDA's Rural Development Illinois State Office has been
    working with the three aforementioned planning commissions in preparing
    an application for a REAP zone designation for Southern Illinois.
    However, to date, no formal application has been submitted. Once an
    application is received, Dr. Norman Reid will serve as USDA's staff
    contact.
                               food aid/donations
        Question. Last year, I supported a provision to use $25 million
    worth of surplus commodities in the section 416(b) program for food
    aid, or to be monetized for development projects, for communities
    heavily impacted by AIDS. Could you tell me what progress USDA has made
    in disbursing these funds? What kind of projects have PVOs and the
    World Food Program suggested and where?
        Answer. Nine separate proposals with an HIV/AIDS component have
    been approved for commodity donations under section 416(b) authority
    this fiscal year. The total estimated cost of these proposals is just
    over $21 million.
        Eight of the approved programs are in sub-Saharan Africa, and the
    ninth is in eastern Europe. Two will be implemented by the World Food
    Program, and seven by private voluntary organizations. HIV/AIDS
    education, prevention, and related feeding or assistance programs are
    included among those approved. Program agreements with the cooperating
    sponsors are currently being developed, and the programs can move
    forward once the agreements are signed.
        Question. I understand that the USDA plans to review recent
    donation activities under the section 416(b) program. As we see how
    this AIDS program progresses, I'd like to work with you on finding a
    more sustainable source of funding.
        Answer. The Department is always willing to assist in whatever way
    we can.
        Question. There is a bipartisan, bicameral interest in authorizing
    an international feeding initiative proposed by Ambassador George
    McGovern and Senator Bob Dole. I will be joining my colleagues Senators
    Harkin and Leahy in introducing legislation soon to authorize this
    initiative. Will the Administration support this proposed McGovern-Dole
    feeding initiative, and support funding for the program?
        Answer: The Department is in the process of carrying out the Global
    Food for Education Initiative (GFEI) on a pilot basis. Once the pilot
    program is completed and evaluated, the Administration will be in a
    position to decide whether GFEI should be continued and on what scale.
    With respect to specific legislation authorizing the initiative on a
    permanent basis, the Administration has not yet developed a position.
        Question. The Administration currently is implementing the Global
    Food for Education Initiative, a pilot of an international feeding
    program. The program is funded by $300 million for fiscal year 2001. I
    am concerned that the lag time between funds from the pilot program and
    finding funds for the legislation will be disruptive. Is the
    Administration willing to support short-term funding so as to minimize
    disruption to implementing a permanent international feeding program?
        Answer. The current pilot program is likely to continue into fiscal
    year 2002, simply because of the length of time needed to develop the
    individual project agreements with cooperating sponsors, procurement of
    the commodities and transportation services, shipment of the
    commodities, and then distribution overseas. Thus, the question of
    whether additional short-term funding might be needed is unlikely to
    arise until well into next year. Until the current pilot program is
    implemented and preliminary results known, it is difficult to take a
    position on prospective future funding for the initiative.
        Question. Garnering international support for the McGovern-Dole
    proposal is important to the success of the program. Will the
    Administration bring this up at the next G8 meeting to build support
    among other member countries?
        Answer. Items to be placed on the agenda for the next G8 summit
    currently are under consideration. The Global for Education Initiative
    is being considered as a possible item for discussion.
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget includes $478 million for the
    Export Enhancement Program. But the USDA only spent $1 million in
    fiscal year 2000. I plan on introducing legislation that would
    authorize the USDA to reallocate unspent EEP monies for food aid and
    foreign market development programs. How does the Administration feel
    about reallocated unspent EEP funds?
        Answer. The Administration has not taken a formal position on the
    proposal to authorize the reallocation of unused EEP funding. However,
    we would be willing to consider the proposal seriously as the
    Administration is committed to expanding access to overseas markets and
    the level of U.S. agricultural exports.
        Question. As farmers are faced with more environmental challenges
    (water and air quality), how can we expect them to meet those
    challenges on such limited assistance?
        Answer. We are very much aware of the environmental challenges
    facing farmers in today's economically stressed farm climate. We
    anticipate that these environmental challenges will be addressed in
    upcoming farm bill discussions.
        Question. How can we expect farmers to try innovative conservation
    practices if there is not even enough funding for basic agriculture
    conservation programs?
        Answer. We anticipate that environmental challenges facing farmers
    today will be thoroughly debated in upcoming farm bill discussions. In
    the meantime, USDA agencies such as the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service will continue to assist farmers in addressing environmental
    concerns with science based low-cost conservation practices. NRCS will
    also continue to rely on and support the innovation of farmers and
    ranchers in developing practical solutions to conservation problems.
        Question. The Illinois NRCS has brought to my attention that they
    are facing a funding shortfall in fiscal year 2001 to pay technical
    staff because of reduced revenues of not having a Conservation Reserve
    Program sign-up this year. I recognize that the budget includes an
    increase in funding for CRP technical assistance, but that will not
    come until fiscal year 2002 and the Illinois NRCS needs the funds
    immediately. Will you support additional funds to pay for CRP technical
    assistance in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. In any given year, NRCS receives funding from several
    sources, including reimbursements from the Commodity Credit Corporation
    and supplemental appropriations to address disaster activities. The
    amount of shortfalls, if any, in funding for fiscal year 2001 will not
    be known until later this year when we know the full extent of
    reimbursements for CRP continuous signup activities and workload
    demands needed to address flooding and disaster activities in the
    Midwest and other places. In the meantime, adequate technical
    assistance funding will be available in fiscal year 2001 for the
    Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) as well as the
    continuous CRP signup.
        Question. But it appears, with respect to puppy mills, this is not
    an issue solely of funding. Authorizing legislation is needed to combat
    the problem. With Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, I will be
    introducing bipartisan legislation to revoke licenses for chronic
    Animal Welfare Act violators, require proper socialization and
    veterinary care for animals in mass breeding conditions and limit
    breeding frequency. I hope that you will support this modest change in
    the law. Do you have any comment?
        Answer. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
    shares your concern for the welfare of animals in commercial breeding
    facilities and appreciates this opportunity to explain our efforts on
    their behalf. Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), APHIS requires
    individuals who breed certain animals--including dogs-for sale at the
    wholesale level to be licensed. These individuals must provide their
    animals with veterinary care, a balanced diet, clean and structurally
    sound housing, and protection from extremes of weather and temperature,
    among other things.
        With regard to your proposal calling for proper socialization,
    current language in the AWA has requirements that licensed entities
    provide their animals with exercise. Certainly, APHIS believes that
    socialization, including exercise, is an important component to
    ensuring the health and care of licensed animals and would support
    additional socialization requirements that would benefit licensed
    animals.
        With respect to the imposition of breeding requirements, APHIS
    believes that limiting breeding frequency may improve the overall
    welfare of breeding females. However, enforcement of such a requirement
    would be difficult due to the wide range of licensed breeds with
    varying ranges for appropriate breeding frequency. There is also
    widespread disagreement within the animal welfare community and
    commercial breeding industry regarding what constitutes appropriate
    breeding frequency.
        I want to assure you that, in cases of serious or repeat violations
    of the AWA that remain uncorrected, alleged violators are prosecuted to
    the fullest extent of the law, including the imposition of penalties
    such as fines, license suspensions, and license revocations. Data for
    fiscal years 1996-1999 demonstrate our commitment to AWA enforcement.
    During that time, APHIS imposed more than $3 million in monetary
    penalties and issued 122 revocations, suspensions, and
    disqualifications. The Department also moved forward in its efforts to
    expedite the prosecution of AWA offenders, virtually eliminating the
    backlog of cases awaiting resolution. You may be interested to learn
    that APHIS has proposed a regulation that would allow the Department to
    deny a license renewal if a facility is in chronic noncompliance.
    (Currently, we must renew any license if the appropriate fees are paid
    regardless of compliance history.) After completion of a thorough
    review of the numerous comments received, APHIS will determine how to
    proceed with rulemaking.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

                           crp-wetlands pilot project
        Question. Madam Secretary, we have visited about a new pilot
    program I pushed last year to enroll farmed wetlands in the continuous
    CRP--which was enacted with some help from Senators Harkin, Kohl,
    Cochran, and Daschle. This two year pilot program was created by
    farmers and conservationists in South Dakota, and it would permit up to
    500,000 acres of farmed wetlands to be enrolled under CRP in six states
    (ND, SD, MN, NE, IA, MT) of the Prairie Pothole Region. Currently,
    grass filter strips surrounding these farmed wetlands qualify for CRP,
    but not the actual wetland acreage. This has proven to be an inadequate
    incentive for the purpose of getting this sensitive land out of
    production.
        Last year, this proposal was endorsed by the American Farm Bureau,
    National Farmers Union, the National Corn Growers Assoc., the American
    Soybean Assoc., the National Assoc. of Wheat Growers, Ducks Unlimited,
    Pheasants Forever, the National Wildlife Federation, the National
    Audubon Society, and the International Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies--just to name a few. The pilot project will provide landowners
    an alternative to farming these highly sensitive wetlands in order to
    achieve a number of benefits, including; improved water quality,
    reduced soil erosion, enhanced wildlife habitat and, less wetland
    drainage.
        Unfortunately, the rule to begin the process for farmers to sign-up
    for the program has yet to be published in the Federal Register. While
    the severe and wet weather in South Dakota and other reaches of the
    country have delayed planting decisions and inadvertently could permit
    some to enroll in this program, further procrastination on the
    finalization of this rule will only hurt the chances for this program
    to succeed. I urge you to work with the appropriate agencies within
    USDA to ensure the rule for this CRP-wetlands pilot project is
    published in the Federal Register and that sign-up commence as soon as
    possible.
        Answer. Thank you for your interest in the Conservation Reserve
    Program (CRP). The Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program rule for CRP is
    expected to be published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2001. We
    expect the sign-up activities to begin in May as well.
        (Note: The notice was published in the Federal Register on May 2,
    2001.)
                        country-of-origin labeling (col)
        Question. Last month, I wrote you a letter regarding an effort by a
    coalition of meatpackers and retailers who've petitioned USDA to create
    a voluntary U.S. beef certification program titled ``Beef: Made in the
    USA.'' To the extent that this voluntary certification program enabled
    producers, packers, and retailers to work together, I supported their
    effort. Yet, I have indicated to the coalition and USDA that I
    preferred to move forward with my bipartisan legislation (S. 280, the
    Consumer Right to Know Act of 2001), which requires country-of-origin
    meat labels on beef, lamb, and pork meat products, as well as fruits
    and vegetables.
        To qualify as ``Beef: Made in the USA'' under the voluntary system
    advocated by the coalition, U.S. beef products could originate from
    cattle raised and fed a mere 100 days in the U.S. For instance, under
    the proposal, a ribeye steak could be identified as ``Beef: Made in the
    USA'' even though it originated from a steer or heifer that was born in
    a foreign country, raised (perhaps up to one year) in a foreign
    country, and shipped to the U.S. at least 100 days prior to slaughter.
    Essentially, this means a beef product of foreign origin may be labeled
    as coming from the United States.
        Given the recent and very real concerns about the spread of
    diseases such as Foot and Mouth disease (FMD) and BSE or ``mad cow'' in
    foreign countries, the requested definition of ``U.S. beef'' under this
    voluntary certification proposal is simply insufficient. Any
    certification or labeling program that even unintentionally permits
    beef from cattle where FMD or BSE have been discovered to be identified
    as ``Made in the USA,'' is misguided and risky. While current
    safeguards make this unlikely, the requested definition may blur the
    line and create unnecessary confusion and concern about the origin and
    safety of meat products originating in the U.S.
        I believe the standard for beef to qualify as ``Made in the USA''
    should be simple and truthful. As such, the standard should be that for
    any meat product to be identified as ``U.S.'' or ``Made in the USA,''
    it should originate from an animal that is born, raised, and
    slaughtered in the U.S. Consumers expect no less and livestock
    producers deserve no less.
        I ask USDA to immediately revise the petition to include my
    recommended strong standard for defining beef as ``Made in the USA,''
    or to reject the coalition's voluntary beef certification petition at
    this time, and work with the bipartisan Members of Congress who are
    favoring mandatory country-of-origin meat (and fruit and vegetable)
    labeling legislation that offers strong, meaningful standards for
    identifying food products as ``Made in the USA.''
        Answer. A Congressional directive contained in the Conference
    Report accompanying the fiscal year 2000 Agriculture Appropriations Act
    requires the Department, in consultation with the affected industries,
    to promulgate regulations defining which cattle and fresh beef products
    are ``Products of the U.S.A.'' In addition, the Department was also
    directed to determine what labeling terminology would best reflect that
    the beef products were derived from cattle born, raised, and
    slaughtered in the U.S. At this time an Advanced Notice of a Proposed
    Rulemaking is under consideration that would solicit industry input on
    how to define U.S. beef products, whether the scope of such labeling
    should be applied to poultry, what type of verification programs should
    be employed, and the potential impact on international trade. In light
    of these developments, the Department informed the industry coalition
    that sent the petition that the petition will not be addressed until
    the issues raised by Congress are addressed.
          usda-aphis precedent for defining the origin of beef cattle
        Question. Madam Secretary, on Wednesday, June 28 of last year,
    USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) issued an
    interim rule and request for public comment regarding regulations
    governing the importation of animals, meat, and meat products from
    Argentina, as an emergency measure to protect livestock herds in the
    United States from foot and mouth disease (FMD).
        One of the conditions for the importation of fresh beef from
    Argentina--in the context of rule--was that the beef indeed originate
    from Argentina. APHIS indicated (on page 39783 of the Federal Register,
    Volume 65, No. 125, on Weds. June 28, 2000) that ``in order to avoid
    any misunderstanding of their intent regarding the term originate,''
    they are specifying that ``fresh beef, to be imported from Argentina,
    must originate from bovines that were born, raised, and slaughtered in
    Argentina.'' APHIS goes on to say they consider this change ``necessary
    to make it clear that beef exported from Argentina that comes from any
    animals born, raised, or slaughtered in a country other than Argentina
    may not be imported into the U.S.''
        Now that imports of beef from Argentina have been suspended--for
    the second time in less than a year--this regulation is temporarily
    moot. However, APHIS's definition of ``originate'' does set a
    precedent, in my mind and I'm sure in others, that the only clear and
    truthful way to describe a meat product as ``originating'' from
    someplace is to define or describe it as meat from an animal born,
    raised, and slaughtered in a given country before it can be said it
    ``originates'' from a given country.
        Wouldn't you agree that given this USDA precedent--albeit an APHIS
    precedent dealing with whether beef can be imported from Argentina in
    response to concerns about FMD--demands that USDA consistently follow
    it in working on the voluntary beef certification program, the carcass
    grading rule, and negotiating with USTR and WTO partners in the context
    of defining ``country-of-origin?''
        Answer. The definition established by the Animal and Plant Health
    Inspection Service (APHIS) for use in the context of protecting U.S.
    agriculture from foreign animal diseases, does not necessarily set a
    precedent for use in defining a voluntary certification program's
    specification, defining what animals and carcasses are eligible for
    USDA grading, or when negotiating with USTR and WTO partners in the
    context of defining ``country-of-origin'' for marketing purposes. It
    also does not affect FSIS country of origin labeling requirements.
                   usda carcasses quality grading rule status
        Question. Madam Secretary, in 1999, the National Cattlemen's Beef
    Association and the American Sheep Industry Association--in concert
    with other organizations such as R-CALF and National Farmers Union--
    petitioned USDA to end the grading of imported beef and lamb carcasses.
    Over 100 groups and individuals commented to USDA, and a majority
    requested that USDA discontinue grading of imported beef and lamb
    carcasses. Moreover, according to the Agricultural Marketing Service,
    this proposed rule only applies to around 150,000 beef and lamb
    carcasses imported annually. Therefore, this rule change, albeit
    modest, is certainly doable from an administrative standpoint.
        American livestock producers invest millions of dollars annually to
    educate consumers about the quality, safety, and nutritional value of
    the meat produced on our ranches. Conversely, foreign nations do
    nothing to actively promote the value of USDA graded meat, yet they
    fight to ensure that meat products exported to the United States enjoy
    USDA quality grades when placed on retail shelves. For no defensible
    reason, this puts U.S. beef and lamb at a distinct competitive
    disadvantage in the retail market. Furthermore, this creates potential
    for unnecessary confusion among consumers whom may reasonably assume
    that a USDA grade shield indicates that a meat item is domestically
    produced.
        Former USDA Secretary Glickman indicated that he'd support a rule
    change to discontinue grading on imported beef and lamb carcasses, yet,
    this rule was held-up in the transition. I am curious as to the status
    of this rule and encourage you and USDA to finalize a rule change to
    discontinue using USDA quality grades on imported beef and lamb.
        Answer. A proposed rule that would discontinue the application of
    USDA grades to imported beef, lamb, veal, and calf carcasses was
    prepared and submitted to the Federal Register on January 19, 2001 for
    publication. As you stated, in accordance with White House Chief of
    Staff Andrew Card's regulatory review memorandum dated January 20,
    2001, this proposal was withdrawn from the Federal Register before it
    was published so that there was an opportunity for review to ensure
    that it reflected the policies of this Administration. Accordingly,
    this review is still ongoing and the Department is considering what
    course of action to take.
                   state ag credit mediation program funding
        Question. Madam Secretary, last year I introduced legislation to
    re-authorize, expand, and clarify the state agricultural mediation
    program, a bill eventually adopted by Congress and signed into law as
    an amendment to the Grain Standards Act Reauthorization. Our
    reauthorization extends mediation through 2005.
        This step was significant, Madam Secretary, because family farmers
    and ranchers in South Dakota and all across this country continue to
    suffer from a depressed rural economy and rock-bottom commodity prices.
    Agriculture is the backbone of our economy, and we must not fail to
    provide support to our family farmers and ranchers who are coping with
    these difficult times.
        Each year Congress provides funding for state mediation, and these
    funds are matched with state funds to carry out the mediation program.
    Currently, twenty-five states participate in this mediation program,
    (including Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Illinois,
    Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New
    Mexico, New York, New Jersey, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South
    Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming).
        Four States--Mississippi, California, Colorado, and New York--are
    poised to begin new mediation programs this coming year. I believe this
    justifies the need for an increase in the Federal commitment to
    mediation, coupled with the fact that Congress clarified and expanded
    the scope of mediation last year to make clear that mediation can aim
    to resolve disputes such as wetland determinations, grazing issues, and
    USDA farm program matters, in addition to the traditional credit role
    of mediation.
        The mediation program allows agricultural producers to settle their
    credit and farm program disputes in a fair way without digging
    themselves into legal debt. USDA's fiscal year 2002 budget suggests
    funding at $3 million, despite the fact that additional states are
    coming on line this year, and Congress expanded the scope of mediation
    last year, I am urging you to support and increase for mediation.
        Answer. The program has had some success in resolving disputes,
    particularly over issues relating to USDA's farm credit programs. USDA
    also other methods in place for resolving such disputes, such as the
    National Appeals Division. Our farm loan programs also provide
    extensive servicing options for borrowers who are having difficulties.
    Our field staff is there to help.
                         efforts to prevent bse and fmd
        Question. Foreign outbreaks of the infectious virus FMD, tied to
    fear and confusion about the effects of BSE in Europe, have resulted in
    frightening, headline-grabbing news reports that concern many American
    consumers and livestock producers. While BSE has never been recorded in
    the U.S., and FMD was eradicated here in 1929, Congress and USDA can
    play a role to ensure the health of our domestic livestock herds and
    the safety of our meat and food supplies.
        As you know, USDA currently enforces a ban on the import of
    ruminant animals and animal products (primarily beef-based) into this
    country. I applaud the Department's recent step to ban the import of
    all animal and animal products from the European Union (EU), in
    response to the spread of FMD.
        Additionally, the Senate recently adopted legislation sponsored by
    over 30 Senators that requires reports from executive-level agencies--
    led by USDA--on the efficacy of current disease prevention safeguards,
    whether additional authorities are needed to prevent BSE and/or FMD,
    how well agencies at the executive level are cooperating, and whether
    additional funding is necessary to prevent either disease.
        I am pleased that USDA's budget request for fiscal year 2002
    increases funding for disease prevention. In fact, you seek to increase
    the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) budget by $174
    million from fiscal year 2001, up to an $849 million total for fiscal
    year 2002.
        This should authorize additional resources to increase inspection
    personnel that protect against animal and plant diseases like FMD at
    major U.S. ports of entry. Specifically, USDA can hire approximately
    350 additional personnel at critical ports and international airports
    to protect against pests and diseases. I am equally pleased with your
    requested $13 million in additional program support to strengthen the
    Agriculture Quarantine Inspection Program (AQI), which helps protect
    the U.S. against animal diseases like FMD and BSE. Finally, in regards
    to increases in Agricultural Research Service (ARS) efforts to prevent
    diseases, I support your request for an increase of $5 million for BSE-
    related research.
        However, some indicate additional authorities may be needed to deal
    with a potential BSE outbreak in the U.S. Would you address whether
    USDA believes it is necessary for additional funding or authorities to
    prevent BSE and FMD?
        Answer. We periodically assess funding and authority needs to
    facilitate quick and effective action. In the President's supplemental
    appropriations request, we included $35 million for the Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service. This would chiefly be for dealing with
    foreign animal diseases.
                           mandatory price reporting
        Question. In 1999, Congress adopted mandatory price reporting--
    legislation sponsored by myself and many others in the Senate to
    require the major meatpackers to report the prices they pay for
    negotiated transactions of slaughter-ready livestock.
        On April 2nd, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service launched price
    reporting. I am curious as to how things have been progressing. Do you
    have any updates on price reporting? Does USDA need additional funds to
    ensure the proper functioning of price reporting?
        Answer. Beginning in April 2001, packers have been submitting data
    to the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) via a secure Internet
    connection, allowing AMS to release some reports that do not compromise
    the identity of source packers. However, AMS has not been able to be
    release a number of reports due to confidentiality provisions. The
    confidentiality provisions are being reviewed to determine if
    statistical procedures can be implemented that will allow for release
    of additional reports without disclosing the identity of source
    packers. The following reports have not been released due to technical
    problems: swine reports, cow cut reports, and lamb carcass reports. The
    technical problems are being investigated and will be corrected as soon
    as possible. Funds requested in the President's 2002 budget will ensure
    the proper functioning of mandatory price reporting activities.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                           rural water and wastewater
        Question. Madam Secretary, in our modern world, in a nation that
    enjoys a comparably high standard of living, it is difficult to
    conceive of areas where clean, safe, drinking water and sanitary
    wastewater disposal are unavailable. Yet, a recent Environmental
    Protection Agency report on the state of unmet drinking water needs
    across America found that for rural areas and communities of 10,000 or
    less, the total unmet need is nearly $48 billion! In West Virginia
    alone, funding for water and wastewater programs is deficient by over
    $41 million for 2001, based on the applications on hand. The backlog of
    applications awaiting funding across the nation totals nearly $800
    million in grants and $2.2 billion in loans! Certainly this is a
    critical public health issue that should be addressed with all due
    speed.
        In an effort to address rural water and wastewater needs, and to
    allow the Department of Agriculture to address its backlog of
    applications, I offered an amendment to the Congressional Budget
    Resolution for fiscal year 2002, which would increase domestic
    discretionary spending for rural water and waste water programs by $1
    billion. My amendment was adopted.
        I am concerned that the President's budget for the Department of
    Agriculture ignores the backlog of applications and fails to respond to
    the need for water and wastewater projects. Instead, the President's
    budget proposes reductions for rural water and wastewater programs.
    Particularly disheartening is the budget's intent to reduce rural water
    and sewer grant programs, which help the neediest communities, below
    fiscal year 2000 funding levels. How do you justify a reduction in
    funding levels for rural water and waste water programs when such a
    basic need as clean, safe drinking water for all Americans has not yet
    been met?
        Answer. The level of loan and grant assistance that would be
    offered by our ongoing water and waste disposal program in 2002 is not
    being reduced. It is the same as appropriated under the discretionary
    cap for 2001. The 2001 Appropriations Act did, however, include some
    emergency funding that did not count against the cap. This emergency
    funding remains available until expended. No additional funding is
    being requested on an emergency basis.
        It is true that the 2002 budget reflects a reduction in budget
    authority for the water and waste disposal program. Recent declines in
    interest rates have reduced the subsidy rate on direct loans, which
    means that the cost to the Government for making the same amount of
    loans is less. This is a technical matter on how the program is
    budgeted, not one relating to the level of assistance the program is
    expected to provide.
        Question. Would you support providing a fiscal year 2002 funding
    level for rural water and wastewater programs that would address the
    backlog of unfunded applications for rural water and wastewater
    projects?
        Answer. A backlog of about $3 billion in requests for water and
    waste disposal loans and grants has existed for the past several years.
    Some, but not all, of these requests are ready for funding. Due, in
    part, to the amount of time it takes to develop a typical water or
    waste disposal project, a backlog is not unexpected. Trying to
    eliminate it would put a stress on the approval process. The
    President's 2002 budget provides adequate funding to maintain the
    continuity of the program.
        Question. Other than sufficient funding levels, are there other
    barriers prohibiting access to clean and safe drinking water for all
    Americans? If so, what are these barriers, and how would you eliminate
    them?
        Answer. There are no real barriers. However, a typical water or
    waste disposal project represents a major undertaking for most rural
    communities. There may be engineering difficulties or environmental
    concerns. In almost all cases, a great deal of planning and
    coordination with local, State and other Federal agencies is necessary,
    which takes time.
                                  emergencies
        Question. Year after year the Appropriations Committee has
    scrambled to provide emergency assistance to farmers when natural
    disasters--such as floods, droughts, or hurricanes--strike. Already
    this year, the Mississippi River has spilled from its banks. The USDA
    has received more than 123 requests for emergency declarations since
    the beginning of April and many counties have already received disaster
    declarations in the first four months of 2001. Farmers may also face
    factors such as low prices for their products, regardless of improved
    marketing practices or trade with foreign nations. In sum,
    unpredictable events will undoubtably negatively impact our nation's
    farmers during fiscal year 2002. In the President's budget for
    agriculture, under the guise of fiscal responsibility, there are no
    specific allowances for emergency spending. Although the President's
    budget includes allowances for emergency spending, it does not make
    clear how that funding would be made available. While no one can
    control the powers of nature, Congress can certainly prepare to deal
    with the consequences of natural disasters and other unforseen events,
    and the impact that these events will have on farmers. To do less than
    this is to leave our responsibilities unfulfilled.
        Rather than reacting to emergencies as they arise, we may instead
    want to take proactive actions to ensure that there are no holes in the
    safety net for rural communities and farmers. For example, following
    the 1999 drought that devastated West Virginia's agricultural economy,
    I worked with then Agriculture Secretary Glickman, the Senator from
    Mississippi, Thad Cochran, and others to create a contingency fund of
    $450 million to expedite Federal assistance should another disaster
    materialize. If drought struck, this contingency fund would be in place
    so that assistance could be immediately infused to address sudden
    agricultural emergencies. My initiative was really an ounce of
    prevention. It set aside funding to be made available only if a drought
    occurred, but as soon as a disaster is declared. Plans such as this are
    helpful in addressing drought more rapidly and, ultimately, reducing
    losses.
        The drought contingency fund that I created ensured that should
    disaster occur funding would be made available for farmers
    expeditiously. Under the President's contingency fund, how quickly
    could funding be made available?
        Answer. The President's budget proposal includes two provisions for
    potential emergency or unanticipated needs. The first is a National
    Emergency Reserve of $5.6 billion which would be set aside under the
    budget resolution for use in meeting extraordinary large natural
    disaster needs, primarily but not exclusively, of the Federal Emergency
    Management Agency's disaster relief fund, USDA's and Department of
    Interior's fire fighting programs, and SBA disaster loan programs. This
    reserve would be allocated to the Appropriations Committees upon a
    Presidential request designating the proposed funding as an emergency,
    as well as, determination by the Budget Committees that appropriate
    criteria are met. This proposed change in procedures would restore
    discipline to the budget process and reduce needs for supplemental
    emergency appropriations. It would also ensure availability of budget
    authority for major disaster relief.
        The President's budget also proposes a contingency reserve of about
    $1 trillion over the next 10 years to be available to meet
    unanticipated or difficult to estimate in advance priority spending
    needs, including potential economic or disaster assistance for farmers.
    This reserve is included in the estimates of on-budget surpluses and
    provides for potential future increased spending needs. This proposal
    also, of course, depends on Congressional action to allocate and
    authorize funding. The President's contingency fund, thus, attempts to
    assure that funding will be available for unanticipated needs, but does
    not otherwise expedite the process of making funds available since
    Congressional action will be required.
        Question. Should the so-called ``contingency fund'' from which the
    President's budget proposes emergency farm assistance be drawn be
    depleted for non-agricultural emergencies, what assistance will be
    available for farmers?
        Answer. The Congress, of course, could choose to allocate
    additional funding for farm assistance through emergency supplemental
    appropriations or otherwise if necessary. Of course, we hope that the
    improved crop insurance and related programs provided by the
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 and other ongoing programs
    will help meet any additional needs. And we understand the currently
    pending Congressional Budget Resolution may result in allocation of
    additional funding for farm assistance, so that there may be less
    likelihood that we will be faced with the problem you pose.
            research programs/food safety/administration priorities
        Question. The President's budget cuts $34 million from earmarked
    projects. I recognize the need to set funding priorities. However, I am
    concerned that the budget does not allow room for priorities which are
    not set by the Administration. In fact, the budget makes a point of
    redirecting funding focused on specific research projects, simply
    because they are Congressional earmarks, to the Administration's
    priorities. I am concerned that some Congressionally earmarked projects
    that provide critical components to Administration priorities have
    simply not been considered.
        For example, a $2 million earmark that I added to the fiscal year
    2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill for Pasture-Based Beef Systems
    research at the Agricultural Research Service Appalachian Farming
    Systems Research Center, in Beaver, West Virginia, was eliminated. This
    project teams the Research Center with West Virginia University, and
    Virginia Tech. The project's goal is to enhance the efficiency,
    profitability, sustainability, and environmental stewardship of grass-
    based beef production systems. Not only would this project provide a
    new economic opportunity for farmers, but it will also provide a
    nutritious, high quality, and safe meat product. As more attention is
    focused on food safety and healthy eating, more information is needed
    on profitable sustainable production systems such as pasture-based
    beef, which guards against serious food safety issues, such as animal
    disease in concentrated feeding areas, produces products high in
    beneficial fatty acids and nutrients, and reduces environmentally
    costly production methods. I hope that you will agree that the goals of
    the pasture-based beef project are important to the future of
    agriculture in America.
        Other than the fact that they were earmarks, what criteria was used
    to reduce or eliminate funding for more than seventy Agricultural
    Research Service projects nationwide?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2002 Budget recommended that
    all research projects which were added in fiscal year 2001 be
    discontinued in fiscal year 2002 to finance national high priority
    agricultural research initiatives in the following areas: emerging and
    exotic diseases and pests of plants and animals; biotechnology risk
    assessment; agricultural genome/bioinformatic tools; control of
    invasive species (weeds/anthropods); and biobased products and energy.
    The administration believes that taxpayer dollars must be spent on the
    highest priority needs of national significance.
                              research facilities
        Question. Page 71 of the budget summary for the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture for fiscal year 2002 notes that innovative research depends
    upon the availability of modern facilities. However, the President's
    budget for fiscal year 2002 reduces funding for buildings and
    facilities to forty percent of the funding level for fiscal year 2001,
    and identifies specific science centers that would be the only centers
    eligible for improvement. In West Virginia, both the Appalachian
    Farming Systems Research Center in Beaver and the Appalachian Fruit
    Research Station in Kearneysville require improvements to their
    facilities. Without some of these improvements, research progress may
    be hampered, or even set back. How does the Department justify such a
    drastic cut to funding for research buildings and facilities when all
    of its laboratories are not completely modernized and fail to meet
    industry standards?
        Answer. We recognize the need for substantial funding required for
    the modernization of ARS' buildings and facilities each year. However,
    the Administration believes that growth in Federal spending must be
    controlled and only the highest priority modernization and construction
    projects are requested in ARS' Buildings and Facilities for fiscal year
    2002.
                 senior farmers' market nutrition pilot program
        Question. A meeting I had with former Agriculture Secretary
    Glickman and Undersecretary Shumacher led to the implementation of the
    Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot program. This program is
    intended to improve the nutrition of low-income seniors by encouraging
    their connection with local farmers, while also improving market
    opportunities for farmers. The program will provide low-income seniors
    with coupons to use toward purchasing fresh fruits, vegetables, and
    herbs from farmers' markets, roadside stands, and community supported
    agriculture programs. The USDA announced that it would provide the West
    Virginia Department of Agriculture a grant for $1.2 million to operate
    the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot program in 2001. West
    Virginia expects that this program will benefit more than 50,000
    seniors in eleven West Virginia counties this year. Nationwide, $15
    million was provided for this program in fiscal year 2001, but the
    President's budget does not include funding in its fiscal year 2002
    budget for this project.
        Would you agree that programs such as this, which help consumers
    and producers, can improve the health and economic well-being for all
    of the involved parties? What criteria was used in considering the
    elimination of this project?
        Answer. The SFMNPP was funded as a pilot program by the previous
    Administration and no decision has been made by the current
    Administration whether it will be continued beyond the current fiscal
    year. I certainly agree that farmers' markets are of great benefit to
    both producers and consumers, and the Department intends to continue
    our ongoing involvement in encouraging farmers' markets, including
    providing funding to allow access by low-income households. The
    Department believes that the Senior Farmers' Market Nutrition Pilot
    Program (SFMNPP) will help senior citizens achieve the goal of
    consuming five servings of fruits and vegetables each day which will
    assist them in improving their nutritional health.
        Question. What opportunities exist for expanding the Senior
    Farmers' Market Nutrition program?
        Answer. Funding for the SFMNPP comes from the Commodity Credit
    Corporation and does not require an appropriation. The SFMNPP was
    funded as a pilot program by the previous Administration. No decision
    has been made by the current Administration as to the continuation of
    the pilot program beyond fiscal year 2001.
                                  aquaculture
        Question. Could you provide a status regarding the National Center
    for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture, including expected timetable for
    completion and dedication?
        Answer. Design was awarded in March 1999. Construction was awarded
    in July 1999, and was originally expected to be completed by September
    2000. Due to financial difficulties with the contractor, the government
    terminated the contract for default. A takeover agreement was signed in
    May 2000. Project completion will be in July 2001. A dedication
    ceremony is anticipated for mid-August.
        Question. What funding is made available for the operation of the
    National Center for Cool and Cold Water Aquaculture in the President's
    budget?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2002 funding available in the President's
    budget is $3,328,400 (gross). Proposed project terminations total
    $1,708,700.

                              Subcommittee Recess

        Senator Cochran. Our next hearing is going to be on
    Thursday, May 3, at 10:00 a.m. in this room, 138 of the Dirksen
    Senate Office Building. At that time, we will hear from
    Department of Agriculture witnesses regarding assistance to
    producers and the farm economy.
        This concludes the hearing. We are recessed.
        [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m, Wednesday, April 25, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

    AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 3, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cochran, Johnson, Kohl, and Dorgan.

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                     Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

    STATEMENT OF THOMAS HUNT SHIPMAN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER
                SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
            DENNIS KAPLAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF BUDGET AND PROGRAM
                ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
            JAMES LITTLE, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, FARM SERVICE AGENCY,
                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
            PHYLLIS W. HONOR, ACTING ADMINISTRATOR, RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY,
                DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
            MARY CHAMBLISS, ACTING GENERAL SALES MANAGER, DEPARTMENT OF
                AGRICULTURE

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
    order. Today the subcommittee continues the consideration of
    the fiscal year 2002 budget submitted by the President for the
    Department of Agriculture, which includes, of course, Rural
    Development and Related Agencies.
        It gives me a special pleasure this morning to be able to
    welcome my good friend and former staff member, the Acting
    Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agriculture
    Services, Hunt Shipman, as a witness before our subcommittee;
    and also to welcome our friend Keith Collins, who is the chief
    economist of the Department of Agriculture. They are
    accompanied by Dennis Kaplan, who is representing the
    Department's budget office.
        Today, we will review the emergency farm assistance
    programs being administered by USDA and the outlook for the
    farm economy.
        Last year Congress approved nearly $9 billion in crop and
    market loss assistance for agriculture producers. This
    assistance was provided under the authority of the Agricultural
    Risk Protection Act as well as the Agriculture Appropriations
    Bill.
        Emergency funding for farmers is not specifically requested
    by the President in the budget request he has submitted to
    Congress. But the budget does propose a contingency fund to
    meet emergency requirements arising from natural disasters and
    unforeseen events; and a 10-year contingency reserve, which
    could be used to provide additional assistance to farmers, if
    needed.
        I know the Department has made the implementation of
    emergency assistance programs a high priority. It has worked to
    promulgate regulations and disperse funds to producers.
        The Committee looks forward to working with the Department
    on these and other efforts to help farmers and to strengthen
    the U.S. farm economy. We have the statements that have been
    prepared by the witnesses and they will be made a part of the
    record.
        Mr. Shipman, you may proceed.

                        STATEMENT OF THOMAS HUNT SHIPMAN

        Mr. Shipman. Thanks very much, Senator. It is a humbling
    experience for me to be here today for three reasons--one to be
    here in the role that I am today; also, to be here in the
    company of Keith Collins, whose outstanding job I have been
    able to watch in my previous job on the other side of dias as
    he responded to these questions; and third, to represent the
    career staff that is here.
        With me today are three acting administrators, who, along
    with people around the country, have worked so hard to
    implement the programs that Congress has authorized over the
    last few years and particularly in the fiscal year 2001
    Agricultural Appropriations Act to assist farmers and ranchers
    around the country.
        As I mentioned, with me today are the three acting
    administrators of the Farm Service Agency, the Risk Management
    Agency, and the Foreign Agricultural Service. They are Jim
    Little, Phyllis Honor and--well, my testimony is wrong, but
    Mary Chambliss as well. I am sorry.
        Mr. Shipman. Let me speak to each of the three agencies'
    activities and how they play into the delivery of emergency
    assistance in implementing the authorities that Congress has
    provided us and also in how that plays into the fiscal year
    2002 budget.
        In recent years, FSA has handled a tremendous increase in
    workload associated with the problems that we have seen in
    agriculture country all around our nation.
        Marketing assistance loan placements have doubled between
    1997 and the year 2000, loan deficiency payment transactions
    have increased over 5,000 percent or 51 times the 1995 level.
        Marketing loan gains and loan deficiency payments increased
    from negligible levels in 1997 to over $4 billion in 1999 and
    $8 billion in the year 2000, and are expected to remain near $7
    billion for 2001 and $5 billion in 2002.
        Demand for farm operating, ownership, and emergency loans
    has increased more than 65 percent from the pre-farm-crisis
    period.
        In the past year, FSA has implemented 24 new and
    reauthorized farm programs mandated by the fiscal year 2001
    Agriculture Appropriations Act, as well as 17 programs
    authorized by the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 and
    the Military Construction Act of 2001. Farmers are now signing
    up or receiving payments for more than 20 programs that USDA
    has implemented.
        FSA's ongoing commodity program activities include
    administration of production flexibility contracts, the
    Marketing Loan and Loan Deficiency Payment Programs, and the
    Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance Program.
        In implementing the emergency and disaster assistance
    programs, Congress provided nearly $14 billion including $11
    billion in loss payments for 1999 and 2000 crops.
        For this fiscal year, Congress authorized $1.8 billion for
    crop losses and nearly $500 million to assist livestock
    producers.
        About $2 billion--$2.2 billion--was provided for market
    loss and other emergency assistance in fiscal year 2001,
    including the dairy market loss assistance estimated at $675
    million, $500 million for oilseeds, and emergency payments for
    apples, cranberries, potatoes, honey, peanuts, tobacco, nursery
    stock and other producers.
        Signup has closed or is still under way for the 2000 Crop
    Disaster Program, the Florida Nursery Program, apple and
    cranberry market loss assistance, the Tri-Valley California
    Cooperative Insolvency Program, the 2000 Oilseed Program, the
    Peanut Marketing Assistance Program and the Tobacco Loss
    Assistance Program.
        And signup will begin this month for the 2000 Disaster
    Quality Loss Program, the Apple and Potato Quality Loss
    Program, and the Potato Diversion Program.
        Livestock producers are receiving benefits through the 2000
    Livestock Assistance and Livestock Indemnity programs, the
    American Indian Livestock Feed Program, Poultry Enteritis
    Mortality Syndrome Program, wool and mohair loss assistance,
    and others that I will submit for the record. In total, more
    than 54,000 producers have applied for livestock aid totaling
    over $270 million by April 16.
        To date, nearly 1,300 counties in 34 States, more than 40
    percent of all the counties in our country, are eligible for
    the Livestock Assistance Program.
        The 2002 President's budget proposes to fund emergency
    needs, such as crop and livestock disaster assistance and
    emergency conservation, through a $5.6 billion national
    emergency reserve. And this reserve would be available for
    sudden, urgent and unforeseen needs government-wide. Funds
    would be released from this reserve only after approval from
    the Congress and the President.
        In the farm loan program, the loan portfolio is showing its
    best performance in many years, as evidenced by a direct loan
    delinquency rate of 12.3 percent, which is the lowest in 20
    years. The guaranteed loan delinquency rate is at an all-time
    low of 1.8 percent, and the direct loan loss rate is at its
    lowest since 1987. In addition, our inventory of property is at
    its lowest since 1980.
        For fiscal year 2002, the President's budget request will
    support $3.9 billion in direct and guaranteed loans. And these
    loan levels will serve an estimated 37,000 producers.
        In the conservation area, which is the second largest
    category of Commodity Credit Corporation expenditures, the
    largest program is the Conservation Reserve Program.
        CRP enrollment is expected to reach 33.9 million acres at
    the end of this fiscal year and to reach its maximum authorized
    level of 36.4 million acres by December 31st of 2002.
        Included in this are 4.2 million in cumulative acres that
    are projected to be enrolled under continuous signup, as well
    as 500,000 farmable wetland acres. Outlays for this program in
    2002 are expected to be $1.8 billion.
        The Administrative Expenses budget has enabled FSA in the
    last two fiscal years to employ additional temporary staff to
    meet the heavy workload associated with administering ongoing
    and emergency assistance programs.
        We are also continuing to re-engineer and streamline
    business processes, such as establishing the common computing
    environment, and to expand our E-government services and
    capabilities as mandated by Congress.
        In the next year, we will continue to review our field
    office structure and to identify additional opportunities to
    improve efficiencies and realize savings. However, FSA
    continues to have significant temporary staffing needs that are
    reflected in our budget request for 2002.
        The Risk Management Agency's top priority is to implement
    the Agricultural Risk Protection Act, or ARPA, of 2000, so that
    farmers can realize the benefits of an improved crop insurance
    program as soon as possible.
        Title I of that Act includes a 5 year, $7 billion
    initiative to make higher levels of protection more affordable
    and useful to producers, to provide better protection for
    farmers suffering multi-year losses, to expand risk management
    education and outreach opportunities, to stimulate development
    of new risk management products and to improve the program's
    integrity.
        RMA began last year by reducing farmer-paid premiums and
    increasing yield coverage levels that were mandated as a part
    of the enactment of ARPA.
        So far in 2001, crop insurance sales have increased
    substantially, with significantly more acreage covered under
    revenue insurance products. Crop revenue coverage has tripled
    and currently covers about 51 percent of all acreage reported
    today. Coverage under the revenue insurance program now
    available in the southern plains has increased about 7 percent.
        RMA has worked closely with the Farm Service Agency to
    develop a coordinated plan that includes training, claims,
    audit and fraud referral procedures, and data reconciliation,
    which was such an important part of the discussion as Congress
    enacted the ARPA.
        As a part of this plan, RMA will provide anti-fraud and
    loss adjustment training to over 2,500 Farm Service Agency
    State and county office personnel.
        RMA has also worked with other USDA agencies to utilize
    contracting authority to make greater use of partnerships and
    private sector expertise in developing new risk management
    products.
        The Agency has awarded four contracts to help develop new
    insurance plans for currently insured crops as well as new crop
    policies, and new types of risk management products.
        The agency has studies underway on the cost of production
    pilot program, the feasibility of developing a pasture and
    range land insurance program, new revenue coverage plans and a
    livestock pilot program. Also, it is planning to implement a
    pilot raspberry/blackberry crop insurance program for the 2002
    crop year.
        Another important function is to expand crop insurance
    participation in under-served regions. And RMA is working to
    expand its risk management activities and utilize forums such
    as producer meetings in the Cooperative State Research,
    Education, and Extension Service to provide that education.
        The President's budget for 2002 includes full funding for
    implementing many of the crop insurance reforms authorized by
    Congress. This budget includes increases of $232 million in
    mandatory spending to finance the additional subsidies in
    delivery expenses associated with additional participation, and
    $9 million in discretionary spending, which includes $4.5
    million to finance data mining and improvements in information
    technology systems.
        The Foreign Agriculture Service's primary mission is to
    continue to move forward in multilateral trade negotiations and
    to expand overseas markets intelligence and technical expertise
    that we need to support agricultural trade.
        International negotiations to further liberalize
    agricultural trading practices are already underway under the
    auspices of the World Trade Organization.
        And the United States has already offered a set of
    ambitious proposals for the negotiations that provide for the
    elimination of export subsidies, improved market access, reform
    of State trading enterprises, tighter rules on trade distorting
    domestic support and facilitation of trade in the products and
    new technologies.
        USDA will work closely with the Office of the United States
    Trade Representative to secure an agreement which incorporates
    these objectives.
        Negotiations are also underway to achieve a free trade area
    of the Americas by 2005. For agriculture, these objectives
    include eliminating support subsidies that affect trade in our
    hemisphere, identifying and reducing other trade distorting
    practices, and ensuring that sanitary and phytosanitary
    measures are based on science and conform with the Uruguay
    Round principles.
        A successful conclusion of these negotiations will gain
    American farmers increased access to a region of 675 million
    people with a combined consumer buying power of over $1.5
    trillion.
        But farmers and agricultural businesses do not just benefit
    from open markets, they depend on them for their income, as
    agriculture generally ranks among the top six industry groups
    in export sales. Dollar for dollar, we export more meat than
    steel, more corn than cosmetics, more wheat than coal, more
    bakery products than motor boats and more fruits and vegetables
    than household appliances.
        Agriculture is also twice as dependent on exports as the
    general U.S. economy. So the apparent rebounding in our export
    numbers is a welcome trend.
        Last year, agriculture exports were valued at $51 billion.
    In fiscal year 2001, they are forecast to increase to $53
    billion.
        The technical trade issues such as those related to food
    safety and biotechnology are among the toughest for us to deal
    with and have occupied much of the time of the Secretary and I
    in the first few months of this Administration.
        It is important we participate actively in the
    international organizations that set technical standards that
    govern agricultural trade; and our focus will be in making sure
    that biotech and other approval regimes are transparent,
    predictable, and based on sound science.
        Our budget request for 2002 reflects these concerns and
    includes increased funding to expand FAS's capabilities to
    address technical trade issues and to strengthen our market
    intelligence capabilities at overseas posts.
        We will be focusing our efforts on 14 important markets
    around the world where opportunities to expand our exports
    appear to be greatest.
        In addition, the budget also contemplates adequate funding
    for our export promotion and market development program so that
    we can benefit from emerging market opportunities, the Foreign
    Market Development or Cooperator Program, the Market Access
    Program, and the Quality Samples Programs are estimated to be
    funded at $120 million for 2002, which is the same as the
    current fiscal year.
        Our export guarantee programs are estimated at $3.9
    billion, an increase of more than $100 million above fiscal
    year 2001.
        And finally funding for the Export Enhancement Program is
    estimated at $478 million, the statutory maximum and the same
    level as this year.
        Funding for the Dairy Export Incentive Program is estimated
    at $42 million, which is slightly higher than the current
    fiscal year.

                              Prepared Statements

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. And I look
    forward to answering any questions the subcommittee might have.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Mr. Shipman.
        [The statements follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of Thomas Hunt Shipman

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you today with USDA's Chief Economist, Keith Collins, to
    discuss our assistance to producers, both this year and as proposed in
    the President's fiscal year 2002 budget.
        The mission of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services is to secure
    the long-term vitality and global competitiveness of American
    agriculture through delivery of commodity, credit, conservation,
    insurance, and export programs. In the past several years, that mission
    has been tested by low commodity prices, weak overseas demand, and a
    continual onslaught of natural disasters. Improved market conditions
    have been slow to materialize, and with continued weakness in the farm
    economy, USDA will be closely monitoring crop and market conditions
    over the coming months.
        In this economic environment, we have used our continuing
    authorities and recently enacted program and policy tools to help
    producers weather the market crises in production agriculture.
    Implementing those tools are the three agencies which comprise the
    mission area: the Farm Service Agency, Risk Management Agency, and the
    Foreign Agricultural Service. Each plays a significant role in USDA's
    continued efforts to help America's farmers and ranchers.
                           farm service agency (fsa)
        The Farm Service Agency is USDA's principal organization for
    providing financial support to our nation's producers. Through its
    administration of farm commodity, credit, conservation, and emergency
    assistance programs, FSA helps to ensure a stable, accessible,
    affordable food supply while promoting stewardship of the land and
    providing assistance to our nation's farmers and ranchers.
        In recent years, FSA has seen a tremendous increase in workload
    associated with tough times in farm country both in the agency's
    ongoing programs as well as in the dozens of new programs enacted to
    provide relief from market losses and natural disasters. Since 1993,
    FSA has experienced an 87 percent increase in program funding levels
    and a 24 percent reduction in staff.
        At the same time, workload transaction volumes have increased
    substantially. Loan deficiency payments have increased over 5,000
    percent or 51 times 1995 levels. Marketing assistance loan placements
    doubled between 1997 and 2000. Marketing loan gains and loan deficiency
    payments increased from negligible levels in 1997 to over $4 billion in
    1999 and $8 billion in 2000 and are expected to remain near $7 billion
    in 2001 and about $5 billion in 2002. Demand for farm loans has
    increased more than 65 percent in recent years.
        Supplemental appropriations in 2000 and 2001 have enabled FSA to
    employ additional temporary staff to meet the heavy workload needs of
    our ongoing and emergency assistance programs. To improve our service
    to our customers, we also are continuing to reengineer and streamline
    business processes, establish a common computing environment, and
    maximize efficiencies among the county-based agencies. However, FSA
    continues to have significant temporary staffing needs that are
    reflected in our budget request for fiscal year 2002.
        Over the past year, FSA has implemented 24 new and reauthorized
    farm programs mandated by the fiscal year 2001 Agricultural
    Appropriations Act, as well as 17 programs authorized by the
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) and the Military
    Construction Act of 2001. Farmers are now signing up or receiving
    payments for some two dozen programs.
        Mr. Chairman, I'd now like to describe the efforts underway to help
    America's family farmers and ranchers.
    Ongoing Commodity Programs
        Production Flexibility Contract Payments.--The 1996 Farm Bill
    replaced the income support mechanisms of previous farm bills with
    production flexibility contract payments which are specified annually
    from 1996 through 2002 at a total of $35.6 billion. From fiscal year
    1999 through 2002, producers eligible for contract payments on their
    wheat, corn, grain sorghum, barley, oats, upland cotton or rice crops
    had the option of receiving them as two 50 percent payments or one 100
    percent payment anytime during the fiscal year. So far in fiscal year
    2001, farmers have opted to receive about $3.2 billion of the $4.1
    billion available. In fiscal year 2002, production flexibility contract
    payments will total nearly $4 billion.
        Marketing Assistance Loans.--Non-recourse marketing assistance
    loans provide short-term financing to producers who harvest crops of
    wheat, feed grains, rice, minor oilseeds, soybeans and cotton. As of
    April 16, farmers had received $6.1 billion through 151,740 loans on
    their 2000 crops. For their 1999 crops, an additional $3.7 billion for
    107,616 loans remains outstanding.
        Loan Deficiency Payments (LDPs).--LDPs are made to producers who
    opt to forgo marketing assistance loans on their eligible crops. As of
    April 16, expenditures for the 2000 crop year totaled $6.2 billion on
    over 2.8 million LDP transactions for wheat, feed grains, upland
    cotton, rice, soybeans and oilseeds. Effective only for the 2000 crop
    year, producers growing a contract commodity on a farm with no
    production flexibility contract are eligible for LDPs on their 2000
    crop production. Also effective only for the 2000 crop year, payment
    limitations were doubled from $75,000 to $150,000--for LDPs and
    marketing loan gains for contract commodities, oilseeds, and honey.
        Farm Storage Facility Loans.--Under this program, which provides
    low-cost financing for producers to build or upgrade on-farm storage
    handling facilities, FSA funded 1,980 loans totaling $59.3 million for
    the 2000 crop year, of which $56.7 million remains outstanding. As of
    April 16, 466 additional loans have been made for the 2001 crop year.
    So far this year, nearly $16 million has been obligated, and $5 million
    disbursed to producers. In fiscal year 2002, the budget proposes
    outlays of $3 million to support a program level of $125 million for
    farm storage facility loans.
        Dairy Price Support Program.--This program was extended through
    December 31, 2001, and the Dairy Recourse Loan Program was postponed to
    January 1, 2002. As of April 1, 2001, FSA has purchased 772 million
    pounds of nonfat-dry milk and 11 million pounds of cheese under the
    Dairy Price Support program.
    Emergency and Disaster Assistance Programs
        Appropriations acts provided about $5 billion in emergency
    assistance in 1999 and about $8.5 billion in 2000 to help farmers cope
    with some of the lowest commodity prices in many years. The
    Agricultural Risk Protection Act (ARPA) provided an additional $6.5
    billion in emergency funds for 2000. The fiscal year 2001
    Appropriations Act provided an additional $3.5 billion in emergency
    funds.
        For 2002, the President's budget proposes to fund emergency needs
    such as crop disasters, emergency watershed protection, emergency
    conservation and other programs through a $5.6 billion National
    Emergency Reserve. This reserve would cover sudden, urgent and
    unforeseen needs government-wide. Funds would be released from the
    reserve only after approval from both the President and the Congress.
    The President's budget also proposes approximately $1 trillion over 10
    years for a reserve to meet unanticipated emergency and special needs
    on a government-wide basis, including the potential need for assistance
    to farmers above levels in existing programs, such as marketing
    assistance loans and loan deficiency payment programs.
        The status of our major program activity in fiscal year 2001
    includes:
    Crop Emergency Programs
        Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program (NAP).--The NAP has
    undergone a number of legislated reforms to improve its coverage for
    producers of uninsured crops. The ARPA eliminated the area loss
    requirement for individual eligibility and provided that all types or
    varieties of a crop may be considered to be a single eligible crop for
    NAP assistance. The 2001 NAP requires producers to be more proactive,
    they will need to apply for individual coverage similar to basic
    catastrophic crop insurance, and pay a $100 service fee per crop. But
    they will know they are covered before disaster strikes. Since the 1995
    crop year, 2,136 NAP areas have been approved and $211.7 million paid
    in benefits. However, benefits for fiscal year 2001 are estimated at
    $176.5 million.
        2000 Crop Disaster Program (CDP).--The CDP compensates farmers if
    their losses exceed 35 percent of historic yields, providing greater
    benefits to those who bought insurance on their eligible crops. Unlike
    previous crop loss programs, the 2000 CDP payments will not be subject
    to a national proration factor; farmers will receive 100 percent of the
    approved payment. Signup began January 18 and is ongoing. To date,
    200,039 producers have requested CDP benefits and 138,097 have been
    approved. As of April 9, nearly $1.4 billion has been paid to
    producers.
        2000 Disaster/Quality Loss Program.--This program compensates
    producers for crop quality losses which are not adequately covered
    under the CDP. For example, durum wheat producers in North Dakota and
    other States have experienced deep market discounts on their crops.
    Such discounts are not currently reflected in the FSA schedule of
    premiums and discounts used to adjust production for quality losses
    under the CDP. Also, certain crops which were not eligible for a
    quality adjustment under CDP--such as hay crops--will be eligible under
    this special program. We expect to begin signup in May.
        Apple/Potato Quality Loss Program.--This program provides $38
    million to compensate apple and potato producers for quality losses due
    to weather or disease for both the 1999 and 2000 crops. Payments will
    be made regardless of whether a crop was harvested. We expect to begin
    signup in May.
        2000 Florida Nursery Program.--The Nursery Program assists Florida
    producers who suffered nursery losses from October 1-December 31, 2000,
    due to weather, insect or disease damage. To date, 91 producers have
    requested benefits and 45 have been approved.
        2000 Sugar Payment-in-Kind Program.--The Sugar PIK offered sugar
    beet producers the opportunity to divert a portion of their crop from
    harvest in exchange for sugar held in inventory by the CCC.
    Approximately 5,000 offers for over 101,000 acres--about 7 percent of
    the acreage planted to sugar beets--were accepted. CCC transferred over
    277,000 tons of refined sugar, valued at $105.5 million, to
    participating producers, resulting in a $555,000 reduction in monthly
    CCC storage costs. The Sugar PIK Program also reduced potential
    forfeitures of loan collateral.
        Apple Market Loss Assistance Program.--Apple Market Loss Assistance
    will provide nearly $100 million in payments to apple producers to help
    offset market losses on their 1998 and 1999 production. Signup has been
    extended to May 4, and we expect to begin making payments by mid-June.
        Cranberry Market Loss Assistance.--This program will provide nearly
    $20 million to cranberry growers who suffered market losses when prices
    for their 1999 crop fell to a record low. Signup ended April 13, and we
    began making payments in late April.
        Limited California Cooperative Insolvency Payment Program (Tri-
    Valley).--The Tri-Valley Program will make payments of $20 million to
    500 members of the Tri-Valley Growers Cooperative who produced 2000
    crop tomatoes, pears, peaches, and apricots and who suffered losses due
    to the cooperative's insolvency. Signup ended April 24.
        2000 Fresh Russet Potato Diversion Program (PDP).--PDP will make
    payments of $10.3 million to potato growers on 2000 crop russet
    potatoes rendered unmarketable and diverted from normal trade channels
    to charitable institutions, livestock feed, or ethanol. The diversion
    period began April 13 and will end May 13. Signup will run from May 14
    through June 13. We expect to make payments by early July.
        Grazing Payments for 2001 Wheat, Barley or Oats (GRAZEOUT).--
    GRAZEOUT makes payments in lieu of loan deficiency payments to
    producers who forgo harvesting and graze out their 2001 wheat, barley,
    or oats acreage. Producers will receive payments estimated at $60
    million by September 30, 2001, under the same terms and conditions as
    if they harvested a crop and applied for a loan deficiency payment.
        2000 Oilseeds Program.--The Oilseeds Program provides payments to
    producers who, in 2000, planted an oilseed crop that is eligible for
    marketing assistance loans. Signup for the program ran from October 16,
    2000, through January 12 of this year, and FSA county offices began
    issuing payments in February. Nearly $500 million in program payments
    have been issued to 591,695 producers in 47 States.
        2000 Honey Loans.--Honey producers are eligible for nonrecourse
    marketing assistance loans and LDPs on their 2000 crop honey. As of
    April 18, FSA county offices had disbursed 726 marketing assistance
    loans totaling $34.7 million and 5,619 LDPs totaling $17.1 million on
    the 2000 honey crop.
        Peanut Marketing Assistance Program (PMAP).--PMAP helps to
    compensate producers whose incomes have dropped in the 2000 crop year
    due to continued low commodity prices and increasing costs of
    production. Signup ran from October 2, 2000, through February 1, 2001.
    As of April 4, FSA county offices had disbursed $63.7 million to
    approximately 50,000 peanut producers in 17 States.
        Tobacco Loss Assistance Program (TLAP).--TLAP provided payments of
    $340 million to owners or operators of flue-cured, fire-cured, burley,
    or cigar binder tobacco farms for which the 2000 quota or acreage was
    reduced due to a drop in the national marketing quota or acreage for
    that kind of tobacco. Growers on approximately 275,000 farms in 12
    States were eligible for payments.
        Tobacco Quota Holders Assistance.--This program provides
    supplemental assistance to quota holders who were not eligible under
    TLAP. OMB has only apportioned $3 million for tobacco quota holder
    assistance. While a request for an increase to $7 million is at OMB, it
    is not certain the request will be approved. Additionally, producer-
    owned cooperative marketing associations were allowed to fully settle
    their loans for 1999 crops of burley, flue-cured and cigar binder
    tobacco by forfeitures to the CCC. The tobacco covered by this
    provision is valued at $591 million.
    Livestock and Dairy Emergency Programs
        2000 Livestock Assistance Program (LAP).--The 2000 LAP provides
    assistance in counties named as primary disaster areas under a
    Presidential or Secretarial designation. As of April 16, more than
    54,000 producers have applied for aid totaling over $270 million. Also
    as of April 16, 1,291 counties in 34 States more than 40 percent of all
    counties in the United States--have been approved for LAP. Included in
    the approvals are all counties in Alabama, Mississippi, and Utah, and
    90 percent of the counties in Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.
        2000 Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP).--The 2000 LIP provides
    payments to producers for livestock losses during CY 2000 due to non-
    drought disasters in counties named in a Presidential or Secretarial
    disaster declaration. To date, approximately 1,050 livestock owners
    have requested benefits totaling $765,000. In addition, indemnity
    payments of up to $10 million are available to compensate contract
    growers who raise livestock owned by others. This program covers 1999
    livestock losses, and has been extended to cover losses incurred
    through February 7, 2000.
        American Indian Livestock Feed Program (AILFP).--AILFP is
    contracted as a government-to-government program to provide direct cash
    payments to livestock producers suffering from natural disasters on
    tribal lands. The program was originally funded from the sale of feed
    grains from disaster reserve stocks in 1977. With those funds
    exhausted, the program received additional funding of $12 million in
    fiscal year 2001 to remain available until spent. Since the program
    began, it has provided assistance to 27 tribes.
        Poult Enteritis Mortality Syndrome (PEMS) Program.--Funded at $2
    million, this program helps offset income losses suffered by contract
    growers as a result of an outbreak of PEMS from March 1, 2000, through
    April 30, 2001. When PEMS outbreaks occur, turkey producers must
    depopulate their turkey houses and leave them empty for two or more
    growing cycles. We expect about 100 contract growers to apply for
    benefits in early May.
        Wool and Mohair Loss Assistance Program II.--Funded at nearly $20
    million in 2001, the program makes direct producer payments not to
    exceed 40 cents per pound for wool and mohair due to continued low
    market prices. Signup has been extended through May 4, and payments are
    slated to be made by mid-June. Payments made in fiscal year 2000
    totaled $10.2 million.
        Lamb Meat Adjustment Assistance Program.--In its second year, the
    program provides up to $30 million total, with a target of $10 million
    per year, in direct cash payments to help lamb and sheep growers
    improve their production efficiencies and the marketability of lamb
    meat, during a 3-year period from July 22, 1999, through July 31, 2002.
    As of April 16, payments for Year 2, which ends July 31, totaled nearly
    $3.7 million. Payments in Year 1 of the program totaled $12.7 million,
    for a total paid to date of nearly $15.3 million.
        Dairy Market Loss Assistance Program (DMLA).--DMLA, first
    implemented in 1999, to assist primarily small and mid-sized dairy
    operations that suffered losses from 1999 to the present, as well as
    new dairy producers or operations in 2000. DLMA III provides
    supplemental payments to dairy producers who received payments in the
    first two years of the program. As of April 3, fiscal year 2001
    payments total $655 million.
    Bioenergy Program
        In other actions to benefit America's farmers, FSA is implementing
    a Bioenergy Program in fiscal year 2001 to encourage the processing of
    surplus agricultural commodities for industrial uses. FSA has approved
    54 agreements with 79 plants in 19 States for participation in the $150
    million program. Increased bioenergy production for fiscal year 2001 as
    a result of the program is projected to be 246.2 million gallons of
    ethanol and 36.5 million gallons of biodiesel.
    Cry9C Seed Corn Purchase
        USDA, through CCC, is implementing a program to purchase seed corn
    that contains the Cry9C protein. FSA has contacted 286 seed corn
    companies and has offered to purchase all seed corn containing the
    Cry9C protein for $40 per unit. To date, 67 seed corn companies have
    indicated that they hold seed containing the Cry9C protein and that
    they want to enter into purchase contracts with CCC.
    Starlink Corn Containment
        On October 2, CCC offered to purchase 2000 crop Starlink corn from
    producers and to channel Starlink corn into industrial non-food and
    animal feed markets. Under this program, which was established in
    conjunction with EPA and FDA, CCC has purchased approximately 250,000
    bushels at a cost of $310,000. Aventis Crop Science has reimbursed CCC
    for all costs incurred in administering this purchase program.
        Additionally, CCC is monitoring disposition of Starlink corn that
    was not sold to CCC to ensure that it is also disposed of through
    appropriate uses.
    Farm Loan Programs
        FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans
    to farmers who are unable to obtain sufficient credit from private
    sources. FSA borrowers range from beginning farmers and ranchers who
    cannot qualify for conventional loans because they have insufficient
    financial resources to established farmers who have suffered financial
    setbacks from natural disasters, or whose resources are too limited to
    maintain profitable farming operations.
        The goal of FSA's farm loan program is to assist eligible
    individuals and families through supervised credit, outreach and
    technical assistance so that they become successful farmers and
    ranchers. Regardless of the type of loan, FSA's financial assistance
    provides a safety net for borrowers who have reasonable prospects for
    lasting economic viability in agriculture.
        The FSA farm loan portfolio is showing its best performance in many
    years as evidenced by direct loan delinquency which is the lowest in
    over 20 years at 12.3 percent. The guaranteed loan delinquency is at an
    all-time low of 1.83 percent, and the direct loan loss rate is the
    lowest since 1987. In addition, inventory property numbers are the
    lowest since 1980.
        In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, FSA provided loans and loan
    guarantees totaling $7.5 billion to over 71,000 family farmers. Of this
    total, 24,000 were beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers, who
    received assistance totaling $1.9 billion.
        FSA has developed ways to decrease the paperwork burden on both
    farmers and lenders. The emergency loan process has been streamlined
    from 6 to 2 weeks. Both the guaranteed and direct loan programs now
    have a one-page application for loans of less than $50,000. FSA also
    has been condensing direct loan regulations by deleting 1,200 pages of
    text and reducing the number of required forms by almost 30 percent. We
    have joined with the other service center agencies in a common Internet
    web site where customers of FSA, Rural Development and the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service can download and complete the forms
    needed to participate in many agency programs and services.
        In fiscal year 2001, demand for FSA's farm loan assistance remains
    strong. As of March 31, 2001, loans and loan guarantees totaling $1.5
    billion have assisted 15,000 farmers with their credit needs. A
    significant portion of this loan assistance--$515 million--is being
    provided to 6,000 beginning and socially disadvantaged farmers. The
    lending season is currently at its busiest and most critical time, and
    FSA is working hard to rapidly process the thousands of applications
    coming into county offices.
        For fiscal year 2002, the President's budget request will support
    $3.8 billion in direct and guaranteed loans. We will continue to
    emphasize providing assistance to beginning and socially disadvantaged
    farmers, and will increase the proportion of loan amounts targeted to
    these groups to 30 percent.
        For farm operating loans, the 2002 budget provides $600 million for
    direct loans and $2 billion for guaranteed loans. These loan levels
    will serve an estimated 31,000 farmers, of whom about 14,500 will
    receive direct loans. The availability of farm operating loans provides
    farmers with short term credit to finance the costs of maintaining or
    improving their farm operations, such as purchasing seed, fertilizer,
    livestock, feed, equipment and other supplies.
        For farm ownership loans, the 2002 budget provides $128 million in
    direct loans and $1 billion in guaranteed loans. The 2002 levels will
    provide almost 6,000 people with the opportunity to acquire their own
    farm or save an existing one. About 1,250 borrowers would receive
    direct loans and 4,500 would receive guaranteed loans.
        The 2002 budget also proposes funding for emergency loans at $25
    million, which is the same amount as appropriated for fiscal year 2001.
    The budget also proposes to maintain State mediation grants at the
    fiscal year 2001 level of $3 million.
    Conservation Programs
        Conservation program outlays represent the second largest major
    category of CCC expenditures. FSA offers a variety of these programs
    for our Nation's farmers and ranchers, providing needed financial
    assistance to protect and enhance the environment. These programs
    include the Conservation Reserve Program, Emergency Conservation
    Program, Pasture Recovery Program, Debt for Nature Program, Biomass
    Pilot Projects, and the Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program. Also, FSA
    teams with NRCS in the administration of the Environmental Quality
    Incentives Program.
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--CRP is USDA's largest
    conservation/environmental program. CRP's purpose is to cost-
    effectively assist farmers in conserving and improving soil, water,
    air, and wildlife resources by retiring environmentally sensitive land
    from agricultural production and keeping the land in long-term resource
    conserving cover. Acreage is enrolled into the CRP through scheduled
    general signups and through a continuous, noncompetitive signup.
        CRP enrollment is expected to total 33.9 million acres at the end
    of fiscal year 2001 and reach the maximum authorized level of 36.4
    million acres by December 31, 2002. Included in this total are 4.2
    million cumulative acres that are projected to be enrolled under the
    continuous signup as well as 500,000 farmable wetland acres. Outlays
    for fiscal year 2002 are estimated at $1.8 billion.
        As of March 2001, there were 522,480 active CRP contracts covering
    33.5 million acres with associated annual rental payments of $1.5
    billion. General signup activity accounted for 74 percent of the
    contracts, 96 percent of the acres, and 91 percent of the annual
    outlays. Continuous signups, including the Conservation Reserve
    Enhancement Program, accounted for the remainder.
        There will be no general signup for CRP in 2001. However, CRP
    participants whose contracts are scheduled to expire on September 30,
    2001 may extend the expiration date for one year.
        Through mid-March 2001, over 1.4 million acres have been enrolled
    under continuous signup practices such as filter strips, riparian
    buffers, contour grass strips, and grass waterways. The continuous
    signup has significantly increased the enrollment of these
    environmentally important lands. Financial incentives to encourage
    participation in the continuous signup such as up-front signing bonuses
    and incentives for practice installation and maintenance will total up
    to $250 million from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2002.
        Continuous signup acreage also includes enrollment under the
    Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), which is designed to
    target program benefits to address specific local and regional
    conservation problems. Currently, 15 States have approved CREP
    agreements, and another 9 States have CREP proposals pending. CREP is a
    results-oriented, community-centered partnership between USDA, State
    and tribal governments, and non-governmental groups. CREP currently
    accounts for 2 percent of CRP contracts, less than 1 percent of the
    acres enrolled, and 1 percent of CRP outlays.
        Emergency Conservation Program (ECP).--ECP provides emergency cost-
    share funding to farmers to rehabilitate farmland damaged by natural
    disaster and for carrying out emergency water conservation measures
    during periods of severe drought. During the last several years, ECP
    has been funded through emergency supplemental appropriations. A total
    of $80 million was appropriated for fiscal year 2001. As of April 16,
    2001, $39.2 million in ECP funds had been allocated to States. While
    the Administration's budget proposes no ECP funding for fiscal year
    2002, it does propose a $5.6 billion National Emergency Reserve to
    cover unforeseen expenditure requirements.
        Pasture Recovery Program (PRP).--PRP provides payments for
    reestablishing permanent vegetative cover to farmers who have suffered
    pasture losses due to drought. PRP is funded at $40 million in fiscal
    year 2001. Through mid-April, $27.5 million in payments had been
    distributed to farmers. Signup for the fiscal year 2001 PRP began on
    March 26, 2001, and ends on May 11, 2001.
        Debt for Nature Program (DNP).--Also known as the Debt Cancellation
    Conservation Program, DNP provides that farmers with FSA loans secured
    by real estate may qualify for cancellation of a portion of their FSA
    indebtedness in exchange for a conservation contract on marginal
    cropland and other environmentally sensitive lands for conservation,
    recreation, and wildlife purposes. By the end of fiscal year 2000, FSA
    had closed 206 conservation contracts for a total of 82,225 acres
    enrolled in the program.
        Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program.--This program provides for the
    enrollment of 500,000 acres of certain wetlands and buffer acreage on a
    pilot basis into the CRP during 2001 and 2002. The program will operate
    in Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
    Regulations will be issued in the near future.
        Biomass Pilot Projects.--Biomass pilot projects, under which CRP
    acres may be harvested for biomass to be used for energy production,
    are authorized in up to 6 States. A notice was published on October 20,
    2000, providing the opportunity for those interested to submit an
    application for consideration by December 12, 2000. An inter-agency
    team recently approved pilot projects in Iowa, Minnesota, New York, and
    Pennsylvania.
    Service Center Modernization Initiative
        As part of ongoing efforts to improve service delivery, FSA has
    completed installation of 2,557 new AS400 computers in its field
    offices, replacing the aging System 36s. The AS400s permit FSA offices
    to have full connectivity to the USDA service center local area network
    and the telecommunications infrastructure, and also ensure
    uninterrupted FSA program delivery while software applications are
    migrated to a common computing environment (CCE). A fully-implemented
    CCE will enable employees to take full advantage of reengineered
    business processes and time-saving software. Over the next year, we
    will continue to review our field office structure to identify
    additional opportunities to improve efficiency, realize savings, and
    address the growth in electronic transaction of farm business.
    Fiscal Year 2002 Budget
        The current 2002 CCC budget estimates largely reflect supply and
    demand assumptions for the 2001 crop, based on October 2000 data. CCC
    net expenditures for fiscal year 2002 are estimated at $13.1 billion,
    down nearly $7.5 billion from a level of $20.5 billion in fiscal year
    2001, and $19.2 billion below the record high of $32.3 billion in
    fiscal year 2000.
        The net decrease in projected fiscal year 2002 CCC expenditures
    primarily reflects the expiration of $4.5 billion in 2001 emergency and
    market loss assistance authorized by the Agricultural Risk Protection
    Act of 2000 and the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Other
    components include decreases of about $1.4 billion in loan deficiency
    payments, nearly $300 million in Section 416 ocean transportation, and
    about $120 million in production flexibility contract payments.
        Non-Federal county staff years are projected to decrease from
    11,957 in 2001 to 11,496 in 2002 because the temporary staff years
    needed to carry out crop and market loss assistance programs are
    expected to decline modestly. However, FSA temporary staff years are
    expected to remain at twice the pre-farm-crisis levels of 1996 through
    1998.
                          risk management agency (rma)
        The Risk Management Agency administers the Crop Insurance Program
    and is USDA's primary organization for providing risk management
    services to farmers and ranchers. By 2002, the Crop Insurance Program
    is expected to provide over $36 billion in risk protection on about 222
    million acres 84 percent of the nation's acres planted to principal
    crops.
        Significant reforms to the program were enacted in the Agricultural
    Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA) which build on the increased
    participation levels of recent years. Title I of the Act contains a 5-
    year, $7 billion dollar initiative to make higher levels of protection
    more affordable and useful to producers, provide better protection to
    farmers suffering multi-year losses, expand risk management education
    opportunities, stimulate development of new risk management products,
    and improve program integrity.
        Soon after enactment of ARPA last June, RMA implemented provisions
    of ARPA that lowered 2001 farmer-paid premiums, along with other
    changes in the program. As a result, farmers benefitted from higher
    levels of protection at less cost for their 2001 crops.
        Under ARPA, revenue insurance plans will be much more affordable
    and changes to the Actual Production History (APH) system will help
    producers suffering multi-year losses retain a reasonable amount of
    insurance protection. The new APH provisions allow producers to
    substitute 60 percent of the applicable transitional county average
    yield (T-yield) when their actual yields are lower than 60 percent of
    that T-yield. This change can increase yield guarantees and protect
    producers who have suffered multiple losses by providing more coverage
    while continuing to assess premiums proportional with the additional
    risk.
        RMA also acted to implement changes to the insurance fee structures
    required by ARPA and amended the Standard Reinsurance Agreement with
    reinsured companies to lower the expense reimbursement that private
    insurance providers receive for servicing catastrophic risk protection
    policies.
        With the first wave of actions completed, RMA has begun
    implementing many of the more complex and forward-reaching provisions
    of Title I of ARPA aimed at expanding the crop insurance system,
    facilitating innovation, and improving program oversight. Currently,
    RMA offers 114 crop insurance products to the nation's producers.
        Recent activities and accomplishments in implementing ARPA include:
    Improving Compliance and Integrity
        RMA has been working closely with FSA to address training of FSA
    personnel, consulting with FSA State Committees, claims audit and fraud
    referral procedures, and data reconciliation. As required by ARPA, a
    coordinated implementation plan was developed and signed by the
    Secretary on January 12, 2001, and presented to the crop insurance
    industry on January 18, 2001. Joint RMA/FSA teams were then expanded to
    include 23 participants from the reinsurance companies.
        RMA plans to spend approximately $2.25 million in fiscal year 2001
    to provide anti-fraud and loss adjustment training to about 2,500 State
    and county FSA personnel. The first phase of training FSA State Office
    personnel in compliance and loss adjustment procedures was held in late
    March. In April, the training of FSA county personnel kicked off in
    several locations around the country; this training will continue
    through June, 2001. In fiscal year 2002, training will continue with
    updating of information and re-certification of participants.
        The team set up to develop internal communications and coordinate
    procedures for the two agencies met with FSA State Committees in late
    January, and developed the reporting processes and procedures to follow
    when consulting on RMA crop insurance policies and procedures. These
    procedures were developed into a handbook that was distributed in April
    and is available for viewing on FSA and RMA web-sites.
        In the data mining area, RMA entered into a contract with Tarleton
    State University to develop systems and technologies to identify
    indicators of waste, fraud, and abuse. Once the data mining capability
    is implemented, RMA field offices and FSA county offices will be able
    to forward potential fraud, waste, and abuse issues to investigative
    offices. Data management technologies will make compliance verification
    more accurate, efficient, and timely, thus allowing RMA to oversee a
    greatly expanded program. In April, strategies were developed for data
    reconciliation.
        To reduce losses through the intentional filing of false or
    inaccurate claims with the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC),
    Congress has encouraged extensive use of administrative sanctions
    available through ARPA and other statutes. New data management and
    referral processes, investigative capabilities, and cooperative efforts
    with reinsurance companies provide additional resources for identifying
    potential sanctions and closing cases. ARPA also adds new categories to
    the sanctions list. Third party program abusers, such as elevator
    operators, could not be reached under previous sanctions authorities.
    Administrative sanctions provide an effective and direct way for FCIC
    to take action against program abusers.
    Research and Development
        RMA is currently implementing a number of changes in line with ARPA
    requirements for greater use of private sector expertise in developing
    new risk management tools.
        The agency has awarded four contracts to help develop new insurance
    plans for currently insured crops, as well as new crop policies and new
    types of risk management programs. The contractors will help develop
    new products using these tentative priorities: Pasture, Rangeland and
    Forage Program feasibility study; Cost of Production Pilot Program;
    Revenue Coverage Plans study; Multi-Year Coverage study; California
    Fresh Vegetables; Cotton Quality Adjustment; Cotton Boll Weevil
    Eradication study; Tropical Crops and Trees; Coverage for Direct-
    Marketed Crops; Organic Crops study; and Silage Sorghum Program
    (insurance of dual-purpose sorghum harvested as silage). RMA also has a
    cooperative agreement with the University of Alaska Fairbanks
    Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station to conduct initial
    research into the feasibility of developing a risk management strategy
    for wild sockeye salmon that addresses the economic needs of Bristol
    Bay fishermen.
    New Pilot Programs
        A Raspberry/Blackberry Crop Insurance Pilot Program will be
    implemented effective with the 2002 crop year in 7 counties in
    California, Oregon, and Washington.
        Should the study on wild sockeye salmon indicate that it is indeed
    feasible to develop an insurance product addressing the economic needs
    of Alaskan fishermen, development will begin in fiscal year 2002.
        A Livestock Risk Protection Program has been developed by a private
    insurance company and presented to the FCIC Board; approval is pending
    further development..
    Education and Risk Management Assistance
        To expand risk management education and provide special emphasis to
    under-served regions, RMA is funding producer education initiatives
    through the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
    Service on the full range of risk management activities. These include
    futures, options, agricultural trade options, crop insurance, cash
    forward contracting, debt reduction, production diversification, farm
    resources risk reduction, and other risk management strategies.
        With input from regional universities, State departments of
    agriculture, grower organizations, crop insurance and farm credit
    businesses, and other USDA offices, RMA is implementing a 5-year
    strategic plan and one-year action plan outlining the direction and
    focus of risk management education plans and activities for 15 under-
    served States. The program will be delivered primarily through these
    private partners, allowing RMA to leverage Federal funding with the
    resources and local expertise of these groups. A key initial focus is
    encouraging the use of the Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), or ``whole
    farm'' insurance in these areas. As of April 13, approximately 150 AGR
    policies have been sold in 11 under-served Northeast States.
        In addition, RMA is implementing plans which target producers of
    specialty crops and under-served commodities. RMA continues to partner
    with public and private sector organizations which have the capacity to
    reach these producers with local level educational programs such as
    workshops and training sessions. During fiscal year 2000, 30,095
    producers attended 858 RMA-coordinated risk management education
    sessions offered throughout the nation. For fiscal year 2001, it is
    estimated that 50,000 producers will attend 1,500 planned risk
    management education sessions to be held across the country for
    targeted producers and education partners.
    Options Pilot Program
        RMA announced a major expansion of the Dairy Options Pilot Program
    (DOPP), the innovative cost-sharing program that helps dairy farmers
    put a ``floor'' under the price they receive for milk using the options
    markets. USDA subsidizes both premiums and brokerage fees for
    participating dairy farmers. USDA will spend about $24 million over the
    next 2 years expanding this program from 61 counties to 300 counties in
    39 States.
        Rounds I and II of DOPP have been completed and Round III will be
    conducted in fiscal year 2001. It is estimated that in Round III, which
    will include counties/States from Rounds I and II, plus an additional
    176 counties, 14,000 producers will participate in the training and
    purchase an estimated 6,000 milk Put options.
    Electronic Availability of Crop Insurance Information
        RMA has received from each of the insurance providers the required
    E-business Implementation plan in response to the Freedom to E-File
    Act. These plans are currently being reviewed and evaluated.
    Improved Storage & Management of Livestock and Poultry Waste
        RMA is in the process of finalizing a cooperative agreement with
    America's Clean Water Foundation to study market-based mechanisms to
    assist producers with improved storage and management of livestock and
    poultry waste. The estimated $1.7 million study will describe livestock
    and poultry handling and storage systems, failures in these systems and
    associated costs. The study also will identify existing market-oriented
    mechanisms that may be applied to assist producers to better manage the
    handling and storage of animal waste, and mitigate the environmental
    damages caused by system failures.
    Management of Corporation
        ARPA restructured the composition of the FCIC Board of Directors,
    increased Board membership from 7 to 10, established a term of office,
    and required the appointment of 6 private sector members.
        ARPA also requires the Board to establish procedures for use in
    reviews of policies, plans of insurance, and related materials by
    independent reviewers and to contract with at least 5 persons to review
    each program. New products under review and Board consideration include
    a Livestock Risk Protection Program, a Timber Crop Coverage Program,
    and a Group Risk Protection Program. The Board also directed FCIC to
    conduct a study of localized prevented planting problems and to develop
    guidelines and proposed modifications to existing prevented planting
    provisions.
    Administrative and Operating Expenses
        In fiscal year 2002, discretionary account expenses are estimated
    to increase by $9.3 million from the fiscal year 2001 level of $65.5
    million. The increase includes $7.9 million for improvements in
    information technology systems, such as data mining, e-commerce, and
    data storage. These changes are needed to meet RMA's changing
    responsibilities resulting from the implementation of ARPA,
    particularly with regard to improved compliance and Internet
    applications for producers to purchase crop insurance on-line.
    FCIC Fund
        The fiscal year 2002 budget for the FCIC Fund proposes an estimated
    $232.3 million increase in program spending over the fiscal year 2001
    estimate of $2.8 billion.
        Premium subsidy is expected to increase to $1.9 billion due, in
    part, to an estimated increase in participation. The increase in
    premium subsidy, of which $190.2 million of the increase is for CAT and
    $1.7 billion is for additional coverage, will enable us to provide
    producers a more cost-effective means of managing their risk.
        Delivery expenses or administrative and operating expense
    reimbursements provided to approved insurance providers, are based on
    24.5 percent of the estimated total premium for most non-CAT policies
    for fiscal year 2002 in accordance with the Agricultural Research,
    Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. As a result of increased
    total premium, RMA anticipates delivery expenses will amount to $677.8
    million, compared with the fiscal year 2001 estimate of $461.2 million.
    The increase reflects increased program participation.
        The fiscal year 2002 mandatory funding for ARPA initiatives is $58
    million, a decrease of $9.5 million below the fiscal year 2001
    estimates. The $58 million includes $3.5 million for improving program
    compliance and integrity; $30 million for research and development; $11
    million for pilot programs for livestock and wild salmon; $10 million
    for education and risk management assistance, and $3.5 million for
    policy consideration and implementation.
                       foreign agricultural service (fas)
        The Foreign Agricultural Service administers a variety of export
    promotion, food assistance and foreign market development programs. The
    FAS mission is to serve U.S. agriculture's international interests by
    expanding export opportunities for U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest
    products and promoting world food security.
    U.S. Trade Prospects
        U.S. agricultural exports rebounded to $50.9 billion in fiscal year
    2000, an increase of $1.7 billion over 1999. FAS expects this trend to
    continue in fiscal year 2001, with agricultural exports forecast to
    reach $53 billion, up $2.1 billion over 2000. Much of the gain is
    expected in Asia, as that region's economies continue to improve from
    the financial crisis of 1997-99. Export prospects are promising in both
    value and volume terms for most major commodities, including corn,
    wheat, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock products, and horticultural
    products.
    FAS Program Activities
        To support the goal of expanding export opportunities for our
    nation's producers and agribusinesses, FAS continues to use long-
    standing export programs vigorously. For example, the export credit
    guarantee programs facilitated sales of more than $3 billion in U.S.
    agricultural products last year.
        The GSM-102 program helped U.S. exporters register sales of more
    than $400 million to Indonesia despite that country's economic
    uncertainties. The program helped U.S. exporters continue to develop
    markets in the Andean region, with U.S. sales of over $122 million
    worth of feed grains and $100 million of wheat.
        The GSM-103 program helped U.S. exporters sell over $13 million
    worth of wheat to Jordan and to re-enter the grain market in Tunisia
    with sales of $9 million.
        The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program was used for the first time
    by importers in West Africa and Central America, resulting in sales of
    over $18 million to buyers in the West Africa Region, and about $14.5
    million to buyers in Central America.
        The first guarantee was issued under the Facility Guarantee Program
    for a project to improve a grain elevator in the port of Veracruz,
    Mexico. When this project is completed, the facility will increase its
    capacity to import bulk grains from 5,000 to 20,000 tons per hour. It
    is expected to handle nearly 19 million tons of grain between 2000 and
    2004, with about 87 percent of it coming from the United States.
        With the aid of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), U.S.
    exporters sold more than 95,000 tons of dairy products in fiscal year
    2000. The Commodity Credit Corporation awarded more than $78 million in
    bonuses to help U.S. dairy exporters meet prevailing world prices and
    develop foreign markets.
        Use of the Export Enhancement Program was limited in 2000 because
    of market conditions, with bonuses of about $1.6 million awarded for
    sales of more than 2,500 tons of frozen poultry.
        We continue to stress the importance of market development. In
    2000, FAS allocated $90 million to 65 U.S. trade organizations, State
    regional groups, and cooperatives for export promotion activities under
    the Market Access Program (MAP), and allocated $27.5 million to 25
    trade organizations under the Foreign Market Development (FMD) program.
        FAS introduced 735 Cochran Fellows from over 75 countries to U.S.
    products and policies in 2000. These Fellows met with U.S.
    agribusiness; attended trade shows, policy and food safety seminars;
    and received technical training related to market development. The
    Cochran Fellowship Program provides USDA with a unique opportunity to
    educate foreign governments and private sectors not only about U.S.
    products, but also about U.S. regulations and policies on critical
    issues such as food safety and biotechnology.
        On the trade policy front, USDA works to open, expand, and maintain
    markets for U.S. agriculture. FAS was a key player in the successful
    launch of negotiations in March 2000 to further liberalize global
    agricultural trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO). In June
    2000, the United States presented its comprehensive proposal to
    establish a framework for the new agricultural negotiations.
        FAS continues to monitor aggressively foreign countries' compliance
    with Uruguay Round Agreement commitments. In calendar year 2000, the
    United States raised significant compliance issues with other WTO
    members, addressing policies that affected about $450 million in U.S.
    agricultural trade.
        To support both our export mission and our food security mission,
    FAS has used food aid to move commodities from the U.S. marketplace to
    needy people around the world.
        Over the past two years (Fiscal Year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 food
    aid programs), FAS programmed more than 12 million metric tons in food
    aid to help feed millions of hungry people in more than 80 countries
    around the world--from the unprecedented assistance package for Russia
    to food relief for Kosovo refugees, famine victims in North Korea, and
    hurricane victims in Central America and the Caribbean. Total U.S.
    contributions accounted for more than 75 percent of total global
    emergency food aid to the Horn of Africa this past year, helping to
    avert large-scale starvation.
        Under the authority of section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of
    1949, as amended (Section 416), the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
    donated about $500 million worth of commodities in fiscal year 2000,
    including about 2.6 million tons of wheat and wheat products, 168,000
    tons of corn, 141,000 tons of rice, 130,000 tons of soybean oil, and
    26,000 tons of dry milk. These U.S. surpluses were put to good use,
    helping to relieve hunger and suffering abroad.
        Concessional sales under Public Law 480, Title I, totaled about 1
    million metric tons in fiscal 2000, including 500,000 metric tons of
    U.S. corn, 163,000 tons of soybean meal, more than 150,000 tons of
    wheat, and 135,000 tons of rice, among other products. These
    commodities, valued at an estimated $157 million, went to eight
    countries. Another 413,000 tons of various U.S. commodities were
    donated to 12 countries under the Food for Progress program, with Title
    I-funded Food for Progress donations accounting for almost two-thirds
    of this tonnage.
        In addition, FAS has undertaken a pilot Global Food for Education
    (GFE) Initiative. Under this year's $300 million pilot, USDA is
    donating approximately 630,000 metric tons of surplus U.S. agricultural
    commodities for use in school feeding and pre-school nutrition projects
    in 38 developing countries. School feeding programs help will reach 9
    million children, using donated corn, rice, soybeans, soybeans and
    vegetable oil, wheat products and nonfat dry milk.
        In addition to food aid activities, FAS continues to serve as the
    coordinator for the U.S. Government's food security committee. Last
    September, the agency issued a national food security progress report
    that outlines how the United States is working to address our
    international and domestic food security goals.
    Priorities for 2001 and 2002
        Faced with competing demands for budgetary resources, a strong U.S.
    dollar and continued aggressive spending on market promotion by our
    competitors, USDA must redouble its efforts to improve the outlook for
    U.S. agricultural exports.
        Topping the list of priorities for this year is moving forward in
    the multilateral trade negotiations on agriculture under the WTO. As
    part of the negotiating process, the U.S. must engage the developing
    world in the creation and implementation of appropriate trading rules
    and guidelines. This undertaking will take time, but it will be worth
    the investment. These countries represent our future growth markets. If
    we are to realize our goal of liberalizing trade through multinational
    bodies such as the WTO, we cannot ignore the concerns of developing
    countries, which make up the majority of WTO members.
        FAS will continue to work with the countries that would like to
    join the WTO. While membership in the WTO is a high priority, we will
    continue to insist that these accessions be made on commercially viable
    terms that provide trade and investment opportunities for U.S.
    agriculture. This means that acceding countries, such as China, will
    need to implement trade policies and regulations that are fully
    consistent with WTO rules and obligations.
        Another important area of work for FAS is the negotiation to
    establish the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA is
    intended to be a comprehensive free trade agreement between the 34
    democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Negotiations began in 1998 and
    are expected to conclude by 2005. By concluding the FTAA, the U.S. will
    gain liberalized access to a region of 675 million people with a
    combined consumer buying power of $1.5 trillion.
        FAS also is actively participating in the Asia Pacific Economic
    Cooperation (APEC) forum. Asia represents an important market for U.S.
    agriculture, and FAS is working with other APEC members to promote
    economic policies in the region to moderate economic shocks like the
    Asian economic crisis of 1997-98. We expect APEC to serve as the
    launching point for promoting continued trade liberalization within the
    region and in the WTO.
        Another priority is how we deal with the trade issues surrounding
    products produced through biotechnology. Today's market environment for
    biotech products is unsettled. The demand by some users for non-biotech
    commodities only, the resulting calls for segregation by some handlers,
    and the indications that premiums and discounts may be appearing for
    non-biotech vs. biotech commodities are bound to have an effect on
    farmers' planting decisions.
        This issue is likely to be a dominant one for U.S. agriculture in
    the immediate years ahead, whether in the WTO or in our bilateral
    relationships with customer and competitor nations alike. Our focus
    will be in making sure that biotech approval regimes, wherever they
    exist, are transparent, timely, predictable, and science-based.
        FAS also will be working to improve the way we carry out our market
    development programs. The agency is currently in the process of
    refining its global marketing strategy that will target markets that
    offer the most growth opportunity. This will require a thorough
    evaluation of the U.S. opportunities and challenges in those markets,
    and close coordination with private industry partners. In the next 10
    years, the growth markets are likely to be the developing countries in
    Asia (especially China and South East Asia, and possibly India) and
    Latin America. Gaining market share in these high-growth markets is the
    most effective way to increase market share globally.
        The global marketing strategy is also instrumental in the agency's
    ongoing review of overseas office locations and staffing. FAS is
    committed to strengthening overseas staffing to ensure that the United
    States is positioned to take advantage of the market opportunities
    created by market access initiatives as well as new opportunities
    offered by emerging growth markets.
        Alleviating hunger and malnutrition in the world also presents a
    significant challenge. The global marketing strategy includes
    identifying the food security challenges that currently exist and are
    likely to emerge over the next decade. FAS will continue to use USDA's
    food aid programs to help developing countries meet their food needs.
    Administrative and Operating Expenses
        The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a funding level of $125.8
    million for FAS. This represents an increase of $6.4 million from this
    fiscal year and supports several important agency initiatives.
        First, in order to strengthen the agency's market intelligence
    capabilities at our overseas posts, $2.7 million is requested to
    provide additional support in 14 overseas locations where workload
    demands have become acute, including China, the Philippines, Colombia,
    Argentina, Thailand, and Turkey. This action will enable FAS to focus
    on the government policies and issues that can affect the
    competitiveness of U.S. exports, particularly competitor activities
    within that market, host country compliance with trade rules, and the
    formation of cooperative links for the upcoming WTO trade round.
        An additional $750,000 and 10 additional staff years are requested
    to improve FAS' ability to address and resolve technical trade issues.
    Technical trade issues, such as those related to food safety and
    biotechnology, have become the fastest growing and most sensitive trade
    issues in U.S. agriculture today. FAS is responsible for assuring
    regulatory actions taken by our trading partners do not impede our
    exports and comply with the WTO sanitary and phytosanitary disciplines.
    Export Programs
        For export programs, the fiscal year 2002 budget includes the
    following:
        Export Credit Guarantee Programs.--The budget includes a projected
    overall program level of $3.9 billion for export credit guarantees in
    fiscal year 2002. As in previous years, the budget estimates reflect
    actual levels of sales expected to be registered under the programs
    rather than authorized program levels. Of the total program level, $3.4
    billion will be made available under the GSM-102 program and $100
    million will be made available under the GSM-103 program. For supplier
    credit guarantees, the budget includes an estimated program level of
    $330 million and an estimated program level of $95 million for facility
    financing guarantees.
        Foreign Market Development.--The fiscal year 2002 budget includes
    CCC funding of $27.5 million for the Foreign Market Development
    (Cooperator) Program and $2.5 million for the Quality Samples Program,
    both unchanged from this year. Under the Quality Samples Program,
    samples of U.S. agricultural products are provided to foreign importers
    in order to overcome trade and marketing barriers. This program is
    carried out through commodity organizations and agricultural trade
    associations.
        Market Access Program (MAP).--The budget provides funding for MAP
    in 2002 at the maximum authorized level of $90 million, unchanged from
    fiscal year 2001. Under MAP, CCC funds are used to reimburse
    participating organizations for a portion of their costs of carrying
    out overseas marketing and promotional activities.
        Public Law 480.--For fiscal year 2002, the budget includes a total
    program level for all titles of Public Law 480 food assistance of $995
    million, which is expected to provide approximately 2.7 million metric
    tons of commodity assistance. In the case of Public Law 480 Title I
    credit sales, appropriated funding has been continued at the fiscal
    year 2001 level. However, the Title I credit level is reduced due to
    higher estimated subsidy costs for the program which result from
    changes in assumed county allocations and financial terms.
        Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--World supply and demand
    conditions have limited EEP programming in recent years. However, the
    fiscal year 2002 budget does include a program level of $478 million
    for the EEP, the maximum level authorized, and the awarding of EEP
    bonuses can be resumed whenever market conditions warrant.
        Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).--The budget assumes a DEIP
    program level of $42 million for fiscal year 2002, slightly above the
    fiscal year 2001 estimate of $34 million. These levels are reduced from
    those of recent years. A major factor in the decline is the sharp drop
    since 1999 in the average subsidy rate for nonfat dry milk, the largest
    category of dairy products exported under DEIP. This development
    reflects higher world prices for nonfat dry milk and greater
    competitiveness for U.S. product in world markets.
        The future offers continued opportunity for expansion of U.S.
    agricultural exports and trade. Strengthening our ability to compete
    globally has the direct payoff of increasing farm incomes and
    supporting rural economies.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be glad to answer
    any questions.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Phyllis W. Honor

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    testify in support of the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    Risk Management Agency (RMA). The first year of the new millennium was
    a very good one for RMA and the farmers we serve. During it, we
    provided farmers approximately $34.3 billion of protection on nearly
    205 million acres through 1.3 million policies. Loss payments to hard
    hit farmers totaled almost $2.5 billion. Further, with crop insurance
    guaranteeing a minimum, farmers across the nation were able to obtain
    operating loans and market their crops more aggressively.
        Building upon the increased levels of participation in recent
    years--Congress passed the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
    (ARPA). Title I of that law contains a five-year, $7 billion initiative
    to make higher levels of protection more affordable and useful to
    producers, provide better protection to farmers suffering multi-year
    losses, expand risk management education opportunities, stimulate
    development of new risk management products, and improve program
    integrity.
        Within days of enactment last June, RMA issued a package of
    administrative actions that lowered 2001 farmer-paid premiums and
    implemented other key provision of the new legislation. Most of these
    changes were finalized by RMA before the June 30 contract change date
    for fall-planted crops. As a result, farmers planting crops last fall
    immediately benefitted from higher levels of protection at less cost.
        Under ARPA, revenue insurance plans will be much more affordable
    because premium subsidy now applies to both yield and price risks
    covered by the policy. Prior to the new law, producers paid 100 percent
    of the rate associated with the price. Further, changes to the Actual
    Production History (APH) system will help producers suffering multi-
    year losses retain a reasonable amount of insurance protection. The new
    APH provisions allow producers to substitute 60 percent of the
    applicable transitional (county average) yield (T-yield) when their
    actual yields are lower than 60 percent of that T-yield. This change
    can increase yield guarantees and protect producers who have suffered
    multiple losses by providing more coverage while continuing to assess
    premiums proportional with the additional risk.
        RMA also acted to implement changes to the insurance fee structures
    required by ARPA and amended the Standard Reinsurance Agreement to
    lower the expense reimbursement that private insurance providers
    receive for servicing catastrophic risk protection policies.
        With the first wave of actions completed, we have begun
    implementing many of the more complex and forward-reaching provisions
    of Title I aimed at expanding the crop insurance system, facilitating
    innovation, and improving program oversight. Some of these will unfold
    over the next several months, some over the next several years. Today,
    I would like to highlight our recent progress in implementing ARPA.
      --Improving Program Integrity.--RMA has been working closely with the
            Farm Service Agency (FSA) to address training of FSA personnel,
            consultation with FSA State Committees, claims audit, fraud
            referrals, and data reconciliation. Five teams were developed
            to resolve operational details--they focused their tasks on
            developing internal communications and procedures for the two
            agencies to work together at the field level. As required by
            ARPA, a Coordinated Plan for Implementation was developed and
            signed by Secretary Glickman on January 12, 2001, and presented
            to the crop insurance industry on January 18, 2001. The teams
            were then expanded to include insurance company participants.
          --RMA plans to spend approximately $2.25 million over the next
            year to provide anti-fraud and loss adjustment training to
            about 2,500 county and State FSA personnel. RMA compliance and
            oversight training began in late March, and included review of
            the Consultation, Referrals, and Claims Audit procedures. These
            procedures were developed into a handbook that will be
            distributed in April.
          --In the data mining area, RMA entered a $5 million contract with
            Tarleton State University to develop systems and technologies
            to identify indicators of waste, fraud, and abuse. Once the
            data mining capability is implemented, RMA field offices and
            FSA county offices will be able to forward potential fraud,
            waste, and abuse cases to investigative offices. The data
            management technologies will allow RMA to easily query over 25
            million records to assess the need for individual analysis.
            Data mining will make compliance verification more accurate,
            efficient, and timely, thus allowing RMA to oversee a greatly
            expanded program.
      --Research and Development.--RMA is currently implementing changes in
            program development required by ARPA. The bill requires the
            research and development of new risk management programs
            through partnerships and contracts. A comprehensive training
            program has been set in motion to provide a series of classes
            on contracting skills. These classes will give RMA staff needed
            information and skills to move forward in developing contract
            vehicles to implement ARPA. RMA is also working to retool its
            workforce and equip them with the knowledge and skills
            necessary to be successful in the new culture and way of doing
            business.
          --The training that has been provided to date has already had
            significant impact on RMA's ability to accomplish tasks via
            contract. For example, RMA awarded four contracts to help
            develop new plans of crop insurance for currently insured
            crops, new crop policies, and new types of risk management
            programs. The contractors selected will help develop new
            products using these tentative priorities: Pasture, Rangeland
            and Forage Program, Cost of Production Policy, Revenue Coverage
            Plans (report), Multi-Year Coverage (report), California Fresh
            Vegetables, Cotton Quality Adjustment, Cotton Boll Weevil
            Eradication (study), Tropical Crops and Trees, Coverage for
            Direct-Marketed Crops, Organic Crops (report), and Silage
            Sorghum Program (insurance of dual-purpose sorghum harvested as
            silage).
      --Dairy Options Pilot Program (DOPP).--RMA announced a major
            expansion of DOPP, the innovative cost-sharing program that
            helps dairy farmers put a ``floor'' under the price they
            receive for milk using the options markets. USDA subsidizes
            both premiums and brokerage fees for participating dairy
            farmers. USDA will spend about $24 million over the next two
            years expanding this program. The program will expand from 61
            counties to 300 counties in 39 States. A full list of
            participating counties is available at www.rma.usda.gov.
      --Education and Risk Management Assistance.--ARPA provisions include
            expanding risk management education and providing special
            emphasis to under-served regions. To comply with the
            requirements of ARPA, RMA provided $5 million to the
            Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
            this spring for the purpose of educating agricultural producers
            about the full range of risk management activities. These
            activities include futures, options, agricultural trade
            options, crop insurance, cash forward contracting, debt
            reduction, production diversification, farm resources risk
            reduction, and other risk management strategies.
          --With input from regional universities, State departments of
            agriculture, grower organizations, crop insurance and farm
            credit businesses, and other USDA offices, RMA developed, and
            is currently implementing, a five-year strategic plan and one-
            year action plan outlining the direction and focus of risk
            management education plans and activities for 15 under-served
            States. The program will be delivered primarily through these
            private partners, allowing RMA to leverage the effectiveness of
            Federal funding with the unique resources and local expertise
            of these groups. A key initial focus was on encouraging the use
            of the Adjusted Gross Revenue, or ``whole farm'' insurance in
            these areas. The announcement by Secretary Glickman of the
            following 15 under-served States allowed RMA to hit the ground
            running. The under-served States include: Maine, Vermont, New
            Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York,
            New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia,
            Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming.
          --In addition, RMA has developed one-year action and five-year
            strategic plans which target producers of specialty crops and
            under-served commodities. RMA has and continues to partner with
            public and private sector organizations who have the capacity
            to reach these producers with local level educational programs
            such as workshops and training sessions.
                  administrative and operating (a&o) expenses
        Discretionary account expenses are estimated to increase by $9.3
    million from the fiscal year 2001 level of $65.5 million. This increase
    includes $2.8 million for data mining, data warehousing, and other data
    management technologies to increase compliance and integrity of the
    crop insurance program; $1.8 million for training and travel costs
    related to increased and revised responsibilities of RMA personnel;
    $1.6 million for public information and civil rights activities aimed
    at increasing participation in the crop insurance program of women and
    minorities, and ensuring that under-served and socially disadvantaged
    producers have full access to RMA programs; $1.7 million for
    information technology data systems to meet additional and increasing
    demands of the ARPA requirements; and $1.4 million for pay costs, of
    which $351,000 is for the annualization of the fiscal year 2001 pay
    raise and $1.1 million is for the anticipated fiscal year 2002 pay
    raise.
                                   fcic fund
        The fiscal year 2002 budget for the FCIC Fund proposes an estimated
    $232.3 million increase in program spending over the fiscal year 2001
    estimate of $2.8 billion.
        Premium subsidy is expected to increase by $190.2 million due, in
    part, to an estimated increase in participation. The premium subsidy
    provided by the Federal government ranges from 38 to 67 percent,
    depending on coverage levels. The government pays 100 percent of the
    catastrophic coverage (CAT) premium. The $1.9 billion in premium
    subsidy, of which $232.2 million is for CAT and $1.7 billion is for
    additional coverage, assists in providing producers a cost-effective
    means of managing their risk.
        Delivery expenses, or administrative and operating expense
    reimbursements provided to approved insurance providers, are based on
    24.5 percent of the estimated total premium for most non-CAT policies
    in fiscal year 2002 in accordance with the Agricultural Research,
    Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998. As a result of increased
    total premium, RMA anticipates delivery expenses in the amount of
    $677.8 million, compared with the fiscal year 2001 estimate of $461.2
    million.
        RMA also expects excess losses, which are based on calculations of
    increased premium and program losses, to increase by $48 million to a
    level of $408 million. This estimate supports a loss ratio of 1.075 and
    is authorized under the appropriation language ``such sums as may be
    necessary.'' Without these funds, which directly support the mission
    and goal of the Agency, FCIC would be unable to fully fund expected
    indemnities, thereby weakening producers' safety net.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget assumes $58 million to fund ARPA
    initiatives. The $58 million includes funds for: improving program
    compliance and integrity ($3.5 million), research and development ($30
    million), pilot programs for livestock and wild salmon ($11 million),
    education and risk management assistance ($10 million), and policy
    consideration and implementation ($3.5 million).
                                   conclusion
        Congress first authorized Federal crop insurance in the 1930s along
    with other initiatives to help agriculture recover from the combined
    effects of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. FCIC was created in
    1938 to carry out the program and, initially, was started as an
    experiment. Crop insurance activities were mostly limited to major
    crops in the main producing areas.
        Within the past decade, covered acres have increased from 80
    million to over 200 million, from one insurance product to dozens, from
    a few crops to approximately 120. The program has nearly quadrupled in
    size. In 1999 and 2000, insurers quickly and efficiently paid out in
    excess of $4.8 billion to cover losses of farmers.
        At the same time RMA is directing a growing program, we are
    dramatically changing the way in which we bring new products to market,
    conduct outreach, and provide oversight. The ARPA has improved the
    program's ability to be a broad and effective means for producers to
    manage their production risk. RMA has responded deliberately and
    methodically to this challenge, and we believe we are well on track to
    implement the new provisions in a timely and farmer-friendly way. We
    are committed to providing producers with effective crop insurance
    coverage at an affordable price. Crop Insurance is one of the tools of
    a farm safety net that can best help farmers deal with the changing
    nature of agriculture in the 21st century.
        We appreciate your continued support as we transform our Agency and
    our programs to better serve the risk management needs of the American
    farmer.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Mattie R. Sharpless, Acting Administrator,
                          Foreign Agriculture Service

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to review the work of the Foreign Agricultural Service
    (FAS) and to present the President's budget request for FAS programs
    for fiscal year 2002.
    U.S. Trade Prospects
        U.S. agricultural exports rebounded to $50.9 billion in fiscal year
    2000, an increase of $1.7 billion over 1999. FAS expects this trend to
    continue in fiscal year 2001, with agricultural exports forecast to
    reach $53 billion, up $2.1 billion over fiscal year 2000. Much of the
    gain is expected in Asia, as that region's economic growth continues to
    rebound from the financial crisis of 1997-99. Export prospects are
    promising in both value and volume terms for most major commodities,
    including corn, wheat, soybeans, soybean meal, livestock products, and
    horticultural products.
        The FAS mission remains constant: we are committed to expanding
    export opportunities for U.S. agricultural, fish, and forest products,
    and to helping in the alleviation of world hunger and food insecurity.
    Given today's budgetary environment, these goals must be accomplished
    through better public/private sector collaboration, strategic planning,
    greater use of technology, and resource management.
    FAS Program Activities
        To support our goal of expanding export opportunities for U.S.
    agricultural, fish, and forest products, we continue to use our long-
    standing export programs vigorously. For example, the export credit
    guarantee programs facilitated sales of more than $3 billion in U.S.
    agricultural products last year. The GSM-102 program helped U.S.
    exporters register sales of more than $400 million to Indonesia despite
    that country's economic uncertainties. The program helped U.S.
    exporters continue to develop markets in the Andean region, with U.S.
    sales of over $122 million worth of feed grains and $100 million of
    wheat. The GSM-103 program helped U.S. exporters sell over $13 million
    worth of wheat to Jordan and to re-enter the grain market in Tunisia
    with sales of $9 million. The Supplier Credit Guarantee Program was
    used for the first time by importers in West Africa and Central
    America, resulting in sales of over $18 million to buyers in the West
    Africa Region, and about $14.5 million to buyers in Central America.
    The first guarantee was issued under the Facility Guarantee Program for
    a project to improve a grain elevator in the port of Veracruz, Mexico.
    When this project is completed, the facility will increase its capacity
    to import bulk grains from 5,000 to 20,000 tons per hour. It is
    expected to handle nearly 19 million tons of grain between fiscal year
    2000 and fiscal year 2004, with about 87 percent of it coming from the
    United States.
        With the aid of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP), U.S.
    exporters sold more than 95,000 tons of dairy products in fiscal year
    2000. The Commodity Credit Corporation awarded more than $78 million in
    bonuses to help U.S. dairy exporters meet prevailing world prices and
    develop foreign markets. Use of the Export Enhancement Program was
    limited in 2000 because of market conditions, with bonuses of about
    $1.6 million awarded for sales of more than 2,500 tons of frozen
    poultry.
        We continue to stress the importance of market development. In
    2000, we allocated $90 million to 65 U.S. trade organizations, State
    regional groups, and cooperatives for export promotion activities under
    the Market Access Program (MAP), and allocated $27.5 million to 25
    trade organizations under the Foreign Market Development (FMD) program.
        The Cochran Fellowship Program provides USDA with a unique
    opportunity to educate foreign governments and private sectors, not
    only about U.S. products, but also about U.S. regulations and policies
    on critical issues such as food safety and biotechnology. FAS
    introduced 735 Cochran Fellows from over 75 countries to U.S. products
    and policies in 2000. These Fellows met with U.S. agribusinesses;
    attended trade shows, policy and food safety seminars; and received
    technical training related to market development.
        On the trade policy front, USDA works to open, expand, and maintain
    markets for U.S. agriculture. FAS was a key player in the successful
    launch of negotiations in March 2000 to further liberalize global
    agricultural trade under the World Trade Organization (WTO). In June
    2000, the United States presented its comprehensive proposal to
    establish a framework for the new agricultural negotiations. In June
    2000, the United States tabled a credible and well-received
    comprehensive proposal which called for the substantial reduction of
    tariffs and trade-distorting domestic support, and the elimination of
    export subsidies.
        FAS continues to monitor aggressively foreign countries' compliance
    with Uruguay Round Agreement commitments. In calendar year 2000, the
    United States raised significant compliance issues with other WTO
    members, addressing policies that affected about $450 million in U.S.
    agricultural trade.
        To support both our export mission and our food security mission,
    we have used food aid to move commodities from the U.S. marketplace to
    needy people around the world.
        Over the past two years (fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 food
    aid programs), FAS programmed more than 12 million metric tons in food
    aid to help feed millions of hungry people in more than 80 countries
    around the world--from the unprecedented assistance package for Russia
    to food relief for Kosovo refugees, famine victims in North Korea, and
    hurricane victims in Central America and the Caribbean. Total U.S.
    contributions accounted for more than 75 percent of total global
    emergency food aid to the Horn of Africa this past year, helping to
    avert large-scale starvation.
        Under the authority of Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of
    1949, as amended (Section 416), the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)
    donated about $500 million worth of commodities in fiscal year 2000,
    including about 2.6 million tons of wheat and wheat products; 168,000
    tons of corn; 141,000 tons of rice; 130,000 tons of soybean oil; and
    26,000 tons of non-fat dry milk. These U.S. surpluses were put to good
    use, helping to relieve hunger and suffering abroad.
        Concessional sales under Public Law 480, Title I, totaled about 1
    million metric tons in fiscal year 2000, including 500,000 metric tons
    of U.S. corn; 163,000 tons of soybean meal; more than 150,000 tons of
    wheat; and 135,000 tons of rice, among other products. These
    commodities, valued at an estimated $157 million, went to eight
    countries. Another 413,000 tons of various U.S. commodities were
    donated to 12 countries under the Food for Progress program, with Title
    I-funded Food for Progress donations accounting for almost two-thirds
    of this tonnage.
        In addition, we have undertaken a pilot Global Food for Education
    (GFE) Initiative. This year, USDA is donating approximately 630,000
    metric tons of surplus U.S. agricultural commodities for use in school
    feeding and pre-school nutrition projects in developing countries.
    School feeding programs help assure that children attend and remain in
    school, improve childhood development and achievement, and thereby
    contribute to more self-reliant, productive societies.
        In addition to our food aid activities, FAS continues to serve as
    the coordinator for the U.S. Government's food security committee. Last
    September, we issued a national food security progress report that
    outlines how the United States is working to address our international
    and domestic food security goals.
    Priorities for fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002
        Faced with competing demands for budgetary resources, a strong U.S.
    dollar and continued aggressive spending on market promotion by our
    competitors, we must redouble our efforts to improve the outlook for
    U.S. agricultural exports. For this year, we plan to continue to:
      --Pinpoint constraints to exports of U.S. agricultural, fish, and
            forest products;
      --Work to remove trade barriers and trade-distorting practices;
      --Safeguard U.S. agricultural interests by advocating strongly U.S.
            policies in the international community;
      --Help producers, processors, and exporters to strengthen their
            export knowledge and skills;
      --Ensure that the U.S. farm, forest and fishery sectors have timely
            and complete intelligence about emerging market opportunities;
      --Inform foreign buyers about the superior quality and reliable
            quantities of agricultural products offered by U.S. producers,
            and educate them about how to locate U.S. products;
      --Use our export credit guarantee programs to reach new customers for
            U.S. agriculture;
      --Use our food aid authorities to help hungry people overseas and
            farmers here at home;
      --Use USDA export assistance programs, such as the Foreign Market
            Development Program and the Market Access Program, effectively
            to pursue export opportunities; and
      --Work with emerging markets and developing countries to promote
            economic development to help meet the U.S. commitment to reduce
            by half the number of food insecure persons by 2015.
        I would like to take a few moments to discuss our top priorities
    for fiscal years 2001 and 2002.
        At the top of our list is moving forward in the multilateral trade
    negotiations on agriculture under the WTO. With the submission of our
    comprehensive proposal last June, the United States has taken a leading
    role in the WTO negotiations underway in Geneva. The WTO multilateral
    negotiations are the best place to address needed reforms in world
    agriculture because it is only in the WTO that we have broad
    disciplines on market access, subsidies, and technical measures.
        As part of the negotiating process, we must engage the developing
    world in the creation and implementation of appropriate trading rules
    and guidelines. This undertaking will take time, but it will be worth
    the investment. These countries represent our future growth markets. If
    we are to realize our goal of liberalizing trade through multinational
    bodies such as the WTO, we cannot ignore the concerns of developing
    countries, which make up the majority of WTO members.
        We also will continue to work with the countries that would like to
    join the WTO. While membership in the WTO is a high priority, we will
    continue to insist that these accessions be made on commercially viable
    terms that provide trade and investment opportunities for U.S.
    agriculture. This means that acceding countries will need to implement
    trade policies and regulations that are fully consistent with WTO rules
    and obligations.
        China is a perfect illustration of this strategy. Although we are
    pleased with the U.S.-China accession agreement, and with China's bid
    for WTO accession nearing completion, soon our work will shift toward
    implementation of the agreements. Chinese concessions will be important
    for improved access opportunities; but we must remain vigilant and work
    with Chinese officials to ensure market opening.
        With more than 1.2 billion people, or one-fifth of the world's
    population, China's accession to the WTO will give U.S. agriculture
    access to the world's second largest economy in terms of domestic
    purchasing power. This could result in at least $2 billion in
    additional U.S. agricultural exports by 2005.
        China's WTO accession will strengthen the global trading system,
    slash barriers to U.S. agriculture, give U.S. farmers and
    agribusinesses stronger protection against unfair trade practices and
    import surges, and create a more level and consistent playing field in
    this market.
        In order to realize these gains, we will be vigilant to ensure that
    China lives up to its WTO commitments, effectively administers tariff-
    rate quotas, eliminates discriminatory licensing, and fully implements
    the Agricultural Cooperation Agreement reducing phytosanitary barriers
    for citrus, wheat, and meat.
        Another important area of work for FAS is the negotiation to
    establish the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). The FTAA is
    intended to be a comprehensive free trade agreement between the 34
    democracies in the Western Hemisphere. Negotiations began in 1998 and
    are expected to conclude by 2005. By concluding the FTAA, the United
    States will gain liberalized access to a region of 675 million people
    with a combined consumer buying power of $1.5 trillion.
        For several years now, the other countries in this hemisphere have
    been removing trade barriers to each other's trade. There are currently
    more than 30 reciprocal trade agreements in the hemisphere. The United
    States is a participant in only one, the North American Free Trade
    Agreement (NAFTA). USDA's analysis shows that if the United States
    remains outside of this process, our agricultural exports to the region
    will be displaced by other hemispheric suppliers at a cost of about
    $200 million a year. On the other hand, U.S. participation in these
    agreements could mean an increase in agricultural exports of around
    $750 million annually. However, this negotiation will be particularly
    challenging since the Latin American countries are also major
    agricultural exporters.
        We also are actively participating in the Asia Pacific Economic
    Cooperation (APEC) forum. Asia represents an important market for U.S.
    agriculture; and we are working with other APEC members to promote
    economic policies in the region to moderate economic shocks like the
    Asian economic crisis of 1997-98. We expect APEC to serve as the
    launching point for promoting continued trade liberalization within the
    region and in the WTO and we will be working through the APEC food
    system to realize this goal.
        Another priority is how we deal with the issues surrounding
    products produced through biotechnology. There is a lot to say about
    what is happening in the biotechnology field and how it is affecting
    trade. I could go on at length to describe our efforts at USDA to try
    to stay on top of the issue or to ensure that government actions on
    labeling and product approval in Japan, the European Union, Korea,
    Australia, New Zealand, and elsewhere, do not lead to irrational
    policies that reduce market access for U.S. commodities.
        But I believe that events of the past year have resulted in an
    environment for biotech products that is as unsettled as it has ever
    been during the short commercial life of this new technology. The
    demand by some users for non-biotech commodities only, the resulting
    calls for segregation by some handlers, and the indications that
    premiums and discounts may be appearing for non-biotech vs. biotech
    commodities are bound to have an effect on farmers' decisions regarding
    what to plant next year.
        This issue is likely to be a dominant one for U.S. agriculture in
    the immediate years ahead, whether in the WTO or in our bilateral
    relationships with customer and competitor nations alike. That is why
    we have said that when it comes to biotechnology and the next trade
    round, our focus will be in making sure that biotech approval regimes,
    wherever they exist, are transparent, timely, predictable, and science-
    based.
        We also will be working to improve the way we carry out our market
    development programs. FAS is currently in the process of refining its
    global marketing strategy that will target those markets that offer the
    most growth opportunity. To capture the opportunities and address the
    challenges that lie ahead, FAS needs to build on the considerable
    progress it has made in the past three and a half years in implementing
    strategic planning at all levels of the Agency.
        We must protect our hard-won gains in mature markets of Western
    Europe and Japan, and at the same time, set aggressive but achievable
    growth targets in those markets that offer the most potential. This
    will require a thorough evaluation of the U.S. opportunities and
    challenges in those markets, and close coordination with our private
    industry partners to turn the opportunities to our advantage and the
    challenges into opportunities. In the next 10 years, the growth markets
    are likely to be the developing countries in Asia (especially China and
    South East Asia, and possibly India) and Latin America. Gaining market
    share in these high-growth markets is the most effective way to
    increase market share globally.
        Our global marketing strategy is also instrumental in our ongoing
    review of our overseas office locations and staffing. We must continue
    to strengthen our staffing in FAS overseas offices to ensure that we
    are positioned to take advantage of the market opportunities created by
    our market access initiatives as well as new opportunities offered by
    emerging growth markets.
        Alleviating hunger and malnutrition in the world also presents a
    significant challenge. One means to ensure this issue is addressed
    appropriately is to identify within the global marketing strategy the
    food security challenges that currently exist and are likely to emerge
    over the next decade. We will continue to use our food aid programs to
    help developing countries that lack the financial means to meet their
    food needs.
    Budget Request
        After three consecutive years of essentially straight-lined
    budgets, we appreciate the increases provided in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation for FAS. The net increase of just under $6.0 million
    allows FAS to fund fiscal year 2001 pay cost increases fully and
    partially cover higher overseas operating costs. Additionally, FAS is
    able to add 15 staff years for food aid and monetization activities, as
    well as increase our overseas staff in Ukraine and the Balkans.
        We believe the future offers continued opportunity for the
    expansion of U.S. agricultural exports. Strengthening our ability to
    compete globally has the direct payoff of increased farm income for
    America's farmers and ranchers and the continued economic development
    of rural communities. Our fiscal year 2002 request builds on the
    foundation provided by this Committee in fiscal year 2001.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a funding level
    of $125.8 million for FAS. This represents an increase of $6.4 million
    and supports several important agency initiatives.
        First, in order to strengthen the agency's market intelligence
    capabilities at our overseas posts, $2.7 million is requested to place
    3 new American officers and 27 new foreign service nationals on
    Personal Services Agreements (PSAs) in 14 overseas locations where
    workload demands have become acute. Over the past several years, FAS
    overseas offices have experienced dramatic increases in workload,
    particularly that associated with complex trade policy, sanitary and
    phytosanitary, and food security issues. Meeting these priority
    workload demands, in addition to regular commodity reporting,
    marketing, and representation functions, has overwhelmed the capacity
    of many of our offices in important geographic areas.
        As an example, under the bilateral agreement reached with China
    relating to its accession to the WTO, U.S. agriculture should have
    increased access for a range of products with lowered tariffs, as I
    mentioned earlier. However, existing staff is overwhelmed with requests
    for commodity and market intelligence, intervention on sanitary and
    phytosanitary (SPS) issues, and official and commercial visitors. FAS
    has assigned an officer to monitor the agreement, but has no marketing
    officer ready to identify potential opportunities and work with the
    private sector to take advantage of them. Currently, FAS simply lacks
    the staff resources needed to handle these opportunities--a situation
    repeated in numerous locations around the world.
        The PSAs would assume a greater portion of core office
    responsibilities, thus allowing FAS Agricultural Counselors and
    Attaches more flexibility to focus on the government policies and
    issues that can affect the competitiveness of U.S. exports,
    particularly competitor activities within that market, host country
    compliance with existing trade rules, and the formation of cooperative
    links for the upcoming WTO trade round. Increased resources will be
    directed to China, Philippines, Canada, Colombia, Thailand, Israel,
    Turkey, El Salvador, Korea, Brazil, Russia, Argentina, Nigeria and
    India.
        Second, the budget requests $750,000 and 10 additional staff years
    to improve FAS' ability to address and resolve technical trade issues.
    Technical trade issues, such as the commercialization of food products
    produced using biotechnology, have become the fastest growing and most
    sensitive trade issues in U.S. agriculture today and is one of the
    Agency's key priorities that I mentioned earlier. In addition to
    biotechnology, U.S. agriculture and our exporters are facing other
    critical challenges related to technical issues associated with food
    safety, changing production methods to address environmental concerns,
    the growing global concern over Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE)
    or mad cow disease, and the expansion of foot and mouth disease. In all
    cases, FAS is responsible for ensuring regulatory actions taken by our
    trading partners do not impede our exports and comply with the WTO SPS
    disciplines. However, existing staff levels only allow FAS to react, on
    a piecemeal basis, to immediate issues such as StarLink and the BSE
    outbreak in the European Union.
        The additional 10 staff years requested will allow FAS to develop a
    cohesive strategy for addressing technical market access issues in
    current major markets and facilitating our entry into newer growth
    markets. Among other things, staff will be dedicated to developing a
    strategy for building a coalition of countries important to
    negotiations and discussions in international organizations. This
    represents an opportunity to avoid future market access issues by
    establishing relationships with appropriate government departments and
    officials. Developing a core group of countries with similar approaches
    to food safety and biotechnology will be crucial to the United States
    meeting its goals in international fora.
        Finally, the budget includes $2.9 million to fund projected pay
    cost increases in fiscal year 2002. Budget constraints forced FAS to
    absorb pay costs in three of the past four fiscal years. Absorption of
    these costs in fiscal year 2002 would constrain programs.
    Export Programs
        Mr. Chairman, the export promotion, food assistance and foreign
    market development programs administered by FAS are key to expanding
    global market opportunities for U.S. agricultural producers. Our
    program proposals provide the tools to meet these new sales
    opportunities.
        Export Credit Guarantee Programs.--The budget includes a projected
    overall program level of $3.9 billion for export credit guarantees in
    fiscal year 2002. As in previous years, the budget estimates reflect
    actual levels of sales expected to be registered under the programs
    rather than authorized program levels. Of the total program level, $3.4
    billion will be made available under the GSM-102 program and $100
    million will be made available under the GSM-103 program. For supplier
    credit guarantees, the budget includes an estimated program level of
    $330 million and an estimated program level of $95 million for facility
    financing guarantees.
        Foreign Market Development.--The fiscal year 2002 budget includes
    Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funding of $27.5 million for the
    Foreign Market Development (Cooperator) Program, unchanged from last
    year. The CCC estimates also include $2.5 million in funding from CCC
    for the Quality Samples Program. Under this program, samples of U.S.
    agricultural products are provided to foreign importers in order to
    overcome trade and marketing barriers by promoting a better
    understanding and appreciation of the high quality characteristics of
    U.S. agricultural products. The Quality Samples Program is carried out
    through commodity organizations and agricultural trade associations.
        Market Access Program (MAP).--The CCC estimates provide funding for
    MAP in fiscal year 2002 at the maximum authorized level of $90 million,
    unchanged from fiscal year 2001.
        Public Law 480.--For fiscal year 2002, the budget includes a total
    program level for all titles of Public Law 480 food assistance of $995
    million, which is expected to provide approximately 2.7 million metric
    tons of commodity assistance. In the case of Public Law 480 Title I
    credit sales, appropriated funding has been continued at the fiscal
    year 2001 level. However, the Title I credit level is reduced due to
    higher estimated subsidy costs for the program which result from
    changes in county allocations and financial terms.
        Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--World supply and demand
    conditions have limited EEP programming in recent years. However, the
    fiscal year 2002 budget does include a program level of $478 million
    for the EEP, the maximum level authorized by the Agricultural Trade Act
    of 1978, and the awarding of EEP bonuses can be resumed whenever market
    conditions warrant.
        Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).--The budget assumes a DEIP
    program level of $42 million for fiscal year 2002, slightly above the
    fiscal year 2001 estimate of $34 million. These levels are reduced from
    those of recent years for a number of reasons. Foremost among these
    reasons is the fact that the average subsidy rate for nonfat dry milk,
    the largest category of dairy products exported under DEIP, has
    declined from $1,040 per metric ton in fiscal year 1999 to a rate of
    $121 per metric ton during the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001. This
    development reflects higher world prices for nonfat dry milk and
    greater competitiveness for U.S. product in world markets.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer
    any questions.

        Senator Cochran. Mr. Collins, we would be pleased to hear
    from you now.

                           STATEMENT OF KEITH COLLINS

        Mr. Collins. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Kohl,
    and Mr. Johnson. Thanks for the invitation to join you today in
    your review of farm and trade programs.
        I, too, would say I am delighted to be here to join with
    Mr. Shipman, who as you know, has brought high energy, a quick
    wit and most importantly, I think, a good nature to the USDA.
    And so we are pleased to have him.
        You asked me to briefly describe the state of the overall
    farm economy and I am going to do that by first discussing a
    few positive developments and then as economists should do,
    offering a few concerns.
        Despite the downturn in farm markets since 1997, there are
    some encouraging signs in the farm economy, and Mr. Shipman
    just ended on one of them, and that is U.S. agricultural
    exports, which two years ago were $49 billion, last year $51
    billion and this year we expect $53 billion, with much of this
    year's gain in high value and value-added products, such as
    meats and horticultural products.
        I would point out: Our expected exports to Canada and
    Mexico this year. We are forecasting them to reach $15.2
    billion. If you go back to 1996, when we had our all-time
    record high level of farm exports of $60 billion, our exports
    to our NAFTA partners in that year were only $11 billion. So we
    are gaining materially here in the western hemisphere.
        A second encouraging sign is that some of the global crop
    markets are beginning to move toward better supply and demand
    balance.
        And I will give you an example; look at total world grain
    stocks at the end of this marketing year. We are expecting them
    to be 240 million tons. If you go back to 1998 marketing year,
    they ended at 280 million tons
        So the current level of stocks is not excessive by
    historical standards and it does suggest if there were to be
    some material disruption in production around the world, we
    could have a sharp boost in grain prices.
        A third encouraging sign is that U.S. producers appear to
    be reducing plantings of major crops in response to a little
    bit lower net market returns.
        Last year, in fact, planted acreage to the principal crops
    rose. This year producers have indicated plans to reduce crops
    such as corn by four percent and in total area in principal
    crops by about 3.5 million acres or 1.5 percent.
        A fourth encouraging sign is that livestock prices and
    returns for the most part are up. In fact, we just reported
    that cash receipts for livestock and poultry for the year 2000
    were a record high.
        We saw record high beef production in the year 2000, and at
    the same time we saw fed cattle prices average $70 per hundred
    weight, which would be an unusually propitious experience for
    our nation's cattle ranchers.
        Hog receipts were also up 37 percent in the year 2000. And
    despite being very weak last year, we think that this year milk
    prices will average the fourth highest level ever.
        A fifth encouraging sign has been a strong rural economy,
    providing off-farm job opportunities for farmers and ranchers.
    Today, four out of five farm households have one or more
    spouses earning income off the farm.
        This and the strength of the national economy have boosted
    farm household incomes and made many farm households less
    vulnerable to downturns in the farm economy.
        Well, despite these encouraging signs, a strong rebound in
    market returns for major crops is probably not likely without a
    significant weather disruption around the world or an
    unexpected surge in demand this year. And that is because there
    are a few not so encouraging signs in the farm economy.
        One of those on the export front is simply the overall
    global economy, which is now growing at a much slower rate than
    most analysts expected at the start of this year.
        A second problem we have is the exchange value of the
    dollar, which remains very high relative to the mid-1990s. And
    that, of course, prevents people who import our products from
    seeing the full discount that they would otherwise see in our
    prices.
        And it also insulates our competitors from declines in farm
    prices as well. And I will give you as an example soybeans,
    where we see right now a 25-year low in the soybean price, and
    yet soybean production in Brazil and Argentina has increased 20
    percent over the past 2 years.
        Another discomforting factor is the price of energy-based
    farm production inputs. Last year, high gasoline and diesel
    prices raised farm production expenses for energy-based inputs
    by $2.9 billion.
        And I think this year we are going to see a similar
    increase of that magnitude, something on the order of a $5
    billion to $6 billion increase over a 2-year period in energy-
    based production expenses.
        Another factor of concern is the dependence of farm income
    on government payments. Last calendar year, farmers received a
    record high $22 billion.
        This year we expect that to fall to $14 billion, with part
    of that decline due to the ongoing provisions of the 1996 Farm
    Bill, but most of that decline due to reduced supplemental
    assistance payments.
        Although market revenue is expected to be up this year,
    lower government payments--of course, I am assuming that in the
    absence of any legislation at this point--lower government
    payments and higher production costs would reduce U.S. net cash
    farm income by some ten percent.
        And, of course, that projected decline is what has put
    Congress in the position of providing supplemental assistance
    again in 2001.
        I would like to end by just profiling a couple of key
    developments to look for in commodity markets this year. For
    wheat, we have the lowest acreage in 28 years. We also have a
    poor condition in the winter wheat crop. That suggests to me
    that wheat stocks could be drawn down fairly substantially this
    year and we could see stronger prices in 2001 and 2002.
        We also are seeing some shift out of corn this year. And I
    think that combined with very strong feed and industrial use,
    particularly 18 consecutive months of record high ethanol
    production in the United States, will pull corn stocks down in
    the 2001 season and improve corn prices as well.
        However, the record large soybean crop that is in prospect
    for this year--large southern hemisphere crops, as well, could
    push soybean prices even lower.
        Cotton prospective planted area this year is the second
    highest planted area since 1962. And I think that, together
    with the fact that China looks like it is going to be producing
    more cotton has put cotton right now at 25-year lows in price.
    And I think those prices are going to remain under some
    pressure.
        I think the same is true for rice. We have a fairly tight
    market for long-grain rice. However the world has abundant rice
    supplies so that is going to keep pressure on that market.
        For horticultural products, the record is mixed. We have
    several crops like potatoes, cranberries and apples that are
    facing market weakness due to large supplies, but we also
    expect horticultural exports to be record high this year. And
    that is going to benefit some of those commodities.
        As I mentioned earlier, we are seeing stronger markets for
    meats and milk. Animal disease problems in Europe are having a
    small positive effect on our protein feed exports to replace
    meat and bonemeal and, I think, may strengthen slightly our
    exports of pork and poultry as some foreign buyers shift away
    from E.U. beef.
        On balance, Mr. Chairman, there are some hopeful signs and
    U.S. agriculture, including an improving supply/demand balance,
    higher farm prices for some of our major commodities in
    prospect.

                               Prepared Statement

        U.S. farm households have also shown resiliency in
    maintaining their financial position and standard of living
    over the last couple of years. Nevertheless, net income from
    crop markets continues to be the key weak spot in the farm
    economy.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Collins.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of Keith Collins

        Mr. Chairman, thanks for the invitation to discuss the current
    situation and outlook for U.S. agriculture. While the overall farm
    situation of the past couple years of generally weak markets continues,
    there are some signs of improvement. Global demand is slowly getting
    better, livestock prices and returns are for the most part up, global
    grain stocks are not excessive when compared with use, and reduced U.S.
    plantings could lead to lower grain stocks and higher prices in 2001.
    Nevertheless, a strong increase in farm prices and income from the
    marketplace for major crops appears unlikely, unless adverse weather
    leads to a shortfall in global crop production. In addition, increases
    in prices for energy-related farm inputs continue to push up farm
    production expenses, and adverse weather is reducing crop production
    prospects and delaying spring planting in some areas.
    General Overview
        The U.S. economy has benefitted from income growth, low
    unemployment, surging productivity, low inflation, and low interest
    rates the past several years. While these economic trends have also
    helped farmers and ranchers, other economic factors, such as foreign
    competition, a strong dollar, and economic recession in foreign
    countries reduced U.S. agricultural exports and prices received by
    farmers.
        Our most recent monthly data for April 2001 shows some price
    improvement. The index of prices received by producers for all crops
    was up 4 percent from a year ago and the index of prices received for
    livestock and livestock products was up 11 percent. While farm prices
    are generally up, they are recovering from unusually low levels. For
    the 1999/00 marketing year, the average price of soybeans was the
    lowest since 1972/73, the prices of corn and wheat the lowest since
    1986/87, the price of rice the lowest since 1992/93, and the price of
    cotton the lowest since 1974/75. Cattle and hog prices were also
    relatively weak in 1999 but were up 6 and 31 percent, respectively, in
    2000. Milk prices were relatively strong in 1999 but fell to a 9-year
    low in 2000.
        Many producers, during the last several years, also have been
    adversely affected by weather-related problems and, more recently,
    increases in prices for energy-related inputs. Soil moisture levels
    remain very low in parts of the Southeast, Florida, west Texas, and the
    Northwest. Sierra snow pack levels, which provide water to California's
    reservoirs for electricity generation and farmland irrigation, were
    below normal this past winter. Cool and wet weather is delaying spring
    fieldwork in parts of the Midwest, and below normal rainfall in the
    Southern Plains last fall has adversely affected winter wheat stands
    and increased abandonment.
        Congress responded to the problems caused by low commodity prices
    and adverse weather by authorizing nearly $25 billion in supplemental
    assistance the past three years, greatly limiting the farm financial
    stress that farmers and ranchers would otherwise have faced. These
    supplemental payments, plus payments authorized under the 1996 Farm
    Bill, pushed government payments to a record-high $22 billion in
    calendar year 2000 and Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC ) outlays to a
    record $32 billion in fiscal year 2000. If Congress had not provided
    nearly $9 billion in supplemental assistance, net cash income would
    have likely fallen to $47.5 billion in 2000, the lowest level since the
    farm financial crisis of the mid-1980s. Instead, net cash income
    reached $56.4 billion in 2000, nearly $2 billion above the average of
    the 1990s.
    Outlook for U.S. Agricultural Exports
        In the mid-1990s, the value of U.S. agricultural exports rose
    sharply peaking at a record $60 billion in fiscal year 1996, as world
    gross domestic product (GDP) grew at an annual rate of 3 percent and
    global grain and oilseed production fell about 4 percent. Over the next
    3 years, the value of U.S. agricultural exports fell by nearly $11
    billion, as good weather and strong prices led to an abrupt turnaround
    in world crop production and world economic growth, excluding the
    United States, dropped to 1.3 percent. In fiscal year 2001, the value
    of U.S. agricultural exports is forecast to reach $53 billion, up from
    last year's $50.9 billion.
        The outlook for agricultural exports generally appears more
    positive than in recent years. While world GDP, excluding the United
    States, is expected to slow from last year's high rate of nearly 4
    percent, it is expected to continue to remain firm at over 2.5 percent
    in 2001 and above 3 percent in 2002. Several Asian, Latin American, and
    Middle Eastern countries that were in recession in 1998 and 1999 are
    now registering steady growth.
        Another key factor for U.S. agricultural exports is the U.S.
    exchange rate. Between April 1995 and January 2001, the U.S. real
    agricultural trade-weighted exchange rate appreciated by 25 percent
    relative to the currencies of countries that import U.S. agricultural
    products, thus increasing the price importers must pay in terms of
    their own currency. And over this period, the U.S. dollar appreciated
    nearly 40 percent relative to the currencies of U.S. agricultural
    competitors, which helped insulate their producers from lower world
    prices. Declining interest rates and a slowing economy should weaken
    the dollar somewhat in 2001, making U.S. agricultural products modestly
    more attractive to foreign buyers.
    Outlook for Farm Income
        In 2001, farm cash receipts are forecast to reach $200 billion, up
    $4 billion from last year and $16 billion from the average of the
    1990s, although $8 billion below the record set in 1997. Compared to
    1997, crop receipts are projected to be down $11 billion in 2001, while
    livestock receipts are forecast to be up about $3 billion. These
    figures mask steep declines in cash receipts and income for major field
    crops. Cash receipts for grains, soybeans, and cotton declined from a
    record $57 billion in 1997 to $43 billion in 2000 but are projected to
    increase slightly to $45 billion in 2001.
        Despite improving cash receipts, USDA currently forecasts a decline
    in net cash farm income in 2001 to under $51 billion, down from $56.4
    billion last year, as production expenses continue to rise and
    government payments decline. This decline assumes no supplemental
    assistance for the 2001 crops. Increases in petroleum prices and prices
    for other production inputs increased farmers' production expenses by 4
    percent or $7.6 billion in 2000, with higher fuel and oil prices
    accounting for about one-third of the increase. In 2001, farmers' total
    cash production expenses are forecast to increase $1.5 billion to a
    record $179.5 billion. Higher petroleum and natural gas prices have
    increased the prices of diesel fuel and nitrogen fertilizer, and
    repair, marketing, and labor costs are also expected to increase in
    2001.
        Government payments have offset much of the decline in major crop
    cash receipts since 1998, helping to maintain producers' cash flow.
    Direct government payments to farmers reached a record $22 billion last
    year, up from $8 billion in 1997. In 2000, direct government payments
    included nearly $5 billion in Production Flexibility Contract (PFC)
    payments, $6.4 billion in loan deficiency payments, $2 billion in
    conservation program payments, and nearly $9 billion in supplemental
    (crop and market loss) assistance.
        In calendar 2001, government payments are projected to decline
    about $8 billion to slightly over $14 billion. With no supplemental aid
    legislation in place for the 2001 crops, supplemental assistance to
    farmers and ranchers is forecast to fall from nearly $9 billion last
    year to about $3.5 billion in 2001. The supplemental assistance that is
    expected to be paid out in 2001 was authorized by Congress last year to
    cover crop and market losses producers incurred in 2000. Scheduled
    annual reductions in PFC payments under the 1996 Farm Bill and lower
    loan deficiency payments, reflecting improving prices for major crops,
    are forecast to reduce government payments by $2.5-$3.0 billion in
    2001.
        Net cash farm income on a crop year basis for the major field
    crops--wheat, rice, corn, sorghum, oats, barley, cotton and soybeans--
    excluding government payments was quite low for the 1999-2000 crops and
    is projected to remain low in 2001. Net cash farm income for major
    field crops averaged $43.4 during 1999-2000 and is projected to rise to
    $46 billion for crop year 2001, compared with the average of $51
    billion during the 1990s and $54.5 billion for the 1995-99 crops.
    Direct government payments were equal to three-fourths of net cash
    income for major field crops in 1999 and more than two-thirds of net
    cash income in 2000. In 2001, net cash income for major field crops is
    projected to fall by more than $6 billion. The projected decline in
    income in 2001 is about equivalent to the amount of market loss
    assistance Congress authorized last year for major field crops.
    Outlook for Farm Finance
        Farm financial conditions remain stable, aided by record government
    payments and greater off-farm income. The debt-to-asset ratio remains
    stable at about 16 percent, down from 23 percent during the farm
    financial crises of the mid-1980s, and farm real estate values and land
    rental rates generally continue to rise. All major farm lender
    institutions continue to experience historically low levels of loan
    delinquencies, foreclosures, net loan charges, and loan restructuring.
    At the end of 1999, nearly 60 percent of all farms reported they had no
    outstanding debt.
        Farm debt rose 2.4 percent in 2000, surpassing $180 billion for the
    first time since 1984. In 2001, farm debt is forecast to increase to
    slightly under $183 billion. As a percent of the value of farm assets,
    farm debt is expected to remain unchanged from last year's 16.1
    percent. Even though farmers' balance sheets are much improved from the
    mid-1980s, the forecast drop in farm income in 2001 would reduce
    somewhat farmers' ability to repay existing debt. In 2001, farmers are
    forecast to use, on average, 65 percent of their maximum feasible
    debt--which is termed debt repayment capacity utilization (DRCU) and is
    calculated based on income and interest rates. This use of feasible
    debt would be up from 60 percent in 1999 and 2000.
        USDA research suggests that commercial farms that cannot service
    their debt and stop performing on their loans usually have debt equal
    to 240 percent or more of their maximum feasible debt. In both 1999 and
    2000, about 50,000 of the nation's 512,000 commercial farms had debt of
    240 percent or more of maximum feasible debt. In 2001, the number of
    commercial farming operations with debt of 240 percent or more is
    forecast to increase to 70,000.
        In addition to record government payments, improved off-farm income
    opportunities for farm households have helped avoid more serious farm
    financial problems. Off-farm earnings are a significant source of
    income for farm households and help insulate them from financial
    difficulty when the farm economy weakens. Eighty percent of all farmers
    or their spouse are employed off the farm. In recent years, about 90
    percent of the total income of the average farm household is derived
    from off-farm sources. Earnings of farm operator households from off-
    farm sources averaged an estimated $60,000 in 2000, up from less than
    $36,000 in 1992. Combining income from farm and off-farm sources, farm
    operators averaged over $64,000 in total household income in 1999,
    about 17 percent higher than the average income of all U.S. households.
        While nationally farm financial conditions appear secure, regional
    and sector problems persist. The combination of low prices and adverse
    weather in the Southeast, southern plains and elsewhere has contributed
    to regional pockets of farm financial stress. In addition, production
    agriculture consists of a diverse group of farms and ranches with
    varying degrees of financial success, which a single aggregate
    performance indicator such as net farm income cannot capture.
    Farm Financial Characteristics by Farm Type
        Net cash income and net farm income are single dimension indicators
    that can be used to track sector performance over time. Aggregate
    performance measures, however, mask the wide distribution of earnings
    in the farm sector, discount off-farm income and wealth, and do not
    reveal debt service problems or signal the occurrence of farm failures.
    The farm typology, recently developed by the Economic Research Service,
    provides a useful framework for examining the wide array of farm and
    farm household financial circumstances exhibited by the sector today.
        When crop prices are low and aggregate farm income falls, the
    common expectation is that farm household income will also decline
    leading to a lower standard of living for farm families. However, for
    the majority of farm households (62 percent), the farm business
    operator's primary occupation is something other than farming. Indeed,
    the financial well-being of most farm families is much more dependent
    on general economic conditions and the local economy and than on
    commodity prices.
        That said, the condition of the farm economy matters most to the
    800,000 farm households in which the primary occupation of the operator
    is farming. Farm households in which the primary occupation of the
    operator was farming had an average household income of $55,000 in
    1999, compared with $70,000 for farm households in which the primary
    occupation of the operator was something other than farming. Nearly one
    in three farm-dependent households had consumption expenditures that
    exceeded household income. These households had to withdraw from
    savings, or borrow or liquidate assets in order to accommodate income
    short falls.
        A common perception is that low returns from farming lead to a low
    rate of wealth creation for farm households. On average, farm
    households are wealthier than their non-farm counterparts and have seen
    their wealth increase at a faster rate during the 1990s than non-farm
    households. Much of this wealth advantage is associated with the
    ownership of farmland. Agricultural land values have steadily increased
    in the last decade and these gains are in part attributable to
    government payments.
        According to data collected through USDA's Agricultural Resource
    Management Study (ARMS), slightly over 40 percent of all farm operators
    received farm program payments in 1999. Recipients of farm program
    payments tend to be concentrated in the largest farm typology classes,
    since payments are principally based on current or historical plantings
    of program crops. About 80 percent of full-time family farms with sales
    between $100,000-$500,000 (farming occupation/higher sales and large
    family farms) received farm program payments. These two groups,
    consisting of 12 percent of all farms, received 46 percent of total
    government payments to farm operators in 1999 and, on average, farm
    program payments made up 14 percent of gross cash income on these
    farms. Family farms with sales of $500,000 or more, 3 percent of all
    farms, received 22 percent of total farm program payments and, on
    average, each farm received just over $85,000 in government payments.
    Farm program payments accounted for about 6 percent of gross cash
    income on these very large farms. Limited-resource family farms (small
    farms with less than $100,000 in gross sales, farm assets less than
    $150,000 and total operator household income less than $20,000), 6
    percent of all farms, received $4,000 in government payments, on
    average, but these payments accounted for over 25 percent of average
    gross cash income on these farms. About 1 percent of farm program
    payments went to limited-resource family farms in 1999. Larger farms
    received more of their government payments from PFC payments and loan
    deficiency programs, while smaller farms received more of their
    payments from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
        Slightly over 40 percent of all farms reported having outstanding
    farm debt at the end of 1999, indicating that debt is not a source of
    capital for the majority of farms. Farm loan delinquency rates (percent
    of loans with payment past due 30 days or more) peaked in 1987 at 11
    percent of total loan volume and declined throughout most of the 1990s,
    remaining around 3 percent for the last several years. Comparison of
    actual debt levels with the maximum amount of debt that can be serviced
    by household income suggests that 17 percent of farm households
    experienced debt repayment problems in 1999. Repayment problems varied
    ranging from 10 percent for retirement farm households, which borrowed
    primarily for non-farm purposes, to nearly one in four for large family
    farms.
        The American Bankers Association (ABA) conducts a survey of
    agricultural banks to track the number of farms going out of business
    each year. The majority of farm sales are normal attrition and
    voluntary liquidations (80 percent). Farm bankruptcy filings peaked at
    4.2 percent in 1986 and ranged between 1 and 2 percent for most of the
    1990s.
    Outlook for Major Crop and Livestock Commodities
        Major crop prices for the 2000/01 season are generally expected to
    register modest improvement from last year, reflecting another year of
    large global production of major crops and ample stocks. While it is
    too early to predict a substantial recovery in major crop prices in
    2001, global stock levels going into the 2001 season are projected to
    be down from a year earlier. At the end of this season, global grain
    stocks are projected to be down 11 percent from a year ago and the
    lowest since 1996/97. As a result, world grain prices could move up
    sharply if weather adversely affects global crop production over the
    next several months.
        In 2000, U.S. producers planted the lowest wheat acreage since
    1973. Wheat prices this marketing year are forecast to average $2.60-
    $2.70 per bushel, up from last season's $2.48. The increase in prices
    reflects lower total supplies, increasing total use, and declining
    world and U.S. carryover stocks. Total use is forecast to increase by
    44 million bushels over last year's nearly 2.4 billion bushels, as food
    use, feed use, and exports are all expected to register modest gains.
    Wheat exports are projected to reach 1.1 billion bushels, the highest
    since the 1995/96 season. A major factor supporting higher exports was
    weather, as weather reduced the size of Australia's crop and the
    quality of EU's crop in 2000. Ending stocks are forecast to fall for
    the second consecutive year, from 950 million bushels at the end of
    last season to 829 million bushels at the end of this marketing year.
        Lower wheat supplies in 2001/02 could lead to another year of
    reduced carryover and improved farm prices. Growers have indicated
    intentions to plant 60.3 million acres to wheat in 2001, down 4 percent
    from 2000. Some of the winter wheat was seeded late because it was
    initially very dry followed by very wet weather. As a result, much of
    this wheat did not emerge until spring, and the wheat that did emerge
    last fall was in poor shape going into the winter. Over one-third of
    the winter wheat crop in Kansas and Oklahoma currently is rated in very
    poor or poor condition. Some producers are leaving the land fallow or
    tearing the wheat up and planting row crops. Others are grazing cattle
    on their winter wheat acreage or planning to cut the wheat for hay.
    Also, spring wheat plantings have been stalled in some parts of the
    Northern Plains because of flooding and wet conditions. While weather
    conditions in coming weeks will be very important, the poor condition
    of winter wheat in parts of the Southern Plains and sparse rains in the
    Pacific Northwest is likely to lead to lower wheat yields in 2001.
        The 2000/01 corn crop of 9.97 billion bushels was the second
    highest on record, as plantings expanded by 2 million acres and growing
    conditions were generally quite favorable for much of the Midwest. The
    bigger crop and large beginning stocks resulted in the largest supplies
    of corn since 1987/88. With total supplies up sharply from one year
    ago, ending stocks are forecast to increase by over 230 million bushels
    from last season's 1.72 billion bushels to the highest level since
    1992/93. Total corn use this season is projected to reach a record 9.75
    billion bushels, compared with last season's 9.52 billion bushels,
    primarily reflecting expanding domestic use. Both feed use and food,
    seed and industrial use are expected to reach record levels. Corn used
    for alcohol production is projected to total 615 million bushels, up 9
    percent from a year earlier and up 50 percent from a decade ago. Corn
    exports are expected to be about unchanged from last year, even though
    foreign corn production is down about 10 percent this season. Concerns
    about the potential presence of StarLink in U.S. corn likely
    contributed to Japan and South Korea purchasing more corn from
    Argentina and Brazil. The farm price of corn for the 2000/01 marketing
    year is forecast to average $1.80-$1.90 per bushel, compared with last
    year's $1.82 per bushel.
        Higher natural gas prices will increase corn producers' fertilizer
    and irrigation costs in 2001. These higher costs are expected to reduce
    corn plantings in 2001. In early March, corn growers indicated they
    intend to plant 76.7 million acres of corn in 2001, down 4 percent from
    2000 and down 1 percent from 1999. Below-normal temperatures, combined
    with excessive moisture, is delaying corn plantings in some areas, but
    corn planting progress overall is only marginally below the 5-year
    average. Depending on the weather over the next few weeks, corn
    plantings could advance rapidly with little loss in yield potential.
    Assuming normal weather, lower acreage, another year of good export
    opportunities supported by continued global economic growth, and
    expanding ethanol use would reduce ending stocks by several hundred
    million bushels, strengthening market prospects for corn in 2001/02.
        Soybean plantings and production were record-high in 2000. Soybean
    production reached nearly 2.8 billion bushels, up 4 percent from a year
    earlier, which more than offset lower carry-in stocks and caused total
    soybean supplies to increase about 2 percent in 2000/01. Most of the
    increase in supplies is expected to go into higher total use. Domestic
    crush is forecast to exceed the record set in 1998/99 by 1 percent and
    U.S. soybean exports could eclipse last year's record of 973 million
    bushels by 2 percent. Still, with ample supplies, soybean prices for
    2000/01 are projected to average $4.45-$4.55 per bushel, compared with
    last season's $4.63.
        Less fall planted wheat, higher fertilizer prices, planting
    flexibility, and the benefits of the soybean marketing loan program
    provide an incentive for producers to further expand soybean plantings
    in 2001. In early March, producers indicated they intend to plant a
    record 76.7 million acres to soybeans in 2001, up 3 percent from last
    year. Continued delays in corn plantings caused by excessive moisture
    and cool temperatures could lead to some additional acreage being
    planted to soybeans. Assuming normal weather, higher acreage could lead
    to another year of record soybean production and rising carryover,
    although total use could also reach another record in 2001/02. The EU's
    ban on the use of meat and bone meal in animal feeds could raise
    soybean meal exports, but foreign competition is likely to remain
    intense. Under the pressure of rising stocks, soybean prices could fall
    further during the 2001/02 marketing year.
        Cotton production rose 1 percent in 2000, even though drought
    caused significant yield losses in some areas of the country. Despite a
    slightly higher total supply, U.S. cotton mill use is projected to
    decline from last season's 10.2 million bales to 9.3 million bales, as
    textile imports continue to grow. Reflecting the sharp decline in
    domestic mill use and modestly higher exports, stocks of cotton at the
    end of the 2000/01 season are projected to reach 5 million bales, a 12-
    year high. From August 2000 through February 2001, the farm price of
    cotton averaged 54.6 cents per pound, compared with last year's season
    average price of 45 cents. However, prices have sunk recently as
    production in both China and the U.S. is likely to expand this year.
        Farmers intend to plant 15.6 million acres to cotton in 2001, up
    less than 1 percent from last year. This would be the largest cotton
    acreage since 1995 and the second largest since 1962. Assuming a return
    to more normal weather, total cotton supplies for the 2001/02 season
    could reach the highest level in 35 years. With a rebound in domestic
    mill use unlikely, U.S. cotton exports would need to reach a nearly
    unprecedented 10 million bales to prevent 2001/02 carryover from
    surpassing projected carryover for the 2000/01 season. Strong
    competition for export markets and large supplies are expected to
    continue to pressure U.S. cotton prices during the 2001/02 season.
        Rice production, in 2000, fell 7 percent from the record of 206
    million cwt. set in 1999, causing total supplies at the beginning of
    the crop year to decline 4 percent from the previous year. Total
    carryover stocks are projected to fall from last season's 27.5 million
    cwt. to 24.3 million cwt. at the end of this season, as the drop in
    total supplies is projected to be partially offset by lower total use.
    This season, the farm price of rice is forecast to average $5.65-$5.75
    per cwt., compared with last season's $5.93. Producers indicated in
    early March that they intend to increase rice plantings by 1 percent in
    2001.
        Large sugar production in 1999/00 resulted in large forfeitures of
    sugar to the CCC last year. In order to reduce government inventories
    of sugar and prevent additional forfeitures, USDA announced a Payment-
    in-Kind (PIK) Program for 2000-crop sugar under which beet producers
    could elect to divert a portion of their contracted acreage from
    production in exchange for in-kind payments in the form of CCC-owned
    sugar. Under the program, 102,000 acres of beet sugar were diverted
    from production in 2000 cutting sugar production by an estimated
    275,000 tons. On April 1, 2001, the CCC owned nearly 800,000 tons of
    sugar. For all of 2000/01, sugar production is down an estimated
    552,000 tons, which has reduced, but not eliminated, the prospect of
    additional forfeitures to the CCC in 2001. For the 2001/02 season,
    farmers indicated plans to reduce sugar beet planted acreage, mainly in
    California and the Plains States. Looking ahead, import commitments
    under existing international trade agreements (including Mexico), the
    potential for over quota or second tier imports from Mexico, continuing
    imports of sugar-containing products that are exempt from import
    restraint and trend growth in U.S. yields could continue to pressure
    sugar prices, leading to further CCC stock accumulation over the next
    several years, unless U.S. sugar production declines.
        In 2000, hog prices averaged $44.70 per cwt. for the year, up 31
    percent from a year earlier. Responding to low returns, producers began
    to reduce their breeding herds in late 1998 and continued to reduce
    them in 1999 and through much of 2000. Responding to improved returns,
    producers began increasing farrowings at the end of 2000. The increase
    in farrowings is expected to cause pork production to rise about 1
    percent in 2001. Hog prices are forecast to average $42-$44 per cwt. in
    2001, but rising hog and poultry production could push hog prices to
    the mid-$30 range during the fourth quarter.
        In 2001, liquidation of the nation's cattle herd is expected to
    finally lead to reduced beef production. In 2000, lower cattle and calf
    numbers did not translate into less beef production, as record
    slaughter weights and increased placements of cattle in feedlots, due
    to reduced forage supplies caused by dry weather, led to record beef
    production. The most severe winter since 1992/93 reduced fed beef
    production and increased cow slaughter during the first quarter of
    2001. Net placements of cattle on feed during March were 12 percent
    below 2000 and 14 percent below 1999 levels. During the last half of
    2001, reduced placements of cattle on feed are expected to lead to a 5-
    percent decline in beef production. For all of 2001, beef production is
    forecast to be down 4 percent, with choice steer prices averaging $74-
    $77 per cwt., compared with $69.65 in 2000 and $65.56 in 1999.
        Recent concerns over Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and
    outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in a number of countries are
    expected to have little impact on U.S. livestock markets. The United
    States has banned beef imports from the EU since 1996, so the recent
    outbreak of FMD in the United Kingdom, Ireland, France, and the
    Netherlands is not expected to directly affect U.S. beef imports. The
    United States exports grain-fed beef which is higher priced than EU
    grass-fed product, so these products do not compete in the same
    markets.
        The United States imports pork from a number of EU countries,
    primarily Denmark, and imports of fresh, chilled, and frozen pork
    products are now banned. However, the amount of EU pork imports covered
    by the ban represents just 0.6 percent of total U.S. pork consumption.
    Although a number of countries have bans in place on imports of EU
    pork, imports to South Korea, Taiwan, and Russia had been forecast to
    decline after EU subsidies were dramatically reduced in mid-2000. On
    April 25, Japan lifted its ban on imports of pork from Denmark, the
    major U.S. competitor. This allows Japanese importers to resume imports
    of Danish product instead of switching to pork from North America.
    Expansion of U.S. exports to Russia will be limited by Russia's recent
    announcement that it will allow red meat imports from most of the EU.
        Broiler prices are projected to average 57-60 cents per pound in
    2001, compared with 56.2 cents per pound in 1999. In response to low
    prices through most of 2000, producers have reduced the rate of
    expansion in broiler production. In 2000, broiler production rose 2.5
    percent which followed a 7-percent increase in 1999. In 2001, broiler
    production is forecast to increase by 1 percent. Broiler exports
    continue to show considerable strength. In 2001, broiler exports are
    forecast to reach 5.7 billion pounds, up 3 percent from last year and
    up 16 percent from two years ago.
        Increased milk production caused milk prices to collapse at the end
    of 1999, as producers responded to two consecutive years of strong
    returns. In 2000, the all-milk price averaged $12.40 per cwt., a 9-year
    low. In response to the collapse in milk prices, Congress authorized
    payments of $0.65 per cwt. to dairy producers on production of up to
    39,000 cwt. and extended the price support program for milk through the
    end of calendar year 2001. Extension of the price support program,
    rising milk production, and a desire to maintain dairy producers'
    incomes has led to the largest government purchases and inventories of
    nonfat dry milk since the mid-1980s. On April 1, 2001, the CCC held 772
    million pounds of nonfat dry milk in inventory.
        Cow numbers have begun to decline in response to last year's low
    milk prices and cold winter weather caused milk production per cow to
    fall in the first quarter. These factors are expected to cause milk
    production to decline in 2001, following increases of over 3 percent in
    both 1999 and 2000. Declining milk production and continued increases
    in demand for dairy products caused wholesale butter and cheese prices
    and farm-level milk prices to increase sharply in recent months. The
    all-milk price is forecast to average $13.85-$14.35 per cwt. in 2001,
    compared with the average of $13.57 per cwt. during the 1990s.
        The outlook for horticultural crops is very uneven. As a group,
    cash receipts for horticultural crops are projected to be up in 2001
    and the value of exports is forecast to reach a record $11.3 billion in
    fiscal year 2001. However, farm prices for some horticultural crops,
    including apples, cranberries, grapefruit, lemons, pears, and potatoes,
    are being adversely affected by large supplies. In addition, irrigation
    water constraints and higher electricity prices in the west are likely
    to cause some reduction in horticultural production, particularly for
    processing vegetables.
    Longer-term Outlook
        Over the next several years, the market situation for major crops
    is expected to gradually improve. Rising world demand and continued
    progress toward freer trade are projected to lead to steady increases
    in U.S. agricultural exports and farm prices and cash receipts for
    major crops. Increases in domestic food, feed, and industrial uses
    could also contribute to higher farm prices for major crops. Assuming
    no additional supplemental aid and continuation of current farm
    programs, farm income could fall below recent levels over the next few
    years, as gains in cash receipts fail to offset sharply lower
    government payments. Farm program spending carried out through the CCC
    is projected to decline to $20 billion in fiscal year 2001 and to $13
    billion in fiscal year 2002 before stabilizing at $8-$10 billion
    thereafter under continuation of current law. Beyond the next few
    years, the outlook for the farm sector improves as expanding exports
    further strengthen farm commodity prices and increases in farm income
    and farm asset values help to moderate farm financial stress.
        Mr. Chairman, that completes my testimony and I would be pleased to
    respond to questions.

        Senator Cochran. I appreciate very much the obvious hard
    work that has gone into the preparation of the statements for
    the subcommittee this morning by our witnesses.
        I have made some notes and have some questions to ask. But
    before I do that, I am going to yield to my good friend from
    Wisconsin, the Senator from Wisconsin, the Ranking Member of
    this subcommittee for any statement that he wishes to make, and
    any questions.
        Remembering that we do have a Senator from South Dakota,
    who got here before you did, I am going to recognize you
    anyway.
        Senator Kohl. Well, I do thank you.
        Senator Cochran. He will be patient.

                              Prepared Statements

        Senator Kohl. And I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
        I have a statement for the record and I will proceed to a
    few questions that I would like to ask.
        Senator Cochran. Your statement and those of any other
    members will be included in the record.
        [The statements follow:]

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl

        Thank you, Chairman Cochran. I would like to welcome our panel here
    this morning and I look forward to hearing from all of you on your
    views regarding the status of today's farm economy.
        I would also like to congratulate Mr. Hunt Shipman on his new
    position at the Department of Agriculture. Hunt, throughout your
    tenure, more than a decade with the distinguished Senator from
    Mississippi, Chairman Cochran, you have been an outstanding public
    servant for all of American agriculture. I want to thank you for all
    you have done for this Subcommittee and congratulate you on your new
    position.
        The facts are clear. Our agriculture sector is changing. America
    has come a long way from the days when a vast majority of our people
    lived, worked, and depended on the land for survival. New technology
    resulting in more efficiency means we are producing more with less.
    Today, roughly 2 million farmers and ranchers feed us and the world.
    However, low prices in most commodities continue to place economic
    stress on our farms and rural economies. We see more and more farmers
    finding jobs off the farm to make ends meet. We continue to face the
    problems of urban sprawl that threaten our arable land. And increased
    concentration and consolidation in the industry shrink producers'
    ability to receive a fair price for their product.
        We can and we must do better for our farmers. Congress has provided
    nearly $25 billion in supplemental assistance over the last three
    years. But that is not the only answer. Today, half of total farm
    income comes from the government--and let me tell you, no one in this
    room or out on the farm is proud of that fact. This morning I want to
    hear from you on how you think this Subcommittee should craft an
    appropriations bill that provides the right combination of funding for
    important programs that will equip our farmers and ranchers with the
    tools they need to protect their land, market their products, and make
    a living.
        The dairy industry has been particularly hit with depressed prices.
    This is devastating to my State of Wisconsin--America's Dairyland. In
    order to help keep farmers in business I have worked with Chairman
    Cochran and others to provide emergency supplemental assistance to
    dairy producers over the past three years. If this supplemental
    assistance is ever to be reduced, we need something different. We need
    a national and equitable program to treat all dairy farmers fairly.
    Regional Compacts are not the answer. I have worked with Senator
    Santorum from Pennsylvania on a bill that is an attractive alternative
    to regional cartels. That bill is S. 294, the National Dairy Farmer's
    Fairness Act. I look forward to the Administration's support of this
    legislation.
        The challenges that face today's agriculture sector are vast and
    far-reaching. Today, we need from you advice on where you think this
    Subcommittee needs to focus its work this year. I look forward to
    working with you and the Secretary on making sure we provide the
    necessary funding to meet the demands of our agriculture community.
        Again, thanks for testifying this morning and I look forward to
    hearing from each of you.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson

        Thank you Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl and members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to participate in today's subcommittee
    hearing on the state of the agricultural economy and steps to provide
    assistance to America's family farmers and ranchers during these tough
    economic times.
        I welcome Keith Collins, Chief Economist for the United States
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Hunt Shipman, Acting
    Undersecretary of USDA's Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services. I look
    forward to their insight on the agricultural economy and about what
    USDA is doing to provide support to producers.
        Mr. Chairman, simply put, America's agricultural economic engine is
    misfiring, it's just not hitting on all cylinders. Since agriculture
    comprises a significant share of the economy in South Dakota (one-
    fourth of the total economic output in my State, more than double that
    of any other industry in South Dakota) the poor agricultural economy is
    leaving South Dakota's overall economy vulnerable to weak conditions as
    well. Unfortunately, a host of factors are contributing to this
    weakened condition which began late in 1997 (early in 1998).
        First, our nation's family farmers and ranchers have experienced a
    price crisis of near-historical proportions. Nationally, soybean prices
    have collapsed to a 29-year low, and corn and wheat prices are hovering
    at a 15-year price low. In South Dakota, the prices farmers received
    for major cash crops (such as corn, soybeans, and wheat) just last
    month were substantially lower than when the current farm bill was
    enacted, and with the exception of wheat, prices are even lower today
    than they were just one year ago. (Due to a dry fall, volatile winter,
    and wet spring, acres of wheat will be lower across South Dakota and
    the country, and overall, winter wheat conditions are below average
    throughout South Dakota and other regions of the U.S., leading to
    higher futures prices and higher cash bids at local elevators today.)

                                                      [In bushels]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Change from
                                Crops                             April, 2001   1 Year Ago      1996         1996
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Corn........................................................         1.69         1.85         3.55        -1.86
    Soybeans....................................................         3.97         4.87         7.00        -3.03
    Wheat.......................................................         2.81         2.54         4.77        -1.96
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Tough economic conditions for farmers have been perpetuated by a
    series of weather-related disasters in certain regions of the country.
    Entire crops have been wiped out by flooding, drought, hail, and wind
    in many areas of South Dakota the last few years. Furthermore, surplus
    crop production--both here and abroad--weak global demand, marketplace
    concentration, and an inadequate farm safety have all contributed to
    the current farm crisis.
        So, just when farmers thought their condition could not get worse,
    the cost of energy-related inputs like fuel and fertilizer have
    skyrocketed. In addition, USDA economists predict repair, equipment,
    marketing, and labor expenses for farmers to increase in 2001. Given
    the input-intensive nature of production agriculture, a combination of
    increased production expenses and decreased prices situates farmers and
    ranchers in a price-cost squeeze that makes it nearly impossible for
    them to earn income that covers expenses.
        As a result of a woefully inadequate farm bill, Congress has
    enacted multi-billion dollar disaster programs in the last 3 years--a
    record $28 billion in fiscal year 2000. It should be noted direct
    government payments accounted for around three-fourths of net cash
    income for major field crops in 1999 and for about two-thirds in 2000.
    In many States, farmers are receiving more of their total net farm
    income from the government rather than from the marketplace. Was this
    the promise of the 1996 farm bill? I certainly hope not.
        Clearly, the 1996 farm bill fails to provide a meaningful,
    fiscally-responsible, safety-net for farmers when prices are poor on an
    annual and sustained basis. Already, we have worked to carve out nearly
    $9 billion in supplemental assistance for 2001 because many Senators
    joined my effort on the budget resolution to provide for this emergency
    reserve this year. (It is yet to be seen what the budget resolution
    conference committee will do with this Senate passed provision of $9
    billion in 2001 emergency aid.) This 2001 crop year assistance--if
    passed--will become the fourth consecutive emergency aid package for
    farmers and ranchers likely to compensate producers for low prices and
    potential production losses resulting from weather-related disasters.
    Obviously I will support this, but I would suggest farmers and
    taxpayers deserve better. That is why I offered an amendment to the
    Senate budget resolution to provide over $88 billion from fiscal years
    2002 through 2011 in order for Congress to write a new farm bill.
    Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated, but we did work to restore
    nearly $58 billion over the same period for a new farm bill re-write.
        I believe Congress can and should amend current farm policy
    immediately to provide a more predictable, secure safety-net for
    farmers in 2001 and 2002--essentially modifying the farm bill now
    instead of waiting until it expires. It is time for a new farm bill
    that provides a meaningful income safety net, is reasonable in cost to
    the American taxpayers, yet assures some level of economic security for
    our nation's family farmers and ranchers.
        One farm bill alternative I have introduced is S. 130, the Flexible
    Fallow farm bill amendment. Under my proposal, farmers electing to
    devote a portion of their total crop acreage to conservation-use
    receive a higher loan rate on their remaining crop production. On an
    annual and crop-by-crop basis, farmers can choose to conserve up to
    thirty percent of their total crop acreage. An adjustable loan rate
    schedule is a key feature of Flex Fallow. With the exception of wheat
    and soybeans, the proposed base loan rates for zero percentage
    participation in Flex Fallow (full production) are set at 2001 levels.
    Participation in Flex Fallow is directly proportional to increased loan
    rates. For corn, wheat, and soybeans, loan rates increase by one
    percent for each one percent increase in conservation-use.
        Iowa State University economist Neil Harl believes my Flex Fallow
    proposal is ``the missing link to the 1996 farm bill,'' because it
    works in a market-oriented fashion yet provides an income safety net.
        USDA's proposed budget adequately addresses some of our
    agricultural, trading, and food safety priorities. Yet, I believe it
    fails to make some specific and significant investments in a secure
    farm safety net, conservation programs, efforts to restore marketplace
    competition, and rural development. Moreover, despite the fact that
    over 20 major farm and commodity groups in the country--from Farm
    Bureau to Farmers Union, and including cattlemen, pork producers, corn,
    wheat, dairy, soybeans, cotton, rice, sugar producers, and others--have
    asked for increased support for a new farm bill and additional
    emergency aid for farmers and ranchers at levels similar to that of
    last year, the proposed USDA budget includes no support for a new farm
    bill or room for emergency aid--save the so-called contingency reserve.
    I am disappointed that USDA's budget does not include funding for a new
    farm bill that will ensure economic security for family farmers,
    ranchers, and rural communities now and into the future.
        I am specifically concerned about the cuts or elimination of funds
    in fiscal year 2002 for important conservation programs such as the
    Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and
    the Emergency Conservation Program. Farmers, other landowners, and
    society as a whole continue to desire more options to ensure the proper
    stewardship of our nation's soil and water resources. With agricultural
    conservation programs oversubscribed by nearly six times the available
    funding, this is clearly the wrong direction to take with conservation
    funding, and I plan to work in the subcommittee to secure funds that
    promote greater use of conservation programs instead of cutting or
    eliminating them altogether.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement. I look
    forward to asking questions of the witnesses.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Byron L. Dorgan

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to welcome Hunt Shipman, the Acting
    Deputy Under Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services, to
    this hearing today. I probably should say welcome back, since the Under
    Secretary was, until recently, working for the Chairman of this
    Subcommittee. I also want to welcome USDA's Chief Economist, Keith
    Collins, to this hearing. Thank you both for coming.
        Last week, the Chief Economist and I fenced some about when the
    Quality Loss portion of the Crop Loss Disaster Program was going to be
    implemented. Today, I want to assure both of you, and the employees of
    the Farm Service Agency, that I understand the complex nature of the
    legislation. I also want to thank the Agency for all the hard work that
    has been put forth by everyone involved. I have never doubted that the
    Agency was not trying to get this program out to the farmers at the
    earliest possible date.
        Having said that, I still want to impress on you the need to get
    the notice for this program published. We all know that there will be
    some lag time after publication to allow for county office staff
    training and to get the software finished and downloaded. I urge you to
    include in the publication examples of how the program will be
    implemented so that farmers and their bankers have some way to estimate
    the assistance that will be forthcoming to them.
        Discussing the implementation of disaster programs allows for a
    very good segue into the topic of FSA staff levels. You have
    acknowledged the difficulties facing FSA as they try to deliver
    Congressionally mandated programs over the last few years. The
    Administration's budget provides level funding for FSA full time staff
    particularly in the field. It is my belief--and that of many county
    level FSA employees who deal directly with farmers--that there is a
    need for more help in those county offices.
        In a visit to a local FSA office in a fairly large county in North
    Dakota, I asked about staff needs. A seasoned veteran of many years
    told me that the office had experienced a Reduction In Force of seven
    Full Time Employees from the peak years of employment in the 1980s, but
    that the workload that was being asked of them was larger than anything
    she had ever experienced since coming to work in the office.
        Now, we all know computerization can make an office more efficient,
    but technology can't make up for that many people. I am concerned about
    the personal stress that is being placed on these workers and their
    families. I don't think that we are doing all we can to alleviate this
    problem.
        We know from the Chief Economist's testimony that USDA will need to
    continue to be an integral part of a farm's operation for the
    foreseeable future. I have asked County Executive Directors what
    Congress should do, and have been told an additional full-time employee
    in many of these county offices would make all the difference in the
    world.
        All the major farm and commodity organizations, including the
    American Farm Bureau, the National Farmers Union, the National
    Association of Wheat Growers, the National Cotton Council and the
    National Corn Growers, to name just a few, have requested emergency
    assistance for farmers once again this year. As we are well aware,
    nothing has changed in the farm economy, and this Subcommittee will
    need to address these needs.
        Mr. Chairman, as the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations
    bill moves forward , I hope this Subcommittee will consider addressing
    fully the needs of America's farmers, and the FSA staff who serve them
    at local county levels.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Richard J. Durbin

        Chairman Cochran, thank you for holding this important hearing
    today. I would like to welcome Hunt Shipman, Acting Deputy Under
    Secretary for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services to the hearing
    this morning, and Chief Economist Keith Collins. I appreciate the
    opportunity to continue the budget discussion we started with Secretary
    Ann Veneman on April 25.
        The mission of Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services is to ensure
    the well-being of U.S. agriculture through delivery of commodity,
    credit, conservation, insurance and export programs.
        Although the Department's fiscal year 2002 budget is a good start,
    I am concerned that it is insufficient to meet the Farm and Foreign
    Agricultural Services mission. I've noticed that the Department's
    fiscal year 2002 budget contains no emergency funding. The
    Administration is relying on its proposed National Emergency Reserve
    Fund or Contingency Reserve Fund--neither of which exist at this time--
    to provide farmers with Federal assistance.
        The proposed Emergency Reserve Fund would only be given $5.6
    billion in fiscal year 2002 to respond to all types of disasters,
    including floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, and the kinds of
    emergency payments farmers will need. While I am open to efforts to
    prepare for unexpected emergencies, the continuing farm slump is
    different. We know the need. Congress has appropriated more than $5.6
    billion for farm assistance alone in each of the years since the farm
    economy's downturn began.
        As for offering the Contingency Reserve Fund as an option for
    funding, this approach pits farm aid against Medicare, Social Security
    and defense spending needs. I wonder, how is relying on these reserve
    funds, which compete with other national needs, a responsible method
    for ensuring our farmers get the support they desperately need?
        Congress has provided approximately $25 billion in emergency
    agriculture aid since 1998. Farm groups have requested up to a $12
    billion increase in the agriculture budget for fiscal year 2002 in
    anticipation of another year of depressed commodity prices and higher
    input costs. The Senate passed an amendment to the budget resolution
    that would allow for $9 billion in additional emergency agricultural
    assistance this fiscal year. I supported that measure.
        My colleagues will not be shocked to learn that government payments
    in 2000 made up nearly half of net farm income. The USDA predicts that
    without government payments, farm income will fall in 2001 to $4.1
    billion. A recent study by the University of Illinois shows that
    Illinois farm income is up slightly in 2000, but that government
    payments still account for 21 percent of gross farm returns. In fact,
    many families have to go off the farm to earn money to pay for simple
    living expenses and income and Social Security taxes. I am also
    concerned that the budget provides zero-funding for popular
    conservation programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program and the
    Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. It also under funds the
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program, despite strong support from
    producers and Congress to raise funding for this program.
        In fact, the Illinois Delegation has proposed an innovative
    approach to improving water quality by asking producers to work
    together to prevent pollution of the Illinois River Basin. It is called
    Illinois Rivers 2020, and it relies on many of the zero-funded and
    underfunded agriculture conservation programs. I'll be asking Chairman
    Cochran and Senator Kohl for their help in funding this innovative
    program.
        Farmers are increasingly faced with environmental challenges, and
    many of these programs face a serious backlog of applications that
    outstrip available funding. If we ask them to be better stewards of
    their land then we must provide them with the resources they need to
    accomplish this goal. I hope the Administration will work with Congress
    to improve conservation funding.
        Allow me to touch briefly on export programs, in particular,
    foreign food assistance. Just this morning I joined Ambassador George
    McGovern and former Senator Bob Dole in front of the Capitol to
    introduce a bipartisan bill to create an international feeding program
    for children in need around the world.
        It is estimated that nearly 300 million children throughout the
    world go to bed hungry at night. And of those children, some 130
    million kids don't attend school mainly because their parents need them
    to stay at home or work to earn income for the family.
        This legislation is based on a proposal by Ambassador McGovern and
    Mr. Dole, who are the fathers of the U.S. school lunch program. By
    amending the Public Law 480 program, the bill authorizes the USDA to
    work with private voluntary organizations, cooperatives and
    international organizations, such as the World Food Programme, to feed
    and create incentives for children to stay in school.
        Just as this surely will benefit children, it will also add value
    to agricultural products at home. This proposal will benefit
    agricultural producers, processors, millers, packaging manufacturers,
    rail and motor transportation and commercial shippers and ports.
        I appreciate the Administration's commitment of $300 million in
    surplus commodities for the Global Food For Education Initiative pilot
    program, which jump started the McGovern-Dole proposal. I hope the
    Administration will support this new legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to raise these
    issues.

                                  Dairy Policy

        Senator Kohl. First I would like to discuss dairy policy,
    gentlemen. Dairy policy in the United States continues to
    include features that are particularly harmful to the Upper
    Midwest, which, as you know, is one of the primary dairy
    production areas in our country.
        One component of this flawed policy is the introduction a
    few years ago of regional dairy compacts--a Northeast dairy
    compact in particular. To make matters worse, the House of
    Representatives just this week introduced legislation to
    expand, as you know, the concept of dairy compacts to many
    other States.
        President Bush has said he wants to establish free trade in
    all of the Americas, which would be a comprehensive free trade
    agreement between the 34 democracies in the Western Hemisphere.
    I think that is a great idea. I am very supportive of that.
        But I would strongly suggest that before the President
    seeks free trade among 34 countries, or along with that, he
    must also guarantee that we continue to insist upon free trade
    among the 50 United States, which has been characteristic of
    our economy since the first day of our country's inception, as
    you know, and which many people would argue is the miracle of
    our economy. Among the 50 States, there are no restrictions.
    There have never been any restrictions on the free flow of
    goods and products in our country.
        Last year, the Congress again provided financial assistance
    to dairy producers suffering from historic low prices. While
    prices have rebounded somewhat, they are still far below the
    cost of production. And Wisconsin and other States continue to
    have great difficulty.
        I have just three questions. Does the Bush Administration
    believe that it is important to continue to move agriculture
    products as well as all other products and all other services
    freely throughout the United States?
        And if there are any reservations or any suggestions that
    you are not sure, or you cannot speak for the Administration,
    please say so.
        Mr. Shipman. Mr. Chairman and Senator Kohl, the
    Administration obviously understands the point of your question
    and has not taken a position on dairy policy thus far as a part
    of an overall Farm Bill strategy for this coming year.
    Obviously, the points that you make are well taken.
        Senator Kohl. You are not saying anything. I will not stop
    until you say something. Are you saying that the Administration
    may be prepared to depart from that policy, which has been the
    hallmark of the American economy since the beginning of this
    country? Are you saying that is a possibility?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, I think one could argue that our
    current milk marketing order system does not provide for
    unencumbered trade among States in dairy products as it is
    right now.
        Senator Kohl. I agree with that.
        Mr. Shipman. So for me to answer your question with respect
    to the future would be to take a position on dairy policy that
    this Administration has not taken thus far.
        Dr. Collins may be able to add more to it.
        Mr. Collins. Well, I will not venture into the policy arena
    here. But I will make a factual observation that may assuage
    you, Mr. Kohl, and that is that the Northeast Dairy Compact,
    certainly one feature of this problem of moving milk freely in
    the United States, expires at the end of September and the
    President's budget does not have a proposal in it to continue
    the Northeast Dairy Compact. That is simply a factual
    observation.
        Senator Kohl. Okay. And of course, that is very encouraging
    to hear.
        One of the Senators from the Northeast States has gone on
    record as saying in published remarks in some of his hometown
    newspapers that he fully expects it to be continued just as it
    was incepted, 4 years ago by just sticking it into a year-end
    omnibus bill, which has several hundred thousand components to
    it. If they cannot get the votes, and they have not been able
    to get the votes--that is the way they hope to have it
    continued-the way it was originated.
        And, I am arguing for Wisconsin, but as I hope you are able
    to perceive, I am arguing a bigger principle.
        If I were just arguing for Wisconsin, you win some, you
    lose some and that is the way it goes. But this whole business
    of suggesting that we are--we may be willing or the
    Administration may be willing--just as the Clinton--this is not
    partisan here. The Clinton Administration allowed it to happen
    too.
        So I am not speaking here as a Democrat to Republicans, but
    I would like to hope that this Administration--more so than the
    Clinton Administration--is committed to the principle of free
    trade in this country.
        And that there is nothing that unique about the dairy
    industry. It is a commodity, you know. I mean, it is not all
    that much different from wheat or grain or corn or strawberries
    or so many other items that we might mention in the
    agricultural sector that need to have access throughout our
    country, if they are going to be able to sustain themselves.
        The dairy industry arguably is the same thing, with
    problems. But the other agricultural sectors, as you know, have
    problems too.
        So, the question is why would we make an exception for
    dairy or why would the Administration, so committed to business
    as they should be? I am a businessman. That is my background,
    whether you know it or not. That is my background.
        Mr. Collins. Right. Well, I would just----
        Senator Kohl. This is god-awful policy. It really is.
        And I would like to hope that this year the Administration
    is prepared to do whatever it takes not to allow this to become
    a part of--because it will come down the pike in different
    forms next year and next year and next year, if we allow it to,
    go on this year.
        There will be other commodities and other industries and
    other services that will begin to ask for the same kinds of
    protections. And they will now have had something to point to.
        You know, if we started with this industry, then why would
    we be prepared to say no to the next Senator from the next
    State that would like to protect their particular industry? And
    then where does it stop, except in really hurting the American
    economy?
        I am sorry, Mr. Collins. I know you were going to say
    something.
        Mr. Collins. It would probably be more prudent not to.
        But I guess I would say that, the Administration has not
    confronted this yet and the resolution of that, well, as you
    point out, would be an exercise in political economy.
        But I think from our point at USDA, one of the things we
    can certainly point out is what the effects are on the economy
    of having not only a compact in one area of the country but a
    broadened one in many other areas of the country.
        And there have been lots of studies done and you have
    certainly seen them. The studies indicate potential to cause a
    disruption in the most efficient use of our resources in this
    country.
        They do provide some benefit to the producers in the
    compact area. Economists have looked at that and agreed with
    that.
        Compacts also have said that is probably not a very
    efficient way to benefit the producers in that area. So I
    think, our job will be within the administration as they
    confront this issue to try and bring an informed discussion of
    all the effects of this kind of policy to their attention and
    hope that a good solid, reasoned decision is made.
        Senator Kohl. Just to add what you said about benefitting
    the producers. As you know, almost every impartial estimate has
    come to the conclusion that benefitting producers does not
    benefit the consumers.
        Mr. Collins. Oh, absolutely.
        Senator Kohl. And for every producer, there are 10,000 or
    20,000 consumers.
        Mr. Collins. I do not disagree with that.
        Senator Kohl. I mean----
        Mr. Collins. I think that is true.
        Senator Kohl. You know, it just does not make any sense.
        Now, in connection with that, as you know, Senator Santorum
    and I have introduced a bill, S. 294, which would establish a
    counter cyclical national dairy program, which in effect means
    that if we get below $12.50 a hundred weight, we begin to
    respond to producers.
        Would you care to comment on that in any way you wish?
        Mr. Collins. Well, I have not really looked at all the
    details of your bill. It provides producers a direct payment
    when milk prices go below $12.50. From an economic point of
    view, some of those provisions if they are closely tied to a
    producer's production decision, cause me a little bit of
    concern, because they blunt the response that you would like to
    see when prices get low.
        People have complained continually over the last couple of
    years that in the face of low prices, American agricultural
    production has not cut back. One of the reasons it does not is
    because we provide lots of payments to producers, so that they
    do not necessarily see the full force of lower market prices.
        Understanding that lower market prices cause some pain on
    producers, nevertheless that is how you get adjustments in
    markets. So to some extent, proposals that would provide
    producers payments that are tied to their production--and I do
    not know if this is tied to their production, but if it is, it
    tends to blunt the market response, which is a concern.
        On the other hand, I would say that dairy producers have
    just gone through a very difficult year in the year 2000. They
    had milk prices that were at a 9-year low and so, you can make
    a case for providing some financial assistance.
        There are those all kinds of countercyclical programs. The
    only general concern I would raise is that would be considered
    as amber and subject to discipline under the WTO would cause an
    economist some concern because it would be production
    distorting.

                         Dairy Export Incentive Program

        Senator Kohl. Okay. I would like to ask a question on the
    Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP).
        The President's budget provides for just a slight increase
    in the Dairy Export Incentive Program from the previous year.
    However, it is my understanding that there are approximately
    40,000 tons of non-fat dry milk awards that had been allocated
    under DEIP, but for some reason were never shipped.
        Although industry requests have been made for this tonnage
    to be reallocated, the previous Administration had taken the
    position that a reallocation would be in violation of the
    United States WTO commitments.
        Further since the Article Nine rollover authority expired
    on June 30th, 2000, these unshipped quantities cannot be made
    available under DEIP.
        Is the Article Nine rollover authority expressly tied to
    previously allocated but unshipped tonnage in addition to
    previously unallocated tonnage? Do you have any response to
    that?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, if I might, if you would allow me to
    ask Mary Chambliss----
        Senator Kohl. Sure.
        Mr. Shipman (continuing). Our acting General Sales Manager,
    as well as our acting administrator of the Foreign Agricultural
    Service.
        Senator Kohl. Thank you.
        Ms. Chambliss. Good morning, Senator. I will try to shed
    some light on your question and then, because this is a
    somewhat complicated issue, with our colleagues in the dairy
    industry, which we have discussed frequently, I will also
    provide more information for the record, if that is acceptable.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. Is Article 9 ``rollover'' authority expressly
    tied to previously allocated but unshipped tonnage in addition
    to previously unallocated tonnage?
        Answer. The U.S. had already used the maximum flexibility
    allowable under Article 9 ``rollover'' for nonfat dry milk by
    bringing forward DEIP allocations un-awarded in previous years
    prior to the June 30, 2000 expiration of that provision.
        Question. Does the current Administration take the view
    that a reallocation of unshipped tonnage under DEIP would be a
    violation of our WTO commitments and if so, what action will
    USDA take to better ensure that all allocations are actually
    shipped?
        Answer. Authorizing the export of awarded but unshipped
    dairy product tonnage would be inconsistent with the
    established U.S. methodology for reporting export subsidies to
    the WTO and would likely be viewed by our trading partners as
    an attempt to circumvent our subsidy reduction commitments. We
    are now engaged in negotiations in the WTO to further
    liberalize trade in agricultural products, including the
    elimination of export subsidies. Taking steps that would be
    viewed by many as a circumvention of our current export subsidy
    commitments would be detrimental to our efforts in those
    negotiations. The Department is reviewing whether re-
    announcement of canceled tonnage within the confines of an
    allocation year can be accomplished. If it is decided to modify
    the DEIP operations to allow for this, it is expected that this
    action would alleviate the majority of any problems with
    unshipped tonnage.

        Mr. Chambliss. I am familiar with the rollover issue. It
    really goes back to the original position we took in the
    Uruguay Round and gets back to the base period and how we, in
    that negotiation, identified our base period.
        It did not include rollover tonnages, because the base
    period allowed us to maximize our capabilities under the dairy
    export subsidy program, which is why we did not undertake the
    rollover.
        As you note, of course it expired at the end of June. You
    are probably also aware that this year we have had quite a bit
    of success with commercial dairy exports. They have done quite
    well. They did very well last year. And they are doing quite
    well this year.
        The next year begins July 1 and, as you know, the budget
    provides $42 million for the DEIP program, for next year.
        We are also looking internally at different ways that we
    administer that program to see if there is some flexibility
    that might be even more helpful to the dairy industry and we
    are continuing to undertake that review. Thank you.
        Mr. Collins. And can I add one thing to that? Your question
    was about Article Nine. In my view, Article Nine is binding
    here.
        Ms. Chambliss. Yes.
        Mr. Collins. Article Nine says that in the last year of the
    agreement, we have to have our DEIP authorizations down to a
    fixed percentage of what they were in the base period. So you
    cannot add beyond that, or you go above the fixed percentage.
        Prior to the last year, the first 5 years of the
    implementation period, you could go above that. You could roll
    over.
        But when you get to the last year and beyond in the Uruguay
    Round agreement, Article Nine--without being a lawyer, just my
    reading of it--says to me that our DEIP bonuses have to be
    within a fixed percentage of our base period.
        Senator Kohl. Okay.
        Ms. Chambliss. Which is what the $42 million would reflect.
        Senator Kohl. Right.
        Ms. Chambliss. Yes.
        Senator Kohl. I will just ask one other question, Mr.
    Chairman----
        Senator Cochran. Sure.
        Senator Kohl (continuing). Then I will submit the other
    questions for the record.
        I appreciate your statements on the importance of trade to
    the agricultural sector and I agree that we must stay vigilant
    to protect our place in those markets.
        However, we must also be careful not to rely too heavily on
    exports. As we learned in recent years, following the Asian
    economic collapse, U.S. agriculture should not be left to the
    fragile whims of foreign economies.
        One trade issue that currently faces the dairy industry is
    dramatic increase in milk protein concentrates, MPC, imports.
    To what extent are milk protein concentrates displacing U.S.
    dairy products in domestic markets?
        Does the USDA take the position that MPC's are subject to
    review under the WTO? If not, will USDA take actions to ensure
    that they become subject to such review?
        And if the Administration is not willing to take a strong
    stand to stop MPC's, which can devastate the U.S. dairy sector,
    what signals does that send to our trading partners about our
    willingness to stand firm on interests of great importance to
    U.S. agriculture?
        Mr. Collins. Senator, I would make a comment on MPC's. This
    is an issue, which has gotten larger over the last couple of
    years as imports of dry milk protein concentrate have grown.
        GAO has recently completely a study on this and pointed out
    that they have grown by 600 percent since 1995.
        Nevertheless, they are still a fairly small percentage of
    our total milk balance sheet. The problem here, of course, is
    this is a product that did not exist when we set tariffs and
    quotas.
        This is a product that comes in at 70 to 90 percent
    protein. At the time we set all these quotas and tariffs,
    basically, everything we were importing had less than 40
    percent protein.
        So it is a product that is not subject to a quota and a
    very minimal tariff. So we are constrained to the extent that
    we can deal with this.
        You can certainly deal with it, with a trade case, like a
    section 201 or 301, if the imports were to be shown to be
    disruptive or dumped.
        It is also an issue that could be brought up at the next
    WTO discussions. It is really not unlike the situation we had
    with stuffed molasses and sugar, or peanut paste imports from
    Mexico, all of which were products that were not imported when
    we set tariffs and quotas, or when we tariffed and set quotas.
    And so it is a difficult issue in that regard.
        The only thing I could say is it has been brought to our
    attention. We are looking at it. And I cannot tell you how or
    what we would propose to resolve it at this point.

                              Cranberry Marketing

        Senator Kohl. Okay. As I turn this hearing back to the
    Chairman, I just want to make this comment to you, Mr. Shipman:
    When Secretary Veneman testified before the subcommittee last
    week, I asked her about the status of the cranberry market
    volume reduction order that is important to cranberry growers,
    not only in my State, but in other States as well.
        Secretary Veneman assured me and this subcommittee that
    action would be taken within days. And I noticed that nothing
    on the subject has been published in the Federal Register since
    last week's hearing.
        I understand that the statement is ``in the works.'' Is
    that right?
        Mr. Shipman. Yes, sir.
        Senator Kohl. Does that mean it is going to get done very
    shortly or what?
        Mr. Shipman. I think you have quoted Secretary Veneman
    correctly in quantifying the time before action is taken on
    this as a matter of days. That is an accurate statement.
        There were some decisions that had to be made within USDA
    in order to prepare the final documentation necessary. Those
    decisions were made in the time frame that she talked about.
    And the final paperwork is in the final clearance in USDA, and
    since today is Thursday, I will not promise it to you before
    the end of this week, but certainly by next week, I think we
    will have something ready to go.
        Senator Kohl. That would be great. And I thank you very
    much. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
        The Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson.

                                  Farm Economy

        Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I too
    want to join in welcoming Mr. Collins, Mr. Shipman and Mr.
    Kaplan to the Committee today.
        The U.S. Ag economy engine is misfiring. Although we have
    had a remarkable decade in the past, the economy as a whole,
    our Ag economy and rural economies tend to struggle all across
    this country.
        With a price crisis--with soybean, corn and wheat prices
    all around 15-year lows in terms of prices and now coupled with
    high-energy related costs impacting not just fuel, but
    fertilizer as well, it has put a lot of our producers in a very
    difficult price cost squeeze in America.
        We have offset some of that over the last three years, as
    you have indicated in your testimony with multi-billion dollar
    disaster legislation, a record $28 billion in fiscal year 2000.
    And the discussion is already in early stages about what level
    of relief is likely to be next year.
        But with the producers of grain and--and--alike all across
    my home State, there is a lot of headshaking about this.
        They recognize that it has put a lot of money out in the
    countryside, but it is not sustainable and it is not the
    philosophy our producers, where they want to grow dependent on
    to this degree either way.
        The whims of political budgetmaking in Washington is not
    something that they can take to their banker. It is not
    something that they can rely on. And we have found ourselves, I
    think, in an Ag income strategy that almost everyone would
    concede is not the long-term solution to our problems in rural
    America.

                                 New Farm Bill

        We are going to begin debate later this year on a farm bill
    and on mechanisms for improving the farm safety net. And I
    would like to ask Mr. Shipman, do you have any early notion
    about a time frame whereby the Administration would be
    proposing concrete farm bill strategies for this Congress?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, let me just say that Secretary
    Veneman is very cognizant of the time frame that is being
    contemplated, both by Chairman Combest as a part of the budget
    resolution, and in the interest of members in trying to proceed
    with dispatch on a farm bill strategy here within the Congress.
        And certainly she intends for the Department to be actively
    engaged in that discussion. And we will--as soon as we can
    have, hopefully, a full complement of undersecretaries
    confirmed by the Senate, we will be able to engage in that with
    all of the power that they will bring to us.
        Senator Johnson. Well, I appreciate that you are still in a
    transitional mode here a bit, and I understand that. But I have
    to urge very expeditious progress in this matter.
        We need the White House to be engaged in this debate, and
    sooner rather than later, as we come together both on the
    budget and on the policy side. How on earth are we going to
    break out of this dependence on ad hoc disaster legislation,
    which is a disaster in its own right?
        I also have some concern about what many people around the
    country are interpreting as a bit of a retreat on the part of
    the Administration from our commitment to conservation
    programs.
        With reductions in wetlands reserves, wildlife habitat and
    emergency conservation programs, it would seem to me that these
    are areas where we could create win/win strategies, which are
    WTO legal, which have a good environmental and family producer
    consequence.
        And I would hope that we do not leave green strategies out
    of the overall mix of where we are going to go with the next
    farm bill.

                               Bioenergy Programs

        I am also concerned, as we talk about energy, about the
    future of last year's legislation to create a bioenergy program
    and whether the $150 million that was in that program, which
    has been instrumental in helping to promote bioenergy
    production to move ahead.
        We have four or five ethanol plants underway in my home
    State of South Dakota. Some of this funding has been helpful in
    that regard. And I would hope that the USDA would remain an
    active partner in helping to promote these alternative,
    especially plant-based, energy strategies.
        Any comment, Mr. Shipman, about where you see USDA coming
    down on those kinds of programs?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, Dr. Collins has been participating in
    some energy discussions within the Administration, and I will
    ask him to comment, too.
        But before I do that, let me just say that I think part of
    the Secretary's strategy for the farm bill, as she has
    articulated it thus far, has been that all options are on the
    table. And she wants all the interested and involved parties
    around the table to discuss that.
        And I think she is committed to doing it, and we are
    committed to making sure that we are actively engaged in that.
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Johnson, I think when you talk about the
    problems in the farm economy, certainly, you know, one hope for
    the future is that we can dramatically expand the non-food use
    of farm products. And energy would be a big part of that. So I
    think this is certainly a bipartisan issue.
        I think the last Administration has and, this
    Administration is going to be committed to trying to do that
    through the tools of research and programs.
        Our budget proposal for 2002 in energy research and
    programs in USDA is about $245 million. Our discretionary
    budget proposal is $82 million for energy. Two years ago it was
    $73 million.
        So we are trying to increase our research on energy, not
    just ethanol, but biomass generally, including biodiesel. We
    have an expanded research program. We are redirecting some
    funds in ARS as well. And the CC Bioenergy Program that we are
    running this year is in our budget again for next year. And we
    think that is helping.
        As you probably know, there is something like seven ethanol
    plants under construction right now nationally. There is a
    bunch more about to go under construction.
        There are about 40 ethanol plants that are expanding their
    capacity right now. The most recent data we have got was for
    the month of March. Ethanol production was 113,000 barrels per
    day, which is equivalent to about 1.73 billion gallons per
    year.
        Last year, we ran about 1.6 billion gallons. As I mentioned
    in my comments, we had 18 consecutive months of record-setting
    ethanol production. So we are on a bandwagon for ethanol.
        And what we need to do now is make sure we have resources
    to help with some of these other areas where we are not as far
    along, where the economics are not as good. And I think we are
    going to try and do that.
        Senator Johnson. Lastly, because I know that my colleague
    from North Dakota wants--has some questions as well, I was
    struck by your testimony, Mr. Collins, where you indicate that
    80 percent of all farmers or their spouses are employed off the
    farm. And in recent years, about 90 percent of total income of
    the average farm household is derived from off-farm sources--90
    percent from off-farm sources.
        You then go on to note that farm operators averaged over
    $64,000 in total household income in 1999; actually, 17 percent
    higher than the average income of all U.S. households.
        I can tell you I have an awful lot of South Dakota farm
    operators who do not have $60,000 off-farm income opportunities
    in their communities and in their counties. And while that
    average sounds high, I wonder if you have any offhand notion of
    what the median would turn out to be----
        Mr. Collins. Not the median, but I could add----
        Senator Johnson (continuing). In terms of farm operator
    income.
        Mr. Collins. I could add a couple of points to this. Your
    observation is a good one. You have to be careful with
    averages, no matter what you are looking at.
        That data reflects the fact that when we go out every year
    in February and we do our farm financial survey, one of the
    first questions we ask farmers is, ``What is your principal
    occupation?''
        Sixty-two percent of all the farm operators tell us it is
    not farming. It is something else. So the question is: Do you
    want to count those as farms or not? Well, we do, when we add
    up all these income numbers.
        So you have a whole lot of farm households, over 800,000
    that we have called lifestyle or leisure farms. And so they
    tend to inflate those income numbers.
        And we can break those down any number of ways, you would
    like. One way to break them down is to look at the average
    household income of those who say their principal occupation is
    farming versus those who say it is not. Then the income falls a
    little bit.
        For those who say their principal occupation is farming,
    the average household income in 1999 was about $55,000, which
    is down from the $65,000 overall average. For those who say it
    is not farming, their average was over $70,000.
        And then when you get into that $55,000, you can break that
    down into size of farms. And if you look at some of the smaller
    size categories of farms for which we have hundreds of
    thousands of farms who are principally engaged in agriculture,
    I believe for the smallest category, up to $100,000 in sales,
    and there are several hundred thousand farms in that category,
    their average household income is about $35,000.
        So if you start taking these numbers apart geographically
    and by size of farms, you can certainly identify several
    hundred thousand farms that have very low household incomes,
    well below the national average.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Senator Cochran. The Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan.
        Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        And thank you for being here today.
        I sometimes get a bit despondent when I read through
    testimony and see the number of agencies and programs within
    the USDA.
        I mean, we such a proliferation of different enterprises
    going on and I think most of us would think that we have maybe
    three basic goals.
        One is trying to get farmers a decent income, so that
    during tough times, you have a bridge over price depressions;
    second, to promote some conservation; and third, promote some
    exports that contribute to the income; and then fourth, while
    it is not your primary issue, to make sure we have safe food
    domestically.
        And as I take a look at all of these different enterprises
    we are involved in, I wonder, to what extent do they contribute
    to those goals?
        But let me ask you a question about the issue of targeting.
    We have talked about how much money we spent on trying to help
    family farms in the last 4 years.
        We really have not targeted that help. My whole theory is
    that we ought to be about the business of trying to help family
    farms and not agro-factories. Agro-factories have the financial
    wherewithal to withstand price depressions. Family farms do
    not.
        We really do not have much of a targeting mechanism with
    respect to how we are spending this money, do we?
        Mr. Collins. Mr. Dorgan, not really. We do not. Our
    payments are based on sort of the historical evolution of these
    programs, which are based on a commodity. And we do have
    payment limits.
        Senator Dorgan. What--what kind of income from the
    government would the larger enterprises have gotten in the last
    year, on a grain farm, for example?
        Mr. Collins. We could work out examples for you. I could
    tell you that generally as farms get larger, this is speaking
    of all farms nationally, as their sales go up, the percent of
    their gross income from government payments goes down.
        To give you an example, for farms that sell more than
    $500,000 a year in agriculture products, if my memory serves me
    right, I think about 8 percent of their gross income is from
    government payments; whereas if you look at the very small
    farms, what we call the limited resource farms, those with
    sales of less than $100,000 a year, with a very small asset
    base and very small net income, their government payments
    account for about 25 percent of their share of gross income.
        There are a couple of reasons for that. One is some of the
    very large farms are not crop farms. You know, they tend to be
    livestock farms, poultry farms, whatever. And the other reason
    is that it may well be that we see a little bit of the payment
    limit kicking in on some of those very large farms.
        Senator Dorgan. But another way of looking at it is in
    evaluating the amount of income that goes to the larger
    farmers, the percentage of income that goes to the larger
    farmers is much, much higher.
        Mr. Collins. Oh, yes. Oh, yes.
        Senator Dorgan. Second, let me ask you about the trade
    picture. You have testified today about the strength in dollar,
    which has an inhibiting design on our trade opportunities.
        What do you see happening with respect to agricultural
    trade in the coming year?
        Mr. Collins. Well, our current forecast is only for fiscal
    year 2001 and our projection is $53 billion compared with $51
    billion last year.
        First of all, the increase is fairly small, but at least it
    is positive. Most of it is not bulk commodities. It is not
    corn, for example. It is meats where we expect record volume.
    And it is horticultural products where we expect record value.
        Senator Dorgan. And in your projections for our trade
    circumstances, do you see the GMO issue playing a significant
    role in the coming couple of years?
        Mr. Collins. I really do not. I think that we have
    certainly heard from some of our potential customers like Japan
    telling us that they do not want GMO wheat. We have heard from
    some domestic customers like large food processors that they do
    not want GMO sugar, for example.
        But we do have lots of GMO products, round-up ready
    soybeans, bt cotton. These represent high proportions of the
    crop. They are being traded quite competitively and wanted in
    the world marketplace. And I expect that to continue.
        The only real dilemma we have had over the last year has
    been related to Starlink with its peculiar approval, its
    bifurcated approval, which generally led to the problem that we
    have. But we think we are getting by the Starlink problem, at
    least we hope we are.
        We are running a lot of programs at USDA to deal with
    Starlink, and we seem to be starting to put that problem behind
    us. That has had probably a minor effect on our corn exports
    this year.
        Mr. Shipman. And, Senator, if I might add to that, as well?
        Senator Dorgan. Sure.
        Mr. Shipman. You know, part of the budget request this year
    is to provide additional resources to the Foreign Agricultural
    Service to address these types of technical issues that seem to
    be on the forefront of what we deal with most in trade these
    days.
        Those resources will enable us to better combat those, as
    well as we are continuing to work with our trading partners in
    Europe and in Asia to ensure that the regimes that they put in
    place on these are scientifically based and I am confident that
    we will be able to continue in that regard.

                              Commodity Loan Rates

        Senator Dorgan. You referenced in your testimony the
    substantial increase in soybean acres. I do not know whether
    you are familiar with legislation that I have introduced
    talking about equalization of loan rates.
        I contend and I think with some validity that loan rates
    for wheat, for example, are radically out of synch vis-a-vis
    the loan rates for oilseeds. I do not propose to bring the
    rates for oilseeds down. I propose to bring wheat and feed
    grains up.
        Do you surmise that part of the reason for the increase in
    soybean acres has to do with people planning because of the
    farm program, the incentive in the farm program to raise
    oilseeds vis-a-vis wheat?
        And if so, is that not exactly the position that we wanted
    to get out of?
        Mr. Collins. I think that is certainly a factor. It is
    complicated this year by the energy cost issue as well, because
    about 40 percent of the operating costs of producing corn per
    acre are energy based; for soybeans, energy is only about 10 or
    15 percent.
        So the energy issue has pushed some people into soybeans
    this year, but I do think that what we have seen----
        Senator Dorgan. The same was true last year, right, in
    the----
        Mr. Collins. Not as much last year. Last year, the increase
    was pretty much just in fuel, diesel fuel. This year, the
    increase----
        Senator Dorgan. I meant the increase in soybean acres.
        Mr. Collins. Oh, yes. We had 74.5 million acres last year.
    This year we are expecting 76.7 million. We had an increase
    last year, and a bigger increase this year, a 3-percent
    increase this year. That is a sizeable one-year increase, and
    so I think that energy has added to that.
        It probably would have gone up anyway, even if we did not
    have the big increase in nitrogen costs. And I think the loan
    rate is certainly a factor in that.
        Senator Dorgan. Because farmers and their lenders would
    take a look at the loan rate and say, ``Gosh. This is not about
    what the market suggests that I should do. It is about what the
    loan rates suggest I should do. The loan rate is so much more
    attractive for oilseeds''----
        Mr. Collins. Sure.
        Senator Dorgan. ``than it is for wheat or feed grains
    that--that I really ought to be considering the protection that
    exists for oilseeds.''
        Mr. Collins. I think that is a factor.
        Mr. Shipman. But Senator, I think you cannot look at these
    issues independently.
        If you would go to the Chairman's State, as an example, and
    look at the current market prices and futures prices for
    cotton, where soybeans could very well be a substitute crop,
    farmers are doing the economics and looking at the input costs
    of cotton for that return versus soybeans and are making
    market-based decisions as well.
        In other parts of the country, energy costs may factor more
    or less into it. So I think it is dangerous for us to look at
    farm programs solely and then look at market prices solely and
    to make those comparisons independently. Obviously, farmers
    have to look at all those things at once, and I think they are.
        Senator Dorgan. But would you not agree that the loan rates
    are out of whack? I mean, clearly the loan rate for oilseeds is
    not in synch in terms of cost production and also a 5-year
    Olympic average of price and so on with wheat and feed grains.
    Would you not agree with that?
        Mr. Shipman. I would agree with Dr. Collins about that
    and----
        Senator Dorgan. And I am not suggesting we should bring the
    loan rate for oilseeds down. I happen to think that we ought to
    have better price protection for wheat and feed grains.
        All right. Well, I mean there is a lot to talk about and I
    was almost tempted to talk about amber boxes whenever I hear
    someone describe these things.
        It makes me want to talk about trade some. But I will spare
    the Chairman and Ranking Member that.
        Look--can I just make one point about trade?
        Senator Cochran. Sure, of course.
        Senator Dorgan. This is not about your programs. But do you
    know that today, on Thursday, every pound of beef that we send
    from the United States to Japan has a 38.5 percent tariff on
    it? And that is acceptable to the WTO.
        Mr. Collins. Well, that is right. That is because the WTO
    started with everybody's existing levels and went down the same
    percentage.
        Senator Dorgan. It is not going down. It is 38.5 percent
    with a snap-back provision. That is----
        Mr. Collins. With a snap-back, right.
        Senator Dorgan. That is the bilateral agreement we have
    with Japan. And we actually had feasts and celebrations for
    having done that about 12 years ago.
        And so when people talk to me about boxes and our
    capability in trade, all I have to do is look at Japan or China
    or Canada or Mexico and pick out any one of about two-dozen
    egregious provisions that are injuring our producers, that no
    one is doing anything about. You mentioned stuffed molasses as
    one example. No one is lifting a finger to do anything about
    that.
        So we should have a longer discussion about it. I will not
    prolong the trade issue today. There are other venues to do
    that.
        Thanks for being here. You run a large organization with a
    lot of very complicated programs. In your testimony you talked
    about the quality loss adjustment and gave some time frames of
    May for that. I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shipman. Thank you, Senator.

                                  FSA Staffing

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Mr. Shipman, I know that earlier this week or last week,
    you had a chance to speak to Farm Service Agency employees who
    were here in Washington.
        I met with some from our State as well, and they were
    talking particularly about the problem of temporary staff
    having to be brought in to handle the increased workload for
    the signups and the disaster programs that we had authorized
    and funded.
        Is there any plan or is reflected in this budget the need
    to improve the field office structure and the permanent
    staffing in the Farm Service Agency offices to deal with the
    expected workloads of the future?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, there was a large office
    consolidation effort that occurred early in the last
    Administration. I think we need to reevaluate all opportunities
    for us to utilize technology enhancements that are available
    now that might not have even been available 5, 6, 7, 8 years
    ago, and to see if there are opportunities for us to gain
    additional savings that could be re-channeled into staffing
    needs and other things.
        With respect to the current budget request, I might ask Mr.
    Kaplan or Jim Little to speak to that, as well.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Kaplan.
        Mr. Kaplan. As far as permanent staffing is concerned for
    the Farm Service Agency, it is the same in 2002 as we plan to
    have in 2001. Temporary staffing does go down from 2,461 to
    2,000 staff years.
        We expect less of a disaster program or we do not want to
    assume a disaster program, and the requested staffing should
    meet the needs of the FSA, is what we are told.
        Senator Cochran. If there is an additional program, a
    benefit program approved by Congress this year to farmers, will
    we have to take another look at that, in terms of the reduction
    in temporary staff?
        Could they actually handle another disaster program without
    having any temporary or additional permanent employees in these
    offices?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, I think that would be dependent upon
    what commodity prices are at the time and what the staffing
    needs to process marketing loan and loan deficiency payment
    applications are at that time as well.
        As you may recall, in the last 2 years, as Congress has
    provided emergency disaster assistance to the Department to
    deliver to farmers, it has provided with it supplemental
    appropriations or authorities to utilize a percentage of the
    funding for delivery expenses.
        And so that may very well be necessary depending on what
    the current conditions are if Congress approves a program.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Mr. Collins, we talked about the outlook for the farm
    economy, and you gave us some good news and then some not-so-
    good news in your assessment of the situation.
        Comparing the outlook for this crop year with what we
    observed last year and the year before, can you predict whether
    farmers will be just as in need of additional assistance for
    market loss or other benefit program assistance as they were
    for the past 2 years?
        Mr. Collins. The only way I can really do that is by
    looking at projected net income and if you look at it just for
    the principal program crops, let us say wheat, rice, the four
    feed grains, cotton and add soybeans to that, then it would
    look like for the 2001 and 2002 crop year that net income will
    fall in the range of $6 billion below what it was the last
    couple of years.
        Just coincidentally that happens to be close to the kinds
    of numbers people are talking about for financial assistance--
    maybe it is not coincidental--for the 2001 and 2002 crop year.
        Net returns from the market the last 2 years have been very
    weak. They are going to get a little bit better in the 2001 and
    2002 crop year. But then we are going to have the problem of
    higher production costs. And so when I am giving you a figure,
    I am talking about net income.
        Production costs were fairly stable in the mid-1990s then
    they shot up last year and they are going to shoot up again
    this year. And so even though the market is getting a little
    better, it will put net income from the marketplace about where
    it was a year ago.
        Senator Cochran. Is the increase in costs mainly
    attributable to increased energy costs?
        Mr. Collins. Energy costs are the single biggest factor. We
    also have higher labor costs, as well. But energy is the single
    biggest increase.
        Senator Cochran. Senator Johnson, I think, asked you about
    the renewable energy resources and you talked about ethanol.
        Mr. Collins. Right.
        Senator Cochran. And are there any other programs like that
    or any activities like that in agriculture to produce energy
    resources on the farm that would help reduce the costs? Are any
    of these technologies up to the point now where they actually
    will have the prospect of reducing energy costs in the future?
        Mr. Collins. Not really reducing energy costs.
    Agriculture's contribution to the total energy picture in the
    nation is pretty small.
        Of the total energy used in the United States, renewable
    energy only accounts for about 3 or 4 percent. Of the total
    gasoline burned in the United States, ethanol only accounts for
    1.2 percent. Of the total diesel burned in the United States,
    biodiesel accounts for basically zero.
        So agriculture is not going to bring down the prices of
    energy in the United States over the next few years. Over the
    long term, agriculture can do some things. Agriculture can make
    a greater contribution to electricity production for example.
        The CRP program this year has a biomass pilot project,
    where up to 250,000 acres could be used to produce energy, and
    all of that is being used to produce electricity. So there are
    some electricity gains that could be made. But that is going to
    take years. There are some biodiesel gains that could be made.
    That is going to take years.
        The real big gain is ethanol right now, which accounts for
    600 million bushels of corn, and that makes a material
    difference in the LDP's that we are paying out. That does make
    a difference in the cost of the corn program.
        But there really not much else like ethanol. There is
    increasing production of what people call bio-products or bio-
    chemicals is resins, coatings, lubricants, plastics, these
    kinds of things, which are made from agricultural materials.
        And that is helping the industrial demand, again, primarily
    for corn. But over time we need new technologies that can help
    convert the other types of agricultural materials into these
    products as well.

                              Farm Loan Repayment

        Senator Cochran. In looking at the needs of farmers in the
    credit area, I was interested in an assessment of the payment
    of loans and the fact that the repayment rate has been better
    than in years past. That is encouraging.
        Is it because farmers are not borrowing or using the credit
    programs that are authorized to be administered by USDA? How do
    you account for those significant improvements?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, I am not sure that I can answer your
    question specifically. I think it is a combination of things,
    and I will ask Jim Little if he can speak more specifically to
    that.
        In its continued depressed condition the farm economy may
    be driving what would normally be commercial bank borrowers to
    the government. And so we may be displacing higher risk
    borrowers, if you will, with lower risk ones.
        And I think also it is a factor of the changes in the
    program that Congress has authorized and the restrictions that
    have been placed on borrowing through the last farm bill. Those
    dividends are beginning to pay.
        Jim, do you have----
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Little, come up to the table and give
    us your reaction to that.
        Mr. Little. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think some of it
    might have to do with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of
    1996. We have done a little bit better--a lot better job in
    administering the programs, as well as making an effort to work
    with the borrowers in getting their repayments. The Debt
    Collection Improvement Act authorizes an offset program with
    the Department of Treasury, so we have a lot better collection
    tools.
        Also, the States have better information that we provide to
    them, and they are working with the borrowers one on one in
    attempting to get them to repay, as well as making compromises,
    along with the debt offset program. I believe these factors
    have a lot to do with the reduction in the delinquency rate.
        Senator Cochran. Do you know how much is on hand for Farm
    Service Agency loans and loan guarantees as compared to the
    levels we appropriated for fiscal year 2001?
        Mr. Little. I do not have that amount at the tip of my
    fingers.
        Senator Cochran. Well, you can submit that for the record.
    And we would like to know if you expect that any supplemental
    funding might be needed for any of these programs during the
    current fiscal year?
        Mr. Little. Yes, sir. We will provide that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                                                   FARM SERVICE AGENCY
                                   [Status of Farm Loan Programs as of April 30, 2001]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Funding (in millions of dollars)
                        Program                     -------------------------------------------------    Number of
                                                     Supportable \1\     Obligated       Available      loans made
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Direct:
        Farm Operating.............................             $700          $490.5          $209.5           9,918
        Farm Ownership.............................              156           128.5            27.5           1,159
        Emergency..................................            298.5            59.6           238.9           1,155
        Indian Land Acquisition....................                2             0.1             1.9               1
        Boll Weevil Eradication....................              100              10              90               1
        Seed Loans.................................               35            27.1             7.9             581
        Apple Loans................................             99.6             6.2            93.4             221
    Guaranteed:
        Operating, Unsubsidized....................          1,187.1           659.6           527.5           4,075
        Operating, with Interest Assistance........            473.3           383.9            89.4           2,185
        Ownership, Unsubsidized....................          1,009.5           443.9           565.6          1,822
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Supportable includes fiscal year 2001 appropriations and fiscal year 2000 carryover unobligated balances.

        The Farm Service Agency does not plan to request any supplemental
    funding for the farm loan programs for fiscal year 2001.

        Senator Cochran. Okay. Let me ask a question on another
    subject, foreign trade. We talked about the expansion of trade
    and negotiating new agreements, trying to help make sure we get
    a share of emerging markets for farmers in America.
        Is there a realistic expectation that these increased
    market opportunities will help increase prices of U.S. farm
    products, the money that farmers are actually making? What is
    your assessment of that, Mr. Collins?
        Mr. Collins. I think that is our goal. I think----
        Senator Cochran. Yes. But farmers tell me sometimes, they
    say, ``It is great to have these new markets expanded, but I am
    not seeing it reflected in the prices that we are getting from
    our commodities.''
        Mr. Collins. I can appreciate that. We certainly had the
    Uruguay Round adopted with great fanfare, and farmers asked me,
    you know, ``Where are the benefits of it? I have watched my
    exports go from $60 billion down to $50 billion over the last
    few years.''
        And the answer is complicated. There are a lot of things
    that have happened in the world, particularly the economic
    problems in Asia and Latin America and Russia and the exchange
    rate, and large crops around the world and that sort of thing.
    But if you look at American agriculture, the only best hope we
    really have is to expand market demand.
        We are going to have tremendous productivity gains in the
    future. We have always had tremendous productivity gains.
        We have the GMO revolution before us. And I think what we
    have to do is work on reducing production costs and work on
    expanding demand. And expanding demand will be through, I hope,
    non-food products, but also we can look around the world and we
    can see--as everyone says, 94 percent of the world's population
    is outside of the United States.
        We have strong growth, income prospects in Latin America,
    North Africa in the Middle East, and Asia. And those are going
    to be prime growth markets in years to come. And a lot of that
    growth is going to be not necessarily in corn or wheat or rice.
    It is going to be in value-added and high-value products.
        And, of course, that can benefit bulk products. You know,
    the more meat we export, the more soybean meal is going out as
    meat. Corn is going out as meat. Barley is going out as meat.
    Sorghum is going out as meat. So it can help the bulk products
    as well.
        But over the next couple of years I see a slow recovery in
    exports. In fact, I would guess that we would not hit our $60
    billion figure that we hit in 1996--I think we would not hit
    that until like 2003 or 2004.
        But the point is: You have to keep building this demand
    base, and that is what our export programs are trying to do. At
    some point, we are going to get the engine of the world economy
    firing in all eight cylinders and then, hopefully, we will see
    the kind of growth in exports that we saw through much of the
    1990s pick up again. But I cannot tell you exactly when that is
    going to occur.

                     Emergency Disaster Assistance Payments

        Senator Cochran. With respect to the disaster emergency
    assistance program this year, it is encouraging that now in
    place are signup notices, and there are clear signs that
    progress is being made in getting the regulations out. It is
    really amazing to me that so much work by the new
    Administration has been done so quickly to get us to this
    point.
        Will there be a time that you can expect when all payments
    will actually be made to those who are eligible? Can you look
    ahead and predict when that date will be?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, when Secretary Veneman first came
    into office, I set a goal in my own mind that we would try and
    be done with the crop disaster program, the crop quantity loss,
    if you will, within 60 days.
        And I think we met it or came very close to that. And
    taking into account the complexity of the crop quality loss
    program, I have been hoping that at least within 60 days of
    completion of the quantity loss, we would be done with the
    quality loss. And I think we are on track to meet that.
        As far as when the final payments will be done, that
    depends largely on how long a signup we have. But it is
    important to remember in both of these programs and in all of
    those that Congress did not place specific dollar limitations
    on, once a producer completes his application, and we process
    it, we can issue a check almost immediately.
        Now, there are programs such as the Tri-Valley Cooperative
    Program and others which are dollar limited. The oilseeds
    program is another example, where it was limited to $500
    million. In those cases we have to allow the signup to
    complete, the county offices to transmit that data back to
    Washington, and us to apply a pro-ration factor.
        But in the specific examples of crop quantity and quality
    losses, once those producers submit their applications and we
    process them, we should be able to issue a check; maybe not
    immediately, but certainly we can do so before the signup is
    complete.
        Senator Cochran. I congratulate you on the leadership you
    are providing and the success that you have had in meeting
    those target dates.
        A couple of questions that I had planned to ask about
    biotechnology and trade and the effect have already been asked
    and answered by other Senators.
        I am glad that we are apparently getting a better handle on
    this, and the people around the country and around the world
    are understanding that biotechnology is not a bad word
    necessarily. It has provided a lot of efficiencies and safer
    supplies of food in more instances than not.
        One of our food aid programs is Public Law 480 and the
    Title I program particularly. And I notice in the budget there
    is something called a ``Blueprint for New Beginnings,'' and the
    Administration proposes to undertake a review of Public Law 480
    Title I to evaluate its continued effectiveness in meeting
    market development objectives.
        Do you know how long this evaluation will take and what it
    involves, and what market development objectives may be used to
    evaluate the effectiveness of the program?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, this is a top-to-bottom review, as I
    would describe, to borrow from the Pentagon's evaluation of
    some of its operations, a top-to-bottom review of our food aid
    programs within the Department that was, agreed to as you
    mentioned, a part of the President's budget blueprint.
        We will be cooperating with the Office of Management and
    Budget to do that. And it will encompass all aspects of what
    our food aid program objectives are and how we administer that
    program.
        We look forward to participating in that and to completing
    it expeditiously. But to my knowledge that process has not yet
    begun. And so it would be difficult for me to provide you with
    an expected target date.
        Senator Cochran. My last question has to do with crop
    insurance, one of, I am sure, your favorite subjects.
        The Agricultural Risk Protection Act, when it was passed by
    Congress and signed by President Clinton in June of 2000, has
    resulted in the Farm Service Agency and the Risk Management
    Agency reconciling data that will be used to combat fraud and
    abuse.
        Can you provide the members of the subcommittee with a
    report on the data reconciliation process and when the process
    might be complete?
        Mr. Shipman. Senator, let me first ask that you let us
    submit a more detailed answer for the record. But in general
    terms, the Risk Management Agency entered into contracts with
    Tarleton University and one other vendor, as I recall, to
    participate in some data mining activities in evaluating the
    information that we have, and in trying to come up with methods
    by which we can compare Farm Service Agency data with Risk
    Management Agency data and to have analogies that can occur
    which will show us where there are potentials for fraud and
    abuse and other things.
        That is an ongoing process that we are hopeful will yield--
    along with the cooperative role or arrangement between RMA and
    FSA at the county office level--a better compliance system that
    will get rid of some of the perceived problems with the crop
    insurance program in general. We are hopeful that we can
    utilize this technology in order to do that.
        [The information follows:]

        The Risk Management Agency (RMA) and Farm Service Agency
    (FSA) are working onn procedures for data reconciliation, which
    will be Part 4 of the RMA/FSA 4-RM Handbook. This handbook
    details procedures for the implementation of the Agricultural
    Risk Protection Act of 2000 (AR-PA). The reconciliation will
    initially include four basic fields: producer identification,
    acreage, share, and production. The reconciliation of RMA and
    FSA data will zero in on 19 FSA program (loan deficiency
    payment) crops. The procedures should be finalized by June 30,
    2001, and will then be included in the Handbook. The
    reconciliation should begin by August 31, 2001, for crop year
    2001 and will include three of the four basic fields, excluding
    production. Changes to other similar RMA/FSA data will be made
    in fiscal year 2002. RMA and FSA will continue to maintain
    their respective data bases.

        Senator Cochran. I am hopeful that we can see a crop
    insurance program in place that will make it less likely that
    annual emergency bills will be necessary. That would be one of
    the results of a workable, affordable crop insurance program
    that works like farmers expect it to.
        But we do have to make sure that those who are abusing the
    program or who are engaging in fraudulent practices are not
    successful in continuing that. And there has to be a budget
    impact on all that, as well.
        Well, I appreciate very much the witnesses' cooperation
    with our Committee today at this hearing to examine the state
    of our farm economy and the budget request as it relates to
    farmers and the assistance programs that are funded in the
    budget to help make it more likely that farmers can operate
    profitably, and we can strengthen our farm economy.
        This concludes today's hearing. We appreciate very much, as
    I said, the cooperation of the chief economist and our new
    deputy undersecretary, Mr. Shipman.

                         Additional Submitted Questions

        Additional questions may be submitted in writing by the
    Committee members, and we hope you will be able to answer them
    within a reasonable time.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                 Questions Submitted to the Farm Service Agency

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                    production flexibility contract payments
        Question. Given that the scheduled annual reduction in Production
    Flexibility Contract (PFC) payments under the 1996 Farm Bill and lower
    loan deficiency payments are to reduce government payments by $2.5 to
    $3 billion in 2001, is a second PFC payment needed to help farmers at
    least break even this year?
        Answer. Farmers may need additional government payments depending
    on final plantings, harvested yields per acre, and market prices.
    According to the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget estimates, PFC
    payments and marketing loan benefits (loan deficiency payments and
    marketing loan gains) are expected to decline from $12.2 billion for
    the 2000 crop year to $9.7 billion for the 2001 crop year, a decrease
    of $2.5 billion. However, under the baseline projections, market
    revenues for the wheat, feed grains, upland cotton, rice, and oilseeds
    are expected to increase about $1.2 billion for the 2001 crop compared
    with the 2000 crop, partially offsetting the decline in government
    payments.
        Commitment at this time to a specific type and level of additional
    assistance is premature, particularly since spring planting is not
    complete. World weather patterns are still a major influencing factor
    that will affect the outcome of plantings, harvested yields, and market
    prices.
                            effects of energy costs
        Question. How have increases in petroleum and natural gas prices
    affected specifically the poultry industry, a major industry in my
    State?
        Answer. Last winter saw dramatic increases in the cost of heating
    poultry houses. Many producers saw their costs more than double,
    resulting in negative returns. While some integrators modified their
    heating allowances, these increases fell far short of meeting the
    increased costs. With the heating season now over, higher petroleum and
    natural gas prices are not expected to have a significant direct impact
    on poultry producers, and with rising prices for poultry products,
    grower returns are expected to return to profitable levels.
        Question. What other agricultural sectors have been hit extremely
    hard by the increased energy and fuel costs?
        Answer. In general, the farm economy appears to be responding
    efficiently and in a normal market-oriented way to increased energy
    prices. Most farmers are facing higher costs of production and reduced
    incomes due to higher energy prices. Production costs are also up for
    food processing and distribution, but very little effect is expected on
    retail food prices or the supply of food.
        The Department's current forecast of U.S. farm income for 2001
    placed farm expenditures on fuels and oils, electricity, fertilizer and
    pesticides at $30.9 billion, up $700 million from 2000. Developments
    since the forecast was made indicate that farm spending on farm energy
    inputs may actually increase by $2 to 3 billion, further eroding farm
    income.
        Sectors of the farm economy that are experiencing or are expected
    to experience disproportionate adverse impacts from higher energy
    prices are those that are relatively energy intensive--irrigated crops
    in the West that have high pumping costs, corn production due to both
    high fertilizer inputs and the need for grain drying, cotton ginners
    due to drying, and horticultural producers who have very little
    flexibility in adjusting to higher energy prices.
        Question. How will these increased energy and fuel costs affect
    irrigated crops, especially in the Southeast?
        Answer. Southeastern irrigated agriculture should experience less
    of an impact than western areas due to both the lower amount of water
    used per acre and the higher per acre value of the crops irrigated.
    While increases in energy prices are expected to decrease growers'
    returns, total acres irrigated in the southeast are expected to remain
    relatively unchanged. The most recent agriculture census indicated that
    in 1998 about 2 to 3 percent of total irrigated acres suffered
    diminished yields resulting from interruptions due to high energy
    costs. Given the recent increases in energy prices, yield impacts are
    expected to increase. Farmers are expected to respond to the higher
    energy prices by reducing the volume of water used and switching to
    crops requiring less water.
                                  farm income
        Question. I am very concerned with the agriculture credit situation
    that our farmers are currently facing. Low market prices have placed
    our producers in a state that makes their individual cash flow more
    important than ever. What suggestions do you have to assure credit
    availability in the near future?
        Answer. Ample credit is available through commercial lending
    sources for family farmers, contingent upon their ability to conduct a
    profitable farming operation. Unfortunately, low commodity prices and
    weather problems have made it difficult for some family farmers to
    finance their farming operations. This situation has created strong
    demand for FSA credit assistance. In fiscal years 1999 and 2000, FSA
    provided loans and loan guarantees totaling $7.5 billion to 71,000
    family farmers . Beginning farmers use FSA direct loan programs to
    establish family farms, while established farmers use FSA guaranteed
    loans to sustain their existing farm businesses.
        Full funding of the direct and guaranteed loan programs will allow
    family farmers, who are unable to obtain credit from a commercial
    source, an opportunity to secure financing until an improvement in
    economic conditions returns.
        Question. With the farm economy in the state that it is, what is
    happening in the land market?
        Answer. Farmland prices depend both on landowners' and land buyers'
    expectations about profits that agriculture may provide in the future,
    and, particularly in the Northeast and West, on the demand for rural
    land for development and recreation. The value of farm real estate rose
    in 2000 and USDA forecasts that it will be steady in 2001, indicating
    that farmland owners anticipate that either Government programs or the
    marketplace will provide them with adequate returns on their land and
    other assets.

    Farm Real Estate Values in the 1990's

                            [In billions of dollars]

            Year                                           Real Estate Value
    1990.............................................................. 619.1
    1991.............................................................. 624.8
    1992.............................................................. 640.8
    1993.............................................................. 677.6
    1994.............................................................. 704.1
    1995.............................................................. 740.5
    1996.............................................................. 769.5
    1997.............................................................. 808.2
    1998.............................................................. 841.8
    1999.............................................................. 870.0
    2000.............................................................. 874.4
    2001 (forecast)................................................... 883.1

        Of course, national statistics mask the diverse conditions facing
    producers across the country. The latest available USDA statistics show
    that per acre land prices declined slightly in 1999 in three Corn Belt
    States. Corresponding statistics for 2000 will be available in July
    2001.

                              FARM REAL ESTATE--AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE, BY REGION AND STATE
                                                 [January 1, 1996-2000]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Change
                         State                         1996       1997       1998       1999       2000    1999-2000
                                                                                                           (Percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Northeast:                                         $2,220     $2,240     $2,280     $2,370     $2,470        4.2
        CT........................................      5,950      5,950      5,950      6,300      6,600        4.8
        DE........................................      2,550      2,580      2,660      2,750      2,850        3.6
        ME........................................      1,150      1,170      1,190      1,200      1,210        0.8
        MD........................................      3,110      3,150      3,180      3,300      3,500        6.1
        MA........................................      5,100      5,150      5,210      5,500      5,900        7.3
        NH........................................      2,250      2,250      2,250      2,250      2,300        2.2
        NJ........................................      7,100      7,100      7,000      7,000      7,100        1.4
        NY........................................      1,260      1,250      1,280      1,340      1,410        5.2
        PA........................................      2,270      2,300      2,390      2,500      2,620        4.8
        RI........................................      6,500      6,500      6,500      6,500      6,500        0.0
        VT........................................      1,490      1,500      1,520      1,570      1,640        4.5
    Lake States:                                        1,130      1,200      1,280      1,390      1,490        7.2
        MI........................................      1,420      1,530      1,670      1,850      2,100       13.5
        MN........................................      1,030      1,090      1,160      1,230      1,270        3.3
        WI........................................      1,130      1,170      1,240      1,370      1,500        9.5
    Corn Belt:                                          1,510      1,610      1,730      1,830      1,840        0.5
        IL........................................      1,900      1,980      2,130      2,250      2,220       -1.3
        IN........................................      1,740      1,870      2,060      2,220      2,210       -0.5
        IA........................................      1,450      1,600      1,700      1,770      1,750       -1.1
        MO........................................        950      1,010      1,070      1,130      1,190        5.3
        OH........................................      1,820      1,890      2,040      2,220      2,250        1.4
    Northern Plains:                                      463        481        499        510        526        3.1
        KS........................................        553        565        577        580        590        1.7
        NE........................................        610        620        645        670        695        3.7
        ND........................................        383        390        401        406        415        2.2
        SD........................................        310        325        348        360        380        5.6
    Appalachian:                                        1,550      1,630      1,720      1,840      1,940        5.4
        KY........................................      1,300      1,350      1,450      1,530      1,590        3.9
        NC........................................      1,900      2,000      2,080      2,250      2,400        6.7
        TN........................................      1,530      1,650      1,810      1,950      2,100        7.7
        VA........................................      1,840      1,880      1,920      2,040      2,130        4.4
        WV........................................        980      1,050      1,090      1,070      1,060       -0.9
    Southeast:                                          1,580      1,630      1,700      1,770      1,920        8.5
        AL........................................      1,320      1,360      1,440      1,520      1,680       10.5
        FL........................................      2,150      2,200      2,240      2,260      2,400        6.2
        GA........................................      1,360      1,430      1,510      1,630      1,800       10.4
        SC........................................      1,360      1,400      1,480      1,520      1,600        5.3
    Delta States:                                       1,020      1,070      1,130      1,180      1,230        4.2
        AR........................................      1,010      1,070      1,150      1,220      1,250        2.5
        LA........................................      1,180      1,190      1,210      1,210      1,250        3.3
        MS........................................        917        980      1,050      1,100      1,180        7.3
    Southern Plains:                                      541        557        596        613        631        2.9
        OK........................................        547        570        610        625        634        1.4
        TX........................................        540        554        593        610        630        3.3
    Mountain:                                             383        399        415        426        440        3.3
        AZ \1\....................................        880        920        987      1,070      1,140        6.5
        CO........................................        558        590        618        630        640        1.6
        ID........................................        900        960      1,020      1,090      1,170        7.3
        MT........................................        289        291        294        296        300        1.4
        NV \1\....................................        332        366        392        420        440        4.8
        NM \1\....................................        212        215        217        217        215       -0.9
        UT \1\....................................        740        780        807        855        900        5.3
        WY........................................        206        215        222        220        235        6.8
    Pacific:                                            1,670      1,730      1,780      1,870      1,890        1.1
        CA........................................      2,400      2,500      2,610      2,770      2,850        2.9
        OR........................................        928        960        960      1,000      1,020        2.0
        WA........................................      1,120      1,160      1,190      1,190      1,150       -3.4
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, 48 States........................        887        926        974      1,020      1,050        2.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Excludes Native American Reservation Land.

        Federal Reserve Bank analyses also provide information on recent
    regional land value trends. The following are excerpts from their
    latest available reports:
        Kansas City District.--In this district, which covers Kansas,
    Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming,
    farmland values climbed in the fourth quarter of 2000, finishing their
    strongest year since 1997. In 2000, district cropland values rose
    nearly 4 percent while district ranchland values surged nearly 7
    percent. All district States posted strong gains in farmland values
    during 2000 with Kansas and the Mountain States leading the way. Many
    district bankers noted that recent gains in farmland values came in
    response to non-farm demand factors and hefty government payments
    rather than good times in the industry.
        Minneapolis District.--In this district, which covers Montana,
    North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, northwestern Wisconsin, and the
    Upper Peninsula of Michigan, cropland prices increased over last
    winter's prices from an average of 5 percent in Minnesota to 15 percent
    in western Wisconsin. In addition, pasture land price increases ranged
    from an average of 5 percent in Minnesota to 11 percent in South Dakota
    over those of a year ago.
        Chicago District.--In this district, which covers Illinois,
    Indiana, Iowa, Michigan (except for the Upper Peninsula), and Wisconsin
    (except for the northwestern portion), percent changes in the dollar
    value of ``good farmland'' from January 1, 2000, to January 1, 2001,
    were: Illinois, +4; Indiana, +7; Iowa, +7; Michigan, +3; and Wisconsin,
    +8.
        Question. Are farmland prices declining and reducing the equity
    position of farmers?
        Answer. Farm real estate values increased throughout the 1990's and
    2000, and USDA forecasts they will be stable in 2001. Farm land
    accounts for about 78 percent of the value of farm assets. Thus, stable
    or increasing land prices are crucial in maintaining farmers' equity
    positions, also commonly called net worth. A major downturn in
    landowners' expectations about the ability of agriculture to produce
    profits--whether due to market conditions, input costs, or changes in
    Government programs--could bring about large declines in farm real
    estate values, significantly eroding the equity position of farmers.
        Question. Is this declining equity position making it difficult for
    farmers to borrow money to meet operating expenses?
        Answer. Farmers' equity, or net worth, increased each year in the
    1990's and in 2000. USDA forecasts a further 1-percent increase in
    2001. Firm real estate values will help provide farmers with the
    collateral needed to qualify for loans.

    Farm Equity in the 1990's

                            [In billions of dollars]

            Year                                                 Farm Equity
    1990.............................................................. 702.6
    1991.............................................................. 705.0
    1992.............................................................. 729.3
    1993.............................................................. 768.2
    1994.............................................................. 789.3
    1995.............................................................. 816.8
    1996.............................................................. 848.7
    1997.............................................................. 887.7
    1998.............................................................. 912.7
    1999.............................................................. 940.2
    2000.............................................................. 941.6
    2001 (forecast)................................................... 951.0
                              commodity loan rates
        Question. Agriculture commodity organizations have testified that
    the current commodity loan rates are not equal. If loan rates are
    raised and become equal, how do you believe the commodity market would
    respond?
        Answer. Nearly all of the farm and commodity groups have called for
    some changes to marketing assistance loan rates as established under
    the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIR Act).
    With the exception of the American Soybean Association (ASA), these
    calls for loan rate realignment have been based on concerns that the
    current soybean loan rate, relative to the loan rates for other
    commodities, distorts farmer planting decisions in favor of soybeans.
    The $5.26-per-bushel soybean loan rate is substantially higher than the
    average per-bushel variable cash expenses incurred producing a bushel
    of soybeans. Adjusting per-acre variable cash expenses to a per-bushel
    basis using a moving 5-year average for yield, the soybean loan rate
    exceeds per-bushel variable cash expenses by 160 percent. The corn and
    wheat loan rates exceed variable cash expenses by 60 and 80 percent,
    respectively.
        Soybean acreage has expanded substantially since the mid-1990's.
    Between 1996 and 2001 (based on 2001 producer planting intentions
    reported in the March 2001 Prospective Plantings), soybean acreage has
    increased from 64.2 million acres to 76.7 million acres, an increase of
    12.5 million acres, or 19 percent. During this same period, corn
    acreage fell by 2.5 million acres, or 3 percent, and wheat acreage fell
    by 14.8 million acres, or 20 percent. As ASA has argued in its recent
    testimony before the House Agriculture Committee, not all of this
    increase in soybean acreage and decrease in corn and wheat acreage has
    been the result of the $5.26-per-bushel soybean loan rate.
        Soybean acreage increased substantially during the early 1990's,
    growing from 57.8 million acres in 1990 to 64.2 million acres in 1996,
    an increase of 6.4 million acres, or 11 percent. Nearly all of the
    increase in soybean acreage in 1996, 1997, and 1998 resulted from
    planting flexibility offered under the FAIR Act, which eliminated
    planting restrictions and planting requirements to protect program crop
    acreage bases. Soybean acreage in these years also expanded as the
    result of new varieties better adapted to the western and northern
    growing areas and the advent of biotech crops like Roundup Ready
    soybeans.
        Realigning loan rates so that they do not favor the planting of
    soybeans would likely cause some acreage to shift from soybeans to
    other commodities. Thus, assuming no other supply and demand changes,
    soybean market prices would increase while market prices would decrease
    for the commodities for which plantings increase.
                      conservation reserve program acreage
        Question. Most economists seem to believe that the depressed
    commodity prices are directly related to excess supply of each product.
    With this in mind, would it be beneficial to increase acreage
    limitation within the current Conservation Reserve Program?
        Answer. There are really two questions or issues: (1) What impact
    would increasing CRP enrollment have on commodity prices, and (2) What
    would be the consequences of higher commodity prices? The answer to the
    first question hinges on the response both domestically and
    internationally. Expansion of CRP would be expected to reduce domestic
    supply and thereby increase commodity prices and increase U.S. farm
    income, especially when increases in aggregate CRP rental payments are
    included. The extent of the commodity supply and price impacts largely
    depend on the actual net change in planted acreage of each commodity
    that occurs as a result of the change in CRP enrollment. Typically
    plantings decline, but not by an amount equal to the increased CRP
    acreage. This mitigates the commodity supply and price effects, which
    is compounded if increases in international production occur.
        An earlier analysis of the price impacts of expanding the CRP gives
    an indication of the magnitude of crop price changes that could be
    attributable to a future expansion of the program. As an example, the
    analysis suggested that increasing the program to 45 million acres
    could result in wheat, corn, and soybean price increases of 15 cents, 2
    cents, and 25 cents per bushel, respectively, compared with a 36.4-
    million-acre-program. Price impacts would amount to about half of these
    levels for a 40-million-acre program.
        The second issue relates to the consequences on the farm sector and
    society of lower commodity supplies and higher commodity prices. While
    crop income is generally expected to increase and landowners would
    benefit, net incomes of livestock producers may decline. Consumers lose
    whenever supplies decline and prices increase. Again, past economic
    studies have concluded that the CRP at current levels has resulted in
    net economic benefits to domestic and foreign producers and consumers,
    but only when estimates of the environmental benefits are included.
    Based on these studies, enlarging the program above the current 36.4-
    million-acre limit may result in net benefits for society.
                              crop loss assistance
        Question. It is my understanding that a producer is eligible for
    payment under the Crop Quality Loss Program as long as 20 percent of
    the affected area experiences quality loss. Is my assumption correct?
        Answer. No, it is not. Producers will be eligible for a Quality
    Loss Program (QLP) payment if they provide written documentation
    substantiating that the harvested production of a crop produced in the
    2000 crop year suffered a minimum of a 20 percent reduction in quality
    due to an eligible cause of loss. Affected production may be calculated
    using the smallest measurable unit for which acceptable records exist,
    such as bale, truck load, bin or bunk. County ``average'' quality loss
    percentages are not applicable to QLP.
        Question. Additionally, will a producer be able to choose to
    collect the quality loss payment or the crop loss disaster payment?
        Answer. Producers can receive both a CDP payment and a QLP payment.
    However, payment cannot be received for the same loss under both CDP
    and QLP. If a portion of the CDP payment includes a quality adjustment,
    the calculated QLP payment will be reduced by the portion of the CDP
    payment attributed to quality losses.
                     starlink buy-back/bioengineered foods
        Question. USDA has recently announced a purchase program for seed
    containing the protein (Cry9C) found in StarLink corn. Out of 300
    contracts sent out to the seed companies by USDA, 78 seed companies
    reported contaminated seed and signed up to participate in the buy-back
    program. Do you have any concern that the remaining 148 companies not
    participating in the program may be selling contaminated seed?
        Answer. No, companies involved have recovered and taken control of
    all lots of hybrid seed corn found to have the Cry9C protein. Seed
    companies routinely test their products for impurities and many took
    steps to detect Cry9C before USDA recommended testing procedures on
    December 29, 2000. Additionally, CCC has directly contacted all seed
    companies to stress the importance of testing and advised them not to
    sell any seed corn that tests positive for the Cry9C protein. Press
    releases have also been issued advising farmers to not plant any seed
    corn this year that has not been tested or verified to be negative for
    the protein. Farmers have been advised to return any positive or
    untested seed to their dealer for a full refund.
        Question. The Washington Post has reported that StarLink was found
    in new categories of corn products such as corn bread, polenta, and
    hush puppies in tests conducted by the company, Aventis, that developed
    the corn. In your opinion, will this trigger more food recalls and
    cause more countries that are opposed to genetically-engineered food to
    avoid U.S. food products?
        Answer. The new information provided by Aventis appears to support
    the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) assessment that the wet-
    milling process effectively eliminates StarLink from finished products.
    The reports did indicate that the dry-milling process denatures but
    does not totally eliminate pure 100 percent StarLink in finished food
    products. However, StarLink is no longer approved for production, and
    therefore, the 100 percent pure StarLink will not be grown this year.
    EPA, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and USDA are continuing to
    coordinate an aggressive Federal effort, in cooperation with growers,
    millers, the food industry and Aventis, to divert StarLink corn away
    from the human food supply.
        Through the Cry9C Protein Seed Corn Purchase Program (Program),
    USDA is removing the Cry9C protein from the food chain and destroying
    it before it has an opportunity to spread further. Under this program,
    USDA is purchasing for destruction, seed corn that contains any Cry9C
    protein. Current estimates are that the testing procedures detect
    concentrations of less than 1 percent. Given this low detection
    threshold and the destruction of known seed containing the protein, it
    is highly unlikely that the Cry9C protein will show up on any tests on
    this year's corn crop. USDA has been very successful in working with
    growers and seed companies to ensure that seed intended for the 2001
    growing season is tested for the presence of Cry9C (StarLink) and is
    not planted if found to contain Cry9C. Therefore, we believe there
    should be no additional food recalls or foreign concerns for the 2001
    U.S. corn crop.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter

                     ldp program repayments in pennsylvania
        Question. I contacted Secretary Glickman last year and Secretary
    Veneman in February of this year to request assistance in resolving an
    unacceptable situation in Erie County, Pennsylvania. Specifically, due
    to erroneous actions taken by the Farm Service Agency Office in
    Waterford, Pennsylvania, hundreds of Erie County farmers were told to
    repay loan deficiency payments they had received for 1998 and 1999 crop
    years. These farmers report they would have been entitled to these
    payments had USDA employees correctly assisted them in filling out the
    applications. A recent article in a Northwestern PA publication
    indicates that USDA has chosen to reverse its earlier decision with
    regard to repayment, although only for those who have not made
    repayments. My office has not been informed of any such decision by the
    Department.
        Is this report accurate?
        Answer. No, this report is not correct; USDA has not reversed its
    decision.
        Question. If so, how does the Administration justify holding
    farmers in Erie County to different standards with regard to this
    situation?
        Answer. The standards are uniform for everyone.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                             state mediation grants
        Question. Please provide information regarding the number and type
    of problem resolutions that have been achieved though this program and
    include estimates on dollar amounts of loans that were prevented from
    being discharged through bankruptcy or other final resolutions that
    would have been counter to the interests of either party.
        Answer. The USDA State mediation programs have helped resolve many
    areas of disputes, including farm loans, price support payments,
    wetland determinations, conservation compliance, and Conservation
    Reserve Program payment eligibility. The most difficult disputes to
    resolve involve farm loan programs, which represent 60 percent of
    mediation cases. Disputes involving the Conservation Reserve Program
    and production flexibility contracts represent the bulk of the other
    cases. Dispute issues involving rural housing loans, rural business
    loans, and crop insurance are considered appropriate for mediation by
    the USDA State mediation programs. The number of mediation clients
    increased from 4,140 in fiscal year 1999 to 4,673 in fiscal year 2000.
    The number of agreements or resolutions increased from 2,898 in fiscal
    year 1999 to 3,411 in 2000.
        It is difficult to estimate the dollar amounts of loans that were
    prevented from being discharged through bankruptcy as a result of
    mediation. We do know that conflict is an expensive business. To the
    extent that regulations and procedures provide opportunities for
    voluntary resolution of disputes, financial benefits of mediation
    accrue not only to USDA but to other governmental institutions,
    businesses, and individuals, including farmers and ranchers. For
    example, State mediation cases usually cost between $400 to $800 a case
    depending on the complexity of the dispute and the number of
    participants involved. The average resolution rate is over 73 percent.
    The Nebraska Department of Agriculture reported that a significant
    amount of money is saved by parties using the Nebraska State Mediation
    Program since the attorney fees alone for a person in bankruptcy
    average between $3,500 and $7,500. Many of the savings are intangible
    such as restoring communications between farmers and lenders, helping
    producers improve their decision making abilities, and helping farmers
    better understand their options thereby making the ultimate solution
    more workable for them.
                           new markets--biotechnology
        Question. It has been recently reported that scientists have
    discovered a gene in certain plants that can be modified that would
    increase the amount of oil the plant would produce, thereby, increasing
    its use for bio-energy. Does USDA support increased research and
    development in bio-energy and do you think that renewable energy
    derived from farm products can serve to replace conventional fossil
    fuels to any meaningful extent in terms both of decreasing our energy
    dependence on foreign sources and increasing farm income?
        Answer. USDA does support increased research and development in
    bio-energy. In fiscal year 2001 the Agricultural Research Service will
    be investing $6.867 million in research on this issue, CSREES will be
    investing $6.594 million, the Forest Service will be investing $1
    million, and the Commodity Credit Corporation will be investing $150
    million in incentive payments to develop increased production of
    biofuels. In addition, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) is
    conducting a demonstration project using grass and trees from six CRP
    locations to evaluate the feasibility of co-firing and firing electric
    power generation using biomass.
        We do believe that renewable energy from farm products replaces a
    significant amount of conventional fossil fuels and decreases our
    dependence on foreign oil. We have conducted an analysis to determine
    the effect of replacing methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) with
    ethanol. Results of that analysis indicated that the price of corn
    would rise by an annual average of 15 cents per bushel over the 2000 to
    2010 period as a result of the increased demand for corn as a feedstock
    to produce ethanol. Over the same period, annual average net farm
    income would increase by about $1.2 billion. Replacing MTBE as an
    oxygenate in gasoline would result in annual demand for about 4.5
    billion gallons of ethanol, about 2.5 times the 2001 annual
    consumption, which is expected to be about 1.8 billion gallons.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                             farm program delivery
        Question. It's likely that the farm economy will not improve this
    year, and there is a good chance that there will be an effort advanced
    by Congress to provide more emergency help similar to what has taken
    place the past few years.
        In a visit to a local Farm Service Agency office in a fairly large
    county in North Dakota, I asked about staff needs. A seasoned veteran
    of many years told me that the office had experienced a reduction in
    force of seven full-time employees from the peak years of employment in
    the 1980's, but that the workload that was being asked of them was
    larger than anything she had ever experienced since coming to work in
    the office.
        Obviously, local County FSA office staff are stretched to the
    limit, and I am concerned about the personal stress that is being
    placed on these workers and their families.
        Computerization has made up for some of this loss of staff, but not
    all. Local County Executive Directors tell me one additional full time
    employee would greatly reduce the burden for existing staff. This is
    because temporary staff cannot be charged with many of the tasks,
    simply because they are not there long enough to warrant the training
    required.
         Would the Administration support an increase in staff for local
    offices, given the need that is quite apparent?
        Answer. FSA county offices have successfully implemented more than
    25 new disaster and economic assistance programs over the last several
    years. Much of this unanticipated workload was completed due to the
    appropriation of supplemental funding and the subsequent hiring of
    temporary staffing. The agency relies on the flexibility of temporary
    staffing in order to best meet the changing workload activity levels
    and locations associated with the disaster and economic assistance
    programs.
        FSA acknowledges the tremendous workload impact that these
    increased activities have had on the permanent workforce. Through the
    placement of temporary staffing, FSA has tried to minimize the impact
    on employee morale and stress issues. To increase permanent staffing
    levels at this time, however, would impact budgetary resources, limit
    flexibility of remaining staffing distribution, and put the agency in
    the position of potential reductions-in-force when workload activities
    return to normal ongoing operations.
                                  ag mediation
        Question. USDA is requesting $3 million for State agricultural
    mediation grants for fiscal year 2002--the same as last year. However,
    four new programs in California, Colorado, Mississippi and New York
    have pending certification applications. Since this is a growing
    program due to the continued depressed farm economy, it has been
    suggested that $4.5 to $5 million would be a more appropriate funding
    level.
         Have any States been turned down for participation in this program
    due to a lack of funding?
        Answer. No States have been turned down for participation in the
    USDA State mediation program. California is the 26th State to be
    certified by USDA. The certified States are:
        Alabama; Arizona; Arkansas; California; Florida; Idaho; Illinois;
    Indiana; Iowa; Kansas; Maryland; Michigan; Minnesota; Missouri;
    Nebraska; Nevada; New Jersey; New Mexico; North Dakota; Oklahoma; South
    Dakota; Texas; Utah; Washington; Wisconsin; Wyoming.
        Colorado, Maine, Mississippi, New York and Tennessee State
    officials are interested in becoming certified pending availability of
    mediation grant funds.
        These 26 certified States requested matching Federal grants
    totaling over $3.825 million. In fiscal year 2001, $3 million was
    appropriated, and each State's grant was prorated to approximately 78
    percent of the request. This has resulted in States contributing more
    than their 30 percent share in order to maintain viable agricultural
    mediation programs.
                              quality loss program
        I want to thank USDA for its commitment to start the signup for the
    quality loss program in May. The Farm Service Agency has struggled to
    get this complex legislation implemented, and I want to thank the
    Agency for all the hard work that has been put forth by everyone
    involved. I have never doubted that the Agency was not trying to get
    this program out to the farmers at the earliest possible date.
        Having said that, I still want to impress on you the need to get
    the notice for this program published. We all know that there will be
    some lag time after publication to allow for county office staff
    training and to get the software finished and downloaded. I urge you to
    include in the publication examples of how the program will be
    implemented so that farmers and their bankers have some way to estimate
    the assistance that will be forthcoming to them.
        Question. Once again, I thank you for committing to begin a signup
    for the Quality Loss Program in May. Obviously, there is still some
    work to do on the interpretation. Can you tell me if the ``decision
    memo'' has reached the Secretary's office for consideration yet?
        Answer. All necessary decisions to begin signup have been made.
        Question. Considering the late date of implementation and the fact
    that financial plans have been made with question marks with regards to
    the specifics of this program, will the notice include examples so that
    farmers and their bankers have some indication of what they can expect
    for assistance?
        Answer. The notice will include examples and explain eligibility
    requirements for a QLP payment, including providing acceptable evidence
    of the quality loss.
                      fruit and vegetable violations rule
        The Fruit and Vegetable Rule contained in the 1996 farm bill was
    intended to keep farmers from switching program crop acres to fruit and
    vegetable production while pocketing AMTA payments. If a farmer planted
    a fruit or vegetable on a program acre, the fine was the value of the
    crop planted.
        A number of farmers who grow dry beans in ND have inadvertently
    violated this rule due to farm reconstitutions, putting land into or
    out of CRP, etc. The fines range from $1,000 to $53,000. The farmer
    with the $53,000 fine has annual AMTA payments of $17,000 for his
    entire farm.
        In ND, the fine for growing dry beans on program acres was
    calculated the following way: the county yield (1,000)  a set
    price ($.18) = $180/acre
        A retroactive rule change was put in place in January:
      --1st violation--a fine of 3 times the AMTA payment on the acres in
            question. (For ND, a $30 to $45/acre fine instead of $180)
      --2nd violation--the fine reverts to the original rule.
        The rule change was withdrawn for review in late January of this
    year.
        Question. What is the status of the potential rule?
        Answer. The Department is still considering whether to publish a
    final rule.
        Question. Don't you agree that the penalty for the 1st violation
    under this change is a sufficient deterrent, and that leaving the
    original ``drop dead'' fine in place for the 2nd violation is a good
    compromise in that it alleviates ruinous fines to inadvertent violators
    while protecting the traditional fruit and vegetable growers?
        Answer. There are varying opinions on this matter. During the
    comment period, some people advocated that no change in the rule should
    be made.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

                               bioenergy program
        Question. In South Dakota, the Bioenergy Program has already
    benefitted three ethanol companies and four specific plants. Broin
    Enterprises of Scotland, SD--my State's first ethanol plant, and
    Heartland Grain Fuels--with ethanol plants in Huron and Aberdeen, SD--
    have both been approved for compensation under the Bioenergy Program.
        Additionally, Dakota Ethanol, a new 40 million gallon farmer-owned
    ethanol plant based near Wentworth, SD, has tentatively been approved
    for compensation subject to the completion of the plant's construction
    yet this year.
        Can you verify for certain if the Administration has included the
    authorized $150 million for the Bioenergy Program for fiscal year 2002
    (in addition to the $150 million approved for fiscal year 2001)?
    Additionally, I believe the Bioenergy Program has merit and needs to be
    extended beyond 2002. Please tell me what the future holds for the
    Bioenergy Program in the USDA CCC budget.
        Answer. Yes, the Administration has included the authorized $150
    million for the Bioenergy Program for fiscal year 2002. It is shown in
    the CCC Commodity Estimates Book, fiscal year 2002 President's Budget,
    Presentation No. 0301, dated April 9, 2001.
                            farm bill emergency aid
        I believe Congress can and should amend current farm policy
    immediately to provide a more predictable secure safety-net for farmers
    in 2001 and 2002--essentially modifying the farm bill now instead of
    waiting until it expires. It is time for a new farm bill that provides
    a meaningful income safety net, is reasonable in cost to the American
    taxpayers, yet assures some level of economic security for our nation's
    family farmers and ranchers.
        Question. When can we expect USDA to offer any suggestions for re-
    writing the farm bill?
        Answer. The Administration plans to begin a process this month to
    develop policy proposals that will be included in a new farm bill. This
    process is expected to be completed by the end of the summer.
                   state ag mediation grants program funding
        Question. The President's budget requests $3 million for State
    Mediation Grants for fiscal year 2002, although it has been suggested
    that $4.5 to $5 million is needed to adequately fund this program.
        Can you provide a list of the States which have requested to
    participate in this program but have been turned down for lack of
    funding?
        Answer. No States with qualified programs have been turned down for
    participation in the State Mediation Grants program. This fiscal year
    26 State programs requested matching Federal grants totaling $3.825
    million. With an appropriation of $3 million, each State received
    approximately 78 percent of its request. Several States including
    Colorado, Maine, Mississippi, New York and Tennessee are interested in
    becoming certified pending availability of mediation grant funds.
        Question. Please provide information relating to any problems
    identified by currently participating States associated with low
    funding levels.
        Answer. Participating States are unable to engage in some of the
    activities authorized under the program. The Grain Standards and
    Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000, which reauthorizes the State
    Mediation Grants program through 2005, also authorizes the use of
    matching grant funds for financial advisory and counseling services. At
    the pro rated level, States are not able to assume this additional
    responsibility. States also are unable to address the full range of
    issues that the law makes subject to mediation.
        In addition, officials in five more States are interested in
    becoming certified pending availability of mediation grant funds. The
    Federal share is authorized at 70 percent of the cost of a States's
    program, with the State contributing the remaining 30 percent. In
    fiscal year 2001 States have had to provide more than their required
    level of matching funds in order to maintain their operations. If
    Federal funds were further pro rated, there could come a point at which
    a State would consider its program not to be viable.
                           conservation program cuts
        Question. USDA's proposed budget adequately addresses some of our
    agricultural, trading, and food safety priorities. Yet, I believe it
    fails to make some specific and significant investments in a secure
    farm safety net, conservation programs, efforts to restore marketplace
    competition, and rural development.
        I am specifically concerned about the cuts or elimination of funds
    in fiscal year 2002 for important conservation programs such as the
    Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, and
    the Emergency Conservation Program.
        Can we expect USDA to re-evaluate their position on significant
    cuts to conservation programs?
        Answer. President Bush has made it clear that providing a farm
    security net consistent with the free market, including assistance to
    farmers to protect our farm-based natural resources, is a key objective
    of USDA's mission. USDA is reviewing and analyzing program and policy
    options, to be considered in the next Farm Bill, that would achieve
    this objective. Objectives within this review and analysis process
    include (1) establishment of the appropriate balance between the two
    major approaches to resource protection--i.e., major land use change,
    such as cropland retirement, and better management and protection of
    working farmlands, (2) better targeting of funding for programs and
    policies involving either approach, and (3) more and better cooperation
    with local and State governments to ensure that the Federal funds are
    best spent and funding leverage is maximized.
        The Wetlands Reserve Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentive
    Program have reached the acreage and/or funding limits established
    under the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Any
    future recommendations for these two programs or programs of these
    types will be developed within the farm bill review and analysis
    process. The President's Budget requests no funding for the Emergency
    Conservation Program for fiscal year 2002. However, the $5.6 billion
    Government-wide National Emergency Reserve proposed in the President's
    Budget could provide for emergency conservation needs.
        Question. Does USDA agree that programs like CRP, WRP, the new
    Farmable Wetlands Pilot, and others should be considered as part of a
    farm bill?
        Answer. USDA is in the process of reviewing and analyzing
    conservation policies and programs to be considered for the next farm
    bill. The important resource conservation actions and policies embodied
    in the current Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program,
    and the Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program will be carefully reviewed and
    evaluated in establishing our conservation program proposals and
    priorities.
                            wool assistance program
        Question. Some sheep producers in South Dakota have indicated to me
    that although the signup period for the ad hoc wool assistance program
    ends this Friday (May 4), actual payments will not be made until mid to
    late June. Sheep growers truly expect the payments to be made in May.
        Can you confirm when the payments will be made on this program?
        Answer. The target date for payments under the Wool and Mohair
    Market Loss Assistance Program (WAMLAP) II is the week of June 20,
    2001.
        Question. Also, can you provide me with the wool payments per State
    and how many producers are participating in the emergency wool program?
        Answer. There are approximately 66,800 sheep and lamb operations
    that participated in WAMLAP I. Participation in WAMLAP II will not be
    known until the program's conclusion. Attached is a breakdown by State
    of WAMLAP I payment activity.

                                     ______

            Questions Submitted to the Foreign Agricultural Service

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                     starlink buy-back/bioengineered foods
        Question. The Washington Post has reported that StarLink was found
    in new categories of corn products such as corn bread, polenta, and
    hush puppies in tests conducted by the company, Aventis, that developed
    the corn.
        In your opinion, will this trigger more food recalls and cause more
    countries that are opposed to genetically-engineered food to avoid U.S.
    food products?
        Answer. It is our understanding that Aventis, in a petition to EPA,
    described a new, more sensitive test for the StarLink protein (Cry9C)
    in finished foods. Aventis submitted data showing that in some food
    products made from dry milled corn meal, such as corn muffins, the
    StarLink protein was not broken down, although the level of the protein
    in the food was greatly reduced. The products tested were made from 100
    percent StarLink corn. In addition, Aventis' recent submission
    supported a report EPA issued in March for public comment which showed
    that the process of wet-milling corn effectively eliminates StarLink
    protein from finished food products, such as corn oil, corn syrup,
    alcohol, and corn starch. However, contrary to what was reported in the
    Washington Post article, Aventis did not itself test any commercial
    food products and so did not find any StarLink in such foods. EPA will
    carefully evaluate this new information as it continues to review
    Aventis' pending request to completely authorize StarLink corn in the
    human food supply.
        Pending a comprehensive evaluation of all scientific information
    available on human health concerns related to StarLink corn, EPA, the
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture are continuing to coordinate an aggressive Federal effort,
    in cooperation with growers, millers, the food industry, and Aventis to
    divert StarLink corn away from the human food supply. USDA has been
    very successful working with growers and seed companies to ensure that
    bags of corn seed intended for the 2001 growing season are tested for
    the presence of StarLink corn and are not planted if found to contain
    StarLink. FDA and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
    are continuing their investigation of cases in which people reported
    experiencing allergic reactions from eating corn products. Results of
    this investigation will be made public as soon as they are available.
        Due to these extraordinary efforts, we are hopeful that few if any
    future food recalls due to the new test will be necessary, and that
    countries importing U.S. corn may rest assured that it is safe.
                agricultural trade/foreign agricultural service
        Question. Last week, the Secretary testified that the
    Administration has established an ambitious trade expansion agenda, and
    USDA will be a ``full and active participant in that effort.'' Can you
    be more specific about the major trade barriers faced by U.S.
    agriculture and how the Department is working and coordinating its
    efforts to further reduce trade-distorting policies, ensure fair
    competition in global markets, and expand and enhance economic and
    trade opportunities for U.S. agriculture?
        Answer. There are numerous areas where USDA is working, together
    with USTR and other U.S. Government agencies, to remove barriers to
    U.S. agricultural exports. In addition to the numerous bilateral issues
    that come up on a regular basis, as indicated in the explanatory notes
    for FAS, one of the most significant USDA activities is the WTO
    negotiations on agriculture. These negotiations began in early 2000, as
    required by the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, and are making good
    progress. This is an important opportunity to reduce barriers in all of
    our trading partners with one agreement. Many significant barriers to
    our exports will be addressed in these WTO negotiations. In the area of
    market access, the most significant barrier we face is high tariffs.
    Average world tariffs for agricultural products are higher than 60
    percent, compared to the U.S. average of around 12 percent. We have
    proposed that these tariffs be reduced substantially and in a manner
    that reduces disparities among countries. In the area of subsidies, the
    European Union spends more than $5 billion in export subsidies
    annually, nearly 90 percent of all the export subsidies notified to the
    WTO. We have proposed that all export subsidies be eliminated. These
    are just some of the issues that are being dealt with in the WTO
    agriculture negotiations. For a complete listing of our proposals
    please look on the FAS web site (www. FAS.USDA.gov) under Trade Policy.
    USDA is also working closely with USTR and other agencies on regional
    and bilateral free trade agreement negotiations such as the Free Trade
    Area of the Americas, the Chile FTA, and the Singapore FTA.
        Another important area where U.S. agriculture faces barriers to our
    exports is the area of Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) restrictions.
    While every country has the right to protect the health and safety of
    its consumers and to protect its producers from diseases and pests,
    these types of measures are often used to restrict trade without an
    appropriate scientific basis. USDA works with other government
    agencies, including FDA and USTR, to remove or modify these measures so
    that they do not impede U.S. exports. We also work to develop
    appropriate standards in the international standard setting bodies and
    to educate the authorities in developing countries so that their
    governments are less likely to adopt measures which do not meet the
    requirements of the WTO SPS agreement.
        Another important area of work for USDA is to limit the
    restrictions being established in many countries on trade in the
    products of biotechnology. As these products become more common in
    international trade, many countries are proposing labeling and other
    measures to control their use and distribution. FAS does not currently
    have sufficient resources to keep up with the growing work load
    generated by these changes and, therefore, the President's budget has
    proposed additional funding for that purpose.
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget is an increase of $6.4
    million above the fiscal year 2001 level to enhance the Foreign
    Agricultural Service's capabilities to address technical trade issues
    and to strengthen the Service's market intelligence capabilities at its
    overseas posts. Please give us an assessment of our current
    capabilities in each of these areas and how our efforts will be
    strengthened with the additional funds requested.
        Answer. Roughly half of this increase covers non-discretionary
    increases in salaries and benefits associated with the proposed fiscal
    year 2002 pay raise. The remainder is intended for expanding overseas
    market intelligence capacity and dealing with technical trade barriers.
        FAS overseas posts have traditionally focused on providing market
    research and intelligence, promoting U.S. products through marketing
    activities, and administering food aid programs. Since the Uruguay
    Round, this workload has been increased by the need to ensure foreign
    market access through trade policy activities. Growth of this portion
    of an already heavy workload, especially as it relates to non-tariff
    barriers, has shifted attention in our overseas posts from traditional
    reporting to trade policy interventions. Nevertheless, at this time we
    are unable to follow WTO compliance systematically, even to the extent
    of translating and analyzing other countries' formal WTO notifications
    of intended changes in regulations and laws. Our efforts to shift from
    gathering market intelligence on traditional bulk commodities to
    increasing emphasis on the faster-growing consumer-ready market segment
    have been hampered by diversion of staff resources to market access
    issues. We are missing market opportunities. New overseas staff will
    handle routine market intelligence and analytical chores as well as
    bolster our ability to track compliance with WTO obligations. Adding
    staff for this routine work will free our American agricultural
    attaches to focus on high-priority market access tasks, while ensuring
    that unbiased, accurate, and time-critical market intelligence
    continues to flow.
        In Washington, additional trade policy staff will focus on knocking
    down or preventing the erection of non-scientific, technical trade
    barriers. Some such barriers already keep U.S. products out of foreign
    markets, such as Europe's ban on bioengineered corn. Examples of
    potential future barriers could include bans on bioengineered cotton,
    which is already in the marketplace, or bioengineered wheat, which
    could be on the market in the next 3 years. Current staffing permits
    FAS to react ad hoc to crises. It is already not sufficient to review
    systematically foreign government compliance with WTO obligations, to
    develop and implement strategies for dealing with the growth in
    technical trade barrier activity, to resolve technical issues of
    commercializing new products of biotechnology, or to ensure support of
    U.S. positions on food safety when they are debated within standard-
    setting international organizations.
        Question. Where do the greatest opportunities to expand U.S.
    agricultural exports exist? How are these determined?
        Answer. The Foreign Agricultural Service has set a goal of
    increasing the U.S. share of world agricultural exports from its
    current level of 18 percent to 22 percent by 2010. To be successful in
    reaching this overall goal, the Department must increasingly focus its
    trade policy efforts and export promotion programs and activities in
    those markets expected to be the most dynamic import growth markets of
    the next 10 years. Our experience and empirical evidence indicate that
    the greatest opportunities are in the emerging markets of China,
    Southeast Asia and Latin America (especially Mexico). In the somewhat
    longer term, India should be added to the list.
        This determination is based on two primary factors. The first
    factor is based on identifying where overall food consumption growth is
    expected to be greatest given projected increases in consumer incomes
    and the propensities to translate those income gains into increased
    food consumption. This roughly translates into identifying the
    countries where the growth in the middle class is expected to be the
    greatest. One of the first consumer ``needs'' to be satisfied during
    the transition to middle class is food--namely, the quantity and
    variety of food consumed. In 19 of the world's largest developing
    countries, experts have projected 600 million additional middle class
    consumers will emerge by 2006--the large majority are in the markets
    listed above.
        The second factor involves those countries with very high market
    access barriers where reductions in those barriers through trade
    negotiations would translate into significant new opportunities for
    U.S. exporters. With the exception of Mexico, many of the countries
    identified above impose substantial barriers to U.S. exporters. For
    example, agricultural tariffs average 62 percent in WTO countries as a
    whole and over 100 percent (super tariffs) in a number of developing
    countries such as India. Levels that high not only sharply reduce U.S.
    exports, they act as a tax on local consumers, which leads to higher
    domestic prices and reduced overall food demand. The higher prices, in
    turn, lead to overproduction by local producers and is just another
    form of domestic support--paid for by consumers instead of taxpayers.
        For the countries listed above, the combination of these two
    factors put them at the top of our list of ``best growth market''
    prospects over the next 10 years. U.S. success in these growth markets
    will largely determine whether FAS' 22 percent market share goal will
    be achieved. However, there will be fierce competition among the
    world's major exporters (i.e. the EU and Cairns Group) to capture a
    large share of this new demand. Given the significant role that
    exchange rates play plus the increasing export expansion commitments of
    our competitors, especially in the area of market development, it is
    still too early to predict who will capture the lion's share of these
    new export opportunities.
                           cochran fellowship program
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes to maintain
    appropriations for the Cochran Fellowship Program at a level of $4
    million. What are the benefits of this program, not only in terms of
    educating foreign participants about U.S. products, but educating them
    about U.S. policies on issues such as food safety and biotechnology?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001, we expect to provide training programs
    for over 830 international participants from about 75 countries. This
    will be about a 14 percent increase in the number of participants from
    fiscal year 2000. Roughly half of these activities will directly
    involve providing training to potential international buyers of U.S.
    agricultural products, and will include making direct contact between
    U.S. agricultural producers and potential buyers. These activities will
    provide U.S. producers the opportunity to showcase not only the variety
    of U.S. products available on the market but to educate potential
    consumers about the uses and quality of these products. Many of these
    potential buyers are from countries not currently importing U.S.
    agricultural products.
        Because market access issues in the areas of food safety and
    biotechnology remain a significant constraint to increased market
    opportunities, the Cochran Fellowship Program is working with FAS
    Agricultural Affairs Offices overseas and with our USDA regulatory
    agencies to provide training in these areas. For example: USDA's Animal
    and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and Food Safety and
    Inspection Service (FSIS) are working with the Cochran Program to
    provide training to their counterparts in other countries in animal
    diseases and meat and poultry inspection. We expect to provide training
    to over 50 international participants in these areas in fiscal year
    2001. We also expect to provide training to over 70 international
    regulators, scientists, and journalists regarding biotechnology issues.
    In addition, we will organize World Trade Organization (WTO) accession
    training activities for about 15 international policy makers in fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. How has the Cochran Fellowship Program contributed to our
    market development efforts?
        Answer. The Cochran Fellowship Program works with FAS Agricultural
    Affairs and Agricultural Trade Offices overseas, as well as with U.S.
    agricultural trade and market development associations, to identify
    candidates for training that benefit market development efforts. This
    process has proven successful in the past. Examples include the
    following:
      --Turkish participants who attended a Food Executive Program in
            fiscal year 2000 have already imported biscuits, cheese cake,
            popcorn, and peanuts from the U.S. and plan to import over $5
            million in 2001;
      --A Russian participant purchased a 54 head dairy goat herd (valued
            at over $1 million);
      --A Moldovan participant has been buying U.S. soybeans for human
            consumption and has recently opened 10 new shops due to
            increased demand;
      --Vietnamese and Colombian participants started importing California
            wine as a result of their training; a participant from India
            reports that he started importing cherries, apricots, prunes,
            and other items;
      --A Polish participant purchased 5,300 portions of U.S. cattle semen;
            and
      --The American Soybean Association states that the Cochran Program
            has benefitted U.S. export of soybeans to Russia.
        Question. In past years, additional funding has been provided for
    the program through AID and the CCC emerging markets program. Is
    additional funding being provided for the program in fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The Cochran Fellowship Program received $1.662 million from
    AID through the Freedom Support Act in fiscal year 2001 for activities
    in the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union. To date we have
    received $720,000 in fiscal year 2001 funding from the CCC Emerging
    Markets Program in support of Cochran activities in China, Southern
    Africa, and Serbia/Montenegro. We intend to request additional funds
    for Vietnam and Russia in the near future.
        Question. Is the fiscal year 2002 funding level proposed for the
    Cochran Fellowship Program sufficient to extend fellowships to all
    countries which seek to participate in the program? If not, what
    additional funding would be required to meet these requests?
        Answer. Each year the demand for the Cochran Fellowship Program
    expands, not only for additional countries but also to increase the
    size and scope of the program in some countries. In fiscal year 2001,
    for example, the program expanded into seven new countries (Yemen,
    Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, and Botswana), requests
    for the number of Cochran fellows increased about 14 percent from 735
    participants to over 830 participants, and we have seen significant
    expansion in requests for training in food safety, biotechnology, WTO
    accession, and the global food for education program. We estimate that
    the budget request is sufficient to meet the needs of the program.
        Question. Please provide the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 program
    participant levels by country and region.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, the Cochran Fellowship Program
    provided training for 735 international participants from 70 countries.
    Participant numbers by region and by country follow:
        Asia.--180 participants from nine countries: Malaysia (16
    participants), China (43), Thailand (29), Indonesia (23), Philippines
    (19), Vietnam (31), India (11), Pakistan (2), and Sri Lanka (6).
        Latin America and Caribbean.--165 participants from 23 countries:
    Mexico (16), Venezuela (15), Trinidad & Tobago (13), Antigua (1),
    Barbados (9), Dominica (1), Grenada (1), Haiti (1), Jamaica (23),
    Dominican Republic (2), St. Kitts & Nevis (3), St. Lucia (3), St.
    Vincent (2), Panama (7), Colombia (26), Guatemala (8), Honduras (4),
    Costa Rica (11), Nicaragua (6), Brazil (5), El Salvador (4), Guyana
    (2), and Uruguay (2).
        Eastern Europe.--156 participants from 16 countries: Turkey (15),
    Poland (20), Hungary (10), Czech Republic (18), Slovakia (10), Albania
    (2), Bulgaria (15), Slovenia (10), Croatia (14), Latvia (8), Estonia
    (8), Lithuania (3), Romania (12), Bosnia (4), Macedonia (1), and
    Montenegro (6).
        Africa and Middle East.--48 participants from 11 countries: Cote d'
    Ivoire (4), Ghana (1), Senegal (2), Nigeria (4), South Africa (6),
    Kenya (8), Uganda (4), Tanzania (1), Tunisia (8), Morocco (7), and Oman
    (3).
        Independent States of the Former Soviet Union.--186 participants
    from 11 countries: Russia (41), Ukraine (21), Kazakstan (20),
    Kyrgyzstan (18), Uzbekistan (17), Turkmenistan (13), Tajikistan (4),
    Armenia (8), Moldova (17), Georgia (18), and Azerbaijan (9).
        The Cochran Fellowship Program has selected over 830 participants
    for the program in fiscal year 2001. The largest regional increases are
    in Asian and Latin America and Caribbean countries, as these are
    considered the largest growth markets for U.S. agricultural products.
    The program is also expanding in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Middle
    East.
        Question. Please provide examples of the benefits of the 2000
    Cochran Fellowship Program to U.S. agriculture.
        Answer. Several examples of the benefits of fiscal year 2000
    programs, include:
      --A Regional Southeast Asia Biotechnology training program for
            regulators and journalists from Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia,
            the Philippines, and Vietnam led to a number of positive local
            newspaper articles on the safety of U.S. biotechnology
            products.
      --The Cochran Program worked with several U.S. companies to provide
            dairy genetics training to African dairy technicians in fiscal
            years 1998, 1999 and 2000. These programs enhanced the trade
            linkages with U.S. companies and U.S. genetic exports to the
            region have expanded significantly.
      --The FAS Agricultural Trade Office (ATO) in Shanghai, China reports
            that a Chinese wood products team ``reported more use of U.S.
            wood products, such as maple, cherry, and walnut, in their
            projects. And as these companies are major players or trend
            setters in interior decoration it also influenced the use of
            American wood products by other companies.''
      --Two Malaysian participants placed orders for trial shipments of
            Medjool dates, pecans, salted pistachios, prune concentrate,
            and other products after their Cochran training. The FAS
            Agricultural Office in Malaysia States: ``The first-hand
            knowledge acquired served as a foundation for these importers
            to look to the United States for premium and quality
            products.''
      --An Indian participant in a Cochran supermarket program reports that
            he developed business relationships with several U.S. companies
            during the training. He reports that: ``One container of grain
            has just arrived and another with Oregon cherries, California
            apricots, prunes, and other canned items will be here next
            month.'' Fiscal year 2000 was the first year for the Cochran
            Program in India.
      --A fiscal year 1999 Vietnamese participant in a consumer food
            program reports that he ``has set up a distribution center and
            plans to import 20 percent of the food products from the United
            States.''
      --The FAS Agricultural Trade Office in Miami reports that a 1999
            Cochran participant is now the largest distributor in Barbados
            and has significantly increased imports of U.S. produce,
            especially organic, to supply hotels and cruise ships and
            increased Certified Angus Beef and other meat products. In
            addition, two chefs are now using new products from the U.S. in
            their menus, such as organic produce, gourmet mushrooms, and
            duck products.
      --As a result of a Cochran Program, a Colombian company reports they
            have introduced California wine to the largest supermarket
            chain in Colombia, and are working with another Cochran team
            member to continue their marketing activities to other Latin
            American countries.
      --Following his fiscal year 2000 training program, a Kazakh fellow
            organized a private farmers market and established a school to
            train private farmers in the Pavlodar Oblask.
      --A Cochran Program for Polish veterinarians laid the foundation for
            new health certificates for shipment of U.S. livestock to
            Poland. The FAS Office in Warsaw estimates that these
            certificates will allow for the continued export of $50 to $60
            million of U.S. commodities.
                       export credit guarantee activities
        Question. Please provide a listing of the activities supported
    under each of the four export credit guarantee activities in fiscal
    year 2000 and in fiscal year 2001 to date: Supplier Credit Guarantees,
    Facilities Guarantees, GSM-102 and GSM-103.
        Answer. The information follows:
            activities for fiscal year 2001 are as of april 27, 2001

                                overseas offices
        Question. Provide a list of FAS overseas counselor/attache and
    trade offices for fiscal year 2000, fiscal year 2001, and proposed for
    fiscal year 2002. Please show the funding and full-time equivalent
    staffing levels of each office.
        Answer. A list of FAS overseas counselor/attache and trade offices
    and the amount of funding and full-time equivalent staffing levels is
    provided.
        [The information follows:]

     FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICE OVERSEAS COUNSELOR/ATTACHE AND TRADE OFFICES FUNDING AND STAFF \1\ LEVELS--FISCAL
                                               YEAR 2002-FISCAL YEAR 2002
                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Fiscal year 2000      Fiscal year 2001      Fiscal year 2002
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
             Foreign Agricultural Affairs                       On-board              On-board              On-board
                                                     Funding    employ.    Funding    employ.    Funding    employ.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    WESTERN EUROPE:
        FRANCE....................................       $794          6       $747          6       $794          6
        GERMANY...................................        696          6        572          6        592          5
        ITALY, EMB................................        757          6        671          6        757          6
        GREECE....................................        228          2        220          2        228          2
        NETHERLANDS...............................        811          5        610          5        811          5
        BELGIUM, E................................        240          1        241          1        240          1
        DENMARK...................................        193          3        189          3        193          3
        SPAIN.....................................        793          6        739          6        793          6
        PORTUGAL..................................        155          2        161          2        155          2
        UNITED KINGDOM............................        773          6        721          5        773          6
        IRELAND...................................        158          1        141          1        158          1
        BELG. USEU................................      1,416          6      1,136          6      1,416          6
        SWITZ, GENEVA.............................      1,062          4        894          4      1,062          4
        ITALY, FODAG..............................        232          1        229          1        232          1
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL...................................      8,308         55      7,271         54      8,204         54
                                                   =================================================================
    EASTERN EUROPE AND EURASIA:
        AUSTRIA...................................        691          4        672          4        691          5
        CZECH REP.................................         42          1         46          1         42          1
        BULGARIA..................................        258          3        323          4        362          4
        ROMANIA...................................         42          1         58          1         42          1
        PAKISTAN..................................        299          4        304          3        299          4
        POLAND....................................        550          4        592          4        654          5
        UKRAINE...................................         48          1         59          1         48          2
        RUSSIA....................................        950          8        923          9      1,010          8
        SWEDEN....................................        367          5        361          4        367          5
        TURKEY....................................        493          4        520          4        615          4
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL...................................      3,740         35      3,858         35      4,130         39
                                                   =================================================================
    WESTERN HEMISPHERE:
        ARGENTINA.................................        757          5        795          5        852          5
        BRAZIL....................................        438          4        448          4        498          4
        CANADA....................................        488          5        520          4        868          5
        CHILE.....................................        343          3        340          3        343          3
        COLOMBIA..................................        530          4        385          4        630          4
        COSTA RICA................................        402          3        431          3        402          3
        DOM. REPUBLIC.............................        471          2        432          2        467          2
        GUATEMALA.................................        461          3        459          3        511          3
        MEXICO....................................      1,000          9        931          8      1,104          8
        PERU......................................        343          4        341          4        343          4
        ECUADOR...................................        154          2        140          2        154          2
        VENEZUELA.................................        779          5        818          5        675          4
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL...................................      6,166         49      6,040         47      6,847         47
                                                   =================================================================
    AFRICA AND MIDDLE EAST:
        COTE D'IVOIRE.............................        342          3        334          3        342          3
        EGYPT.....................................        464          4        376          3        464          4
        ISRAEL....................................        158          1        180          1        328          2
        SYRIA.....................................         54          1         56          1         54          1
        KENYA.....................................        367          2        357          2        367          2
        MOROCCO...................................        261          3        256          3        261          3
        ALGERIA...................................         35          0         34          0         35          0
        TUNISIA...................................         75          2         70          2         75          2
        NIGERIA...................................        439          2        408          2        482          2
        SO. AFRICA................................        695          6        649          6        695          6
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL...................................      2,890         24      2,720         23      3,103         25
                                                   =================================================================
    ASIA:
        AUSTRALIA.................................        308          3        310          4        308          3
        CHINA.....................................        952          4        934          4      1,827          5
        INDIA.....................................        390          7        402          7        505          8
        BANGLADESH................................         45          1         41          1         45          1
        INDONESIA.................................        444          5        425          4        444          5
        JAPAN.....................................      1,431         12      1,539         12      1,431         12
        KOREA.....................................        610          5        640          5        705          5
        MALAYSIA..................................        279          3        276          3        279          3
        SINGAPORE.................................          0          0        222          2        222          2
        NEW ZEALAND...............................        189          3        185          3        189          3
        PHILIPPINES...............................        505          5        508          5        795          6
        THAILAND..................................        539          5        527          5        574          5
        VIETNAM...................................        351          2        337          2        351          2
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL...................................      6,043         55      6,346         57      7,675         60
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, FAA..............................     27,147        218     26,235        216     29,959        225
                                                   =================================================================
    AGRICULTURAL TRADE OFFICES:
        SAO PAULO, Brazil.........................        439          4        462          4        439          4
        SHANGHAI, China...........................        497          1        519          1        497          1
        GUANGZHOU, China..........................        434          1        471          1        434          1
        HAMBURG, Germany..........................        461          3        434          3        461          3
        HONG KONG.................................        896          4        858          4        896          4
        JAKARTA, Indonesia........................        293          1        285          1        293          1
        TOKYO, Japan..............................      2,050          5      2,122          5      2,050          5
        OSAKA, Japan..............................        534          3        637          3        534          3
        SEOUL, Korea..............................      1,027          4      1,011          4      1,027          4
        MEXICO CITY...............................      1,191          4      1,370          4      1,191          4
        MONTERREY, Mexico.........................  .........  .........  .........  .........        400          4
        MOSCOW, Russia............................        323          1        317          1        323          1
        RIYADH, Saudi Arabia......................        257          2        275          2        257          2
        SINGAPORE.................................        860          3          0          0          0          0
        DUBAI, U.A.E..............................        390          4        393          4        390          4
        CARIBBEAN BASIN, USA......................        410          3        409          3        410          3
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL, ATO..............................     10,062         43      9,563         40      9,602         44
                                                   =================================================================
          GRAND TOTAL.............................     37,209        261     35,798        256     39,561       269
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Overseas managed on a head count basis, not FTE basis. Total includes FSN's as well as U.S. Foreign Service
      personnel.

          INTERNATIONAL COOPERATIVE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES \1\
                             [Fiscal year 2000-2002]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                             year 2000  year 2001  year 2002
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Foreign Agricultural Affairs...........      8,796      8,882     10,362
    Agricultural Trade Offices.............      2,330      2,372      1,741
                                            --------------------------------
          TOTAL............................     11,126     11,254    12,103
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ICASS and Other Reimbursements to State Department.

                                 public law 480
        Question. Provide a listing of the Public Law 480 funding
    allocations, by country and commodity, for fiscal year 2000, and for
    fiscal year 2001 to date.
        Answer. [The information follows. Allocations for fiscal year 2001
    are as of March 6, 2001.]
        [Clerk's Note.--Tables I-IV--Planned U.S. Food Aid for Fiscal Year
    2001 can be found in Subcommittee files.]
              foreign market development (fmd) cooperator program
        Question. Provide a breakdown of how FMD Cooperator Program funds
    were allocated in each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001 to date.
        Answer. The information is provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                  Organization                 2000  budget    2001  budget
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    American Forest and Paper Association...      $2,851,287      $2,962,771
    American Peanut Council.................         561,945         558,944
    American Seafood Institute..............          80,069          55,611
    American Seed Trade Association.........         272,163         274,889
    American Sheep Industry Association.....         167,537         169,639
    American Soybean Association............       7,081,782       7,400,417
    California Agricultural Export Council..          11,269          11,403
    Cotton Council International............       1,953,000       2,087,397
    Leather Industries of America...........         198,069         199,000
    Mohair Council of America...............          26,129          26,183
    National Cottonseed Products Association         140,374         120,558
    National Dry Bean Council...............         122,103         122,218
    National Hay Association................          55,345          40,218
    National Renderers Association..........       1,009,044         998,170
    National Sunflower Association..........         265,871         265,475
    North American Millers Association......          81,528          70,368
    USA Dry Pea and Lentil Council..........         187,890         187,738
    USA Poultry and Egg Export Council......       1,512,990       1,495,170
    USA Rice Federation.....................       1,739,535       1,687,806
    U.S. Dairy Export Council...............         708,348         808,916
    U.S. Grains Council.....................       5,709,387       5,559,188
    U.S. Hide, Skin and Leather.............          85,759          85,000
    U.S. Livestock Genetics Export Inc......         801,336         741,718
    U.S. Meat Export Federation.............       1,528,287       1,455,832
    U.S. Wheat Associates...................       6,394,954       6,161,370
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                catfish imports
        Question. The U.S. catfish industry has had an analysis done of the
    economic indicators of injury due to imports of frozen catfish fillets
    from Vietnam. The analysis concluded that data suggests that imports of
    frozen catfish fillets from Vietnam have both displaced significant
    volumes of U.S. produced frozen catfish fillets and kept U.S.
    producers' prices suppressed. This has affected the earnings and
    business prospects of U.S. catfish farmers and processors. The industry
    has been advised that an antidumping (Section 731) petition should be
    filed against imports of frozen catfish from Vietnam.
        How can the Department best help the catfish industry to publicize
    its concern over the injury being inflicted by the imports from Vietnam
    and its desire for active consideration of an antidumping petition?
        Answer. The Department is aware of the concerns of the catfish
    industry and believes that a greater understanding of the various
    competitive factors involved best serves as a platform for future
    action should that be deemed the appropriate response. USDA is working
    with an interagency working group, under USTR, to discuss and analyze
    various issues and options pertaining to the catfish industry's
    concerns about increasing imports from Vietnam. In part due to the U.S.
    industry's concerns and issues raised under the catfish interagency
    working group, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued an
    import alert requiring that catfish from Vietnam be labeled with its
    common or usual name, not simply ``catfish.'' This FDA alert was issued
    in response to Vietnamese exports being mislabeled as ``catfish'' even
    though U.S. common or usual name requirements do not permit that name
    for the Vietnamese species. We are hopeful that the recent FDA import
    alert has been effective and will eliminate the need for further
    actions. Other possible trade remedies might include: Requesting the
    U.S. International Trade Commission to conduct a Section 332 fact-
    finding investigation; filing an antidumping investigation; or filing a
    Section 406 non-market safeguard investigation.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter

                           byrd amendment on dumping
        Question. The fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill
    included financial assistance to industries which are the victims of
    continued dumping and subsidization by our nation's trade partners. It
    required that antidumping and countervailing duties collected by U.S.
    Customs be set aside for grants to U.S. producers for certain purposes,
    including research and development, equipment, and health care and
    pension benefits. This legislation was expected to alleviate some of
    the hemorrhaging taking place in the agriculture industry, without
    modifying the circumstances in which antidumping or countervailing
    duties may be imposed or the amount of such duties.
        What actions are the Administration taking to return antidumping
    and countervailing duties collected under this legislation to
    petitioners in the agriculture industry who sought relief from
    continued dumping and subsidization?
        Answer. The U.S. Customs Service in the Treasury Department is
    responsible for implementation of the Byrd amendment. We understand
    that it is presently completing draft implementing regulations that
    will be reviewed by the Treasury Department and will then be made
    available for public comment.
        Question. Concerns have been raised that our competitors in the
    World Trade Organization intend to challenge this legislation since
    they allege it is inconsistent with the principles of the General
    Agreement on Tariff and Trade of 1994 (GATT). In response to these
    concerns, I sent a letter, along with 13 of my colleagues, to President
    Bush urging the Administration to support this legislation on February
    14, 2001. Are these concerns valid and what actions are the
    Administration taking to support this measure?
        Answer. We believe the Byrd amendment is fully consistent with our
    international obligations. If a challenge is brought, the U.S.
    government will vigorously defend the law. So far, there have been no
    requests for formation of a WTO dispute settlement panel.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                     dairy export incentive program (deip)
        Question. The President's budget provides for a slight increase in
    the Dairy Export Incentive Program from the previous year. However, it
    is my understanding there are approximately 40,000 tons of nonfat dry
    milk awards that had been allocated under DEIP, but for some reason
    were never shipped. Although industry requests had been made for this
    tonnage to be reallocated, the previous Administration had taken the
    position that a reallocation would be in violation of the United States
    WTO commitments. Further, since the Article 9 ``rollover'' authority
    expired on June 30, 2000, these unshipped quantities cannot be made
    available under DEIP.
        Is Article 9 ``rollover'' authority expressly tied to previously
    allocated but unshipped tonnage in addition to previously unallocated
    tonnage?
        Answer. Based on the U.S. methodology for reporting on export
    subsidy reduction commitments, the rollover authority applies only to
    previously unallocated tonnage. The U.S. has already used the maximum
    flexibility allowable under Article 9 ``rollover'' for nonfat dry milk
    by bringing forward DEIP allocations un-awarded in previous years prior
    to the June 30, 2000, expiration of that provision.
        Question. Does the current Administration take the view that a
    reallocation of unshipped tonnage under DEIP would be a violation of
    our World Trade Organization (WTO) commitments and if so, what action
    will USDA take to better ensure that all allocations are actually
    shipped?
        Answer. Authorizing the export of awarded but unshipped dairy
    product tonnage would be inconsistent with the established U.S.
    methodology for reporting export subsidies to the WTO and would likely
    be viewed by our trading partners as an attempt to circumvent our
    subsidy reduction commitments. We are now engaged in negotiations in
    the WTO to further liberalize trade in agricultural products, including
    the elimination of export subsidies. Taking steps that would be viewed
    by many as a circumvention of our current export subsidy commitments
    would be detrimental to our efforts in those negotiations. The
    Department is reviewing whether re-announcement of canceled tonnage
    within the confines of an allocation year can be accomplished. If it is
    decided to modify the DEIP operations to allow for this, it is expected
    that this action would alleviate the majority of any problems with
    unshipped tonnage.
                            international trade/mpc
        Question. I appreciate your statements on the importance of trade
    to the agriculture sector and I agree that we must stay vigilant to
    protect our place in those markets. However, we must be careful not to
    rely too heavily on exports, as we learned in recent years following
    the Asian economic collapse. U.S. agriculture must not be left to the
    fragile whims of foreign economies. One trade issue that currently
    faces the dairy industry is the dramatic increase in Milk Protein
    Concentrate (MPC) imports.
         To what extent are Milk Protein Concentrates (MPCs) displacing
    U.S. dairy products in domestic markets?
        Answer. We have no hard quantitative data as to what products are
    manufactured using imported MPCs. A GAO study suggested a rather wide
    range of products with the higher protein MPCs directed towards health
    and nutrition foods. Having said that, it is our understanding that
    imported MPCs primarily substitute for nonfat dry milk (NDM) as a
    source of protein in beverage and food processing uses. MPC imports
    would, therefore, to some extent displace NDM. However, currently and
    in recent years, the CCC purchase price places a floor under domestic
    NDM prices. Therefore, we believe imported MPCs have little if any
    effect on U.S. dairy producer prices at present.
        Question. Does USDA take the position that MPCs are subject to
    review under the WTO and if not, will USDA take actions to ensure that
    they become subject to such review.
        Answer. Milk Protein Concentrates are subject to a U.S. tariff
    commitment in the WTO to limit the import duty to 0.37 cents per
    kilogram. At the time of the Uruguay Round, this product was
    specifically provided for in our tariff schedule and was not subject to
    any import quotas of the type that were converted to tariff rate quotas
    (TRQs) under that agreement. Consequently, MPCs were not included in
    our dairy TRQs. The United States expects other countries to adhere to
    their international market access commitments just as other countries
    expect the United States to comply with our commitments. Changes in
    these commitments would require agreement with affected countries on
    compensation. Consequently, changes to these international obligations
    must be considered carefully, within the context of our overall World
    Trade Organization commitments.
        Question. If the Bush Administration is not willing to take a
    strong stand to stop MPCs, which can devastate the U.S. dairy economy,
    what signals does that send to our trading partners about our
    willingness to stand firm in the interest of U.S. agriculture?
        Answer. As we have indicated, MPC imports have not been limited by
    quota and, therefore, could not have been included in our dairy TRQs
    when these were created during Uruguay Round negotiations. Revising
    commitments such as these require the agreement of our trading
    partners, generally through a process of consultation and negotiation.
    We will continue to stoutly defend the interests of U.S. agriculture in
    international negotiations. By adhering to our own commitments, we
    signal to our trading partners our firm expectation that they also
    abide by the commitments they have made with us.
                           emergency farm assistance
        Question. Mr. Shipman, you mention that the fiscal year 2002 budget
    includes $5.6 billion for natural emergencies and an additional amount
    totaling $1 trillion over the next ten years for other unforeseen
    needs. It is my understanding that the $5.6 billion would be to cover
    all emergency responses, government-wide.
        What mechanism is in place to determine how much of the $5.6
    billion would be allocated to agricultural related losses? Would
    assistance have to be delayed until the end of fiscal year 2002 before
    any allocations could be made?
        Answer. The $5.6 billion National Emergency Reserve would provide
    for additional needs arising from major disasters above and beyond
    normal and average needs. Through disaster related programs such as
    USDA's fire fighting program and FEMA's disaster assistance, the budget
    provides for average funding needs related to disasters. The allocation
    of funds from the Emergency Reserve would be proposed by the President
    and acted upon by the Congress. USDA would monitor disaster related
    conditions and needs related to its programs to assure timely
    assistance, and work with the Administration and Congress to expedite
    assistance from the National Emergency Reserve.
        Question. What if natural disaster losses far exceed $5.6 billion?
    How much of the $1 trillion could be made available immediately?
        Answer. In addition to the National Emergency Reserve, the
    President's Budget provides an additional amount totaling $1 trillion
    over the next ten years for a contingency reserve to allow for
    unanticipated priority spending needs, including emergency farm
    economic and disaster assistance. USDA would continue to work closely
    with the Administration and Congress to expedite assistance in the
    event that natural disaster losses exceed $5.6 billion.
        Question. How does USDA suggest that farm market loss assistance,
    if necessary, be allocated, especially for commodities that are not
    normally associated with ongoing USDA farm programs? Would you support
    assistance through some counter-cyclical formula, or would you prefer
    ``freedom-to-farm'' style payments that are not necessarily tied to
    actual need?
        Answer. In terms of emergency assistance to be provided before a
    new farm bill is developed and put in place, we believe it will be
    necessary to assess the needs for assistance as they emerge and to
    balance that against the time available and to take into consideration
    administrative feasibility. Market loss assistance for the major
    program crops has been provided utilizing the production flexibility
    contract formula the past 3 years. This procedure can be utilized by
    the Department to deliver market loss assistance in a very timely way
    on short notice without the need for a time consuming and burdensome
    signup process. However, as you note, this approach does not
    efficiently target producers of other commodities when there may be
    special needs. For the longer term, we would like to work with Congress
    in developing a new Farm Bill which will provide an adequate safety net
    so that ad hoc emergency market loss assistance would not be necessary.
    In terms of the objectives served by market loss assistance, some form
    of counter-cyclical support, whether it be based on the marketing
    assistance loan program and/or other formula, should probably be
    considered as a component of the safety net along with de-coupled
    payments along the lines of the current program. We will be reviewing
    approaches for consideration in the coming weeks and look forward to
    further discussions with Congress during the Farm Bill process.
        Question. How would USDA respond to emergency needs that require a
    response this fiscal year?
        Answer. As we discussed in the previous question, the short time
    available to provide any assistance during the fiscal year, would
    dictate a careful look at administrative feasibility as a limiting
    factor on the type of assistance that could be delivered this year if
    the need arises.
                             foot and mouth disease
        When Secretary Veneman testified before us last week, I reminded
    her of the special importance of preventing an outbreak of Foot and
    Mouth Disease (or other serious animal disease) to a State like
    Wisconsin where the dairy industry, and it associated reliance on
    animal health, is so important to the State and regional economy. Since
    our hearing last week, Secretary Veneman has suggested that if an
    outbreak were to occur in this country, that USDA would provide
    compensation.
        Question. In what form might that compensation take shape, and
    further, in a State like Wisconsin, would that compensation also cover
    losses such as dairy production losses that would be in addition to the
    actual loss of the dairy herd?
        Answer. USDA has developed a compensation policy with the Office of
    Management and Budget and with input from other interested parties. The
    goal of this policy is to ensure that an outbreak is located and
    diseased or exposed animals are destroyed as soon as possible. For
    that, we need the full cooperation of all producers. For animals
    depopulated to eradicate a disease, USDA has traditionally paid an
    indemnity approximating the fair market value of the animals. We intend
    to provide compensation for the fair market value of animals
    depopulated due to FMD, possibly including other specific direct costs
    incurred by producers. We will provide more comprehensive information
    on our compensation policy in the near future.
                         global school feeding program
        Question. Former Senators George McGovern and Bob Dole have been
    actively supporting a Global School Feeding Program as an important
    step to improve nutrition, education, and ultimately, life in
    underdeveloped parts of the world. This year, USDA is providing $300
    million for the Global Food for Education Initiative, consistent with
    the vision of Senators McGovern and Dole.
         Does the Bush Administration continue to support this effort?
        Answer. The Department is in the process of implementing the pilot
    program. Decisions about further programming will depend on an
    evaluation of the success of the pilot in meeting its stated
    objectives.
        Question. Does USDA have authorization to continue the activity
    begun under the previous Administration in the absence of Congressional
    action?
        Answer. The Department is carrying out the pilot program under the
    authority of section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949. Section
    416(b) is permanent authority which permits the Secretary of
    Agriculture to make available CCC-owned commodities for donation
    overseas.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin

                            export credit guarantees
        Question. I wrote Secretary Veneman and Secretary O'Neill last
    month expressing my concern about the apparent readiness of the U.S. to
    accede to a proposal in the OECD to scale back substantially our GSM
    export credit guarantee programs. The OECD proposal would essentially
    eliminate the long-term GSM-103 program, cut roughly in half the time
    allowed for repayment of other GSM credit and increase premiums and
    fees for GSM credit guarantees.
        The GSM export credit guarantee programs are a critically important
    part of our nation's efforts to facilitate agricultural exports. For
    fiscal 2000, the GSM programs supported $3.8 billion in export credit,
    but the actual Federal outlays were only a fraction of that amount at
    $200 million. In addition, the U.S. spent about $200 million overall on
    the Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, the
    Export Enhancement Program and the Dairy Export Incentive Program.
        By contrast, the EU alone spends about $6 billion a year on direct
    export subsidies, and foreign governments spend some $230 million a
    year on market promotion--not counting various other export subsidizing
    policies. So I am very concerned that we not give up what is really our
    only export supporting program of any magnitude without getting
    concessions from the EU on export subsidies and from other countries on
    government trading enterprises.
         What can you tell me about the status of these negotiations and
    whether the U.S. is still prepared to accept the Organization for
    Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) proposal?
        Answer. The United States and all other participants to these
    negotiations, except Canada, have accepted the draft proposal. Because
    the Canadians have not yet conveyed their intention to accept or reject
    the proposal, discussions in the OECD have not been concluded. We are
    very aware of the concerns expressed by members of Congress on this
    matter. We are also aware that most sectors of U.S. agriculture who
    currently benefit from the GSM program support our acceptance of the
    current proposal under discussion in the OECD. Our common goal, shared
    with both Congress and the agricultural community, is to assure the
    continuation of these GSM programs and maximize their benefit to U.S.
    agriculture. The U.S. Government has made clear that we will not accept
    any further changes in the draft proposal.
               conservation reserve program technical assistance
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 Budget request contains a provision
    that would direct the NRCS to provide technical assistance for the
    Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a conservation program funded by
    the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), out of its Conservation
    Operations Account, instead of receiving reimbursement from the CCC. I
    am concerned about this change. I fear that this dangerous approach to
    funding conservation technical assistance would force NRCS to redirect
    staff to those areas of the country that have the most CRP
    participation at the cost of other programs. Moreover, this policy may
    leave some counties in the U.S. without a basic program of conservation
    assistance; leave many farmers and ranchers without a source of
    assistance to help with nutrient management planning, soil erosion
    assistance, and water quality issues, which have been the cornerstone
    of conservation on private lands; and seriously impact the ability of
    the agency to respond with disaster assistance in the Emergency
    Watershed Program.
        Has the Department considered the consequences and long-term
    implications of funding Farm Bill program implementation with
    Conservation Operations funding?
        Answer. Under current law, the Conservation Reserve Program is
    authorized through calendar year 2002. Commodity Credit Corporation
    funds to reimburse NRCS for costs of providing technical assistance in
    support of the CRP are subject to the Section 11 cap on reimbursements
    to State and Federal government agencies. There is not sufficient
    funding within the cap to cover the CRP technical assistance costs
    estimated to be incurred by NRCS. The proposal to use Conservation
    Operations funding for CRP technical assistance reflects a request for
    funding that the Congress has appropriated in recent years through
    emergency funding in order to prevent any disruption of CRP activities.
    The Department will consider a longer term solution as we develop
    proposals for the new Farm Bill.
        Question. Has the Department consulted with its own General Counsel
    on whether NRCS has legislative authority under Conservation Operations
    to perform work on the CRP?
        Answer. Yes, the Department's General Counsel has been consulted on
    the proposed language change for the Conservation Operations account.
                 foreign market development cooperator program
        Question. Competitors of the United States in agricultural exports
    are shifting more resources into market development activities because
    they are ``green box'' programs under the WTO rules. The EU has
    increased market development 21 percent and the Cairns Group 110
    percent between 1995 and 1998.
        For fiscal 2002, the President's budget the Cooperator Program
    would allocate $27.5 million, which is $6 million below the current
    marketing plan level of $33.5 million. (For every Federal dollar the
    cooperators receive from the Federal government, producers match $1.30
    through checkoff and other funds.)
        How can U.S. farmers hope to compete in international markets when
    they are provided less resources for market development than farmers in
    other countries, and even less than the U.S. provided last year?
        Answer. There are many policy and macroeconomic factors that affect
    our producers' ability to compete in international markets. However, as
    agricultural systems become more global in scope and more responsive to
    market forces, the role of market development is expected to grow since
    it stimulates foreign demand and differentiates U.S. products from
    those of our competitors. With 96 percent of the world's population
    outside the United States, stimulating that demand is a major challenge
    but one that can pay big dividends to producers in the form of higher
    exports and increased farm income.
        Our competitors and their producer groups have already recognized
    this. We estimate they have collectively increased their market
    development commitment by 50 percent since the Uruguay Round (1995) to
    over $1 billion a year. In contrast, the total U.S. market development
    commitment has grown by only a fraction since 1995. As a result, the
    market development ``investment'' gap is growing which concerns us
    greatly due to its implications for long term competitiveness.
        In response to this investment gap, USDA has encouraged U.S.
    producer groups that participate in its main market development
    programs--the Market Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market
    Development program (FMD)--to increase their financial commitment to
    this effort. Those that do are rewarded through the MAP and FMD program
    allocation processes. The response by program participants has been
    impressive, especially in light of the difficult financial situation
    many U.S. producers find themselves. For MAP, U.S. industry
    contributions rose to a record 95 percent of U.S. government funding in
    2000 (or 95 cents of industry funds for every dollar in U.S. government
    funds)--up from just 30 percent in 1992. For the FMD program, industry
    contributions stand at a near record 130 percent, up from 75 percent in
    1992. Statistics like these demonstrate producers' commitment to market
    development and their willingness to share in its cost.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                                    food aid
        Question. Secretary Veneman has stated: ``The budget includes a
    commitment to take a further look at the USDA's foreign food assistance
    programs to be sure they are effective in achieving their objectives.
    The study has not yet been designed . . . we want to ensure that these
    programs significantly benefit farmers, target necessary humanitarian
    feeding needs and avoid adverse commercial impacts.''
        Family farmers produce a safe and abundant food supply for this
    country and the world and then are told by the marketplace that it is
    of little value. At the same time, hundreds of millions of people
    around the world still go to bed hungry every night. I think this
    disconnect is atrocious, and have always been a strong advocate of this
    nation's food assistance programs. I am all for improving our food
    assistance programs.
         Could you explain further the goals of the Administration's
    proposed study of the Foreign Food Assistance programs?
        Answer. The goals that have been identified to date include an
    evaluation of the continued effectiveness of U.S. food assistance
    programs. The study will look at program structures and effectiveness,
    administrative structure, and the decision-making processes.
              surplus commodity program 416(b) and public law 480
        The U.S. continues to hold grain and soybean carry over stocks at
    record high levels and farm-gate prices are at historic lows. This
    situation continues to destabilize the U.S. agricultural economy.
        The Administration's budget estimates 2001 expenditures for Public
    Law 480 to be $1.107 billion. 2000 expenditures were $1.293 billion.
    Section 416(b) cannot be relied upon to make up the difference since,
    as the budget states, the types and levels of commodities vary year-to-
    year and often are not available at all from the CCC inventory. Yet,
    the Administration is suggesting a cut of $112 million for the Public
    Law 480 account from 2001 estimates and $298 million from actual 2000
    expenditures.
        Question. How will the U.S. maintain its commitments and be
    prepared to meet emergency needs without maintaining a level of funding
    equal to previous years?
        Answer. One of the objectives of the fiscal year 2002 budget set by
    the President is to slow the growth of Federal spending. Accordingly,
    some programs are proposed to be continued at current funding levels.
    The Public Law 480 foreign food assistance programs have proposed
    budget authority at the same level provided by Congress in fiscal year
    2001. Our ability to provide donations of food commodities under the
    authority of Section 416(b) in fiscal year 2002 will be determined in
    large part by the availability of domestic commodity surpluses. The
    domestic supply situation will not be known until the fall, and at that
    point the Administration can be expected to make a decision on the
    level and extent of section 416(b) donations in 2002.
                                     ______

            Question Submitted to the Agricultural Marketing Service

                   Question Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

                    lamb meat adjustment assistance program
        Question. The most common question on the lamb meat adjustment
    assistance program I receive from SD sheep producers is whether USDA
    make any adjustments to the year two or three programs for feeder and
    slaughter lambs, suggesting that the standards for the slaughter lamb
    quality should be expanded to include a wider range of lamb carcasses
    including yield grade 3 lambs with the current standard of yield grade
    2 lambs only. The average qualifying percentage of lamb so far is less
    than 30 percent.
        Do you have any thoughts on this?
        Answer. There will most likely be no change in the standards to
    include yield grade 3 lambs in the year three programs for feeder and
    slaughter lambs. The purpose of the program was to design assistance
    measures to help the industry improve its competitiveness and to
    facilitate efforts to adjust import competition as outlined in the
    petition filed before the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC).
    Thus, payments must continue to be limited to yield grade 2 if they are
    to serve as an incentive for the production of higher quality, more
    competitive lambs. Year three payments may be incorporated, if
    necessary, to assure that the program does not over-spend the funds
    allocated.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted to the Chief Economist

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                                  dairy policy
         Question. United States daily policy continues to include features
    that are particularly harmful to the Upper Midwest, which is one of the
    primary dairy production areas in the country. One component of this
    flawed policy is the introduction of regional dairy compacts such as
    the one currently in place in the Northeast. To make matters worse, the
    House of Representatives just this week introduced legislation to
    expand dairy compacts to other States.
        President Bush wants to establish the ``Free Trade Area of the
    Americas'' which would be a comprehensive free trade agreement between
    the 34 democracies in the Western Hemisphere. We have all heard the
    speeches and we have all seen the photo opportunities. I strongly
    suggest that before President Bush seeks free trade among 34 countries,
    he guarantees free trade among the 50 United States. We should support
    free trade at home just as strenuously as we do internationally.
        Last year, Congress again provided financial assistance to dairy
    producers suffering from historical low market prices. While prices
    have rebounded somewhat, they are still far below the costs of
    production and Wisconsin continues daily to lose dairy farmers.
        Does the Bush Administration believe that it is important to move
    agricultural products freely throughout the United States?
        Answer. The Bush Administration firmly believes that agricultural
    products should move freely throughout the United States and throughout
    the world, and the Administration is fully committed to enforce all
    existing laws pertaining to the movement of agricultural products in
    interstate commerce. I would note that no court has found the Northeast
    Interstate Dairy Compact to be in violation of any State or Federal
    law.
        Question. Please provide your thoughts on the best way to achieve a
    national dairy policy that treats all producers fairly and
    meaningfully, that does not send improper market signals, and that
    minimizes the different treatment of producers who operate in different
    regions of the country.
        Answer. There is no question that dairy policy has been extremely
    controversial, with many producers feeling that they are being
    disadvantaged by the current system. In addition, some milk processors
    believe the current system does not meet their needs. Over the next few
    months, the Administration will develop its recommendations for the
    2002 Farm Bill. In that process, we will actively seek out the advise
    and counsel for the Congress and the dairy industry and make a
    concerted effort to reach a consensus on dairy policy.
        Question. Would you please comment on S. 294, the legislation I
    introduced along with Senator Santorium to establish a counter-cyclical
    national dairy program?
        Answer. Many farm groups have proposed establishing counter-
    cyclical programs in which farm program payments would vary inversely
    with the level of market prices. In some instances, the proposed
    programs would increase considerably farm program outlays. Furthermore,
    the amount of aid provided to producers under these proposed programs
    and other programs that would continue could exceed our current World
    Trade Organization (WTO) commitment on production distorting support,
    which would likely decline under a new trade agreement. These are
    vitally important considerations that go beyond dairy policy, but
    encompass all aspects of farm policy. The Bush Administration is
    committed to developing a 2002 Farm Bill proposal that meets the needs
    of all producers but also meets spending targets and is consistent with
    current WTO obligations and the Administration's proposal for future
    trade reforms.
        The Administration does not support S. 294, as drafted, for the
    following reasons. First, the bill would provide payments to producers
    to compensate for low milk prices in fiscal year 2000. These payments
    would be in addition to emergency assistance already provided by
    Congress to compensate for low milk prices in 2000 in the fiscal year
    2001 Agriculture and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. Second, S.
    294 triggers payments on all of a producer's milk production, not to
    exceed 26,000 hundredweight, based on the Class III milk price for the
    previous year. While the Class III price may be low, the prices of
    other classes of milk may not. Thus, the triggered payments may not be
    commensurate with the level of income producers receive from the
    marketplace. Lastly, the Administration has several concerns regarding
    the supply management provision of the bill in which producers may
    receive a bonus payment if they do not increase production from the
    previous year.
                                     ______

                Question Submitted to the Risk Management Agency

                 Question Submitted by Senator Bryon L. Dorgan

      crop insurance coverage of unharvested sunflowers and corn in north
                                     dakota
        Question. Wet weather starting with rain the last week in October
    and ending with November snowfalls caused over 100,000 acres of
    sunflowers and corn to be left in ND fields as of November 30, 2000 and
    December 10, 2000. These are the respective dates harvest is to be
    completed in the Crop Insurance contracts. Despite an agreement I
    reached with the Risk Management Agency early last January, some
    farmers have had the appraised amount of the crop left in the fields
    charged towards their insurance coverage.
        Six weeks of rain and snow at the end of the sunflower and corn
    harvest prevented the completion of harvest. This weather occurred
    during the insurance period--and should have been cause for leniency
    when considering losses. Many fields contained enough crop so there
    wasn't any payment of indemnity based on a November 30 or December 10
    adjustment. The contract was closed out, and, in some cases the crop
    has been lost. The end result is the same as if a hail storm had wiped
    the crop out during the summer. Some harvesting did take place after
    the Contract Harvest Date and was an indication that farmers were
    interested in getting the crop--not collecting the insurance. Farmers
    who bought crop insurance in good faith deserve coverage on this lost
    production. Procedure does exist in RMA rules to extend coverage on a
    case by case basis--and would have been a safeguard against fraud or
    abuse. This insurance is too costly to have coverage denied when the
    bad weather that prevented harvest occurred during the insurance period
    and the end result was that some of the crop was ultimately lost this
    spring. Enclosed are pictures of one of the corn fields in question
    under water this spring. (Note: RMA did not receive the picture.)
        Can you assure me that the RMA will look into this and resolve this
    issue fairly? Don't you think a farmer who has tried to harvest his
    crop--but has been prevented from doing so by six weeks of rain and
    snow--ought to receive full crop insurance if the crop is ultimately
    lost?
        Answer. Senator, RMA appreciates that some farmers were adversely
    impacted by bad weather at the end of last year and that some producers
    were unable to harvest their crops by the ``end of the insurance
    period'' which is stated in their crop insurance policy. Because of the
    questions you raised on this issue RMA has been reviewing our policies
    and procedures to ensure that producers are treated fairly in these
    cases. However, insurance contracts are between insurance companies and
    farmers, not RMA and it is the responsibility of the companies to
    ascertain the individual facts for each producer and apply the policy
    provisions correctly and consistently.
        RMA did issue additional guidance for the 2000 crop year as a
    result of your inquiries that gave companies sufficient flexibility to
    address the late season weather conditions, while taking into account
    each producer's situation on a case by case basis. Insurance companies
    have a responsibility to determine if any losses were caused by an
    insured peril or if the delays in harvesting were due to other
    uninsurable circumstances. In discussions with the companies, the issue
    of program integrity was raised regarding individual producers that had
    been identified as having a problem with a late season harvest. RMA
    knows that you fully support the emphasis on contract compliance in
    order to safeguard the program for those farmers who have legitimate
    insurable losses.
        RMA understands that the insurance companies have resolved this
    matter with most of the farmers affected by the late season weather
    conditions. However, there remain a few farmers for which this issue
    has not been fully resolved. RMA will continue to monitor this issue
    and will review the facts of any individual producer's specific claim
    to ensure that the policy was correctly administered by the insurance
    provider.

                              Subcommittee Recess

        Senator Cochran. Our next hearing is scheduled for
    Thursday, May 10, at 10 o'clock in the morning in this room,
    138, the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At that time we will
    hear from witnesses from the Department of Health and Human
    Services on the President's budget request for the Food and
    Drug Administration.
        Until then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., Thursday, May 3, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    May 10.]

    AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2001

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Thad Cochran (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Cochran, Bond, and Johnson.

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                          Food and Drug Administration

    STATEMENT OF BERNARD SCHWETZ, D.V.M., Ph.D., ACTING
                PRINCIPAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
    ACCOMPANIED BY:
            DR. LINDA SUYDAM, SENIOR ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER
            JEFFREY WEBER, ACTING SENIOR ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR
                MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS
            KERRY WEEMS, ACTING DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET,
                DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
            JANET WOODCOCK, M.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND
                RESEARCH
            STEPHEN SUNDLOF, D.V.M., Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR VETERINARY
                MEDICINE
            KATHRYN ZOON, Ph.D., DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR BIOLOGICS
            JOSEPH A. LEVITT, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY AND APPLIED NUTRITION

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. The subcommittee will please come to
    order.
        Today I am pleased to convene a meeting of our subcommittee
    to continue our hearings on the fiscal year 2002 budget
    submitted by the President for Agriculture, Rural Development,
    and Related Agencies. This morning we are pleased to welcome
    witnesses from the Food and Drug Administration in the
    Department of Health and Human Services to present the portion
    of the budget that relates to the activities under the
    jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.
        This morning specifically we welcome the Acting Principal
    Deputy Commissioner of FDA, Dr. Bernard Schwetz. He is
    accompanied by Linda Suydam, Senior Associate Commissioner of
    the FDA; Jeffrey Weber, FDA's Acting Senior Associate
    Commissioner for Management and Systems; and Kerry Weems,
    Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget of the Department
    of Health and Human Services.
        The committee is well aware of the Food and Drug
    Administration's achievements and challenges. Not only must the
    agency ensure that life-saving and other beneficial products
    and devices are brought to the market as quickly as possible,
    but it must also protect the public's health and safety by
    making sure these products are safe and effective. Its
    responsibility extends from foods to medical devices to animal
    drugs and blood products. FDA not only regulates domestic
    products, but must ensure that imports of these same products
    are equally safe and effective for the public use. It is a very
    challenging task, even more so because of a marketplace, which
    is not only growing rapidly, but becoming increasingly
    sophisticated and complex.
        We appreciate the attendance of other Senators this
    morning. I am going to recognize them for any opening
    statements that they might wish to make at this point, and then
    we will invite our witnesses to summarize their written
    testimony, which will be made a part of the record in full.
        Senator Bond.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND

        Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I join
    with you in welcoming Dr. Schwetz and colleagues and say, as I
    think you and all Americans would express, how much we
    appreciate the tremendous work that the FDA does day in, day
    out, year in, and year out to ensure that we have the safest
    food supply, the safest medical systems in the world. We have
    the right, I believe, to take pride in what you are doing, and
    we want to ensure that we provide you the resources to continue
    your good work to ensure the highest standards of safety.
        I have a particular interest in one area. I notice on page
    2 of your testimony submitted for the record, Dr. Schwetz, you
    point out the work you are doing with bioengineering of plants
    and animals. Plant biotechnology is something that has
    tremendous potential for the future. I have talked to
    scientists who tell me that really this is perhaps the third
    technological revolution after the Industrial Revolution, the
    Information Technology Revolution. We have the opportunity to
    make significant strides in improving human nutrition, limiting
    impacts on the environment and the use of harsh chemicals, and
    ensuring that we deliver, perhaps even through nutraceuticals,
    the kinds of vaccines and other treatments that are needed
    particularly throughout the third world.
        At the same time, we have seen, beginning in Europe and
    spreading somewhat into this country, an hysterical attack by
    what I would call, in some instances, modern day Luddites, in
    other instances, simply farmers in other countries who do not
    want to see our farmers continue to maintain and build on the
    technological edge they have in producing food more efficiently
    and more nutritiously. In this country, there are those who
    represent competing food groups who are financing this
    hysteria, plus the usual group of suspects who are simply out
    making money off of spreading false information.
        But you have taken a strong stand with respect to the
    testing and the regulation of biotechnology, assuring that
    science and not politics leads the way. If you find something
    that does have an allergen or if you find a problem with it, we
    need to know. We want to make sure that product does not reach
    the market or does not reach the market without adequate labels
    or whatever protections you think are important. You have to
    answer the fundamental question: Is it safe or is it not safe
    and under what conditions? I think that your continued working
    doing that and using the very best science available is
    extremely important to our scientific advances and to
    continuing to improve the human condition throughout the world.
        I predict some day, when the benefits of this technology
    emerge very clearly on behalf of human health and the
    environment, we will have to send out a search party to try to
    find members of the nay-sayer community who have been so
    vociferous in opposing this because they do not understand it.
    I do not understand it, but I know what it can do. And I depend
    upon you to make sure that what it does is healthy. I commend
    you for it. It is vitally important.

                          Generic Animal Drug Producer

        I will have some very specific questions to submit on
    behalf of the record, Mr. Chairman, if you do not mind.
        But I do have to raise one particular matter that I wish
    you would look into that is very serious in my State. It
    relates to the regulation of a particular generic animal drug
    producer in Missouri called Phoenix Scientific. I do not expect
    you to comment on it, and I know this is a regulatory matter,
    but I am hearing from a desperate company that is about to go
    out of business because of regulations. If there is something
    wrong, they need to know. If it is excessive regulatory
    inquiry, that is something that you need to look at, I think,
    from the headquarters.
        I have no way of knowing, without all the facts of the
    matter, what the problems are, but I do know that the company
    reports to have had no lawsuits, no recalls, no accidents, no
    animal deaths, no negative tests on sanitary conditions, no
    previous enforcement actions against it. And as we hear from
    veterinarians in the area of northwest Missouri they serve,
    they say they get fine products and they do not know why they
    cannot get them.
        The company is desperate. They have hired regulatory
    consultants. They are bombarding me. Their workers are calling
    us saying, we are about to lose our jobs. This company is the
    sole producer of products that livestock people use, and
    veterinarians tell me they cannot get the product anymore.
        If there is a legitimate problem, it is hard to imagine why
    it has taken 2 years of regulatory investigation not to come up
    with a specific answer or a clear-cut series of directions as
    to what they must do to resolve them. According to what they
    tell us, the regulators have not even outlined the changes the
    company needs to make to be deemed in compliance.
        Now, I know that the Kansas City district has had a
    dramatic increase in enforcement actions overall in the last
    year relative to the previous 10. I do not know whether that
    would indicate you were not doing an adequate job for the
    previous 10 years or if they are overdoing it now, but months
    and months have passed with no resolution. The company
    obviously has an incentive to fix the problems that are
    preventing them from producing and selling and earning the
    money they need to pay the wages. The company is losing money.
    Farmers soon will be without the products. The employees are
    concerned.
        I would just ask that you take a top level look at this to
    find out if there are problems that need to be resolved, then
    lay them out and let them know what needs to be done to make
    sure that they meet their legal obligations to ensure animal
    safety. But also, I ask that you ensure that the inspectors
    conduct their responsibilities in a fair, impartial and
    expeditious manner.
        I apologize for having to take up the time of the
    committee, but it is a serious question. And I thank the
    chairman.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Johnson.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR TIM JOHNSON

        Senator Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will
    submit a full statement for the record.
        I would like to just comment briefly here this morning at
    the outset.
        First, I welcome obviously Dr. Schwetz, as well as the
    other members of the panel, as well as Dr. Sundlof, who I had
    an opportunity to meet with earlier in my office this past week
    or so.
        My primary concerns on the hearing today revolve around the
    Office of Generic Drugs at the FDA, as well as the Center for
    Veterinary Medicine. About a month ago, I met with Dr. Sundlof
    to discuss FDA actions to prevent BSE, or mad cow disease, in
    the United States. I look forward to testimony and your
    insights and the progress that FDA has made since our meeting.

                                      BSE

        I am pleased that FDA's 2002 budget request of $1.4 billion
    represents a significant increase over 2001.
        In our discussion with Dr. Sundlof, we discussed the FDA
    1997 rule that U.S. rendering plants and feed mills ban the
    mixing of animal protein in manufactured ruminant feed and that
    feed mills apply cautionary labels on feed products with
    ingredients that may contain non-approved mammalian protein. In
    that meeting, FDA made an assurance to inspect 100 percent of
    all feed mills in addition to reinspection of feed mills that
    were found to be out of compliance with the ban by September 30
    of this year. I am pleased that the testimony today includes a
    commitment to do just that.
        During our meeting, it was reported that over 1,000 feed
    mills are licensed under the FDA and that 16 percent failed to
    prevent the commingling of bone and meat material in ruminant
    feed and 12 percent failed to issue warning labels on feed
    containing material prohibited for ruminant feed.
        Today livestock producers in my State of South Dakota and
    across the country are being asked to certify that they are not
    feeding prohibited material to cattle and sheep to prevent an
    outbreak of mad cow disease. If any feed mills and others are
    knowingly avoiding compliance with the FDA's rule, it creates
    serious marketing uncertainty for cattle and sheep producers
    and feeders who might unfairly be held accountable for
    unknowingly using feed in ruminant material.
        So, I look forward to comments on how the FDA will assure
    that feed mills and renderers do, in fact, comply with the ban
    by your prescribed time table of September 30, 2001, and also
    given the fact that the FDA contracts with States to inspect
    feed mills and rendering plants and that up to 80 percent of
    all inspections are done by State officials and not the FDA, I
    am interested in this collaborative effort and how effective
    and airtight it really is.

                             Generic Drug Approvals

        A second matter that I will be interested in today has to
    do with the Office of Generic Drugs and my concern about access
    to affordable and safe prescription drugs. I am concerned with
    a number of applications for generic drug approvals that will
    be coming before the Office of Generic Drugs in the future and
    whether or not the OGD will have sufficient resources to meet
    the statutory 180-day time frame necessary for approval of
    these applications.

                              Prepared Statements

        I am also concerned about allegations of conflicts of
    interest within the FDA advisory committee and any comments
    that might be had there.
        So, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very timely
    hearing and I look forward to the testimony today.
        [The statements follow:]

                   Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson

        Thank you Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl and members of the
    subcommittee, I am pleased to participate in today's hearing on the
    fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Food and Drug Administration
    (FDA).
        I welcome Dr. Bernard Schwetz, Acting Principal Deputy FDA
    Commissioner, as well as other FDA officials here today including Dr.
    Stephen Sundlof, Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine. One
    month ago I met with Dr. Sundlof to discuss the actions taken by FDA to
    prevent an outbreak of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE also known
    as ``mad cow'' disease) in the United States. I discovered a great deal
    from that encounter and I look forward to your insight on the progress
    FDA has made since our meeting to strengthen existing safeguards that
    keep BSE out of our country.
        Mr. Chairman, the day-to-day operations of FDA reach every single
    American person, it is clear this agency has an awesome responsibility.
    I am pleased FDA's fiscal year 2002 budget request of $1.4 billion
    represents an increase of $123 million over fiscal year 2001. Congress
    and the American people expect FDA to protect our health and promote
    our well-being and today, I would like to focus on a few of these
    timely and critical matters under FDA's jurisdiction.
        Commissioner Schwetz, earlier this year I wrote you a letter
    requesting a meeting concerning FDA efforts to prevent the occurrence
    of BSE in the United States. Given the confusion tied to the effects of
    BSE in Europe, I believe it is imperative that Congress and the FDA
    make every attempt now to ensure that domestic feed supplies, livestock
    herds, vaccines, and meat products remain safe for the consuming
    public.
        As I mentioned earlier, I was pleased that on April 5, Dr. Stephen
    Sundlof, Director of FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, met with me
    to discuss the efficacy of a 1997 FDA rule that U.S. rendering plants
    and feed mills end the mixing of animal protein in manufactured
    ruminant feed, and that feed mills apply cautionary labels on feed
    products with ingredients that may contain ``non-approved'' mammalian
    protein.
        In this meeting, FDA made an assurance to inspect 100 percent of
    all feed mills--in addition to re-inspections of feed mills that were
    found to be out of compliance with the ban--by September 30 of this
    year. This comprehensive inspection approach should help ensure that
    prohibited animal meat and bone material is not being mixed with
    ruminant (cattle, sheep, goat) feed. I am especially pleased to
    recognize that your testimony today supports the commitment you made in
    our meeting. Because it is believed BSE was first caused in the United
    Kingdom when sheep meat and bone meal was fed to cattle, it is
    imperative that FDA take precautions to guarantee that domestic feed
    supplies are not ``contaminated.''
        During our meeting, Dr. Sundlof reported to me that of U.S.
    renderers inspected by FDA, 10 percent failed to prevent the co-
    mingling of meat and bone material in potential feedstuffs and 11
    percent failed to properly affix labels or other precautionary
    statements to products containing prohibited material.
        Additionally, over 1,000 feed mills are licensed under the FDA, and
    16 percent of these licensed feed mills failed to prevent the co-
    mingling of bone and meat material in ruminant feed and 12 percent
    failed to issue warning labels or notifications on feed containing
    material prohibited for ruminant feed. Today, livestock producers in
    South Dakota and across the country are being asked to certify that
    they are not feeding prohibited material to cattle and sheep in an
    effort to prevent an outbreak of mad cow disease. If any feed mills and
    others are knowingly avoiding compliance with FDA's rule, it creates
    serious marketing uncertainty for cattle and sheep producers and
    feeders who might unfairly be held accountable for unknowingly using
    feed with ruminant material. Current conditions warrant that anything
    less than full compliance with this rule is unacceptable, so I look
    forward to your comments on how FDA will assure that feed mills and
    renderers comply in a meaningful way by your prescribed timetable of
    September 30, 2001.
        I also discovered from Dr. Sundlof that FDA contracts with
    individual States to inspect feed mills and rendering plants, and that
    remarkably up to 80 percent of all inspections are done by State
    officials and not the FDA. I am curious to learn how effective this
    collaborative effort really is, and I believe this subcommittee should
    explore the need to make certain that FDA has enough resources and
    people to do inspections, or, that we have sufficient funds to provide
    States with compensation for their efforts.
        However, I am pleased that FDA made BSE prevention efforts a top
    priority in their fiscal year 2002 budget request. Indeed, FDA has
    targeted $15 million in the fiscal year 2002 budget request to protect
    consumers against the variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD), a fatal
    disease in Europe linked to BSE. FDA has also tapped a contingency fund
    within it's Center for Veterinary Medicine to re-program $2.4 million
    in fiscal year 2001 to conduct the inspections and reinspection of feed
    mills and renderers.
        Beef cattle production represents the largest segment of South
    Dakota's agricultural economy. If mad cow disease or Foot and Mouth
    Disease (FMD) were to invade South Dakota or the U.S., the effects
    could be monumental. It is simply incumbent upon Congress and the FDA
    to identify whether or not current BSE safeguards are being followed in
    a serious way. Proactive measures now will reassure consumers and
    livestock producers that our ruminant feed products, domestic livestock
    herds, and food supplies are safe.
        South Dakotans and others across the country are also concerned
    about access to affordable and safe prescription drugs, and FDA's
    Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) is charged with the responsibility of
    approving and marketing new generic drugs as patents on brand-name
    drugs expire. Over the next five years, the patents on approximately
    $34 billion in sales of brand drugs will expire. Studies have indicated
    a generic drug typically enters the market priced 30 percent less than
    the brand product and consumer savings increase up to 80 percent on
    average after two years. This translates into significant savings to
    consumers and health care programs such as VA, Defense, Medicaid, and
    Medicare. In fact, consumers stand to save over $5 billion as patents
    on a number of blockbuster drugs expire.
        However, I believe more should be done to make health care
    providers, managed care organizations, health insurers and consumer
    organizations better informed about the safety and equivalency
    requirements for generic drugs. Lack of knowledge and awareness about
    generic drugs reduces the likelihood that these groups will recommend
    or use generic drugs when they are available as a substitute to brand
    products. Furthermore, preconceived concerns about the quality of
    generic drugs, although unwarranted, can adversely impact patients'
    treatment programs. It believe these constituencies need to know that
    the equivalency between generics and brand products will lead to
    greater health care savings. In fact, studies have indicated that a 1
    percent increase in the use of generic drugs will result in over $1
    billion in savings to consumers and health care providers. Moreover,
    due to the number of brand patents due to expire, I am concerned with
    the extraordinary number of applications for generic drug approvals
    that will come before the Office of Generic Drugs in the future and
    whether or not the OGD will have sufficient resources to meet the
    statutory 180-day timeframe necessary to approve these generic
    applications. Lack of adequate scientific personnel prolongs delays to
    the approval process resulting in lost savings to patients and health
    care providers. I look forward to your insight on the OGD's capacity to
    handle this workload.
        Finally, I am concerned about the potential for conflicts-of-
    interest within FDA Advisory Committees. Your testimony states that,
    ``research expenditures by the pharmaceutical industry alone have
    tripled since 1990. More and more complex products, which arrive at
    FDA's gate for preclinical and clinical studies design consultation,
    for marketing application review, and, for post-approval continuing
    reassessment are products of the growing NIH research budget and of
    academic and industry research fueled by NIH. We will ensure that FDA
    will not become a bottleneck in getting these public health
    breakthroughs to the public while serving as the trusted, independent,
    efficient gatekeeper it is now.''
        However, in recent years, questions have been raised regarding the
    nature of the FDA Advisory Committee decision making process, and
    whether FDA Advisory Committee actions are truly independent. In fact,
    the Los Angeles Times did a series of articles on FDA advisory
    committees and the conflicts-of-interest that are pervasive among
    members of the committees. The findings included that some FDA advisory
    committee members are allowed to remain as consultants or researchers
    for the same companies whose products they are evaluating. In the case
    of Rezulin, which was pulled from the market last March due to its
    alleged connection with nearly 400 deaths, it was noted that FDA
    officials collaborated closely with the makers of the drug, providing
    ``inside information and favors at critical moments throughout the
    development and marketing of Rezulin.'' To the agency's credit, FDA
    released an internal report acknowledging that the agency committed
    ``possible missteps'' in its handling of this case. Nonetheless, I
    believe it is imperative that FDA make assurances to Congress--and the
    American public--that these apparent conflict-of-interest questions
    will be addressed in a straightforward fashion. We must have confidence
    that the public's trust is not being violated, nor their health
    jeopardized, by these advisory committees.
        Thank you Mr. Chairman, this concludes my opening statement.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Herb Kohl

        Thank you, Senator Cochran. It is good to be here this morning. Dr.
    Schwetz, thank you for coming to testify, and I look forward to hearing
    from you regarding the 2002 budget for the Food and Drug
    Administration.
        FDA has a mandate that touches the lives of nearly every American,
    every day. Monitoring and ensuring the safety of more than one
    trillion' dollars worth of consumer products, including nearly all food
    and medicine, is no small task. And you are doing a good job, evidenced
    by the fact that 80 percent of Americans gave the FDA a favorable
    rating in a recent survey.
        However, times are rapidly changing, and for you to continue doing
    a good job, you must remain at the forefront of the changes. The boom
    in medical technology, the advances in drug development, the
    globalization of the marketplace, the outbreak of animal diseases and
    high-technology agriculture--including the introduction of milk protein
    concentrates--all require greater knowledge and attention from a first-
    class workforce than ever before.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget provides $1.414 billion for
    FDA, an increase of $123 million over fiscal year 2001. While a nine
    percent budget increase is commendable, especially when the overall
    Federal budget is very lean, it is necessary to keep consumers safe.
        Of this increase, $40 million is necessary to meet mandatory cost-
    of-living and pay related increases for FDA employees. Over the past
    eight years, FDA has had to absorb $284 million for these mandatory
    costs, causing staffing levels in program areas not funded by user fees
    to decrease by 10 percent. This means 10 percent fewer scientists,
    physicians, nurses and other public health specialists working to
    ensure that the food our families eat, and the medicine our children
    and parents take, is safe. Taking this into consideration, $40 million
    seems like a small price to pay to ensure the retention of top-notch
    employees.
        The globalization of today's marketplace has increased the number
    of foreign-produced imports FDA is charged with regulating from 1.5
    million in 1992 to approximately 6 million in 2000, totaling $80
    billion worth of products. Currently, FDA has the ability to inspect
    less than one percent of these products. This is a fact that I find
    alarming. While I realize that it is impossible and truly unnecessary
    to inspect 100 percent of all products imported into the United States
    and purchased by consumers, I think that one percent is a number that
    must be raised. The President's budget has requested $25 million to
    prevent substandard products from reaching the U.S. market, whether
    they are imported or produced here at home. Again, this seems like a
    small amount to ensure the safety of $1 trillion worth of food and
    health-care products. I am interested to hear what you think is an
    adequate amount of products to be inspected, and how much money is
    necessary to inspect that amount.
        Dr. Schwetz, I applaud the FDA for doing an exceptional job of
    protecting the public and keeping consumer confidence high, something
    we enjoy in the U.S. that many other countries in the world do not. FDA
    holds its products to the highest standards of approval, and we hold
    you to that same standard. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with
    you to make sure that FDA's budget this year enables the Agency to
    continue keeping American consumers safe.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin

        The Food and Drug Administration is one of the most important
    government agencies we have here in America. It is charged with
    overseeing the safety of nearly 25 percent of our economy today. From
    complex medical devices such as heart pacemakers to the safety of a
    teething ring that a baby sucks on.
        Over the past few years, many industries regulated by the FDA have
    invested enormously in bringing new products to development and we here
    in Congress have been committed to increasing resources for scientific
    research including the search for new medications, at NIH. Couple those
    with the completion of the decoding of the human genome and you can see
    how the workload for FDA has been growing exponentially.
        Furthermore, with increased globalization of trade and movement of
    both individuals and commercial products, FDA is challenged even more
    to maintain the highest standards for protection of the public from
    harm.
        At a time when the agency's workload is clearly expanding,
    unfortunately, its staffing levels have fallen. The agency has had to
    absorb unfunded pay raises and other inflationary costs without
    additional funding for several years. So I am happy to see that this
    year's budget does include $40 million for pay-raises and COLAs for
    agency staff.
        As you know, I have had a long interest in food safety. The United
    States has been blessed with one of the safest and most abundant food
    supplies in the world. Yet food-borne illness is recognized as a
    significant public health problem in our country. The Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention estimate that 76 million illnesses,
    325,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths are caused by food-borne
    pathogens annually.
        We have the science and know-how to make our food supply even
    safer. And as the public learns of global threats to food and animal
    safety--diseases like ``mad cow'' and foot and mouth--and new,
    unfamiliar technologies--like genetically engineered crops and
    animals--we need to make sure that public confidence in food safety
    remains high.
        I recently announced that I will soon introduce the National Food
    Security and Safety Act to strengthen our national defenses against mad
    cow disease and related threats. This bill will apply sound science and
    good common sense to make our borders more secure, improve our
    surveillance activities, and remove from the food supply--for humans
    and animals--some animal-derived materials that could potentially
    spread mad cow. We'll also get these same materials out of non-food
    items, like cosmetics and medicines.
        I also plan to reintroduce the Genetically Engineered Foods Act.
    While I strongly support biotechnology, I've seen farmers in Illinois
    and throughout the country get hurt by some grave mistakes. We must be
    able to better assure farmers of an available market for biotech crops,
    and assure consumers of the safety and effective oversight of this new
    technology. My bill will accomplish both these aims.
        All food safety threats--whether salmonella or mad cow--are made
    more difficult to manage by our highly fractured food safety system.
    Serious questions have been raised about the ability of the current
    regulatory system to ensure the safety of the food supply and to manage
    emerging hazards and new technologies. This system was devised nearly
    one hundred years ago, when the food system looked very different than
    it does today. Now, in addition to a domestic food industry with tens
    of thousands of processors all over the country, a vast quantity of
    food is being imported to our country.
        Currently, Federal oversight for food safety is fragmented with at
    least 12 different Federal agencies, 35 different laws governing food
    safety, and 28 House and Senate subcommittees with food safety
    oversight. With overlapping jurisdictions and scattered
    responsibilities, Federal agencies often lack accountability on food
    safety-related issues.
        For that reason, I will also be reintroducing the Safe Food Act.
    This legislation would unite food safety and inspection activities in a
    single agency with a clear mission to protect the public health. While
    most people acknowledge that the current fragmented food safety system
    must be streamlined and modernized in order to meet the needs of
    consumers, the details of a new structure need to be developed in an
    open, participatory process that builds confidence on the part of all
    who will deal with that agency.
        Food safety is vital to protect the health and well being of the
    American public and the food industry. And our food safety system is
    tested each and every day when millions of Americans sit down to eat.
    One of the best things we can do to protect the public health and save
    lives is unite federal food safety activities in one agency.
        Unfortunately, despite the expectation that we would see the first
    federal budget to coordinate food safety spending activities across a
    range of agencies, the fiscal year 2002 budget proposed by the Bush
    Administration maintains the status quo--business as usual. Proposed
    food safety spending continues to be doled out and dispersed among the
    varied agencies, which share jurisdiction over the various elements of
    Federal food safety responsibility. In August 1998, a Cabinet-level
    council of regulators was tasked under Executive Order 13100 to develop
    a unified food safety budget designed to streamline and channel
    resources to areas of greatest need. It looks like an important
    opportunity might have been missed to critically evaluate food safety
    spending in a cohesive way.
        Food Chemical News (4/16/01) reported ``USDA's Food Safety and
    Inspection Service has once again sought the lion's share of inspection
    funding, primarily because meat plants have a congressional mandate to
    be continuously inspected. Given what has been requested for FDA for
    fiscal year 2002, those programs will undoubtedly struggle to make ends
    meet, even though that agency is charged with regulating the vast
    majority of food products, some of which pose as much risk as meat and
    poultry. Some of these gross disparities were supposed to be addressed
    in this budget cycle, as federal regulators were supposed to work
    together to weigh the risks posed by various foods and target resources
    accordingly--at least as far as the law would allow. Turf battles were
    supposed to be set aside and a federal vision of food safety regulation
    was supposed to emerge. What happened?''
        I want to work with the Administration to design and implement a
    more streamlined system--and budget--to strengthen food safety and
    better protect public health. I hope the Department will continue to
    explore this idea and work with me on ensuring that our food supply is
    the safest in the world.
        On a less positive note, I would like to mention my dissatisfaction
    with the agency's responsiveness in two areas. First, when I was
    Chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations committee in 1994, I placed
    a requirement in the fiscal year 1995 report accompanying the bill to
    require the agency to set up a gene therapy tracking system for
    individuals. This had been sought by patient groups representing those
    most likely to be included in gene therapy trials. FDA moved while I
    was chairman to begin developing such a tracking system, but since
    then, they seem to have forgotten the fiscal year 1995 requirement.
        Following the tragic death of Jesse Gelsinger, it was discovered
    that we have a myriad of problems with gene therapy trials. These
    problems highlighted the need for an effective tracking system. So last
    year at this FDA budget hearing, I asked FDA to tell me about their
    plans for instituting this system and I received a ``non-answer.''
        With Chairman Cochran's assistance, we placed a requirement in this
    year's appropriations bill for FDA to submit a full budget and
    implementation plan by the end of January. The agency missed the
    deadline and I extended it to April 1st. However, the report the agency
    sent up was entirely inadequate. It did not contain a budget nor did it
    contain a detailed plan for implementation.
        I am still waiting for a reply and am very dissatisfied with the
    agency's foot-dragging. It is very difficult for Congress to provide
    the agency the funding it needs if it will not give us details of the
    likely expenses of addressing areas of concern.
        In addition, in January I requested similar information on the
    budget resources necessary for full implementation of the new tissue
    safety regulations. I have yet to receive a reply to that letter.
        As I said earlier, I am happy to see the agency receive new staff
    resources but am extremely disturbed by the agency's lack of
    responsiveness in these two areas that are of grave concern to the
    public. Such foot dragging is neither necessary nor acceptable. I hope
    we can expect a new attentiveness to these issues in the coming weeks.
        Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss
    these important issues today, and I look forward to working with you as
    we craft the coming year's budget for this critical agency.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Senator.
        Dr. Schwetz, we welcome you again to the committee. You may
    proceed.
        Dr. Schwetz. Good morning. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am Bernard
    Schwetz, the Acting Principal Deputy Commissioner of the U.S.
    Food and Drug Administration. I would like to introduce my
    colleagues: Dr. Linda Suydam, Senior Associate Commissioner of
    the FDA; Mr. Jeff Weber, Acting Senior Associate Commissioner
    for Management and Systems of the FDA; and Mr. Kerry Weems, the
    Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health
    and Human Services. We are honored to have this opportunity to
    discuss the challenges facing the FDA.
        You have seen my written testimony describing many of the
    agency's recent accomplishments, and I do not intend to address
    them in depth today.

                       Science and Technology Challenges

        What I would like to discuss with you is FDA's role in
    today's rapidly changing scientific environment and the
    challenges we face in answering the increasingly complex
    questions that arise as we review these new technologies. FDA's
    challenges fall into four distinct but interrelated areas.
    First, innovations in science and technology are transforming
    the types of products FDA regulates and the speed at which they
    are generated. Second, consumers' demand for access to reliable
    health information is growing dramatically. The third challenge
    I will discuss is the increasing globalization of essentially
    all aspects of the industries and products that we oversee. And
    finally, our responsibility to quickly address emerging public
    health threats. So, let me expand on each of these areas.
        First, substantial Government and private sector
    investments in biomedical research are resulting in hundreds of
    new and innovative products that are either in the R&D pipeline
    or have already arrived at the agency. To put it into
    perspective, consider that research expenditures by the
    pharmaceutical industry alone have more than tripled over the
    last decade. Likewise, bipartisan efforts are doubling the
    budget of NIH. As new products are generated by the academic
    and industry research, fueled by NIH, they must be evaluated by
    FDA staff with the scientific expertise to assess their
    benefits and risks. We want to ensure that FDA will not become
    a bottleneck in getting safe and effective products and
    therapies to the public.

                                  Public Trust

        FDA's second challenge, maintaining the public's trust and
    confidence, is illustrated by the issues that arise with the
    successful mapping of the humane genome. This astonishing feat
    of modern science has generated both hope and concern
    throughout the scientific community and the public with the
    promise of new genetic tests, gene-based designer drugs, and
    comprehensive genomics-based health care. To make the right
    science-based public health decisions, FDA's scientists must be
    on the leading edge in their specific scientific disciplines.

                                 Globalization

        The third challenge I mentioned is the globalization of
    industry, a trend that is expanding FDA's role in protecting
    and promoting the health of Americans, as we strive to assure
    the safety of products grown or manufactured overseas for sale
    in the United States.
        Finally, FDA faces the daily challenge of integrating its
    current workload with the challenge of emerging public health
    threats such as BSE, or mad cow disease.
        FDA's fiscal year 2002 budget requests a total of $1.4
    billion, an increase of $123 million over fiscal year 2001. The
    increases are targeted to specific initiatives, including BSE,
    food safety, and human subject protection. This request
    includes a total of $204 million in user fees. $20 million of
    this amount is for new user fees, for which authorizing
    legislation is needed.

                               Professional Staff

        FDA's greatest resource is our staff. The professional
    workforce necessary to meet our public health mission requires
    a focus on the scientific principles upon which our decisions
    are based. In fiscal year 2002, FDA is requesting $40 million
    to fund mandatory pay-related increases. This increase will
    allow FDA to maintain current levels of performance and improve
    the drug review process.

                                      BSE

        One of our major challenges is preventing the entry of BSE,
    or mad cow disease, into the U.S. FDA has been vigilant in this
    area for many years, and so far we have seen no cases of BSE in
    the U.S. We are working hard, in conjunction with other
    Federal, State, and private sector groups, to keep BSE out and
    we are prepared to prevent its spread if there ever is a case
    in cattle in this country. FDA is requesting a $15 million
    increase to support BSE activities.

                            Imports and Inspections

        Inspections and imports represent another challenging area.
    Although we inspect manufacturing facilities prior to approval
    of new drugs and devices, today FDA performs routine
    inspections of only 28 percent of drug facilities and 16
    percent of high-risk medical device facilities each year. FDA
    currently inspects overseas medical device firms only once
    every decade. From a safety perspective, this is unacceptable.

                               Imported Products

        Imported products also represent a challenge. The majority
    of active pharmaceutical ingredients marketed in the United
    States are manufactured overseas. In addition, the importation
    of food from other countries has been growing rapidly over the
    past decade and continues to grow. In fiscal year 2002, we
    expect to receive 7 million food import entries. FDA physically
    inspects less than 1 percent of all imported FDA regulated
    products. To restore this capacity, FDA is requesting $25
    million for imports and inspections. This includes $14.7
    million in new import fees. This increase will allow us to
    improve public confidence in the standards of imported drugs,
    biologic, and device products.

                                 FDA Approvals

        In the area of medical products, FDA reviewed over 17,000
    applications for drug, biologic, and device products in the
    year 2000. Of these, 97 percent were approved. 160 of these
    approvals were for products that had never previously been
    marketed in any form in the United States Many of these
    products represent advances in the prevention, diagnosis, and
    treatment of serious and life-threatening diseases.
        At the same time, FDA's responsibilities do not end with
    product approval, but continue throughout the entire product
    life cycle. Therefore, new product approvals lead to another
    set of challenges, monitoring adverse event reports for
    marketed products and taking appropriate action when necessary
    and reducing the incidence of medical errors. We are developing
    a systems approach for this issue, requesting $10 million in
    funding to support adverse event reporting.

                                Clinical Trails

        FDA is also responsible for protecting patients involved in
    clinical trials and ensuring that the data gathered from these
    trials concerning the safety and effectiveness of a product are
    accurate. Many of the products we may later approve require
    testing in humans prior to marketing, and the protection of
    human subjects in clinical trials is an ongoing challenge for
    us. We are requesting an increase of $10 million to increase
    the number of inspections and, in particular, target high-risk
    clinical trials.

                                  Food Safety

        Touching briefly on another challenge, we have made major
    improvements in food safety, from decreasing the incidence of
    food-borne illness to developing mechanisms to monitor
    antimicrobial resistance. And yet, an estimated 76 million
    Americans get sick from food-borne illnesses each year, and
    more than 5,000 die as a result. We are requesting $14.7
    million for food safety activities. A portion of this amount,
    $5.3 million represents new fees for export certification. When
    added to the other food safety related activities included
    under our other priorities, 16 percent of our requested
    increase will be for supporting FDA's food safety
    responsibilities.

                             Infrastructure Support

        The final challenge I will mention is our commitment to
    ensuring that our staff has the tools necessary to meet the
    agency's public health mission. We are requesting resources to
    complete the move of our Center for Drug Evaluation and
    Research to the new headquarters facility at White Oak, to
    complete construction of the new Los Angeles laboratory, and to
    begin acquisition of a new financial management system.

                               Prepared Statement

        Let me end my comments by emphasizing the importance of
    science to FDA's mission. The number and complexity of products
    and issues coming before FDA demand that the agency have the
    very best scientific capability to evaluate them. FDA must have
    a critical mass of top-notch scientific and medical expertise
    to assess these products and answer new questions. As the
    gatekeeper for new products and technology, FDA has a decisive
    impact on their safety, effectiveness, and the speed of their
    availability to the public.
        Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement. My colleagues and
    I will be happy to answer any questions that the committee has
    today.
        [The statement follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Bernard Schwetz

        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is Bernard Schwetz
    and I am honored to be sitting before you today. As the Acting
    Principal Deputy Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration, I
    appreciate the opportunity to discuss some of the accomplishments, as
    well as the challenges FDA faces in the new century. It's fair to say
    that this new century presents FDA with unprecedented challenges:
      --the rapid transformation of the science and technology that
            generates the products FDA must regulate;
      --increasing expectations of consumers with changing demographics and
            consumption habits to easily obtain medical and risk-related
            information;
      --the expanding and evolving composition of global trade and
            production; and,
      --emerging public health threats.
        The United States is leading the world into an era of scientific
    achievements that can yield unprecedented gains for human health and
    nourishment. Industry's research and development pipelines abound with
    blueprints for hundreds of new and innovative products and processes
    that can literally transform life's experience, as we have known it.
    Such marvels of science as cell and gene therapy; genomics-based drugs;
    surgical robotics; and bioengineered plants and animals are in sight or
    within our grasp, and their potential for saving lives, improving the
    quality of life and enhancing the economy is enormous. But it also must
    be recognized that their potential for harm is enormous, if these new
    technologies are not appropriately overseen by individuals who
    understand them as well as by their proponents.
        For many of these revolutionary products, the greatest hurdle is
    not in the realm of technology, but in the consumers' distrust of their
    dramatically different performance and features. The critical task of
    overcoming this formidable obstacle at the onset of the new age of
    technology is one of FDA's greatest challenges. The public expects that
    food set on the family table will be safe and wholesome; that new
    medical products, drugs, biologicals, and medical devices, available in
    a timely manner, will have demonstrated real benefits that outweigh
    their known risks; and, that the product information will be useful and
    understandable. To meet such high expectations, FDA must continually
    earn and re-earn, with each new technology, the trust of consumers.
    Day-in and day-out, this proud Agency must prove that it is up to this
    daunting challenge. A most recent example involves our efforts to
    manage the threat of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE or ``mad cow
    disease'') that has cost the European community billions of dollars,
    almost 100 lives, and has undermined the trust of Europeans in their
    governments.
        A recent survey of five Federal regulatory agencies conducted by
    the Pew Research Center and Princeton Research Survey Associates, found
    that from 72 to 85 percent of consumers, health professionals,
    patients, and industry representatives said they trusted FDA to make
    the right decisions. The results placed FDA at the top of the survey's
    charts, with an overall favorable rating above 80 percent, more than
    twice the approval rate of government agencies in general. While we
    take great pride in such numbers and what they represent, technology is
    moving too swiftly for us to be content.
        Each year presents even more challenges for FDA. Issues are
    increasingly complex and the breadth of FDA's responsibility ever
    expanding. While many of our constituents primarily focus on the
    product marketing application review process, it has become
    increasingly clear that FDA's eye must be equally focused on the full
    life cycle of all the products we regulate--post market as well as pre-
    market activities and developments. The changes and challenges facing
    us were never so apparent then when the successful mapping of the human
    genome was announced late last year. This has brought us to the
    threshold of a frontier that promises to transform the diagnosis,
    treatment and even prevention of diseases that today still cripple many
    in our society. Francis Collins, Director of the National Human Genome
    Research Institute at NIH, recently made a number of predictions about
    where genome research could lead in the next three decades. His
    forecast for the next ten years includes such things as genetic tests
    for a dozen medical conditions, and preimplantation genetic diagnosis,
    with primary care physicians practicing genetic medicine. There are
    hundreds of genetic tests under development and available in the United
    States. Only eight have been submitted to and approved by FDA. In 20
    years, Dr. Collins predicts the availability of gene-based designer
    drugs to treat diabetes and hypertension, and cancer therapy precisely
    targeted to a tumor's molecular fingerprint. For FDA this means
    coordinating drug and genetic diagnostic development hand-in-hand. In
    30 years, it's likely that comprehensive genomics-based health care
    will be the norm. Products will need to evolve from the research
    laboratory to well characterized therapeutics with established safety
    and effectiveness. To make these critical judgments, requires that FDA
    scientists remain on the leading edge in their specific scientific
    disciplines.
        Substantial resources are needed to carry out FDA's mission.
    Research expenditures by the pharmaceutical industry alone have more
    than tripled since 1990. More and more complex products, which arrive
    at FDA's gate for preclinical and clinical studies design consultation,
    for marketing application review, and, for post-approval continuing
    reassessment are products of the growing NIH research budget and of
    academic and industry research fueled by NIH. We will ensure that FDA
    will not become a bottleneck in getting these public health
    breakthroughs to the public while serving as the trusted, independent,
    efficient gatekeeper it is now. Today, I would like to highlight some
    of FDA's many accomplishments of the past year that impact all
    Americans and touch on the new and challenging responsibilities of the
    twenty-first century.
                                  food safety
        Over the course of the past several years, with your support, the
    FDA has made great strides in improving the safety of the nation's food
    supply. Through a food borne illness surveillance system known as
    FoodNet (partially funded through FDA), the CDC has documented
    reductions in food borne illness for a number of important food
    pathogens. These reductions reflect the hard work of not just FDA, but
    other Federal agencies, and our State and local counterparts.
        The FDA has always maintained that the strength of our regulatory
    program comes from the underlying science base. Last winter, we
    published two draft risk assessments addressing listeria and vibrio
    parahemalytics and we have since held public meetings to hear public
    reaction to them. These risk assessments are also enabling FDA to play
    a leadership role internationally.
        The safety assessment of antimicrobial drugs for use in food-
    producing animals includes monitoring for the development of
    resistance. Monitoring is done through the National Antimicrobial
    Resistance Monitoring System (NARMS), which was initiated in l996 as
    collaboration between the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control, and the
    United States Department of Agriculture. Its purpose is to
    prospectively monitor the antimicrobial resistance of human, animal,
    and animal product isolates of selected enteric bacteria. NARMS data
    have been used to initiate field investigations of outbreaks of illness
    marked by a pathogen which displayed an unusual antimicrobial
    resistance pattern; assess the human health impact of fluoroquinolone
    use in poultry; stimulate research in molecular characteristics of
    resistance emergence and transfer; and, improve our knowledge of risk
    factors associated with the development of an antimicrobial-resistant
    infection. NARMS data have also triggered broader research projects of
    prudent antimicrobial use in animals and in the role of the environment
    in the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance.
                                medical products
        During this past year, FDA's three major human medical product
    centers, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, (CDER), the
    Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, (CBER), and the Center
    for Devices and Radiological Health, (CDRH), demonstrated strong
    scientific expertise and efficiency by reviewing over 17,100 marketing
    applications for drug, biologic, and device products. The outcome of
    these reviews was that approximately 16,600 total products were found
    to have the required scientific data for approval for marketing in the
    United States. Of these, there were 160 approvals of medications and
    medical devices that had never previously been marketed in any form in
    the USA. Many of these approvals represent an impressive advance in the
    prevention, diagnosis and treatment for serious and life-threatening
    diseases.
        Groups that particularly benefit from these approved medications
    and medical devices include cancer patients, patients with heart
    disease, children, women, and the elderly. In addition, FDA's approvals
    strengthened surgical flexibility with several state-of-the-art devices
    that reduce the risks of complex surgical procedures.
                                cancer patients
        Several products approved contributed to the prevention, early
    diagnosis or treatment of cancer, the second deadliest disease in the
    United States affecting eight million Americans. Two of the new cancer
    medications, Trisenox and Mylotarg, were approved for cancers of the
    white blood cells. For women, Nolvadex (tamoxifen citrate) was approved
    last year for a new use to reduce the risk of invasive breast cancer
    with preinvasive cancer of the mammary ducts.
        Three of the cancer treatments approved were medical devices. A
    laser system was approved that enhances a physician's ability to
    distinguish small harmless growths from pre-cancerous growths in the
    colon. A surgical sealant was approved for sealing air leaks in lungs
    following the removal of cancerous tumors. A third device, for early
    cancer diagnosis, is the first mammography system that produces digital
    images on a solid-state receptor instead of analog images on a
    radiographic film. Early diagnosis remains the best weapon against
    breast cancer, which annually affects 180,000 women--of which
    approximately twenty-five percent die of the disease.
        An example of the cutting-edge research currently being conducted
    that will transform the way we diagnosis and treat cancer is the FDA/
    NIH Tissue Proteomics Program which is the only one of its kind in the
    world. This joint effort of CBER and the National Cancer Institute
    (NCI) focuses on the development and use of proteomic tools for the
    early detection of cancer and other diseases. The project's
    accomplishments include the development of methods for early disease
    detection, the identification of new therapeutic targets and the
    discovery of new biomarkers for drug-induced patient toxicity. This
    bench-to-bedside model has resulted in a first-of-its-kind clinical
    trial that incorporates a ``proteomic portrait'' of the disease in
    human tissue that could lead to customized, patient tailored
    therapeutics. Currently, this research has identified over 150 proteins
    that are aberrantly expressed in human prostate, lung, breast, ovary,
    esophageal, and colon cancer. Furthermore, a new artificial-
    intelligence computer software system has been invented and developed
    to reveal protein patterns that can be used as surrogate markers of
    therapeutic efficacy, toxicity and early disease detection.
        This is but one example of the work being conducted also at CDER,
    NCTR, and CFSAN concerning predictive modeling and standards
    modification using common databases and computational science.
                              children and infants
        Several new products approved last year for pediatric and obstetric
    use were either specifically designed for the youngest patients or were
    adult drugs now approved also for use in children. Approvals included:
    the OxiFirst Fetal Oxygen Saturation Monitoring System, which
    represents the first major technological development in fetal
    monitoring in three decades; Prevnar, a pneumococcal vaccine for
    infants and toddlers under the age of two which was designed to prevent
    invasive diseases caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae, including
    bacteremia, an infection of the blood stream that affects about 35,000
    infants and toddlers in the U.S., and meningitis, an infection of the
    lining of the brain or spinal cord that is diagnosed in about 17,500
    infants a year; and, Pulmicort Respules (budesonide inhalation
    suspension), the first anti-inflammatory corticosteroid formulated for
    inhalation using a nebulizer in the 1-8 year-old age group.
                                     women
        FDA approved several other products to treat diseases that either
    exclusively or predominantly affect women. Remicade (inflixmab) was
    approved for the reduction in signs and symptoms of rheumatoid
    arthritis, which affects more than 8 million Americans, three-fourths
    of whom are women. Another approval was Novantrone, for the treatment
    of advanced or chronic multiple sclerosis. The disease affects up to
    350,000 Americans, 66-75 percent of whom are women.
        FDA also continued successfully working with the States and the
    American College of Radiology to monitor mammography facilities. This
    successful partnership helps assure high quality mammography services
    to women.
                        cardiac patients and the elderly
        Examples of new products for patients with heart disease and the
    elderly include several novel devices and important medications. Two of
    the devices use catheters to deliver radiation inside a coronary stent
    following the reopening of a blocked artery. The radiation helps reduce
    the risk of new tissue growth inside the coronary stent and the
    resulting repeated narrowing of the artery. Among the products designed
    primarily for the elderly, Visudyne (verteporfin for injection) is the
    first therapy to slow vision loss in people with the classic type of
    ``Wet Age-Related Macular Degeneration.''
                                    diabetes
        FDA has recently approved the first minimally invasive glucose
    meter (the Minimed System) for use in monitoring patients with
    diabetes. Most recently, FDA has approved the first non-invasive device
    used to detect trends and track patterns in glucose levels in adults.
    The device is used together with finger prick blood tests to monitor
    glucose blood levels. FDA and industry scientists need to continue to
    work together to make sure that the accuracy of the new devices is high
    enough for reliable home use.
                         drugs for resistant infections
        Another important product that passed the FDA's rigorous review for
    safety and effectiveness last year included the first drug of a new
    class of antibiotics that addresses treatment for the emerging serious
    public health threat of vancomycin-resistant bacterial infections.
                    state of the art robotic medical devices
        Finally, I am happy to report the approval by our Center for
    Devices and Radiologic Health of a promising new surgical system that
    incorporates cutting-edge robotics technology.
        These products are only a small sample of the new drugs, biological
    products and medical devices the agency approved last year in its role
    of public health promoter. In addition, CDER issued 244 approvals of
    generic counterparts of original drugs. Generic drugs substantially
    reduce the cost of purchasing pharmaceuticals by typically offering
    price discounts from 50 percent to 75 percent. Similarly, CDRH cleared
    for market almost 3,500 so-called 510 (k) devices, products that are
    similar to devices already on the market.
        In addition to approving a host of important new medical products
    in 2000, FDA has continued not only to meet--but also to exceed--
    virtually all of its product review and product development
    consultation performance goals under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
    (PDUFA). For example, for the fifth straight year, FDA reviewed 100
    percent of PDUFA marketing applications within the time frames agreed
    with Congress. Because of this review efficiency and thoroughness, last
    year, FDA approved 20 products classified as priority drugs--drugs that
    have a real benefit beyond existing therapies--in the median time of
    only 6 months. Moreover, although PDUFA goals specify review times and
    not approval times, actual approval times (FDA review time plus the
    time it takes companies to answer deficiencies identified by FDA) have
    decreased around 60 percent since the program started.
                     blood safety and regulation of tissues
        Each year more than 3 million Americans receive donated blood.
    While blood and blood-derivatives can be life saving, they can transmit
    undetected infectious disease. Assuring the safety of and preventing
    shortages in, the blood supply continues to be one of FDA's priorities.
        Tissues have long been transplanted in medicine for widespread uses
    such as skin replacement after severe burns, tendons and ligaments to
    repair injuries, heart valves to replace defective ones, corneas to
    restore eyesight, and the use of human semen and implantation of eggs
    to help infertile couples. In recent years, scientists have developed
    new techniques, many derived from biotechnology, that enhance and
    expand the use of human cells and tissues as therapeutic products.
    These new techniques hold the promise of some day providing therapies
    for cancer, AIDS, Parkinson's Disease, hemophilia, anemia, diabetes,
    and other serious conditions. A GAO report, published in December 1997,
    supported strengthening requirements for tissue establishments. In
    January 2001, the Office of Inspector General published two reports,
    ``Informed Consent in Tissue Donation, Expectations and Realities'',
    and ``Oversight of Tissue Banking''. The latter report recommended that
    FDA expedite the publication of its regulatory agenda that requires
    registration of tissue banks, enhanced donor suitability screening and
    testing, and the use of good tissue practice. It also recommended that
    FDA increase the number of inspections of tissue establishments
    performed to enhance oversight.
        FDA strengthens its public health promotion role in many other ways
    such as (1) refusing to approve products not shown to have real
    benefits that outweigh their known risks; (2) assuring adequate
    information on appropriate use for approved products; and, (3)
    monitoring and continually reassessing new data that are developed
    after products go on the larger general market in the U.S. Last year,
    FDA also issued 125 draft and final guidance documents to clarify
    requirements and facilitate industry's compliance with FDA's product
    efficacy, safety and quality standards.
                       global trade and global production
        FDA has also worked closely with international organizations to
    harmonize requirements and standards for the products we regulate. This
    work recognizes not only the international nature of our regulated
    industries but also our collective need to share expertise concerning
    new products in both the pre- and post-approval phases across all
    borders.
        FDA is the recognized gold standard. Our regulatory approaches are
    often cited by officials in other countries. For example, in the wake
    of recent European food crises, including BSE and dioxin in meat and
    dairy products, European Commission President Romano Prudi advised the
    European Parliament that one way to prevent more food crises in the
    future would be to establish a European food agency modeled on the FDA.
    Numerous foreign delegations have visited FDA over the past year to
    discuss food safety regulation.
        FDA is a leader in international food safety harmonization efforts
    through the Codex Alimentarious, and has worked with WHO and FAO to
    increase the profile of food safety issues around the globe.
        In the area of drugs and biologicals, we now have more than 50
    guidances that have been agreed-upon by FDA, its counterpart agencies
    in the European Union, Canada, and Japan, and the innovator drug and
    biologic industries in these countries. These guidelines cover very
    specific topics regarding drug and biologic pre-clinical and clinical
    testing, manufacturing, post-approval continual reassessment and
    regulatory submissions. One major advance in this effort has been an
    agreement on the content of periodic safety updates on approved
    products. With this agreement, we can now be assured that regulators in
    those regions will be able to receive the same safety information at
    the same time about products being marketed in their countries. In
    addition, we have agreed on electronic format and transfer standards to
    facilitate and to make even more efficient the electronic transfer of
    safety information between companies and regulatory agencies in these
    regions.
        This terminology allows even more efficient and more accurate
    transfer of new post-approval safety data around the globe and
    facilitate better, more informed public health decisions about the
    ongoing safety profile of marketed products. Most recently, through
    this process, known as the International Conference on Harmonization
    (ICH), we have reached agreement on ``A Common Technical Document''
    that will standardize the format for the major portions of a marketing
    application across these regions. With such a core document, a
    pharmaceutical or biologic firm seeking approval of a product in one or
    more of the participating countries will be able to submit essentially
    the same document to each country. The influence of ICH is now
    spreading even beyond the original regions as other nations build their
    regulatory infrastructures and use the ICH guidances as their own
    standards.
        We've also made progress in the realm of international
    harmonization of medical devices. Along with our counterparts from the
    EU, Japan, Canada, and Australia, we are developing protocols that will
    permit harmonization among these five entities and their regulation of
    medical devices.
        In the spirit of transparency, FDA's website, launched in 1995,
    provides another essential way of exposing the agency to the public we
    serve. Materials posted on the web include materials to be discussed at
    upcoming advisory committees, enforcement actions, talk papers,
    speeches, and educational information. Our website has received
    numerous awards from such quarters as Popular Science magazine, the Dow
    Jones Business Director, and Tufts University's Nutrition Navigator.
    Moreover, it is linked to 8,000 other health, consumer, medical, and
    educational websites.
        These kinds of activities help prepare us for the global
    environment in which most of the products we oversee now exist. This
    helps us to more successfully bridge differences in government,
    language, and culture. In short, they prepare us for what is to come by
    providing a blueprint for harmonization around the world. This
    globalization of product development, testing, and ultimately trade,
    further highlights the need for a strong and robust FDA. As trade
    agreements and policies are negotiated, the maintenance of strong
    public support requires that a scientifically strong regulatory agency
    have a forceful voice in those discussions on matters that will affect
    the health of the American public.
                                   challenges
        Despite the significant strides made in the public health arena
    over the past few years, FDA faces formidable challenges in the near
    future. I would like to highlight some of these for you today. FDA's
    fiscal year 2002 request totals $1.414 billion, an increase of $123
    million over fiscal year 2001. The increases over fiscal year 2001 are
    targeted to specific initiatives to include: funds to prevent the
    spread of mad cow disease; to expand food safety activities; and, to
    protect human subjects in clinical trials. In addition, of the funds
    requested, $204 million will be derived from industry-specific user
    fees, including $20 million in new fees for food export certificates
    and import operations.
                          our most important resource
        Cutting edge science and technology are providing us with new
    opportunities and challenges every day. Over the past few decades we
    have seen large investments by both the public and private sector in
    biomedical research and biotechnology that will result in the
    development of an abundance of new products that need to be assessed
    before entry into the marketplace and during their use. As these
    products enter the marketplace, they should change the very face of
    health care in America and should help us all lead longer, healthier
    lives. They should also bring enormous economic benefits by reducing
    the cost of health care. Having a high performing, science-based
    regulatory agency to render decisions regarding the safety and efficacy
    of these products reaps great public health benefits for all of us.
        In fiscal year 2002, FDA requests $40,000,000 to fund mandatory
    pay-related increases. This increase for base resources focuses on pay
    adjustments because personnel are so essential to accomplishing the
    Agency's mission. These resources will enable FDA to maintain current
    levels of performance, and to continue to improve the drug review
    process. Payroll increases are needed to cover about half of the staff
    involved in the drug application review process not supported by PDUFA
    user fees; to improve the ability to assure the safety of regulated
    products; to inspect and investigate domestic and foreign
    manufacturers; and, to participate in Mutual Recognition Agreements
    with countries to establish global standards for foods and
    pharmaceuticals. We need now, more than ever, your continued support to
    assure FDA is ready to respond to these challenges. Bovine Spongiform
    Encephalopathy (BSE)
        BSE is one of a group of progressive degenerative neurological
    diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). BSE
    is a TSE of cattle. TSE diseases are always fatal. There are six TSE
    diseases that affect humans, of which Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD)
    and variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) are best known. vCJD is
    believed to be transmitted to humans by the consumption of food
    products contaminated with the agent of BSE.
        Since the BSE epidemic began in 1986, more than 176,000 cases of
    BSE have now been confirmed in Great Britain. To date, over 90 human
    lives have been lost in Europe due to vCJD. Now cases of BSE in cattle
    have also been reported in other European countries. Here in the United
    States, we have been fortunate. To date, BSE has not been detected in
    our cattle herds and we have not had any patients diagnosed with vCJD.
    Based on the UK experience, if BSE were to be encountered in the U.S.,
    it would have not only an obvious potential impact on our public
    health, but also a monumental impact on our beef industries, with
    initial U.S. revenue losses estimated to reach over $15 billion. To
    protect consumers, it is essential to implement and monitor a multi-
    layered safeguard system to ensure that BSE regulations and guidance
    principles are followed. BSE has a potential impact on many biological
    products such as vaccines, cells or cell-derived products, and blood.
    It is important for the FDA to have an active research, review and
    inspection program to assure product safety.
        Bovine-derived materials have traditionally been used in the
    manufacture of many biological products, including vaccines. To date,
    there are no reports of BSE contamination of pharmaceutical or
    biological products. To minimize the possibility of contamination in
    such products, the FDA recommended in the Federal Register on August
    29, 1994, and again in 1996, that manufacturers not use materials
    derived from cattle that were born, raised, or slaughtered in countries
    where BSE is known to exist. The FDA referred manufacturers to the
    listing of such countries that is maintained by the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture.
        In addition to FDA's regulation which prohibits the feeding of
    mammalian protein to ruminant animals, the Animal and Plant Health
    Inspection Service (APHIS), of the United States Department of
    Agriculture, has placed restrictions banning the importation of live
    ruminants and certain ruminant products from thirty-one countries. FDA,
    in conjunction and cooperation with APHIS, has issued a series of
    import alerts and bulletins regarding products, which FDA regulates.
    Many products regulated by FDA contain these banned substances and it
    is important to enhance and make as comprehensive as possible our BSE
    monitoring system to identify products that may pose a health risk and
    ensure they do not enter the U.S. FDA has also issued guidelines to
    Blood Centers to exclude potential donors who have spent six or more
    cumulative months in the U.K. between January 1, 1980 and December 31,
    1996, from donating blood. At the Transmissible Spongiform
    Encephalothies Advisory Committee (TSEAC) in January 2001, the
    Committee recommended the deferral of donors who lived in France,
    Ireland or Portugal for a period of ten years between 1980 and the
    present. We need to continue to monitor BSE activities and revise our
    current policies as needed based on new information.
        The focus for FDA and its partners in other agencies has been
    prevention. Using the best science known at this time, the U. S. has an
    aggressive multi-faceted program in place to try to prevent the
    establishment and spread of BSE. The Agency has committed to inspecting
    100 percent of all feed mills, plus re-inspections of those
    establishments not in compliance by the end of fiscal year 2001. Within
    the planned resources, this would have been impossible. FDA has looked
    internally at several other sources to redirect to BSE needs. We have
    tapped into the FDA contingency fund for the first time in several
    years plus moved priorities within the field portion of the Animal
    Drugs and Feeds program. BSE is a high priority, and the Agency is
    working to meet its commitments.
        To prevent exposure of American citizens and food animals to the
    agent of BSE, the Agency is requesting $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2002
    for needed BSE activities. With this funding, FDA will increase
    monitoring of imports to ensure prohibited materials do not enter the
    United States; conduct targeted BSE inspections of all renderers and
    licensed and non-FDA licensed feed mills handling prohibited material,
    such as meat and bone meal on a yearly basis; provide training to
    Federal and State inspectors on the current BSE situation; conduct
    market studies to identify food, dietary supplements, and cosmetic
    products containing spinal cord and other at risk products; conduct
    research on Chronic Wasting
        Disease (a TSE), which affects elk, deer, and other domestic game
    and pen-reared animals in the United States; and, conduct follow-up
    education on for-cause inspections of biological products, blood, and
    vaccines.
                       imports and inspections activities
        FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety of products produced and
    distributed by more than 100,000 domestic establishments. The Agency
    uses its inspectional authority, as directed by statute, to provide
    this assurance. For many establishments, the law requires FDA to
    conduct inspections at specified time intervals, such as once every two
    years. Resource constraints over the past several years have seriously
    impaired FDA's ability to meet its statutory biennial inspection
    requirements. By fiscal year 2002, FDA will be responsible for ensuring
    the safety of almost 7 million line entries of imported products that
    cross our borders annually. The sources of many of these entries are
    diversified and include an increasing number of products from countries
    that are typically categorized as emerging economies, with developing
    regulatory infrastructures. FDA conducts sampling and end point product
    testing as a means of determining that imports have been properly
    produced.
        To restore this seriously impaired capacity, FDA must increase
    foreign and physical port inspections and oversight of foreign
    producers to be able to maintain the safety of products on the market
    that we believe Americans expect and demand, additional funding of
    $25,000,000 is requested for imports and inspections. This includes
    $10,300,000 in budget authority and $14,700,000 in new import user
    fees. With this funding, FDA will increase inspections of domestic
    medical device manufacturers; surveillance of imported tissues and
    other imported biological products; sample analyses of domestic and
    imported drug products; criminal investigation of fraudulent drug
    imports; and, sample collection, analysis, and field exams of imported
    foods and dietary supplements. This increase will also allow us to
    improve public confidence in the standards of drugs, biological, and
    device products imported from the European Union, and intensify drug
    inspections in developing countries. FDA plans to expand import entry
    review resources to keep pace with the increase in line entries and
    modernize the OASIS import data processing system to provide import
    reviewers with more rapid and direct access to information necessary
    for entry decisions.
        Inspections and import surveillance are the primary means of
    assuring the safety of marketed products. Consumers rely on the FDA to
    prevent dangerous and unreliable products from entering into commerce.
    Despite a decrease in the overall number of inspections, in fiscal year
    2000, FDA conducted 880 foreign inspections, which represented a
    twelve-percent increase over fiscal year 1999. However, FDA physically
    examined less than one percent of all entries offered for import into
    the United States. While the FDA continues to undertake initiatives to
    improve the safety of imported products, there is often no substitute
    for physically examining these products.
               reduced adverse events related to medical products
        FDA is responsible for ensuring that the benefits of approved
    products continue to outweigh their newly discovered risks after
    product approval. Historically, the Agency has primarily relied upon a
    voluntary, passive reporting system in which consumers, manufacturers
    and health professionals submit reports of suspected adverse product
    reactions to FDA or the manufacturers of the products who then, by
    regulation, must submit the reports to FDA. This voluntary system was
    designed primarily to signal the possible existence of new rare, but
    serious, side effects of marketed products, which are most often of a
    frequency that they could never be detected in routine clinical trial
    programs because of the size limitations of most product development
    clinical trial programs. About 1-3 percent of the total number of
    products approved each year have had to be removed later because of
    rare, but serious, new side effects discovered through this system.
    Each year FDA receives more than 350,000 of these kinds of reports of
    suspected product adverse reactions. These reports must be
    investigated, analyzed and acted upon promptly. While we have invested
    heavily in making this system more efficient, there are areas of post-
    approval product injury of which we believe we should be focusing to
    improve our abilities to make medical products safer.
        For example, not all safety issues relate to direct toxicity of the
    medical product. Some product related injuries are the result of
    inappropriate use or erroneous use of the product, which, if it had
    been used properly would not have resulted in injury. The Department of
    Health and Human Services established a Patient Safety Task Force to
    integrate the collection of data on medical errors--including
    medication errors- to coordinate research and analysis efforts and, to
    collaborate on reducing the occurrence of injuries that result from
    medical errors. The task force's goal is to reduce medical errors by
    fifty percent over five years through the development of a coordinated,
    easy to use, confidential reporting system which will minimize the
    burden of reporting suspected medical errors or conditions that might
    result in medical errors. Biological product safety is also of concern,
    including vaccine safety, infectious disease risks, and blood and
    tissue safety to name a few.
        To meet some of these challenges, FDA is adopting a systems
    approach, of which the most significant component is the identification
    of and response to adverse events that are reported in the U.S. With an
    increase in funding of $10,000,000, FDA plans to hire staff to analyze
    and evaluate the adverse event reports and determine appropriate
    responses; speed the identification and reporting of adverse events by
    enhancing existing data systems and linking them with other health care
    databases for reports involving medical devices, drugs and biologics;
    educate consumers and health care professionals on the importance of
    preventing and reporting medical errors; and, initiating a modernized
    AER system for dietary supplements. FDA plans to increase the number of
    annual inspections of clinical trials by more than 20 percent with an
    emphasis on high-risks trials.
        Many patient deaths and injuries are associated with the use of
    FDA-regulated medical products. In medical devices, we estimate there
    are about 300,000 injuries related to device misuse annually, and we
    believe most of these errors are avoidable user errors that could and
    should be corrected. The FDA believes that roughly half of these deaths
    and injuries can be avoided by fully implementing its strategies.
    Thousands of lives and billions of dollars can be saved.
       protecting volunteers and the integrity of data in clinical trials
        FDA is responsible for protecting patients involved in clinical
    trials, and ensuring that the data gathered from these trials
    concerning the safety and effectiveness of a product are accurate when
    included in the product application. To do this, FDA inspects
    stakeholders in all areas of the clinical trial process--manufacturers,
    clinical investigators, institutional review boards (IRB), and
    contractors to ensure that the data FDA receives are accurate and
    reliable.
        Enhanced protection for human research subjects becomes more
    complex not only with the increasingly complex nature of the products
    being tested, but also with the increasing complexity of the design of
    clinical trials, the numbers of research projects and study volunteers
    and the diversity of patient populations included in clinical trials
    increases. The death of a volunteer subject in a gene therapy study has
    triggered considerable public concern in this area.
        Gene therapy involves the treatment of genetic diseases by trying
    to replace a defective gene. As the field has developed, it has
    expanded to include a broad range of different potential therapeutic
    interventions. FDA's scientific leadership in this area was no more
    evident than when earlier this year, researchers from our biologics
    program were able to verify that a vaccine used in a gene therapy
    protocol at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital contained no traces
    of HIV as previously suspected.
        FDA, whose product reviews depend on the validity of clinical trial
    data, monitors the entire system. The Agency conducts about 1,200
    trial-associated inspections per year (1,100 domestic and 100 foreign),
    some of which involve extensive interviews with IRB members and
    examination of their records, procedures, and responsiveness to
    participants' concerns. FDA's efforts to protect human subjects
    generally emphasize education, outreach, and training programs for
    investigators and members of the IRBs.
        FDA is requesting an increase in funding of $10,000,000 to increase
    the number of inspections by one-third, and in particular, target high-
    risk clinical trials. Inspections will cover clinical investigators,
    IRBs, sponsors, monitors, and contract research organizations. This
    increase will also focus on increasing scientific and regulatory
    training for FDA investigators to make them more efficient and
    effective; improving the inspection process for IRBs; and, enhancing
    follow-up compliance activities. We are also requesting funds to
    support the expansion of Medsun. We are establishing a network of
    hospitals to give statistically reliable data on device use and misuse.
    This will provide FDA and the community good feedback when problems
    occur.
        Of the 1,200 trial-based inspections conducted annually, 600 are
    clinical inspections. This figure represents only two percent of the
    30,000 clinical sites involving FDA-regulated products. The remaining
    inspections include Institutional Review Boards (300), sponsors/
    contract research organizations (75), and non-clinical (100) studies.
    While the Agency understands it cannot inspect every clinical study,
    added funds will enable FDA to increase its inspections and lower the
    risks to volunteers in clinical studies.
                                  food safety
        Each year, an estimated 76 million Americans get sick, more than
    300,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000 die as a result of foodborne
    illnesses. The populations at greatest risk of serious illness are
    primarily the very young, the elderly, pregnant women, and those with
    compromised immune systems. The Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, (CDC) estimate that foodborne illnesses cost the nation
    more than $8 billion annually in medical expenses and lost
    productivity.
        With your support over the past several years, FDA has made great
    progress in developing an integrated national food safety system.
    Working in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, U.S. Department of Agriculture and State and local
    governments, we have put in place important prevention programs and,
    when food borne illnesses occur, we are identifying outbreaks of food
    borne illness earlier, translating into fewer deaths and illnesses.
    FDA's prevention programs include our seafood HACCP program, our Good
    Agricultural Practices program for fresh produce, our program for fresh
    sprouts, a greatly expanded import surveillance program, and a new
    HACCP program for fresh fruit and vegetable juices. These programs are
    science-based and are supported by a rigorous foundation of high
    quality research and risk assessment.
        Although the U.S. food supply is among the world's safest, an
    increase in the variety of foods and convenience items has brought
    accompanying concerns about public health. In addition, the
    complexities of the food industry, from production to packaging, to
    shipping, are increasing.
        The multi-agency Food Safety Initiative (FSI) initially focused on
    reducing the number of illnesses caused by microbial contamination of
    food and water. Recent efforts towards achieving this goal have
    included increased efforts in reducing Listeria monocytoges
    contamination and the development of inspection and testing programs
    for shell eggs to reduce the risk of Salmonella enteritidis illness
    will be necessary.
        We must also position ourselves to broaden the original focus of
    the FSI from only microbial contamination to include chemical
    contaminants and pesticide contamination, and other food hazards as
    well including food allergens.
        Over fifty bioengineered foods are now marketed in the United
    States, most of which contain improvements that resist pests or
    herbicides. USDA oversees the planting and field trials of the crops,
    EPA has oversight of the pesticides that are engineered into crops, and
    FDA evaluates the food safety and nutritional aspects of the food.
    Although drugs produced using biotechnology have been widely accepted,
    the topic of bioengineered foods has generated much controversy,
    particularly about whether these foods should be labeled as genetically
    modified
        The latest concern has been over the strain of bioengineered corn,
    reported in several food products than were never approved by EPA for
    that use. Currently, FDA has a voluntary process through which
    companies marketing bioengineered foods consult with the agency on
    safety and other regulatory issues prior to marketing. Recently, we
    issued a proposed rule to make the voluntary process mandatory and to
    require companies to provide sufficient data to establish that the
    bioengineered food is as safe as its conventional counterpart. FDA also
    issued guidance for public comment as the appropriate labeling for
    foods developed through biotechnology. However, in response to growing
    public concerns over bioengineered foods, and concerns about our
    current process, additional strong scientific expertise is needed in
    this area to increase our oversight and our laboratory analysis
    capabilities.
        In fiscal year 2002, FDA requests a total increase of $14,700,000
    for food safety activities, of which $9,400,000 is budget authority and
    $5,300,000 represents new fees for export certification. With the
    additional funding, FDA will:
      --Expand the scope of food safety inspection beyond microbial
            contamination of foods to include chemical and pesticide
            contamination as well as to prevent cross-contamination with
            food allergens;
      --Develop inspection and testing programs for shell eggs to reduce
            the risk of Salmonella enteriditis illness;
      --Develop, in conjunction with NCTR, new methodologies to identify
            adverse effects of genetically modified foods, drug residues in
            foods and antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria, using new
            molecular biomarkers and methods identified through genomic and
            proteomic technologies; and,
      --Develop new risk assessment methods in collaboration with NCTR. New
            approaches will be validated for incorporating model
            uncertainties into microbial risk assessment.
        Through a combination of FDA and State contract inspections,
    domestic firms that produce products at high risk of microbiological
    contamination have been inspected more frequently. Several years ago,
    such firms were inspected on the average of only once every three to
    four years. In fiscal year 2000, FDA inspected over 90 percent of the
    6,250 high-risk establishments. In fiscal year 2001, the Agency expects
    to inspect 90-100 percent of high-risk establishments.
        Section 801 (e)(4)(B) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
    authorizes the recoupment of fees of up to $175 for export certificates
    for drugs, animal drugs and devices. This section, however, does not
    cover the collection of user fees for export certificates for foods.
    FDA spends millions of dollars in food safety resources to support the
    specific needs of U.S. food exporters. The enactment of food export
    certification user fees will allow FDA to devote more attention and
    resources to food safety activities benefiting the entire population.
                             infrastructure support
        GSA is in the process of consolidating many of FDA's headquarter
    facilities at the former site of the Naval Surface Warfare Center in
    White Oak, Maryland. Under the first phase of this project, the Center
    for Drugs Evaluation and Research (CDER) laboratory building is
    scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2002. While GSA is responsible
    for the construction of this multi-year project, FDA is responsible for
    the actual move of staff and equipment, as well as certain
    telecommunication and equipment costs. FDA is requesting $6,000,000 for
    one-time costs to equip and occupy the CDER laboratory portion of the
    facility.
        With the support of Congress, the construction of the new Los
    Angeles laboratory, which analyzes twenty-five percent of all imported
    food samples, is now underway. To complete the project on time and move
    from the present facility by March 2003, when our lease expires, FDA is
    requesting $3,000,000 for a total of $23,000,000 to complete
    construction of the new laboratory.
        DHHS has also formed a financial working group to oversee
    streamlining of financial operations in an effort to enhance
    coordination, eliminate duplication of effort and develop unified
    approaches to financial management. To further improve the Agency's
    financial management, FDA is requesting $8,300,000 to begin initial
    acquisition and implementation of a new financial system. The Agency is
    working to minimize costs by taking advantage of work already performed
    by other DHHS agencies similar to FDA in scope and transaction volume.
        FDA is also requesting an increase in current user fees to enhance
    the review process of new human drugs and biological products and
    established fees for applications, establishments and approved
    products. The fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $204 million in
    user fees. Of this amount $20 million are new fees for which
    authorizing legislation is needed--$15 million for import activities
    and $5 million to provide certifications requested by food exporters.
    Drug and device exporters already cover such costs. PDUFA includes a
    total of $162 million, which includes an increase of $12 million for
    review of drug and biologic applications. MQSA includes $.5 million for
    inflation.
                                    closing
        I thank you for the opportunity to share with you the breadth of
    FDA's responsibilities. FDA touches the life of every citizen through
    the medicines we take or feed for our animals, the blood products we
    may need one day, through the food we eat, the cosmetics we use, and,
    the medical devices in use today. Americans expect FDA to remain
    vigilant, to promote their health and well being, and to protect them
    from unacceptable hazards to our population at large, and to assure
    that they are adequately informed about the myriad hazards about which
    they will have to decide as individuals whether or not they are willing
    to accept. Significant investments must be made to keep this agency
    strong and at the forefront of the science upon which its regulatory
    mandate is based. The returns on that investment will be an agency that
    is equal to the challenges it faces and able to keep the confidence and
    trust of the American public. A strong FDA is clearly good for the
    consumer and industry alike, which in turn is good for the economy and
    health of our great nation. I appreciate your interest and continued
    support of the agency and its public health mission. This year is
    expected to be another exciting one for the Agency and I look forward
    to working with you as we face the challenges ahead.

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Dr. Schwetz. We
    appreciate your cooperation with our committee and the detail
    in which you present your budget request this morning.

                                  BSE Funding

        I notice that in connection with the mad cow disease, or
    BSE, issue that the budget requests $15 million in additional
    funds to protect against illness associated in Europe with the
    consumption of meat with BSE, or mad cow disease. What
    activities will the agency emphasize during this next year with
    these additional funds?
        Dr. Schwetz. The additional funds will help us cover
    several areas. Clearly one of them is to be sure that we
    continue the inspection of those facilities that are potential
    sources of getting ruminant proteins into other ruminants. So,
    a fair amount of it will go for our inspection capabilities for
    rendering plants, for feed mills, and for protein blenders that
    could be the source of a problem.
        We work with the States to get this job done. We talked in
    the past about getting through 100 percent of the inspections
    by September, but that is not the end of the need. The need is
    for us to be inspecting these sites on a continual basis, so
    the additional money allows us to have more money go through to
    the States to get the inspections done, and more people within
    the FDA to continue to do the inspections.
        Another part of it has to do with education and
    communication with the people out there who need to know more
    about what the 1997 regulation actually means and how serious
    we are about implementing it. We still are encountering people
    who should know what the 1997 rule said who do not seem to know
    all the details of what is expected under that rule. So, part
    of the money will go for continuing to educate the people who
    need to know about the problems of keeping records, of
    commingling feeds, of labeling feeds in the feed mills and
    rendering plants so that we avoid exposure.
        Another part of it has to do with research. It is amazing,
    for as long as this kind of a disease has been around, that we
    do not know more about the cause of the disease and how it is
    transmitted from one animal to another, in some cases from one
    species to another. We do not have adequate methods yet for
    being able to very easily detect the presence of ruminant
    protein in feed products. So, that is one of the areas of
    research.
        Another one has to do with being able to identify the
    prions in materials that might be contaminated with the prion
    that is associated with spreading the disease.
        So, between inspections, additional educational activities,
    and research, those represent the kinds of major activities
    that we will be moving forward on.

                               Import Inspections

        Senator Cochran. While FDA has responsibilities for
    examining and inspecting imports, it is clear that the import
    numbers are increasing. We are importing so much more
    foodstuffs and other items that require inspection or are
    subject to our inspection laws. I wonder how FDA is able to
    cope with these increases, and I wonder whether the funding
    proposed in the next year's budget will give you a better
    opportunity to physically inspect and examine more of the
    entries being offered for import into the United States?
        Dr. Schwetz. Additional money that we are asking for will
    certainly improve our ability to deal with import questions.
    The money is not the only thing, though, that we depend on for
    improving our ability to manage imports coming into the
    country. The money, of course, will help to put more FDA people
    in those situations at ports of entry or outside the United
    States to help ensure inspections outside the United States, as
    well as at the import sites.
        In addition, we are working with a number of other groups
    who can help us to manage the risk that imports represent. We
    continue to work closely with Customs and with USDA, so that we
    use some of the capabilities that they have to help us with
    import alerts, and with the inspections at borders. They are
    very willing to help us. So, part of the strategy for the
    future to improve our ability to manage the import concern has
    to do with working more closely with Customs and with USDA to
    use the civil money penalties that they have and to use
    databases that they have.
        We are trying to move up on knowing for sure who the
    problem importers are and be able to deal with them more
    effectively so that when a shipment comes in from a foreign
    company, or organization, that has a history of violations,
    that we are able to deal with them more quickly than we can
    today by virtue of having better record systems to be able to
    alert the inspectors immediately that this is a shipment of
    potential concern and deal with it accordingly.
        We are trying to mark imports that come in that are not
    allowed to be imported so that they are more easily identified
    from the standpoint of coming to another port and coming into
    the country through another site.
        So, there are a number of things that this money will help
    us do, everything from more people to more infrastructure,
    working with other countries to develop the capabilities of
    doing inspections by some of their people through agreements on
    equivalency of inspections. So, there are a number of different
    fronts that we are working on, but clearly having the resources
    to put more FDA people behind this is very important.

                        Product withdrawals--Post Market

        Senator Cochran. You also have responsibilities for what is
    called postmarket surveillance. These are related to drugs in
    one instance which come onto the market and are available to
    patients more quickly in greater number now than ever before.
    You mentioned in your statement that 1 to 3 percent of products
    approved each year have to be removed from the market because
    of serious side effects that are discovered after they are in
    the marketplace. Is this a fairly usual percentage, or is this
    increasing? Are you troubled by this factor, and do you need
    more support in this area from the budget point of view?
        Dr. Schwetz. We are troubled anytime a product has to be
    withdrawn from the market because it suggests that one of
    several things happened.
        First of all, we cannot collect enough data ahead of time
    to assure that every product that is approved will be safe
    under all conditions of use. So, it means that we did not quite
    have enough information yet and we learned more as we expanded
    from a small group of maybe tens of thousands of people to
    millions of people. There are rare events that you discover
    when you scale up to a larger level of use.
        It could mean that we did not anticipate some conditions of
    use or some health conditions in which a product might be used,
    and we learn more after the product is approved than we learned
    about it during premarket as we watch for those adverse events.
    So, anytime an adverse event happens, it is important to us.
        But there are more drugs for which adverse events are being
    recognized now and more drugs that are being withdrawn, but the
    percentage of new drugs that are approved that are withdrawn
    has not increased over the last 20 to 30 years. The increase
    reflects the larger number of drugs being approved, not that
    the drugs being approved are more dangerous than they were
    before or that we are looking harder for effects. We are
    looking hard for whatever we can use to evaluate the safety of
    drugs after they are approved. But on a percentage basis of
    approvals, the withdrawals have stayed the same for the last
    two or three decades.

                              Prescription to OTC

        Senator Cochran. There was a story in the morning paper
    about drugs that were once described as having serious side
    effects and requiring prescriptions now should be considered as
    over-the-counter medicines because the side effects are not
    nearly as serious as the FDA or somebody said they were. What
    is your reaction to that problem, and is the FDA monitoring
    that to make sure that prescription drugs are not continued to
    be recognized as prescription drugs if the reason for it, in
    the first place, is no longer appertaining to those drugs?
        Dr. Schwetz. Well, usually the manufacturers come forward
    and request that a drug, for which there is now a considerable
    amount of clinical experience, be considered for a switch from
    prescription to over-the-counter. So, it is something that we
    have looked at for many drugs, and a lot of drugs that were
    prescription are now over-the-counter. So, it is a usual
    practice for drugs where the consequences of taking them
    represent minimal health risks.

                              Dietary Supplements

        Senator Cochran. This is my last question, too. I assure my
    colleague, Senator Johnson, I am going to stop asking questions
    here.
        You recently came down to the University of Mississippi,
    and I was fortunate enough to be able to be there and hear you
    deliver the annual Hartman lecture that is sponsored by the
    university's pharmacy school. You talked about dietary
    supplements and the challenges being faced with regulation or
    non regulation in that area. FDA has warned the public that
    there could be risks involved that consumers may not be able to
    discern. You noted some adverse event reports for certain
    supplements and noted that they were worrisome.
        Could you tell us, in summary, what are the risks to the
    consumers in our country that stem from taking dietary
    supplements? How can they be assured that these are safe and
    whether or not the public needs to be warned in some formal way
    about the risks involved?
        Dr. Schwetz. Some dietary supplements clearly are safe and
    are beneficial to a lot of people. But as you point out, there
    are concerns for some of the dietary supplements from the
    standpoint of a number of aspects that they might be causing
    harm.
        One of them is that some dietary supplements are known to
    interact with drugs that are being given to a patient for a
    specific disease, and they might change the availability of
    that drug that is being given to actively treat a disease. A
    dietary supplement in combination with that might make the drug
    less bioavailable or it might cause metabolic changes so that
    the drug that you are expecting to have a beneficial effect is
    in a different form because of a change in metabolism related
    to the presence of a dietary supplement. So, the interaction
    with other drugs that are being taken or other substances that
    are being taken, even if it might not be a drug, is one
    concern.
        Secondly is the inherent toxic properties of some of the
    components of dietary supplements themselves. So, there are
    components of some dietary supplements where you might expect
    that you would see a toxic effect to the nervous system or to
    the kidneys or the liver or whatever the target organ might be.
        Another concern about dietary supplements is that they are
    derived from plants that grow under widely varying conditions,
    and we have known for many years that in times of drought, for
    example, there are chemicals in plants that are not there in
    good growing conditions. The possibility exists that some of
    those toxic materials might find their way into some of the
    batches of dietary supplements.
        The other concern is that people rely on dietary
    supplements when they should be seeking a more aggressive form
    of therapy. We are concerned if a person takes a dietary
    supplement to treat a problem when in fact they should be
    seeking more serious medical care.
        One of the things that we have been working on to prevent
    some of these surprises is the use of Good Manufacturing
    practices to help standardize the manufacturing processes for
    these products. One of the dangers that I talked about when I
    was at Ole Miss is the fact that quality control is not as
    tight as we would like it to be. It is not as tight as it is
    for drugs. So, in many cases we do not know for sure what the
    active ingredient is in a dietary supplement that accounts for
    its effect. In addition, we do not know if the amount that was
    in this batch is also going to be in the next batch and the
    next one. So, Good Manufacturing practices will help that.
        The other thing that we are working on and that is part of
    the 2002 budget is having a greater capability for tracking
    adverse events that might be associated with dietary
    supplements. There was a recent report that suggested that one
    of the things the FDA should have is a more extensive
    capability for tracking adverse events from dietary supplement
    use. So, that is something that we are also working on.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much. A very interesting
    response.
        Senator Johnson.

                             Generic Drug Resources

        Senator Johnson. Well, yes, thank you, Chairman Cochran.
        Dr. Schwetz, over the next 5 years the patents on about $34
    billion in sales of brand drugs are going to expire, and
    studies have indicated that generic drugs typically enter the
    market priced about 30 percent less than the brand product, and
    consumer savings increase up to 80 percent on average over 2
    years. A 1 percent increase in use of generic drugs will result
    in about $1 billion in savings to consumers and health care
    providers, we are told.
        But with this extraordinary number of applications for
    generic drug approvals that will come before the Office of
    Generic Drugs in the future, I wonder whether the OGD will have
    sufficient resources to meet the 180-day statutory time frame
    necessary to approve these generic applications.
        How do you anticipate the Office of Generic Drugs managing
    the prospect of a significant influx of abbreviated new drug
    applications, and has the administration requested an increase
    in resources to meet the demand? And do you feel that the FDA
    ought to be more aggressively involved in consumer education
    programs designed to increase the public awareness of generic
    drug options?
        Dr. Schwetz. Thank you for your questions because we are
    trying to improve our timely review of the generic drugs. There
    is a request for additional money to provide pay costs for our
    people to get work done more quickly than we have in the past
    to try to meet our statutory requirement. So, part of it is
    having enough people to get the job done.
        One of the reasons we are working so hard for the pay
    related increases this year is that when we put more money into
    a program, like generic drugs, the money is actually used for
    that program as opposed to paying the mandatory salary and
    inflation needs, as we have in the past, where it may look like
    we have put more money in it, but actually what we are doing is
    paying the salaries of the people who are there. Over those
    years, we have actually lost people from the agency to be able
    to do some of these tasks. So, the mandatory pay increase will
    help that, plus any amount of money that would be available to
    help hire additional scientists and physicians to do this work.
        Part of it is also to tap into databases that will give us
    additional information about the effects of these drugs under
    use conditions.
        In addition to getting more data and more people, as you
    point out, we are making an effort to have more information go
    out to the public to increase confidence in generic drugs. It
    is our desire to make more information available to the public
    to allow the people to decide whether they want to use generics
    or not.
        Senator Johnson. How are you doing that?
        Dr. Schwetz. It is probably best to ask Dr. Woodcock, the
    head of our Center for Drugs, to expand in more detail on how
    that will happen. Janet?
        Dr. Woodcock. Good morning. There are several information
    campaigns that we are embarking on. One is directed to
    consumers to inform them of basically the scientific basis for
    making generic drugs available because there is quite a belief
    out there amongst the patient population that they are not as
    good and that they would be getting an inferior product. And we
    really think we can stand behind the generic drugs that we
    approve, that they are pharmaceutically equivalent to the
    innovator product.
        Another large group of people we need to reach better is
    the pharmacy community because they still maintain the belief,
    in some cases, that generic drugs are inferior. So, we need to
    target toward them more scientific information on how we do
    these approvals so they understand the scientific basis for
    generic drugs.
        Senator Johnson. Is the President's proposed budget
    adequate for this purpose, or do we need to be looking at that
    as this committee examines the FDA budget?
        Dr. Woodcock. We are beginning these campaigns now in the
    current fiscal year and we hope we will able to continue them
    within the President's budget next year.

                            BSE Enforcement Actions

        Senator Johnson. Thank you.
        Just one last question. I appreciate Dr. Schwetz's
    discussion of this issue. Let me just follow on a little bit on
    the BSE issue, and that is to the steps that the FDA is willing
    to take if a feed mill or rendering plant does not meet your
    September 30 deadline for compliance with your feed mixing ban
    and whether the reprogrammed funds, $2.4 million in 2001 within
    the FDA's Center for Vet Medicine, will be sufficient to handle
    these aggressive inspection and reinspection plans.
        Dr. Schwetz. Yes, they are sufficient from the standpoint
    that we react to the most egregious problems that we have. So,
    the money that we have available will certainly be used for
    those situations that represent the greatest risk of BSE being
    spread. But since we used money from the contingency fund, and
    money from other agency activities to do more inspections and
    other work on mad cow disease this year, the additional money
    that we are asking for will help to replenish some of those
    activities and let them go on as they were before, and allow us
    to do new things on mad cow disease as well.
        Senator Johnson. And as to what happens to plants that do
    not meet the September 30 deadline?
        Dr. Schwetz. I would ask if Dr. Sundlof could help to
    answer that question.
        Dr. Sundlof. Thank you and thank you, Senator Johnson.
        We have stepped up some of the enforcement actions against
    firms that continue to fail or fail in the first place to
    comply with the rule, and now we are going to direct warning
    letters. As soon as we get to a firm that we find out of
    compliance, they immediately get a warning letter.
        There were about 834 firms that we found to be out of
    compliance. On reinspection, we are finding about 93 percent of
    those are now in compliance on second inspection. That means
    that there is still 7 percent of those firms that are not in
    compliance. We have issued 31 recalls now of feed. So, we are
    really stepping up the enforcement aspect of the 1997 rule.
    With the funds that will be available in the next fiscal year,
    we intend to increase that even more.
        We are putting all of the information on the firms that
    were inspected on our website. So, anybody can go to our
    website now and find out which firms are in compliance, and
    which firms are not in compliance. We think that is going to
    have immeasurable impact on bringing people around to
    compliance with the rule.
        Senator Johnson. Well, I appreciate your testimony on this.
    While I think that the FDA has acted in a very timely,
    aggressive manner, it cannot be, I think, overstated how
    catastrophic an occurrence of BSE in the United States would be
    to the livestock industry and to our agricultural economy in
    general. So, I look forward to continuing to work with you on
    these issues. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

                             Importation of Catfish

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much, Senator Johnson.
        There is one parochial issue in our State of Mississippi
    that I am going to ask you about now. We have a flourishing
    catfish industry in our State. It has grown very much over a
    long period of time. They are encountering difficulty with
    import competition from Southeast Asia, particularly Vietnam,
    of seafood products that are labeled as if they are the same
    products as grown in our domestic catfish farms in Mississippi
    and other States. The problem is that while FDA sent out an
    import alert calling attention to misbranded seafood and
    possibly the presence of Salmonella, there is some question
    about whether these alerts have been effective and whether the
    interdiction of improper shipments of seafood have been
    effective to protect the consuming public or to fully advise
    the consumers what they are buying.
        My question is whether the proposed budget for FDA's Center
    for Veterinary Medicine, Office of Surveillance and Compliance
    provides the funding to facilitate the development of a
    methodology and technology necessary for the proper testing of
    import tolerances for banned substances? And does FDA's Office
    of Seafood have the resources it needs to address the
    increasing volume of imported seafood both at the border and in
    the U.S. marketplace?
        Dr. Schwetz. The increases in budget certainly move us in
    the direction of being able to do more than we have in the
    past. Regarding the possibility of more accurately being able
    to detect catfish that are some other varieties of catfish
    coming in from foreign countries than what we would call
    catfish here, I would ask Mr. Levitt if he would provide
    additional help on that.
        Senator Cochran. Mr. Levitt, you may come forward.
        Mr. Levitt. Thank you.
        As you point out, there are responsibilities both for my
    center, the Food Center, and for the Center for Veterinary
    Medicine. The import alert, as you correctly point out, is
    designed to try and be sure American consumers know what they
    are buying and if there are differences in the kind of fish,
    they are readily apparent to consumers. Again, as Dr. Schwetz
    said, the money we have for greater surveillance over imports
    will move us in that direction, but also the numbers, you have
    to realize, of imported foods, as well as all of our products,
    are growing dramatically. We have seen over the last 8 years a
    quadrupling in the number of food imports in the United States.
    So, we are continuing to do, as Dr. Schwetz pointed out, a
    number of different things to address that. Part of that is
    through the import alert, looking to be sure that the fish is
    properly labeled and identified for the consumer. So, we will
    be able to do more of what you are asking.

                           Patient Safety Task Force

        Senator Cochran. Dr. Schwetz, you indicate in your
    testimony that the Department has established a patient safety
    task force to integrate the collection of data on medical
    errors with a goal of reducing medical errors by 50 percent
    over a 5-year period. What is the FDA's role in this effort and
    what kind of baseline, if any, has the task force established
    for measuring progress in meeting its goal?
        Dr. Schwetz. I will let Dr. Woodcock expand on the answer
    to that, but there are a number of ways that we are trying to
    prevent medical errors. For example, whether or not a name that
    is requested for a new drug is a name that looks like other
    drugs and could cause confusion. The fact that information on
    labels might not be clear enough to have people read the label
    quickly and draw the right conclusion. If they are only going
    to read part of the label, do they read the part of the label
    that conveys the most critical information at the very
    beginning. Once someone says they have read the label, have
    they really drawn the wrong conclusion or the right conclusion
    from what they have seen? So, there are a number of things.
        As we test these kinds of new labels and new drug names on
    groups of people who have not been involved in the review of
    the drug itself, but are kind of naive to the information, we
    are trying to improve the quality of information that there is
    that users would eventually have, either physicians or other
    people in health care or the consumer himself, so that the
    right conclusion is drawn from the information.
        But, Dr. Woodcock, would you expand more?
        Senator Cochran. Dr. Woodcock.
        Dr. Woodcock. Certainly. The collaboration amongst the four
    agencies is basically intended to make sure no information is
    lost. I think the best way to explain this is by an example.
        The Agency for Health Care Quality Research is pursuing
    reporting of medical errors, as you know. One of the defined
    medical errors that might be reported into those systems is a
    malfunction of a medical device. We want to make sure that when
    errors or problems like that are reported into State or Federal
    reporting systems, not to the FDA, that the FDA can respond
    because we know about them. A malfunctioning device is really
    under the purview of the Center for Devices. It is something
    the Device Center would have to take action on to improve the
    design of that device or have better warnings and precautions
    around it or maybe even take it off the market.
        So, the concern is with the interest in reporting systems
    for medical errors--medical errors are not as straightforward
    as one might think and often they involve a regulated product.
    For example, blood is another good example of where there are a
    lot of errors involved in administering blood, some of them
    fatal, but they involve the Biologics Center, the way blood
    banks operate, the way blood is labeled and so forth.
        So, we are trying to reduce duplication of reporting
    requirements on facilities, as well as make sure the
    information is shared with the relevant parties so they can
    take whatever responsibility they have.

                               Blood Action Plan

        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        That leads to an observation. In fiscal year 1998, in the
    appropriations bill, there was a statement of managers dealing
    with development of a blood product tracking system, a
    notification system. FDA issued an advance notice of rulemaking
    in 1999, but as I understand it, it has not completed the
    implementation of a blood products safety mechanism. I am told
    that manufacturers have sought to establish a voluntary
    notification system through a third party that has had some
    problems.
        A lack of confidence in the system has resulted in poor
    enrollment by the hemophilia community.
        My question is what will the FDA do to move forward to
    finalize its proposed rule to require manufacturer tracking of
    blood-derived products and prompt patient notification of
    adverse events?
        Dr. Schwetz. I would ask if Dr. Zoon could answer that
    question.
        Dr. Zoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity.
        As you know, the agency has been working on a blood safety
    action plan, and this has been in coordination with but the
    National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease
    Control. One element of that blood action plan did involve the
    advanced notice of proposed rulemaking that you have mentioned.
    This part of the blood action plan, as you also alluded to, is
    currently being conducted on a voluntary basis by the industry.
    We are very interested in moving this initiative forward. There
    are multiple competing parts of the blood action plan, but this
    is one that we appreciate your interest in and will look into
    its status and move it along.

                                     NARMS

        Senator Cochran. Thank you very much.
        FDA has been analyzing the effects of antibiotic use in
    food-producing animals through the National Antimicrobial
    Resistance Monitoring System, specifically looking at
    antimicrobial resistance. What agency decisions or priorities
    have been affected by use of this National Antimicrobial
    Resistance Monitoring System and the data that has been
    collected?
        Dr. Schwetz. The data from NARMS have helped to support
    decisions within the agency now and during this past year. The
    data we are collecting through this monitoring system give us a
    good baseline of information upon which to make decisions on
    other drugs where we are just beginning to collect information
    and new drugs that will be approved in the future that have
    antibiotic activity.
        During this past year, we have been tracking the
    information through this NARMS system. What we find from the
    use of fluoroquinolone drugs in the poultry industry and the
    increased incidence of antibiotic resistance that we saw with
    Campylobacter led to the statement by the agency that we were
    withdrawing the approval of fluoroquinolones in the poultry
    industry. So, that is one example of where the data have helped
    us to review information that led us to do a risk assessment of
    fluoroquinolone use and, in the specific case of poultry, to
    make a decision that we should withdraw the approval of it. It
    can still be used in other farm species but not in poultry.
        We have also begun to look at information, or other
    antibiotics and the use and their correlation with what we are
    seeing in NARMS. One that we are looking at right now is a drug
    called virginiamycin, which has a human drug counterpart. We
    are looking at the information. We are reviewing what is
    available on virginiamycin as another candidate that might be
    increasing antibiotic resistance, and eventually if we have
    enough information, we may do a risk assessment of the impact
    on humans. That is another example of where we will be doing
    that.
        Senator Cochran. We had a hearing exploring this in another
    setting last year and we learned an awful lot about how
    antimicrobial resistance was becoming a very, very serious
    problem, not just from the animal feed standpoint, but the
    prescription of drugs that are unnecessary in a lot of cases.
    Somebody has a cold and they go see the doctor and he gives
    them an antibiotic, and they may be suffering from a sinus
    condition that is not an infection and would not respond to
    that drug when it was given. But that is what the patient
    wants. That is what the doctor prescribes.
        It has so many aspects. Sometimes we do concentrate in one
    area and forget about the other things that can be changed that
    will help deal with the problem too. But these are very serious
    problems and very challenging areas, I am sure, of inquiry. The
    more we know about it, the better off we will all be. Right?
        Dr. Schwetz. Yes.
        Senator Cochran. Or so we hope, anyway. If we have got
    sense enough to act on the facts rather than our suspicions.

                             Infrastructure Funding

        Last year we provided funding in the buildings and
    facilities area of the budget for the first phase of
    construction of the new Los Angeles laboratory. I know that was
    a high priority on the FDA's wish list, and I am curious to
    know what progress is being made on the project.
        Dr. Schwetz. There has been considerable progress made on
    the Los Angeles laboratory. Thank you all for your support to
    keep this moving. The $3 million that is proposed in the budget
    for 2002, plus the $20 million that we have received already
    has gotten us started, and will bring the Los Angeles
    laboratory to completion. This is a very important lab for us
    because about 25 percent of the foods that we inspect that come
    into the country come through that laboratory. So, we are
    making good progress on completing that.
        Senator Cochran. Another budget request that deals with
    equipment and laboratories is the $6 million requested to equip
    and occupy a new laboratory for the Center for Drug Evaluation
    and Research as part of the agency's long-range move to a
    consolidated headquarters in Maryland. Is that project on
    schedule, and will all of the $6 million be needed in the next
    fiscal year?
        Dr. Schwetz. That project is moving. The ground breaking
    for the Center for Drug facility happened last fall. So, the
    GSA funding is what is going to build that building, and the $6
    million that is in our budget will help to move the Center for
    Drugs people into that facility as the first phase of
    consolidating all of our activities out there on that campus,
    all of the activities that relate to the medical products, the
    Center for Drugs, the Center for Devices, the Center for
    Biologics. Eventually the FDA Office of the Commissioner would
    be there and the headquarters for the Office of Regulatory
    Affairs, the field operation. So, eventually we are going to be
    bringing all of that onto that campus.
        I would ask Mr. Weber if he would offer any additional
    information about whether this is on time or not.
        Mr. Weber. The project is on time. The community is very
    supportive and I think they are making sure that the project
    stays on time. We are expecting to move in between the end of
    2002 and the beginning of 2003. Some of the funds would be
    needed before the staff moves in for telecommunications costs
    and things like that, and the money is being requested as 2-
    year funds so that if some of the project is funded in 2003, we
    would have the money carried over for that purpose.
        Senator Cochran. I appreciate very much your attendance at
    the hearing this morning and the response to our questions and
    the cooperation with members of our subcommittee in answering
    their special areas of concern.

                         Additional Committee Questions

        We will continue to review the budget and we may submit
    questions in writing that we did not ask this morning. We hope
    that you will be able to respond to them in a timely fashion.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

         bovine spongiform encephalopathy (bse) or ``mad cow disease''
        Question. ``Mad Cow Disease'', or BSE , is of great concern today.
    Please describe FDA's role with respect to protecting this country from
    the threat of BSE, in terms of what activities FDA undertakes, and
    which regulated products BSE may affect.
        Answer. One of the goals of FDA's activities regarding
    transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs, is to minimize the
    risk of the introduction of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE,
    into U.S. cattle, and to minimize the risk of amplification of BSE in
    the U.S. cattle herd, if BSE were ever to be found in U.S. cattle. On
    August 4, 1997, FDA's regulation entitled ``Substances Prohibited From
    Use in Animal Food or Feed; Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant
    Feed'', 21 CFR 589.2000, became effective. The purpose of the rule is
    specifically to meet this goal. FDA has developed a three-pronged
    approach in its efforts to realize 100 percent compliance with the 1997
    feed rule.
        The first prong is education. Providing education for both licensed
    and non-licensed feed mills, as well as State and Federal inspectors
    conducting FDA inspections, helps to ensure a full understanding of the
    feed rule and increases compliance. State feed control officials and
    trade organizations representing renderers, feed mills, and other parts
    of the organizations representing renderers, feed mills, and other
    parts of the livestock feeding industry have played a large role in
    helping to educate groups within the feed industry. The FDA has also
    conducted more than 25 individual training sessions for FDA district
    and State personnel.
        The second prong is a strong and visible inspection presence. FDA's
    goal is to inspect 100 percent of all known renderers, protein
    blenders, and feed mills, and to inspect as many ruminant feeders as
    possible. The Agency has coordinated inspections with State feed
    control officials so that all firms found in violation will be re-
    inspected to confirm that corrective actions have been implemented. FDA
    plans to continue to monitor the status of compliance with the rule by
    firms handling prohibited material, such as meat and bone meal, by
    maintaining an on-going inspection and reinspection program. In
    addition, FDA plans to continue to monitor the status of the industry
    for compliance with the rule by inspection and implementation of a
    sampling program to check for the presence of prohibited proteins in
    ruminant feeds.
        The third prong is enforcement action. FDA is prepared to initiate
    enforcement action, under the Federal Food, Drug, & Cosmetic Act, FFD&C
    Act, to ensure compliance with the feed rule. Actions may include
    issuance of warning letters, product seizures, injunctions, or
    prosecutions, in addition to firm-initiated recalls to remove
    adulterated or misbranded products from the market place.
        In addition, FDA is enhancing its vigilance at U.S. ports of entry
    for regulated products which BSE may affect, such as animal protein,
    including feeds. Other regulated products BSE may affect are gelatin-
    containing products for oral consumption, such as candy and capsules,
    as well as cosmetics and dietary supplements. FDA issued an Import
    Alert on January 20, 2001, and a new Import Bulletin on March 1, 2001.
    These new documents provide a detailed second-line system for
    identifying at the ports products about which FDA has potential BSE
    concerns. FDA has coordinated its actions with Customs and USDA's
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. It is important to
    note that the FDA, as well as Customs, and APHIS, are dependent upon
    the import community, which includes brokers, importers, and shippers,
    for the entry and manifest data with which to identify products
    consisting of, or containing, materials of concern from BSE and BSE-
    high-risk countries. Products which are not declared correctly or are
    described by importers or brokers so as to hide their animal origin or
    country of origin, may not be detected through FDA import monitoring.
        In order to achieve and maintain a sufficient level of accuracy in
    data on products submitted for importation into the U.S., FDA has
    trained importers and brokers in the submission of such data and
    periodically evaluated the quality of such data by company data
    submitted with original entry documents, These are labor intensive
    activities, and our resources are severely limited.
        Question. FDA recently sought and received an apportionment of $2.4
    million in unobligated contingency funds appropriated in fiscal years
    1990 and 1991 to reimburse FDA for ``extraordinary costs'' associated
    with the BSE threat. What are the ``extraordinary'' costs associated
    with BSE which caused FDA to use the contingency fund?
        Answer. The extraordinary costs related to the BSE threat were not
    provided for in budget estimates, because of the nature of the way this
    issue evolved during the current fiscal year. The Animal Drugs and
    Feeds program is relatively small in size and the use of this Fund
    provides a way to deal with this emergency without disruption of
    important ongoing programs. The unusual costs related to the BSE threat
    include supplies, travel, and contracts, including contracts with the
    States to do product screening and inspections.
        Question. The statute requires that emergency contingency
    appropriations be available only ``to meet unanticipated costs of
    emergency activities not provided for in budget estimates'' and ``after
    maximum absorption of such costs within the remainder of the account''.
    Please specify how the FDA activities associated with the BSE threat
    were determined to have met each of these two requirements.
        Answer. In order for FDA to deal with the unanticipated need to
    screen certain products to prevent BSE, we have been able to reassign
    some of our existing staff from relatively lower-priority work to the
    BSE-related work.
        Question. How does the total level of funding for BSE-related
    activities proposed for fiscal year 2002 compare with the levels
    provided for each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001? Please provide a
    comparison of the activities associated with BSE undertaken in each of
    fiscal years 2000 and 2001 and proposed for fiscal year 2002, including
    the level of funding and staff years for each activity.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000 FDA spent approximately $3.8 million on
    TSE related activities. These activities included: Statutory and non-
    statutory inspection of feed mills, renderers, and producers, through
    the use of FDA and State contract inspections; conducting research on
    blood and blood products; developing regulations to screen and test
    blood donors for BSE/CJD; reviewing and approving vaccines and
    therapeutic biologic products of which many use human or animal
    materials in production; and, conducting applied regulatory research to
    understand TSEs.
        In fiscal year 2001 FDA had planned on spending approximately $3.8
    million, but given the recent events related to BSE in Europe, FDA has
    had to adjust its plan within the animal drugs and feeds programs.
    Adding to the base resources from fiscal year 2000, FDA will internally
    shift resources from lower priority programs to cover domestic
    inspections and import entry review and import label examinations. In
    fiscal year 2001 FDA also tapped into the contingency fund for one time
    funds of $2.4 million. These funds covered additional State contracts
    for domestic inspections, training for FDA employees, and importers,
    scientific equipment for laboratory analysis, methods development and
    validation, IT enhancements, market studies to identify food and
    cosmetic products containing specific risk products, and overtime and
    travel costs incurred by the field. In fiscal year 2002 FDA has
    requested an additional $15.0 million for BSE activities.
        [The information follows:]
    Foods Program, $1.1 million
        Expand work efforts to identify food and cosmetic products
    containing brain, spinal cord, and other specific risk materials
    (SRMs); the origin of the animal; and country of origin;
        Research the risk factors and mechanism for CWD which affects elk,
    deer and other domestic game/pen-reared animals;
        Participate in international BSE meetings to ensure safety of the
    U.S. food supply; and
        Provide up-to-date information on the emerging public health issues
    to the public.
    Biologics, $0.5 million
        Address the potential BSE threat to the safety of biological
    products. Two biological product areas affected include the safety of
    the blood supply and the safety of vaccines derived from bovine-sourced
    material.
    Animal Drugs and Feeds $13.1 million ($2.2 million Center, $10.9
            million Field)
        Conduct targeted BSE inspections of all renderers and licensed and
    non-FDA licensed feed mills handling prohibited material, such as meat
    and bone meal on a yearly basis, and conduct reinspections of those
    with compliance deficiencies, taking appropriate enforcement actions
    for repeated or egregious violations;
        Leverage with State agencies by funding approximately 4,000
    contract inspections of feed mills and renderers, and conduct
    compliance, follow-up, and audit inspections to State contracts;
        Review and evaluate field inspection data and take enforcement
    action when necessary;
        Develop a domestic sampling plan, collecting and analyzing 600
    domestic feed, and feed component samples for BSE related contaminants.
    In addition, the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program will increase the
    number of import samples by 600. This sampling plan will ensure proper
    labeling of animal feeds and feed components;
        Provide intensive line entry and label review, when appropriate, of
    an anticipated 175,000 import line entries for use in domestic commerce
    for the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program by expanding import staff by 17
    FTE;
        Conduct additional training for Federal and State inspectors on the
    BSE feed regulation, update them on the current European Union
    situation, Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service (APHIS) authority
    and approach, and what to look for and how and when to sample;
        Develop and validate detection methods for BSE, collaborating with
    experts and foreign scientists to assist in developing BSE methods;
        Modernize the existing information technology infrastructure to
    facilitate electronic inspection reporting and information collection
    and distribution; and,
        Educate industry and the general public on BSE through public
    meetings, publications, and FDA's website.
    Other Activities, $0.3 million
        Provide advice and counsel on legal matters, render opinions, and
    support rulemaking proceedings, legislative matters, policy
    deliberations, and domestic and international negotiations; and,
        Provide litigation support for enforcement, defensive and third-
    party matters.
                                  blood safety
        Question. The conferees, in the statement of managers accompanying
    the fiscal year 1998 appropriations Act, requested that FDA move
    forward with development of a blood product tracking and notification
    system. FDA issued an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking in August
    1999, but it has not completed implementation of this important blood
    product safety mechanism. When will the FDA move forward to finalize
    its proposed rule to require manufacturer tracking of blood-derived
    products and prompt patient notification of adverse events?
        Answer. The advance notice of proposed rulemaking, or ANPR,
    ``Plasma Derivatives and Other Blood-Derived Products; Requirements for
    Tracking and Notification,'' was published on August 19, 1999, in the
    Federal Register. The development of the final rule on the blood
    product tracking and notification system is part of Blood Action Plan
    in coordination with the National Institutes of Health and the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention. There are competing parts of the
    Action Plan. Programs for notifying recipients in cases of issues
    related to blood product quality and safety are presently voluntary.
    FDA is expediting this rulemaking process. Comments to the ANPR have
    been organized and are being reviewed. We anticipate that the proposed
    rule will be published by June 2002, and the final rule will be
    published by August 2003.
                         application review performance
        Question. You indicate that there has been sustained high
    performance in application review for prescription drugs, particularly
    for new drugs. Yet, the performance is not as high--in fact, far below
    statutory requirements--in other product areas. Where do you see gaps
    in application review, and is closing those gaps a priority?
        Answer. There are four types of applications where there are or
    could be significant gaps in review performance. We are trying to close
    the performance gaps for all of these applications by using additional
    resources when available, redirecting resources to higher priority
    applications, and by improving the review process.
        During fiscal year 2000, FDA approved 232 Abbreviated New Drug
    Applications, ANDAs. This is an increase over the 198 approved last
    fiscal year. Of these, several represent the first time a generic has
    been approved for a product. Significant strides were made toward a
    paperless review environment. With $1.5 million in funding earmarked
    for satisfying information technology needs, FDA purchased upgraded
    hardware and software, and contractual support for the review of
    electronic submissions.
        Beginning in January 1997, FDA implemented a procedure to reduce
    approval times by allowing reviewers to utilize a facsimile amendment.
    Facsimile amendments are requests from reviewers to applicants for
    clarification/resolution of minor deficiencies. This procedure resulted
    in review times exceeding 6 months, but shortened overall approval
    times. In June 2000, a slight modification to the facsimile amendment
    procedure was made and this modification to the procedure will better
    enable FDA to act upon its target percentage of ANDAs within 6 months.
        The inability of FDA to meet the 6-month goal is also a function of
    the existing backlog of chemistry and microbiology reviews. To address
    these backlogs, FDA restructured the review process, added reviewers,
    and added project managers. FDA believes that these initiatives will
    reduce the chemistry and microbiology backlog allowing reviewers to get
    to the applications sooner and lessen the effect of the facsimile
    amendments on the 6-month review goal.
        It is widely recognized that meeting the current statutory time
    frame is an unrealistic goal for all food and color additive petitions,
    especially the more complex ones. The impracticability of the current
    time frame was acknowledged in the report from the June 1995 House
    hearing, and a recommendation to change the time frame to, 360 days of
    receipt, was included in the Agency's testimony before the House
    Committee on Government Reform and Oversight in 1996.
        Since the 1995 and 1996 hearings, the Food and Drug Modernization
    Act, FDAMA established a notification process for food contact
    substances. The premarket notification program began to fully operate
    on January 18, 2000. Several factors will influence future performance
    in reviewing food and color additive petitions within 360 days. The
    most important of these factors is the implementation of the new
    premarket notification process. By fiscal year 2001, we expect that
    many of the simpler food additive petitions that can be completed
    within 360 days will be filed under the notification program and thus
    decrease the workload for food and color additive petitions. However,
    since the remaining petitions are likely to be more complex and take
    more time to review, Agency performance may decline initially.
    Similarly, the premarket notification program may also initially
    increase the fraction of pending petitions that are overdue because
    many recently submitted petitions for food contact substances will have
    been converted to notifications. Once the notification and the petition
    review processes are well established, FDA expects performance on food
    and color additive petitions to increase substantially toward full
    performance in succeeding years beginning in fiscal year 2002.
        The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program does not have sufficient
    resources to review and act on all new animal drug application actions
    received within the statutory time frame of 180 days. Recent resource
    increases in the drug review area will allow the Center for Veterinary
    Medicine, CVM to recruit and hire review scientists. These increased
    personnel resources will boost our compliance rate from 75 percent in
    fiscal year 2001 to 80 percent in fiscal year 2002.
        In fiscal year 2000, FDA performance was 96 percent for the
    premarket device applications received in the first six months. The
    performance strategy is to redirect resources from low-risk to high-
    risk devices. Also, efforts such as early meetings with manufacturers,
    modular review, streamlined reviews, and product development protocols
    have resulted in faster reviews. PMA submissions will continue to
    increase in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 due to technology
    advances, increased use of computerized and miniaturized devices.
    Therefore, it is expected that fiscal year 2002 will not only be a year
    of more submissions but submissions will require multiple reviewers
    with different areas of expertise. Reviews will be more complex and
    take even more science time. This could adversely affect review
    performance in the future.
        I would be happy to provide the information requested arrayed
    according to application type, relevant statute, and fiscal year 2000
    performance.
        [The information follows:]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Fiscal year
                                                                   2000
                Time frame               Relevant statute    performance \1\
                                                                (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Review abbreviated new drug        FFD&C Act Sec.                     56
     applications (ANDAs) within 180    505(j).
     days. (Drugs) \2\.
    Review Food and color additive     FFD&C Act Sec.                     77
     petitions within 360 days          409(c)(2) for food
     (Foods). Goals are based on 360    additive petitions
     days. The statute provides for     and & Sec.
     90 days with one additional 90-    721(d)(1) for color
     day extension for a total of 180   additive petitions..
     days. \3\.
    Review new animal drug             FFD&C Act Sec.                     74
     applications (NADAs) &             512(c)(1).
     abbreviated new animal drug
     applications (ANADAs) within 180
     days. (Veterinary Drugs).
    Review premarket approval          FFD&C Act Sec.                    96
     applications (PMAs) within 1800    515(d)(1)(A).
     days. (Devices).
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Potential performance computes the percent that we will reach if all
      the currently pending within goal submissions are given within goal
      reviews. Current performance figures may appear low since the fiscal
      year 2000 cohort is just reaching goal date maturity.
    \2\ FDA is required to take an action on generic drug applications
      within 180 days. FDA had a goal of reviewing 60 percent of
      applications in fiscal year 1999. That goal was not met, in part, due
      to a procedure that held applications open while the firm responded to
      deficiencies in the final stages of review. This approach has been
      revised. The goal for fiscal year 2000 is 45 percent, 50 percent for
      fiscal year 2001, and 55 percent for fiscal year 2002. Performance
      data for fiscal year 2000 will not be available until 180 days after
      the close of fiscal year 2000. However, based on preliminary
      estimates, it appears FDA will meet its goal of 45 percent for fiscal
      year 2000.
    \3\ The statutory requirement--FD&C Act Section 409(c)(2)--for action on
      a food additive petition is ninety days, with one additional ninety-
      day extension for a total of 180 days. (A similar provision for color
      additives is found in FD&C Act Section 721(d)(1).) Nevertheless, for
      these petitions, application review goals are based on 360 days as
      recommended by House Report 104-436. During the period January 1, 2000
      to September 30, 2000, FDA completed the safety evaluation within 360
      days on: 5 of the 5 food additive petitions received in fiscal year
      1999 that qualified for expedited review--those that are expected to
      have a significant impact on food safety. In addition, FDA completed
      the safety evaluation within 360 days on 59 of the 77 food and color
      additive petitions received in fiscal year 1999 that did not qualify
      for expedited review.

        Question. Using the fiscal year 2002 request as a base, what
    additional amount of funding and number of staff years would be
    required to allow FDA to meet the statutory requirements?
        Answer. The Agency is currently in the process of developing long-
    range estimates for resource needs associated with closing the gap
    between current performance and meeting statutory requirements. The
    estimates will include: a range of estimated resources, assumptions in
    determining the estimate, and caveats that indicate what types of
    uncertainties or changes would alter the estimates.
                                    devices
        Question. Section 515(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
    Act requires FDA to approve or deny a PMA within 180 days. The FDA
    budget justification indicates that the statutory requirement is to
    review 100 percent of PMA first actions within 180 days. Is this in
    fact the agency's view? What is the difference between ``first action''
    and approving or denying an application?
        Answer. Section 515(d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
    requires FDA to approve or deny premarket approval application, or PMA,
    within 180 days. It is FDA's goal to meet the statutory time frame.
    This includes completing our review and first action within 180 days. A
    first action includes the final action of approving or denying an
    application. First actions also include interim decision letters in
    which FDA lists additional information that is required from the PMA
    applicant in order to make the application approvable. These interim
    first actions include approvable, not approvable, and major deficiency
    letters. Not approvable and major deficiency letters cause the 180-day
    review clock to restart, that is it is reset to zero, when the PMA
    applicant submits responses to these letters. An approvable letter
    temporarily stops the clock while the applicant prepares a response,
    and the clock resumes running when we receive the response.
        Question. What additional funding would FDA require from the
    President's fiscal year 2002 budget request to meet statutory review
    times for medical devices. Please provide a detailed justification of
    the estimate provided, along with an explanation as to how the
    additional funds would be used to meet statutory review times.
        Answer. FDA expects to expend the same level of funding in fiscal
    year 2002 as in fiscal year 2001 for medical device reviews, plus
    corresponding pay increases in fiscal year 2002 associated with this
    function. The Agency is currently in the process of developing long
    range estimates for resource needs associated with medical device
    reviews. The estimates will include: a range of estimated resources,
    assumptions in predicting the number of anticipated applications and
    associated establishment inspections, and caveats that indicate what
    types of uncertainties or changes would alter the estimates.
        Question. Please provide for each of the last 5 fiscal years the
    dollar amount and full-time equivalent (FTE) positions that have been
    expended at the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) on
    premarket review for each of the following: 510(k) submissions, PMAs,
    PMA supplements, IDEs, IDE supplements, IDE amendments, and HDEs.
        Answer. I would be happy to provide for the record, a table showing
    the FTEs and dollars expended by CDRH on premarket review for five
    years: Fiscal years 1996-2000. Please note that CDRH includes HDEs with
    PMAs and PMA supplements in its data tracking, so data are not
    available for HDEs alone. Also, CDRH does not track IDE Amendments
    alone; they are counted with all IDEs.
        [The information follows:]

                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                    Review activity                      1996         1997         1998         1999         2000
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    510(k).........................................  243  $19.9   185  $16.0   184  $16.6   166  $15.2   154  S15.3
    PMAs \1\.......................................  113    9.5   158   13.2    95    8.7    98    9.5   109   10.7
    PMA Supplements \2\............................   31    2.6    19    1.7    39    3.5    46    4.3    49    5.1
    IDEs \3\.......................................   53    4.3    55    4.5    59    5.1    53    4.9    46    4.5
    IDE Supplements................................   32    2.7    35    2.7    41    3.6    36    3.4    46    4.5
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes amendments and HDEs--separate data for HDEs are not available.
    \2\ Includes HDEs--separate data for HDEs are not available.
    \3\ Includes IDE amdements--separate data for IDE amendments are not available.

        Question. Please provide for each of the last 5 fiscal years the
    dollar amount and FTEs that have been expended on educational
    activities for reviewers and CDRH participation in standards
    development.
        Answer. I would be happy to provide for the record a table showing
    the FTEs and dollars expended by CDRH during fiscal years 1996-2000 for
    the activities you requested. Please note that CDRH did not collect
    separate data on educational activities for reviewers from fiscal years
    1996-1998. Also, please note that medical device standards activities
    include development of international standards, and domestic mandatory
    and domestic voluntary standards under the Medical Device Authority.
        [The information follows:]

                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                        Activity                         1996         1997         1998         1999         2000
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Educational Activity \1\.......................  N/A    N/A   N/A    N/A   N/A    N/A    12   $1.1    13   $1.2
    Standards Development..........................   43   $3.8    65   $5.2    74   $7.1    70    7.2    53    5.6
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ There are no comparable data on educational activities in CDRH prior to fiscal year 1999.

        Question. Please provide for each of the last 5 fiscal years the
    dollar amount and FTEs that have been expended on the following:
    domestic inspections, foreign inspections, post-market surveillance,
    MedSUN, device tracking, bioresearch monitoring, and medical device
    reporting requirements.
        Answer. For the record, I will provide a table showing FTEs and
    dollars expended by FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health,
    or CDRH, during fiscal years 1996-2000 for the activities you
    requested. To clarify the table, let me explain CDRH does not collect
    separate data on resources expended for investigations. This
    information is collected under the heading, ``Quality Systems/
    Certification.'' Other activities included in the category are
    footnoted on the table. MedSUN and Medical Device Reporting
    Requirements data are not tracked separately, but are combined into a
    single adverse event reporting category. MedSUN was a pilot program
    through fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 is its first year of
    implementation.
        [The information follows:]

                                                 [Dollars in thousands]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                        Activity                         1996         1997         1998         1999         2000
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Quality Systems/Certification..................   33   $2.7    25   $2.1    20   $1.8    18   $1.6    17   $1.6
    Postmarket Surveillance........................   57    5.5    36    3.4    38    3.3    36    3.8    19    2.1
    Adverse Event Reporting (incl MedSUN & Medical    36    3.8    44    4.4    37    4.4    37    5.1    38    5.8
     Device Reporting Requirements.................
    Device Tracking................................    1    1.0     1     .1     1     .1     1     .1     1     .1
    Bioresearch Monitoring.........................   22    1.7    22    1.7    23    2.1    20    1.7    20    1.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide for each of the last 5 fiscal years the
    dollar amount and FTEs that have been expended on non-review scientific
    activities.
        Answer. For the record, I will submit a table with the FTE and
    dollars expended by CDRH on medical device non-review scientific
    activities.
        [The information follows:]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                        Activity                         1996         1997         1998         1999         2000
                                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount  FTE  Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Non-Review Scientific Activities...............   75   $8.1    73   $6.3    79   $7.5    78   $8.7    67   $8.9
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Please provide for each of the last 5 fiscal years the
    dollar amounts that have been expended at CDRH on contracting with
    outside experts to assist in the review of each of the following types
    of submissions: 510(k)s, PMAs, PMA supplements, IDEs, and HDEs.
        Answer. When funding levels and circumstances permit, FDA uses its
    authority to contract out with outside technical expertise when such
    expertise is needed. For example, in fiscal year 2000, FDA hired 70
    Special Government Employees to participate on the medical devices
    advisory committees. FDA has a Document Control Contract for
    maintaining the physical integrity of such documents as IDE, 510(k),
    and PMA submissions. A scanning contract is used to convert medical
    device and radiological health documents to electronic form to improve
    document storage and retrieval. FDA has also contracted with the Oak
    Ridge Institute for Science and Education, or ORISE, fellowship program
    to recruit experts to participate in reviews. FDA has allocated fiscal
    year 2001 funds to continue these contracts. I would be happy to
    provide for the record a chart that shows the expenditures for the
    Medical Device Advisory Committees, the Scanning Contract and the
    Document Control Contract for the past five years. We cannot break down
    these amounts by application type since they support the entire device
    review process.
        [The information follows:]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Medical device                     Document
                               Fiscal year                               advisory        Scanning         control
                                                                        committees       contract        contract
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1996............................................................           $.450           $.373            $1.2
    1997............................................................            .486            .375             1.0
    1998............................................................            .581            .450             1.1
    1999............................................................            .474        \1\ .000             1.1
    2000............................................................        \2\ .594            .459             1.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ There were sufficient multiyear funds in the fiscal year 1998 contract to perform this operation through
      fiscal year 1999.
    \2\ Salary cap for Advisory Committee members increased from $150.00 to $389.80 per day.

        Question. What level of funding is proposed in the fiscal year 2002
    budget for review, oversight, and enforcement activities of users and
    manufacturers of all reprocessed medical devices, as compared to the
    level provided in each of fiscal years 2000 and 2001?
        Answer. FDA expects the Medical Device program to expend about $2.8
    million on reprocessing and reuse of single use devices. In fiscal year
    2001 FDA requested and received $2.8 million for medical device reuse
    to be allocated for premarket review, enforcement, and oversight
    activities related to users and manufacturers of all reprocessed
    medical devices. FDA has been staffing up to handle the anticipated
    workload and believes that the current budget allocations should be
    sufficient to handle the 510(k) submissions that we receive.
             prescription drug user fee act (pdufa) reauthorization
        Question. The user fee program for prescription drug review (PDUFA)
    is authorized through this fiscal year. What are the agency's primary
    concerns in negotiating the next phase of PDUFA?
        Answer. The Administration is currently in the process of reviewing
    PDUFA II. While prescription drug user fees have been successful in
    improving FDA's ability to review new drugs for safety and efficacy
    quickly, we are evaluating the program to identify potential
    improvements to PDUFA II. We look forward to working with Congress and
    industry as we move closer to the sunset date for PDUFA II.
                            post-market surveillance
        Question. FDA evaluates the safety and nutrition of bioengineered
    foods, and last month issued a proposed rule to make the voluntary
    consulting process mandatory. What information would the FDA require
    from firms wishing to market bioengineered foods? What benefit would be
    gained from this data?
        Answer. Under the proposed rule, FDA would require that a notifier
    attest that the food is as safe as comparable food is lawful, and
    justify that statement in a narrative. FDA would also require that a
    notifier identify any uses that may be unsuitable. The data and
    information FDA would require under the proposed rule would enable FDA
    to assess on an ongoing basis whether plant-derived bioengineered foods
    are as safe as their conventional counterparts, do not contain
    unapproved food additives, and if the names of the foods are
    appropriate in light of any compositional changes to the food. A
    summary of what the proposed rule from January 18, 2001, would require
    of the data and information is provided for the record.
        [The information follows:]
                        summary of data and information
        1. the identity and source of introduced genetic material;
        2. the function of substances that will be present in the food as a
    result of the introduced genetic material;
        3. intended changes to the composition of the food;
        4. how the food was developed;
        5. genes, if any, that encode resistance to an antibiotic;
        6. the potential that proteins introduced into the food will be
    allergenic; and,
        7. levels of significant nutrients and naturally occurring
    toxicants.
        Question. FDA inspects an extremely small fraction of imported
    products, the majority of which are foods. The agency also conducts
    inspections of foreign exporting firms and equivalency audits of
    foreign regulatory systems in many product areas. What is FDA's import
    strategy? What mix of activities would best assure the safety of
    imported products? Are we heading in that direction and making
    appropriate investments?
        Answer. FDA has multiple strategies given the different types of
    products and commodities the Agency regulates. All FDA's Centers have a
    component which develops compliance programs and assignments specific
    for imported products under the jurisdiction of that Center and in
    consultation with the Office of Regulatory Affairs, ORA. The best mix
    of ORA activities is: a combination of foreign inspections; field
    examinations and sample analyses; investigations of substituted,
    substandard or smuggled goods; analysis of epidemiological data; and
    evaluations of U.S. Customs house brokers, filers, to ensure integrity
    of data submitted to U.S. Customs Service and FDA via ACS/OASIS. Also
    import alerts and bulletins may be proposed by the Centers specific for
    imported products when emerging issues and problems become evident.
    Additionally, activities which promote equivalency, known as Mutual
    Recognition Agreements and Memorandum of Agreement, are a key component
    for assurance of the safety of imported products. However, overall
    import enforcement activities play a key role as well. To strengthen
    FDA's import enforcement, there have been a series of training courses
    for field import personnel held in 2000-2001 to promote interaction
    with U.S. Customs Service and effective enforcement through the
    application of U.S. Customs laws and regulations.
                                  food safety
        Question. Congress has provided FDA with substantial food safety
    resources during the past 4 years. Can you outline some of the
    accomplishments achieved with these resources?
        Answer. Resources provided to FDA have allowed us to change the way
    we conduct our business of ensuring a safe food supply and to make many
    changes to improve the public health. We have focused our attention on
    the big-picture public health goal of reducing foodborne illness and a
    much more comprehensive ``farm-to-table'' approach. These efforts have
    allowed FDA to make considerable progress in reducing foodborne illness
    and antimicrobial resistance. FoodNet data show an overall reduction of
    20 percent for foodborne illness for selected pathogens. With the
    resources provided we have been able to step up our efforts to ensure
    that FDA-regulated products comply with consumer protection laws and
    regulations enforced by the agency. For example, last year we increased
    our ``high-risk'' food inspections by 90 percent over the previous
    year. We have advanced the public health with our education efforts
    targeted to consumers who are more susceptible to certain risks by
    giving them the information they can use to make an informed choice. We
    taken great strides forward in our public-private partnerships with
    industry, academia and Federal and State governments in putting forth
    four simple food safety messages for consumers. In collaboration with
    our scientific business partners we have made important strides toward
    better scientific data, methods and models. The overall accomplishments
    are many.
        With the continued support of the Congress in fiscal year 2002, we
    anticipate further gains in additional reductions in foodborne illness,
    including illness from chemical and pesticide contamination. A summary
    will be provided for the record.
        In overseeing seafood safety, last year alone FDA issued 148
    warning letters and an injunction, against firms for noncompliance with
    the seafood HACCP regulations. FDA has been able to detect outbreaks
    quicker and to provide coordinated investigations using PulseNet.
    Examples of outbreaks where the capability of PulseNet was used
    include: shingella sonnei in five-layer bean dip; salmonella
    typhimurium in clover sprouts; and salmonella baildon in tomatoes. The
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, NARMS, has been
    expanded substantially. NARMS monitors the emergence and spread of
    resistance in enteric bacteria and helps to ensure the continued safety
    and effectiveness of veterinary antimicrobials. NARMS data has been
    used to:
        [The information follows:]
    NARMS Data Usage
        Initiate field investigations of outbreaks of illness marked by a
    pathogen that displayed an unusual antimicrobial resistance pattern;
        Assess the human health impact of fluoroquinolone use in poultry;
        Stimulate research in molecular characteristics of resistance
    emergence and transfer;
        Prove our knowledge of risk factors associated with the development
    of an antimicrobial-resistant infection; and
        Trigger broader research on the prudent antimicrobial use in
    animals and the role of the environment in the emergence and spread of
    antimicrobial resistance.
    In addition, the Agency has
        Developed a document, ``Multi-state Foodborne Outbreak
    Investigations: Guidelines for Improving Coordination and
    Communication'';
        Published a final rule designed to improve the safety of fruit and
    vegetable juices;
        Established procedures to prevent distribution of unsafe imported
    food by requiring that shipments from ``bad actor'' importers be held
    in a secure storage facility at the importers' expense until released
    by FDA;
        Published a proposed rule that will require marking food shipments
    refused for safety reasons to indicate that the product was denied
    entry in the U.S.;
        Collaborated with the National Science Teachers Association and
    created a professional development program for teachers and a
    supplementary science curriculum to encourage safe food handling
    behaviors on the part of students, many of whom work in food service
    establishments;
        Began a prioritized review of new and previously approved
    antimicrobial drugs for use in animals, especially those used for sub-
    therapeutic purposes, and develop training and guidance for the
    regulated industry in conducting pre-approval studies;
        Finalized the FDA framework document ``A Proposed Framework for
    Evaluating and Assuring the Human Safety of the Microbial Effects of
    Antimicrobial New Animal Drugs Intended for Use in Food Producing
    Animals.'';
        Expanded efforts to determine how use of antimicrobial agents in
    food-producing animals contributes to the selection and spread of
    multi-resistant bacteria in human food and anima feeds; and,
        Initiated a pilot study with Mexico on monitoring system for
    antimicrobial resistance in Salmonella.
    Specifically, in the areas of research and risk assessment FDA
        Completed a draft risk assessment on the estimated public health
    risk associated with eating raw oysters containing Vibrio
    parahaemolyticus;
        Completed a draft risk assessment on the potential relativerisk of
    listeriosis from eating certain ready-to-eat foods;
        Developed a method, being used by FDA as well as CDC, for detecting
    Cyclospora and providing the first isolation of the pathogen from food
    product associated with human illness;
        Completed research to demonstrate that surface heating of apples is
    not an effective method of improving the safety of apple juice;
        Demonstrated that temperature plays a critical role in inactivation
    of common types of Clostridium botulinum spores during high pressure
    processing;
        Demonstrated that pulsed electric field energy and heat work
    together in the destruction of Listeria monocytogenes;
        Developed a method to characterize new and unusual strains of
    pathogenic E. coli.
        Conducted studies that indicate that poultry products may serve as
    reservoirs of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter spp;
        Conducted research that indicates that FDA may need to standardize
    the identification techniques used to characterize the components of
    competitive exclusion products used to pre-infect chickens, preventing
    adverse bacterial infections;
        Conducted research on bacteria contained in commercial competitive
    exclusion products that contain vancomycin-resistant genes;
        Developed statistical models for microbial risk assessment and
    submitted them for publication;
        Conducted a quantitative risk assessment that modeled the human
    health impact of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections
    associated with consumption of chicken. The risk assessment showed that
    development of resistance in food-producing animals has an impact on
    human health by compromising the effectiveness of human medicines;
        Improved methods for the detection of Vibrio parahaemolyticus and
    transferred the technology to FDA and State regulatory laboratories;
        Continued research on dose-response modeling of microbial risk
    assessment;
        Continued studies on the measurement of the effect of low level
    antibiotic residues on the human intestinal flora; and,
        Continued efforts towards developing a protocol to look at
    probiotic (viable bacterial cultures that are beneficial to the host)
    effects on the host organism's defenses.
        Question. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee indicated that FDA
    was to provide $2,000,000 as the annual base level of funding for the
    National Center for Food Safety and Technology, NCFST, and to provide
    an additional $1,000,000 to the Center for collaborative research in
    support of the President's food safety initiative. Please provide an
    update on the activities being carried out by NCFST and a status report
    on the fiscal year 2001 funding for the Center.
        Answer. The Agency provided $2,993,400, which reflects enacted
    levels adjusted for the 0.22 percent rescission to support the National
    Center for Food Safety and Technology's, NCFST, collaborative research
    in food safety among government, academia, and private industry. NCFST
    is the nation's only research consortium of industry, government, and
    academia to address the food safety implications of emerging
    technologies in food processing, packaging, biotechnology. The NCFST is
    a cost effective resource for developing and exploring new
    technologies. By spreading the cost and risk of doing research,
    companies can control their costs while putting themselves on the
    cutting edge of new technology developments. For the record we will
    provide some recent accomplishments of the Center.
        [The information follows:]
                             center accomplishments
        1. Irradiation Task Force.--Research at NCFST involving twenty meat
    processors and plastic packaging companies resulted in data to support
    a petition to FDA to allow the safe use of plastic polymers for use
    with E-beam irradiation. This work received temporary approval enabling
    industry to launch irradiated hamburger which was free of the harmful
    pathogen E. coli O157:H7.
        2. Alfalfa Sprouts Task Force.--The NCFST worked with the
    International Sprout Growers Association to develop Good Manufacturing
    Practices, testing protocols, seed certification and intervention
    processes to make safe sprouted products. Since the implementation of
    these guidelines, the incidence of outbreaks attributed to alfalfa
    sprouts has been significantly reduced.
        3. Aseptic Processing of Foods with Particles.--The NCFST is
    recognized as a world leader in the area of aseptic processing of
    foods. This new technology will allow food processors to make ``fresh-
    like'' soups and stews that rival home-made.
        4. Department of Defense Dual Use of Science and Technology
    (DUST).--Five member companies of the Center recently received a grant
    from the Department of Defense to conduct the science necessary to
    validate the use of High Pressure Processing to sterilize foods. This
    pioneering technology makes it possible to process foods with minimal
    changes to the fresh character of the product and thus provide improved
    military rations. It will also have significant commercial
    applications.
        Question. What level of funding is included in the fiscal year 2002
    budget request for the National Center for Food Safety and Technology?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002, FDA plans to expend $3,000,000 in
    support of the National Center for Food Safety and Technology's, NCFST,
    collaborative research activities. The fiscal year 2001 rescission of
    .22 percent reduced the $3.0 million fiscal year 2001 Appropriations by
    $6,600. This collaborative research effort between government,
    academia, and private industry supports the food safety implications of
    emerging technologies in food processing, packaging, biotechnology. The
    NCFST is a cost effective resource for developing and exploring new
    technologies. By spreading the cost and risk of doing research,
    companies can control their costs while putting themselves on the
    cutting edge of new technology developments.
        Question. How much is included in the fiscal year 2002 budget
    request for FDA activities in support of Codex Alimentarius, as
    compared to the fiscal year 2001 level?
        Answer. FDA expects to expend around $1.8 million in fiscal year
    2001 and approximately $2.1 million in fiscal year 2002 for its work
    associated with the Codex Alimentarius.
        Question. Please give us an update on activities conducted by FDA
    in support of Codex Alimentarius.
        Answer. Codex participants recognize the U.S. as a worldwide leader
    when it comes to accomplishing Codex's mission. Most recently FDA
    participated in the development of the Principles and Guidelines for
    Microbiological Risk, and assessing risks concerning Listeria in ready
    to eat foods. FDA further assisted Codex with the formulation of
    guidelines for bioengineered foods and the labeling of such products.
    In reference to a country's control over imports, FDA provides
    technical guidance for the Judgement of Equivalence of Food Import/
    Export Systems along with developing guidelines for the Food Import
    Control Systems. Finally, FDA chairs the working group developing the
    General Standard for Food Additives that involves a comprehensive
    review of the safety and use of substances added to food directly
    generally. FDA recognizes that public interest in Codex is very
    significant and tries to keep interested parties informed as much as
    possible via regular emails, mail and public meetings.
                          proposed transfer authority
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes to include FDA in
    the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) departmental
    transfer authority. The budget justification indicates that this
    transfer authority will allow DHHS to assist the FDA in responding to
    emerging public health issues. Please give some examples.
        Answer. The transfer authority would be a mechanism for providing
    funding to allow FDA to respond quickly and efficiently to emerging
    health issues. Examples of this type of health issue include product
    tampering such as Tylenol and baby food, and breast implant tissues.
    Another example would be the expenses FDA has incurred during Fiscal
    2001 for efforts to prevent BSE in this country. For this fiscal year,
    we were able to use some Contingency Fund funds that were appropriated
    in past years.
        Question. Also, the proposed transfer authority would not only
    allow DHHS to transfer funding to FDA but from FDA. What is the
    justification for allowing DHHS to transfer funds from FDA?
        Answer. Language authorizing this transfer is proposed for
    inclusion in the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and
    Related Agencies Appropriation Act general provisions. This would give
    the Secretary of DHHS authority to transfer funds to meet pressing
    needs in FDA, or in other DHHS components as the case may be, even
    though FDA's appropriations are in a different appropriations bill than
    most of the DHHS components.
                             excess fee collections
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes new salaries and
    expenses appropriations account language which would provide FDA the
    authority to credit to the account PDUFA fees that may have been
    collected in excess of the amounts appropriated in a previous year.
    Have such excess collections occurred in past years? Please indicate
    the amount in each of the past three fiscal years. Also, please
    identify the amount in excess collections projected to be available for
    fiscal year 2002.
        Answer. I will be happy to provide that information. During the
    first five years of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act the Act
    authorized the collection amount to be increased by inflation and set a
    collection limitation not to exceed the amount in the appropriating
    legislation. If the fees for applications being submitted to agency
    exceeded the amount appropriated, prorated refunds were provided to the
    drug companies. Such excess collections were refunded for three years--
    1994, 1996, and 1997. FDAMA amended PDUFA to give FDA the ability,
    after 1997, to keep any fees above the appropriation limitation and
    specified that any excess collection amount should offset the amount of
    fees to be collected in future years. The purpose of the fiscal year
    2002 appropriation language change is simply to have the appropriation
    language parallel the authorizing language. So far the only fiscal year
    in which fee collections have exceeded the specified appropriation
    amount is fiscal year 1998, and the amount collected in excess of
    appropriations was $324,776. However, several requests for refunds or
    waivers are pending against this balance, and FDA will not know for
    certain if excess collections have been realized until all of these
    claims have been decided. The amount of excess collections is noted
    below in a table being submitted for the record. The table represented
    is as of September 30, 2000, and is updated annually with the
    Collections Realized in FDA's Financial Report required by the
    Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 as amended by the Food and Drug
    Administration Modernization Act of 1997.
        [The information follows:]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         Potential
                                                                        Collections     Collection       offset to
                               Fiscal year                               realized         ceiling         future
                                                                                                        collections
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1998............................................................    $117,446,776    $117,133,000        $324,776
    1999............................................................     122,011,516     132,273,000  ..............
    2000............................................................     137,698,948     145,434,000  ..............
    2001............................................................   Not Available     149,273,000   Not Available
    2002............................................................   Not Available     161,716,000   Not Available
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         clinical pharmacology program
        Question. What level of funding is included in the fiscal year 2002
    budget request for the Clinical Pharmacology Program?
        Answer. FDA expects the Clinical Pharmacology Program to be funded
    at $500,000 in fiscal year 2002, the same level as fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Please explain the importance of this program to FDA.
        Answer. The Clinical Pharmacology Program provides financial
    assistance to investigators who conduct research as part of their
    clinical pharmacology training program. This program is funded through
    cooperative agreements. I will be happy to provide a more specific
    description of the Clinical Pharmacology Program for the record.
        [The information follows:]
        Specific goals important to the public health include:
      --Advancing scientific knowledge of mechanisms of in vitro/in vivo
            metabolism/drug interactions;
      --Characterization of individual exposure-response to drugs; and,
      --The effect of age, gender, and race on drug disposition and
            exposure response relationships. Projects that fulfill any one
            or a combination of the following specific objectives are
            considered for funding;
      --Mechanistic understanding of drug-drug, drug-food, and drug-non-
            prescription product interactions;
      --Research to develop and evaluate biomarkers, and noninvasive
            imaging as a way to assess safety and efficacy;
      --Computer modeling and clinical trial simulations: evaluation of
            clinical study designs to confirm drug safety and efficacy;
      --Evaluation of techniques in gender, age, race, and liver/kidney
            function-specific differences in drug response and drug
            interactions;
      --Development of electronic databases to capture key metabolism/drug
            interaction data and provide a linkage to an expert system to
            assist the New Drug Application (NDA) review; and
      --Research to define the clinical pharmacology characteristics of
            complex drug substances to assure proper use, define the
            biopharmaceutical characteristics of the active ingredients,
            and develop ways to establish equivalency of dosage forms to
            establish standards.
        Question. What cooperative agreements are being supported with the
    funding provided for the program for fiscal year 2001? Please indicate
    the level of funding for each.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001, FDA awarded $500,000 in clinical
    pharmacology grants to Indiana University. Indiana University was the
    grantee recipient as well in fiscal year 2000 in the amount of
    $459,992. Previous grantees in this program include: University of
    Illinois at Peoria, Meharry Medical College, State University of New
    York at Binghamton, and the Mayo Clinic.
                            office of generic drugs
        Question. Please identify the level of funding and number of staff
    years requested for fiscal year 2002 for the Office of Generic Drugs,
    as compared with the fiscal year 2001 levels.
        Answer. For fiscal year 2001, FDA projects to expend an estimated
    $15.4 million for the Office of Generic Drugs--OGD, including the
    support of 143 Full-Time Equivalent positions. The Agency did not
    request a specific increase for OGD in fiscal year 2002, but plans to
    devote the same number of staff in fiscal year 2002 as in fiscal year
    2001. Additional funds in fiscal year 2002 will come from the requested
    increase for pay raises. The Office of Generics would receive
    approximately $0.8 million of the $40 million requested increase in
    pay.
        Question. Please provide the level of funding and number of staff
    years provided for the previous four fiscal years (fiscal year 1998 to
    fiscal year 2001) for the Office of Generic Drugs. If these dollar
    levels or number of staff years differ from the increases earmarked by
    the Congress, please provide an explanation as to why there is a
    difference.
        Answer. For the record we are providing a table of funding and FTE
    levels, including operating funds that have been available specifically
    to the Office of Generic Drugs, OGD.
        [The information follows:]

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Actual/planned
             Fiscal year             Actual/     expenditures      Congressionally appropriated funds included in
                                   planned FTE     (amount)                       fiscal year total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1998.........................          123          $9,997  +$1.0 million for the Office of Generic Drugs to
                                                                 assist with accelerated approvals (House Report 105-
                                                                 178).
    1999.........................          130          11,217  +$1.0 million for the Office of Generic Drugs
                                                                 (Conference Report 105-763)
    2000.........................          134          14,733  +$1.8 million ($1.9 million for the Office of
                                                                 Generic Drugs [Senate Report 106-80] minus fiscal
                                                                 year 2000 Budget Recission).
                                                                +$1.5 million in Tobacco reprogramming funds (one-
                                                                 time funding) for Information Technology purchases
                                                                 in fiscal year 2000.
    2001.........................          143      \1\ 15,362  +$1.2 million for the Office of Generic Drugs to
                                                                 reduce generic drug application review and approval
                                                                 times (Conference Report 106-948).
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Planned.

                               proposed reduction
        Question. The budget justification indicates that the fiscal year
    2002 salaries and expenses request includes a reduction of $1,497,000
    from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation. Please identify and provide an
    explanation for this proposed reduction.
        Answer. FDA's fiscal year 2001 appropriations contained language
    directing FDA to provide $1.5 million for a contract with the New
    Mexico State University's (NMSU) Physical Science Laboratory (PSL) to
    establish a lab for conducting ``rapid screening analyses'' of fresh
    fruits and vegetables (imported and domestic) for microbial
    contamination. FDA is providing a contract in the amount of $1,497,000,
    adjusted for the .22 percent recission with New Mexico State
    University's Physical Science Laboratory (NMSU/PSL). The NMSU Project
    Manager and FDA agreed that the project should focus on method
    evaluation of rapid testing methods. These would include micro and
    biochemical lab tests as well as evaluation of field test kits for our
    investigators. While the lab is not ready to handle regulatory samples
    it could be used to gather data in evaluation of rapid testing methods.
    The lab's work will help in the goal of reducing the time that it takes
    for perishable products to go from harvest to market. In order to allow
    for time to evaluate the work of the laboratory, no resources are
    requested for this project in fiscal year 2002.
                                 new user fees
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes new user fees for
    import operations and food export certification, estimated to bring in
    $14.7 million and $5.3 million, respectively. What discussions has the
    Department and/or agency had with industry on these new user fee
    proposals?
        Answer. FDA believes user fees can be used to accelerate
    performance as long as strategic plans, performance measures, and goals
    are an integral part of any user fee proposal. The user fees being
    proposed here can be implemented within a reasonable timeframe. For
    example, discussions have taken place with industry in the past with
    regards to Export certification fees, so it is believed this can be
    implemented in a short time span. The imports fee would most likely
    require longer discussions with our stakeholders. However, we believe
    the importer/broker community would benefit greatly by the faster turn-
    around times, elimination of large volumes of paperwork and reduced
    costs of doing business.
        Question. When will these legislative proposals be submitted to the
    Congress for consideration and what success do you believe they will
    have?
        Answer. The proposals are currently undergoing clearance by the
    administration.
        Question. The budget justification indicates that if the proposed
    new user fees for imports are not authorized and implemented, a larger
    portion of the budget authority will be needed to support the import
    program. Does this mean that the Administration would submit a budget
    amendment requesting additional funds or that you would simply
    reprioritize within the existing fiscal year 2002 appropriations
    request to provide additional support for the import program?
        Answer. It means the Agency could reprioritize within the existing
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations request for inspections to provide
    additional support for the import program. No budget amendment will be
    requested if the user fees are not authorized.
                  adverse events reporting/``medical errors''
        Question. An increase of $6.8 million was provided for fiscal year
    2001 for improvements to FDA's current system of post-market
    surveillance to identify adverse events associated with products on the
    market. Would you please give us an update on the status of this
    effort. What is the total amount of funding being provided for fiscal
    year 2001 for adverse events reporting?
        Answer. The Agency allocated the $6.785 million to the human drugs,
    biologics, and medical device programs in fiscal year 2001 for the
    purpose of improving the reporting and analysis of adverse events. The
    fiscal year 2001 increase to the post-market surveillance activities
    related to adverse event reports, brings the total funding level in
    fiscal year 2001 to an estimated $48 million. FDA receives over 250,000
    total for all products adverse event reports associated with
    pharmaceuticals each year. Over one-third of these adverse events are
    judged to be preventable. FDA implemented a new version of the
    pharmaceutical Adverse Event Reporting System, or AERS, in January 2001
    which allows for state-of-the-art analytic capabilities. A priority in
    2001 is to develop and propose new regulations requiring electronic
    submission of adverse event reports by manufacturers, expanding the
    current pilot program. I would be happy to provide for the record a
    summary of how the fiscal year 2001 increased funding will be used.
        [The information follows:]
    Fiscal year 2001 Funding for Adverse Events
        Access drug utilization databases that can provide FDA with data on
    patient drug use acquired by individuals in an ambulatory care or
    inpatient setting;
        Implement a pharmaceutical marketing database service contract that
    will provide data regarding current and long-term trends in drug and
    biologic utilization and prescriptions;
        Design and develop up-to-date reporting systems that permit
    manufacturers of biological products to report problems, product
    defects, and potential adverse reactions to the Agency;
        Train field staff to improve information gathered through
    investigation of consumer complaints and to upgrade the field data
    system to provide consumer complaint data that complements ACERS.
    Reporting systems include collection of error and accident events that
    occur during manufacturing processes or storage of products from blood
    product manufacturers and blood banking facilities; and
        Further develop the Medical Product Surveillance Network (MedSUN).
    The idea of a Sentinel User Reporting System originated with a
    provision in the fiscal year 1997 Food and Drug Administration
    Modernization Act. MedSUN helps correct the severe under-reporting of
    adverse events by user facilities, and improves the quantity and
    quality of data received from the user community. The funds will be
    used to expand the program by an additional 25 hospitals, and possibly
    15-30 nursing homes. Recruitment of facilities will begin this summer.
    Funds also are being used to develop the MedSUN database, which will
    give FDA the ability to analyze the causes and contributing factors
    associated with the adverse events, and to provide feedback to device
    manufacturers.
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests an additional $10
    million to improve FDA's system for monitoring adverse events
    associated with marketed products. What activities will be undertaken
    with the additional funds requested? Please indicate the total fiscal
    year 2002 funding requested, by activity, as compared with the fiscal
    year 2001 base funding level.
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002, FDA requests an increase in funding of
    $10 million to safeguard patients against adverse events associated
    with the use of drugs, biological agents, medical devices, foods and
    dietary supplements by improving FDA's systems for monitoring marketed
    products. Many patient deaths and injuries are associated with the use
    of FDA-regulated medical products. The FDA believes that roughly half
    of these deaths and injuries can be avoided by fully implementing its
    strategies. Thousands of lives and billions of dollars can be saved. We
    would be happy to provide a list of specific adverse event or patient
    safety goals for each programmatic increase in fiscal year 2002. The
    Agency is also providing base resource information per your request.
        [The information follows:]
    Human Drugs Program
        5. Complete FDA's new on-line adverse event reporting system
    (ACERS) for drugs and Biologics, and provide rapid assessment of
    injuries and deaths associated with the use of these products;
        6. Develop links to hospital-based information systems to better
    support hospital staff working on the ``front lines'' of patient
    safety. This includes improving the reporting systems to address under-
    reporting and incomplete reporting of medical errors, as well as
    increased use of other electronic systems to monitor problems with use
    of drug products. Access to drug utilization databases can also provide
    the Agency with data on patient drug use by individuals in an
    ambulatory care or inpatient setting;
        7. Increase FDA's capacity to do the multi-factor analysis
    necessary to correctly identify the sources of safety problems and
    potential solutions. This includes establishing links to safety
    databases maintained within community-level healthcare delivery systems
    and regional-level safety surveillance systems, and adding to expertise
    in medical epidemiology and statistical analysis;
        8. Develop linkages to government and private health care
    databases. Access to broad-based health information databases will
    allow for more rapid exploration of potentially serious drug-related
    problems and more rigorous investigations than currently possible;
        9. Expand educational and training programs for health care
    providers and the public to promote the safe use of products;
        10. Investigate reported errors and develop error reduction
    strategies with manufacturers and the medical community; and,
        11. Upgrade field investigational data systems to complement agency
    error tracking systems, and to provide better information on the
    incidence of medical errors.
     Biologics Program
        8. Expand and upgrade the current Biological Product Deviation
    Reporting System (BDR). This system contains reports from the product
    manufacturer of any event associated with the manufacturing of a
    biological product, including testing, processing, packing, labeling,
    and storage, or with the holding or distribution of a licensed
    biological product in which the safety, purity, or potency of a
    distributed product may be affected.
        9. Expand the monitoring of reports from the Vaccine Adverse Event
    Reporting System (VERS), MIDWATCH and hospital fatality reports for
    biologic related cases. FDA proposes to link to existing external data
    sources held by both private and government organizations. For example,
    emergency rooms, poison control centers, health care systems, and the
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, all collect important
    information on adverse reactions.
        10. Explore the feasibility of utilizing the Medical Errors
    Reporting System for Transfusion Medicine (MARS-TM) to perform data
    aggregation and analysis for ACERS. MARS-TM was developed under NIH
    funding and could serve as the model for the FDA blood error reporting.
    MARS-TM encourages non-punitive reporting with a well-defined codified
    method of reporting.
    Medical Devices Program
        11. Maintain the existing 100 facilities in the program, which
    includes both hospitals and nursing homes;
        12. Recruit between 75-100 new user facilities and expand the
    program to include other types of user facilities such as ambulatory
    care surgical centers; and,
        13. Expand data analytic capability, and outreach and feedback
    opportunities to the medical community, industry, and other
    stakeholders.
    Foods Program
        14. Consolidate five existing Adverse Event systems within the
    Foods Program into one comprehensive, center-wide system to capture and
    evaluate consumer adverse event reports for foods, food and color
    additives, cosmetics, and dietary supplements;
        15. Develop external interfaces with the Agency wide Field
    Accomplishments Tracking System (FACTS) and ACERS to share data; and,
        16. Supply system users with classification, indexing, research and
    management tools, and materials for the evaluation of adverse events.

                              FDA RESOURCES DEVOTED TO AERS/MEDICATION ERROS/PATIENT SAFETY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Estimated fiscal year 2001      Requested fiscal year 2002
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            FTE           Amount            FTE           Amount
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CFSAN...........................................              10          $1,900              14          $2,900
    CDER............................................              93          24,500             107          28,100
    CBER............................................              17           1,700              25           3,700
    CVM.............................................               9           1,600               9           1,600
    CDRH............................................              48           8,500              48          10,500
    ORA.............................................              75           7,100              81           8,100
    Other Act.......................................              16           2,800              19           3,200
                                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.....................................             268          48,100             303          58,100
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                   biologics
        Question. What is the status of regulations that would require the
    release of what is now confidential information from biological
    investigational new drug applications involving gene therapy and
    xenotransplantation? Concern has been expressed that this proposal goes
    too far, in that it would require the release of trade secret and
    confidential commercial information that could jeopardize the
    proprietary nature of research protocols. Also, is there coordination
    of this proposal with NIH guidelines involving gene therapy? What is
    the justification for two agencies of DHHS reviewing gene therapy
    protocols?
        Answer. On January 18, 2001, FDA published a proposed rule
    entitled, ``Availability for Public Disclosure and Submission to FDA
    for Public Disclosure of Certain Data and Information Related to Human
    Gene Therapy or Xenotransplantation.'' In response to that proposed
    rule, approximately 280 public comments-currently 136 written comments
    and 145 electronic comments were submitted-have been initially reviewed
    and summarized. FDA will convene a task group to consider these
    comments; determine what changes to the rulemaking should be made in
    response to the comments; write responses to all comments; and agree
    upon a timeline to complete these tasks. In general, the public
    commented that more information should be made public, while some but
    not all of the industry, commented that too much confidential
    information would be made public under the rule. FDA is meeting and
    corresponding with the Office of Biotechnology Activities, National
    Institutes of Health--the NIH--regularly to assure that our efforts are
    coordinated.
        The FDA and NIH have different roles and responsibilities with
    regards to gene therapy. As with any clinical trial involving a drug or
    a biologic, FDA has clear responsibilities for the regulatory oversight
    of gene therapy clinical trials; that is, to assure the safety, purity,
    potency and efficacy of gene therapy products. In particular, 21 Code
    of Federal Regulations 312.22 (a) says, ``FDA's primary objectives in
    reviewing an IND are, in all phases of the investigation, to assure the
    safety and rights of subjects, and, in Phase 2 and 3, to help assure
    that the quality of the scientific evaluation of drugs is adequate to
    permit an evaluation of the drug's effectiveness and safety.''
        Additionally, in 1984 and 1986, the Federal government proposed, as
    part of a coordinated policy for biotechnology, that the NIH's
    Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, the RAC, would review recombinant
    DNA gene therapy products used in human clinical trials.
        Question. What is the proposed FDA fiscal year 2002 budget for
    review of gene therapy, as compared to the fiscal year 2001 level?
        Answer. FDA's fiscal year 2002 budget request includes $500,000 for
    gene therapy. In fiscal year 2001 FDA is devoting one time funding of
    $750,000 for the gene therapy data base.
        Question. FDA has indicated that it is developing guidances on
    growth hormone and human insulin drug products. Will these guidances
    require clinical trials for effectiveness? Would these products be
    approved for safety and effectiveness? If only for safety, what is
    FDA's statutory authority to approve products for safety only?
        Answer. FDA is developing guidances on growth hormone and human
    insulin drug products to describe what scientific and technical
    information should be submitted in applications for these drugs. These
    guidances are not yet ready or publication. When they are completed,
    they will be published in draft for public comment. There are a number
    of technical and scientific issues still to be resolved in determining
    what information sponsors should submit for FDA to assess whether
    growth hormone and human insulin products are safe and effective.
                       fiscal year 2001 funding increases
        Question. Would you please give us an update on the status of each
    of the following activities for which increased appropriations were
    provided for fiscal year 2001:
      --$5.0 million for enforcement of Internet drug sales;
      --$5.0 million for counter-bioterrorism activities;
      --$9 million for inspections;
      --$30 million for food safety;
      --$1 million for dietary supplements;
      --$1 million for orphan product grants;
      --$1.2 million for the Office of Generic Drugs;
      --$22.879 million for premarket review; and
      --$6.8 million for adverse events reporting.
        Answer. I would be happy to provide that information for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]
    Internet Drug Sales $5.0 million for enforcement
        In fiscal year 2001, FDA's overall goal is to reduce the illegal
    promotion, sales, and distribution of approved and unapproved
    prescription pharmaceuticals via the Internet. FDA enhanced its
    enforcement effort of Internet sites that violate Federal laws relating
    to prescription drugs, and has undertaken a greater public education
    campaign to help consumer's shop wisely for approved pharmaceuticals
    online.
        FDA's strategy focuses on putting a halt to illicit or illegal
    activity by identifying the pharmaceutical Internet sites that pose the
    greatest threat. The Agency is using prevailing Internet hardware and
    software to carry out surveillance and investigative activities and
    focuses on sites identified by FDA investigators and consumers via
    FDA's Internet site (http://www.fda.gov/oc/buyonline/
    buyonlineform.htm). FDA is supporting a rapid response team to deal
    with these sites. FDA is working closely with State regulatory
    officials and other Federal agencies to leverage resources and expedite
    the process of eliminating fraudulent activity on Internet sites. The
    Agency also works with the U.S. Customs Service, the Drug Enforcement
    Administration, and the Postal Service to monitor prescription drug
    imports coming into this country from all sources.
    Countering Bioterrorism +$5 million
        FDA is an important contributor to the Nation's capability to
    respond to potential chemical and biological threats from bioterrorism.
    FDA's role includes assuring that new vaccines and drugs are safe and
    effective, safeguarding the food supply, and conducting research for
    diagnostic tools and treatment of disease outbreaks. Unlike other DHHS
    agencies that are participants in the Administration's anti-
    bioterrorism initiative, FDA plays a critical but less visible role
    with respect to its programs. Whether the issue is the development and
    use of rapid diagnostics to quickly identify a suspected biological
    agent or the capability to make available and administer large
    quantities of a vaccine or drug to counter the effects of a bioweapon,
    FDA's research is the linchpin that makes it possible for the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH), the Office of Emergency Preparedness (OEP), the
    Department of Defense (DOD), and others to carry out such activities.
        FDA conducts research on the development of new analytical
    approaches and methodologies, and determines if new products provide
    needed benefits without causing adverse side effects that would
    outweigh those benefits. This research includes both laboratory and
    non-laboratory investigation to support FDA regulatory responsibilities
    both immediately, and in the long-term. With the fiscal year 2001
    funding, FDA will:
                Foods
        Conduct research to develop rapid methods of detection of
    biological agents, such as anthrax, that could be used by terrorists.
    Techniques will be developed to confirm the results of less specific
    detection methods. These detection methods will provide necessary
    surveillance tools needed for monitoring programs.
                Human Drugs
        Participate in the planning and coordination of public health
    responses to bioterrorist attacks.
        Prepare field staff to safely seize, remove, and dispose of
    contaminated products by developing procedures and providing
    appropriate facilities and equipment.
        Develop inspection methods and procedures to assure the safety of
    regulated products at manufacturers' facilities and other
    establishments.
                Biologics
        Engage in activities contributing to the expeditious development
    and licensure of new vaccines for anthrax and smallpox and the
    associated vaccinia immune globulin products used to treat or prevent
    serious vaccinia infections brought on by the smallpox vaccine.
        Improve scientific expertise in monoclonal antibody therapies, new
    approaches in the use of biotherapeutics, animal and human derived
    immune globulins in the treatment of viral and bacterial diseases as
    well as emerging infectious diseases. Antibodies are immune-system
    proteins that attack foreign invaders like germs, or that neutralize
    substances the body is over-producing. Monoclonal antibodies are
    artificial, highly purified antibodies, made by combining animal and
    human genetic material, that work with exquisite precision in small
    doses. This will enhance our ability to identify, treat and test for
    previously unrecognized threats.
        --Develop regulatory models to accommodate the need for
    preparedness in the case of an emergency attack. For example,
    procedures and protocols are being developed to enable the use of
    investigational new drugs in as highly controlled, safe manner for
    particular emergency situations, such as responding to a bioterrorist
    attack that exposed individuals to the agent that causes anthrax. These
    products must be reviewed and approved prior to large-scale productions
    necessary to create and maintain a stockpile. Staff must guide the
    products through the regulatory process, including the manufacturing
    process, preclinical testing, clinical trials, and the licensing and
    approval process. This process is extremely complex and early
    involvement by staff is critical to the success of the expedited review
    process.
        Participate in the planning and coordination of public health
    responses to bioterrorist attacks.
        Develop inspection methods and procedures to assure the safety of
    regulated products at manufacturers' facilities and other
    establishments.
                Animal Drugs
        Explore ways to prevent microorganism and toxic chemicals including
    pesticides from entering animal feeds and food-producing animals.
    Develop methods for detecting the presence of pathogenic microorganisms
    and/or the toxins produced by the microorganism to effectively identify
    a threat and respond appropriately.
                Medical Devices
        Prepare expert reviewers for a significant increase in the number
    of premarket submissions, (many as IDE applications) as the
    bioterrorism response program progresses.
        Monitor and evaluate the public health needs and impact of products
    used in conjunction with bioterrorism response (in vitro diagnostic
    devices, portable ventilators, syringes, gloves, and other standard
    equipment
                NCTR
        Expand the mass spectrometry-based approaches to identify
    biomarkers of toxicity associated with biological warfare agents. This
    technique will significantly increase the ability to rapidly identify
    and characterize biological agents that could be used as weapons.
        Develop novel techniques to identify new bacteriological and
    chemical contaminants in the food supply. These techniques can
    crossover to provide methods of assessment for potential biochemical
    terrorist tools. Maintaining currency in analytical techniques will
    ensure the American public has the best and most accurate tools to
    fight food borne disease as well as identify biological warfare agents.
    Office of Regulatory Affairs--$9 million for inspections
        FDA is utilizing the additional funding to make modest improvements
    in statutory inspection coverage through additional FDA inspections and
    the use of leveraging and expanding existing State contracts. The
    requested funds will prevent the FDA from falling behind the fiscal
    year 2000 level of inspectional effort and to offset absorptions of
    inflationary increases. FDA will:
      --Conduct more inspections for Human Drugs, Biologics, Animal Drugs
            and Medical Devices, where the law requires specific inspection
            frequency;
      --Expand State contracts to further leverage inspectional coverage in
            all program areas; and
      --Improve the existing levels of annual inspectional coverage.
    Food Safety $30 million
        The funding has allowed FDA to make considerable progress in
    reducing foodborne illness and antimicrobial resistance. FoodNet data
    show an overall reduction of 20 percent for foodborne illness for
    selected pathogens. With the resources provided we have been able to
    step up our efforts to ensure that FDA-regulated products comply with
    consumer protection laws and regulations enforced by the agency. In
    fiscal year 2001 we increased our ``high-risk'' food inspections by 90
    percent over the previous year. We have advanced the public health with
    our education efforts targeted to consumers who are more susceptible to
    certain risks by giving them the information they can use to make an
    informed choice. Other activities in 2001 include:
      --Expand domestic inspections to ensure annual inspections of all
            high-risk food establishments and enhance laboratory
            capabilities for the analytical support associated with
            inspectional activity;
      --Implement State audit programs to ensure consistent application of
            regulations and develop consistent nationwide standards for on-
            farm preventive controls for egg producers and food handling
            practices at retail;
      --Implement the Hazard Analysis Control Point (HACCP) system for
            fruit and vegetable juices;
      --Develop and evaluate on-farm intervention strategies and/or
            technologies to improve testing methodologies for Salmonella
            Enteriditis (SE) on the farm and in eggs, evaluate commercial
            processing technologies and practices, and conduct research to
            understand the ecology and epidemiology of SE in the hen and
            farm environment;
      --Complete the National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System
            (NARMS) by adding national and international data collection
            sites as well as including major species of micro-organisms
            that cause foodborne disease;
      --Expand support and expertise in molecular methods that can be used
            to rapidly identify markers of toxicity of foodborne pathogens;
            and
      --Develop new methods for routine surveillance of fluoroquinolone
            resistant Salmonella and Campylobacter to provide the data
            needed to make informed risk decisions concerning the use of
            quinolone-based antimicrobials in poultry and antibiotic
            resistance.
    Dietary Supplements $1 million
        FDA is currently collaborating with the National Center for Natural
    Products Research in Oxford, Mississippi to review botanicals in
    dietary supplements. The ability to identify and analyze specific
    components in ingredients, including botanical ingredients and in
    finished products is an essential component of research and regulatory
    programs directed at ensuring the safety and effectiveness of dietary
    supplements.
    Orphan Grants $1 million
        The Orphan Grants program has $12,514,000 available for grants in
    fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1,000,000 over fiscal year 2000.
    Activities in the Orphan Drugs Program have included the receipt of 69
    applications of which four were considered non-responsive leaving 65
    for review.
    Office of Generic Drugs $1.2 million
        The increase was used to annualize the positions added in fiscal
    year 2000 and add several additional FTE. Several of these staffers are
    already on-board, fully trained, and demonstrating high levels of
    productivity. With this additional increase, all chemistry reviewer
    vacancies are currently filled. The Office of Generic Drugs, OGD,
    continues to refine the review process to increase efficiency. The
    Agency is exploring ways to increase resources devoted to information
    technology for the review of generic drug applications. The OGD is
    attempting to close the gap between the performance at 180 days and the
    significant increase in overall performance at 210 days so that the
    first action is taken within the statutory time frame. We also plan to
    revise the current system for amendment designation, major versus
    minor, to improve total review times.
    Premarket Review $22.879 million
        FDA's increase for premarket review was used to strengthen the
    science base focusing on efficiencies in the premarket application
    review program. FDA must have well-trained scientific experts current
    with cutting edge technology. Additional activities include:
      --Enhance scientific capabilities to better manage risks associated
            with emerging biotech foods. FDA and industry have consulted on
            approximately 40 new bioengineered food products to date;
      --Expedite reviews of generic drugs;
      --Reduce review times for animal drugs for quicker market access;
      --Improve the safety of children's vaccines through the National
            Vaccine Safety Program, NVSP, which will reduce the risk of
            disease transmission through vaccines;
      --Improve the quality and safety of the nation's blood supply with
            better diagnostic tests that reduce the threat of emerging
            blood-borne infectious diseases being transmitted through
            blood;
      --Improve pandemic flu activities to reduce the incidence and
            severity of influenza;
      --Increase product review activities and develop standards for high-
            risk medical device re-use applications for reprocessed devices
            meant for single use.
    Adverse Event Reporting $6.8 million
        FDA is working with Departments across the Federal government to
    improve health care through the prevention of medical errors and
    enhancement of patient safety. The agency will continue to increase its
    capabilities to protect patient safety. With the additional $6.8
    million, FDA has been able to speed initiatives to further reduce
    medical errors by:
      --Expanding the capacity for active surveillance of problems with
            medical products through the Adverse Event Reporting Systems;
      --Developing links to hospital-based information systems, to better
            support hospital staff working on the ``front lines'' of
            patient safety. This includes improving the reporting systems
            for blood errors and accidents, continued implementation of the
            Medical Device Surveillance Network (MedSUN) to address under-
            reporting and incomplete reporting of medical device problems,
            and to extend its capacity to include drug reports, as well as
            increased use of other electronic systems to monitor problems
            with use of drug products;
      --Increasing the capacity to do the multi-factor analysis to
            correctly identify the sources of safety problems and potential
            solutions. This includes establishing links to safety databases
            maintained within community-level healthcare delivery systems
            and regional-level safety surveillance systems, and adding to
            expertise in medical epidemiology and statistical analysis;
      --Increasing FDA's capacity to act on safety findings, including
            better risk communication to providers and patients who use
            medical products; regulatory steps to correct product design
            and manufacturing problems; and partnerships with other health
            agencies and health care organizations;
      --is will reduce the existing backlog of reports and improve the
            quality of assessing and managing risk identified from AERS
            reports related to animal drugs.
                     fiscal year 2001 and 2002 base funding
        Question. Please provide the fiscal year 2002 base funding and
    staff year levels for each of the activities listed above, as compared
    to the fiscal year 2001 level.
        Answer. I would be happy to provide the requested base funding
    levels for each of the above activities in fiscal year 2001 and fiscal
    year 2002.
        [The information follows:]

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Estimated fiscal year 2001      Requested fiscal year 2002
                      Activity \1\                   ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Amount            FTE           Amount            FTE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Internet drug sales.............................           $10.6              90           $10.9              90
    Counter-bioterrorism activities.................             7.0              46             7.4              46
    Imports and Inspections.........................           341.8           3,143           366.8           3,238
    Food safety.....................................           335.9           2,588           350.6           2,655
    Dietary supplements.............................             5.9              46             6.9              50
    Orphan product grants...........................            12.5  ..............            12.5  ..............
    Office of Generic Drugs.........................            15.4             143            16.1             143
    Premarket review \2\............................           560.6           4,411           587.2           4,429
    Adverse events reporting........................            48.0             268            58.0            303
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Several of these activities are cross-cutting.
    \2\ Premarket review accounts for all premarket-related activities.

                 cost of relocating to the new fda headquarters
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests an additional $6
    million to equip and occupy a new laboratory for the Center for Drug
    Evaluation and Research as part of the agency's long-range move a
    consolidated headquarters in Maryland. Please identify each of the
    costs, by fiscal year, associated with FDA long-range move to its
    consolidated headquarters.
        Answer. FDA is currently in the process of developing long-range
    estimates of expenses associated with the move to the new consolidated
    headquarters in Maryland. The fiscal year 2002 Budget includes $9
    million in GSA funding for additional planning for the consolidated
    facilities at White Oak. We will have a better idea of long-range
    estimates for the move to consolidated facilities in White Oak after
    the completion of the fiscal year 2003 Budget process.
                          financial management system
        Question. The fiscal year 2002 budget requests an increase of $8.3
    million to allow FDA to begin the development of an advanced financial
    management system as part of the Department of Health and Human
    Services' effort to replace its existing systems. Does the $8.3 million
    requested represent the full cost of ``developing'' this system?
        Answer. The Joint Financial Management Improvement Program, JFMIP,
    guidelines require that FDA purchase an off-the-shelf financial system
    that is fully developed. In addition to purchasing the software, FDA
    will need to acquire the computer hardware, perform training for staff,
    develop various interfaces to other HHS systems such as payroll,
    develop a security plan for the new system, perform data conversion and
    migration from the old systems and acquire contractor support to assist
    FDA in the implementation. The fiscal year 2002 Budget request of $8.3
    million will begin initial acquisition and implementation of the new
    financial management system. Funding to complete the project will be
    requested in subsequent fiscal years.
        Question. What is the total cost of this effort? Please identify
    the investment which will be required in each future fiscal year.
        Answer. Estimates of future funding requests for the cost of the
    new financial management system are currently under development.
    Funding to complete the project will be requested in subsequent fiscal
    years.
        Question. Is FDA's investment contingent on the funding provided to
    other Department of Health and Human Services' agencies for this new
    system?
        Answer. No. FDA's investment is not contingent on the funding of
    other HHS agencies. However, FDA is working in cooperation with HHS and
    other agencies in the selection and implementation of the FDA's new
    financial system in order that HHS has a unified and/or integrated
    financial system.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond

                      use of single rh use medical devices
        Single use medical devices devices designed--manufactured and FDA
    approved for use on one patient in one procedure--are misused every day
    in this country. Rather than being discarded after use in one patient,
    many of these devices are subjected to under-regulated and inadequate
    cleaning procedures and are then used on other patients. Single use
    medical devices are bound to fail and compromise patient safety when
    stretched beyond the limits of their design by reprocessing. Such
    medical device misuse has already led to serious health quality issues
    including blindness, thermal burns, infections, and heart
    complications. Each of these medical errors was preventable. Had the
    disposable medical devices used on these patients been discarded after
    their first use, these injuries would not have occurred.
        Despite its review of numerous scientific studies demonstrating the
    serious risks associated with reprocessing, including several studies
    conducted by the Agency itself, FDA has failed to meaningfully enforce
    key patient safety provisions of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
    (FFDCA) and, as a result, has failed to prevent foreseeable medical
    errors. In response to substantial Congressional and public pressure
    (including an August 2000 Senate Labor Committee hearing, and a
    February 2000 House Commerce Committee oversight hearing), FDA has
    recently published enforcement guidance on the regulation of single use
    device reprocessing. This guidance, while a step in the right
    direction, continues to permit the use of many unsafe reprocessed
    devices on American patients for example, the reuse of biopsy forceps
    (devices inserted into the body and through the colon to obtain tissue
    samples) developed and approved by FDA for single use only continues to
    go unregulated. To ensure patient safety, FDA must fully enforce both
    the letter and spirit of the law.
        Question. Dr. Schwetz, can you please comment on FDA's progress in
    implementing its strategy to regulate the practice of reprocessing and
    reusing medical devices that are labeled and approved by FDA for single
    use only?
        Answer. On August 14, 2000, FDA issued a guidance document entitled
    Enforcement Priorities for Single-Use Devices Reprocessed by Third
    Parties and Hospitals. This guidance finalizes FDA's policy on how it
    intends to regulate entities that reprocess single-use devices for
    reuse and sets forth the Agency's priorities for enforcing these
    requirements.
        On February 14, 2001, FDA began enforcing premarket submission
    requirements for all Class III single-use devices that are reused.
    Beginning on August 14, 2001, FDA intends to enforce premarket
    submission requirements for all non-exempt Class II devices. Beginning
    on February 14, 2002, FDA intends to enforce premarket submission
    requirements for all non-exempt Class I single-use devices that are
    reused.
        In addition to the premarket requirements, third party reprocessors
    have always been subject to Agency requirements for: Registration and
    Device Listing; Medical Device Reporting; Medical Device Tracking;
    Medical Device Corrections and Removals; Quality System Regulation; and
    Labeling. Beginning on August 14, 2001, FDA intends to enforce these
    requirements for all hospitals that reprocess single use devices.
        FDA is conducting extensive outreach to inform entities, such as
    hospitals, of the Agency's reuse policy. We have met many times with
    third party reprocessors and other interested parties to discuss this
    policy. On December 13, 2000, the Agency sponsored an interactive
    satellite teleconference entitled Reprocessing Single-Use Devices in
    Hospitals: A Primer on FDA Requirements. One of the main purposes of
    the teleconference was to describe FDA's regulatory requirements in
    plain language for hospital reprocessors. Examples of what the Agency
    has done in the past year to implement the reuse policy are provided
    for the record.
        [The information follows:]
    Agency Examples of Reuse Policy
        Pilot training program to inspect hospital reprocessors.--We have
    developed a 2-day pilot program to train a cadre of experienced FDA
    field investigators to inspect hospitals that reprocess single-use
    devices. This pilot program will form the basis for the formal training
    program that is scheduled for fall 2001 for 40 to 50 FDA investigators.
        --Pilot GMP inspection program for hospital reprocessors.--We have
    developed a pilot Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) inspection program
    for hospitals that reprocess single-use devices. The primary purpose of
    the pilot inspection is to provide hospital inspection training for FDA
    field investigators. Hospitals also may benefit because they will be
    given feedback on their facility's current ``state of compliance'' with
    FDA's requirements for device manufacturers. The Agency issued a letter
    seeking volunteers from the hospital community. Among the organizations
    that were invited to participate are the American Hospital Association,
    the Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations,
    ECRI (a technology assessment firm that services thousands of hospital
    clients), and the International Association of Healthcare Central
    Service Material Management. We are waiting for responses. We expect to
    begin a regular inspection program in October 2001 and will use
    information from FDA's registration and listing database to schedule
    these inspections.
        Federal Register notice on proposed voluntary survey of
    hospitals.--On April 30, 2001, FDA published a notice in the Federal
    Register seeking public comment on the Agency's proposed voluntary
    survey of hospitals to collect information on the extent and nature of
    current practice of reprocessing single-use devices in these
    institutions. The notice has a 60-day comment period.
        Letter to hospitals on FDA's reuse policy.--We issued a second
    letter, the first letter was mailed in fall 2000, to U.S. hospitals
    reminding them of the Agency's intent to actively regulate hospitals
    that reprocess single-use devices as manufacturers. The letter also
    provided a timetable of when we intend to begin enforcing the
    requirements and informed hospitals of regulatory actions that we may
    take against non-compliant hospitals.
        Guidance on reporting adverse events as device manufacturers.--FDA
    issued a document entitled ``Guidance on Adverse Event Reporting for
    Hospitals that Reprocess Devices Intended by the Original Equipment
    Manufacturer for Single Use.'' This guidance document describes the
    Medical Device Reporting, MDR, requirements for hospital reprocessors
    of single-use devices and provides guidance on how to complete the
    Mandatory MedWatch report form 3500A as device manufacturers.
        Premarket applications for reprocessed single-use devices.--In
    keeping with the enforcement timetable FDA established in its guidance,
    on February 14, 2001, the Agency received several premarket
    applications, PMAs, from third party reprocessors to reprocess cardiac
    ablation catheters, devices are used to treat certain cardiac
    conditions. The applications are currently undergoing review. We
    anticipate rendering final decisions on the applications by August 14,
    2001.
        Inspections of third party reprocessors.--The Agency is on schedule
    in its efforts to inspect all third party reprocessors in the U.S. this
    year. The main focus of these inspections will be manufacturing/
    reprocessing controls that are required to be in place in accordance
    with FDA's Quality System Regulation. We intend to pursue enforcement
    action, as appropriate, against any reprocessor that continues to
    distribute reprocessed Class III devices that are not the subject of a
    pending or approved premarket application.
        Outreach program.--We continue to support an extensive outreach
    program to inform hospitals and health care providers of the Agency's
    reuse policy. For example, in the past year the Agency accepted over 25
    invitations to speak at professional association meetings on the
    Agency's reuse policy. FDA also sponsored two 2-day workshops for
    hospital and third party reprocessors on FDA's reuse policy in May
    2001.
        Meetings with single-use device reprocessors.--FDA has held
    numerous meetings with representatives of reprocessing companies to
    discuss premarket requirements for used single-use devices.
        Question. There is one category of products in particular that
    generated the Senate's interest in this issue--specifically the reuse
    of biopsy forceps. In FDA's original guidance, the Agency classified
    the reuse of these products as ``high risk'' because of concerns that
    they could not be adequately reprocessed without significant risk to
    patients for infections, and significant concerns with respect to the
    effectiveness of the products after multiple uses. What specific steps
    has FDA taken to ensure that the public is being protected from the
    reuse of biopsy forceps? Since the Agency has stated that the reuse of
    biopsy forceps is a ``high risk,'' why hasn't FDA required premarket
    submissions to ensure that reprocessed forceps are in fact safe for
    patients?
        Answer. In accordance with the device classification scheme
    established in section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
    non-electric biopsy forceps intended for use in gastrological and
    urological procedures are classified as class I devices, per 21 CFR
    Sec. 876.1075(b)(2). As such, they are subject to a wide range of
    general controls designed to ensure safety and effectiveness, including
    registration, listing, medical device reporting, tracking, corrections
    and removals, quality systems, and labeling. All manufacturers,
    including reprocessors, are subject to these requirements, which can be
    enforced through warning letters, seizures, injunctions, civil money
    penalties, recalls, and even criminal prosecutions. FDA's August 22,
    2000 guidance document entitled Enforcement Priorities for Single-Use
    Devices Reprocessed by Third Parties and Hospitals, reemphasized that,
    like other manufacturers, third party reprocessors are subject to these
    requirements, and announced FDA's intent to phase in over one year
    active enforcement of these general controls for hospital reprocessors,
    against whom FDA has not historically pursued active enforcement. In
    accordance with these legal authorities, FDA has inspected a major
    third-party reprocessor of non-electric biopsy forceps and is working
    to resolve problems found in its cleaning and sterilization processes.
    FDA will inspect all third-party reprocessors this fiscal year. FDA is
    and has been committed to enforcing the statutory safeguards to
    minimize potential risk. At this time, we are not aware of any data
    that link the reprocessing of non-electric biopsy forceps to specific
    adverse events in patients.
        Non-electric biopsy forceps, like the majority of class I devices,
    are exempt from the premarket notification requirements of section
    510(k) of the act, subject to the limitations in 21 CFR Sec. 876.9. FDA
    is currently considering a citizen's petition requesting the Agency to
    amend its regulation so as to limit the exemption to forceps that are
    produced by an original equipment manufacturer for single use or are
    originally labeled and designed for multiple uses. We are presently
    considering the petition. Among the factors we will consider are the
    risks presented by the device, and what regulatory controls will most
    appropriately ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device.
                                 pma statistics
        Question. According to FDA's enforcement guidance for single use
    device reprocessing, reprocessors were required to submit PMAs for
    Class III devices by February 14, 2001. How many reprocessor PMAs has
    FDA received? How many were considered sufficiently complete to proceed
    to substantive review? What devices are covered by those PMAs? Has FDA
    approved any reprocessor PMAs?
        Answer. As of May 24, 2001, the Center for Devices and Radiological
    Health, CDRH has received five PMAs for reprocessed devices. All five
    PMAs were for Cardiac Ablation Catheters. Four of these five PMAs were
    filed. One of the four PMAs is under review and we have asked questions
    of the other three applicants and are waiting on that additional
    information. None has been approved at this time.
                               enforcement issues
        Question. Now that the premarket enforcement period for single use
    device reprocessing has begun, what activity has FDA undertaken to find
    and stop the reprocessing of Class III devices absent a filed PMA?
        Answer. FDA intends to inspect all third-party reprocessors this
    fiscal year. A multi-district assignment issued on December 21, 2000
    identified eight firms to be inspected. A second multi- district
    assignment to inspect additional firms will be issued shortly.
        FDA will begin inspecting hospitals after August 14, 2001, to
    evaluate their compliance with premarket submission requirements and
    the requirements of the Quality System regulation.
        Several PMAs have been received from third-party reprocessors, and
    reviews are underway. One PMA was not filed because it did not meet our
    threshold review requirements. We notified the firm whose PMA was not
    filed that it cannot legally introduce these devices into interstate
    commerce until such time as they are the subject of an approved PMA or
    an approved investigational device exemption application and that
    marketing these devices without such approvals could result in
    enforcement action.
                               reviewer guidance
        Question. According to the enforcement guidance on single use
    device reprocessing, reprocessor PMA's for Class III devices were to
    have been filed by February 14, 2001. I understand that FDA's planned
    guidance document for reviewers and industry regarding the unique
    features that must be included in a reprocessor 510(k)/PMA has been
    delayed. When will the guidance be issued? In the absence of the
    guidance document, what standards are FDA reviewers using to review
    reprocessor PMA's.
        Answer. The draft guidance document for reviewers and industry was
    posted on the CDRH web site on May 24, 2001. Although FDA is giving the
    public 90 days to comment on the draft, the guidance reflects current
    policies and recommendations on premarket regulatory and technical
    issues. The overriding principle of the guidance is that FDA intends to
    treat OEMs and reprocessors in the same way with respect to meeting
    premarket requirements. Most of the standards and guidance documents
    referred to in the draft guidance are already available to FDA
    reviewers and the public through FDA's Reuse Web Site.
                               approval standard
        Question. FDA has been accused of lowering the data standard for
    medical devices entering the U.S. market so that reprocessing of single
    use devices can continue. My understanding is that the legal minimum
    for 510(k) clearance of a device is that the device be at least as safe
    and effective as a legally marketed device. With respect to reprocessed
    single use devices, my understanding is that FDA has declared that
    these devices should be ``as safe and effective as possible.'' Has the
    FDA established two different standards? If so, why?
        Answer. FDA has not changed the review standard for a 510(k)
    clearance. Devices cleared for market through the premarket
    notification 510(k) process must be as safe and effective as a legally
    marketed device. There are no additional regulatory requirements for
    reprocessed single use devices, or SUD, submissions, nor are there
    special allowances for these submissions.
                                     ______

                    Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl

                     research/regulatory funding priorities
        Question. As I'm sure you are aware, the President's fiscal year
    2002 budget requests an increase of $2.75 billion, or 13.5 percent, for
    the National Institutes of Health. This is the fourth installment of a
    five-year plan to double the NIH budget. Private pharmaceutical
    companies invested nearly $50 billion in research and development in
    fiscal year 2001, and the trend continues to rise. As the Agency
    charged with reviewing these new products to determine whether they are
    safe for public consumption and use, you have and will continue to face
    great pressure to work expeditiously, making new and improved drugs and
    medical devices available to the public as quickly as possible.
         In view of the FDA budget request, do the substantial increases in
    funds for basic research conflict with the government's ability to
    approve the products that will result from that research in a timely
    manner?
        Answer. As new products are generated by the academic and industry
    research, fueled by NIH, they must be evaluated by FDA staff with the
    scientific expertise to assess their benefits and risks. We want to
    ensure that FDA will not become a bottleneck in getting safe and
    effective products and therapies to the public. The number and
    complexity of products and issues coming before FDA demand that the
    agency have the very best scientific capability to evaluate them. FDA
    must have a critical mass of top-notch scientific and medical expertise
    to assess these products and answer new questions.
        Question. Do you work with the NIH to streamline the process
    between the development of new drugs and your responsibility to approve
    and monitor them?
        Answer. We frequently discuss preclinical toxicology requirements,
    general concepts of clinical development plan design, and new endpoints
    pertinent to new classes of drugs with various institutes at NIH.
        Question. Please summarize the actions being taken to ensure that
    FDA will be prepared when all of the R&D research pays off.
        Answer. Although we are aware that there is an increase in research
    and development for new drugs that may lead to new technologies, it is
    difficult to predict the submission rates for new drug applications.
    However, we continue to streamline our process to meet our review goals
    as we have in the past. FDA has been actively working on streamlining
    our internal policies and procedures by moving to a paperless
    environment. Examples of some of our accomplishments are provided for
    the record.
        [The information follows:]
        Expanded the Electronic Document Room to manage the receipt and
    handling of full electronic new drug applications. Slightly over 50
    percent of original new drug applications received in CDER now include
    sections that are submitted electronically. In fiscal year 2000, CDER
    received over 500 electronic submissions, including full new drug
    applications, supplemental new drug applications, and amendments. There
    has been a 50 percent decrease in the average number of paper volumes
    per new drug application submission since the start of electronic
    submissions in 1997.
        Drafted guidance on Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic
    Format--Abrieviated New Drug Applications, ANDA. Developed software to
    convert proprietary formats to XML so submissions can be archived.
        Published final guidance Providing Regulatory Submissions in
    Electronic Format--Prescription Drug Advertising and Promotional
    Labeling in January 2001.
        Drafting guidances on Providing Regulatory Submissions in
    Electronic Format--Postmarketing Expedited Safety Reports; Providing
    Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Annual reports; Providing
    Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--IND and Providing
    Regulatory Submissions in Electronic Format--Annual reports.
        Drafting guidance on Providing Regulatory Submissions in Electronic
    Format--Drug Registration and Listing. This project involves the
    collection of information using a web-based system. In addition, a
    proposed rule is being drafted that would require the submission of
    this information in electronic format.
        Finalizing a proposed rule that would require sponsors to submit
    certain labeling content electronically to the Agency for review.
    Interested parties will have an opportunity to comment.
        Receiving electronic postmarketing adverse event reports under a
    pilot submission program. A number of sponsors have successfully sent
    reports electronically that have been directly transferred to a
    database. The agency is also preparing regulations to require all
    adverse event reports from industry to be submitted electronically.
                               import inspections
        Question. Global trade has more than tripled the number of
    shipments of FDA regulated imports from about 1.5 million in 1992 to
    six million in 2000. However, according to your own reports, FDA only
    has the ability to sample less than one percent of all regulated
    products offered for imports.
        How many products should be inspected for it to be an acceptable
    amount?
        Answer. The Agency is currently in the process of determining the
    amount of samples necessary in various product categories to determine
    whether we have a sufficient and acceptable statistical sample of
    products. The estimates will include: a range of the estimated number
    of products, assumptions in predicting the number of anticipated
    products being imported into the U.S., and caveats that indicate what
    types of uncertainties or changes would alter the estimates.
        Question. How much money would be necessary to ensure this is
    possible?
        Answer. Once FDA calculates an estimated number of samples
    necessary to determine whether it has a sufficient and acceptable
    statistical sample of imported products, the Agency will then attempt
    to determine the additional cost to the existing import program. The
    estimates will include: a range of the estimated estimated resources,
    assumptions in determining the cost estimate, and caveats that indicate
    what types of uncertainties or changes would alter the estimates.
                                mad cow disease
        Question. As I'm sure you know, over the past several years, ``mad
    cow disease'' has infected more than 180,000 cattle in Europe and parts
    of Asia. With animal diseases such as this occurring, it seems that
    sampling less than one percent of all imports leaves a large gap
    through which BSE infected animal feed or other products could enter
    the U.S.
        While I applaud FDA for its increased investment in preventing BSE
    from entering the United States, what is being done to prevent BSE from
    entering the United States via banned animal protein that has been
    diverted from its originating country to a third-party country we do
    not currently consider a threat?
        Answer. The regulations governing products of animal origin which
    pose a risk of harboring disease agents are primarily enforced by the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA. In cooperation with USDA, FDA has
    directed its field personnel to be alert to the potential importation
    of BSE material and to provide entry notification to local USDA
    officials. If a product moves from its country of origin, through a
    second country and is relabeled as a product of the second country,
    without any processing occurring in the second country, that is a
    violation of U.S. Customs Country of Origin rules. If the product is
    processed in the second country, not only is it proper to be declared
    as a product of the second country, but generally speaking, U.S.
    Customs Service regulations require such a declaration.
        FDA is currently developing a proposed rule to amend FDA
    regulations to prohibit the use of materials derived from ruminant
    animals in FDA regulated products. The proposed prohibition will apply
    to the use of materials derived from ruminant animals born, raised, or
    slaughtered in certain countries and to the use of materials that have
    been processed or manufactured in a facility where materials derived
    from ruminant animals born, raised, or slaughtered in certain countries
    are also processed or manufactured. The proposed rule will require
    manufacturers of drugs and biological products for human and animal use
    and medical devices, to certify regarding the use of materials derived
    from ruminant animals in the manufacture of their products.
        Question. Is FDA currently working to identify any third-party
    countries that may be importing materials containing BSE received from
    a prohibited country?
        Answer. FDA has not identified any specific third party countries
    that may be importing materials containing BSE received from a
    prohibited country at this time. Currently, efforts have focused on
    products from the BSE affected or at-risk countries identified by U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's Animal Plant Health Inspection Service,
    APHIS. Should FDA become aware of such practices, we may consider
    expanding current import alerts and bulletins dealing with BSE to these
    countries or firms in other countries as well.
        The FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, OCI, is on the record
    with written communication exchanged with the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation, FBI, U.S. Customs Service, Interpol, and the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, Office of the Inspector General, requesting
    immediate notification of any information received suggesting
    prohibited BSE ruminant material may make its way into U.S. commerce by
    any means. OCI is an active participant in the USDA law enforcement
    working group on foreign animal diseases. OCI is also an active member
    of the Permanent Forum on International Pharmaceutical Crime, PFIPC.
    Some of the European members of PFIPC have responsibilities extending
    to foods and are heavily involved in BSE issues at this time. They have
    been asked to advise OCI immediately on receipt of any information
    indicating contaminated material may be finding its way to the U,S. OCI
    provides follow up on any allegations of a criminal nature. Plans are
    underway to obtain direct access to classified channels of
    communication to augment our other sources.
        Question. If not, are there plans to do so? If so, what
    communications are taking place to ensure these products do not enter
    the U.S. market?
        Answer. FDA has been communicating extensively with the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, USDA, the Food Safety Inspection Service,
    FSIS, the Department of Defense, DOD and the Animal Plant and Health
    Inspection Service, APHIS, regarding BSE issues. On March 12, 2001 a
    meeting was held with USDA, FDA, and the Center for Disease Control,
    CDC. One of issues discussed regarding imports was third country
    movements. Most, if not all countries, have recognized the threat from
    bovine materials contaminated with the BSE agent and have instituted
    import restrictions. Coupled with the extraordinary actions taken by
    the European Union, EU to identify and destroy BSE-contaminated
    animals, the importation and transhipment of contaminated products
    while still a risk, is a low one.
        FDA has issued import alerts and bulletins to review all bulk and
    finished products that contain bovine risk material from BSE-identified
    countries and to refer those imports to APHIS for disposition and
    prevent them from entering the U.S.
        No warning letters have been issued in connection with possible
    shipments of ruminant material from BSE at-risk countries. When FDA
    determines that a product offered for import into the U.S. appears to
    be adulterated or misbranded the usual course of action is Refusal of
    Admission per section 801 of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, rather
    than issuance of a Warning Letter. In the case of products with the
    potential for BSE contamination for which both agencies have
    jurisdiction, FDA's cooperative enforcement program with APHIS calls
    for FDA to back-up APHIS's initial manifest review, and to coordinate
    regulatory action with APHIS on any products which may contain ruminant
    material from BSE at-risk countries. To date, no such refusals have
    been issued.
                              fda staffing levels
        Question. I mentioned earlier that over the past eight years, FDA
    has had to absorb $284 million for mandatory cost-of-living and pay-
    related increases for FDA employees. This has resulted in a ten percent
    decrease in staffing levels in program areas not funded by user fees.
        Please describe to this Subcommittee the effect this shortage of
    funds has had on FDA's ability to fulfill its mission, and give
    specific examples.
        Answer. In order to fulfill our mission, we need a workforce able
    to meet our needs in any given situation. The Agency has acheived
    efficiencies by reducing non-payroll operating costs as much as
    possible, limiting travel, supplies, and equipment. The Agency has also
    reduced extramural research and methods development projects. From
    fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2000, non user-fee full time
    employees have declined from about 8,800 to 7,900.
        Question. Will the $40 million increase in the President's budget
    to help pay for cost-of-living increases allow FDA to replace any of
    the staff it has lost over the past decade?
        Answer. Since 1993 the Agency has lost 1,000 non-user fee
    positions. These will not be recovered with this pay increase. The $40
    million will, however, allow FDA to maintain the same staffing levels
    in fiscal year 2002 as fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How much money is necessary to bring staffing levels up
    to an amount that enables FDA to reach its peak performance, especially
    in light of the increases in applications to come?
        Answer. The Agency is currently in the process of developing long-
    range estimates for resource needs associated with closing the gap
    between current performance and meeting statutory requirements as well
    as other high priority areas at the Agency where FDA is not reaching
    peak performance. The estimates will include: a range of estimated
    resources, assumptions in determining the estimate, and caveats that
    indicate what types of uncertainties or changes would alter the
    estimates.
        Question. To what extent does the number of FDA personnel
    approaching retirement age pose a threat to the agency's ability to
    continue its mission?
        Answer. The FDA is facing a challenging pattern of workforce change
    and turnover. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management, OPM projects
    that about 293,000 full-time, executive branch employees, or19.2
    percent of the civil service workforce will retire through 2005. FDA's
    recent workforce planning report indicates more than 30 percent of
    agency personnel will be retirement eligible by December 2005. The
    percentages for chemists, almost 40 percent, and consumer safety
    officers, 35 percent, are significant. FDA has been working for the
    last year and a half on developing a strategic workforce plan that
    addresses how to fill the void resulting from anticipated retirements
    through succession planning, development of leadership skills, and
    recruitment of critical occupations. Provided for the record is a
    graphic of this information.
        [The information follows:]

        Question. How is FDA conducting recruitment to attract new
    employees?
        Answer. In March 2000 FDA formed a Recruiting Council comprised of
    representatives from all FDA centers and offices. The council members
    have been provided training on recruiting and pay incentives such as,
    Recruitment, Retention, and Relocation bonus incentives; Student Loan
    Repayment Program; Special Salary Rates; hiring at above-the-minimum-
    rate; and many other pay benefits. They have also been trained on all
    aspects of benefits and in Quality of Work Life issues such as
    flexiplace, flexible tours of duty, transit subsidy and childcare
    subsidy. Special training has been provided for appointing authorities
    in Titles 5, 38, and 42, including Special Appointing Authorities,
    Career Intern Appointing Authorities, Presidential Management Intern
    authorities, and many other topics. They have also been given Diversity
    Recruiting Training. On-line job fairs have been initiated. Attendance
    at local job fairs has been shared and resources utilized well. In
    addition, the Council consolidates advertising and recruitment efforts
    to maximize opportunities for the FDA. As a result, the agency is
    hiring more well-qualified employees. In addition FDA plans to develop
    a resume database of employees and external experts in key skill areas,
    including those who are available on a part time, temporary, or
    contract basis. A list of other FDA plans is provided for the record.
        [The information follows]
    Other FDA Plans for Hiring Staff
        Utilize internships as a way to introduce new ideas and
    perspectives;
        Expand and further promote developmental opportunities and
    incentives such as tuition reimbursement and payment of college loans;
        Create an emergency preparedness staffing model to fund special
    recruiting efforts;
        Adopt a ``life event'' recruiting strategy, focusing on attracting
    potential employees during natural transitions, such as recent college
    graduates and private sector retirees, and,
        Develop innovative ways to speed up the FDA hiring and decision-
    making process.
        Question. Are there any FDA employment policies, such as mandatory
    weekend employment, that might serve as discouragement to new
    employees?
        Answer. No, there are currently no policies of this type. We are
    very employee oriented in FDA and have developed many family friendly
    policies designed to help employees balance work and home life. We
    believe these policies encourage employees to work at FDA. However,
    there are some job requirements that may result in changes to our work
    policies in the future. For example, fresh seafood and produce are
    entering our major ports 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. The agency's
    responsibility to the public is to accomplish inspections that ensure a
    healthy food supply while handling perishable products as quickly as
    possible. Unnecessary delays resulting from the inspection process
    would impede commercial distribution and add to deterioration of
    perishables or other possible health hazards. Our goal, to the extent
    of our resource limitations, is to protect the public health while not
    impeding commerce and distribution of products throughout the U.S. To
    accomplish this goal we need the availability of laboratory staffs to
    receive and analyze samples. Since these imports arrive on a 24/7
    schedule we are required to have a corresponding presence at import
    sites similar to U.S. Customs Service and USDA. We have been able to
    partially cover these requirements by asking for volunteers and paying
    overtime for the work. Unfortunately, the need for this type of
    coverage will grow. We will no longer be able to provide overtime. In
    those situations we may have to extend the workweek and include weekend
    and/or evening work schedules. We are currently discussing extending
    the workweek hours to address this growing operational need with the
    National Treasury Employees Union.
                           milk protein concentrates
        Question. As you know, I along with other Members of Congress last
    year requested the General Accounting Office to do an investigation and
    provide a report to Congress on the issue of milk protein concentrate
    importation and use in this country. One of the things highlighted by
    that report was the degree to which FDA is not enforcing the current
    standards of identity for cheese. This is very troubling to me and begs
    the question of what other regulations FDA is choosing not to enforce.
        First, is this a question of having adequate resources or are you
    making a policy decision to ignore these standards.
        Answer. FDA does not focus resources specifically on illegal use of
    Milk Protein Concentrates, MPC's. Use of MPC's would be dealt with
    during routine firm inspections under one of the compliance programs
    covering food composition, standards, labeling, or economics. Current
    priorities are focused on food safety. The use of MPC's in cheese is a
    labeling and composition matter that is not a high priority unless it
    could be linked to food safety. FDA devotes about one FTE to cheese
    standards of identity.
        Question. Can you tell this Subcommittee to what extend you are
    currently inspecting plants for illegal use of MPC? What are you
    findings?
        Answer. FDA does not focus resources specifically on illegal use of
    MPC's. Use of MPC's would be dealt with during routine firm inspections
    under one of the compliance programs covering food composition,
    standards, labeling or economics.
        Question. What plans do you have to adequately enforce these
    important standards?
        Answer. FDA is presently considering whether further resources
    might be devoted to ascertaining whether domestic or imported MPC's are
    being used in the manufacture of standardized products where such usage
    would not be permitted by the appropriate standards. However, use of
    MPC's is not considered a food safety issue. FDA resources currently
    focus on firms that manufacture products at high risk of contamination
    with foodborne pathogens.
                               prescription drugs
        Question. Please summarize the type of activities FDA is engaging
    in, such as accelerating the approval of generic drugs, to contain the
    costs of prescription drugs.
        Answer. We continue to refine the review process to increase
    efficiency. We are able to accept more electronic submissions to
    streamline the review process. The number of new staff hired in the
    last fiscal year are now fully trained and are demonstrating high
    levels of productivity. We continue to examine every aspect of the
    review process to try to identify problem areas to be addressed. We
    also plan to revise the current system for amendment designation, major
    versus minor, to improve total review times. While FDA does not have
    the responsibility to contain costs of drugs, we are doing everything
    to get generics to the market quicker. Other changes are also being
    explored.
                              combination products
        Question. It is suggested that many developing products will fall
    into this category, which are products that are both a device and a
    drug or biologic.
        Does FDA have a process in place for timely review of these
    applications?
        Answer. Yes, FDA does have processes in place for the timely review
    of product applications for combination products.
        Question. How do the various centers coordinate review of these
    products?
        Answer. There are intercenter agreements for determining which
    Center has primary jurisdiction over particular types of combination
    products. For example, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and
    Research, CBER, has a number of standard operating procedures and
    policies, SOPPs, pertaining to various aspects of combination-product
    license applications processing. The SOPP subjects range from the
    administrative processing of license applications to the review and
    issuance of license-application action letters. One of CBER's SOPP's
    outlines the procedures for interoffice license application review
    consultation. The procedures outlined in that SOPP apply to intercenter
    consultation of combination-product license applications.
                         premarket application reviews
        Question. What level of resources would be needed for FDA to meet
    statutory deadlines for third party review for premarket applications?
        Answer. FDA expects to expend the same level of funding in fiscal
    year 2002 as in fiscal year 2001 for third party review reviews of
    medical devices, plus corresponding pay increases in fiscal year 2002
    associated with this function. The Agency is currently in the process
    of developing long range estimates for resource needs associated with
    medical device reviews. The estimates will include a range of estimated
    resources, assumptions in predicting the number of third party reviews,
    and caveats that indicate what types of uncertainties or changes would
    alter the estimates.
        FDA is working with the medical device industry to increase
    industry's use of third parties to review premarket applications for
    low to moderate-risk devices. FDA has accredited twelve third parties,
    seven of which have reviewed three or more 510(k)s. The program now has
    674 eligible devices. This represents a 300 percent increase in the
    number of eligible devices, and includes all Class I and Class II
    devices regulated by the Agency that meet the statutory criteria for
    review by Accredited Persons. In fiscal year 2000, FDA received 47
    510(k)s with a third-party review compared to 32 510(k)s received in
    fiscal year 1999. This increase represents only 3 to 4 percent of
    510(k)s that were eligible for review. FDA anticipates that the
    expansion will generate wider use of the third party review program in
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Is FDA contracting out the review of applications?
        Answer. When funding levels and circumstances permit, FDA uses its
    authority to contract with outside technical expertise when such
    expertise was needed. For example, in fiscal year 2000, FDA hired 70
    Special Government Employees to participate on the medical devices
    advisory committees. FDA has also contracted with the Oak Ridge
    Institute for Science and Education fellowship program to recruit
    experts to participate in reviews. FDA continues to contract with other
    experts when the need arises.
                            import user fee proposal
        Question. Would the import user fee proposal affect the ability of
    U.S. device manufacturers to have ready access to bulk supplies and
    biomaterials procured from foreign sources? To what extent?
        Answer. No, the import user fee will not affect the ability of U.S.
    device manufacturers to have ready access to bulk supplies and
    biomaterials procured from foreign sources.
                              white oak relocation
        Question. Was a cost comparison conducted to determine if FDA space
    could be located from the private sector at a lower cost than through
    GSA?
        Answer. The General Services Administration, GSA, prepared a report
    to the House Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous
    Materials and Pipeline Transportation Subcommittee. The report provided
    background information on the project as well as a comparison between
    the cost of leasing to the cost of government construction. Over a 30-
    year period the analysis shows a cost advantage for Government
    construction. For FDA, however, there are other benefits to capital
    funding for government construction.
        A large portion of the Agency's space is constructed as laboratory
    space. As highly specialized space, laboratories require significant
    investment in capital improvements to the space for scientific and
    life-safety purposes. The capital investment in the laboratory areas
    drives the cost of the space much higher than standard office space.
    Because of this additional investment in the space the longer the
    government stays in its space the more cost effective it becomes.
    Competition in contracting requires that the Government recompete its
    leases periodically and this can result in the relocation from its
    facilities before its investment is fully amortized.
        In addition, administrative budget guidelines calls for up front
    scoring of major lease acquisitions. The high cost of laboratory space
    would result in a lease that would score as capital authority. In the
    past the Office of Management and Budget has not approved capital lease
    authority, because it results in the government essentially paying for
    assets through a lease.
        Question. What are the conditions of current FDA locations that
    would be relocated to White Oak?
        Answer. FDA Headquarters is located in 40 buildings in 18
    locations. While the Agency has managed to improve the quality of many
    of its offices, its laboratories are still in need of improvement. The
    Centers to be located in Prince George's County are effectively
    consolidated or construction is underway to replace their laboratories.
    Of the remaining Centers to be located in Montgomery County, CBER
    laboratories are housed on the National Institutes of Health campus and
    a private sector leased building and CDRH laboratories are located in
    approximately five buildings that are closely grouped in the Parklawn
    building vicinity. For the record I will provide the problems with
    these buildings.
        [The information follows:]
    Flexibility
        Lab buildings, with the exception of MOD 1 in the Beltsville/Laurel
    facility, are unable to respond quickly or economically to changing
    programs/priorities or scientific/technical changes.
        Modularity and a correspondingly flexible utility distribution
    network that permits maximum adaptability is non-existent in all older
    buildings.
        Mechanical and electrical systems in older buildings cannot
    accommodate increased demands posed by modern laboratory operations and
    provide no capacity or flexibility for future loads.
        Older buildings cannot be renovated or upgraded efficiently or
    economically.
    Health And Safety
        Overcrowding in laboratories present a definite safety hazard.
        Poor ventilation in several of the buildings presents potential
    health or safety problems and may jeopardize animal health and hence
    compromise experiments.
        Renovation of some buildings to bring them up to current codes and
    standards is not possible because of inherent design deficiencies.
    Health and Safety upgrades generally are constrained by building
    layouts that are not designed for FDA's complex, modern laboratory
    requirements.
    Quality of Environment
        Overcrowded conditions are a major detractor to a quality
    workplace.
        Location of buildings does not foster the proper opportunities for
    communication between colleagues or disciplines.
        HVAC systems in many lab buildings are marginal or totally
    inadequate, resulting in poor ventilation, inadequate filtration of
    incoming air and the short circuiting between building exhausts and air
    supply intakes.
                            antimicrobial resistance
        Question. Please provide an update on the activities of the
    National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System and include any
    observations regarding the problems of antimicrobial resistance and a
    public health issue as related both to animal drug use and human drug
    use.
        Answer. The National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System, or
    NARMS, monitors development of antimicrobial resistance of zoonotic
    enteric pathogens, or bacteria, from human and animal clinical
    specimens, healthy farm animals, and carcasses of food-producing
    animals at slaughter. Its purpose is to prospectively monitor the
    antimicrobial resistance of human, animal, and animal product isolates
    of selected enteric bacteria. Both human and animal isolates are tested
    since antimicrobial resistance is a food safety and human public health
    issue. The food safety hazard derives from the fact that if resistant
    enteric bacteria are present on the food, there is the possibility that
    people will become ill from those bacteria and any needed treatment may
    be difficult or protracted due to the resistance to selected
    antibiotic. The public health hazard derives from the misuse and
    overuse of antimicrobials leading to the emergence of drug-resistant
    bacterial strains. The continuing emergence of difficult to treat or
    untreatable secondary infections acquired in the hospital threaten the
    lives of hospitalized individuals and those with chronic conditions, as
    well as adding considerably to health care costs. The NARMS program is
    designed to identify trends over time in antimicrobial susceptibility
    and to identify areas for further investigation.
        NARMS is expanding greatly in fiscal year 2001. Improvements to
    NARMS will enhance FDA's ability to protect public health, as well as
    provide the animal drug industry a source of baseline data for pre-
    approval studies on resistance. Enhancements to NARMS include the
    addition of new sources and increased numbers of isolates, expansion of
    new veterinary sentinel sites to ten and inclusion of retail food
    samples to increase the geographic distribution of the samples. In
    addition, FoodNet sites and ten State public health laboratories
    participating in NARMS will also receive increased funding to submit
    isolates, and an additional nine Food Net sites will begin to
    participate in NARMS in late 2001. FoodNet is a surveillance system
    that provides a network for responding to new and emerging foodborne
    disease outbreaks of national importance, monitoring the burden of
    foodborne diseases, and identifying the sources of specific foodborne
    diseases.
        Each NARMS testing site will have the expertise of a molecular
    biologist to facilitate associated analytical microbiological research
    on the NARMS isolates, including molecular characterization. We also
    plan to expand the list of pathogens to be monitored by means of
    increased funding to the States and adding retail food sample
    collection. Moreover, the expansion and visibility of the NARMS program
    have increased both the demand for and the complexity of reporting
    results in a timely manner. To accommodate this demand, FDA has
    increased the resources provided to each testing site to facilitate
    efficient database management, increased frequency of reporting, and
    timely report generation. The expansion of NARMS has also identified
    the need to add a third testing site in order to handle the increased
    number of isolates. This requires that the exact same testing methods
    and isolate handling procedures be used as currently is done at the CDC
    and USDA facilitates. Because of this, FDA's Center for Veterinary
    Medicine, Office of Research microbiology facility has been selected to
    isolate, identify, and susceptibility test the retail food samples. In
    addition, in fiscal year 2002 we plan to expand the collection and
    testing of retail food, which began in fiscal year 2001 as a pilot
    project.
        FDA plans to enhance our collaboration with international
    surveillance sites. On the international side. FDA continues to support
    a similar system to NARMS in Mexico. In fiscal year 2000, FDA began a
    pilot study with Mexico on a moniatoring system for antimicrobial
    resistance in Salmonella. Preliminary findings from the pilot study
    indicate a moderate carriage rate of Salmonella among healthy children
    in Mexico, but the isolates tend to be sensitive to all antibiotics
    tested. Veterinary schools in three Mexican States desire to join the
    project. As a first step veterinarians are now in training at the
    hospitals to develop expertise in isolation and identification
    procedures. FDA is also supporting a World Health Organization training
    course on the surveillance of Salmonella and antimicrobial resistance
    in foodborne pathogens to be held July 2-13, 2001 in Merida, Mexico.
    Representatives from human and veterinary hospitals from 11 countries
    from Mexico, Central, and South America will receive training in
    standardized laboratory methods for the isolation, identification and
    antimicrobial susceptibility testing of foodborne Salmonella and the
    interpretation of results. The long-term objective of the course is to
    lay the foundation for participation in a regional laboratory network
    for the surveillance of foodborne disease and antimicrobial resistance
    in foodborne bacteria.
        NARMS data was used in the development of FDA's Campylobacter risk
    assessment as revised January 5, 2001. Based partly on the results of
    the Campylobacter risk assessment, FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine
    proposed to withdraw approval of the new animal drug application for
    use of the fluoroquinolone antimicrobial drug enrofloxacin in poultry.
    CVM has determined that the drug is not been shown to be safe under its
    approved conditions of use. The proposed withdrawal is based on several
    determinations. First, that the use of fluoroquinolones in poultry
    causes the development of fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter in
    poultry. Second, that this fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter is
    transferred to humans and is a significant cause of the development of
    fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections in humans. Finally,
    that fluoroquinolone-resistant Campylobacter infections are a hazard to
    human health.
                                consumer safety
        Question. Please provide an update on the activities of the Patient
    Safety Task Force and include incidents of suspected product adverse
    reactions and preventable medical errors.
        Answer. Preventable patient deaths and injuries associated with the
    use of medical products are an important public health concern. A
    summary of actions is provided for the record.
        The Final Summary of Food and Drug Administration Action Items:
    Doing What Counts for Patient Safety: Federal Actions to Reduce Medical
    Errors and Their Impact.exemplifies FDA's dedication to preventing
    patient harm and improving patient safety. For fiscal year 2000,
    approximately 275,000 suspected product adverse reactions were reported
    to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's, CDER's Adverse Events
    Reporting System, AERS. Of the 275,000, 2800 were reports of medication
    errors. Since 1994, CDER has received approximately 15,000 reports of
    medication errors. Approximately 50 percent of these reports were
    related to the naming, labeling and/or packaging of drug products.
    There is a 69 percent morbidity rate, including a 10 percent fatality
    rate associated with these preventable medication errors.
        [The information follows:]
    Patient Safety Task Force Activities
        National Summit on Drug Safety and Other National Meetings; Report
    to the Public on the Safety of Drugs, Devices, and Biologics; Expand
    Mandatory Reporting of Errors to All Registered Blood Establishments;
    Initiate Programs to Develop Additional Standards for Drug Names;
    Initiate Development of Packaging Standards to Prevent Dosing and Drug
    Mix-ups; Develop New Label Standards for Drugs to Address Errors
    Related to Medications; Implement Phase II of MeDSuN; Intensify Efforts
    to Ensure Manufacturers Follow Standards; Provide Access to Databases
    Linked to Healthcare Systems; Complete Online Adverse Drug Event
    Reporting System; Strengthen FDA's Analytic and Investigative Capacity;
    and, Strengthen FDA's Outreach Activities and Collaboration with
    Federal Agencies.
        Question. Please provide an update on activities related to the
    1988 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments.
        Answer. FDA has been responsible for determining the appropriate
    test complexity categorization of commercially-available test systems
    since January 2000, when this function was transferred to the agency
    from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. To date, we
    have completed more than 1,000 categorizations. These have included
    more than 150 waiver determinations. Waived tests are simple, and have
    an insignificant risk of an erroneous result. Although the vast
    majority of these waiver assignments have represented additions to
    waiver test categories already introduced by the CDC, several high
    profile new analytes have been waived, including two immunoassays for
    direct detection of influenza virus and a test for alanine amino
    transferase, or ALT.
        The agency has sponsored a public workshop seeking input on the
    waiver process and has issued a draft guidance for public comment which
    is available on the CDRH website. FDA has presented guidance on
    recommended new directions at the February 2001 Clinical Laboratory
    Improvement Amendments Committee, or CLIAC, meeting and hopes to
    finalize this guidance this summer.
                                 agro-terrorism
        Question. If an outbreak of BSE or Foot and Mouth Disease were to
    occur in the United States, it would be devastating to my State, and
    the economy of the entire country would suffer greatly. Recent news
    reports have cited how easily one of these animal diseases could be
    intentionally introduced into the country.
        Please explain what the possibility is of someone intentionally
    introducing an animal disease in this country that could devastate the
    U.S. economy or have serious public health implications.
        Answer. There is a real danger from the intended introduction of
    Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE, and Foot and Mouth Disease,
    or FMD, or other animal diseases into the United States. We acknowledge
    that the possibility that these and other foreign diseases would be
    devastating to U.S. agriculture and the economy if introduced into the
    U.S. due to the number of travelers returning from abroad, or visiting
    the U.S. each day. In addition, because of the volume of imported
    products, and the limited resources available for inspection, there are
    many possible ways for the intentional introduction of these diseases
    into the U.S.
        Question. What actions are being taken by FDA to ensure that this
    does not happen? Please provide specific examples, including weaknesses
    of current preventive programs.
        Answer. FDA works closely with the United States Department of
    Agriculture, or USDA, and State agricultural and veterinary agencies on
    implementation of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, or BSE,
    regulation and on controlling imported products that might introduce
    BSE into the U.S. FDA issues import alerts and bulletins, carries out
    import inspections at the border and airports, and inspects domestic
    manufacturers. The Agency also contracts with the States, who have
    conducted approximately 80 percent of the domestic inspections under
    the BSE regulation. FDA worked closely with the USDA in developing the
    import alerts and bulletins issued by FDA to ensure all animal products
    that might contain the BSE agent are identified and listed in the
    alerts or bulletins and are prevented from entering the U.S.
        FDA is also a member of domestic and international working groups,
    and chairs the Senior Executive Interagency Steering Committee. A major
    goal of these groups is to ensure that imports of products potentially
    contaminated with BSE do not get into the U.S. The Senior Executive
    Interagency Steering Committee assures coordination among agencies,
    especially in three main areas: integrated contingency planning in case
    BSE or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or vCJD, disease is found in
    the U.S; identification of and response to potential vulnerabilities in
    the U.S. to BSE and vCJD; and coordination of risk communication plans
    by the various agencies. For the record we are providing a list of
    organizations that participate in the Senior Executive Interagency
    Steering Committee.
        A Tri-country group of officials from the U.S., Canada, and Mexico
    has been meeting for three years on this issue. The U.S. hosted the
    first meeting in 1998 and is scheduled to host the meeting this year.
    The Tri-country group is comprised of technically trained individuals
    who know the day-in and day-out workings of the programs of their
    agencies. The group has been successful in harmonizing import policies
    and each member has implemented the last two import bans issued by the
    USDA.
        An interagency working group on BSE started in 1996 is comprised of
    representatives from USDA's APHIS, FSIS, Agricultural Research Service,
    or ARS, FDA, NIH, CDC, and DOD. This group shares information,
    evaluates ideas and issues, and makes recommendations to participating
    agencies. Although import issues have long been addressed in the
    interagency working group and agencies have coordinated actions on
    import issues, to further strengthen coordination of import issues, an
    import subgroup to the interagency workgroup was formed to investigate
    and make recommendations relating to import issues. On January 17,
    2001, FDA attended the initial meeting of the import subgroup, which
    consists of representatives from APHIS, FDA and Customs, to enhance
    joint procedures to prevent the importation of BSE material into the
    U.S.
        FDA reviews entries of FDA-regulated products that consist of, or
    may contain, BSE risk products of animal origin and works with APHIS to
    ensure that such products do not enter the U.S. FDA is continuing to
    review its own admissibility requirements for FDA-regulated products
    that could pose a BSE-related risk.
        FDA coordinates activities among Customs, USDA, APHIS and FDA, and
    is leading the efforts for developing procedures for multi-agency
    operations. FDA has provided FDA-product codes used in OASIS entry
    screening, to APHIS for their review, and has facilitated APHIS review
    of Customs HTS codes, used in Customs entry screening, which resulted
    in Customs issuing a directive to Customs field personnel on January 4,
    2000, identifying specific HTS codes for products subject to the APHIS
    prohibition.
        FDA, APHIS, and Customs have coordinated their response to the
    potential importation of BSE-related products. After APHIS issued their
    prohibition on the importation of BSE materials on December 7, 2000,
    FDA issued Import Bulletin 71B-02 requesting that FDA's field offices
    notify their local APHIS offices of any import suspected of containing
    BSE material. FDA issued a new Import alert on January 20, 2001, and a
    new Import Bulletin on March 1, 2001. These new import documents
    provide a detailed system for identifying at the ports products about
    which FDA has potential BSE concerns.
        In addition, FDA has conducted two conference calls open to all 50
    States including State veterinary and agricultural agencies in January
    and April to discuss the BSE issue. Both FDA and USDA participated in
    the call. FDA has met with the National Association of State
    Departments of Agriculture and American Association of Feed Control
    Officials to discuss the FDA regulation on prohibited materials and
    BSE, other Transmittable Spongiform Encephalopathies, and Foot and
    Mouth Disease. The FDA is also conducting two seminars on feed
    contamination issues including BSE during the week of May 1st in Texas
    and May 14th in Minnesota. Over 100 feed control officials from all 50
    States attended.
        It is important to note the FDA, as well as Customs and APHIS, are
    dependent upon the import community, which includes brokers, importers,
    and shippers, for the entry and manifest data with which to identify
    products consisting of, or containing, materials of concern from BSE
    and BSE-high-risk countries. A weakness in the system is that products
    which are not declared correctly or are described by importers or
    brokers so as to hide their animal origin or country of origin may not
    be detected though FDA import screening. Furthermore, the sheer volume
    of imported FDA-regulated products precludes the Agency from physically
    examining every entry into the U.S.
        FDA will continue to aggressively enforce its regulations and work
    closely with those in the cattle and feed industries to minimize the
    risk of BSE introduction or spread in U.S. cattle herds. FDA will
    develop new guidance and regulations as the scientific knowledge about
    BSE expands. Working together with many counterpart agencies in the
    United States and around the world and with various industry and
    consumer groups, FDA will continue to protect the health of Americans
    and American cattle herds.
        [The information follows]
    Participates of the Senior Executive Interagency Steering Committee
        The Department of Health and Human Service's Assistant Secretary
    for Science Policy; FDA; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
    National Institutes of Health, NIH; USDA's Animal Plant Health
    Inspection Service, APHIS; Foreign Agricultural Service; Food Safety
    and Inspection Service, FSIS; White House Office of Science and
    Technology Policy; U.S. Trade Representative; U.S. Customs; Department
    of State; Department of Defense; National Association of States
    Departments of Agriculture; National Association of Chief Livestock
    Health Officials; and Association of American Feed Control Officials.
                                 latex allergy
        Question. It has been brought to my attention that as many as 18
    million Americans suffer from a latex allergy, and workers in
    environments where latex gloves are commonly used are at a higher risk
    for developing a latex allergy. It has also been brought to my
    attention that latex proteins may be transferred onto food products
    when food handlers wear latex gloves.
        Does the use of disposable latex gloves in food preparation and
    handling violate Section 402(a)(1) of the FDA Food Regulations? Please
    explain your conclusion?
        Answer. Natural rubber latex (NRL) is approved for use in food
    contact situations. Therefore, the use of NRL gloves does not presently
    cause a food to be adulterated under section 402(a)(1). Nevertheless,
    we are concerned with reports from latex-sensitive individuals
    reporting adverse physical reactions from consuming food that has been
    in contact with gloves made from NRL. FDA is collecting additional
    information on this and is actively reviewing its policy on the use of
    disposable NRL gloves in food operatoins. In the meantime, FDA has
    advised the food industry to consider this information when deciding
    whether to use NRL gloves in food preparation.
        As background, the Food and Drug Administration has jurisdiction
    over the use of NRL in food contact situations under the food additive
    provisions in section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act,
    FFDCA. Under section 201(s) of the FFDCA, components of food-contact
    articles are considered food additives if they migrate or are
    reasonably expected to migrate to food as a result of their intended
    use. The use of a food additive, like NRL in the production of food
    service gloves, must be determined to be safe by the FDA before it may
    be used in food, or become a part of food from processing, packaging,
    transporting or holding the food.
        The food additive regulations describing the conditions under which
    NRL may be safely used, are found in 21 CFR 177.2600 Rubber articles
    intended for repeated use. This regulation, listing ``natural rubber,''
    was promulgated on February 1, 1963 in accordance with section 409 of
    the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA. It has been FDA's
    position over the years that, provided the compositional requirements
    of the regulation are met, the use of natural rubber as a component of
    food service gloves is in conformity with 21 CFR 177.2600, and is not
    an unsafe food additive. Nevertheless, as we evaluate the reports of
    adverse reactions from latex-sensitive individuals as noted above, we
    will also consider the relevance of that information to the safe use of
    the food additive.
        Question. What steps has the FDA Center for Devices and
    Radiological Health taken to determine that the proposed maximum levels
    for medical glove powder and extractable latex proteins retained in
    medical gloves are safe for patients and workers?
        Answer. The recommended limits of extractable protein and glove
    powder set forth in FDA proposed rule are not intended to be viewed as
    safe levels for all individuals in all circumstances. Rather, the
    recommended limits were meant to provide a way to indicate the level of
    protein and powder, allowing the consumer to make informed decisions.
    These recommended limits reflected the premise that lower protein and
    lower powder levels would reduce adverse health effects and state-of-
    technology considerations affecting glove properties, such as shelf
    life and strength, market availability, and cost.
        We know of no way, with current scientific knowledge, to determine
    a protein threshold level that would be safe for all users and would
    not trigger any allergic reactions. Based on known mechanisms of
    allergy induction, allergy development is recognized as a gradual
    process and the response is considered dose-dependent. A large body of
    published literature demonstrates a correlation of the duration and
    intensity of exposure to natural rubber latex, NRL and the prevalence
    of NRL sensitivity. We have concluded that scientific knowledge does
    adequately show reduced exposure to NRL allergens would benefit users,
    minimizing the risk of sensitization and allergic reactions in
    sensitized individuals.
        Cornstarch, which meets the specification for absorbable dusting
    powder in the United States Pharmacopoeia, is probably the most common
    lubricant for medical gloves. Cornstarch alone is not known to be a
    common allergen. However, cornstarch can adsorb some soluble proteins
    during the processing of gloves. The amount of protein binding has been
    shown to decrease with decreasing quantities of soluble protein and
    powder present. For this reason, FDA is encouraging glove manufacturers
    to reduce the amount of protein and powder remaining on medical gloves.
        FDA also recognizes that glove powder is composed of particles that
    may cause foreign body reactions. Published studies and case reports
    identify adhesion and granuloma formation as a recognized complication
    associated with the introduction of glove powders into body cavities
    and suggest that clinically significant complications may not be rare.
    For this reason, FDA is encouraging glove manufacturers to reduce the
    amount of powder remaining on medical gloves.
        We are now preparing a final regulation, which will reflect our
    response to comments received on the proposed rule, and our review of
    recently-adopted standards, such as ASTM D-3577, Standard Specification
    for Rubber Surgical Gloves, and ASTM D-3578, Standard Specification for
    Rubber Examination Gloves.
        Question. Please provide me with an update on all activities taken
    by FDA to study safety issues associated with latex, including
    disposable latex glove use in food handling and preparation and the
    medical field.
        Answer. FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, CFSAN,
    is actively reviewing its policy on the use of disposable NRL gloves in
    food operations. CFSAN has received anecdotal information from latex-
    sensitive individuals reporting adverse physical reactions after
    consuming food that may have been in contact with NRL gloves. CFSAN has
    acted on this public health concern and added a caution in the model
    guidelines for retail food service operations--the 1999 Food Code--that
    says ``This information should be taken into consideration when
    deciding whether single-use gloves made of latex will be used during
    food preparation.''
        ``Healthy People 2010,'' the Surgeon General's national initiative
    that outlines a comprehensive nationwide health promotion and disease
    prevention agenda, has also addressed this concern. FDA led the
    development of the food safety objectives for the initiative, and
    specifically mentioned allergy risks associated with food, including
    the use of latex gloves.
        To gain additional information regarding allergic reactions
    possibly due to the ingestion of food contaminated by NRL protein in
    retail settings, CFSAN has been collecting reports of such reactions
    from consumers who have contacted the Agency. CFSAN has contacted one
    of the latex allergy consumer interest groups, Latex Allergy Support
    Team and Information Coalition, Inc., to obtain its recommendations.
    CFSAN has also contacted Health Canada and the European Union to learn
    how they are dealing with NRL glove use in food operations. We are
    continuing to review research data.
        Regarding the use of NRL gloves as medical devices, the Agency has
    conducted its own research; alerted the medical community; collaborated
    with manufacturers and private standards groups in lowering the level
    of latex proteins in medical device products; published a final rule
    requiring labeling of medical devices containing latex; and published a
    proposed rule reclassifying surgeon's and patient examination gloves.
    FDA has also encouraged companies to manufacture latex products
    containing the lowest possible protein levels, and to indicate these
    lower levels as established by a test developed by the American Society
    of Testing and Materials. With respect to concerns that FDA might ban
    powdered natural rubber latex, NRL, surgical and examination gloves,
    the risks posed by them do not meet the legal standard for banning a
    medical device. While FDA encourages the development of suitable
    substitutes, with effective barrier properties for NRL medical gloves,
    FDA recognizes that NRL affords a combination of qualities difficult to
    duplicate in a synthetic material. This combination of qualities
    supports the continued availability and selection of NRL medical gloves
    by users and purchasers as appropriate for their needs.
        A large body of data has been generated through years of NRL glove
    use demonstrating their performance. With new synthetic materials, the
    data are limited. The Agency also recognizes that substitutes for NRL
    possess positive and negative attributes.
        FDA is currently participating in a multi-center study, part of
    which will assess the effects of, various conditions of storage,
    materials with which gloves may come into contact, and fatigue and
    abrasion on medical gloves. The results of this study should provide
    additional information on the performance characteristics of both NRL
    and synthetic medical gloves.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                              drug importation law
        Question. As you know, Congress last year overwhelmingly passed the
    Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act (MEDSA), which would allow United
    States pharmacists and wholesalers to import FDA-approved medicines
    from other countries at lower prices and pass the savings along to
    their customers. Congress also at that time appropriated FDA $23
    million in fiscal year 2001 for beginning to carry out this law.
        I understand the Secretary of Health and Human Services has not yet
    made a decision about implementing this new law. Is that still the
    case?
        Answer. Yes, this is still the case. Before the Secretary of Health
    and Human Services makes a recommendation to the President about
    implementing the human drug importation program, he needs to have a
    complete and thorough analysis of both the health safety and cost-
    saving components of program. Those analyses are on-going.
        Question. Last year, the FDA estimated that the second year (fiscal
    year 2002) cost of implementing MEDSA to be $22.5 million. Yet the
    President's fiscal year 2002 budget provides only $2.95 million for
    MEDSA implementation. Should the HHS Secretary decide to move forward
    with implementation of MEDSA, would FDA have the resources it needs for
    an importation program?
        Answer. The Secretary expects to advise the Administration on
    recommendations for addressing MEDSA soon. The nature of this
    recommendation will dictate the resources involved. Once this decision
    is made, we will be in a better position to determine the resources
    involved in a reimportation program.
                       drug importation by drug companies
        Question. In 1999, Americans consumed $13.1 billion in
    pharmaceutical products imported by drug companies. These prescription
    drugs and other medicines came from countries ranging from Canada ($697
    million) and the United Kingdom ($2.2 billion) to China ($391 million),
    Japan ($1.3 billion), and Mexico ($222 million).
        Given that some FDA officials apparently have concerns that these
    same drugs imported by U.S. pharmacists and wholesalers would be
    unsafe, would the FDA support changing current law to also prevent
    pharmaceutical companies from importing medications? Or at the very
    least, should pharmaceutical companies be required to meet the same
    stringent record-keeping and testing requirements that U.S. pharmacists
    and wholesalers would be required to meet under MEDSA?
        Answer. Currently, section 801(d)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
    Cosmetic Act prohibits the importation, by anyone other than the
    manufacturer, of prescription drugs and insulin manufactured in the
    United States and exported. Thus, reimportation, other than as stated
    above, is not legal. Congress enacted this law to protect the public
    from prescription drugs that may have been improperly stored and
    handled abroad and to reduce opportunities for importation of
    counterfeit and unapproved prescription drugs. Some imported
    medications, even though they bear the name of a U.S. approved product,
    may, in fact, be counterfeit versions that are unsafe or even
    completely ineffective. FDA would support the law as enacted by
    Congress, however, appropriate resources would be required to
    effectively implement the law.
                         inspection/testing of imports
        Question. I see that according to the FDA's fiscal year 2002 Budget
    Overview, the FDA inspects less than 1 percent of all imported products
    (food, medicine, medical devices, and other products under its
    jurisdiction) brought into the U.S., and I understand that your
    sampling and end-point product testing is also minimal.
        It is my understanding that the cost estimate provided to the
    Appropriations Committee last year by the FDA assumes 100 percent
    review of the documentation for prescription drugs imported under MEDSA
    and authenticity/counterfeit testing on 10 percent of imported
    medicines, just to name a few of the assumptions behind the safeguards
    in MEDSA. It appears that these requirements are more stringent than
    those for other imported products.
        You raised concern in your testimony that the FDA has a ``seriously
    impaired capacity'' to conduct inspections and testing on imported
    products. Given that medicines imported under MEDSA would receive
    considerably more oversight, couldn't American consumers have more
    confidence in the safety of products imported under MEDSA than they do
    in the safety of other products imported under the FDA's oversight?
        Answer. The provisions of MEDSA call for safeguards to be in place
    that coincide with existing regulations, specifically sections 501,
    502, and 505 of the FFD&C Act. In addition to these measures, MEDSA
    calls for pedigree documentation and testing in attempt to ensure the
    safety and effectiveness of imported pharmaceuticals. These proposed
    actions are more stringent, in some cases, than current surveillance
    practices for some FDA products, but the nature of the product is
    warranted under these circumstances. FDA believes that current Good
    Manufacturing Practices--GMPs--are the best way to help assure the
    quality and safety of FDA approved products, and the Agency cannot
    assure compliance with GMPs under this system. Sampling and testing a
    pharmaceutical product alone will not provide the assurance that a
    product is safe and effective. Either way, the Secretary of Health and
    Human Services has yet to make a final decision as to whether the
    implementation of MEDSA will ``pose no additional risk to the public's
    health and safety.''
               violations of the prescription drug marketing act
        Question. I've been told by the FDA in the past that the
    Prescription Drug Marketing Act prohibits the re-importation of a
    prescription drug or insulin that was manufactured in the United States
    except by the manufacturer. It has come to my attention that a number
    of foreign-based organizations have begun targeting U.S. medical
    professionals (doctors, pharmacists, etc.) to have them purchase
    prescription medicines from Canada on their patients' behalf. See
    attachments
        Does this kind of effort violate the Prescription Drug Marketing
    Act? If yes, what steps is the FDA taking to stop this practice? If
    not, how is this practice different than what would be allowed under
    the Medicine Equity and Drug Safety Act (other than the fact that there
    are none of the safeguards that MEDSA contains)? How can the FDA allow
    this practice to continue and at the same time maintain that
    importation of prescription drugs by pharmacists under MEDSA would be
    unsafe?
        Answer. This is a very complex legal question. If the prescription
    drugs or the insulin are manufactured overseas, and covered by an
    approved NDA, importation into the U.S. would not violate PDMA. Such
    importation may, however, violate other provisions of the Food, Drug
    and Cosmetic Act, FD&C. Only drugs manufactured in the U.S., exported,
    and then offered for reimportation are prohibited from entry in the
    U.S. except in the case of a medical emergency and with the permission
    of the FDA.
        MEDSA would have permitted the entry of U.S. manufactured
    prescription drugs back into the U.S. provided the drugs were approved
    for marketing in the U.S., in addition to other testing and
    documentation requirements. If the drugs are manufactured domestically
    and shipped to Canada, it would be a violation for anyone, doctor or
    patient, to reimport these drugs, absent implementation of MEDSA.
    Furthermore, in most cases, drugs under this scenario would not meet
    all of the prongs of the personal importation policy, such as no
    foreign versions of FDA approved drugs.
        The targeting of U.S. physicians to purchase Rx drugs from Canada
    for use by the physicians' patients would be prohibited by 801(d) of
    the FD&C Act if the drugs are of U.S. origin and there is no documented
    medical emergency or if they are unapproved drugs being imported into
    the U.S.
                           global trade/harmonization
        Question. I was pleased to read in your testimony about the
    progress that the FDA has made towards harmonizing drug safety
    regulations, which will help to facilitate global trade.
        While I'm glad that FDA is working towards harmonization that will
    ultimately make the global market work better for drug companies and
    make the FDA's regulatory job easier, how would harmonization
    ultimately benefit consumers if they continue to be denied access to
    lower priced pharmaceuticals from other countries?
        Answer. Global harmonization of regulatory requirements should make
    drug development more efficient for drug companies, resulting in more
    drugs available, faster approvals, and possibly lower costs for United
    States consumers. However, harmonization does not directly address the
    reasons for differences in drug prices in different countries.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin

                    gene therapy individual tracking system
        Question. FDA after 7 years has not yet complied with Congress'
    direction to set up an individual gene therapy tracking system, can the
    agency explain this delay?
        Answer. No existing system satisfied the requirements of the gene
    therapy database. Therefore, a new system must be developed. Since FDA
    shares with NIH, through the Office of Biotechnology Activities, OBA,
    the responsibility for oversight and safety of gene transfer research,
    FDA has been working closely with NIH to develop and implement a common
    database. This collaboration will result in a system that meets the
    needs of both NIH and FDA. Development of a new system is complex, and
    system development coordination between two agencies lengthens the
    development process. A joint system will save resources. Also,
    Secretary Thompson is committed to coordinating information technology
    throughout HHS to gain efficiencies and avoid redundancy.
        Question. When is FDA planning on modifying their proposal so that
    it meets the congressional intent of tracking patients rather than
    merely being an adverse events monitoring system?
        Answer. The gene therapy database will support collection of data
    on gene therapy product that can be analyzed for safety trends.
    Consideration of the appropriate information to be collected in long-
    term follow-up and how to facilitate collection of this information, is
    still underway. FDA sought the guidance of the Biological Response
    Modifiers Advisory Committee, BRMAC, on these issues in November 2000,
    and will seek further guidance on the revised proposal for long-term
    follow-up with the BRMAC. Data collection and submission will be the
    responsibility of sponsors of gene therapy trials who have applications
    with the FDA, and of investigators and institutions that the NIH
    oversees through the NIH Guidelines. Guidance is being developed to
    facilitate submission of data in an appropriate format and it is
    anticipated that investigators at the clinical site will be able to
    enter data directly into the database.
        Question. Given the death of Jesse Gelsinger and the myriad of
    problems that have been found with gene therapy trials, shouldn't this
    be getting priority treatment from FDA and shouldn't the agency be
    meeting the congressionally mandated time-frames?
        Answer. FDA does take very seriously our regulation of gene therapy
    clinical trials, as well as all clinical trials. The events associated
    with the death of Jesse Gelsinger did receive priority treatment within
    FDA. We believe we already do have a sound regulatory system in place
    for monitoring gene therapy clinical trials and clinical trials for
    other regulated products. Substantial progress has already been made on
    the development of a database and plans are proceeding under the
    direction of a steering committee involving both agencies, including
    individuals experienced with the Adverse Event Expedited Reporting
    System, AdEERS, and the National Xenotransplantation Database, NXD
    efforts.
        Question. When can the committee expect that FDA will actually
    provide us with a full budget and detailed implementation plan for the
    gene therapy individual patient tracking system?
        Answer. A preliminary report was submitted on March 31, 2001. An
    amended report, including a cost estimate and development schedule is
    currently under review within the Administration and is expected to be
    submitted shortly.
           reuse of medical devices picked out of medical trash cans
        Question. I understand that most single use devices reprocessors
    set up bins in operating/procedure rooms for collection of contaminated
    devices. Hospital personnel then place certain used devices in these
    bins for reprocessing. However, I have recently heard, that at least
    one reprocessor has rented space in a medical waste facility where
    reprocessor employees open used sharps containers and waste bins to
    sort for devices to reprocess.
        Is FDA aware of this practice? Does the agency think it is
    acceptable that anyone would be digging through medical waste to pick
    out medical equipment for recycling?
        Answer. FDA is not aware of any commercial reprocessor, that is a
    third party reprocessor, currently renting space in a medical waste
    facility where employees open used sharps containers and waste bins to
    sort for devices to reprocess. We are, however, aware that in 1999,
    Alliance Medical Corporation, a commercial reprocessor, maintained a
    decontamination station in Apopka, Florida, where employees opened
    sharps containers to collect devices for reprocessing and reuse. These
    devices were sorted and cleaned at the Apopka facility and then were
    sent to Alliance's Phoenix, AZ facility for further processing.
        When we learned of the activity occurring at Apopka, we immediately
    inspected the facility on November 17-19, 1999. Apparently, Alliance
    leased a room within the facilities of Stericycle/BFI Waste Systems
    where sharps containers were collected from local hospitals. The
    investigator determined that two Alliance personnel were assigned to
    sort and clean medical devices collected in disposable sharps
    containers. While performing these tasks, the employees were required
    to wear protective clothing, including surgical masks, safety goggles,
    latex gloves, heavy-duty gloves, gowns, foot covers, and hair covers.
    The devices were placed into two piles--one pile for devices found to
    be acceptable for reprocessing by Alliance and the second pile for
    devices unacceptable for reprocessing. The devices in the acceptable
    pile were cleaned and shipped to Alliance's Phoenix site for further
    processing. Devices in the unacceptable pile and the emptied disposable
    sharps containers were given to Stericycle/BFI to destroy by
    incineration.
        At the conclusion of the inspection, FDA issued a list of
    Inspectional Observations that noted seven serious violations. As a
    result of the inspection, FDA issued a Warning Letter, dated December
    23, 1999 to Alliance Medical. In a follow up inspection of the
    facility, on January 27, 2000, we determined that the objectionable
    conditions were corrected, however, Alliance Medical closed their
    Apopka facility last year.
        Question. If not, what is the agency doing to stop this activity?
        Answer. When we learned of the activity, like the one which
    occurred at Apopka, we immediately inspected the facility and issued a
    list of Inspectional Observations that noted seven serious violations.
    Further, as a result of the inspection, FDA issued a Warning Letter
    siting these violations. A followup inspection was then conducted to
    see if the objectionable conditions were corrected.
                   the dangers of contaminated biopsy forceps
        Question. FDA has previously described single use biopsy forceps as
    a device that is ``high risk to reprocess.'' Nonetheless, reprocessed
    biopsy forceps have not been required to demonstrate that they are
    indeed safe and clean after reprocessing. Recognizing the potential
    harm from unclean forceps, FDA stated that it would consider regulation
    of such devices on a case-by-case basis. Over seven months ago, a
    citizen petition was filed requesting that FDA better regulate
    reprocessed biopsy forceps.
        Has FDA responded to this petition?
        Answer. FDA is currently considering, and has not yet responded to,
    the citizen petition requesting a change in the exemption status for
    non-electric biopsy forceps.
        Question. Will FDA require premarket submissions to show the safety
    of reprocessed single use biopsy forceps?
        Answer. FDA is currently considering the citizen petition
    addressing this issue, and has not yet decided how this issue should be
    resolved. We will be pleased to provide an update on this matter once
    we have responded to the petition.
          science used to review the safety of reused medical devices
        Question. The medical device trade press reported that one single
    use device reprocessor submitted an application for approval for a
    reprocessed Class III device which relied on 13 year old medical
    literature for its clinical studies.
        Is this type of literature typically considered acceptable for
    original device premarket approvals?
        Answer. Premarket approval, or PMA, applications must contain valid
    scientific evidence that supports the safety and effectiveness of the
    device. Valid scientific evidence includes scientific literature
    applicable to the device under review. FDA has received PMAs that
    contain literature as the primary valid scientific evidence to
    demonstrate reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the
    device. However, for most PMAs, prospective clinical information is
    necessary to determine the safety and effectiveness of devices and we
    expect that PMAs for reprocessed devices to meet the same data
    requirement as the original devices.
        Question. Will it be considered acceptable for reprocessed device
    premarket approvals?
        Answer. PMAs for reprocessed devices are subject to the same data
    requirements as the original devices. The specific data requirements
    will vary, depending on the device and the risks it presents.
                                testing for cjd
        Question. Several news articles have reported deaths from CJD that
    may be tied to contaminated surgical instruments. One such article was
    from March last year, reporting out of Denver, Colorado. Another was in
    October last year in New Orleans.
        What is the FDA doing to ensure that all reused medical devices are
    sterilized in a manner that would eliminate potential CJD
    contamination?
        Answer. At this time, there is no scientific consensus that there
    is a proven method to decontaminate and sterilize medical devices and
    absolutely ensure total elimination of the CJD prion under all
    circumstances. The best available evidence at this time indicates CJD
    prions on medical devices can be inactivated if rigorous procedures are
    followed. The World Health Organization, or WHO, recommends, for
    example, that the device be immersed in sodium hydroxide and heated in
    a gravity displacement autoclave at 121  deg.C for 30 minutes; cleaned;
    rinsed in water, and subjected to routine sterilization. Not all
    devices can withstand this treatment.
        FDA shares Senator's concern regarding potential exposure of
    patients to Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, or CJD, as a result of
    inadequate or improper decontamination and sterilization of medical
    devices. However, we wish to emphasize that our concern is not limited
    to the reuse of single use devices but also extends to reusable,
    multiple use, medical devices. We are most concerned about medical
    devices that are used on known or suspected CJD patients that come in
    contact with high infectivity tissues such as brain, spinal cord, and
    eyes. It appears that the highest risk medical devices are surgical
    instruments used in neurosurgery and in ophthalmology procedures.
        FDA has convened a work group to identify medical devices that are
    high risk for transmission of the CJD prion and to evaluate the
    adequacy of existing CJD guidelines for decontaminating and sterilizing
    medical devices. The work group includes representatives from other FDA
    centers as well as from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    The work group has identified infection control guidelines for handling
    CJD contaminated devices published by the WHO, draft guidelines
    published by Canada's Laboratory Center for Disease Control, and other
    guidance published by various professional associations. While there
    are many similar recommendations in these guidelines, there also are
    some conflicting recommendations. The majority of the CJD guidelines
    recommend disposing any CJD contaminated medical device whose materials
    or other characteristics prevent it from undergoing the above
    procedure.
        One of the most critical factors in preventing CJD transmission
    among patients is the hospital's access to, and proper use of,
    appropriate autoclaving equipment.
        Question. Does the agency have confidence in the ability of
    reprocessors to eliminate prions through such sterilization?
        Answer. FDA is reasonably confident that any commercial reprocessor
    who passes FDA's good manufacturing practice inspection should be able
    to follow the World Health Organization recommendations for
    decontaminating devices, or similar guidelines. This does not
    necessarily ensure that all prions will be eliminated, because at this
    time, there is no scientific consensus that there is a proven method to
    decontaminate and sterilize medical devices and absolutely ensure total
    elimination of the CJD prion under all circumstances.
       standards for demonstrating safety and efficacy of reused devices
        Question. The general principle behind this requirement was that a
    reused device should meet the same standards that a new device is
    required to meet. The public expects that all medical devices that they
    may be subjected to would meet the same high FDA standard for safety
    and efficacy.
        I have recently been troubled by reports that the FDA may not
    require reprocessor's PMAs to be of the same high standard as
    innovators' PMAs. The trade press has been suggesting that FDA may
    allow reprocessors to submit one application for a wide variety of
    devices within a certain category. As the agency, I am sure is aware,
    small changes in a device may alter its' properties including its
    ability to be safely cleaned substantially.
        Will the FDA require a PMA for each different model of reprocessed
    device?
        Answer. FDA will consider each type of reprocessed device on an
    individual basis. Some models of devices are so similar that these can
    be combined in a single PMA. Only closely related variations of the
    same type of device should be grouped in one submission or application.
    FDA advises reprocessors to examine device groupings that original
    equipment manufacturer's have developed in previous submissions as
    models that may be useful in considering the groupings of reprocessed
    single use devices. In these situations, data and information in the
    submission or application must support the safety and effectiveness of
    the entire group of devices in a PMA submission.
        Question. Will the standards be identical to those required for
    OEMs?
        Answer. Yes, the scientific standards for approval or clearance of
    a reprocessed single-use device will be the same as those for an
    Original Equipment Manufacturer, OEM. Any person who engages in
    activities triggering the Act's premarket requirements must comply with
    all applicable provisions of the Act. When a reprocessor, whether a
    third party or a hospital engages in reprocessing of a single-use
    device, it is responsible for submitting premarket submissions and
    proposed labeling, if applicable, to the FDA. FDA will review these
    submissions on the same basis, and using the same criteria, that would
    apply if the reprocessor were an OEM.
                                  orphan drugs
        Question. This grants program is really the only hope for those
    Americans who suffer from one of the many rare diseases. Many of these
    diseases are fatal.
        With the completion of the genome project, it must be expected that
    the Orphan drug program will receive a lot of new applications. Since
    by definition these diseases are rare, they are unlikely to have a lot
    of corporate sponsorship and therefore, the orphan drug product grants
    are very important to encourage development of cures for rare diseases.
        Given the expectation of increased numbers of applications, has the
    FDA increased the level of funding in their budget request over and
    above last year's $12.54 million.
        Answer. The funding level of the Orphan Grants Program increased in
    2001 by $1 million for a total of $12.5 million. In fiscal year 2001,
    the Agency will award $12,514,000 for orphan product grants. No
    additional increases are planned in fiscal year 2002.
        Currently, the orphan drug product grant money is only available to
    researchers after they have received approval for their investigational
    new drug. This can act as a barrier to some researchers because they do
    not have funding for the research necessary for the initial submission.
        Question. Would FDA support legislative changes that would allow
    grant money to also be used to develop the new IND?
        Answer. Under the orphan products grant program, funding is
    presently limited to human clinical studies under a valid Investigation
    New Drug exemption. This has served and continues to serve a critical
    need in orphan product development. Appropriations for this FDA program
    are limited and not all meritorious applications can be funded. We do
    not believe that broadening eligibility for these funds to drugs that
    are not yet being investigated under a valid IND is appropriate at this
    time.
                                 generic drugs
        The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984,
    commonly known as Hatch-Waxman lay the ground work for encouraging the
    availability of lower-cost generic drugs. One of its provisions
    encouraged would be generic manufacturers to challenge the validity,
    enforceability or infringement of a patent on a drug by providing the
    generic challenger 180-days of marketing exclusivity. This provision
    has been gutted by an agency interpretation of the ``pediatric
    exclusivity'' provisions of the Food and Drug Administration
    Modernization Act of 1997 (FDAMA), which allows for the generic's
    exclusivity to run concurrently with an innovator's pediatric
    exclusivity rather than consecutively. The 1984 law at 21 U.S.C.
    355(j)(5)(b)(iv) reads, ``if the application contains a certification
    described in subclause (IV) of paragraph 2(A)(viii) and is for a drug
    for which a previous application has been submitted under this
    subsection concerning such a certification, the application shall be
    made effective not earlier than one hundred eighty days after--
      --The date the Secretary receives notice from the applicant under the
            previous application of the first commercial marketing of the
            drug under the previous application
      --The date of a decision of a court in an action described in clause
            (iii) holding the patent which is subject of the certification
            invalid or not infringed''.
        Question. Given the use of the words ``not earlier than'' above,
    would not a reasonable interpretation be that the agency has discretion
    to allow for the 180 days to start later ie., after the pediatric
    exclusivity has expired?
        Answer. To date, FDA has not encountered a situation where
    pediatric exclusivity and 180-day generic exclusivity have actually
    overlapped. FDA has, however, received numerous comments from members
    of Congress, industry, and the general public, opining on the proper
    interpretation of the intersection of these two provisions should such
    a situation arise. In response to the widespread public interest in
    this subject, FDA opened a public docket to receive comments on the
    intersection of pediatric exclusivity and 180 day exclusivity and more
    particularly on the question of whether the two provisions should run
    concurrently or consecutively. When the docket closes, FDA will
    consider the letters, comments, statute, legislative history, and
    relevant court cases to develop an agency position on this complex
    question of statutory interpretation.
                                 tissue safety
        Question. How much have you set aside in this budget request for
    the implementation of the new tissue rules?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002, FDA estimates the Agency will dedicate
    $4.35 million to the regulation of human tissue. The funds include
    costs associated with field inspections, medical device and biologics'
    expenditures, and systems costs. The majority of this money will be
    used to implement the new tissue rules. This is part of the President's
    fiscal year 2002 budget request for FDA.
        FDA published three proposed rules to implement the proposed
    approach that included requirements for establishment registration and
    product listing; donor suitability determination; and good tissue
    practices. FDA issued the final rule for establishment registration and
    product listing on January 19, 2001. Under the final rule,
    establishments involving conventional tissues, such as bone, sin and
    corneas were required to register and list their products by May 4,
    2001, and new establishments must register and list within 5 days after
    beginning operations. Establishments that manufacture non-conventional
    tissue, such as hematopoietic stem cells, are required to register and
    list beginning January 19, 2003. The proposed rules for the donor
    suitability determination and good tissue practice have not been
    finalized.
        Question. I sent a letter asking for this budget information in
    January, when do you think FDA is likely to respond?
        Answer. The Agency's response to your letter of January 9, 2001 to
    Dr. Henney requesting information on the cost to the FDA of fully
    implementing regulations regarding human cellular and tissue-based
    products will be forwarded soon. We apologize for the delay in
    responding.
        It has come to my attention, that one tissue processing company is
    engaged in the practice of pooling multiple samples of tissue from
    multiple donors. This may be extremely hazardous and could transmit
    disease to a large number of individuals. The tissue processing
    company, RTI received a waiver from New York to continue this practice.
        Question. Does the FDA agree that it would be very unwise to allow
    any waivers to tissue processors to allow them to pool samples from
    many different individuals? I hope that FDA can firmly commit to
    avoiding such an approach.
        Answer. FDA has concerns about the practice of pooling tissues from
    multiple donors during processing. In general, FDA believes that the
    risks associated with pooling tissues from multiple donors appear to
    far outweigh any identified medical benefits. Risks include exposure
    and possible cross-contamination from one tissue to another tissue of
    such infectious disease agents as viruses, enveloped and non-enveloped,
    bacteria, fungi, and prions, including known and emerging infectious
    agents. This could result in exposure of many more recipients than
    would occur from a single contaminated donation. Additionally, pool
    processing of tissues would make it difficult or impossible to
    investigate a problem with donated tissues based on an adverse reaction
    in a recipient because the investigation would need to deal with a
    large number of donations and a large number of other recipients. Due
    to these considerations, FDA's January 8, 2001, proposed rule Current
    Good Tissue Practice for Manufacturing of Human Cellular Tissue-Based
    Products; Inspection and Enforcement, provides that human cells and
    tissue shall not be pooled, that is, placed in physical contact or
    mixed in a single receptacle, during manufacturing. However, the
    proposed rule would permit an establishment to request an exemption or
    alternative from any donor suitability or good tissue practice
    requirement. FDA's Director of the Center for Biologics, Evaluation and
    Research, CBER, would have the discretion to grant an exemption or
    alternative based on a finding that such action is consistent with the
    goals of preventing the introduction, transmission, and spread of
    communicable disease and that scientific supporting documentation
    justifies the exemption and the proposed alternative satisfies the
    purpose of the requirement. FDA currently is reviewing comments to this
    proposed rule.
                                latex allergies
        Question. Latex allergies have been on the increase over the past
    few years. Deaths associated with latex allergies have been reported to
    FDA.
        It has recently been found that when food handlers use latex gloves
    and in particular powdered gloves that some of the latex proteins can
    contaminate the food. This is very problematic for someone who is
    highly allergic to latex.
        Arizona is the first State to modify their food code to prohibit
    the use of latex gloves by food handlers. The State did an economic
    analysis of the alternatives to latex gloves including vinyl gloves and
    found that restaurants and other establishments would not have their
    expenses increased by moving to vinyl rather than latex gloves. Rhode
    Island and Michigan are now considering following Arizona's lead.
        Is FDA aware of the increasing problem of latex allergies and the
    problems suffered by those who are exposed to latex due to food
    handlers wearing latex gloves?
        Answer. Yes, FDA is aware that NRL gloves have been reported to
    cause allergic reactions in some individuals who wear latex gloves
    during food preparation and even in individuals eating food prepared by
    food employees wearing latex gloves. In the latter group, three reports
    suggest a severe reaction. FDA has received newspaper and journal
    articles, anecdotes from latex-sensitive people, government pamphlets,
    and other information on the emerging health problem of latex
    allergies. We are aware of experimental and clinical data that
    demonstrate: natural latex proteins can be allergenic; natural latex
    proteins bind to cornstarch; and, aerosolized powder from NRL gloves is
    allergenic and can cause respiratory allergic reactions. Published
    studies indicate that airborne glove powder may be an agent for
    sensitizing non-allergic individuals. In general, prolonged, chronic
    exposure is required to become sensitized to NRL, although genetic
    predisposition plays a role. One literature report concludes that NRL
    proteins may be rapidly transferred to objects by contact with powdered
    latex gloves.
        The occurrence of allergic reactions to latex proteins through
    prolonged and repeated exposure to the skin, and through repeated
    inhalation, is well documented. While the majority of published reports
    in the peer-reviewed medical literature describe allergic reactions to
    NRL, the Agency is aware of three published reports that describe
    serious allergic reactions in persons following the consumption of food
    allegedly contaminated with NRL protein. We are currently gathering and
    evaluating reports of allergic reactions to food that has been in
    contact with latex products and plan to report the status of that
    investigation at the 2002 Conference for Food Protection.
        Question. Is FDA aware that Arizona has now banned the use of latex
    gloves by food handlers?
        Answer. Yes. A press release from Arizona announcing the approval
    of its new food safety requirements was issued on April 23, 2001. The
    new rules will become effective on October 3, 2001 and are the first
    update in 25 years to the Arizona requirements for food safety in
    restaurants and other food establishments. The new rules are a result
    of a three-year collaborative effort between government agencies,
    including FDA, food service industry representatives, school districts,
    and other concerned parties.
        The new Arizona food service regulation requires people in food
    establishments handling foods that are ready-to-eat without additional
    cooking must use utensils or non-latex gloves when touching the food to
    prevent contamination.
        Question. What is FDA doing to solve this problem nationwide?
        Answer. FDA has acted on the public health concerns regarding the
    use of latex gloves by alerting the food service industry through Food
    Code activities, of the potential for serious adverse reactions in
    latex-sensitive individuals. As background, FDA has provided for over
    50 years assistance to local, State, tribal, and federal jurisdictions
    that directly regulate food establishments at the retail level. One of
    the important ways the FDA, along with the Food Safety Inspection
    Service and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, performs
    that function is through the development of the Food Code. The Food
    Code consists of model requirements for safeguarding public health and
    ensuring food is unadulterated and honestly presented when offered to
    the consumer.
        Regarding activities taken by FDA to study safety issues associated
    with latex, including disposable latex glove use in food handling and
    preparation, FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, CFSAN,
    is actively reviewing its policy on the use of disposable NRL gloves in
    food operations. A thorough examination of the use of disposable
    natural rubber latex gloves will be conducted as a part of this review.
        ``Healthy People 2010,'' the Surgeon General's national initiative
    that outlines a comprehensive nationwide health promotion and disease
    prevention agenda, has also addressed this concern. FDA led the
    development of the food safety objectives for the initiative, and
    specifically mentioned allergy risks associated with food, including
    the use of latex gloves.
        In April 2000, safety concerns of the use of latex gloves was an
    agenda item at the Conference for Food Protection, CFP. The Conference
    holds a biennial meeting of Federal, State, industry, consumer, and
    academia representatives who strive to assure the adoption of science-
    based criteria for the preparation, service, or sale of safe food at
    the retail level.
        A request was brought forth to the 2000 Conference to ban the use
    of latex gloves in retail food facilities. CFSAN representatives
    suggested that food facilities consider supplying gloves made of
    alternative materials for use by their food workers to protect food
    workers themselves from possible latex sensitivity, and to prevent the
    possible transmission of latex proteins via food to latex-sensitive
    consumers. The CFP final recommendation was for FDA to find out more
    information on the use of latex gloves in the retail food setting and
    report back to the Conference at its 2002 meeting. The FDA plans to
    report the status of its policy review at that meeting.
        Question. Does FDA have the authority to ban the use of latex
    gloves by food processors and food handlers including those in
    restaurants?
        Answer. Natural rubber latex (NRL) is an approved food additive
    under 21 CFR 177.2600 Rubber articles intended for repeat use. As such,
    NRL may be used in the manufacture of gloves used by food processors
    and food handlers, including those in restaurants. If FDA had a basis
    for concluding that the natural rubber latex in the gloves was not a
    safe food additive, it could propose the issuance of a regulation
    amending or repealing the regulation, in whole or in part. If FDA
    repealed the food additive regulation related to the use of NRL in the
    manufacture of gloves used by food processors and food handlers under
    section 409 of the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 348),
    the use of NRL for such purpose would be deemed to be unsafe, and thus,
    unlawful under the Act.
        The agency is examining available information on potential risks of
    allergic responses to NRL from use in latex gloves worn by food service
    workers. To date the agency does not have sufficient evidence to
    propose to repeal the regulation in 21 CFR 177.2600 as to such use nor
    has anyone petitioned the agency to take such action. The agency has
    added a caution in the model guidelines for retail food service
    operations--the 1999 Food Code.
                         genetically modified organisms
        Question. What is FDA doing to go beyond its current regulatory
    proposal for the regulation of genetically engineered crops to prepare
    for the arrival of more complex biotech foods? Some examples of these
    are: genetically engineered salmon; modified farm animals like pigs or
    cows; or foods engineered to produce drugs, or high dosages of
    vitamins.
        Answer. Biotechnology researchers and companies are turning to
    animals to be both the manufacturing sites for biotechnology products
    and the recipients of biotechnology-derived products. Both areas are on
    the upswing and FDA has been working with a fledgling industry
    providing up-to-date communications to a concerned public.
        Genetically engineered animals contain new animal drugs. Under the
    Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, a ``drug'' includes
    ``articles . . . intended to affect the structure or any function of
    the body of man or other animals''. Because an introduced genetic
    construct will of necessity ``affect the structure or . . . function''
    of a genetically engineered animal, the genetic construct is a
    ``drug.'' The genetic construct may also produce a protein that is a
    drug. Use of a new animal drug is considered ``unsafe'' under the FFDCA
    unless the FDA has approved an application for that particular use.
    Thus, unlike genetically engineered crops, genetically engineered
    animals are subject to the new animal drug approval process This
    process requires that sponsors demonstrate the safety of the new animal
    drug to both the animal and, for food-producing animals, to humans who
    eat the animal.
        The use of animals from food-producing species in the production of
    diagnostic kits and other biomedical products includes a special
    responsibility to plan for the ultimate disposition of culled animals.
    If animals are milked or they produce offspring, the planning should
    address safe disposition of the milk and offspring as well. Even though
    these animals are food species and are sometimes being grown in a farm-
    like setting, they may not be suitable for use as human food or to be
    rendered and processed into an animal feed component.
        Ag-Biotech animals and products are coming closer to commercial
    feasibility and there has been a corresponding need by FDA to identify
    and to assist developers through the regulatory process. The public is
    becoming increasingly aware of these products as well, and FDA has
    given large numbers of presentations to scientific and industry
    associations and the press in the past year. Perhaps the best known
    example of a developing ag-biotech product is the growth hormone-
    enhanced Atlantic salmon, currently under review at FDA. There is
    similar research ongoing in other fish species, invertebrates,
    chickens, pigs, goats, and cattle worldwide. There are corresponding
    increases in inquiries at the FDA for investigational applications and
    increased outreach to researchers who may not be aware of the need to
    obtain pre-market approval for their genetically engineered animals.
        FDA is requiring that the company proposing to market the
    genetically engineered salmon provide data that its salmon is safe for
    human consumption, and safe for the environment. FDA is contracting
    with the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council to
    examine risks and risk assessment methods for animal biotechnology
    products. An expert committee of the National Research Council's
    Standing Committee on Biotechnology, Food and Fiber Production and the
    Environment will meet three times and include a public meeting to
    gather information and then prepare a brief consensus report
    identifying risk issues concerning products of animal biotechnology.
    The committee will probably include a review of animal cloning, use of
    viral vectors in genetically engineered animals, and other pressing
    scientific issues in animal biotechnology.
        Question. Does the agency have resources adequate to the task as
    these foods begin to approach market?
        Answer. The Animal Drugs and Feeds requested increase of $200,000
    in animal biotechnology for fiscal year 2002 will resource the first
    step in a program as these foods begin to approach market. With funds
    requested in fiscal year 2002, we will prepare guidances for industry
    explaining that animal biotechnology products are subject to premarket
    approval as new animal drugs and describing the information required to
    show safety and effectiveness for this class of products. In addition,
    as part of our surveillance efforts, FDA plans to develop an inventory
    of firms that are developing products derived from bioengineered
    animals.
        As more steps are taken, we will evaluate our need for additional
    resources. Additional steps needed as product lines begin to develop
    could include research and the development of guidance on whether
    various lines of transgenic animals can be safely crossbred and if so,
    how these crosses will be tracked; detection of unapproved transgenes
    in imported foods derived from animals, including seafood; evaluation
    of and monitoring of the effectiveness of various environmental
    containment strategies for genetically engineered fish and shellfish,
    birds, etc., that could become feral and become established in the
    environment.
        Biotechnology products in animals are diverse and currently mostly
    in the concept phase. The Animal Drugs and Feeds Program is currently
    spending, and will continue to need to spend, resources working with
    these entrepreneurs and scientists to address food safety, public
    health and environmental safety as these new companies and product
    lines are born.
                              mad cow disease/bse
        Question. As you know, I announced last month that I will be
    introducing legislation soon to strengthen our national defenses
    against the possible introduction of BSE (mad cow disease). One
    question that arises in preparing the bill is this:
        Given the need for coordination of our programs at the border, at
    feed mills and farms, and with our surveillance efforts, is there a
    need to identify a single, lead agency on mad cow issues?
        Answer. No, the current comprehensive effort is working well, with
    FDA continuing to work closely with USDA, State agricultural and other
    State agencies on implementation of the BSE regulation and on
    controlling imported products that might introduce BSE into the U.S.
    The Agency also contracts with the States, who have conducted
    approximately 80 percent of the inspections under the BSE regulation.
    FDA worked closely with USDA in developing the import alerts and
    bulletins issued by FDA, to ensure all animal products that might
    contain the BSE agent are identified and listed in the alerts and
    bulletins and are prevented from entering the U.S.
        FDA is also a member of domestic and international working groups,
    and chairs the Senior Executive Interagency Steering Committee. A major
    goal of these groups is to ensure that imports of products potentially
    contaminated with BSE do not get into the U.S. The Senior Executive
    Interagency Steering Committee assures coordination among agencies,
    especially in three main areas: integrated contingency planning in case
    BSE or variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease, or vCJD, disease is found in
    the U.S; identification of and response to potential vulnerabilities in
    the U.S. to BSE and vCJD; and coordination of risk communication plans
    by the various agencies. The following organizations participate in the
    Senior Executive Interagency Steering Committee: Department of Health
    and Human Services Assistant Secretary for Science, FDA, CDC, NIH,
    USDA's APHIS, Foreign Agricultural Service, FSIS, White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, U.S. Trade Representative, U.S. Customs,
    Department of State, DOD, National Association of States Departments of
    Agriculture, National Association of Chief Livestock Health Officials,
    Association of American Feed Control Officials.
        An interagency working group on BSE started in 1996 with USDA's
    APHIS, FSIS and Agricultural Research Service, or ARS, FDA, NIH, CDC,
    and DOD represented. The purpose of the group is to share information,
    evaluate ideas and issues, and take suggestions back to participating
    agencies.
        FDA continues to coordinate activities among U.S. Customs, USDA/
    APHIS and FDA, and is leading the efforts for developing procedures for
    multi-agency operations. From our experience the level of communication
    among these groups is excellent. A single, lead agency is not
    necessary.
        Question. And if so, which agency should that be?
        Answer. Although we believe a single lead agency is not necessary,
    if one is to be formed, it should be an agency that already deals with
    public health matters such as one of the agencies most experienced in
    these matters in DHHS.
                  national center for food safety & technology
        Question. FDA provides scientific and administrative personnel,
    laboratory and pilot plant equipment, and funding to the National
    Center for Food Safety and Technology (NCFST) located near Chicago,
    Illinois. NCFST is a unique research consortium of scientists from
    academia, FDA, and food related industries. Funds to run the Center are
    also provided by the Illinois Institute of Technology.
        How much of your propose budget is to be designated for NCFST? How
    does that compare to previous funding levels?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2002, FDA plans to expend $3,000,000 in
    support of the National Center for Food Safety and Technology's--
    NCFST--collaborative research activities. This collaborative research
    effort between government, academia, and private industry studies the
    food safety implications of emerging technology in food processing,
    packaging, and biotechnology. The NCFST is a cost effective resource
    for developing and exploring new technologies. By spreading the cost
    and risk of doing research, companies can control their costs while
    putting themselves on the cutting edge of new technology developments.
        NCFST's Internet web-site includes an announcement, ``Hire Our
    Graduates.'' The Master of Science degree program in food safety and
    technology or food process engineering educates students to be food
    safety experts for the private sector and for Federal and State
    regulatory agencies.
        Question. How many of NCFST's graduates are electing public service
    careers?
        Answer. The NCFST Masters Degree programs in Food Safety and
    Technology and in Food Process Engineering are relatively new. To date
    there have been two major categories of graduates from the programs:
    foreign students and part-time students already employed by industry.
    Most of the foreign students have returned to their native countries
    where they are putting the food safety training gained in the graduate
    program to use enhancing technological development in and safety of
    their countries' food supplies and exports. Part-time students have all
    been employed while participating in the graduate program; most in the
    food industry. Thus, NCFST has had no graduates available for placement
    with either FDA or USDA. They are in the process of stepping up
    recruitment of new students, particularly students that will feed into
    the U.S. job market, including FDA.
        Question. Are FDA's salaries competitive to attract these highly
    skilled graduates to the Federal workforce?
        Answer. We have no information on salaries earned by students
    returning to their native countries or by students already employed in
    the food industry that might me useful in determining salary
    comparability of the graduates to the Federal workforce.
                                    tobacco
        Question. I am disturbed by reports that two tobacco companies are
    preparing to market a new tobacco product that they are calling a
    cigalette. It is basically candy a mint-flavored tobacco lozenge packed
    with nicotine. The companies are making health claims about this
    product-contending it is a reduced-risk alternative to traditional
    cigarettes.
        These are excerpts from a press release on Star Scientific's web
    site:
        ARIVA(TM) also is directed to conventional smokeless product users
    who want the option of choosing a smokeless tobacco product that
    contains less cancer-causing toxins (TSNAs) than conventional products,
    while avoiding the need to expectorate.''
        ``Mr. Perito added that several highly respected independent
    scientific and public health consultants, as well as members of the
    company's Scientific Advisory Board, had urged Star to accelerate the
    development of non-combustible tobacco products so as to provide adult
    tobacco users smokeless tobacco product choices that significantly
    reduce exposure to the cancer-causing toxins that are delivered in all
    conventional cigarette products (TSNAs).
        Are you familiar with this product? Will the FDA assert its
    jurisdiction under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act?
        Answer. While FDA has limited information about the product ARIVA
    obtained from news sources and Star Scientific's web site, the agency
    has asked the company to provide more. A company official has assured
    FDA that Star Scientific will provide the agency the requested
    information before the company test markets the product. The official
    declined to provide the information immediately but indicated that he
    would do so six to eight weeks before test marketing commences latter
    this year. The agency will carefully review the information it receives
    and determine whether it has jurisdiction over this product.
        As we all now know, the tobacco industry has repeatedly made claims
    of reduced risk that later proved to be unfounded, deceptive and, in
    far too many cases, lethal. ``Light'' cigarettes that boasted lower
    levels of tar in cigarette smoke were introduced in the 1960's with
    claims of less risk to smokers. In fact, the introduction of ``lights''
    did not improve public health and may in fact have resulted in an
    increase in the incidence of disease.
        Today we face an increase in an entire new generation of products
    that promise to give smokers a safer alternative to quitting or not
    starting. In light of the IOM report, we know there is inadequate
    evidence to support these conclusions.
        Question. What actions is the FDA taking to protect Americans
    against new deceptions that could cost even more lives?
        Answer. In Brown and Williamson v. FDA, the Supreme Court limited
    FDA's ability to take action regarding tobacco products. As pointed out
    in the recent IOM report, A Blowing Smoke, a great deal more
    information is needed to determine the scientific validity of the
    reduced risk claims that appear on certain products being introduced to
    the market. The agency would take appropriate action if we determine
    that any such products fall under our jurisdiction.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson

                         fda's office of generic drugs
        Question. How do you anticipate the Office of Generic Drugs
    managing the prospect of a significant influx of abbreviated new drug
    applications, and has the administration requested an increase in
    resources to meet this demand?
        Answer. It is difficult to predict the submission rates for
    Abbreviated New Drug Applications, ANDA's. Currently, there is no
    expectation for a substantial increase in submission of ANDA's.
    However, we continue to streamline our processes to enhance the generic
    drug review process. We are able to accept more electronic submissions
    to streamline the review process. The new staff hired in the last
    fiscal year are now fully trained and are demonstrating high levels of
    productivity. We continue to examine every aspect of the review process
    to try to identify problem areas to be addressed. We also plan to
    revise the current system for amendment designation, major versus
    minor, to improve total review times. Other changes are also being
    explored.
        Question. Furthermore, does the administration plan on investing in
    a consumer education program designed to increase the awareness and
    safety of FDA approved generic drugs?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001 we have embarked on several information
    campaigns directed at consumers and the pharmacy community. There is a
    belief among segments of the patient population that generic drugs are
    not as good as innovator products. In order for consumers to understand
    how we approve generic drugs, we need to provide more information so
    they understand the scientific basis behind our decisions. We want
    consumers to know that we stand behind the generic drugs that we
    approve and that they are pharmaceutically equivalent to the innovator
    product.
               fda efforts to prevent bse or ``mad cow'' disease
        Question. First, can you or Dr. Sundlof provide the subcommittee
    with an update on the compliance rate of U.S. feed mills and renderers
    w/the FDA feed mixing ban?
        Answer. As of May 23, 2001 the out-of-compliance rate is 24 percent
    for those firms known to be handling prohibited material as of their
    last inspection. These include renderers, feed mills and protein
    blenders.
        Question. What steps is FDA willing to take if any feed mill or
    rendering plant does not meet your September 30, 2001 deadline for
    compliance with the FDA ``feed mixing ban?''
        Answer. FDA's goal is to inspect 100 percent of renderers, protein
    blenders and feeds mills and to inspect as many ruminant feeders as
    possible. We hope to realize 100 percent compliance with the 1997 feed
    rule. FDA is prepared to initiate enforcement action as appropriate
    under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, to ensure compliance
    with the feed rule. Actions will be taken at a level that corresponds
    to the risk to public health, and may include issuance of warning
    letters, product seizure, injunctions, or prosecution, in addition to
    firm-initiated recalls to remove adulterated or misbranded products
    from the market. The States also may initiate enforcement actions, and
    FDA will work in cooperating with its State counterparts.
        Question. Will the re-programmed funds ($2.4 M in fiscal year 2001)
    within FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine be sufficient to handle the
    inspections and reinspection?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2001, FDA has planned on spending
    approximately $3.8 million, but given the recent events related to BSE
    in Europe, FDA has adjusted its plan. FDA has internally shifted
    resources from lower priority programs to cover domestic inspections,
    import entry review, and import label examinations. In fiscal year 2001
    FDA also tapped into the Contingency Fund for one-time funds of $2.4
    million to support usual costs of BSE-related activities. These funds
    covered additional State contracts for domestic inspections, training
    for FDA employees, and importers, scientific equipment for laboratory
    analysis, methods development and validation, IT enhancements, market
    studies to identify food and cosmetic products containing specific risk
    products, and overtime and travel costs incurred by the field. FDA
    believes the total fiscal year 2001 spending for BSE activities will be
    approximately $14.0 million. We expect this will be sufficient to
    complete 100 percent inspection of all feed mills, renderers and
    protein blenders by the end of fiscal year 2001 as well as re-
    inspection of facilities found non-compliant with the 1997 feed
    regulation.
        The Agency has requested an additional $15.0 million for fiscal
    year 2002 for BSE activities. With $13.100 million requested by the
    Animal Drugs and Feeds program.
               fda advisory committees' ``conflict of interest''
        Question. In the testimony you have submitted to the subcommittee,
    you stated that, ``Research expenditures by the pharmaceutical industry
    alone have tripled since 1990. More and more complex products, which
    arrive at FDA's gate for preclinical and clinical studies design
    consultation, for marketing application review, and, for post-approval
    continuing reassessment are products of the growing NIH research budget
    and of academic and industry research fueled by NIH. We will ensure
    that FDA will not become a bottleneck in getting these public health
    breakthroughs to the public while serving as the trusted, independent,
    efficient gatekeeper it is now.'' However, in recent years, concerns
    have been raised about the truly ``independent'' nature of the
    activities of FDA Advisory Committees. In fact, the Los Angeles Times
    did a series of articles on FDA advisory committees and the conflicts-
    of-interest that are pervasive among members of the committees. The
    findings included that some FDA advisory committee members are allowed
    to remain as consultants or researchers for the same companies whose
    products they are evaluating. In the case of Rezulin (rez-uh-lin),
    which was pulled from the market last March due to its alleged
    connection with nearly 400 deaths, it was noted that FDA officials
    collaborated closely with the makers of the drug, providing ``inside
    information and favors at critical moments throughout the development
    and marketing of Rezulin.'' To the agency's credit, FDA released an
    internal report acknowledging that the agency committed ``possible
    missteps'' in its handling of this case.
        However, what assurances can you give this subcommittee that your
    budget request will help FDA address these apparent conflicts of
    interest in the drug approval process so that we can be assured that
    the public's trust is not being violated, nor their health jeopardized,
    by these advisory committees?
        Answer. All government advisory committees are regulated by the
    Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972. FDA adheres to a comprehensive
    and detailed program with multiple levels of review to ensure that the
    agency receives up-to-date, unbiased opinions from its advisory
    committee members. FDA engages in a vetting process that takes action
    on every reported financial interest. The majority of conflict of
    interest waivers are granted for relatively minor financial interests
    often unrelated to the matter before the committee. Whenever a conflict
    of interest waiver is granted, it is publicly announced at the
    beginning of the meeting and becomes part of the official record. In
    addition, the screening process and the criteria used to determine if a
    waiver should be granted are documents that can be publicly released.
    Members with conflicts of interest that exceed the agency guidelines do
    not participate in the advisory committee meeting.
        FDA's conflict of interest program for advisory committee members
    is subject to review by the Department of Health and Human Services and
    the United States Office of Government Ethics, OGE. During the most
    recent audit of our conflict of interest program, OGE reported that not
    only is FDA's program a sound one that met all requirements, but that
    it should be regarded as a model for other Federal agencies. Finally,
    it should be noted that the opinions of the advisory committees are not
    binding on the agency, and the final decision whether to approve a drug
    or not lies with FDA.
        Question. And, in your opinion, what can FDA do to increase
    transparency in the drug approval process to ensure that FDA continues
    to be the independent, efficient gatekeeper that you perceive it to be?
        Answer. We believe that FDA has already made progress in increasing
    the transparency in the drug approval process. The advisory committee
    procedures for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, CDER are
    designed to facilitate public participation at open advisory committee
    meetings. For example, unless it is otherwise exempt from disclosure
    under applicable laws, written information provided to members of an
    advisory committee in connection with an open advisory committee
    meeting convened by CDER is made available for public inspection and
    copying before or at the time of that meeting. CDER currently discloses
    these documents on the FDA Home Page at the following address:
    www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm. In addition, we also attempt
    to publicize on our internet site all relevant information about drug
    approvals. This may include information directed to the consumer in
    plain language or directed to health care providers. FDA also continues
    to invest resources in public information efforts with the goal of
    providing complete and accurate information to the American public in
    as timely a manner as possible.
                                  flu vaccine
        Question. In recent months, I, along with Senator Wyden and several
    colleagues in the House of Representatives, requested the GAO to
    conduct a study on the most recent shortage of influenza vaccine during
    the 2000-2001 flu season. This report is due to be released shortly and
    I hope that it will provide some insight as to what improvements can be
    made and what lessons can be learned from the experiences of the past
    year.
        Fortunately, in SD, we were spared a large-scale epidemic but the
    shortage of influenza vaccine left many high risk individuals without
    any access to vaccine. In fact, several health care facilities that
    deal almost entirely with high risk individuals reported to my office
    of having to pay as much as 3 to 10 times higher prices per dose
    through secondary distribution channels in order to have any supply at
    all.
        When looking into the challenges of last year, it appears that
    there was little communication between agencies and jurisdictions,
    including the FDA, CDC, and State health officials, on what
    contingencies were in place to deal with a shortage as large as the one
    experienced last year.
         Can you offer any insights as to what role the FDA can and is
    playing in the development of an action plan to deal with possible
    future shortages of this and other vaccines, many of which have a
    tremendous impact on the health outcomes of our nation's most
    vulnerable populations?
        Answer. The demand for influenza vaccines has been increased by the
    general acceptance that inactivated influenza vaccines are safe and
    effective, by the recognition that increased risk for complications
    from influenza infection is related to both age and underlying medical
    conditions, and by the implementation of federal reimbursement for
    vaccine for Medicare beneficiaries. The supply of vaccine is dependent
    upon, among other things, the capacity and interest of pharmaceutical
    companies to manufacture the vaccines. The supply has increased from
    approximately 20 million doses per year in the mid 1980's to
    approximately 80 million doses per year by the late 1990's. Production
    of the vaccines is unique among vaccine products in that the viruses in
    the influenza vaccine are changed on a frequent basis and the time for
    making each year's new vaccine and distributing the vaccine for use is
    fixed at 6-8 months. Influenza viruses are constantly evolving to
    escape immunologic inhibition, which requires change in the vaccine to
    ensure vaccine effectiveness. Each change in vaccine virus means that
    manufacturers must work rapidly to determine how to optimize yield of
    the new virus. In addition, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and
    Research must make reagents to permit standardization of the potency of
    the vaccines.
        This past year, one of the influenza vaccine manufacturers,
    Parkedale, stopped producing and marketing vaccine; this was,
    presumably, a business decision. We will provide for the record a list
    of those actions being taken to ensure against a possible future
    shortage of the flu vaccine as well as other vaccines.
        [The information follows:]
    Actions Being Taken to Ensure Against Future Vaccine Shortages
        Advise national and international public health groups such as the
    World Health Organization WHO, the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention, CDC, the National Institutes of Health, and the National
    Vaccine Program Office for the purpose of selecting new influenza
    viruses to be used in vaccine manufacturing. Every year in January,
    CBER's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee
    meets to make United States Public Health Service recommendations for
    the strains to be used in making vaccines and inform manufacturers of
    the choices;
        Perform serologic testing to determine whether current vaccines
    produce antibodies that can inhibit the new influenza viruses
    considered for use in vaccines;
        Work with manufacturers throughout the year to collect information
    on the capability of new influenza viruses to be used for large-scale
    production of influenza virus vaccines;
        Perform applied research to develop reassortant influenza viruses
    adapted to grow better in eggs than the naturally occurring viruses.
    The high growth reassortants help to increase the yield influenza virus
    in each batch produced and reduce the time required for large- scale
    manufacturing;
        Produce, calibrate, and distribute reagents to be used in
    determining the potency of vaccines. For each new virus included in
    vaccine, the reagents include a virus-specific preparation of influenza
    antigens and a virus specific antiserum. CBER also provides the
    antiserum to CDC and WHO for national and international surveillance of
    influenza viruses;
        Test on all influenza vaccines used in the United States. The
    testing is emphasized during early production steps to avoid later
    rejections of material. All manufacturers' working seed viruses are
    tested by CBER to ensure that the antigenic characteristics of the
    viral hemagglutinin match the recommended reference virus. Approved
    seed viruses are used to produce monovalent components of the trivalent
    vaccine. Monovalent vaccines are tested by the manufacturers and CBER
    for potency, and the results from both are used to assign a potency
    value to each monovalent component for use in formulation of trivalent
    vaccine;
        Conduct complete reviews of all lot-release submissions for the
    influenza virus vaccines;
        Work with manufacturers of virus vaccines to develop additional
    vaccines that may be used in the future such as live-attenuated
    influenza virus vaccine and purified protein hemagglutinin vaccine
    produced by recombinant DNA technology; and,
        Facilitate manufacturing changes that increase vaccine production.
                         direct to consumer advertising
        Question. A New York Times article from earlier this week cited a
    study by the National Institute for Health Care Management that
    spending on prescription drugs increased by almost 19 percent last
    year, to $132 billion. This study further noted that, ``the recent rise
    in pharmaceutical spending is due, in large measure, to the growth in
    sales of a relatively small number of medicines. Most of these drugs
    are blockbusters many Americans have come to know by name and see
    advertised more and more.''
        As you well know, due to FDA's rule change on direct-to-consumer
    advertising approximately four years ago, television ads for
    prescription drugs are now very common. In fact, pharmaceutical
    companies spent an estimated $1.7 billion on TV ads in 2000, 50 percent
    more than what they spent in 1999, more than double the 1998 amount.
    Interestingly, the United States is only one of two countries (New
    Zealand is the other) where prescription drugs are aired during prime
    time television hours. Proponents of the FDA's policy shift say it
    creates a more informed patient because viewers see the ads, then have
    an intelligent give-and- take with a doctor. Critics say the shift
    creates more business for pharmaceutical companies by encouraging
    patients to seek out expensive, potentially dangerous drugs that they
    know little about.
        In fact, of the estimated 200 television drug spots aired since the
    1997 FDA rule change, the agency has cited 32 for non-compliance and
    has asked the companies to change all or part of the ads.
        In your testimony, you stated that, ``. . . it has become
    increasingly clear that FDA's eye must be equally focused on the full
    life cycle of all the products that we (FDA) regulate--post market as
    well as pre-market activities and developments''.
        Therefore, what assurances can you give us that the FDA is
    monitoring direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs?
        Answer. Since issuing the 1997 draft guidance on broadcast, TV,
    radio, and telephone advertisements, the Division of Drug Marketing,
    Advertising and Communications, DDMAC, has had in place a process that
    alerts reviewers to submission of broadcast advertisements, and
    prioritizes and expedites their review. In addition, most product
    sponsors voluntarily submit their broadcast advertisements for review
    and comment prior to using them. Thus, there are relatively few
    product-claim TV and radio advertisements that DDMAC has not seen and
    commented on at some point in their production. We believe that the
    high degree of use of this voluntary, prior-review system, together
    with our prioritizing review of mandatory submissions, assures us of a
    highly effective level of monitoring of broadcast advertisements.
        Question. Furthermore, is the FDA completing any analysis or study
    of the impact the 1997 rule change has had on prescription drug prices
    and spending?
        Answer. In 1997 FDA published a draft guidance, not a rule change.
    In the final guidance we stated that we would assess the impact on the
    public health. Since FDA does not regulate pricing, our surveys will
    not measure this factor.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

        Question. User Fees The President's budget includes an increase in
    current user fees to enhance the review process for new human drugs and
    biological products, and an increase in existing fees for applications,
    drug producers, establishments, and approved products.
        What enhancements will be made to the review process, and what
    effect will these enhancements have on the length of time it takes for
    review and approval?
        Answer. The agency is committed to performance goals for fiscal
    year 2002 that are detailed in an attachment to a November 12, 1997
    letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and referred to
    in the legislation that reauthorized PDUFA. Those goals include the
    review of 90 percent of priority applications within 6 months, 90
    percent of standard applications within 10 months, and 90 percent of
    manufacturing supplements requiring prior approval in 4 months.
        Question. What effect will increased user fees have on the cost of
    the approved products?
        Answer. These increased fees are not expected to have any impact on
    the cost of approved products. The value of FDA review activities to
    industry far weighs the cost of the fees. According to the most recent
    data, for 1998, reported by the Pharmaceutical Research and
    Manufacturers Association, PhRMA, in its Pharmaceutical Industry 2000
    Profile, 4.4 percent of total spending on U.S. industry R&D was
    allocated to ``Regulatory: IND and NDA''. This corresponds to a total
    of $757.79 million, out of a total of $17.22 billion in U.S. industry R
    & D spending that year. PDUFA fees paid by industry in 1998 totaled
    $117.12 million, about 15 percent of the amount industry attributes to
    ``Regulatory: IND and NDA'', and less than 1 percent, 0.006, of U.S.
    industry spending on drug R&D. Fee collections in fiscal year 2000
    totaled $145.98 million, and this again represents less than 1 percent
    of the PhRMA estimated spending of $22.48 billion by U.S. industry in
    2000. Despite the fact that user fees represent only a tiny fraction of
    R & D costs, the PDUFA program is a significant factor in increasing R
    & D cost-efficiency. Industry researchers have cited the FDA review
    processes and efficiency as the world benchmark. According to the
    Outlook 2001 report published by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug
    Development, focused consultation with the FDA during the drug
    development process has been shown to help shorten clinical development
    times. The value to industry is reflected in the volume of company
    requests for meetings for consultation with FDA during drug
    development. Approximately 1,500 such meetings were requested and
    scheduled in fiscal year 1999 and more than 1,100 meetings were
    requested and scheduled in fiscal year 2000. The FDA reviewers'
    preparations and follow-up to these meetings are performed in addition
    to the work performed for review of submitted applications.
                                food irradiation
        Question. The Food and Drug Administration has been identified as
    the government agency, in the United States, with the responsibility of
    reviewing a proposed revision to food irradiation standards put forth
    by the Codex Alimentarius Commission's Committee on Food Additives and
    Contaminants. Concern has been expressed to me that the proposed
    revisions may undermine food safety in the United States.
        What efforts is the FDA undertaking to ensure that food safety
    standards in the United States will not be compromised because of
    international agreements?
        Answer. FDA undertakes a variety of efforts to ensure that food
    safety standards in the United States will not be compromised because
    of international agreements. These efforts include the Agency's active
    participation in relevant international standard setting organizations
    such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission. FDA's decision to
    participate in these types of organizations is based on the assumption
    that there exists a unique opportunity for the United States to join
    the international community in formulating and harmonizing food
    standards and ensuring their global implementation. FDA's
    participation, in the Codex for example, also allows the Agency to play
    a role in the development of codes governing hygienic processing
    practices and recommendations relating to compliance with those
    standards.
        FDA also believes that activities aimed at improving foreign food
    and cosmetic regulatory systems and product safety can also improve the
    agency's ability to fulfill its public health mission and statutory
    obligations here in the United States. FDA intends to play an active
    role in appropriate international forums and to strike a balance
    between its public health mandate and other international issues
    identified by FDA's stakeholders. FDA's participation in the
    international arena has had and continues to have a very positive
    impact on the ability of FDA to protect the health of American
    consumers. The Agency's regulatory and scientific expertise has been
    instrumental in enhancing the strength of international standards for
    foods and cosmetics and in improving the foreign regulatory systems
    that oversee the production and safety of products exported to the
    United States.
        The FDA will continue to implement the food safety standard
    established by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. A food that
    has been intentionally subjected to radiation is not allowed for sale
    in the United States unless the use of radiation was in conformance to
    an authorizing regulation issued by the FDA. The FDA only issues such
    regulations if evidence shows that the use of radiation is safe.
        The Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, SPS Agreement, of the
    GATT encourages WTO member states to base their sanitary and
    phytosanitary measures for food safety on standards developed by the
    Codex Alimentarius Commission. This agreement, however, does not
    require countries to change their level of protection for human health.
    In sum, Codex Standards are non-binding international guidelines that
    WTO member states should consider when maintaining or establishing
    measures to protect public health.
        The current Codex Standard for Irradiated Foods, adopted in 1983,
    recommends approval of foods irradiated to an average dose of 10 kGy.
    Current FDA regulations on irradiated food generally allow a dose less
    than that of the Codex Standard although FDA allows a higher dose for
    spices and for meats consumed in the NASA space flight program. The
    32nd and 33rd sessions, 2000 and 2001, of the Codex Committee on Food
    Additives and Contaminants, CCFAC, discussed proposed draft revisions
    to the Codex General Standard for Irradiated Foods. The proposed
    revisions would remove the restriction on the maximum dose, based on a
    1997 report of an expert panel convened by the World Health
    Organization. FDA scientists have participated in those discussions.
    The 33rd CCFAC agreed to forward amended revisions to the 24th session
    of the Codex Alimentarius Commission for preliminary adoption at Step 5
    in the 8 step Codex standard elaboration process. The current draft
    revision of this standard is contained in the report of the 33rd
    Session of the CCFAC, ALINORM 01/12A, Appendix VII, which is available
    from the Codex Alimentarius Website, http://www.codexalimentarius.net/.
        FDA supports the Codex goal of developing international standards
    and participates in discussions to ensure that standards are science-
    based. While considering Codex Standards, FDA will continue to
    implement the food safety standard established by the Federal Food,
    Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
                                  food safety
        Question. I am concerned that the FDA reports that microbial food-
    borne disease causes approximately 76 million illnesses, 325,000
    hospitalizations, and 5,000 deaths each year. Despite these figures,
    the number of inspections that the FDA performs has fallen steadily
    during the last 25 years. The President's budget request would only
    allow inspection at ninety-five percent of domestic firms.
        What level of funding would allow the FDA to perform inspections at
    all domestic firms?
        Answer. FDA is currently in the process of developing long range
    estimates for resource needs associated with the inspection of all
    domestic food establishments. The estimates will include a range of
    estimated resources needed to conduct the inspections, assumptions in
    determining the cost estimate, and caveats that indicate what types of
    uncertainties or changes would alter the estimates.
        Question. How does the FDA justify a request that intentionally
    falls short of inspecting all domestic firms?
        Answer. FDA believes that food safety funding needs to continue to
    be a multi-year effort. FDA's request recognizes that finite resources
    are available and focuses on highest risk. This budget is needed to
    maintain that focus. As resources permit, we can inspect medium/low
    risk establishments with greater frequency.
        Inspections, while important, need to be viewed within a broader
    food safety program. We complement our inspection coverage with
    surveillance activities, research and risk assessment, and educational
    activities at all levels, consumers, industry, manufacturers, and
    processors, to provide a complete food safety program to ensure the
    U.S. food supply remains the safest in the world.

                             Conclusion of Hearings

        Senator Cochran. This concludes today's hearing. Additional
    hearings are scheduled by the subcommittee. Our next hearing
    will be on Thursday, May 17, at 10 o'clock in the morning, here
    in room 138 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. At that
    time, we will hear from Federal, industry, and local witnesses
    on the subject of market concentration in agriculture. Until
    then, the subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., Thursday, May 10, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    to the call of the Chair.]

    AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

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

        MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY AGENCIES NOT APPEARING FOR FORMAL HEARINGS

        [Clerk's note.--The following agencies of the Department of
    Agriculture did not appear before the subcommittee this year.
    Chairman Cochran requested these agencies to submit testimony
    in support of their fiscal year 2002 budget request. Those
    statements follow:]

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                            Rural Utilities Service

        Prepared Statements of Blaine D. Stockton, Acting Administrator

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is a pleasure to present
    to you the President's fiscal year 2002 Budget request for the Rural
    Development Mission Area of USDA.
        The Rural Development Mission area was established in 1994 by the
    Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture
    Reorganization Act. The mission area consists of three agencies, the
    Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), the Rural Housing Service
    (RHS), and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). These agencies are
    responsible for delivering programs authorized by the Consolidated Farm
    and Rural Development Act, the Farm Security Act of 1985, the Rural
    Electrification Administration Act of 1936, the Cooperative Marketing
    Act of 1926, the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, the Housing Act of
    1949, and the Rural Economic Development Act of 1990, as amended. The
    mission area also administers the rural portion of the Empowerment
    Zones and Enterprise Communities (EZ/EC) Initiative and the National
    Rural Development Partnership, a nationwide network of rural
    development leaders and officials. This listing of responsibilities is
    suggestive of the remarkably wide variety of responsibilities in Rural
    Development's purview, to improve the quality of life for rural
    Americans.
        Rural Development assists rural individuals, communities, and
    businesses obtain the financial and technical assistance needed to
    address their diverse and unique needs. This financial and technical
    assistance may come solely from Rural Development or be combined with
    assistance from one of the numerous public and private organizations
    involved in the development of rural communities. Rural Development
    agencies deliver over 40 different loan, loan guarantee, and grant
    programs in the areas of business development, cooperative development
    housing, community facilities, water supply, waste disposal, electric
    power, and telecommunications, including distance learning and
    telemedicine. Rural Development staff also provide technical assistance
    to rural families and community leaders to ensure success of those
    projects it has financed. In addition to their loan-making
    responsibilities, Rural Development staff are also responsible for the
    servicing and collection of a loan portfolio that exceeds $80 billion.
        Rural Development's impressive aggregate statistics display one
    dimension of the successes of the program funding the Committee has
    provided. However, statistics do not reveal the human side of these
    successes. Later, in testimony from the agencies, you will hear clearly
    how the program funding the Committee provides dramatically improves
    the lives of rural Americans. These success stories are remarkable.
                        rural development budget request
        Mr. Chairman, the President's commitment to improving rural America
    is reflected in the budget request for fiscal year 2002. The Rural
    Development budget request for program level is $12.4 billion,
    supported by budget authority of $2.4 billion. This reflects the
    commitment to maintain program performance at current levels. Special
    one- time supplemental funding provided last year is not requested, nor
    is continuation of several small pilot projects, since they generally
    can be funded under existing authorities. I will now discuss the
    requests for specific programs.
                             rural housing service
        The budget request for the programs administered by the Rural
    Housing Service (RHS) totals $5.8 billion. This commitment will improve
    housing conditions in rural areas, and in particular improve
    homeownership opportunities. The request for single family direct and
    guaranteed homeownership loans totals $4.2 billion, which will assist
    55,800 households who are unable to obtain credit elsewhere to purchase
    a home of their own. This level of construction activity will stimulate
    almost 36,000 jobs in rural areas. The RHS request includes $32 million
    for housing repair loans and almost $30 million for housing repair
    grants, which will be used to improve 12,000 existing single family
    houses, mostly occupied by low income elderly residents.
        We are proposing a multi-family housing request of $114 million for
    direct loans, almost $100 million for guaranteed loans, $43 million for
    farm labor housing loans and grants, and about $694 million in rental
    assistance. These program levels support construction of new units and
    rehabilitation of existing units, many of which are occupied by female
    heads of households, generally elderly females or single mothers, with
    annual incomes averaging under $8,000. In addition, the budget includes
    $694 million for rural Rental Assistance payments. These payments are
    used to reduce the rent in rural rental housing projects, to no more
    than 30 percent of the income of very low-income families. This level
    of funding will provide rental assistance to approximately 43,000
    households, most of which would be used for renewing expired contracts
    in existing projects.
        The request for community facilities funding totals almost $250
    million for direct loans, $210 million for guaranteed loans, almost $13
    million for grants, and just under $6 million to continue the Rural
    Community Development Initiative (RCDI). Community facilities programs
    finance rural health facilities, child care facilities, fire and safety
    facilities, jails, education facilities, and almost any other type of
    essential community facility needed in rural America. These funds will
    support 4,000 beds in new or improved elder care facilities, 180 new or
    improved health care facilities, 170 new or improved fire and rescue
    facilities, 90 new or improved child care centers, and 70 new or
    improved schools.
                      rural business-cooperative services
        One key to creating economic opportunity in rural areas is the
    development of new business and employment opportunities. But, local
    lending institutions frequently do not have the capacity or capital
    needed to sustain local businesses and generate new growth in rural
    areas. Rural Business-Cooperative Services (RBS) programs, particularly
    the Business and Industry (B&I) loan guarantee program, were enacted to
    supplement the efforts of local lending institutions in providing the
    capital.
        Based on recent experiences, we expect that every dollar of Rural
    Business Enterprise Grant funding will be leveraged with $2.40 of
    funding from other sources, while each dollar of Intermediary Relending
    Program funds will be leveraged with $3.76 from other sources.
        The RBS budget request for fiscal year 2002 totals just over $1.1
    billion, the bulk of which represents $1 billion for the B&I loan
    guarantee program. This level of funding for the B&I program alone will
    create or save over 28,000 jobs in rural America. Almost $41 million is
    requested for the Rural Business Enterprise Grant program, $3 million
    for the Rural Business Opportunity Grant program, $38 million for the
    Intermediary Relending Program, almost $15 million for Rural Economic
    Development loans, over $6 million for Rural Cooperative Development
    Grants, and just under $15 million for Empowerment Zone and Enterprise
    Community Grants, for communities designated in the second round of
    this program. In total, this program level should create or save over
    71,000 rural jobs.
                            rural utilities service
        The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) provides financing for electric,
    telecommunications, and water and waste disposal services that are
    essential for economic development in rural areas. The level requested
    for programs administered by the RUS is $4.9 billion, which is
    comprised of $2.6 billion for electric loan programs, $495 million for
    rural telecommunication loans, $300 million for Distance Learning and
    Telemedicine loans, $27 million for Distance Learning and Telemedicine
    grants, $884 million for direct and guaranteed Water and Waste Disposal
    loans, and $529 million for Water and Waste Disposal Grants, and $4
    million for Solid Waste Management Grants.
        Contingent upon the enactment of authorizing legislation,
    approximately $2 million may be available for a loan and grant program
    to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet service in
    rural areas. This will improve access to high speed, high capacity data
    transmission to under-served rural areas. It is estimated that about 10
    percent of rural areas lack local Internet service.
        The Electric program funding will benefit about 2.8 million
    consumers from systems improvement, through upgrading almost 190 rural
    electric systems. Approximately 60,000 jobs will be created as a result
    of facilities constructed with Electric program funds. Almost 50,000
    new subscribers will receive telecommunications service, over 200,000
    existing subscribers will receive improved service, and about 16,000
    jobs will be generated as a result of facilities constructed with
    Telecommunications funds. Under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine
    programs, approximately 300 schools will receive distance learning
    facilities and 150 health care providers will receive telemedicine
    facilities. Over 42,000 jobs will be generated as a result of
    facilities constructed with water and waste disposal program funds, as
    600 rural water systems and about 330 rural waste systems are developed
    or expanded in compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act and Federal
    and State environmental standards.
        The Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was established in 1972 to provide a
    supplemental source of credit to help establish rural telephone
    companies. This has proved to be remarkably successful, and efforts
    have been underway to privatize the bank. In 1996, the RTB began
    repurchasing Class ``A'' stock from the Federal government, thereby
    beginning the process of transformation from a Federally-funded
    organization to a fully privatized banking institution. The fiscal year
    2002 budget reflects the Administration's commitment to a fully
    privatized RTB that does not require Federal funds to finance the loans
    it makes. The 2002 Budget does however, include administrative funds
    for developing a detailed plan for privatization for legal support and
    to administer the existing loan portfolio.
                            administrative expenses
        These requested program levels provide ambitious targets for
    accomplishments, for which the Committee will be proud. However,
    delivering these programs to the remote, isolated, and low income areas
    of rural America requires administrative expenses sufficient to the
    task. Over the last several years, Rural Development has administered
    growing program levels, and new programs, with a stable level of Salary
    and Expense (S&E) funding. From fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year
    2000 Rural Development's annual program levels increased by 43 percent.
    Over that same period Rural Development's S&E appropriation increased
    1.4 percent. Although no Reductions in Force were implemented, Rural
    Development curtailed employment, and Full Time Equivalent (FTE)
    staffing fell 15 percent. But, in spite of lower employment, salary and
    benefits requirements took a larger and larger share of the total S&E
    available. In 1996, salary and benefits for employees took 70 percent
    of the total S&E. By 2000, with 1,168 fewer FTEs used, salary and
    benefits took 78 percent of S&E. With S&E rising only 1.4 percent, less
    was available for everything else, including travel, training,
    supplies, etc., to support loan underwriting; and servicing and
    automated systems development.
        For all these reasons, we urge the committee to fund the
    President's fiscal year 2002 requested for S&E of $596 million. Rural
    Development is very appreciative of the funding provided in the fiscal
    year 2001 appropriation for automated financial systems development,
    and funding the President's requests will allow Rural Development to
    continue to support the development of systems for guaranteed loans,
    multi-family housing loans, Rural Utilities Service systems
    modernization, and the Program Funds Control System. This funding will
    allow Rural Development to continue to address long delayed automated
    systems development needs, but these are major projects and will not be
    completed in one year. Rural Development's loan portfolio exceeds $80
    billion and funding is a joint venture requiring both adequate program
    and administrative funding. One cannot be achieved without the other.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my formal
    statement. The Acting Administrators and I would be glad to answer any
    questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you to discuss the Rural Development budget request.
                                     ______

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to present the President's fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    Rural Utilities Service (RUS). We appreciate the work and support you
    and the other members of this subcommittee have provided for a strong,
    dependable infrastructure in the rural United States.
        All aspects of a rural society work together to make a strong
    nation. Safe, affordable, modern utility infrastructure is an
    investment in economic competitiveness and serves as a fundamental
    building block of economic development. Technology, regulatory, and
    market structure changes, combined with an aging utility infrastructure
    are occurring in the electric, telecommunications, and water sectors.
    Without the help of USDA through the RUS programs, the citizens of
    rural communities will have a more difficult time-sharing in the basic
    quality of life.
        The nearly $42 billion RUS loan portfolio includes investments in
    approximately 2,000 electric and telecommunications systems and 7,500
    small community and rural water and waste disposal systems serving
    rural America. This local/Federal partnership is an ongoing success
    story. Eighty percent of the Nation's landmass continues to be rural,
    encompassing 25 percent of the population. In a fragile economy, this
    infrastructure investment spurs economic growth, creates jobs and
    improves the quality of life in Rural America.
                           responsive and responsible
        The proposed budget will enable RUS to continue to respond to the
    demand in rural America to meet the needs brought on by the rapidly
    changing markets and technologies. The ability of borrowers to respond
    quickly to changing conditions is a key to the public-private
    partnership between RUS and its borrowers. RUS continues to streamline
    policies and offer borrowers more flexibility in financing, while
    ensuring safe, reliable modern utility service to rural Americans.
                                electric program
        The RUS Electric Program budget proposes $3.7 million in budget
    authority to support a program level of $2.62 billion. The President's
    Budget requests $3.6 million in budget authority for a hardship program
    level of $121.1 million. The budget proposal provides a $294 million
    funding level for the municipal rate loans, a $500 million funding
    level for Treasury rate loans, and $1.6 billion funding level for
    guaranteed loans through the Federal Financing Bank, which do not
    require any subsidy budget authority. In addition, the budget proposal
    provides $80,000 in budget authority for a $100 million loan guarantee
    program for private sector loan guarantees. To more effectively manage
    both the telecommunications and electric programs and to respond to
    borrower needs, we are requesting the budget authority be provided in a
    single, unrestricted amount for electric and telecommunications
    programs.
        RUS is also working with power supply borrowers to secure badly
    needed peak power and transmission needs. As you each are aware, our
    demand for generation and transmission has outgrown capacity.
        A good example of how RUS electric programs can affect the quality
    of rural communities is in Douglassville, Texas. Bowie-Cass Electric
    Cooperative of Douglassville developed a construction work plan
    totaling $17,872,000 to construct new facilities, extend service to
    approximately 3,800 new customers and improve existing facilities. Of
    this, RUS electric program loan funds will provide financing in the
    amount of $6,300,000, which will leverage $2,700,000 of supplemental
    financing, $72,000 in aid to construction contribution and $8,800,000
    of the Cooperative's generated funds. A portion of these funds will be
    used to extend service to a new Skills Center in the State that will
    employ 10-15 people. This center will work with local colleges to
    produce the highly skilled technicians the employers of the area
    require. Without this type of training, employers in this rural area
    would be faced with employee shortages and might be forced to relocate.
            facilitating advanced telecommnications in rural america
        The uniform deployment of advanced telecommunication technologies
    in urban and rural areas alike has been recognized as a must if the
    nation is to achieve the greatest return on its infrastructure
    investment. In 1993, Congress passed the Rural Electrification Loan
    Restructuring Act (RELRA), which mandated that all future RUS financed
    telecommunications infrastructure be capable of supporting data
    transmission at a minimum rate of one megabit-per-second--or at
    broadband service levels. As a result, RUS financing provided since the
    passage of that important act has resulted in increased investment in
    advanced technologies for rural areas served by RUS borrowers. Since
    receiving this mandate:
      --The deployment by RUS borrowers of fiber optic cable has doubled,
            representing one in every ten miles of cable in rural local
            loops financed by RUS.
      --RUS has financed $1.5 billion in fiber optic facilities and $1.1
            billion in digital switching systems and enhanced feature
            software.
      --And today, RUS financed borrowers provide 99 percent digital
            switching.
        RUS will continue to finance only telecommunications plants that
    can be characterized as ``no roadblocks to broadband'' and, as such, is
    compatible with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, especially the
    universal service principles of Section 254 and the encouragement for
    broadband of Section 706. While significant progress is being made in
    the deployment of advanced telecommunications technologies in rural
    areas, RUS will continue to focus on the challenges remaining in
    providing rural access to the digital economy and its benefits:
      --serving the unserved and underserved;
      --keeping pace with new industry changes in a competitive market; and
      --addressing special needs of economically distressed regions and
            those areas with limited resources, such as our Native American
            communities.
                        water and environmental programs
        This budget seeks $530 million in budget authority for Water and
    Waste Disposal (WWD) grants; $3.5 million in budget authority for solid
    waste management grants; and $56 million in budget authority to support
    over $809 million in WWD direct loans and $75 million in guaranteed
    loans.
        The budget request earmarks $20 million for Colonias along the
    U.S.-Mexico border, $16.2 million for technical assistance and training
    grants, $9.5 million for the circuit rider technical assistance
    program, $20 million for rural Alaskan villages, and $27 million in
    budget authority for loans and grants in Federally designated
    Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities. Our budget request will
    also allow third-party service providers such as rural water circuit
    riders to make over 56,000 water and wastewater system contacts to
    communities needing technical assistance and, through a clearinghouse
    effort, take more than 20,000 telephone calls and an estimated 11,000
    electronic bulletin board and web site contacts.
        As a result of WWD strong technical assistance efforts, both from
    staff and third-party service providers/contractors, loan delinquency
    and loan losses will remain low. Currently, only 1 percent of
    approximately 7,600 borrowers are delinquent. Since the inception of
    the water and waste disposal program, less than 0.1 percent of the
    amount loaned has been written off.
        WWD programs improve the quality of life and health of an estimated
    1.4 million Americans in needy communities each year by providing
    access to clean, safe drinking water. In addition, new or improved
    waste disposal facilities are provided to an estimated 500,000 people
    living in rural areas. A field network of Rural Development employees
    deliver the program through ``hands-on'' technical and financial
    assistance under the Rural Community Advancement Program.
        A project funded in Columbus, New Mexico illustrates the kind of
    impact the program can have. Columbus is a small-incorporated community
    on the border with Mexico in Southern Luna County, which had no
    existing wastewater treatment infrastructure. The low-income (MHI =
    $10,781) predominately Hispanic population was served by septic tanks,
    cesspools, and in some cases privies. Ground water contamination was a
    major concern. The Village owns a small industrial park, which is
    largely empty, but does house US Customs and a 24-unit Multi- Family
    Housing project funded by RHS/USDA. It was served by a small-
    dilapidated lagoon sewer plant. EPA found it in non-compliance and was
    threatening large daily fines. RUS provided two Section 306C Colonias
    grants totaling $1,936,600 which were combined with a $300,000
    Community Development Block Grant to build a gravity flow sewer
    collection system along with a lagoon wastewater treatment facility
    serving the Village. A small part of the project upgraded and expanded
    the plant at the industrial park, providing safe wastewater treatment
    to the RHS apartment complex along with others. Part of the new system
    plant included constructive wetlands, which provide a safe haven for
    waterfowl and migrating birds. As an unforeseen benefit, a small
    rowboat provided through the project ended up being used during severe
    flooding conditions to rescue families from their flooded properties,
    one of which had 12 family members stranded on the roof of their mobile
    home. Columbus has recently received additional CDBG funds and is now
    expanding the collection system to serve the fringe areas of the
    community.
        The Water and Waste Disposal program has been very successful since
    its inception over 60 years ago. A total of over $25 billion in
    financial assistance has been provided, about 70 percent of that in the
    form of loans; approximately 45 percent of the total has been provided
    during the past 10 years. Indications suggest, however, that needs for
    water and waste disposal systems are still significant and are likely
    to grow as a result of expanding population in rural areas, changes to
    water quality standards, drought conditions, and similar factors. The
    application backlog for assistance continues to total about $3 billion
    each year. Over the last three years RUS has assisted 1,124 borrowers
    in moving up to commercial credit in accordance with its graduation
    requirement. The loans paid off as a result of this effort totaled
    nearly $680 million.
                         outreach to the needest people
        RUS strives to increase its program outreach, participation, and
    delivery to the most needy rural people. This goal addresses the heart
    of our mission. We combine our technical and financial resources to
    reach out and assist those communities, tribes and other groups with
    limited resources. The RUS outreach efforts have touched the vast
    expanse of our country-from rural Alaskan Villages to Colonias along
    the U.S.-Mexico border communities in the Mississippi Delta and the
    great needs of Native Americans.
        Since the earliest days of rural electrification, this agency has
    focused special attention on tribal communities. One of our earliest
    electric borrowers was the Navajo Nation. In telecommunications, five
    out of the seven tribally owned telephone companies are RUS borrowers.
    The significant RUS investments in utilities in Alaska provide service
    to some of the most remote native Alaskan villages.
        RUS investments in drinking water and wastewater projects serving
    tribal and rural Alaskan communities have increased by nearly 400
    percent since fiscal year 1993, and continue to grow. RUS is uniquely
    dedicated to helping unserved and under-served communities. Nearly
    sixteen million dollars were earmarked in fiscal year 2001 to benefit
    Native Americans. For fiscal year 2002, the President's proposed budget
    earmarks $24 million for Native Americans, of which $15.75 million is
    proposed to be used for water and waste disposal loans and grants.
    Additionally, we are intensifying coordination of funds with the Indian
    Health Service and State and other Federal agencies.
                           telecommunications budget
        This year's budget proposes $300 million in Treasury rate loans and
    $120 million in loan guarantee authority. This $420 million in loans
    can be provided for a minimal subsidy cost of $300,000. In addition,
    the budget proposes $1.7 million in budget authority to support $75
    million in hardship loans to the poorest, neediest, and highest cost to
    serve areas.
        The budget also reflects the Administration's commitment to
    privatize the Rural Telephone Bank and therefore, does not request any
    budget authority to support lending for fiscal year 2002. This will
    result in a $3.8 million savings in budget authority. Today, the bank
    operates as a supplemental lender to entities eligible to borrow funds
    from the RUS program. A privatized bank would be able to expand or
    tailor its lending practices to go beyond the current limitations
    imposed as a government lender, as well as use its substantial loan
    portfolio and cash reserves to extend favorable credit and terms to
    smaller, rural companies. Privatization, therefore, should be pursued
    in a manner consistent with the bank's enabling legislation so that it
    continues as a private lender that helps meet the growing capital
    demands of the rural telecommunications industry.
                       distance learning and telemedicine
        Distance learning and telemedicine technologies are having a
    profound impact on the lives of rural residents. The Distance Learning
    and Telemedicine (DLT) program administered by RUS is helping to
    facilitate the deployment of advanced technologies to our rural schools
    and health care centers. By assisting rural schools and learning
    centers in gaining access to improved educational resources over
    advanced broadband networks rural students and teachers have access to
    educational opportunities not available before. And by assisting rural
    hospitals and health care centers in gaining access to improved medical
    care by linking to urban medical centers for clinical interactive video
    consultation, distance training of rural health care providers,
    management and transport of patient information, and access to medical
    expertise and library resources health care in rural areas takes on a
    whole new dimension. Building on advanced telecommunications
    infrastructure, distance learning and telemedicine initiatives are not
    only improving the quality of life in rural areas, but are making
    direct contributions to promoting electronic commerce in rural areas.
    Telemedicine projects are providing new and improved health care
    services and benefits to rural residents, many in medically under-
    served areas. Distance learning projects provide funding for computers
    and Internet hookups in schools and libraries and promote confidence
    in, and understanding of, the world-wide-web and its benefits to
    students and young entrepreneurs. Since this program's inception in
    1990, nearly $94 million in grants and over $12 million in loans have
    been made in 383 projects across the US, from rural Upstate New York to
    the Mississippi Delta, and from the Great Plains to the isolated
    valleys of California. Projects have been funded in 44 states and three
    territories, including 49 projects totaling nearly $14.5 million that
    benefit Native Americans and their tribal communities.
        Maverick County is one of the poorest counties in Texas and the
    nation. The hospital district does not have enough beds for the demands
    of the community and there is a severe shortage of nurses to staff more
    patient beds. Ninety percent of the clinic patients have household
    incomes below poverty level. Grant funds--in the amount of $326
    thousand--provided by RUS have provided telemedicine and distance
    learning capabilities between Fort Duncan Medical Center and the new
    Rosita Valley Clinic serving the colonias in Maverick County and the
    Traditional Kickapoo Tribe of Texas. As a result, the project expects
    to complete 1,200 interactive telemedicine consults annually and to
    increase the number of patients receiving specialized medical care by
    25 percent. A second grant has also been awarded in the amount of $348
    thousand to expand the project. This second phase will provide
    additional personnel and equipment to include the communities of Eagle
    Pass, Quamado, Seco Mines, El Indio, and the Kickapoo Indian
    Reservation. Over 36,000 residents will benefit!
        For the DLT program, the budget proposes $300 million in Treasury
    rate loans, at a zero subsidy cost, and $24.945 million in grants.
        grants and loans to provide rural towns with broadband services
        Through a one-year pilot program, Congress made $2 million in
    grants and $100 million in treasury rate loan funds available to
    encourage telecommunications carriers to provide broadband service, and
    local dial-up Internet Service to rural consumers where such service
    does not currently exist. This program will provide grants and loan
    funds, on an expedited basis, to communities of up to 20,000
    inhabitants. Loans are made at the Treasury rate of interest for a
    period equivalent to the life of the financed assets, not to exceed 10
    years.
        Due to the need for this program, the budget includes $2 million in
    grants and $100 million in lending authority, at zero subsidy costs, to
    implement permanent authority. Broadband networks in small, rural towns
    will facilitate economic growth and provide the backbone for the
    delivery of increased educational opportunities over state-of-the-art
    telecommunications networks.
        In the rural Mississippi counties of Okibbeha and Winston, there
    were no prospects for the delivery of broadband communications services
    until an RUS loan--in the amount of $3.3 million from the Broadband
    pilot program--was approved for Wireless Land Technologies, Inc. Funds
    are being used to provide broadband data services over a wireless
    network connection to the local communities, benefiting over 3,000
    subscribers in the first two years. In addition, the technology
    provides the platform for the delivery of telemedicine services. Four
    medical centers in the service area will operate on a Virtual Private
    Network and connect to other health care and medical institutions.
    Through this network, these medical centers will share resources and
    medical expertise in administering patient care. As an added benefit,
    local businesses requiring secure data connections may also use this
    type of network.
                                     ______

                         Agricultural Research Service

             Prepared Statement of Dr. Floyd P. Horn, Administrator

        Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to represent the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and to
    present our budget for fiscal year 2002. As you know, Mr. Chairman, as
    the principle intramural scientific research agency of the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture, our mission is to develop new knowledge and
    technology, and disseminate information essential to solving
    agricultural problems that are broad in scope and have a high national
    priority. ARS is a problem-solving agency, dedicated to sustaining a
    viable food and agricultural economy; preserving our environment;
    enhancing human health and nutrition; and ensuring affordable,
    abundant, high quality food and fiber for the American consumer. ARS
    helps ensure that our farmers and ranchers and the agricultural
    industry overall, remain competitive in both domestic and world
    markets. In addition, ARS conducts research to support Federal action
    and regulatory agencies and provides scientific expertise and resources
    to the Executive Branch and Congress. The fiscal year 2002 budget is
    responsive to this mission.
                    fiscal year 2002 budget recommendations
        Let me now turn to our budget recommendations for fiscal year 2002.
    The President's budget for ARS research is $915,591,000, an increase of
    $18,756,000 over fiscal year 2001. The Budget also proposes a fiscal
    year 2002 funding level for the ARS Buildings and Facilities account of
    $30,462,000.
        Mr. Chairman, as in previous years, this budget proposes the
    termination of prior year earmarked research projects which will enable
    the redirection of resources to higher priority research initiatives.
    The Administration believes that taxpayers' dollars must be spent on
    the highest priority needs of national significance. The savings
    achieved through the proposed terminations, $34,282,000, will be
    applied to the agricultural research initiatives recommended by the
    President. The initiatives proposed in this budget include:
      --Emerging and Exotic Diseases and Pests of Plants and Animals
      --Agricultural Genomes/Bioinformatic Tools
      --Invasive Species (Weeds/Pests)
      --Biotechnology Risk Assessment
      --Biobased Products and Bioenergy
    Emerging and Exotic Diseases and Pests of Animals ($5,000,000)
        Emerging diseases are caused by previously unidentified pathogens
    or new manifestations of ``old'' diseases that appear in animal
    populations. Reemergence of known diseases often occur after long
    quiescent periods or upon introduction of a new pathogen into a native
    animal population in a new geographical area. Microbial pathogens are
    continually adapting to new ecological niches. Exotic pathogens and
    pests, once introduced into a new geographic area, can explode into an
    epidemic due to the absence of effective control measures such as
    vaccines, drugs, lack of resistance in host animals, and limited
    resources to effectively manage the spread of these pathogens.
        The globalization of trade, increased international travel of
    people and movement of goods, and changing weather patterns provide new
    opportunities for the emergence and spread of infectious diseases such
    as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), also referred to as ``mad
    cow disease'' in Europe. BSE outbreaks in the United Kingdom and Europe
    have required the destruction of huge numbers of animals to control the
    disease outbreaks, and have caused billions of dollars of economic loss
    due to domestic and international trade embargoes. The human form of
    mad-cow disease, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, has claimed a number of
    lives. Research to improve methods of rapid and accurate detection, and
    new means to control emerging and or exotic pathogen threats are
    urgently needed to prevent economic losses and maintain animal well-
    being.
        Specific program thrusts to be undertaken with the proposed funds
    include investigations to determine the nature and transmission of the
    BSE agent; the detection and diagnosis of BSE in live animals; and
    methods to develop environmentally friendly and inexpensive but safe
    disposal of carcasses and feedstuffs.
    Emerging and Exotic Diseases and Pests of Plants ($1,782,000)
        Emerging and exotic plant diseases are increasingly becoming a
    serious problem in the United States. Their emergence or re-emergence
    is attributed to the introduction of pathogens into new geographic
    regions, modifications of environments that favor disease, changes in
    crop management practices, and genetic shifts in pathogen populations.
        Effective plant disease control depends on accurate and timely
    detection and identification of new pathogens. Preventing the
    introduction of exotic pathogens and controlling existing ones will not
    only safeguard the nation's crops but preserve the U.S.' export
    markets.
        ARS will use the proposed increase to develop more sensitive and
    accurate biological methods to rapidly identify and control plant
    pathogens, such as plum pox, Pierce's disease, and karnal bunt. The
    Agency will also conduct research to improve plants' genetic resistance
    by incorporating that resistance into the plant through conventional
    breeding and genetic engineering.
    Biotechnology Risk Assessment ($3,000,000)
        Last year, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report which
    raised some concerns regarding pest resistant crops, particularly
    genetically-engineered ones. What are the long-term ecological impacts
    of genetically-engineered crops? What are the effects of pest protected
    transgenic crops on nontarget species? How can the buildup of resistant
    pest populations be prevented?
        With the proposed increase, ARS scientists will identify the
    potential risks of biotech crops. The research will reduce the risks
    associated with gene transfer from biotech crops to other species and
    the buildup of resistant pest populations. In addition, allergenic
    proteins in vegetables will be reduced, and the nutritional qualities
    of biotech food products will be improved.
    Bioinformatic Tools to Support Agricultural Genomics ($4,500,000)
        U.S. agriculture faces formidable challenges, from emerging and
    exotic diseases and pests, water and soil pollution and degradation,
    new environmental regulations, climatic extremes, to the extinction or
    inaccessibility of genetic resources. These challenges must be met by
    harnessing the inherent potential of genetic resources.
        More rapid and efficient methods are needed to manipulate the
    useful properties of genes and genomes. Current methods rely on ever
    more accurate and comprehensive knowledge of genomic organization to
    efficiently characterize genes and elucidate their function. Genomics
    and biotechnology are vital for increasing the quality and safety of
    food products, developing improved crops and production efficiency,
    improving the accuracy of genetic selection, and identifying the genes
    responsible for disease and parasite resistance in animals and plants.
        With the proposed increase, the agency will develop bioinformatic
    tools and provide database support for all of ARS' animal, and plant,
    and microbial research programs. The bioinformatic tools will be used
    to analyze information from different databases and compare information
    within and across species. The large quantity of data that will be
    stored in databases will represent a quantum leap in developing
    technologies and information needed to address present and future
    agricultural problems.
    Invasive Species ($5,000,000)
        Invasive weeds and pests cost the United States a staggering $122
    billion per year. Weeds reduce crop yields by about 12 percent and
    forage yields by 20 percent. Nearly half of the threatened and
    endangered plant species in the U.S. are at risk because of invasive
    weeds. Arthropod (insects and mites) pests destroy 13 percent of crop
    production.
        ARS will use the proposed increase to develop classical and
    augmentative biological control approaches, and areawide integrated
    pest management pilot tests for controlling invasive weeds and
    arthropod pests. In addition, the agency will conduct explorations in
    Europe, Africa, South America, Asia, and Australia to find natural
    enemies of particularly troublesome arthropod pests (e.g., Asian
    longhorned beetle, glassy-winged sharpshooter, pink hibiscus, mealybug,
    and imported fire ant) and weeds (e.g., leafy spurge, saltcedar, water
    hyacinth, kudzu, and melaleuca).
        Also with the proposed increase, an Internet-based information
    management system will be established with connections to the eight
    Federal agencies responsible for controlling invasive species. This
    system will facilitate program coordination and implementation of the
    National Invasive Species Management Plan which was recently adopted by
    the eight agencies through the National Invasive Species Council. The
    National Agricultural Library houses the national website and will
    assist with managing this information flow between cooperators.
    Biobased Products and Bioenergy ($15,000,000)
        Development of biobased industries that use trees, crops,
    agriculture, and aquatic resources to make commercial products
    including fuels, electricity, chemicals, adhesives, lubricants,
    composites, and building materials is a priority for the 21st century.
        By expanding the development of biobased products and bioenergy,
    the demand for agricultural commodities will be increased which in turn
    will strengthen farm product prices and raise farm income. The products
    will generate new opportunities for business development and employment
    in rural America. Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions will
    decrease. And U.S. dependence on imported oil will be reduced.
        ARS will use the proposed increase to improve the conversion of
    agricultural materials and wastes to biofuels. Converting agricultural
    materials and wastes to biofuels and coproducts will be improved by
    developing processing technologies needed to create 21st century bio-
    refineries. Improvements in fundamental biochemical knowledge and
    technology breakthroughs will broaden the range of useful agricultural
    feedstocks from which bio-refineries can produce inexpensive biofuels
    and viable biobased products.
        Researchers will also develop new technologies to produce biobased
    products from agricultural commodities and byproducts. Through
    fundamental breakthroughs in biocatalysis, fermentation, biotechnology,
    and separation processes, new biobased products will be developed
    having novel functional properties for applications previously
    unattainable or met only by petroleum-derived or other nonbiobased
    products. New biobased products include biodegradable polymers,
    absorbents, coatings, lubricants, and imported gum substitutes.
    Proposed fiscal year 2002 Pay Costs
        The President is proposing an increase of $18,756,000 for the
    anticipated fiscal year 2002 pay raise. These funds are critical for
    the agency to conduct an effective and responsive research program.
    Absorption of these costs would lead to reductions in the number of
    scientists and support personnel, and in equipment and supplies
    essential to carrying out the country's agricultural research
    priorities.
    Proposed fiscal year 2002 Program Decreases
        The President is proposing the elimination of a number of research
    projects totaling $34,282,000 which were added to the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation bill. Taxpayer dollars should be used for the highest
    priority programs that meet critical national needs. The programs being
    proposed for elimination, while useful, do not meet these criteria. The
    savings achieved from the eliminated projects will be redirected to
    finance the high priority research initiatives recommended in the
    President's budget.
          proposed fiscal year 2002 buildings and facilities increases
        In order to attract and retain top scientists, solve the Nation's
    most critical agricultural problems, and address the research needs and
    priorities of the 21st century, ARS must have modern, state-of-the-art
    laboratories and facilities. Outdated, deteriorating laboratories
    adversely impact the quality of the research conducted. Many of the
    agency's laboratories were constructed half a century ago. Some are
    much older. They are in immediate need of major repair, renovation, or
    modernization. As part of its modernization program, ARS is requesting
    a total of $30,462,000. These funds will be used for the following
    facilities:
    Plum Island Animal Disease Center, Greenport, New York ($3,762,000)
        Plum Island is the only site in the United States where research
    can be carried out on highly contagious animal diseases, such as foot
    and mouth disease. The center is also used by APHIS, which performs
    diagnostic work on foreign animal diseases that are an ongoing threat
    to U.S. livestock. In 1989, ARS and APHIS began to develop a long range
    plan for the modernization of their facilities at Plum Island. As part
    of the ongoing modernization program, ARS is requesting $3,762,000 for
    construction of coastal erosion control measures, improvements to the
    potable water distribution system, and clean-up of a construction
    debris site.
    Regional Research Centers ($15,300,000)
        ARS' regional research centers were built in the 1930s. Investment
    in these centers is essential for ARS' scientists to conduct research
    which leads to a safer food supply, and new agricultural products and
    new uses for agricultural commodities.
      --Western Regional Research Center (WRRC), Albany, California
            ($3,800,000).--In fiscal year 2002, ARS is requesting $3.8
            million for Phase 2 construction of the Research and
            Development Facility. Phase 2 will consist of renovation of
            interior space, and plumbing systems.
      --National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research (NCAUR),
            Peoria, Illinois ($6,500,000).--In fiscal year 2002, $6.5
            million for Phase 1 construction is requested. Work will
            include an upgrade of HVAC and electrical systems, installation
            of a sprinkler system, and a stairway. Initially, bays on the
            west end of the Central Wing will be renovated and designed for
            expansion and tie-in with subsequent bays to minimize
            disruption of research during construction.
      --Eastern Regional Research Center (ERRC), Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
            ($5,000,000).--In fiscal year 2002, ARS is requesting $5
            million for construction of Phase 7 (Chemical Wing) and design
            of Phases 8 and 9 (Power Plant and Engineering Research
            Laboratory). Construction of Phase 7 will include renovation of
            interior space, and replacement of mechanical, electrical and
            plumbing systems.
    Abraham Lincoln National Agricultural Library ($1,800,000)
        The National Agricultural Library is one of four national libraries
    in the United States and the largest agricultural library in the world.
    In 1991, the Library completed a comprehensive facility condition study
    which identified a number of building deficiencies. To continue the
    repair and modernization of the Library, ARS is requesting $1,800,000
    to upgrade major electrical distribution deficiencies.
    U.S. National Arboretum ($4,600,000)
        The Arboretum was established by an Act of Congress in 1927 as a
    center for research and education in the plant sciences. Since 1958,
    the Arboretum has been open to the public. Many of the Arboretum's
    building systems have reached or passed their useful life expectancy.
    As part of the modernization of the Arboretum, ARS is requesting
    $4,600,000 for continuation of the greenhouse complex renovation,
    design of a new main entrance, and design of the administration
    building modernization.
    Western Human Nutrition Research Center, Davis, California ($5,000,000)
        In 1996, ARS decided to move its Western Human Nutrition Research
    Center to the campus of the University of California at Davis. The
    purpose of the move was to link ARS' nutrition research with the
    University's Departments of Nutrition and Food Science and Technology,
    its College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, and its Schools
    of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine. To date, the Congress has
    appropriated $20,350,000 for the new center. Since the original cost
    estimates were developed, construction costs have escalated beyond the
    anticipated rate of inflation. ARS is requesting an additional
    $5,000,000 to complete the center as originally planned.
                                    summary
        I believe the fiscal year 2002 budget the President is recommending
    will address many of this Nation's most critical agricultural research
    priorities. There is no question as to the growing importance of ARS'
    research programs--in the face of increased concerns over the safety of
    our food supply; and the emergence or re-emergence of mad-cow disease,
    foot-and-mouth disease, and other highly infectious animal and plant
    diseases. And other concerns, such as how to increase production
    without harming the environment, or how to revitalize rural America--
    agricultural research is at the threshold of providing solutions. I
    believe, as I'm sure this Committee believes, that agricultural
    research is vitally important to our Nation's well-being today more
    than ever before.
                                     ______

                       Rural Business-Cooperative Service

        Prepared Statement of William F. Hagy III, Acting Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you today to present the Administration's fiscal year
    2002 Budget for the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS).
        Mr. Chairman, the programs and services of RBS, in partnership with
    other public and private sectors, continue to improve the economic
    climate of rural areas through the creation or preservation of
    sustainable business opportunities and jobs in rural America. RBS
    continues to target its resources to farmers and to the under-served
    rural areas and populations. RBS programs fall into two broad
    categories; loan and grant programs to assist rural businesses, and
    programs of assistance to farmers and other rural residents organized
    on a cooperative basis.
        The programs of RBS help close the gap in opportunity for these
    under-served rural areas and populations, bringing them closer to
    sharing fully in the nation's economic growth. The $1.1 billion
    requested in this budget for RBS programs will assist in creating or
    saving about 71,600 jobs and providing financial assistance to more
    than 2,700 businesses.
        The functions of our cooperative programs are authorized under both
    the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 and the Agricultural Marketing
    Act of 1946. Our programs serve as the focal point of national activity
    to help farmers help themselves by providing the necessary advice and
    assistance. Examples of recent research and technical assistance
    include:
      --Equity Management Options for Midwest Dairy Cooperatives with Aging
            Membership.--This project addresses the concern of Midwest
            dairy cooperatives that their aging dairy farmer membership
            were expected to retire from dairying and would take their
            cooperative equity with them at rates that would exceed the
            cooperatives' ability to replace that equity. The study
            identifies 12 options on a continuum toward permanent equity
            programs, including transitional options that would allow for
            gradual equity program changes.
      --Pork America.--Cooperative Services has provided technical
            assistance to Pork America since their formation a year ago.
            The organization is attempting to supply pork to several under-
            served value-added markets and is investigating the acquisition
            of a processing plant.
                 business and industry guaranteed loan program
        For the Business and Industry (B&I) Program, the fiscal year 2002
    budget includes $27.4 million in budget authority to support $1.0
    billion in Guaranteed Loans. This is an increase in budget authority
    compared to last year. To offset some of the increase in loan subsidy
    necessary to support the $1.0 billion program funding level, an
    increase in guarantee fees from 2 percent to an equivalent of 3.25
    percent is included as part of this request.
        We are again making available $200 million for financing for
    cooperative businesses. Priority will continue to be given to projects
    involving farmer-owned, value-added cooperatives. This provides a means
    of helping farmers keep more of the income generated by their product.
    In addition, this financing is available for guarantees of individual
    farmer's purchase of cooperative stock in a start-up cooperative
    established for value-added processing of an agricultural commodity
    raised by the individual farmer stockholders. With the proposed level
    of funding of $1.0 billion, we estimate that this program will create
    or save about 28,400 jobs; but, equally as important under this
    guaranteed loan program, we are able to partner with local lenders in
    providing financing for rural businesses and thus contribute to the
    building of community economic stability. This program allows lenders
    to better meet the needs of rural businesses. Through the lender's
    reduced exposure on guaranteed loans, they are able to meet the needs
    of more businesses at rates and terms the businesses can afford.
        To illustrate how this program has improved the economic climate in
    an under-served area of rural America, I would like to share a success
    story from Missoula, Montana. RBS issued a Business and Industry loan
    guarantee, totaling $2,104,340, to Valley Bank of Belgrade, Montana, to
    assist American Eagle Instruments, Inc., and American Eagle Properties,
    LLC, (American Eagle) of Missoula, Montana. American Eagle used the
    financial assistance to expand their business for the development and
    sale of high tech lubricants, cleaners, and anti-microbial products
    used in the dental industry. As a result of the financing, American
    Eagle increased employment to 90 full-time employees, up from 70 full-
    time employees. The wages received by the employees, in addition,
    exceed the State average. American Eagle has expanded to be the fastest
    growing hand dental instrument business in the world, performing in the
    top 5 percent of the dental industry. This business has expanded
    through the United States and 40 major foreign countries.
                   business and industry direct loan program
        The fiscal year 2002 budget does not include funding for the B&I
    Direct Loan Program. This program has been authorized at $50 million
    each fiscal year since fiscal year 1997, but has yet to utilize the
    full amount of the authorization. Furthermore, the subsidy rate in
    fiscal year 1997 through fiscal year 2000 was a negative subsidy.
    Starting in fiscal year 2001, a positive subsidy rate of 6 percent was
    due to a larger than anticipated default rate. The projected subsidy
    rate for fiscal year 2002 was calculated to be 28 percent, due to
    substantially higher than anticipated default rates. It was concluded
    that the program should not be funded in fiscal year 2002, since the
    higher default rate indicated that the program was not meeting the
    intended purpose of providing long-term, stable jobs in rural America.
                         intermediary relending program
        The fiscal year 2002 Budget also includes $16.5 million in budget
    authority to support over $38 million in loans under the Intermediary
    Relending Program (IRP). The initial investment of this proposed level
    of funding will create or save an estimated 8,600 jobs, but, because
    these funds, over the 30-year loan term, are re-loaned three or four
    times by the intermediary, we estimate that over 29,200 jobs will
    eventually be created or saved.
        The President's Budget also provides that $4.0 million in requests
    for IRP loans shall be for Native Americans and $8 million for IRP
    loans for the Mississippi Delta region.
        The IRP regulation was revised in 1998 and is now more user-
    friendly. It authorizes the Rural Development State Offices to process
    applications at the State level rather than submitting them to the
    National Office for processing. This change has accelerated the
    application process and allows State Offices to provide immediate
    feedback to borrowers concerning their applications. Participation by
    other private credit funding sources is encouraged in this program,
    since this program requires the intermediary to provide, at a minimum,
    25 percent in matching funds. The demand for this program continues to
    be strong, To illustrate the benefits IRP provides to rural America, I
    would like to share with you a success story from Humboldt County,
    Illinois.
        Corn Belt Power Cooperative, a generation and transmission
    cooperative for 10 rural electric cooperatives, applied for funds to
    establish a revolving loan fund to assist with job creation and
    community development in north central Iowa. The initial lending of $1
    million ($800,000 IRP funds and $200,000 matching funds) was disbursed
    to six projects within 12 months of closing. Loan funds were used for
    the purchase of new equipment, construction of a new building for a
    business start-up, expansion of an existing building to accommodate a
    growing company, community infrastructure needs, and an assisted living
    facility. The IRP funds were leveraged with public and private sector
    funds and owner equity to make each project happen. The projects were
    located in five different communities in the intermediary's service
    territory. As a result of this relending activity, 16 jobs have been
    created and 35 jobs were saved.
                    rural business enterprise grant program
        For the Rural Business Enterprise Grant (RBEG) Program, the fiscal
    year 2002 Budget includes almost $41 million. We anticipate that this
    level of funding will create or save over 11,100 jobs. The purpose of
    this program is to assist small and emerging businesses. The small
    amount of funds we typically invest in a project, on a dollar-for-
    dollar basis, on an average, generates another $2.40 in private
    capital. Among the many eligible grant purposes under this program is
    the establishment of a revolving loan fund by the grantee to support
    small and emerging business development in rural areas.
        For example, a $715,360 RBEG was awarded to the Rosedale-Bolivar
    County Port Commission in Rosedale, Mississippi. The Commission
    operates a publicly owned river-port terminal, created to allow many
    smaller companies to utilize water transportation that cannot afford
    either the large capital expenditures for marine facilities or do not
    move enough tonnage for a dedicated specialized terminal. The RBEG was
    leveraged with $718,840 of other capital. RBEG funds were used for
    enhancement to the port, including construction of a dry bulk unloading
    facility, rehabilitation of an elevated water tank, and for purchase of
    a 30,000 pound forklift in an effort to attract new small emerging
    businesses to this economically depressed area. This port is located in
    the Mississippi Delta and is a part of the Mid-Delta Empowerment Zone
    Alliance (MDEZA).
        As a result of this grant, 38 jobs were created at the Rosedale-
    Bolivar Port. With improvements in place, the Bolivar County Board of
    Supervisors has approved leases for two additional small businesses
    which will create an additional 70 to 75 jobs. Both of these two new
    businesses are female, minority-owned.
                    rural economic development loan program
        The fiscal year 2002 Budget requests almost $15 million in Rural
    Economic Development Loans. This program represents a unique
    partnership, since it directly involves the rural electric and
    telecommunications borrowers in community and economic development
    projects. These borrowers are the intermediaries through which the
    funds are invested locally. In fiscal year 2000, each dollar invested
    through these programs attracted an additional $4.56 in other capital.
    This loan program, primarily used for economic development activities,
    provides a zero-interest loan to the cooperative, which guarantees
    repayment of the loan to the Government.
        To illustrate the benefits of this program, I would like to share
    with you a success story from New England, North Dakota. A $400,000
    zero-interest 10-year loan was provided to Slope Electric Cooperative,
    Inc. (Slope), in New England, North Dakota. Slope, in turn, relent the
    loan at zero-interest for a 10-year period to the City of Hettinger, in
    Adams County, to assist in constructing a building and purchasing
    equipment to be leased to Killdeer Mountain Manufacturing (KMM).
        KMM is a successful company headquartered in Killdeer, North
    Dakota, approximately 100 miles north of Hettinger, that employs 90
    people in manufacturing high performance electronic assemblies.
    Utilizing the building and equipment provided by the City of Hettinger,
    KMM will establish a satellite location in Hettinger that will be used
    for light contract manufacturing work. This satellite location,
    currently under construction, will create 35 new full-time job
    opportunities for Hettinger and Adams County residents. Adams County is
    located in the South West Rural Economic Area Partnership (REAP) Zone.
                    rural business opportunity grant program
        The fiscal year 2002 budget includes almost $3 million for Rural
    Business Opportunity Grants to provide much-needed technical assistance
    and capacity building in rural areas. One of the most significant non-
    capital needs in most rural areas is the capacity to develop the
    economic and community development strategies necessary to attract
    private investment capital and Federal and State assistance. The vast
    majority of rural communities are served by part-time officials who do
    not have the time or necessary training to compete with large
    communities for funding that may be available to them. The funds
    requested under this program will aid in providing that invaluable
    assistance to allow communities to take the first step in assisting
    themselves.
        To illustrate this, grant assistance under this program, in the
    amount of $114,600, was provided to the Southernmost Illinois Delta
    Empowerment Zone, Inc., located in Ullin, Illinois. This area has
    experienced the loss of over 150 jobs in the last 3 years. The Rural
    Business Opportunity Grant funds are being used to provide credit
    counseling, revolving loan fund financial assistance and
    administration, development of training programs, and to identify
    potential business and economic development opportunities in the
    Empowerment Zone area. Rural Cooperative Development Grant Program for
    the Rural Cooperative Development Grants (RCDG) Program, the fiscal
    year 2002 budget requests $4.5 million. Included in this amount, over
    $1.5 million would be used for projects which focus on assistance to
    small minority producers through their cooperative businesses.
        This program complements our internal National and State Office
    technical assistance efforts by encouraging the establishment of
    centers for cooperative development. They provides expertise for
    conducting feasibility analysis, outreach, and other forms of technical
    assistance for new developing cooperatives.
        An example of an RCDG is the Ala-Tom RC&D in Alabama. Four new,
    limited resource, and minority farmers' cooperatives were formed and
    continue to receive technical assistance in marketing techniques,
    governance structure, and cost-reduction strategies. They are the
    Southern Beef Growers' Cooperative, Southeastern Rabbit Cooperative,
    West Alabama Retail Cooperative, and West Alabama Farmers' Cooperative.
    Membership in these new cooperatives ranges from 30 to 100 farmers
    each.
            appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program
        The Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program
    provides technical information to producers and their advisors on the
    best sustainable production practices. A budget request of almost $2
    million is requested. This funding would support direct responses to
    over 16,000 inquiries from agricultural producers, extension personnel,
    and others on sustainable practices that reduce dependence on chemicals
    and is more environmentally friendly. ATTRA funding also provides
    support for a website that provides such information.
           rural empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants
        For the Rural Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities, the
    President's fiscal year 2002 Budget requests almost $15 million to
    provide grants to the 5 Rural Empowerment Zones and 20 Rural Enterprise
    Communities delegated under Round II of this initiative. The purpose of
    the initiative is to target Federal, State, and local resources to low-
    income rural areas to demonstrate that innovative, comprehensive, and
    strategic alliances between private, public, and non-profit entities
    can work in concert to improve the economic strength of rural
    communities.
                             salaries and expenses
        Before closing, I would like to urge the Committee to provide the
    requested funding for Rural Development Salaries and Expenses. Managing
    a $5.1 billion portfolio and providing service-oriented cooperative
    program of research or technical assistance is a joint venture
    requiring both adequate program and Administrative funding. One cannot
    be achieved without the other.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my formal statement on the fiscal year
    2002 Budget. I would be happy to respond to any questions the
    Subcommittee may have regarding the Rural Business-Cooperative Service
    programs of the Rural Development mission area.
                                     ______

                     Natural Resources Conservation Service

                  Prepared Statement of Pearlie S. Reed, Chief

        Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee for the
    opportunity to provide a summary of our 2002 budget request.
    Conservation is important to me. I've spent most of my life and my
    professional career devoted to addressing environmental problems and
    helping farmers and ranchers get sound conservation on the ground. The
    dedicated employees of the Natural Resources Conservation Service have
    made and continue to make a significant contribution in helping our
    Nation's land stewards conserve our vital resources.
        I want to thank the Committee members for your support during the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations process. I promise you that I will do
    my best to make sure NRCS effectively and efficiently delivers the
    conservation programs and projects we have been directed to implement.
    Your support means a healthier land and cleaner water for people all
    across America. Through conservation technical assistance we have been
    able to help land owners and operators install waste management systems
    and conservation buffers; improve irrigation efficiencies; enhance
    nutrient and pest management; control erosion; reduce salinity in the
    soil and water; and increase wetlands and wildlife habitats across this
    country.
        Mr. Chairman, the fiscal year 2002 President's budget maintains or
    increases funding for most NRCS discretionary conservation programs,
    eliminates funding for conservation programs that have reached their
    statutory limitations, and proposes funding emergency programs from the
    President's National Emergency Reserve when natural disasters or
    emergencies occur.
                             discretionary funding
        Overall, NRCS discretionary conservation programs reflect:
      --Increased funding for mandatory pay raises of $21.7 million;
      --Increased funding of $44 million for conservation technical
            assistance in support of the Conservation Reserve Program
            previously reimbursed through the Commodity Credit Corporation
            (CCC);
      --Decreased funding of $109.8 million for Emergency Watershed
            Protection Program typically funded by supplemental funding;
      --Decreased funding of $6.3 million for the elimination of funding
            for the Forestry Incentives Program; and,
      --Decreased funding of $2.3 million for the elimination of funding
            for American Heritage Rivers and Urban Resources Partnership.
        Mr. Chairman, the budget details for the NRCS discretionary
    conservation programs are as follows.
    Conservation Operations
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request proposes a net increase of
    $60.9 million from the fiscal year 2001 adjusted appropriations level
    of $712.5 million. This increase is essential for NRCS to keep our
    field employees on board.
        Specifically, the budget includes a $44 million increase for
    providing technical assistance for Conservation Reserve Program
    participants. This technical assistance was previously reimbursed from
    the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). The budget also includes an
    additional $19.1 million for mandatory pay increases. These increases
    are partially offset by a one-time decrease of $2.2 million for
    termination of agency activities supporting the Urban Resources
    Partnership effort and American Heritage Rivers Initiative.
        The $44 million proposed for technical assistance funding in
    support of the Conservation Reserve Program will enable the enrollment
    of 2.24 million acres in CRP under a general signup, the farmable
    wetlands pilot, and continuous signup activities. The funding change is
    needed because there are insufficient funds under the CCC Section 11
    funding cap and Congress has had to provide supplemental funding for
    several years to fund this important workload.
         The budget proposes to continue performing work at the fiscal year
    2001 level for Animal Feeding Operations (AFO) related workload. The
    NRCS workload analysis reports show that there are approximately
    272,500 AFOs in this country that need to develop or revise their waste
    management plans. NRCS is providing leadership and technical assistance
    in addressing the AFO related environmental concerns. Specifically,
    NRCS has helped to establish the nutrient management technical
    standards, developed the standards for the comprehensive nutrient
    management plans needed for AFO and is helping producers implement
    components of the plans. In fiscal year 2002, the AFO related workload
    will focus on the direct planning and application stage.
        In fiscal year 2001, Congress provided $18 million for the Grazing
    Land Conservation Initiative, a $1 million increase in funding from
    past years. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes to continue funding at
    that level. With the $18 million level, NRCS is able to maintain staff
    needed to provide only priority technical assistance to private grazing
    landowners and managers.
        In recent years, public concern for the environment and demand for
    NRCS technical assistance has grown significantly. The public concerns
    have included such issues as: pollutants from animal feeding
    operations; improper application of pesticides and fertilizers;
    inadequate nutrient management; agricultural air quality; continued
    excessive soil erosion on some lands and the resulting sedimentation;
    non-point sources of water quality degradation; the loss of prime and
    important farmlands; and invasive species on agricultural lands.
        Few farmers and ranchers are able to respond to these public
    concerns without technical assistance from their local NRCS field
    office. Conservation Operations funding provided through the
    conservation technical assistance, soil survey, snow survey and water
    supply forecasting, and plant materials programs directly support local
    level technical assistance. We are able to provide one-on-one
    assistance with private land owners, farmers, ranchers and operators
    using up-to-date scientific information and techniques, detailed
    conservation plans, soils information, water supply information and
    plant science technology.
        Mr. Chairman, NRCS would be able to continue this valuable
    assistance under the President's budget proposal.
    Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations
        For fiscal year 2002, the proposed budget provides approximately
    $10 million for Flood Prevention Operations under the Public Law 534
    authorities and $90 million for Small Watershed Operations under Public
    Law 566 authorities. The proposal represents an increase of $1.2
    million for pay costs, offset by a decrease of approximately $110
    million for no new funding for the Emergency Watershed Protection
    Program (EWP).
        Public Law 534 Flood Prevention Operations. Activities in this
    funding category are authorized in 11 specific flood prevention
    projects covering approximately 35 million acres. Under the fiscal year
    2002 budget proposal, $10 million will be provided for eligible high
    priority subwatershed projects that contribute to solving water quality
    and other environmental problems.
        Public Law 566 Small Watershed Operations. In cooperation with
    local sponsoring organizations, State and other public agencies, NRCS
    provides technical and financial assistance to voluntarily plan and
    install watershed-based projects on private lands. Under the fiscal
    year 2002 budget proposal, $90 million will be used to implement a
    watershed approach to a broad range of conservation issues, including
    water quality improvement, wetland restoration, agricultural water
    management, stream restoration, fish and wildlife habitat improvement
    and soil quality improvement. During fiscal year 2002, we estimate that
    over 500 projects will remain active and a minimum of eight new
    projects will be approved.
        Emergency Watershed Protection.--After the government wide
    rescission was applied, EWP was funded in the amount of $109.758
    million for fiscal year 2001. Of this amount $21.952 million is for
    technical assistance, $52.883 million for financial assistance, and
    $34.923 million for the purchase of floodplain easements. The fiscal
    year 2002 Budget proposes to fund any assistance needed through the
    National Emergency Reserve.
        Of all EWP funds available, including carry over funds, in fiscal
    year 2001 to repair damages to waterways and watersheds resulting from
    natural disasters, NRCS has committed over $170 million to all 50
    states, Puerto Rico and the Pacific Basin. There are currently 104
    ongoing projects in 40 states. NRCS has exhausted available funds for
    any new disaster or emergency activity in fiscal year 2001.
        Aging Watershed Infrastructure.--The fiscal year 2000 and fiscal
    year 2001 appropriations bills included authorization to use $8 million
    each year of EWP funds for pilot rehabilitation projects in Ohio, New
    Mexico, Mississippi, and Wisconsin. Fifteen dams in 10 watershed
    projects were selected in these four States to demonstrate the variety
    of alternatives that will be involved and issues that will be
    encountered with rehabilitation, as well as the many benefits. The
    planning is complete on all projects, designs are in progress, and
    implementation should begin this summer.
    Watershed Surveys and Planning
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposal would essentially
    continue activities at a slightly increased level of $116 thousand over
    the adjusted fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $10.844 million.
    This represents an increase for mandatory pay increases partially
    offset by a one-time decrease for technical assistance activities
    associated with the American Heritage Rivers Initiative. As in fiscal
    year 2001, these funds will be used to make cooperative river basin
    studies, floodplain management studies, floodplain insurance studies,
    and provide assistance to sponsoring local organizations in developing
    plans on watersheds.
    Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D)
        Mr. Chairman, the RC&D program plays a vital role in rural
    communities. NRCS works in partnership with local volunteers organized
    as Resource Conservation and Development Councils representing multi-
    county areas. Council members consist of public and private sector
    sponsors and other local organizations. The RC&D program was
    established to encourage and improve the capability of State and local
    units of government and local nonprofit organizations in rural areas to
    plan, develop, and implement programs for resource conservation and
    development. RC&D areas are sponsored by Council members who carry out
    the goals of the RC&D area plans.
        Currently, 348 USDA designated RC&Ds serve 2,492 counties in all
    fifty States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. This represents an
    increase of 33 new councils from fiscal year 2000. Designated areas
    serve approximately 82 percent of the counties in the United States. In
    addition, NRCS currently has 27 application areas awaiting funding or
    designation.
        In fiscal year 2001, NRCS received $41.923 million in direct
    appropriation including the government wide rescission impact and $1
    million from the Fund for Rural America for a total program level of
    $42.923 million. The President's budget proposes an increase of $1
    million to support mandatory pay increases.
           commodity credit corporation funded conservation programs
        Several of the conservation programs funded from the Commodity
    Credit Corporation will have reached their fully authorized levels by
    the end of fiscal year 2001. They include the Wetlands Reserve Program,
    Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program, Farmland Protection Program, and
    Soil and Water Conservation Assistance. The President's budget does not
    include any proposal to extend those programs, the Administration will
    be working closely with congress throughout the next Farm Bill's
    development to reauthorize high priority conservation programs. While
    the following highlights the fiscal year 2002 budget proposals and
    recent program accomplishments for the CCC funded conservation
    programs.
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program
        In fiscal year 2001, EQIP received $174 million from the
    Agriculture Appropriations Act and $26 million, in supplemental
    appropriations, from the Omnibus Appropriations Act. EQIP funding
    provided by the Omnibus Appropriations Act were subject to the
    rescission, so the total funding available for EQIP in fiscal year
    2001, is approximately $199.943 million.
        The fiscal year 2002 funding request of $174 million reflects the
    same level of funding provided by the Agricultural Appropriations Act
    of 2001.
        Since inception in 1997, over 2,150 conservation priority areas
    have been nominated and over 1,350 priority areas have received funding
    in at least one of the last four years. Over 180,000 contracts have
    been entered into EQIP, providing important conservation measures on
    over 34 million acres across this country.
        During the past four years, almost $597 million was obligated to
    producers as financial assistance to install conservation systems and
    practices to address locally identified resource issues. Of this
    amount, approximately $300 million went to assist with animal waste
    management, grazing management, and irrigation water management. These
    funds have helped farmers and ranchers install waste storage systems,
    waste management systems and nutrient management practices on over 16
    million acres. Grazing lands resource concerns were addressed with
    cost-share assistance on 84 million feet of fencing, 1.2 million acres
    of pasture and hay planting, and almost 1.7 million acres of brush
    management. Additionally, EQIP assisted farmers and ranchers throughout
    the country with upgrading irrigation systems and the establishment of
    irrigation water management to reduce drain on water supplies, reduce
    salinity load in the Colorado River Basin and improve farming
    operations. The remaining $297 million was used to address a variety of
    locally identified resource issues and concerns including soil erosion
    control which benefits water quality and sustained soil productivity;
    forest land and forest fire fuel management, upland and wetland
    wildlife management, habitat restoration and improvement and farmland
    protection.
        The budget proposal would continue to address these important
    conservation concerns.
    Wetlands Reserve Program
        The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), originally authorized by the
    Food Security Act of 1985 and subsequently amended by the 1990 and 1996
    Farm Bills, is a voluntary program that provides technical and
    financial assistance to eligible landowners to address wetland,
    wildlife habitat, soil, water, and related natural resource concerns on
    private lands in an environmentally beneficial and cost effective
    manner.
        The fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act increased the maximum
    number of authorized enrollment acres for the program by 100,000 acres
    to 1,075,000 acres. By the end of fiscal year 2001, program activity
    will have reached this limitation.
        Landowners are provided three program participation options: (1)
    short-term 10-year cost-share agreement restorations; (2) mid-term 30-
    year conservation easement restorations; and (3) permanent easement
    based restorations. Financial assistance in the form of easement
    payments and restoration cost-share assistance is included. Technical
    restoration and management assistance is also provided.
        Mr. Chairman, in fiscal year 2001, NRCS anticipates enrolling
    140,000 acres into WRP using $181.8 million for financial and technical
    assistance. The President's budget request does not include a request
    to increase acreage enrollment at this time, but this will be included
    in the upcoming farm bill debate.
    Agricultural Management Assistance Program
        The Agricultural Management Assistance Program (AMA) is authorized
    by the agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 (ARPA). The program
    provides cost-share assistance to producers to construct or improve
    water management structures or irrigation structures; plant trees for
    windbreaks or improve water quality; and mitigate crop failure risks
    through production diversification or resource conservation practices,
    including soil erosion control, integrated pest management, or
    transition to organic farming. AMA also provides cost-share assistance
    to producers to enter into futures, hedging, or options contracts in a
    manner designed to help reduce production, price, or revenue risk; and
    enter into agricultural trade options as a hedging transaction to
    reduce production, price, or revenue risk.
        ARPA provides $10 million annually through the CCC for AMA cost-
    share assistance in 10-15 States, as determined by the Secretary, in
    which participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program is
    historically low. The fifteen states selected by the Secretary to
    participate in the program are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
    Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
    Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
    In 2001, NRCS will receive $6 million in AMA funding with the balance
    going to Risk Management Agency and Agricultural Marketing Service.
        The President's budget assumes continuation of the program into
    fiscal year 2002 as authorized by law. The distribution of these funds
    will be determined by the Secretary at a later time.
    One-time fiscal year Funding
        The Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000, as amended by the
    Agriculture Appropriations Act, 2001 and Omnibus Appropriations Act,
    2001, provided new funding for Soil and Water Conservation Assistance
    (SWCA) and additional funding for the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
    Program (WHIP) and Farmland Protection Program (FPP) in fiscal year
    2001.
        WHIP provides cost-sharing for landowners to apply an array of
    wildlife practices to develop habitat that will support upland
    wildlife, wetland wildlife, threatened and endangered species,
    fisheries, and other types of wildlife. In fiscal year 2001, additional
    WHIP funding includes $664,875 paid from carryover balances and $12.5
    million from ARPA. It is anticipated the NRCS will enroll 365,000 acres
    in long-term wildlife habitat agreements that provide benefits to
    upland acres, wetland acres, and acreage being threatened or with
    endangered species.
        FPP provides cost-share for acquiring conservation easements or
    other interests to limit conservation of agricultural lands to non-
    agricultural uses. FPP acquires perpetual conservation easements on a
    voluntary basis on lands with prime, unique, or other productive soil
    that presents the most social, economic, and environmental benefit.
    NRCS has received 100 proposals covering 778 farms and 174,800 acres
    with a total easement value of $303 million. Requests for Federal
    dollars have exceeded $116 million. While no decisions have been made
    to date, NRCS anticipates obligating all of the $17.5 million available
    for FPP by the end of fiscal year 2001.
        SWCA provides cost-share and incentive payments to farmers and
    ranchers to address threats to soil, water, and related natural
    resources in areas not designated as national conservation priority
    areas. These voluntary efforts provide proven soil and water
    conservation practices on farms and ranches with an emphasis on
    conserving water or improving water quality. The program will provide
    $20 million in fiscal year 2001 for cost-share and incentive payments
    to farmers and ranchers. Signup activities are expected to be completed
    in fiscal year 2001.
        The President's budget does not propose additional funding for
    these programs.
                       conservation through partnerships
        Mr. Chairman, as you know, NRCS has operated since its creation
    through voluntary cooperative partnerships with individuals, state and
    local governments, and other Federal agencies. That partnership is as
    important today as it ever was. In fact, it may be even more important,
    if we are to meet the challenging conservation problems facing our
    Nation's farmers and ranchers.
        NRCS has worked with more than 5 million farmers, ranchers,
    producers, operators, and private landowners as well as local
    communities to help them conserve their natural resources by gaining
    knowledge about new conservation problems and solutions, by providing
    guidance and advice, and by developing and helping implement
    conservation plans. NRCS does this by working with nearly 3,000 local
    conservation districts that have been established by state law and with
    American Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Governments.
        State and local governments contribute substantially to the
    conservation effort, with both people and funding to complement NRCS
    technical and financial assistance. Approximately 7,400 FTE of
    assistance is provided annually by NRCS partners and volunteers. In
    addition, state and local governments match dollar for dollar, for
    every one Federal dollar provided for conservation. And Americans have
    generously given their time to volunteer with NRCS as part of the Earth
    Team Volunteers effort. In fiscal year 2000, approximately 38,000
    people volunteered their time locally, working approximately 430 FTE.
        And we work closely with other Federal agencies such as our sister
    agencies in the Department of Agriculture, the Forest Service, Farm
    Service Agency, and Rural Development, as well as Agricultural Research
    Service, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
    and other Departments, including the Environmental Protection Agency.
        Good conservation doesn't just happen. It takes all of us,
    including Congress, working together to make it happen. This concludes
    my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be glad to answer any questions.
                                     ______

                            Office of Communications

    Prepared Statement of Kevin Herglotz, Acting Director of Communications

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    discuss the fiscal year--fiscal year 2002 budget request for the
    Department of Agriculture's Office of Communications.
        When Congress wrote the law establishing the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture in 1862, it said the department's ``general designs and
    duties shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the
    United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture
    in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word.'' The Office
    of Communications coordinates the implementation of that original
    mandate.
        The Office of Communications coordinates communications with the
    public about USDA's programs, functions, and initiatives. It is a
    crucial link in the Department's efforts to protect and inform
    consumers by providing information on a broad range of topics such as
    food safety and issues that may affect consumer confidence or cause
    concern such as Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) and bovine spongiform
    encephalopathy (BSE). It also coordinates the communications activities
    of USDA's seven major mission areas in their efforts to provide timely
    and accurate information to the general public and the Department's
    other constituencies, and provides leadership for communications within
    the Department to USDA's employees.
        The Office of Communications is adopting new technologies to meet
    the increased demands for information. Using the Internet's world wide
    web, radio, television and teleconference facilities, we are able to
    ensure that the millions of Americans whose lives are affected by
    USDA's programs receive the latest and most complete information. The
    Office of Communications' 5-year strategic goal is:
        To support the Department in creating a full awareness among the
    American public about USDA's major initiatives and services. This is
    essential to providing effective information services and efficient
    program delivery and should result in more citizens-especially those in
    under served communities and geographic areas-availing themselves of
    helpful USDA services and information.
         The Office of Communications will continue to take an active part
    in policy and program management discussions by coordinating the public
    communication of USDA initiatives. We will continue to provide
    centralized operations for the production, review, and distribution of
    USDA messages to its customers and the general public. We will also
    monitor and evaluate the results of these communications. Staff will be
    instructed in using the most effective and efficient communications
    technology, methods, and standards in carrying out communications
    plans.
        We intend to improve communications with USDA employees, especially
    those away from headquarters. This will enhance their understanding of
    USDA's general goals and policy priorities, programs and services, and
    cross-cutting initiatives.
        Our office will also work hard to meet our performance goals and
    objectives. We will work to communicate updated USDA regulations and
    guidelines, conduct regular training sessions for USDA communications
    staffs about using communication technologies and processes to enhance
    public service, foster accountability for communications management
    performance throughout USDA, and continue to work to create a more
    efficient, effective and centralized Office of Communications.
    Increasing availability of USDA information and products to under
    served communities and geographic areas through USDA's outreach efforts
    is integral to our performance efforts. The Office of Communications
    will also provide equal opportunity for employment and promote an
    atmosphere that values individual differences.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        The Office of Communications is requesting a budget of $8,894,000.
    This is a net increase of $290,000 over our fiscal year 2001 budget.
    The net increase includes $72,000 for annualization of the fiscal year
    2001 pay raise and $218,000 for the anticipated fiscal year 2002 pay
    raise.
        Our central task is to ensure the development of communications
    strategies which are vital to the overall formation, awareness and
    acceptance of USDA programs and policies. Since more than 91 percent of
    the Office of Communications' obligations are for salaries and
    benefits, this increase is vital to support and maintain staffing
    levels for current and projected demands for our products and services.
    Since our current budget leaves little flexibility for absorbing
    increased costs, the Office of Communications cannot absorb these
    additional salary costs without placing severe constraints on daily
    operations. This could result in an unacceptable decrease in the Office
    of Communications' ability to support the Secretary in providing timely
    and accurate information to the public, the media, business and other
    constituencies. When dealing with issues such as Foot and Mouth Disease
    (FMD), bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), forest fires, floods or
    issues of food safety, the Secretary needs every available resource to
    communicate with the media, the Department's constituencies and our
    international partners. Reductions in OC's capabilities caused by a
    loss of the proposed salary costs would diminish the Secretary's
    ability to respond to the local, national and international issues that
    confront the Department today and directly affect significant portions
    of the American public.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to
    respond to any questions.
                                     ______

                         Office of the General Counsel

       Prepared Statement of James Michael Kelly, Acting General Counsel

                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
    this opportunity to provide you with an overview of our agency and to
    address some of the current activities and issues facing the
    Department.
                                    mission
        The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is the law office for the
    Department. As an independent, central agency within the Department,
    OGC provides legal advice and services to the Secretary of Agriculture
    and other officials of the Department of Agriculture with respect to
    all USDA programs and activities.
                                  organization
        OGC's services are provided through 12 Divisions in Washington and
    18 field locations. The headquarters for OGC is located in Washington,
    D.C. The Office is directed by a General Counsel, a Deputy General
    Counsel, a Director for Administration and Resource Management, and six
    Associate General Counsels. The attorneys located in headquarters are
    generally grouped in relation to the agency or agencies served. Our
    field structure consists of five regional offices, each headed by a
    Regional Attorney, and 13 branch offices. The field offices typically
    provide legal services to USDA officials in regional, State, or local
    offices.
                         current activities and issues
                  international affairs and commodity programs
        During this past year, OGC has provided significant legal
    assistance to officials of numerous offices in the Department regarding
    domestic commodity programs and international affairs matters affecting
    agriculture. Primarily, these officials are from the Farm Service
    Agency (FSA) and the Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). For FSA, OGC
    has provided significant assistance with respect to income, commodity,
    conservation and disaster assistance programs. These activities
    involved the clearance of approximately 50 regulations supporting
    programs that have expenditures of approximately $10 billion. These
    diverse programs included assistance for producers of tobacco, cotton,
    cranberries, apples, potatoes, livestock, dairy products and honey. OGC
    attorneys devoted significant resources in dealing with numerous
    Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) activities. This included: (1) the
    establishment of a payment-in-kind land diversion program involving CCC
    inventories of sugar; (2) a bio-fuel program to encourage the
    additional use of agricultural commodities in the production of fuel
    additives; and (3) a pilot program which permits the nation's elderly
    low-income population to purchase fresh fruits and vegetables at
    farmers' markets.
        OGC has supported the work of FAS in the implementation of a number
    of major international trade and foreign assistance initiatives. Our
    involvement in the international trade area includes enforcement of the
    commitments received in the Uruguay Round Agreements and preparations
    for a new round of World Trade Organization (WTO) negotiations to
    strengthen international trading rules and address specific issues such
    as credit and credit guarantees and expanded free trade in the
    Americas. During fiscal year 2001, OGC was involved in the current
    round of WTO Agriculture Agreement negotiations. In addition, OGC was
    and will continue to be involved in negotiations to create a Free Trade
    Area of the Americas. OGC also continued its work with USDA agencies on
    issues arising in connection with the revised International Plant
    Protection Convention, a multilateral convention aimed at promoting
    international cooperation to control and prevent the spread of harmful
    plant pests.
        OGC will continue to be actively involved in the enforcement and
    application of present international trading rules. During the past
    year, OGC participated in WTO consultations, panel consideration,
    appeals, and arbitrations involving various trade disputes. These
    included: (1) Japanese phytosanitary issues; (2) Canadian dairy export
    subsidies; (3) ensuring the European Union's compliance with the WTO
    decision striking the ban on imports of meat produced with growth-
    promoting hormones; (4) access to South Korean markets for U.S. beef;
    (5) defending U.S. safeguard actions on lamb meat and wheat gluten; (6)
    Canadian antidumping and countervailing duty actions against U.S. corn;
    (7) the imposition of countervailing duties by Chile on U.S. milk
    powder; and (8) consultations with Mexico on access for avocados.
        OGC is extensively involved in providing legal advice for the
    export credit, supplier credit, and facilities guarantee programs. OGC
    continues to be extensively involved in negotiations on export credits
    and credit guarantees in agriculture taking place under the auspices of
    the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. OGC also
    provides extensive legal advice and review for the International
    Cooperation and Development Division of FAS regarding their
    international agricultural cooperative efforts and arrangements.
        During the past year, OGC has been involved in the implementation
    of a large number of foreign assistance agreements donating
    agricultural commodities, including surplus commodities acquired by
    CCC. These agreements are under Title I of Public Law 83-480, section
    416(b) of the Agricultural Act of 1949, and the Food for Progress Act.
    The implementation of these agreements involves extensive review of
    draft agreements, commodity procurement, ocean transportation issues,
    and cargo loss and damage claims. In connection with these assistance
    programs, OGC extensively participated in developing the framework for
    instituting the Global Food for Education Initiative involving the
    donation of CCC stocks of agricultural commodities abroad. We expect
    the demand for legal services in connection with FSA, FAS, and CCC
    activities to increase in fiscal year 2002, especially in the
    preparation for new omnibus farm legislation.
                          food and nutrition division
        With respect to USDA's domestic food assistance programs, OGC has
    been heavily involved in efforts related to the review of proposed
    legislation and the implementation and enforcement of new legislation
    aimed at welfare reform and other program improvements, as well as the
    ongoing program integrity and compliance initiatives. We expect the
    demand for legal services in connection with these activities to remain
    constant in fiscal year 2001 and 2002.
        More specifically, during this past year, OGC attorneys worked
    closely with the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) to implement the
    provisions of the Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform
    Act of 1998 (AREERA), Public Law 105-185; the William F. Goodling Child
    Nutrition Reauthorization Act of 1998 (Goodling Act), Public Law 105-
    336; the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (BBA), Public Law 105-33; and the
    Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996
    (Immigration Reform Act), Division C of Public Law 104-208, the
    Electronic Benefit Transfer Interoperability and Portability Act of
    2000 (Public Law 106-171), the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000
    (Public Law 106-224), and the Grain Standards and Warehouse Improvement
    Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-472). OGC provided assistance in connection
    with the implementation of the food stamp administrative payment
    reduction and alien eligibility provisions of AREERA, the legislative
    changes to the Child Nutrition Programs intended to ensure integrity in
    program administration brought about by the Goodling Act, and
    continuing assistance with implementation of BBA provisions regarding
    funding of food stamp education and training activities.
        In connection with the Immigration Reform Act, OGC is representing
    USDA's interests in ongoing inter-agency discussions aimed at providing
    a uniform and predictable test for determining when the receipt of
    benefits renders an alien deportable, inadmissable or ineligible for
    adjustment of alien status as a result of being likely to become a
    public charge. OGC provided counsel on proposed legislation to provide
    capped Federal funding for State costs incurred for switching and
    settling interstate transactions under the requirement that electronic
    food stamp benefits be interoperable among States by October 1, 2002.
    OGC assisted in the formulation of legislation which enhances the
    exchange of information regarding participants in the National School
    Lunch Program (NSLP) with State health officials for the purpose of
    identifying children eligible for State children's health insurance
    programs.
        OGC assisted in the development of legislative proposals to provide
    additional commodities to schools under the NSLP, to provide new
    administrative review procedures for institutions suspended from
    participation in the Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), and to
    establish standards for proof of residency for individuals living in
    remote Indian or Native villages under the Special Supplemental
    Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). OGC also
    provided counsel with regard to a Department of Defense legislative
    proposal to create a subsistence benefit program to replace food stamp
    benefits for military personnel.
        During fiscal year 2001, OGC assisted in the defense of Food Stamp
    Program litigation challenges raised by potential food stamp
    participants concerning State implementation of certain welfare reform
    provisions initiated by the Personal Responsibility and Work
    Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193.
    These issues concerned State food stamp policies with respect to
    applicant awareness and access to the Food Stamp Program. OGC is also
    assisting in the defense of a class action lawsuit in New York State
    which challenges the implementation of the Debt Collection Improvement
    Act with regard to food stamp recipients. With respect to the Child and
    Adult Care Food Program, OGC has been working with counsel for several
    States in pursuing Federal and State administrative claims arising from
    audits performed by the Department's Office of Inspector General.
        The implementation of the alien provisions of the PRWORA continues
    to generate litigation in several States. These lawsuits have, thus
    far, been successfully defended in the lower courts. Several cases are
    currently pending before appellate courts and the first petition for
    certiorari has been filed with the United States Supreme Court. These
    include: (1) a challenge to the constitutionality of a statutory
    provision which makes convicted drug felons ineligible for benefits
    under the Food Stamp Program; (2) a favorable decision upholding the
    award of a $1.3 million False Claims Act (FCA) judgement against a
    retail food store owner who had previously been convicted of
    trafficking in food stamps and who claimed that the FCA judgement, on
    top of the criminal sanctions, violated the double jeopardy and
    excessive fines clauses of the U.S. Constitution; (3) a favorable
    appellate court decision upholding the Secretary's formula for
    calculating civil money penalties against retail food stores that
    violate Food Stamp Program rules in the face of arguments that the
    formula violated the Administrative Procedure Act and the due process
    clause of the Constitution; (4) a decision upholding a statutory
    provision that makes suspension of retail food stores effective upon
    receipt of the notice of disqualification and provides immunity from
    damage actions based on losses sustained during administrative review
    in instances where the disqualification is reversed; and (5) the use of
    a cy-pres fund, a little used legal mechanism under which a fund is
    created to benefit a class of plaintiffs, in general, to avoid the
    necessity of determining claim amounts on an individual basis, in the
    settlement of a case in which $2.3 million was made available to public
    and private food banks to purchase commodities for the hungry.
        OGC reviewed an extensive revision of the Food Stamp Program
    regulations related to the attribution of the income of sponsors to
    sponsored aliens and an exhaustive revision of the Program's new
    application processing rules required by the implementation of the
    PRWORA. OGC reviewed and assisted in the development of new provisions
    regulating the participation of vendors in the WIC program, including
    provisions requiring more frequent State review of vendor compliance
    and the identification of vendors representing a high risk for program
    violations. OGC provided counsel on the availability of a portion of
    the Federal funds (provided in connection with meals) for use by
    sponsors of child care centers to recover their administrative costs in
    the CACFP. OGC provided assistance to the Office of Inspector General
    in developing an audit regarding a major CACFP day care sponsor in
    order to simplify the audit findings and respond to issues likely to be
    raised in anticipated litigation arising out of the audit. OGC also
    provided assistance to USDA and Food and Drug Administration officials
    in developing a consistent approach to the safety issues inherent in
    the use of banked human breast milk and to determine when and how such
    milk may be used in the WIC program. OGC continued to address numerous
    issues arising from the nationwide rollout of electronic benefit
    transfer (EBT) in the Food Stamp Program and demonstrations of the use
    of EBT in other food assistance programs. OGC also reviewed proposed
    legislation to require interoperability of EBT cards among States
    implementing EBT systems.
                       regulatory and marketing programs
        Providing strong legal support to the Department's food safety and
    inspection programs has been and will continue to be one of OGC's top
    priorities. We continue to work closely with Food Safety and Inspection
    Service (FSIS) on the implementation of the Hazard Analysis and
    Critical Control Points (HACCP)/Pathogen Reduction rule and on the
    HACCP-based pilot programs to test new inspection models that the
    agency believes will lead to more effective inspection and better use
    of scarce resources. In that regard, we worked with the Department of
    Justice, on a remand from the Court of Appeals, to successfully defend
    the validity of the HACCP rules and FSIS' authority to test redesigned
    inspection models in a case brought by the American Federation of
    Government Employees, the Community Nutrition Institute, and several
    FSIS meat inspectors. In a decision issued on January 17, 2001, the
    District Court found that the modified inspection procedures satisfied
    the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection
    Act.
        We also provide comprehensive legal support to FSIS' rulemaking
    activities. In the recent past, we have worked with FSIS staff on the
    residue policy regarding carcass disposition; the policy regarding
    E.coli 0157:H7 contamination of beef products; shell egg and egg
    products inspection regulations; performance standards for online
    antimicrobial reprocessing; sharing recall information with state and
    other federal agencies; and regulations governing retained water in
    meat and poultry products.
        In the past year, OGC has provided extensive legal services to the
    Agricultural Marketing Services (AMS) in various matters and will
    continue to work closely with AMS in the year ahead. OGC continues to
    provide assistance in the reform and consolidation of federal dairy
    marketing orders. A proposed rule on Class III and IV pricing was
    issued in May 2000. AMS issued an interim final rule in November 2000.
    OGC continues to work on litigation on these pricing regulations and it
    is anticipated that a final rule will be issued in January 2002.
        The organic standards program continued to be an OGC priority. We
    provided extensive legal services working with AMS officials as they
    developed a final rule implementing the Organic Foods Production Act of
    1990. On December 21, 2000, a final rule was published that would
    establish a National Organic Program under that Act. Currently, we are
    working with the organic program staff in connection with a variety of
    issues relating to implementation of the program. We will continue to
    work with AMS as this program is further implemented.
        The Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996
    provides general authority for the Secretary to issue orders
    establishing new research and promotion programs. Prior to enactment of
    this statute, research and promotion programs were authorized under
    individual statutory authorities. The 1996 Act provides authority to
    tailor a program according to the individual needs of an industry. We
    are currently providing legal services to AMS in connection with
    industry-funded promotion, research and information programs
    implemented under this Act. To date programs for blueberries and
    peanuts have been established. Further, representatives of the apple,
    mango, and sweet corn industries have expressed interest in
    establishing programs. We will continue to work with AMS as these new
    research and promotion programs are proposed. We have continued to
    provide extensive legal services to AMS in connection with changes to
    the honey program as a result of the 1998 amendments to the Honey
    Research Promotion and Consumer Information Act and proposed changes to
    the watermelon program under the Watermelon Research and Promotion Act.
    OGC also is working with AMS in the development of a research and
    promotion program under the recently enacted Haas Avocado Promotion,
    Research and Information Act 2000.
        OGC provided extensive legal services to AMS in connection with
    implementation of the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act of 1999. OGC
    assisted AMS staff in drafting a proposed rule that would establish a
    mandatory program of reporting market information regarding the
    marketing of cattle, swine, lambs, and products of such livestock. A
    final rule was published in the Federal Register on December 1, 2000.
    This program provides information on pricing, contracting for purchase,
    and supply and demand conditions for livestock, livestock production,
    and livestock products. OGC also worked extensively with AMS in the
    development of a new inspection and certification program for equipment
    used in the slaughter, processing, and packaging of livestock and
    poultry products. A final rule concerning this program was published in
    the Federal Register on January 5, 2001.
        Safeguarding the animal and plant health of the United States is a
    matter of paramount importance to the Department. OGC has partnered
    effectively with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
    for many years in carrying out these program responsibilities and will
    continue to do so in the future. APHIS' responsibilities have become
    vastly more complex, requiring not just effective safeguarding
    measures, but programs to ensure the safe and smooth entry of people
    and goods into the United States, and the facilitation of agricultural
    trade in compliance with our international obligations. Similarly,
    OGC's responsibilities and the demands for timely and effective legal
    support of APHIS inspection and regulatory activities have increased as
    well. A new Plant Protection Act was passed in June, 2000. We worked
    very diligently with APHIS as the bill moved through the legislative
    process, and our attorneys are working just as hard in assisting APHIS
    with implementation of the new law. In addition, we have been
    extensively involved in APHIS' response to the Safeguarding review of
    its Plant Protection and Quarantine activities conducted by the
    National Plant Board. This has entailed detailed analysis of and
    responses to over 320 recommendations regarding APHIS' activities and
    how they are performed.
        We have an exceptional relationship with APHIS program officials
    and with their regulation development staff, and we have worked very
    closely with them in connection with an array of rulemaking activities
    that included rules for the movement of certain land tortoises with
    ticks that are vectors of Heartwater disease, the regulation of sheep
    and goats for scrapie, and rules dealing with bovine tuberculosis and
    pseudorabies in swine. On the plant side, we have assisted with
    regulations for Plum Pox in Pennsylvania, citrus canker in Florida,
    noxious weeds, and the glassy winged sharpshooter. With our help, APHIS
    developed an advance notice of proposed rulemaking concerning
    regulation of horses due to Equine Viral Arteritis under the animal
    quarantine laws. In connection with the facilitation of international
    trade, our attorneys provided very effective support for APHIS
    activities related to the development of rules that will allow new
    commodities to enter U.S. markets while ensuring that America's
    agricultural resources are not impaired and that plant and animal
    health in the U.S. are not compromised. These regulations have included
    requirements for an array of commodities ranging from fruits and
    vegetables to animals and animal products. They include the regulation
    of animals and animal products due to bovine spongiform encephalopathy
    (BSE) or Mad Cow Disease, Regionalization of the European Union due to
    Classical Swine Fever, citrus from Argentina, the regulation of solid
    wood packing material, the importation of artificially dwarfed plants,
    invasive species, and accreditation of laboratories for certification
    of seed for export.
        Our attorneys have also dedicated substantial resources to
    defending APHIS program activities and regulations in the federal
    courts, including a challenge to the Department's authority to order
    disposal of sheep in Vermont which were diagnosed with a transmissible
    spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), and a challenge to APHIS regulations
    allowing the importation of citrus from Argentina. We also handled a
    variety of administrative cases on behalf of APHIS to enforce its
    regulations. These cases have included prosecutions for violations of
    the standards for accredited veterinarians, the illegal importation of
    plant and animal products, violations of the regulations governing the
    interstate movement of various plants, animals and plant and animal
    products, and the falsification of phytosanitary certificates.
        During fiscal year 2001, OGC anticipates expending substantial
    resources in connection with the Horse Protection Act Program. OGC
    attorneys serve as agency counsel in administrative enforcement actions
    bought under this statute, and in fiscal year 2000, OGC initiated 17
    enforcement cases. We anticipate that the number of enforcement actions
    will increase in fiscal year 2001. In addition, OGC anticipates
    providing assistance and counsel to APHIS in connection with the
    training of Veterinary Medical officers working in the Horse Protection
    Program, and in the drafting, implementation and legal defense of
    APHIS's annual Operating Plan for the horse show season.
        OGC provided substantial legal resources to APHIS in connection
    with enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. In fiscal year 2000, OGC
    initiated 42 administrative enforcement cases. We expect that the
    number of enforcement cases will not diminish in fiscal year 2001. We
    also provided drafting assistance to APHIS in a number of rulemaking
    dockets concerning marine mammals held in captivity, confiscation of
    suffering animals, and licensing requirements for applicants.
        In the Trade Practices area, we provide legal services under the
    Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act), the Perishable Agricultural
    Commodities Act (PACA), and the Capper Volstead Act and serve as the
    liaison for the Department under the Memorandum of Understanding
    between the Department, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department
    of Justice. Of special note this year under the P&S Act, we are
    litigating two enforcement cases against large packers alleging
    violations of the Act. Our complaint against Excel Corporation alleges
    that the packer engaged in an unfair practice when it changed the
    formula by which it calculated lean percent in slaughter hogs, a
    calculation that directly affected the price the packer paid to
    producers, without telling producers of the change. As a result of the
    change, the packer paid lower prices for 80 percent of the hogs it
    purchased. In the second case, the complaint alleges that Farmland
    National Beef Packing Company (Farmland) subjected a feedlot to an
    unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage by retaliating, changing its
    buying practices (and failing to buy at all) after the feedlot manager
    criticized the packer in a letter to a farm journal. The hearing in the
    Excel case has been completed and the briefing will be completed by
    September 2001; the Farmland hearing will be completed sometime this
    summer. In addition, we are assisting the Packers and Stockyards
    Programs (P&SP) of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
    Administration (GIPSA) in its regulatory initiatives, including a
    series of regulations to clarify the requirements of the Packers and
    Stockyards Act with regard to recordkeeping and contract disclosure.
    OGC also referred a case against Perdue, Inc. to the Department of
    Justice alleging that Perdue had violated the P&S Act by its actions
    regarding the placement of producers on a rider production contract
    without meeting the contractual conditions precedent to the use of that
    contract. DOJ filed the complaint in that case and the case was settled
    with Perdue's agreement to clarify the conditions under which the rider
    contract would be used and the meaning of the terms the contract
    employs. As a result of last year's General Accounting Office report
    recommending changes in P&SP's investigation procedures in competition
    cases, OGC has agreed to work closely with P&SP on the process by which
    its investigations are planned and implemented and to assign attorneys
    to work with agency investigators in the initial stages of case
    development and investigation. Congress provided additional resources
    to OGC for the staffing necessary to provide these additional legal
    services, and OGC's participation in the early stages of P&SP's case
    investigation is now beginning.
        OGC has provided significant legal resources to the PACA program
    this year, with a special emphasis on cases arising out of Operation
    Forbidden Fruit, the investigation and indictment of a number of
    federal inspectors and produce wholesalers for altering inspection
    documents as a result of bribes. A large number of reparation cases,
    cases between private parties that are determined by the Secretary,
    have been filed seeking damages as a result of the altered inspection
    documents. Again this year, we have provided significant legal
    resources in the preparation of cases alleging that produce companies
    have misrepresented the kind or quality of produce they are selling. In
    one case, the Department alleges that an apple distributor
    misrepresented the variety of apple it shipped to retailers in more
    than two hundred transactions.
        Also of significance in the Trade Practices area this year, OGC
    continues to act as liaison to the Department of Justice and the
    Federal Trade Commission on competition issues, pursuant to the
    Memorandum of Understanding between the three agencies. OGC expedites
    the provision of data or expertise to the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    on agricultural issues as DOJ or the FTC investigates firms or reviews
    mergers or acquisitions of agricultural businesses. OGC is also working
    closely with the FTC and DOJ to train investigators and economists of
    the Department's Packers and Stockyards Programs (P&SP) in
    investigative techniques and case preparation as recommended by the
    September GAO report on P&SP's investigation of competition cases.
                               rural development
        OGC also provides legal services to USDA agencies which manage some
    of America's largest loan portfolios. OGC continues to be heavily
    involved in debt collection and farm foreclosure actions with many
    debts going back to the emergency loan program of the 1980's. OGC
    continues to defend several lawsuits involving hundreds of multifamily
    housing projects whose owners want to prepay their loans and thereby
    remove a significant number of low income housing units from rural
    America. We continue to provide assistance to the Farm Service Agency
    and other agencies within the Rural Development mission area in
    implementing the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, specifically
    involving credit reporting, electronic transfer of funds, offset, and
    cross servicing. OGC continues to work with the Rural Business-
    Cooperative Service (RBS) in reviewing most of their cooperative
    agreements and in improving their cooperative agreement process. We
    have also been working with RBS' Office of Community Development in the
    designations of Empowerment Zones and Communities. We are working to
    resolve an increasing number of major defaults on Business and Industry
    loans. We also are now working with the Rural Housing Service (RHS) in
    implementing the Housing Administration Grant Program for Agriculture
    and Seafood Processor Workers authorized under Public Law 106-387.
        Also in the Rural Development area, OGC successfully assisted RHS,
    which worked in conjunction with the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development and the Department of Veterans Affairs to streamline the
    housing loan application process for Native American borrowers on
    Indian Reservations.
        Implementation of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act of 2000 has
    increased the responsibilities of the Risk Management Agency.
    Compliance efforts will be enhanced, requiring extensive legal service
    to develop administrative cases against producers, agents, loss
    adjusters, and reinsured companies. Millions of dollars are now
    available for contracting and reimbursement, all of which will require
    a significant time for legal review. RMA continues to implement new
    risk management programs developed by the private industry to expand
    the number of producers covered under that safety net.
        We continue to work with Department officials to reduce regulatory
    burdens, eliminate obsolete or unnecessary regulatory requirements, and
    streamline regulations, particularly in the areas of rural, farm and
    utility lending. For example, OGC has worked extensively with FSA over
    the past year to rewrite all of their Farm Loan Programs loan making
    and servicing regulations to reduce regulatory burdens where possible
    and to clearly state agency policy. We are assisting RHS in
    streamlining and rewriting loan making and servicing regulations for
    their multiple family housing loan program and their environmental
    regulations. Our efforts on these long-range projects will continue
    into fiscal year 2002.
        The need for legal services by the rural utility programs of the
    Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB)
    increased significantly during fiscal year 2000 as RUS made significant
    changes in existing financing programs and implemented a number of new
    programs. The changes included development of regulations changing the
    basic lending policies in the telecommunications program, the
    development of fast track financing for certain categories of new
    generation facilities, the implementation of a loan and grant pilot
    programs for funding broadband telecommunications facilities in rural
    areas, and the implementation of a fundamentally new treasury rate loan
    program. In addition, RUS experienced dramatic growth in its existing
    lending programs, with the electric program experiencing an increase of
    over a $1 billion targeted to financing new generation capacity.
        Substantial legal services continued to be required in the
    documentation of RUS loans and grants, in servicing and collection
    issues associated with the $38 billion RUS electric and
    telecommunications loan portfolio, and with a series of projects that
    responded to the dynamic changes occurring in the electric and
    telecommunications industries. The demands for legal services from
    RUS's power supply financing program have been particularly dramatic as
    OGC and RUS worked on financing requests for some 25 power supply
    projects totaling in excess of $2.5 billion. To respond to this growth,
    OGC helped RUS and a private market lender develop fast track financing
    for combustion turbines. OGC played a key role in developing the
    agreement, implementing documents and a programmatic environmental
    analysis for combustion turbines that will greatly streamline the
    environmental procedures.
        OGC worked closely with RUS on a number of complex projects
    reflecting the changing electric industry including mergers and
    alliances, corporate reorganizations, the unbundling of transmission,
    generation, and distribution services, the restructuring of existing
    power supply arrangements and the development of the new power
    marketing arrangements. These projects frequently involve RUS loans and
    guarantees or lien accommodations of hundreds of millions of dollars
    and require the development of complex new contractual and security
    arrangements.
        Legal services were required to implement a newly authorized
    treasury rate loan program targeted to distribution borrowers and to
    advise and assist RUS on a series of distribution projects reflecting
    the changing electric industry. Borrowers in a number of states have
    been undertaking to restructure and rationalize their retail operations
    through the sale or exchange of facilities and service territory. Among
    other matters, the projects often required substantial revision in the
    terms of the RUS required wholesale power contracts, in the security
    arrangements for RUS loans, and in the governing structure of the
    surviving entity.
        In the area of loan collection activities, OGC provided legal
    support for a number of projects involving financially troubled
    borrowers. OGC worked closely with RUS to develop both a corporate and
    financial restructuring of the borrowers that protected the
    government's financial and programmatic interests. State retail
    competition legislation has made this project particularly problematic.
        In the RUS telecommunications program, OGC worked closely in the
    development of a series of new policies and regulations addressing many
    industry changes including, for example, the definition of adequate
    telecommunications service, the convergence of technology, and the new
    structures for delivering telecommunications services. New programs
    requiring the development of procedures and implementing documents
    included the weather radio grant program, and the broadband loan and
    grant pilot program. OGC also provided legal services in connection
    with the operations of RTB on a range of matters including the
    privatization of the RTB and the capital structure and the rights of
    certain classes of stockholders of RTB.
        In the RUS water and waste program, legal services were required in
    connection with a number of cases in litigation in which municipalities
    and other public bodies seek to condemn or otherwise take water and
    waste systems financed by RUS notwithstanding federal statutory
    protections afforded those systems.
                               natural resources
        In the natural resources area, the Natural Resources Division and
    OGC Field Offices have been involved in a number of extremely
    significant undertakings concerning national forest management and
    natural resources conservation programs. We also assisted two of our
    client agencies, the Forest Service and the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service, daily in support of their program missions.
        We have provided assistance nationally to the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS) in administering a number of conservation
    programs, on private or other non-Federal farm, pasture and non-
    industrial forest lands, including the Highly Erodible Land and Wetland
    Conservation Programs, Environmental Quality Incentives Program,
    Wetland Reserve Program, Farmland Protection Program, and the Emergency
    Watershed Protection Program.
        OGC also continues to provide legal counsel to NRCS in the
    enforcement of the highly erodible land and wetland conservation
    compliance provisions of the Food Security Act of 1985. OGC assists
    NRCS in determinations for enforcement and for granting statutorily-
    authorized variances. OGC defended the agency in administrative appeals
    and lawsuits challenging the implementation of the conservation
    provision of the Food Security Act.
        Additionally, OGC continues to provide legal services in support of
    the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). As of the end of fiscal year 2000,
    that program has acquired easements on 935,001 acres. OGC reviews
    titles for easement acquisitions, as well as restoration contracts.
        OGC provided legal counsel to the NRCS in promulgating the
    agricultural pollution and natural resources conservation elements of
    the President's Clean Water Action Plan, including the joint EPA/USDA
    Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations, and in defending those elements
    in litigation. OGC also assisted NRCS and the Forest Service in
    reviewing the regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection
    Agency under the Clean Water Act for total maximum daily loads of
    pollutants. The increasing concern and focus on water quality matters,
    particularly regarding non-point sources of pollution, have required a
    substantial increase in the level of legal services that we provide to
    the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
        In the forest management program area, OGC provided litigation
    support to the Department of Justice in collecting millions of dollars
    in damages owed the government by defaulting timber sale purchasers.
    OGC provided assistance to the Department of Justice in the second
    trial of a case concerning the collection of millions of dollars in
    damages owed the government. OGC also assisted in limiting contractual
    damages payable by the client agency for environmentally protective
    actions. OGC provided legal assistance on the defense of approximately
    35 lawsuits challenging timber sale suspensions, modifications and
    cancellations and alleging the right to takings compensation pursuant
    to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. OGC provided legal
    assistance on two matters involving the Sustained Yield Management Act
    of 1944, a statute that provides the authority for the Secretary to
    establish sustained yield units on national forest land for the
    continuous supply of timber and forest products in order to provide for
    community stability.
        The nationally controversial timber sale program in Alaska
    continues to require significant legal services. Attorneys in both the
    Washington office and the Juneau field office are assisting with
    litigation claims of $1.5 billion arising from denial of contract
    claims on the Alaska Pulp Corporation (APC) 50-year timber sale
    contract on the Tongass National Forest. APC's aggressive litigation
    stance required the commitment of significant OGC time and resources to
    defend against its $1.5 billion claim and the related massive discovery
    effort. Expert discovery on damages issues is scheduled to begin on
    June 1, 2001. It is expected that the damages phase of the litigation
    will be as time/resource-intensive as the liability phase.
        OGC provided legal advice and assistance to the Forest Service
    regarding implementation of stewardship contract pilot projects aimed
    at harvesting timber while simultaneously advancing forest resource
    management objectives. Under these stewardship contracts, timber is
    harvested and contractors provide services designed to achieve land
    management goals, including road & trail maintenance, watershed
    restoration and restoration of wildlife habitat.
        OGC advised on planning issues with respect to those forest plans
    currently undergoing revision. The number of revisions should increase.
    Compliance with the Quincy Library Group pilot project (section 401 of
    the fiscal year 1999 Interior Appropriations Act, Public Law 105-277)
    and Sierra Nevada framework also requires continuing OGC advice. OGC
    also provided and will continue to provide substantial assistance to
    the Department and the Forest Service related to revision and
    implementation of the land and resource management planning regulations
    and various transportation and roads initiatives. In addition,
    providing preventive law advice to harmonize Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) compliance with the procedural requirements of the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Forest Management Act
    (NFMA) requires continued OGC attention, particularly with respect to
    taking into account new information and coordinating management
    decisions for wide-ranging species such as salmon, Indiana bats and
    lynx. OGC continues to advise on interagency efforts, such as
    streamlining ESA and NEPA compliance, wildland fire management, and the
    application of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Approximately 100 cases
    are pending challenging Forest Service decisions on NEPA, NFMA and ESA
    grounds, and the current trend of increased litigation is expected to
    continue. OGC assistance is also provided for project administrative
    appeals, hundreds of which are filed each year.
        In real property matters, OGC provides extensive legal assistance
    to the Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
    In fiscal year 2000, over $300 million was appropriated to USDA
    agencies for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands. These
    land transactions involve considerable legal involvement in
    contracting, title work and closing. Additionally, legal counsel is
    provided for the entire spectrum of real estate matters related to the
    National Forest System including title claims, trespass, appraisal,
    survey, special use authorizations and similar issues.
        OGC provides legal services regarding land title claims involving
    private parties, Indian tribes and pueblos, and state and local
    governments. These claims arise variously under treaties, Spanish land
    grants, and statutory grants by Congress. Last year, OGC participated
    in the successful settlement of land claims of the Pueblo of Santo
    Domingo through enactment of Public Law 106-425. Other settlements are
    in active negotiation.
        In July, 2000, the Forest Service completed the single largest land
    acquisition ever undertaken with funds appropriated from the Land and
    Water Conservation Fund. The Baca Ranch in the State of New Mexico was
    acquired for $101 million and designated by Congress as the Valles
    Caldera National Preserve. The Preserve is a 97,000 acre area
    surrounded by the Santa Fe National Forest and contains nationally
    significant scenic, geologic and wildlife resources. OGC handled the
    complex contractual elements of the acquisition as well as providing
    counsel for the authorizing legislation. OGC will continue to provide
    legal advice and assistance to the Valles Caldera Trust related to
    management of the Preserve.
        Additionally, OGC has provided an increasing amount of advice to
    the Forest Service in its activities related to hydro power projects,
    in part due to the approximately 200 relicensing proceedings before the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) occurring in the next 10
    years for projects located on National Forest System (NFS) lands. OGC
    is assisting the Forest Service in its efforts to obtain fair market
    value for the use of national forest lands for these hydro power
    projects.
        In the minerals area, OGC provided extensive legal services to the
    Forest Service in identifying needed changes to the regulations
    governing the mining of metals on the tens of millions of acres of land
    administered by that agency which are subject to the United States
    mining laws. OGC also continued to devote significant resources to
    defending an administrative challenge to the validity of numerous
    mining claims in a National Recreation Area (NRA) and to defending a
    related lawsuit alleging that a statute effected a taking of related
    mining claims in the NRA. OGC also furnished substantial assistance on
    issues pertaining to the United States mining and mineral leasing laws
    arising from a rule which would bar the construction or reconstruction
    of roads in inventoried roadless areas.
        In Congressional matters, OGC provided extensive assistance in
    drafting legislation relating to the Administration's fiscal year 2001
    budget for the Forest Service, including the HIRE proposal to establish
    a mandatory appropriation to fund ecosystem restoration projects and to
    create jobs for local workers. OGC reviewed and analyzed numerous
    provisions of the 2001 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, including Title IV funding for hazardous fuel
    reduction activities. OGC furnished substantial legal assistance in
    drafting, reviewing, and implementing legislation stabilizing payments
    to states by decoupling them from forest receipts.
        In the recreation area, OGC continued to provide extensive
    assistance to the Department of Justice in the successful defense of
    the Forest Service's noncommercial group use regulation. Nine federal
    district courts and four federal courts of appeals have upheld the
    constitutionality of the regulation under the First Amendment. OGC also
    provided legal assistance in the development of a final cost recovery
    rule for the special uses program. Additionally, OGC analyzed the
    treatment of broadcasting revenue associated with the use of NFS lands
    for the 2002 Winter Olympics under the new Ski Area Permit Fee Act;
    developed a policy for authorizing target ranges on NFS lands that
    addresses public safety and resource protection; and crafted national
    agency policy on indemnification, insurance, and other liability issues
    arising in connection with the special uses program. OGC is also
    coordinating all types of legal issues and litigation pertaining to
    management of off-highway vehicle use on NFS lands.
        OGC provided substantial assistance to the Department on issues
    relating to compliance with applicable pollution control laws. In
    particular, OGC assisted the USDA Hazardous Materials Policy Council
    and the USDA Hazardous Materials Management Group in carrying out the
    hazardous materials management program. In addition, OGC provided
    assistance and advice to the Department and the Forest Service on the
    cleanup of hazardous materials sites on NFS lands. OGC represented the
    Forest Service, along with the Department of Justice, in negotiations
    with non-federal parties responsible for the cleanup of contamination
    on National Forest System lands. OGC also played a substantial role in
    advising the Department on compliance with applicable pollution control
    standards, including negotiating compliance agreements with the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and State environmental
    enforcement agencies. OGC also provided the Department with advice to
    protect the Department's interests regarding hazardous materials issues
    which arose in the context of land transfers and acquisitions. Finally,
    OGC provided significant legal services in connection with pollution
    control legislative proposals, including Superfund Reauthorization.
                              general law division
        The General Law Division (GLD)provided extensive legal services to
    the FS in determining the consistency of mineral development with
    statutes governing millions of acres of land acquired under New Deal
    programs, successfully challenging the validity of mining claims for
    more than 1,000 acres of land in a National Recreation Area, and in
    determining a company's right to dispose of mining waste on NFS lands.
        As the new Administration and Congress engage in new initiatives to
    make the delivery of services more efficient, streamlined, and customer
    friendly, we anticipate greater demands in the division. These range
    from providing legal services regarding personnel and labor matters,
    the Freedom of Information Act and the Privacy Act, and debt collection
    initiatives; to providing legal support for creative approaches for
    conducting Department activities. GLD has been called upon with
    increasing frequency, to address, a number of issues relating to the
    time availability of funds, augmentation of appropriations, compliance
    with the Antideficiency Act, and the transfer of appropriations. At the
    same time, GLD is fielding a steady stream of requests for legal advice
    in such fiscal matters as the use of appropriated funds for travel;
    leasing of real property; advisory and assistance services; personal
    services; and meals, refreshments, and miscellaneous items. GLD will
    continue to advise USDA agencies on the proper use of instruments
    (contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, and memoranda of
    understanding), and the terms and conditions necessary to document
    agency transactions and fiscal obligations.
        We anticipate additional demand on GLD resources arising out of
    requests to assist USDA agencies, especially the research agencies, in
    working with the Congress on the upcoming Farm Bill. In addition, GLD
    will provide assistance to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer on
    its implementation of the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act of
    1999, in the performance of reviews of Government activities under OMB
    Circular A-76, and in the implementation of the Federal Financial
    Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999. GLD also will continue
    to assist the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and USDA program
    agencies in resolving legal issues arising out of OIG audits and
    investigations.
        With regard to the procurement of property and services, GLD will
    devote substantial resources to assist the Chief Information Officer to
    improve information technology management in the Department, with some
    emphasis in the areas of computer privacy and cyber-security. GLD will
    continue to provide legal support to all USDA agencies in procurement
    and property matters such as complying with the numerous socioeconomic
    policies and the competition requirements applicable to orders against
    other agency or government-wide contracts. GLD will work with
    contracting officials to support the research, development, acquisition
    and use of bio-based products, including alternative fuels. Also, GLD
    will continue to provide an enhanced level of legal representation of
    USDA agencies in protests filed with the General Accounting Office. GLD
    also will continue to represent USDA agencies in contract claims
    brought before the Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals and serve as
    agency counsel assisting the Department of Justice in contract claims
    before Federal courts. In property matters, there has been an increase
    in the requests for GLD assistance concerning the responsibilities and
    costs to the Department for the operation and maintenance of its
    facilities, security issues, workplace violence, and bioterrorism and
    other emergency preparedness plans.
        GLD will continue to provide a sustained rate of legal services to
    the National Appeals Division (NAD) regarding procedural, Equal Access
    to Justice Act (EAJA) and general administrative law matters. It
    provides information to the field and coordination of OGC litigation
    nationwide and assists the Department of Justice in cases seeking
    judicial review of NAD decisions in Federal courts. Legal issues
    include those arising from the NAD organic statute and NAD regulations,
    such as exhaustion of administrative remedies, jurisdiction of the
    district courts, implementation and effective dates of NAD
    determinations, and applicability of other laws, such as EAJA and the
    Administrative Procedure Act, to NAD proceedings.
        GLD will continue to provide ongoing advice to the research,
    education, and economics (REE) agencies of USDA with respect to the
    implementation and administration of their programs and activities,
    including both competitive and non-competitive assistance programs.
    This will involve the review of Federal Register notices, grant
    solicitations, and rulemakings, as well as the issuance of legal
    opinions on such issues as the scope of statutory authorities and
    eligibility requirements. GLD will also assist REE with intellectual
    property issues associated with bringing the benefits of research
    results to the public.
        GLD will continue to provide advice to USDA agencies regarding
    affirmative action and minority preference programs as the law and
    Government regulations, particularly in the procurement sector,
    continue to evolve in this area. It also will continue to provide
    advice relating to outreach to disaffected groups, particularly the
    outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers.
        With regard to general litigation, GLD anticipates that more
    reverse Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) cases involving exemption
    b(6) will be filed. GLD has defended several suits in which the
    Department is sued in one jurisdiction to prevent the release of
    information claimed to be exempt as privacy-protected while at the same
    time the Department is sued, or is under threat of a suit, in another
    jurisdiction for failing to release the same or similar information.
    GLD is also defending increasing numbers of FOIA suits in which there
    has been no response to an initial FOIA request or there has been no
    response to a FOIA appeal. These suits are difficult because of the
    need to gather and review documents which have not been reviewed by GLD
    at an earlier stage and to do so within the time constraints imposed by
    litigation. GLD anticipates that these trends will continue and
    significant legal resources will be required to defend these suits.
        GLD will continue to advise agencies regarding ethics, personnel,
    benefits, and other matters. However, we anticipate devoting more legal
    resources to these areas in the next year to assist new appointees in
    the Department.
                              legislation division
        OGC continues to provide legislative drafting and related
    assistance to the Department and Congress on major legislative
    activities that involve the Department and its programs. Extensive
    assistance was provided to Departmental policy officials and
    Congressional staffs in drafting and analyzing various legislative
    proposals recently enacted by Congress, including crop insurance reform
    and plant protection legislation enacted as part of the Agricultural
    Risk Protection Act (Public Law 106-224) and disaster relief for
    farmers and appropriations provisions contained in Agriculture, Rural
    Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-387) and in the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106-554). In addition, we are
    planning to participate in the preparation of legislation in support of
    the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Department.
                              litigation division
        Litigation Division attorneys, in cooperation with attorneys from
    DOJ and other divisions in OGC, presented USDA's position in appellate
    courts. These efforts led to the D.C. Circuit Court upholding a
    decision of the Secretary to revoke a license issued under the
    Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act after the licensee engaged in
    commercial bribery. The Fifth Circuit Court, sitting en banc, found
    that a district court exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining a
    generalized challenge to management practices in four National Forests.
    The D.C. Circuit held that the Forest Service could impose conditions
    on a hydroelectric power license issued by the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission which included a plan to promote the growth of
    wild rice in lakes in a National Forest. The U.S. Supreme Court is
    hearing a case challenging assessments charged against mushroom
    producers which fund an advertising program designed to increase
    consumption of mushrooms.
                                  civil rights
        The Secretary wants to ensure that all of our customers and
    employees are treated with dignity and respect, and are afforded equal
    employment opportunity (EEO) and equal access to all USDA programs.
    Critical to the achievement of these goals was the creation, in 1998,
    of the Civil Rights Division (CRD) within OGC. Staffed with attorneys
    with specialized expertise in civil rights and EEO law, CRD is charged
    with providing legal services to the Secretary and all agencies of the
    Department on civil rights and EEO issues.
        CRD has maintained a stellar litigation record while also providing
    prompt and sound legal advice to our client agencies. However, as CRD's
    reputation continues to improve, the demands on the office only
    increase. CRD's litigation duties currently include 7 program class
    actions and 10 employment class actions, each at different stages in
    the litigation process. The requested damages in these class actions
    could cost USDA upwards of $21.0 billion.
        CRD represents USDA in the defense of six class action program
    complaints currently pending in Federal district court. CRD also played
    a critical role in the settlement of the Pigford/Brewington litigation.
    The settlement helped the Department to reinvigorate its efforts to
    become a Federal civil rights leader in the 21st century. CRD has taken
    the leading role in ensuring that USDA meets its commitments under the
    Pigford/Brewington consent decree, particularly with respect to the
    production of relevant documents and necessary legal analyses related
    to each claim filed pursuant to the consent decree, as well as ensuring
    the Department's compliance with adjudicator and arbitrator decisions.
    CRD is working with FSA and DOJ to develop timely and appropriate
    Government responses to claims filed by eligible farmers.
        Key to settlement of the Pigford and Brewington cases was the 1998
    enactment of the waiver of various statutes of limitations, that allows
    farmers with long-standing discrimination complaints to have their
    claims finally heard. CRD and OGC field offices are representing the
    Department in the 60 cases in which a hearing has been requested. With
    respect to farmer discrimination claims not covered by the Pigford and
    Brewington settlement, CRD works with the USDA Office of Civil Rights
    (CR) to ensure that all claims receive expeditious and fair
    consideration, within the bounds set by applicable law.
        With respect to the ongoing implementation of the Pigford consent
    decree, we anticipate that several thousand additional Track A claims
    will be filed. CRD attorneys must review the agency response on each
    claim prior to submission to the adjudicator. In addition, several
    hundred more Track B hearings will take place. CRD attorneys must
    assist the Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys in their
    representation of the agency; including assisting DOJ with document
    discovery, identification of similarly situated white farmers, and
    responses to interrogatories. Furthermore, CRD will have the primary
    Departmental role in the Monitor review process. All claimants can
    petition the Monitor to reevaluate their claims and CRD will need to
    file a response to each petition. We anticipate that most of the
    roughly 8,000 claimants whose claims were denied may seek Monitor
    review. Thus, CRD will need to file a written response to each of these
    petitions. In addition, for cases in which the government seeks Monitor
    review of a claim, CRD will prepare the Government's petitions for
    Monitor review. We anticipate several hundred individual petitions may
    be filed by the Government.
        CRD also represents USDA in the defense of six class action
    employment complaints pending before the Equal Employment Opportunity
    Commission (EEOC). To date, only one of these complaints has been
    certified by EEOC to proceed as a class action. In addition, CRD is
    representing USDA in the defense of two additional class action
    employment complaints currently on appeal before EEOC's Office of
    Federal Operations. In recent years, CRD has settled two employment
    class action complaints under which individual complainants are
    currently pursuing their claims.
        Recent years have seen a drastic increase in the demand for CRD's
    litigation services in a number of formal individual complaints filed
    by USDA employees with the EEOC. For example, 783 formal complaints
    were filed with USDA during fiscal year 2000, and there are nearly
    1,872 active EEO cases pending throughout USDA. CRD continues to carry
    a full workload of complex and politically sensitive individual EEO
    cases involving either issues of first impression or disputes over
    positions at the highest levels within USDA. CRD litigates these cases
    on behalf of the Department without the assistance of DOJ. These
    individual cases require constant attention, travel across the country,
    and interaction with senior management officials throughout USDA.
        In addition to its primary litigation responsibilities, CRD
    continues to assist DOJ in the litigation of numerous individual civil
    rights cases in both the employment and program areas pending in
    Federal district court. The Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and/or DOJ
    attorneys serve as lead counsel, but they are requiring an ever-
    increasing amount of litigation support from CRD, including draft
    answers, full litigation reports, dispositive motions, discovery
    responses, witness preparation, and deposition and trial participation.
        To address other employment issues, CRD will intensify its efforts
    to provide training and technical assistance to OGC field attorneys and
    to Department officials, civil rights directors, and employee relations
    specialists. The goal is to identify and address EEO obstacles before
    they elevate into litigation. Where issues are identified, CRD will
    bring the concerns to the attention of appropriate Department
    officials, with legal analysis and recommendations for resolution.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        For fiscal year 2002, OGC is requesting an increase of $1,116,000
    is for the anticipated fiscal year 2002 pay raise. This critically
    important increase is needed to support and maintain current staffing
    levels to meet the current and projected increased demand in delivering
    legal advice, training, appeal and litigation legal services to
    agencies. Approximately 92 percent of OGC's budget is in support of
    personnel compensation, which leaves no flexibility for absorbing pay
    cost increases. Unlike large program agencies which have more
    flexibility concerning budget implementation, OGC can only absorb this
    increase by reducing staff.
                                    closing
        That concludes my statement. We very much appreciate the support
    this Subcommittee has given us in the past. Thank You.
                                     ______

                     Office of the Chief Financial Officer

    Prepared Statement of Patricia E. Healy, Acting Chief Financial Officer

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    present the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Office of the Chief
    Financial Officer (OCFO) and the Department's Working Capital Fund
    (WCF).
        OCFO includes a headquarters staff responsible for leadership and
    oversight of USDA financial management, and a staff in New Orleans,
    Louisiana, which processes payroll and administrative data for more
    than 40 departments, independent agencies, and congressional entities
    and provides the record-keeping services for the Government-wide Thrift
    Savings Plan (TSP).
        Throughout fiscal years 2000 and 2001, USDA has continued to make
    significant progress towards improving its financial credibility and
    accountability. The following examples give you a glimpse of our
    progress:
        Financial Statements.--For the second consecutive year, USDA
    submitted its consolidated financial statements to the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB) by the March 1 deadline. We have also been
    working on automating the statement preparation process to improve
    efficiency and consistency of data processing. USDA has six stand-alone
    audits, three of which--the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS); the Rural
    Telephone Bank; and the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation--received
    unqualified or ``clean'' audit opinions. Of the remaining three stand-
    alone audits--Rural Development (RD), the Forest Service (FS), and
    Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC)--significant progress has been made
    in improving their audit results. OCFO is working closely with RD, Farm
    Service Agency (FSA) and CCC on a credit reform working group,
    comprised of these agencies, the Office of Inspector General, and the
    General Accounting Office (GAO) as an advisor, to address the credit
    reform issues keeping these agencies from a clean opinion. We are also
    working closely with the Forest Service on its plans for financial
    management improvements. We are hopeful that these efforts will result
    in an improved USDA consolidated financial statement audit opinion for
    fiscal year 2001.
        Debt Collection.--USDA debt constitutes about 37 percent of all
    non-tax debt owed to the Federal Government. The $104.8 billion
    portfolio includes loans for rural housing units, rural utilities, farm
    operating and disaster assistance, international export and
    development, and rural business enterprises. During fiscal year 2000,
    USDA collected $188.0 million in delinquent debt through Treasury's
    Administrative Offset Program and other debt collection tools. This
    figure represents a 38 percent increase over the $136.2 million
    collected in fiscal year 1999, a 100 percent increase over the $93.9
    million collected in fiscal year 1998, and a 163 percent increase over
    the $71.5 million collected in fiscal year 1997. In addition, the
    fiscal year 2000 delinquent receivables totaled $6.3 billion, a
    decrease of nearly 16 percent from the $7.5 billion collected in fiscal
    year 1997. Collections of delinquent USDA debt have almost tripled
    (from $63.2 million to $188.0 million) since 1996 as a result of the
    Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) and a greater reliance
    on referring debts for Treasury offset, cross-servicing, Internal
    Revenue Service (IRS) 1099 reporting, and internal/external offset
    programs.
        Integrated Financial Management System.--USDA continues to make
    significant progress in implementing the Foundation Financial
    Information System (FFIS), the cornerstone of financial management and
    administrative systems improvements at USDA. The success of USDA in
    implementing the system according to the aggressive schedule that we
    committed to in fiscal year 1999 led us to accelerate the
    implementation schedule for fiscal year 2000. As a result, four major
    agencies, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the
    Rural Development (RD) agencies, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) and the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), were all implemented on
    October 1, 2000. Three of these agencies were implemented ahead of
    schedule. Work is on schedule to implement eight agencies on October 1,
    2001. These are: Agricultural Research Service (ARS); Cooperative State
    Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES); Economic Research
    Service (ERS); National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS);
    Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS); Food and Nutrition Service (FNS);
    the Office of the Inspector General (OIG); and Departmental
    Administration (DA) and Staff Offices, including the Working Capital
    Fund (WCF). Currently 78 percent of the USDA workforce is served by
    FFIS. Final implementation will occur on October 1, 2002 with Grain
    Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) and Foreign
    Agricultural Service (FAS).
        Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).--In fiscal year
    2000, USDA issued a restructured strategic plan for fiscal year 2000-
    2005 focused on five overall USDA goals that cross organizational lines
    in the Department. The OCFO led the Department-wide Planning Team that
    developed the new plan using a corporate management approach to
    strategic planning. As a result, the previous strategic plan, which
    consisted of 30 different agency plans, has been replaced by a
    streamlined plan written in plain language. The strategic plan, as well
    as the fiscal year 2002 performance plan, reflect a corporate approach
    to performance management.
        National Finance Center.--The OCFO's National Finance Center (NFC)
    in New Orleans processes payroll for approximately 460,000 employees in
    the Federal civilian workforce and provides record-keeping services for
    the $92 billion Thrift Savings Plan, a 401(k) type plan, for 2.5
    million Federal employees. NFC is currently working with the Federal
    Retirement Thrift Investment Board to add the Small Capitalization
    Stock Investment (S) Fund and the International Stock Investment (I)
    Fund to the current record-keeping system, maintained by NFC, effective
    May 1, 2001.
        These examples represent progress that will continue only if we
    receive the necessary resources to establish the framework in which we
    will lead, direct, and coordinate USDA's financial management
    priorities to satisfy congressional mandates and provide the Secretary,
    the Congress, and program managers with credible financial information
    on which they can base decisions.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        Mr. Chairman, OCFO is requesting a fiscal year 2002 budget of
    $5,335,000, an increase of $175,000 over fiscal year 2001. The OCFO
    staff funded through the appropriation has little flexibility to absorb
    pay and other cost increases. The requested pay cost increase of
    $175,000 is needed to maintain the current staff level for leadership
    and oversight of financial management at USDA. The maintenance of this
    budget level is critical if we are to devote the necessary staff and
    resources to work on the following priorities:
        Lead the Corporate Administrative/Financial Systems Strategy
    Implementation.--In fiscal year 2000, the Chief Financial Officer,
    working with the Chief Information Officer and Assistant Secretary for
    Administration, led the Corporate Administrative Systems Executive
    Committee tasked with developing a corporate strategy for
    administrative/financial systems. The Committee met extensively over a
    six-month period to examine the eight corporate systems identified as
    most critical for the successful operation of USDA. The Committee
    evaluated each system component, the criticality of the system to the
    Department's overall administrative/financial operations, and the
    urgency of the need to have the functionality implemented. The systems
    in the corporate strategy and their priorities for implementation are:
    accounting/budget execution, telecommunications infrastructure/
    security, procurement; payroll, human resources, travel, property, and
    budget formulation.
        These systems require the OCFO to work with the agencies to review
    their current business practices to ensure that these systems will
    produce accurate, timely and reliable data. Currently, program
    managers, policy officials, members of Congress, and other stakeholders
    do not always have the reliable and timely information needed to
    support essential program and financial management decisions, as well
    as develop, monitor, and report on performance plans and their goals
    and objectives, as required by GPRA.
        The fundamental objective is to complete the necessary
    implementation of these systems within five years. A constraint in our
    ability to implement the corporate strategy has been the availability
    of funding. We are grateful to the Appropriations Committees of the
    Senate and House for the language provided in last year's bill allowing
    the Secretary of Agriculture, with the Committees' approval, to
    transfer unobligated balances of appropriated funds to the Working
    Capital Fund for the acquisition of plant and capital equipment
    necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and
    information technology services of primary benefit to the agencies of
    the Department of Agriculture. We will be providing a plan to the
    Committees shortly to seek this approval. This plan will address our
    resource requirements for the corporate strategy.
        Implement Information Infrastructure.--Consistent with the
    corporate systems strategy, OCFO will successfully complete the
    implementation of the Foundation Financial Information System (FFIS) on
    schedule. As its name implies, FFIS is intended to be the foundation
    for all the corporate systems initiatives. When FFIS is linked to other
    critical corporate systems, USDA will be able to obtain the corporate
    information required to more effectively manage operations. When fully
    implemented, FFIS will include integrated budget execution and
    accounting as well as a financial data warehouse with a powerful
    reporting capability. It will also include a tool to help the
    Department reconcile its cash accounts to Treasury records, a major
    audit finding. The reliable, accurate data provided in FFIS records,
    coupled with the powerful reporting tool, will increase USDA's ability
    to monitor operations and report results.
        Improving the USDA Audit Opinion.--In order to lead USDA to a clean
    opinion, we intend to focus our efforts on the USDA component agencies'
    audit opinions on their stand-alone statements. In addition, OCFO will
    work with all USDA agencies to ensure they address overall improvements
    in financial management and data integrity. We will continue to focus
    on improvements in four areas--implementation of the Federal Credit
    Reform Act of 1990, reconciling Fund Balances with Treasury accounts,
    addressing weaknesses in the Forest Service's financial accounting and
    reporting, and correcting material internal control weaknesses as
    outlined in auditors' reports. USDA has made significant progress in
    these areas in the past two years. With sufficient resources and focus
    by all management layers throughout USDA, we expect to see the results
    in improved and sustainable financial management processes with, as a
    by-product, an improved audit opinion.
        Enhancing and Improving NFC Operations.--The National Finance
    Center (NFC) is a centralized administrative/financial processing and
    automated information systems operation supporting USDA and Government-
    wide operations. In both fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002, NFC
    will expand its role in support of the Federal Retirement Thrift
    Investment Board with the introduction of additional investment options
    and the implementation of the military into the Thrift Savings Plan.
    Additionally, NFC has been selected to develop and pilot a
    reconciliation process for the Office of Personnel Management to
    reconcile Federal employee health benefits subscriptions.
        In fiscal year 2002, NFC will transition to support the
    implementation of the USDA's FFIS, while using activity-based costing
    as a mechanism for developing a new process for direct billings to
    clients. Additionally, the NFC will continue to stabilize the processes
    implemented to support cash reconciliation and strengthen its
    capabilities in that area. These initiatives will provide streamlining
    of processes and will institutionalize improved financial management
    practices to ensure that the OCFO's NFC operation meets the challenges
    of Government financial management in the 21st century.
                              working capital fund
        As we have noted in the past for the Committee, the Working Capital
    Fund serves as the Department's primary financing mechanism for
    centrally managed financial, administrative, and information technology
    services. It supports more than 20 distinct activity centers across
    five Department-level organizations, and does so effectively and
    efficiently as evidenced by the volume of service we provide to our
    USDA agencies and the high demand for our WCF services from agencies
    outside of USDA. As mentioned previously, the Congress provided the WCF
    with increased flexibility as part of the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations legislation enacted last fall. The Secretary was granted
    the authority to transfer unobligated fund balances for the purpose of
    funding through the WCF, acquisition of plant and capital equipment
    necessary for the delivery of financial, administrative, and
    information technology services. No funds will be transferred under
    this authority until a proposal is presented to and approval granted by
    both Committees on Appropriations. We are working to prepare a
    comprehensive proposal to use funds under this authority and look
    forward to discussing the issue further with you and your staffs.
        The Congress has provided us the means to address other needs in
    the corporate area as well. Fiscal year 2001 appropriations language
    granted USDA the authority to use proceeds from purchase card rebates
    to invest in systems and processes of general benefit to the
    Department. We are using this authority to reinvest in procurement and
    related systems. In fiscal year 2002, pilot projects to determine the
    best approach and system to employ for procurement services will be
    partially funded through these rebates. While the rebates will only
    fund part of our needs (approximately $3 million in fiscal year 2001),
    we appreciate the cooperation of the Congress in using these rebates,
    which arise from the use of the procurement credit card, to fund our
    investment efforts, especially those of the procurement system. I hope
    that the Congress will renew both the language to allow transfers of
    unobligated balances and the language to allow transfers of rebate
    proceeds so that we may continue to invest in these financial and
    administrative systems which are so critical to USDA operations in the
    future.
        Concerning our recurring operations, I am pleased to report that we
    are continuing to deliver timely, quality service to our USDA agencies
    and non-USDA clients in a cost-effective manner. We are especially
    proud of the cooperative efforts of WCF management, activity managers,
    and agencies represented on our WCF Executive Committee in holding down
    costs of service.
        Mr. Chairman, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that we can
    meet the needs of our agencies as they address the needs of the
    American farmer and agricultural community, and ensure financial
    accountability and effectiveness. I look forward to working with you
    and the members of this Committee to ensure that those needs are met.
    The resource estimate that I have presented to you is our commitment to
    fulfilling our responsibilities. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome any
    questions the Committee might have.
                                     ______

                    National Agricultural Statistics Service

            Prepared Statement of R. Ronald Bosecker, Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit a statement for this Committee's consideration in
    support of the fiscal year 2002 budget request for the National
    Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). This Agency now conducts the
    Census of Agriculture which was begun in 1840, and the agricultural
    statistics program created in 1842. Both programs support the basic
    mission of NASS, which is to provide factual information for and about
    the Nation's food and agricultural industry.
        As American farms and ranches have progressed to making greater use
    of agricultural science and technology, the need for more detailed
    information has increased. The periodic surveys and censuses conducted
    by NASS contribute significantly to the overall information base for
    agricultural producers, handlers, processors, wholesalers, retailers,
    and ultimately, consumers. Voids in relevant, timely, accurate data
    contribute to wasteful inefficiencies throughout the entire production
    and marketing system.
        The most critical complaints received by NASS occur when there is
    an absence or shortage of official data available for a commodity, and
    therefore that segment of agriculture is forced to operate with
    insufficient information. Recent energy crises have focused immediate
    attention on the need for additional energy costs and supply data to
    measure the effect, and potential effect, on agriculture. NASS is
    cooperating with the Office of Energy and New Uses (USDA, Office of the
    Chief Economist) and the Energy Information Agency (U.S. Department of
    Energy) to collect data related to the energy supply and price problems
    and the effect on agricultural production and costs. Environmental
    concerns have meant that entirely new surveys are needed to accurately
    measure the chemicals used by the food and fiber industry. The
    globalization of agricultural commodity markets also increases the
    demand for relevant, accurate, timely, and impartial statistical
    information to assist those who sell U.S. agricultural commodities
    worldwide. For example, information concerning genetically engineered
    crops and crop varieties will enable the United States to better
    compete in the world market.
        The crop, livestock, and other related statistics are provided by
    NASS throughout the year, in cooperation with each State Department of
    Agriculture. This program, which began in 1917, has served the
    agricultural industry well and is often cited by others as an excellent
    model of successful State-Federal cooperation. The addition of the
    Census of Agriculture has strengthened NASS's partnership with its
    State cooperators. This joint State-Federal program helps meet State
    and national data needs while minimizing overall costs by consolidating
    both staff and resources, eliminating duplication of effort, and
    reducing the reporting burden on the Nation's farm and ranch operators.
    The success of this partnership was demonstrated when NASS, through its
    State-Federal cooperation, was able to complete the 1997 Census of
    Agriculture in almost half the time of previous censuses, increase the
    total response, and, through the use of a toll-free number, better
    respond to questions from farmers and ranchers completing the census
    questionnaires. NASS's 46 field offices, which cover all 50 States (New
    England States are combined) and Puerto Rico, support the five goals
    and outcomes in the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission
    area strategic plan by providing statistical information that serves
    national, State, and local data needs.
        NASS statistics contribute to providing fair markets where buyers
    and sellers alike have access to the same official statistics. This
    prevents markets from being unduly influenced by ``inside'' information
    which might unfairly affect market prices for the gain of an individual
    market participant.
        With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and
    Reform Act of 1996 and the pending work on the farm bill, the demand
    for agricultural statistics has increased as producers rely heavily on
    market information to make production decisions. Empirical evidence
    indicates that an increase in information improves the efficiency of
    commodity markets. Information on the competitiveness of our Nation's
    agricultural industry will become increasingly important as producers
    rely more on the world market for their income.
        NASS's agricultural statistics are used throughout the agricultural
    sector to evaluate supplies and determine competitive prices for world
    marketing of U.S. commodities, which directly supports Goal 1 of the
    REE Strategic Plan: Ensure Americans an agricultural system that is
    highly competitive in the global market.
        Through new technology, the products produced in the United States
    are changing rapidly. This also means that the agricultural statistics
    program must be dynamic and able to respond to the demand for coverage
    of newly emerging products. For example, genetic engineering technology
    is producing new commodity varieties, such as BT corn and cotton, and
    Roundup Ready soybeans. NASS has responded to data user requests for
    information on genetically modified crops to help assess the magnitude
    and impact of these new varieties.
        Not only are NASS statistical reports important to assess the
    current supply of and demand for agricultural commodities, but they are
    also extremely valuable to farm organizations, commodity groups, and
    public officials who analyze agricultural policy, foreign trade,
    construction, and environmental programs, research, rural development,
    and many other activities. NASS numbers are scrutinized very closely by
    producers, agribusinesses, industry analysts, economists, investors, as
    well as government policy makers. As a result of their analysis, major
    decisions are made that affect the Nation's agricultural economy.
        All reports issued by NASS's Agricultural Statistics Board are made
    available to the public at previously announced release times to ensure
    that everyone is given equal access to the information. NASS has been a
    leader among Federal agencies in providing electronic access to
    information. All of NASS's national statistical reports and data
    products, including graphics, are available on the Internet, as well as
    in printed form. Customers are able to electronically subscribe to NASS
    reports by clicking on the appropriate release. A summary of NASS and
    other USDA statistical data are produced annually in USDA's
    Agricultural Statistics, available on the Internet through the NASS
    Home Page, on CD-ROM disc, or in hard copy. Each of NASS's 46 field
    offices have Home Pages on the Internet, which provide access to
    special statistical reports and information on current local commodity
    conditions and production.
        Beginning in fiscal year 1997, NASS received funding directly for
    the Census of Agriculture which is conducted every 5 years. The
    transfer of the responsibility for the Census of Agriculture to USDA
    streamlines Federal agricultural data collection activities and has
    improved the efficiency, timeliness, and quality of the census data.
        Statistical research is conducted to improve methods and techniques
    used in collecting and processing agricultural data. This research is
    directed toward providing higher quality census and survey data with
    less burden to respondents, producing more accurate and timely
    statistics to data users, and increasing the efficiency of the entire
    process. For example, NASS has been a leader in the research and
    development of satellite imagery to improve agricultural statistics.
    The NASS statistical research program strives to improve methods and
    techniques for obtaining agricultural statistics with an acceptable
    level of accuracy. The growing diversity and specialization of the
    Nation's farm operations have greatly complicated procedures for
    producing accurate agricultural statistics. Development of new sampling
    and survey methodology, along with intensive use of telephone and face-
    to-face contacts and computer technology enable NASS to keep pace with
    an increasingly complex agricultural industry. Considerable new
    research will be directed at improving the 2002 Census of Agriculture.
        Major Activities of the National Agricultural Statistics Service
    (NASS) The primary activities of NASS are to conduct periodic surveys
    each year and the Census of Agriculture every 5 years to meet the
    current data needs of the agricultural industry. The periodic surveys
    include the collection, summarization, analysis, and publication of
    reliable agricultural forecasts and estimates. Farmers, ranchers, and
    agribusinesses voluntarily respond to a series of nationwide surveys
    about crops, livestock, prices, chemical use and other agricultural
    activities each year. Periodic surveys are conducted during the growing
    season to measure the impact weather, pests, and other factors have on
    crop production. Frequent surveys are also needed for food products
    that are perishable. Many crop surveys are supplemented by actual field
    observations in which various plant counts and measurements are made.
    Administrative data from other State and USDA agencies, as well as data
    on imports and exports, are thoroughly analyzed and utilized as
    appropriate. NASS prepares estimates for over 120 crops and 45
    livestock items which are published annually in almost 400 separate
    reports.
        The Census of Agriculture provides national, State, and county data
    for the United States on the agricultural economy every 5 years,
    including: number of farms, land use, production expenses, farm product
    values, value of land and buildings, farm size and characteristics of
    farm operators, market value of agricultural production sold, acreage
    of major crops, inventory of livestock and poultry, and farm irrigation
    practices. The Census of Agriculture is the only source for this
    information on a local level which is extremely important to the
    agricultural community. Detailed information at the county level helps
    agricultural organizations, suppliers, handlers, processors, and
    wholesalers and retailers better plan their operations. Important
    demographic information supplied by the Census of Agriculture also
    provides a very valuable data base for developing public policy for
    rural areas.
        Nearly two-thirds of NASS's staff are located in the 46 field
    offices; 25 of these offices are collocated with State Departments of
    Agriculture or land-grant universities. NASS's State Statistical
    Offices issue approximately 9,000 different reports each year and
    maintain Internet Home Pages to electronically provide their State
    information to the public.
        NASS has developed a broad environmental statistics program under
    the Department's water quality and food safety programs. Until 1991,
    there was a complete void in the availability of reliable pesticide
    usage data. Therefore, in 1991 NASS cooperated with other USDA
    agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Food and
    Drug Administration, to implement comprehensive chemical usage surveys
    that collect data on certain crops in selected States. EPA uses the
    state and national level actual survey chemical data, rather than worst
    case scenarios, in the quantitative usage analysis for a chemical
    product's risk assessment. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, NASS also
    began survey programs to acquire more information on Integrated Pest
    Management (IPM), additional farm pesticide uses, and post-harvest
    application of pesticides and other chemicals applied to commodities
    after leaving the farm. These programs have resulted in significant new
    chemical use data, which are important additions to the data base.
    Surveys conducted in cooperation with the Economic Research Service
    also collect detailed economic and farming practice information to
    analyze the productivity and the profitability of different levels of
    chemical use. American farms and ranches manage half the land mass in
    the United States, underscoring the value of complete and accurate
    statistics on chemical use and farming practices to effectively address
    public concerns about the environmental effects of agricultural
    production. NASS's chemical use survey programs support both Goals 2
    and 4 of the REE Strategic Plan which relate to ensuring an adequate
    food and fiber supply and the promotion of food safety, and enhancing
    the quality of the environment.
        NASS conducts a number of special surveys as well as provides
    consulting services for many USDA agencies and other Federal, State,
    and private agencies or organizations on a cost-reimbursable basis.
    Consulting services include assistance with survey methodology,
    questionnaire and sample design, information resource management, and
    statistical analysis. NASS has been very active in assisting USDA
    agencies in programs that monitor nutrition, food safety, environmental
    quality, and customer satisfaction. In cooperation with State
    Departments of Agriculture, land-grant universities, and industry
    groups, NASS conducted 111 special surveys in fiscal year 2000 covering
    a wide range of issues such as farm injury, nursery and horticulture,
    farm finance, fruits and nuts, vegetables, and cropping practices.
        NASS provides technical assistance and training to improve
    agricultural survey programs in other countries in cooperation with
    other Government agencies on a cost-reimbursable basis. NASS's
    international programs focus on developing countries, such as those in
    Asia, Africa, and Central and South America, as well as emerging market
    countries in Eastern Europe. Accurate information is essential in these
    countries for the orderly marketing of farm products. NASS works
    directly with countries undergoing the transition from centrally-
    planned to market economies by assisting them in applying modern
    statistical methodology, including sample survey techniques. This past
    year, NASS provided assistance to China, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan,
    Mexico, Nicaragua, Russia, South Africa, Ukraine, and Venezuela and
    received approximately $1.1 million in reimbursements for these
    services.
        NASS annually seeks input on improvements and priorities from the
    public through: displays at major commodity meetings, data user
    meetings with representatives from agribusinesses and commodity groups,
    special briefings for agricultural leaders during the release of major
    reports, and through numerous individual contacts, especially those
    made at the grass roots level through NASS's 46 field offices. As a
    result of these activities, the Agency has made adjustments to its
    agricultural statistics program, published reports, and electronic
    access capabilities to better meet the statistical needs of customers
    and stakeholders.
                             fiscal year 2002 plans
        The fiscal year 2002 budget request is for $113,786,000. This is a
    net increase of $13,236,000 from the fiscal year 2001 current estimate.
        The fiscal year 2002 request includes increases for cyclical
    activities associated with the Census of Agriculture ($10,000,000),
    improvements to computer security to assure the integrity of market
    sensitive data prior to official release ($500,000), and funding for
    increased pay costs ($2,736,000).
        A net increase of $10,000,000 and 51 staff-years for the Census of
    Agriculture.
        The 2002 Census of Agriculture budget request is for $25,000,000.
    This includes an increase of $10,000,000 and 51 staff-years for
    increased activities associated with the 2002 Census of Agriculture.
    The funding increase addresses necessary preparations for the 2002
    Census of Agriculture, which will be mailed in December 2002. This is
    the third year in a five-year funding cycle for the 2002 Census.
    Preparations include specific list building activities; formulation of
    data collection plans targeted for American Indian and minority farm
    operators; equipment installation and testing; census mail list
    development; printing over three million questionnaires, letters, and
    reference materials; completion of final specifications, development,
    and testing procedures for data collection, processing, and analysis
    phases of the census; completion of publicity and outreach plans and
    printing of materials; and determination of final census data products
    design, mix, and production schedules. NASS will also work to improve
    information technology infrastructure for the field offices to ensure
    maximum efficiency.
        An increase of $500,000 is requested for continued development of
    NASS Computer Security Architecture.
        There is a growing need for cyber-security given the increased
    incidences and threats of the loss, misuse, unauthorized access to, or
    modification of information on computer systems. The level of
    sophistication displayed by hackers and others also supports the need
    for security reforms, such as the implementation of early warning
    systems for attacks, intrusions, and viruses. Intrusion detection and
    monitoring software would allow NASS security staff to review access
    attempts, create audit trails, and monitor system connection for
    validity. Continued progress in critical cyber-security issues would
    also ultimately lead to reduced time associated with system access for
    both the end users and security administrators. Cyber-security has
    replaced Year 2000 as the top priority in the information technology
    community. Information security is of vital importance to maintain
    NASS's credibility given the market sensitivity of the reports released
    as well as the confidential nature of the data collected by NASS from
    the Nation's farmers, ranchers, and agribusinesses.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this for the record.
                                     ______

                         Agricultural Marketing Service

         Prepared Statement of Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to have
    this opportunity to represent the Agricultural Marketing Service in
    presenting our fiscal year 2002 budget proposal.
                                    mission
        AMS activities are an integral component of USDA-wide efforts to
    assist the U.S. agricultural industry in marketing their products and
    in finding ways to improve their profitability. AMS' mission is to
    facilitate the marketing of agricultural products in the domestic and
    international marketplaces, ensure fair trading practices, and promote
    a competitive and efficient marketplace to the benefit of producers,
    traders, and consumers of U.S. food and fiber products. We accomplish
    this mission through a variety of activities funded from appropriations
    and from fees charged for services. In providing services such as
    market reporting and grading, we are able to maintain close contact
    with our customers, making us aware of their concerns. Furthermore,
    since most of our user-funded services are voluntary, we must remain
    conscious of cost while being responsive to customer needs.
        To improve marketing and better serve the needs of farmers and
    producers in 2002, we are proposing to initiate two new activities. The
    first initiative will allow AMS to support the international marketing
    of agricultural products through greater participation in the
    development of international standards. The second initiative addresses
    the effect of bioengineering on the domestic and international
    marketing of food, fiber and seed. However, before I discuss our
    proposed increases for fiscal year 2002 in more detail, I would like to
    briefly describe some of the marketing issues facing U.S. farmers and a
    few of AMS' recent and very significant accomplishments in fiscal year
    2001.
                             agricultural marketing
        U.S. agriculture is facing continual and rapid changes in the
    structure of the industry, domestic and international consumer
    preferences, the types of support programs being offered by the
    government, new production methods, and greater dependence on export
    markets. The trend toward consolidation in some industries, and
    contracted production in others, threatens market competition. Farmers,
    particularly small, limited resource farmers, need more marketing-
    related assistance as Federal price supports decline. Consumer
    preferences and concerns affect the sales of food and fiber products.
    Recently, consumers have become increasingly concerned over the
    implications of bio-engineered agricultural products. Although global
    marketing offers new opportunities for American agricultural producers,
    those opportunities may be burdened by new requirements and
    restrictions.
                             mandatory market news
        Concern about livestock industry concentration and price discovery
    in the marketplace led to the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act in
    October 1999. AMS began implementing the Mandatory Market News Program
    on April 2. This program directly supports agricultural trading by
    requiring large packers and importers to report to AMS the details of
    their transactions involving purchases of livestock, as well as sales
    of boxed beef, boxed lamb, lamb carcasses, and imported boxed lamb
    cuts. We estimate that 80 to 90 percent of the volume of all cattle,
    boxed beef, slaughter hogs, sheep, lamb meat, and imported lamb traded
    will be covered by the mandatory market reporting program.
    Implementation of a reporting program of this size required development
    of a new electronic collection and report generating system. We
    developed and tested this electronic reporting system with industry
    participation. Since this is the first regulation that requires the
    industry to electronically report proprietary information on daily
    market transactions, we have conducted informational meetings for
    packers to provide instructions and training on the electronic data
    transfer process.
                            national organic program
        The implementation phase of the National Organic Program is now
    underway. The organic industry, State governments, and consumers urged
    passage of the Organic Foods Production Act. The purpose of the Act is
    to establish a national standard for organic production and handling,
    to assure consumers that standards are met, and to facilitate trade.
    AMS published the final rule for the program in December and the
    program's 18-month implementation period began April 21. During the
    next 18 months, program staff will develop training materials, assist
    the National Organic Standards Board in reviewing additional allowed
    and prohibited substances for inclusion on the National List, and begin
    the process of accrediting the certifying agents. Program employees are
    conducting accreditation workshops to train State and private
    certifying agents on the requirements for accreditation under the
    National Organic Program. After the certifying agents submit their
    applications and the program completes its acceptance process, AMS will
    announce the first accreditations in late April 2002. AMS expects to
    accredit 40 certifying agents in April 2002 and a total of 59 agents by
    the end of the implementation period. After the implementation period,
    these accredited certifying agents will be required to follow the
    national organic standard and related procedures.
        We are preparing the administrative procedures to distribute the
    certification cost share funding provided under the Agricultural Risk
    Protection Act of 2000 through agreements with the 15 States targeted
    for the program. These funds, intended to defray some of the
    certification costs, will be distributed to organic producers in the
    targeted States who request cost share reimbursement and whose
    production operations are inspected and certified between December 2000
    and October 2002 by an approved certifier. All of the payments are to
    be made by November 2002.
                          microbiological data program
        The new Microbiological Data Program--MDP--responds to consumer
    concerns by ensuring the quality and wholesomeness of the food supply
    in the United States. The program provides information about microbial
    pathogens and indicator organisms on fresh fruits and vegetables. The
    data will be provided to the Centers for Disease Control, Food and Drug
    Administration, USDA's Agricultural Research Service, and State
    Departments of Agriculture. Collection and testing of produce samples
    began in April. During 2001, the program will test samples of lettuce,
    tomatoes and celery for E.coli, Salmonella, and Listeria monocytogenes.
    Other commodities and organisms will be tested in rotation. State
    inspectors who collect samples for the Pesticide Data Program also
    collect samples for the MDP. The collection sites are the same for both
    programs--large distribution centers and terminal markets. State
    inspectors from California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New
    York, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin will collect a total of 62
    samples per commodity per month. For quality assurance, the MDP staff
    is developing and implementing a program that monitors operating
    procedures, methods performance, verification procedures and the
    proficiency of check samples. Test results from the eight participating
    State laboratories and the AMS laboratory will be analyzed, summarized,
    and reported by AMS. If necessary, the laboratories will provide
    immediate notification to CDC and FDA.
                             pesticide data program
        In support of the Food Quality Protection Act, AMS' Pesticide Data
    Program began its new Water Monitoring Survey in March. The Pesticide
    Data Program--PDP--generates data on dietary exposure to pesticide
    residues on foods to verify and assure the consumer of wholesomeness.
    Water survey data is needed by EPA to estimate dietary exposure to
    pesticides through drinking water. To gather the data needed, the
    program will collect and analyze drinking water samples from municipal
    water treatment facilities. This year, finished drinking water samples
    are being collected from community water systems in New York and
    California by the United States Geological Survey--USGS. USGS will
    collect approximately two samples per month at each of 11 sites in New
    York State and 10 sites in the San Francisco area. Sampling may be
    increased to weekly during months when agricultural use of pesticides
    is high and reduced to monthly when pesticide use is low. AMS will
    provide the data to EPA for risk assessments on safety and regulatory
    decisions about pesticides. The program will implement quality
    assurance and quality control measures to verify analytical results and
    capture as much data as possible on the target pesticides identified by
    EPA. The testing laboratories will send the water data to PDP
    headquarters, which will annually release the collected data in a
    summary report.
                  federal-state marketing improvement program
        The Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program--FSMIP--increased
    its support of small, limited-resource farmers this year. Small farmers
    need increased help in developing their marketing opportunities. The
    FSMIP program offers matching grants funding to States to stimulate
    innovative product development and marketing approaches, and an
    opportunity to disseminate those results quickly. The additional grants
    funding provided in 2001 is being made available to States for projects
    that focus on identifying direct marketing opportunities for small
    farmers and agribusiness, export-oriented research and technical
    assistance to small farmers, and sustainable agricultural production
    and marketing and increased utilization of bio-based industrial
    products.
                                budget proposal
        For fiscal year 2002, we are requesting a total budget increase of
    $5 million for our two new marketing initiatives--Global Market
    Expansion and Biotechnology.
    Global Market Expansion
        An additional $1 million for an AMS Global Market Expansion program
    will allow AMS to strengthen export opportunities for U.S. producers by
    expanding our participation in international standards development.
    Agricultural product standards provide the commercial language upon
    which trade is based. These standards can facilitate trade within and
    among countries if properly and fairly developed, but may be used as
    non-tariff trade barriers when other forms of trade protection come
    under close scrutiny. We propose to increase our involvement in
    standards activities at the fundamental development stage to ensure
    that U.S. interests are considered before final standards are
    established. Due to our technical expertise, AMS has been asked to
    assist U.S. producers, the Foreign Agricultural Service, the Food and
    Drug Administration, and other agencies in addressing agricultural
    product standards issues. The standards developed through the various
    international standards setting organizations typically find wide
    commercial application and provide the basis for dispute settlement at
    the World Trade Organization.
        The agency has participated in standards setting meetings as
    resources have allowed. We have also made efforts to engage industry
    sectors in this work, including meeting preparation and attendance.
    While we have achieved success in several commodity areas, much work
    remains to be done. This initiative will allow AMS technical experts to
    participate in the full range of standards setting forums that require
    U.S. attention.
        Increased participation will result in additional opportunities to
    influence the content of international standards so they are inclusive
    of, and even favorable to, U.S. products and production methods. This
    initiative will also allow AMS to cooperate with the domestic industry
    in studies and projects aimed at better identifying the types and
    content of product standards that would be most useful in supporting
    export trade.
        One international forum is the United States Organization for
    Economic Cooperation and Development Seed Schemes, which is the
    critical body for the development and maintenance of genetic purity and
    quality standards for the certification of seed in international trade.
    An interagency task force proposed that AMS increase its participation
    in Seed Schemes meetings by serving as the U.S. Designated Authority
    and by administering the program. This initiative provides the
    resources needed by AMS to function in this expanded capacity.
        This budget request does not duplicate, but complements, the
    programs and responsibilities of the Foreign Agriculture Service and
    other Federal agencies. AMS provides unique technical expertise
    concerning the development and maintenance of agricultural product
    standards. Our participation supports the foreign market promotion and
    policy responsibilities of other agencies. AMS' program will be staffed
    in the United States and will not require any overseas personnel
    assignments.
        In summary, this initiative will strengthen export opportunities
    for U.S. producers through increased AMS participation in international
    standards. It will result in better representation of U.S. agricultural
    interests in international standards and help to avoid non-tariff trade
    barriers and enhance FAS' marketing efforts on behalf of U.S.
    agriculture.
    Biotechnology
        Our $4 million request for Biotechnology would allow us to address
    the rapidly increasing importance of genetically modified organisms in
    agriculture. Consumer preferences--both domestic and foreign--are
    requiring commodity firms and food companies to preserve the identity
    and voluntarily label non-bio-engineered crops and foods. Some
    countries have instituted labeling requirements for biotech foods. To
    meet the industry's need to differentiate bio-engineered from
    conventional crops, AMS proposes to capitalize on agency expertise to
    provide biotech/non-biotech verification and quality assurance services
    for the seed, fruit and vegetable industries. The Federal Seed Act
    protects the interests of growers by regulating the labeling of seed in
    interstate commerce. To meet the regulatory requirements of the Act,
    which require that we ensure that seed varieties are correctly labeled,
    AMS must develop the program's capacity to verify biotech and non-
    biotech properties in seed. We propose to expand our laboratory and
    field programs to enable us to test seed varieties for claims of bio-
    engineered or non-bio-engineered properties. Once seed testing
    procedures have been established, we will conduct training workshops
    for seed analysts in state laboratories throughout the United States on
    the testing procedures. The response to a recent request for public
    comment indicated a strong industry interest in seed testing using DNA-
    based technology to identifying genetically engineered seeds.
        For fruits, vegetables and nuts, we propose to implement a
    voluntary, audit-based quality assurance service designed to verify
    that farms or processing facilities meet accepted standards for
    excluding the presence of genetically modified organisms. This program
    will allow certified participants to meet non-modified organism
    requirements in the U.S. and abroad. AMS will develop guides and
    training materials on genetically modified and non-modified organisms
    for growers, processors, and other interested parties.
        We also propose to establish a laboratory testing program that will
    focus on biotech methods development and laboratory accreditation
    services to support verification of biotech and non-biotech claims for
    fruits, vegetables and nuts. We will coordinate this laboratory program
    with GIPSA's biotech activities for grain.
        For this initiative, AMS will require appropriated funding to set
    up and start the program. Once the quality assurance service and
    laboratory functions are fully established, AMS may be able to recover
    a portion of the costs through user fees. Regulatory activities under
    the Federal Seed Act would continue under appropriated funding.
                             budget request summary
        That concludes our budget presentation for fiscal year 2002. By
    fund, our total budget includes $71.4 million for Marketing Services, a
    program increase of $5 million above current services funding, $1.3
    million for FSMIP grants under Payments to States, and $23.7 million in
    Section 32 Administrative funds. Our budget request includes a pay cost
    increase of $1.2 million for Marketing Services.
        This request will allow AMS to build on its strengths to assist the
    agricultural industry by facilitating domestic and international
    marketing.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present our budget proposal.
                                     ______

                   Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

             Prepared Statement of Dr. Craig A. Reed, Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, ``Protecting American
    Agriculture'' is APHIS' motto. It also succinctly and accurately
    describes our mission. American farms and related agricultural
    industries are the healthiest and most productive in the world. As a
    result, all Americans--urban, suburban, and rural--enjoy an abundant
    and affordable food supply filled with a wide variety of products.
    Agriculture provides an enormous contribution to the U.S. economy. USDA
    economists calculate that each dollar earned from agriculture exports,
    stimulates another $1.32 in business activity for the economy. In all,
    more than 23 million jobs--17 percent of the civilian workforce in
    America--are involved in some phase of growing and distributing food
    and clothing world-wide. The United States agricultural industry
    dominates national markets, and those found abroad. We help to maintain
    this advantage by:
      --Safeguarding animal and plant resources from exotic invasive pests
            and diseases,
      --Monitoring and managing agricultural pests and diseases existing in
            the United States,
      --Resolving and managing trade issues related to animal or plant
            health, and
      --Ensuring the humane care and treatment of animals.
      --We remain steadfast in our efforts to provide the Nation with safe
            and affordable food and fiber. Without APHIS protecting
            America's animal and plant resources from agricultural pests
            and diseases, threats to our food supply could be devastating.
            For example, left unchecked, Mediterranean fruit fly and foot-
            and-mouth disease--two major agricultural health threats--would
            cause production and marketing losses of several billions of
            dollars annually in this country. These and other threats are
            real. In fiscal year 2000, under the authority provided by the
            Congress, the Secretary transferred $220 million to APHIS for
            emergency programs. The experience of fiscal year 2000 alone
            shows us that failing to invest in a comprehensive safeguarding
            system will inevitably lead to large Federal expenditures and
            devastating losses for American farmers.
        In recent years, the scope of APHIS' function of protecting U.S.
    agriculture has expanded beyond pest and disease management. Because of
    our technical expertise in assessing and regulating the risks
    associated with agricultural imports, APHIS has assumed a new trade
    support role. Now the agency must respond to other countries--animal
    and plant health import requirements and negotiate science-based
    standards to ensure that America's agricultural access to foreign
    markets, worth over $50 billion annually, is protected from unjustified
    trade restrictions. The American people and the Congress, have directed
    us to expand our protection role to include wildlife damage management,
    the welfare of animals, human health and safety, and ecosystems
    vulnerable to invasive pests and pathogens. In carrying out our diverse
    protection responsibilities, we make every effort to address the needs
    of all those involved in the U.S. agricultural sector, especially small
    farms. Congress has passed several laws that give APHIS the authority
    to implement our safeguarding mission. In 2000 the Plant Protection
    Act, as part of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act, expanded and
    consolidated various plant protection activities, widening the scope
    for APHIS' involvement in plant health. The Act gives USDA the
    authority to establish more effective deterrents against smuggling. It
    puts real teeth in our enforcement efforts program. We will be able to
    assess larger fines, secure subpoenas, and prosecute serious offenders
    in Federal Court.
        To respond to the threats to U.S. agriculture, both newly emerging
    and ongoing, APHIS applies a variety of strategies toward five goals.
    This statement addresses the five APHIS goals and examines the programs
    we use to complete our mission. It provides recent activities,
    accomplishments, and challenges for the programs.
        Goal 1.--To safeguard U.S. animal and plant resources against
    introductions of exotic invasive pests and diseases, while meeting
    international trade obligations.
        Keeping agricultural pests and diseases out of this country is the
    linchpin for a healthy and productive farm and agricultural industry
    related economy. We have inspectors at foreign locations and at our
    borders vigilantly watching for pest and disease intrusions. We also
    work closely with stakeholders and producers to keep exotic pests and
    diseases out.
        In October 2000, APHIS began reviewing recommendations from a
    National Plant Board Safeguarding Report. These recommendations
    recognize that globalization has increased APHIS' challenges in
    safeguarding America's agriculture resources. The report covered the
    collection and use of international information, potential risk
    pathways, and areas where we need to improve our risk mitigation
    efforts. In fiscal year 2001, we will continue to review
    recommendations for implementation. APHIS animal health officials are
    currently conducting a similar study to identify the needs and
    directions of the Agency's animal health efforts.
        One strategy we employ to safeguard against the introduction of
    foreign diseases and pests is to help identify, control, or eradicate
    exotic agricultural health threats where they originate--outside the
    United States. APHIS has made several improvements in the past year.
    The foreign animal disease (FAD)/foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) program
    has expanded its scope from the traditional role of preventing FMD
    outbreaks overseas. We are improving surveillance of other FADs to
    ensure that the U.S. is prepared to address the threat of disease entry
    into the U.S. We are working with officials in Central and South
    America as well as in Asia, Europe, and Africa, where increased
    international trade presents new threats of introduction of FADs. APHIS
    officials are attempting to improve the infrastructure in these regions
    to allow them to respond quickly to outbreaks of FADs and manage them
    where international trade is involved. As of April 12, 2001, 70 Federal
    and State veterinarians and two animal health technicians have been
    deployed to the UK to provide technical assistance to their FMD
    eradication efforts. To intensify our efforts to keep FMD out of the
    U.S., our Agricultural Quarantine Inspection--User Fee program has
    increased international passenger arrival inspections using an
    additional $13.5 million in fiscal year 2001 and an estimated $18.6 in
    fiscal year 2002 from available user fee collections to fund additional
    inspection personnel and detector dog teams. The cattle tick program is
    a specific example of our efforts to safeguard against incoming animal
    disease threats. The program's focus is to identify tick incursions and
    quickly prevent their spread. In the past year, the program had to
    rapidly react to incursions from Mexico into Texas caused by low water
    levels in the Rio Grande. APHIS placed 45 premises under quarantine in
    fiscal year 2000 to prevent the spread of the tick.
        Perhaps our most impressive effort to prevent the entry of an
    animal health threat is the screwworm program, which has successfully
    driven the pest seven countries south of the U.S. border. In the past
    year, Costa Rica has been declared as screwworm-free. The program there
    as well as in Nicaragua is now shifting toward monitoring and
    surveillance for screwworms and other FADs. The focus of the screwworm
    program is now in Panama, where the Joint U.S.-Panama Commission for
    the Eradication of Screwworm is actively releasing sterile flies
    throughout the entire country, with great progress toward eradication.
    The program will eventually establish a screwworm barrier in Panama, at
    the continent's narrowest point, where it is most cost-effective. To
    this end, the Joint Commission plans to build a new sterile screwworm
    facility in Panama and is currently engaged in securing financing.
        APHIS also has important plant health programs in other countries,
    which prevent the introductions of pests and diseases that would
    threaten the fruit and vegetable markets in the U.S. The fruit fly
    exclusion and detection (FFED) program currently has an enormous effort
    ongoing in Mexico and Guatemala to reduce the Mediterranean fruit fly
    (Medfly) outbreaks that have threatened the U.S. citrus and other
    industries with billions of dollars in damage since 1998. The program
    has relied on emergency fund transfers to re-establish a Medfly barrier
    in Guatemala at a more sustainable location. We have increased sterile
    Medfly production and are using a variety of methods to deal with the
    threat in the long run. This program provides significant protection
    for the citrus industry in Florida and California, where APHIS and the
    States have faced emergency situations. We are working within our
    borders as well. One example is the Medfly Preventative Release Program
    and detection efforts in California. APHIS will continue to use sterile
    flies in fiscal year 2001 to prevent the establishment of most wild fly
    introductions and to allow us to more easily manage smaller scale
    outbreaks. The FFED program has effectively used more environmentally
    friendly organic baits in large-scale operations in Guatemala, and has
    been trying the new methods in our domestic operations.
        Another strategy APHIS uses to safeguard against introductions of
    pests and diseases from overseas is to ensure a high rate of compliance
    with APHIS quarantine regulations. The responsibility of the
    agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) program, which protects
    U.S. agriculture at the borders, has increased with the expansion of
    international trade and travel. We expect to add more inspectors in
    fiscal year 2001. To pay for these anticipated staff increases beyond
    that reflected by volume of traffic, APHIS adjusted the AQI user fee
    schedule to reflect the increasing need. For the part of the program
    not funded by user fees, we are using the increased appropriation the
    Committee provided for fiscal year 2001. We have begun using a more
    scientific staffing model, which focuses more on risk level and less on
    port volume. Using this staffing model, which has received considerable
    industry support, we can better ensure that we have our people
    strategically positioned to prevent the entry of restricted products.
    We now staff bridges at most U.S.-Mexico ports of entry 18 hours a day,
    with at least 3 shifts every day. The next major step we must take is
    to more vigorously pursue violators of the quarantine regulations.
    Static funding from fiscal year 1992 to fiscal year 2001 in our animal
    and plant health regulatory enforcement program has eroded our ability
    to keep up with violations. The time needed to complete investigations
    has more than doubled in the past eight years. Even so, APHIS conducted
    938 investigations involving plant quarantine violations in fiscal year
    2000, resulting in $325,000 in fines. We anticipate this will increase
    in fiscal year 2001 with passage of the Plant Protection Act. In
    addition, we continue to investigate animal health and animal care
    program violations. The addition of animal care inspectors will
    undoubtedly increase the number of violations we detect and should
    pursue.
        A pending issue that may be detrimental to APHIS' quarantine
    activities is the reduction in production of methyl bromide under new
    EPA regulations. We require some imports to undergo methyl bromide
    treatment before entering the U.S. While quarantine activities should
    be exempt from the production restrictions, the EPA has not published
    regulations allowing for the extra production. Without adequate supply,
    ports will have to turn away agricultural products at the border or
    destroy them. These actions could damage trade relations with our
    partners.
        Another strategy we employ to meet our safeguarding goal is to
    foster a trade environment that allows for a common understanding of
    international agricultural health standards, a free flow of risk-
    assessment information, and quick resolution of technical trade barrier
    issues. The trade issues resolution and management program, formerly
    the sanitary/phytosanitary program, resolves import and export trade
    issues involving the health of U.S. agriculture. APHIS officials
    overseas participate in negotiations that ensure market access for U.S.
    products that may face restrictions for sanitary and phytosanitary
    reasons, as well as ensure that imports from other countries do not
    threaten the health of U.S. agriculture. More often, as international
    agreements have removed traditional barriers to trade, countries rely
    on sanitary or phytosanitary restrictions to prevent free access to
    competing products. These health measures may be arbitrary and not
    science-based, so APHIS' technical experts must be involved in trade
    negotiations to assure that U.S. agricultural products receive fair
    consideration. In the past year, our officials played key roles in
    advancing U.S. strategic interests regarding the development of
    standards for genetically modified organisms and wood packing
    materials, among other issues, with the International Plant Protection
    Convention, which sets international standards for plant health. APHIS
    officials also worked with the Office International des Epizooties, the
    recognized international standard-setting body for animal health, to
    develop standards on diseases such as bluetongue and bovine spongiform
    encephalopathy, as well as setting international guidelines for
    regionalizing diseases for trade purposes. APHIS officials also played
    key roles in bilateral negotiations that opened up market access for
    several U.S. commodities, including peaches, nectarines, and plums in
    Mexico, and nectarines in Japan. We successfully negotiated with China
    to open its tobacco market, while other U.S. industries began to export
    to that enormous potential market in fiscal year 2000. All of this new
    trade presents challenges and opportunities for APHIS. APHIS, under the
    U.S.'s World Trade Organization obligations, is also responsible for
    quickly evaluating requests for agricultural imports. We currently have
    over 200 requests pending. Also, to prevent disease incursions into the
    U.S., our officials will continue to work in fiscal year 2001 with
    foreign agriculture officials to determine the presence of pests and
    diseases, enabling us to make accurate assessments of the risks of
    certain products from trade partners.
        The Import Export program also fulfills our obligation to
    facilitate trade while ensuring that we protect U.S. livestock,
    poultry, and wildlife from incursions of exotic pests and diseases.
    Through bilateral negotiations, APHIS officials expanded markets for
    certain animal products to China, Mongolia, Lebanon, and Australia in
    fiscal year 2000, and are currently negotiating with Brazil and
    Argentina to revise export protocols. The Import/Export program
    officers also reviewed requests for import of avians, as well as
    livestock. Cattle imports into the U.S. nearly doubled in fiscal year
    2000. The program restricted imports from the UK following an outbreak
    of Classical Swine Fever there in fiscal year 2000. With regard to the
    foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) threat, effective January 15, 2001, we
    removed the UK from the list of FMD-free countries. As of April 13,
    2001, we began requiring that used farm equipment be certified free of
    all dirt and other particulate matter. In December 2000, we prohibited
    all imports of rendered animal protein products, regardless of species,
    from Europe. This decision followed the recent determination by the
    European Union that feed of non-ruminant origin was potentially cross-
    contaminated with the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent.
        APHIS is trying to facilitate animal trade through a veterinary
    equivalency agreement with the European Union (EU). Since signing a
    Red-Meat Agreement in 1992, the two parties have been attempting to
    further ease trade restrictions by recognizing equivalency between EU
    and U.S. sanitary measures. We completed a risk assessment to address
    EU concerns about recognizing the status of their states separately,
    rather than as a single unit, when disease may not be present in every
    state. This year, we are completing a supplemental risk assessment,
    based on industry comments and concerns over disease potential.
        Goal 2.--To minimize agricultural production losses and export
    market disruptions by quickly detecting and responding to new invasive
    agricultural pests and diseases or other emerging agricultural health
    situations.
        Exotic agricultural pest and disease incursions can cause
    significant damage initially, but also can cause catastrophic damage if
    left undetected very long. Our program priorities include early
    detection activities and accelerated eradication when there are
    emergency outbreaks.
        APHIS strategies to achieve this goal revolve around a cooperative
    relationship with States, academe, animal and plant industry
    stakeholders, and international organizations. On the plant side,
    APHIS--Pest Detection program works toward quick detection and
    mitigation of exotic plant pests through the Cooperative Agricultural
    Pest Survey. The survey is a partnership with States to coordinate data
    collection on incipient infestations of exotic plant pests with the
    potential to cause economic losses. The program's database system helps
    the participants to track the spread of pests and plan their control.
    The Pest Detection program detected 459 new plant pests in fiscal year
    2000, up from 334 in fiscal year 1999, yielding valuable information
    for the control of emerging pest threats in the U.S. APHIS also
    controls plant pest threats through the aforementioned Fruit Fly
    Exclusion and Detection program, which partners with States to control
    incursions of fruit flies into the U.S.
        APHIS addresses animal pests and diseases through the Animal Health
    Monitoring and Surveillance program. In fiscal year 2000, we increased
    our investigations of suspected foreign animal diseases from 336 to
    385. The Agency also participated in 18 state level test exercises to
    improve responses to disease incursions, conducted training for
    veterinarians to recognize foreign animal diseases, and provided
    technical assistance to various countries and states dealing with
    animal disease outbreaks. This included an outbreak of tropical bont
    tick in St. Croix and an outbreak of rabbit calicivirus disease in
    Iowa. In November 2000, APHIS officials and their counterparts in
    Canada and Mexico participated in a tripartite exercise simulating an
    FMD outbreak. This exercise tested APHIS' ability to share critical
    disease--related information with their North American partners and
    evaluated the Agency's emergency response plans as they relate to
    activating the FMD vaccine bank. APHIS led efforts to control the West
    Nile Virus outbreak among U.S. livestock and responded quickly to the
    detection of a screwworm positive horse in Florida. The National Animal
    Health Monitoring System delivered objective information addressing
    animal health as it pertains to U.S. trade, agricultural productivity,
    public health, and on-farm quality assurance. The program provided
    studies or risk assessments to commodity groups, state governments,
    academic institutions, and other federal agencies for equine diseases,
    possible diseases in eggs, and completed the first phase of a swine
    study in fiscal year 2000. The program conducted studies on Johne's
    Disease, brucellosis, and tuberculosis, as well as various poultry
    diseases. Our fiscal year 2001 plans include expanding the Johne's
    disease program by including a quality surveillance and certification
    program as well as continued pseudorabies surveillance.
        Another strategy to achieve this goal is to partner with States and
    industry stakeholders to develop an appropriate, measured response
    capability for outbreaks of invasive pests and diseases in the United
    States. Through the Emergency Management System, APHIS tries to improve
    the ability of the U.S. to handle animal health emergencies, from
    natural disasters, and accidental or deliberate introductions of FADs.
    In fiscal year 2000, APHIS held two workshops for private and state
    veterinarians on animal health emergencies and diseases. We also
    drafted measures for state participants in responding to an animal
    health emergency. In fiscal year 2001, our plans include entering into
    cooperative agreements for emergency management activities, placing
    emergency managers in the field, training, and providing technical
    assistance to foreign countries currently battling foreign animal
    diseases such as FMD.
        In fiscal year 2000, we responded to several emergency situations
    that arose in the U.S. The Asian Longhorned Beetle entered the U.S.
    through wood packing materials from China, and soon spread throughout
    several locations from New York and Chicago. The pest threatens $41
    billion dollars of trees and thousands of acres of forest land in the
    U.S. So far, we can control it only by removing and destroying infested
    trees, but with our colleagues in ARS we have been concentrating on
    developing new methods. In fiscal year 2001, we received $49.6 million
    in emergency funding transfer from the Commodity Credit Corporation to
    continue these efforts. We also responded to an outbreak of Plum Pox
    virus, in several peach orchards in Pennsylvania. USDA declared an
    emergency, and APHIS moved quickly to eradicate the disease and monitor
    for its possible spread before it could damage the entire U.S. stone
    fruit industry. We will continue national survey and tree removal
    activities in fiscal year 2001. We also worked with the State of
    Florida to control an outbreak of Citrus Canker, a devastating disease
    which spreads rapidly and reduces the fruit production of citrus trees.
    APHIS provided technical assistance and conducted regulatory, survey,
    and planning activities. With additional emergency funding, we will
    continue these cooperative activities in fiscal year 2001. Left
    unchecked, losses from citrus canker in Florida could total $200
    million per year.
        Another example of APHIS' quick response to potential threats in
    fiscal year 2000 involved the discovery of six sheep in Vermont which
    tested positive or suspect for the transmissible spongiform
    encephalopathy (TSE) marker. TSEs are chronic, fatal diseases affecting
    the central nervous system of certain mammalian species. TSEs are found
    in sheep and goats as scrapie, in deer and elk as chronic wasting
    disease, and in cattle as bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). We
    moved quickly to dispose of the positive/suspect animals. In addition,
    we offered to purchase and dispose of the remaining sheep in the
    affected flocks to minimize the risk of disease spread. The flocks had
    been imported from Belgium before we imposed restrictions of animal
    imports from Europe in response to BSE outbreaks. In March 2001, under
    authority of the U.S. District Court, we removed 360 quarantined sheep
    from two private Vermont farms. The sheep were transported to our
    National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, where they
    were humanely euthanized. Tissue samples will be collected from the
    sheep for diagnostic testing. The owners will be compensated for the
    fair market value of the sheep.
        Goal 3.--To minimize risks to agricultural production, natural
    resources, and human health and safety by effectively managing existing
    agricultural pests and diseases and wildlife damage in the United
    States.
        We have been fighting agricultural pests and diseases in this
    country for a long time. While some programs are ultimately successful,
    it is arduous to achieve complete eradication. Nevertheless, the
    economic benefits accrued to producers and less dependance on
    environmentally invasive chemicals makes eradication worthwhile.
    Managing wildlife conflicts also has significant economic and human
    health and safety benefits.
        One strategy to achieve this goal is to conduct cooperative
    programs for control or eradication of ongoing regional and national
    agricultural health problems. We have several ongoing programs to
    manage the spread of selected agricultural pests and diseases, many of
    which have plagued American farmers for a century or longer. The Boll
    Weevil Eradication Program (BWEP) aims to eradicate the pest from all
    cotton-growing areas of the U.S. and Northern Mexico by 2004. In fiscal
    year 2000 the program added the Rolling Plains region of Texas to the
    list of 12 eradicated areas since 1983. Surveillance activities
    continued in these areas while other programs in the Southeast and
    Southwest progressed. The BWEP began with cotton grower foundations,
    States, and other non-Federal sources contributing 70 percent of the
    total cost per year and APHIS contributing the remaining 30 percent.
    Contributions from non-Federal sources increased to 87 percent in
    fiscal year 1998 and to 96 percent in fiscal year 2000. The program
    expects to spend about $274 million in fiscal year 2001, and APHIS'
    cost share will increase to about 26 percent because of the $64 million
    increase in the program's appropriation. We will use these additional
    funds to retire debt and increase our cost share with eight States,
    largely in Texas and Mississippi.
        Pseudorabies, a serious swine disease, costs pork producers
    nationwide over $30 million annually and poses a constant threat to the
    $30 billion pork industry. APHIS began a cooperative State-Federal
    pseudorabies eradication program in 1989. From 1992 to the end of 1998,
    the number of infected herds dropped from approximately 8,000 to just
    over 1,000. At that time, APHIS was struggling to make further progress
    against pseudorabies, and producers were suffering the effects not only
    of the disease, but also of record low market prices. As a result, in
    January 1999, the Secretary transferred emergency funding to APHIS to
    establish the Accelerated Pseudorabies Eradication Program (APEP). APEP
    has substantially furthered the goal of eradicating this serious
    disease from the Nation's swine population. Under APEP, over 1,000
    infected herds--or about 1.2 million swine--have been depopulated in 18
    months, with more than $80 million in indemnity paid to affected
    producers. As of April 1, 2001 there were only 95 infected herds in the
    U.S., and only Iowa faces major infection at this time.
        Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is a contagious, infectious, and
    communicable disease that can be fatal in both animals and humans.
    APHIS has been working to eradicate it since 1917. We still face three
    major obstacles to lowering the incidence of new infection in domestic
    cattle herds. These are undetected infected captive cervid (deer)
    herds; persistent infections in El Paso dairies; and infected wild deer
    in Michigan that are the probable source of TB transmission to domestic
    livestock. In recent years, we have worked successfully to include
    captive cervids in the TB eradication program through regulatory
    amendments. APHIS is working with the State of Texas and the El Paso
    milk producers to build a buffer zone between the U.S. and Mexico in
    the El Paso region. To eliminate the last vestiges of the disease, we
    are working with Michigan in order to identify and eradicate TB from
    all domestic species and assisting the state in the eradication from
    wild deer populations. If we had not acted, these reservoirs of TB
    inevitably would have led to reinfection in other states.
        I am pleased to report tremendous success with the brucellosis
    eradication program. We are on the brink of victory in a battle that
    has lasted for seven decades. Over the past century, brucellosis caused
    abortions, infertility, and lowered milk production in cattle and
    bison, and resulted in devastating losses to U.S. farmers. Now, thanks
    to an enhanced cooperative Federal-State-industry effort, we are
    eliminating the last pockets of infection. With Oklahoma joining Class
    Free status, there are 47 States enjoying this designation. For the
    first time, there are no known infected herds in the United States.
    Brucellosis has a variable, sometimes quite lengthy incubation period,
    and it would not be too surprising if we eventually find another
    infected herd. We are prepared to aggressively pursue any newly
    infected herds to eliminate the disease as quickly as possible. We
    cannot declare the United States officially brucellosis free until all
    States reach Class Free status. States must go a full year without
    disclosing any newly infected herds, and must also meet certain
    surveillance criteria to meet the standards for Class Free Status. Once
    the remaining States--Florida, Missouri, and Texas--reach Class Free
    status, we will officially declare the U.S. free of brucellosis. To
    ensure there is no reoccurrence, we will continue surveillance for 5-10
    years.
        While we have made great strides in eradicating boll weevils,
    cotton growers face other threats. The goal of the pink bollworm
    program is to contain the pest to the southwestern portion of the
    Cotton Belt (Texas, Oklahoma, and the States to the west), while
    rearing and releasing sterile moths to prevent the pest from becoming
    established in the San Joaquin Valley of California. APHIS produced
    approximately 867 million sterile moths at the Phoenix, Arizona,
    rearing facility for incremental releases in the San Joaquin Valley.
    The program continued to improve rearing efficiency and maintained
    production using less diet material, thereby reducing cost. In
    addition, program cooperators monitored over 13,200 traps in the San
    Joaquin Valley to detect any new introductions of pink bollworm. In
    fiscal year 2001, we will continue sterile moth releases to prevent
    native moths, which migrate into the San Joaquin Valley from the South,
    from mating successfully. This prevents the pest from becoming
    established in nearly one million acres of high yielding cotton.
        Another tool in protecting American agriculture is Federal
    leadership in managing problems caused by wildlife--to reduce damage
    caused by wildlife to the lowest possible levels, while, at the same
    time, reducing wildlife mortality. Aquaculture, the farming of fish,
    shellfish, and plants, is a nearly $1 billion industry in the United
    States. U.S. aquaculture accounts for more than 180,000 jobs and has an
    economic impact of more than $5.5 billion annually. APHIS continues
    efforts to reduce fish-eating bird damage by providing assistance,
    loaning damage abatement equipment, and conducting wildlife damage
    assessments for aquaculture producers including catfish and bait fish
    farmers. Also, with an organized roost dispersal effort, we reduced the
    estimated 70,000 cormorants in the Delta catfish production region by
    approximately 70 percent in fiscal year 2000. In fiscal year 2001, we
    will continue telemetry studies on depredating species of wildlife in
    the Southeast.
        By its very nature, wildlife is highly dynamic and mobile and can
    damage agricultural and industrial resources. It poses risks to human
    health and safety and affects other natural resources. The wildlife
    services operations program resolves problems that occur when human
    activity and wildlife conflict with one another. For example,
    blackbirds migrating through the Great Plains cause several millions of
    dollars of damage every year to grain crops and livestock feed. They
    destroy nearly $10 million in sunflower crops alone, mostly in South
    Dakota and North Dakota. APHIS has been providing assistance in the
    form of dispersal techniques and habitat management. Wildlife also
    spread rabies, which poses a serious threat to livestock, wildlife, and
    pets, as well as human health. APHIS has been cooperating with the
    State of Texas since 1995 to stop the spread of rabies in coyotes and
    gray foxes. Since 1997, we have worked with the States of Ohio,
    Vermont, and New York to prevent the spread of rabies in raccoons. In
    addition to appropriated funding, APHIS recently received $4.2 million
    in emergency funding transferred from the Commodity Credit Corporation
    to reestablish barriers that have broken down and to expand those that
    are inadequate. This funding will provide only temporary action; a long
    term commitment is required if we are to control the spread of rabies.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been reintroducing gray
    wolves, as a federally listed threatened species, into areas where
    their populations were depleted, including the Yellowstone ecosystem
    and central Idaho. Also, naturally occurring gray wolf populations in
    the Great Lakes region have been expanding southward through Minnesota
    and into Wisconsin and Michigan. Environmental groups are pushing to
    reintroduce wolves into additional locations, including the southern
    Rocky Mountain region and the New York/New England area. These
    expanding populations have had an impact on livestock with an
    increasing number of depredations from wolves. Since the gray wolf is a
    protected threatened species Federal law limits producers in the
    methods they may use to control predation. They must rely on Federal
    entities such as APHIS to assist them in implementing wildlife damage
    control activities. The requests for assistance in managing wildlife
    hazards at airports and military air bases also continue to increase.
    Airports report approximately 3,600 wildlife strikes to civil aircraft
    each year, and the U.S. Air Force alone reports more than 2,500
    strikes. In fiscal year 2000, APHIS personnel provided wildlife hazard
    management assistance to 418 airports and military air bases.
        Goal 4.--To ensure the humane care and treatment of animals covered
    under the Animal Welfare Act and various laws protecting horses.
        The public is concerned about the health and well-being of animals
    held in captivity. Our response is to establish minimum standards for
    the humane care and treatment of animals used for research or
    exhibition purposes, sold as pets at the wholesale level, or
    transported by common carrier, and to carry out inspections to ensure
    high levels of compliance with those standards. We continue to focus
    resources on conducting quality inspections under the AWA at USDA
    licensed and registered facilities. The animal welfare program uses a
    risk based inspection system that concentrates activities on facilities
    where animal welfare concerns are the greatest. With the funding
    increase in fiscal year 2000, APHIS hired and began training eight new
    animal care inspectors. We anticipate adding at least eight more
    inspectors in fiscal year 2001.
        There is an increase in public concern regarding the pain and
    distress experienced by animals used in research facilities, an issue
    which could greatly impact the biomedical research community. The AWA
    requires research facilities to report annually to the Secretary
    information on procedures likely to produce pain or distress in any
    animal which we report in our Annual Report to Congress. In the past,
    reporting has focused on painful procedures and largely ignored
    distressful procedures, despite the equal emphasis for both in the Act
    and regulations. Additionally, the current reporting categories are
    based on the use, or non-use, of pain relieving medications rather than
    on the actual level of pain or distress perceived by the animals. To
    better clarify the expectations for minimizing distress as well as
    pain, we have sought public input and received approximately 2,800
    comments from interested groups, the general public, biomedical
    researchers, and interested parties internationally. We now must
    evaluate the comments before deciding on whether or not to initiate a
    rulemaking change.
        The humane care and treatment of elephants is receiving growing
    focus from animal concern groups and the media. APHIS has settled
    several high profile cases involving the care and treatment of
    elephants in Oregon and El Paso zoos as well as with a circus. APHIS
    received over 230 comments in response to a draft Policy on Training
    and Handling of Elephants and Other Potentially Dangerous Animals.
    While the policy is technically an internal document for APHIS use, the
    issue is of sufficient public interest and importance to warrant public
    input. We are currently reviewing the comments to determine whether
    there are any valid scientific or other reasons to modify the proposed
    policies and expect to publish a final version in the summer of 2001.
        We also establish and monitor compliance with standards protecting
    horses being exhibited in shows or transported to slaughter and educate
    regulated entities and individuals to encourage compliance with animal
    welfare regulations in our horse protection program. The Horse
    Protection Act (HPA) originally enacted by Congress in 1970, is
    intended to eliminate ``soring,'' the practice of inflicting injury on
    a horse's front feet for the purpose of accentuating a high stepping
    gait. Since 1996, APHIS has worked with the horse industry
    organizations certified under the HPA to develop a partnership whereby
    they can assume greater responsibility for self-regulation. APHIS has
    developed a multi-year plan beginning with the 2001 horse show season.
    However, we are concerned that several horse industry organizations
    will not agree with the plan. Also, we are now faced with a legal
    challenge to the plan from the American Horse Protection Association
    regarding APHIS' authority to delegate enforcement functions to the
    industry groups. Such ongoing controversy has made our job more
    difficult, but we remain committed to working with the industry to
    enforce the HPA.
        Goal 5.--To develop and apply scientific methods that benefit
    agricultural producers and consumers, protect the health of American
    animal and plant resources, and sustain agricultural ecosystems. APHIS
    has established laboratories and applied science and technology centers
    to achieve this goal and to help achieve the other APHIS Goals.
        Good science must be the strong base of everything we do in APHIS.
    We provide diagnostic services, products, and training to support
    animal disease surveillance, prevention, control, and eradication
    programs. Our veterinary diagnostics program provides assistance to
    State and other Federal agencies and laboratories, educational
    institutions, and foreign governments in the diagnosis of animal
    diseases. In fiscal year 2000, our National Veterinary Services
    Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa, diagnosed cases of equine
    encephalitis during the West Nile virus outbreak in the northeastern
    United States. NVSL also diagnosed rabbit calicivirus during an
    outbreak in Iowa, the first time that disease had been identified in
    the United States. Also, NVSL developed a panel of over 25 defined
    sheep sera used to control quality and validate serodiagnostic methods
    for ovine Johne's serodiagnosis. Previously, the United States had no
    tested battery of defined sheep antisera for the standardization of
    Johne's Disease (paratuberculosis) testing in sheep. All told, NVSL
    received and tested 69,736 diagnostic submissions in fiscal year 2000,
    including 5,526 for import/export testing and 3,500 for avian influenza
    surveillance. NVSL also received 7,649 dip vat samples tested for
    pesticide concentration in support of the cattle tick program. In
    addition, NVSL received 2,303 brains to test for bovine spongiform
    encephalopathy (BSE) in support of BSE surveillance, which is the
    largest single-year total since surveillance began in 1990. This
    allowed NVSL to confirm to the U.S. public and trading partners that
    the United States is BSE-free. This function has become increasingly
    important as information and misinformation about BSE becomes
    widespread.
        During fiscal year 2000, NVSL's Foreign Animal Disease Diagnostic
    Laboratory at Plum Island, New York, received and tested 724 diagnostic
    submissions. These represented 120 suspect foreign animal disease
    investigations; 38 import tests; 7 safety tests; 9 reference cases,
    including materials received from the Agricultural Research Service,
    foreign countries, and collaborative projects; and 550 classical swine
    fever surveillance (CSF) submissions. As risk of introduction of CSF
    remains high with uncontrolled outbreaks in the Caribbean and other
    areas, NVSL surveillance activities have shown that the United States
    is still free from this disease.
        We provide new tools and technologies to improve wildlife damage
    management through our Wildlife Services Methods Development program.
    The National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) is the only research
    facility in the world specifically designed for developing and
    implementing methods to resolve wildlife conflicts with humans and
    agriculture. The NWRC dedicates 75 percent of its budget to developing
    nonlethal methods for effective, practical, and socially-acceptable
    methods of wildlife damage management. This helps ensure that high-
    quality technical and scientific information on wildlife damage
    management is available for the protection of crops, livestock, natural
    resources, property, and public health and safety. NWRC researchers
    conduct numerous activities, including the improvement and maintenance
    of current pesticide registrations, and researching new or improved
    methods for more effective management of wildlife damage.
        NWRC, through an agreement with the General Services Administration
    and funding received in fiscal year 1999, is continuing construction of
    its state-of-the-art wildlife management research facility and national
    headquarters on the Foothills Campus of Colorado State University in
    Fort Collins, Colorado. APHIS is completing design work on a new
    Support Wing, an addition to the existing indoor Animal Research
    Building, which will be ready for occupancy in fiscal year 2002.
        During fiscal year 2000, NWRC, through additional field and
    laboratory data, increased the APHIS Emergency Use Permit registration
    for acetaminophen as a toxicant for brown tree snake control on Guam
    from 300 to 2,000 baits per night. Researchers continued to make
    progress toward development of contraceptives for non-lethal wildlife
    damage management. Researchers are testing single shot PZP and GnRH
    immunocontraceptic vaccines in white-tailed deer at Pennsylvania State
    University. During fiscal year 2000, NWRC began research on nicarbazin,
    a potential contraceptive for controlling Canada goose populations
    where they are causing safety, health, or nuisance problems. Based on
    the preliminary successes observed in multiple laboratory and field
    studies, NWRC will conduct additional studies. Scientists continued the
    development of selective, humane wildlife capture devices to increase
    efficiency and reduce animal injuries associated with capture and
    restraint of coyotes. NWRC has continued experiments with tastes,
    odors, and physical or visual cues to improve coyote attraction to
    baits and delivery devices for chemical agents, and to identify
    potential chemical repellents and other predation deterrents. The
    Center has recently established a genetics laboratory to examine
    genetic relationships among individual coyotes.
        NWRC works hand in hand with the wildlife services operations
    program by continuing to expand its research efforts to develop and
    improve methods for managing blackbird damage to rice and sunflowers.
    Biologists are cooperating with agricultural industry groups to
    determine the effects of blackbird control methods on the environment,
    including non-target species. Also, NWRC has undertaken multi-year
    research projects at various airports in the United States to reduce
    the threat to human safety occurring when wildlife collide with
    aircraft or are pulled into jet engines. Scientists have researched
    turf management, nonlethal repellents, and dispersal techniques to
    minimize strikes by gulls, waterfowl, turkey vultures, hawks, and other
    species that threaten aviation safety.
        Another strategy is to facilitate, monitor, and regulate
    environmentally responsible development of biotechnology-derived
    products for the benefit of agricultural producers and consumers.
    Within the last decade, we have seen incredible advances in many
    scientific areas. Some of the most visible of these advances occurred
    in the realm of agricultural biotechnology. Along with the Internet and
    the mapping of the human genome, the introduction of genetically
    engineered fruits and vegetables was one of the most significant
    scientific stories of the 1990's. APHIS, the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are
    responsible for regulating agricultural biotechnology in the United
    States. APHIS regulates the development and field testing of certain
    genetically engineered organisms, primarily new plants and plant
    products, to ensure that they are as safe to use in agriculture as
    traditional varieties. Since 1987, we have overseen more than 7,000
    field trials of new, biotechnology-derived plant varieties at 35,000
    sites. Since 1993, APHIS' through our biotechnology regulations--has
    ensured the safe development, testing, and subsequent regulatory
    release of more than 50 new genetically engineered plants, including
    chicory, corn, potatoes, soybeans, and tomatoes. Along with the EPA and
    FDA, APHIS has ensured that these products--many of which are
    engineered for herbicide tolerance, insect-resistance, or disease-
    resistance--will not harm agriculture, the environment, or human
    health. For example, APHIS was involved in the issue concerning the
    production of Starlink, a strain of corn genetically engineered to have
    pesticide properties. We deregulated Starlink before the EPA restricted
    its use to animals due to possible allergenic properties to humans.
    Whether the Starlink Cry9C protein is a potential allergen requires
    additional research. To allay public concern both domestically and
    internationally about Cry9C in this year's hybrid seed corn, we
    assisted other Departmental agencies in the disposal of the seed corn
    by environmentally friendly means. Our officials have met the
    challenges posed by rapidly evolving technology and consistently base
    their regulatory decisions on the most current scientific information.
    To obtain the best independent, technical, and scientific data
    pertaining to biotechnology, APHIS officials have consulted with
    scientists and regulators both in the United States and abroad. They
    have also performed extensive searches of a wide variety of scientific
    literature and participated in biosafety workshops and international
    symposia.
        We comply with environmental analysis and reporting requirements
    and institutionalize a responsible environmental ethic in APHIS
    programs. In the environmental protection area, our National Monitoring
    and Residue Analysis Laboratory (NMRAL) in Gulfport, Mississippi,
    continued to support boll weevil, citrus canker, Asian longhorned
    beetle, Oriental Fruit Fly, MFF, and Medfly programs in fiscal year
    2000. NMRAL provided sampling and analysis of worker exposure to
    chemicals both at the laboratory and at port facilities and laboratory
    analysis for pesticide residues and for industrial chemicals, and
    analysis for pesticide residues in food commodities for the
    Agricultural Marketing Service's Pesticide Data Program. NMRAL
    conducted 5,987 analyses in fiscal year 2000, of which slightly more
    than half, or 3,094, supported APHIS programs; the remainder we
    performed for other agencies on a reimbursable basis. APHIS manages and
    coordinates the preparation of environmental assessments (EA),
    environmental impact statements (EIS), environmental analyses,
    biological consultations, and related technical documents for
    operational programs. In fiscal year 2000, we completed 30 EAs, 28
    biological consultations, and 1 EIS, in compliance with the
    requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and other Federal
    environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders.
        We also protect animal health by ensuring the purity, potency,
    safety, and efficacy of veterinary biological products. Veterinary
    biologics program activities include licensing veterinary biological
    products, inspecting licensed manufacturing facilities, testing samples
    of licensed products, and issuing permits for product importation. For
    example, we issued 3,843 official certificates in fiscal year 2000 that
    indicate licensed production and testing facilities and products have
    met or exceeded marketing requirements. The regulated industry used
    these certificates to register their products for sale in foreign
    countries. The confidence that foreign regulators have in the U.S.
    veterinary biologics licensing, testing, and inspection system is
    reflected in their readiness to accept our products. APHIS continued
    efforts to reduce trade barriers that limit the sale of veterinary
    biological products overseas. Officials continued discussions with
    representatives of the European and U.S. biologics industries and with
    regulatory officials from the European Union regarding a Mutual
    Recognition Agreement concerning the marketing of veterinary biologics.
    Interaction with Canadian regulatory officials continued under the
    Canada-United States Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade
    Agreement. We held meetings with regulatory officials from Australia,
    the European Union, and Germany to facilitate exchange of information
    and encourage discussion of regulatory issues. Such discussions led to
    Brazil lifting a temporary suspension of trade in U.S. ostriches and
    horses because of West Nile virus in the U.S. Other negotiations
    achieved a memorandum of understanding with Chile on imports of U.S.
    fish eggs early in fiscal year 2000.
                               our budget request
        With the tremendous expansion of travel and trade, we must make
    every effort to keep exotic pests and diseases from entering the United
    States. Pest and disease threats are always looming. These threats
    become more real with the actual foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in
    the United Kingdom and elsewhere. In our Agricultural Quarantine
    Inspection--appropriated program, an increase of $5.6 million will
    increase inspections for high-risk Canadian border ports, pre-departure
    activities in Hawaii, and expanded border activities in Laredo and
    Pharr, Texas. An increase of $2.5 million in our trade issues
    resolution and management program will help resolve overseas barriers
    to trade and participate in international standard-setting activities.
    We also will use the increase to conduct import and export risk
    assessments to protect U.S. animal agriculture from pest and disease
    threats caused by imports and to support U.S. export requests.
        We are requesting a $196.8 million increase to continue eradication
    efforts in programs that were initially funded from the Commodity
    Credit Corporation (CCC). These eradication programs include--
    Mediterraniean fruit fly in Mexico with an increase of $23.2 million in
    our fruit fly exclusion and detection program; an increase of $37
    million for citrus canker, an increase of $49.7 million for Asian long-
    horned beetle, an increase of $4 million for Pierce's disease, and an
    increase of $5.1 million for plum pox virus, all requested in our
    emerging plant pest program; an increase of $30.4 million for
    pseudorabies; an increase of $17.9 million for scrapie; an increase of
    $12.9 million for tuberculosis; and an increase of $16.5 million for
    rabies requested in our wildlife services operations program. We did
    not feel it was appropriate to continue to rely on CCC funding when it
    became apparent that these programs would require more than 2 years to
    complete. The use of CCC emergency funding is appropriate for
    unexpected events, when other budgetary tools cannot meet emergency
    needs within critical time frames. However, in cases in which the
    eradication of a particular infestation will take several years, and
    funding needs can be anticipated and planned for, the use of emergency
    funds for future years in no longer appropriate.
        Our budget also requests an increase of $15.4 million for pay
    costs. This increase will enable us to maintain current staffing
    levels. Our staffing is what allows us to continue our exclusion,
    monitoring, scientific, animal care, and wildlife activities that help
    protect our American agriculture.
                                   conclusion
        Emerging animal and plant health issues, and their real or
    perceived impacts on public health and American economic interests,
    will require increasingly sophisticated and appropriate scientific
    expertise. Before we can control outbreaks of foreign pests and
    diseases such as citrus canker, Asian longhorned beetle, and West Nile
    virus, we must understand the biology underlying them. New emergency
    management responsibilities, threats from bioterrorism, and pressures
    against use of biotechnology-derived products require new decision
    models based on assessment of risk. APHIS must develop and use the
    latest scientific methods and technologies and work closely with
    scientists around the world to anticipate and understand the nature of
    emerging health threats to agriculture, wildlife, and people.
        ``Globalization'' will continue to challenge APHIS--capacity to
    carry out its mission. Implementing and complying with new rules of
    trade (e.g., scientific risk assessments, equivalency, transparency,
    regionalization, and dispute settlement) create new responsibilities
    and demands for services that threaten to outstrip APHIS' current
    resources. Improved transportation technologies increase the movement
    of animal and plant pests and diseases. Dramatic increases in
    international travel, trade, and containerized cargo make total
    reliance on traditional inspection procedures impractical. We must
    continue to update detection methods, prevention strategies, monitoring
    systems, and response actions.
        American society's expectations of the Federal Government and
    APHIS' role create many management challenges. Demands for our services
    continue to rise. Some are demanding that APHIS become involved in new
    issues beyond the scope of our traditional mandate. For example, the
    agency is now being asked to address general animal welfare issues
    (beyond those authorized under current legislation) and to develop
    nonlethal wildlife control methods, as more people move into rural
    areas. At the same time, Americans are looking for a balance between
    pragmatic solutions to problems and the protection of the environment
    and the welfare of animals. APHIS will continue to update strategies
    and methods to ensure that programs are practical, timely,
    environmentally sound, humane, and socially acceptable.
        The Internet and other advances in communication technologies have
    increased the public's expectations for information. Everyone demands
    quick access to information about APHIS' services, technical
    assistance, and regulations. At the same time, there is a growing
    distance between much of the general public and the agriculture
    community. As our society moves further away from its agrarian roots,
    there is a corresponding decrease in the understanding of, and
    appreciation for, the basic APHIS mission of protecting and promoting
    animal and plant health. Education and public awareness become
    increasingly important as APHIS builds support for its programs.
        I will be happy to answer any questions.
                                     ______

                          Office of Inspector General

           Prepared Statement of Roger C. Viadero, Inspector General

                           introduction and overview
        Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am
    pleased to have this opportunity to visit with you today to discuss the
    activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and to provide you
    with information on our audits and investigations of some of the major
    programs and operations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
        Before I begin, I would like to introduce the members of my staff
    who are here with me today: Jim Ebbitt, Assistant Inspector General for
    Audit; Greg Seybold, Assistant Inspector General for Investigations;
    and Del Thornsbury, Director of our Resources Management Division. I
    also want to thank the Committee for its support during my tenure as
    Inspector General. We have tried to work closely with you, and I hope
    we have been able to address some of your concerns.
        I am proud to say that, in fiscal year 2000, we continued to more
    than pay our own way. In the audit arena, we issued 110 audit reports
    and obtained management's agreement on 743 recommendations. Our audits
    resulted in questioned costs of nearly $95 million. Of this, management
    agreed to recover more than $47 million. In addition, management agreed
    to put another $268 million to better use. Equally as important,
    implementation of our recommendations by USDA managers will result in
    more efficient and effective operations of USDA programs.
        OIG investigations resulted in $175.9 million in fines,
    restitutions, other recoveries, and penalties during the year. Our
    investigative staff completed 553 investigations, obtained 481
    indictments and 459 convictions, and made 2,616 arrests.
        While I am very proud of the accomplishments of this organization
    over the past year, I must add that our results could be much more
    dramatic. Although I am very appreciative for the increase we received
    this fiscal year, the overall continuous erosion of our budget in the
    past 7 years in constant dollars continues to severely limit what we
    can accomplish. During this time, we have had to decrease our staff by
    over 150 positions--approximately 20 percent--to offset this erosion.
    Such a decrease in OIG's audit and investigative staffs results in a
    decline in our ability to ensure that the taxpayers' dollars, which you
    appropriate for the Department of Agriculture, are protected from
    external criminal enterprises, internal corruption, and improper
    stewardship.
        Adequate funding and staffing for our office make good sense and
    are very cost effective in view of the money we save the taxpayers.
    While I recognize there is a fierce competition for the Government's
    limited resources, I believe OIG must be viewed differently from the
    program delivery missions, in that we are often the last line of
    defense against compromise of the Department's program delivery and are
    a significant contributor to the creation of a Government that is
    accountable and productive. Every OIG special agent and auditor who
    cannot be hired as a result of the constant erosion of our budget
    results in ``one less cop on the beat'' in every agriculture
    neighborhood across this country. This makes for tough decisions on my
    part. Which agriculture neighborhood should we leave vulnerable to
    criminal victimization by shifting our thin line of law enforcement
    resources to only the highest agricultural priorities? This is a real
    choice I am forced to make daily because I simply do not have
    sufficient resources to cover the entire agriculture community. As
    such, I request that our proposed funding level be approved without
    reduction.

        We work closely with the Department's agencies through our audit
    work and criminal investigative efforts to ensure that appropriated
    funds are used efficiently and effectively and program benefit dollars
    go to those recipients intended by Congress. Generally, we audit and
    investigate the largest dollar fraud cases since our staffing levels
    will not allow us to do more. This means there are usually a large
    number of fraud cases we do not have the staffing to address and which,
    therefore, must be referred to the agencies to pursue through
    administrative remedies. However, the agencies do not have resources to
    address all of these cases, and even more importantly, many of them
    should not be handled administratively since they involve fraud. Thus,
    the underlying result is that a significant amount of criminal activity
    is not being addressed. This makes it very difficult to turn the tide
    of fraud in any particular program area. Additionally, in our most
    recent audit planning seminar, we identified 30 staff-years of work in
    high priority areas we had to drop from our audit program because we
    did not have staff available to perform the work. Similarly, we
    continue to carry a backlog of nearly 750 pending, inactive
    investigative cases--nearly 30 percent of our total caseload--which we
    cannot address in addition to our normal caseload of approximately
    2,000 active cases.
        Our current staffing level also restricts our ability to pursue
    criminal investigations proactively, generally limiting us to one or
    two program areas of proactive work per fiscal year. Nevertheless, we
    continue to work closely with USDA agency officials to address key
    issues and expand joint operations with other Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement and audit agencies to broaden the impact of our work.
    Working together, our staffs identify program weaknesses and program
    violators.
        In my testimony today, I will address the most crucial issues
    facing the Department and why it is essential that OIG be funded at the
    level requested.
        The safety and wholesomeness of agricultural products provided to
    the public is our primary concern. OIG is committed to ensuring the
    health and safety of the American consumer as it relates to
    agricultural products. Additionally, we will focus our efforts on
    employee integrity, financial integrity, and information technology and
    computer security issues, including new statutory requirements such as
    the Government Information Security Reform Act. That legislation
    requires annual reviews, beginning in fiscal year 2001, of the
    Department's information security program, most notably an evaluation
    of the effectiveness of security control techniques for a sample of the
    systems. We need the necessary resources to broaden our scope of work
    in these areas and pursue an audit and investigative enforcement
    strategy resulting in the greatest impact on these critical programs.
                      audit and investigations activities
                               health and safety
        Our audits and investigations continue to identify problems in
    domestically produced foods including contaminated food, misbranded
    products, and uninspected meat or other products. We also are seeing an
    increase in problems in imported food products or other commercial
    shipments legally imported into the United States, as well as shipments
    smuggled into the United States containing banned products and,
    frequently, dangerous pests. OIG's resources, especially our
    investigative resources, are increasingly overextended. OIG is often
    required to pull its special agents from current investigations of
    large dollar frauds in USDA's benefits and loan programs to investigate
    criminal activity that threatens the health and safety of the public.
        We must also address domestic and international criminal terrorist
    threats to the security of our Nation's food supply. This problem has
    been recognized as a major concern by the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    and Congress, as well as OIG. Threats of intentional biological
    contamination of food products for extortion or ideological motives
    victimize and disrupt the food production and distribution systems of
    this country. Immediate response to emergency situations impacting USDA
    personnel, programs, and operations, as well as regulated industries,
    requires the specific, unique law enforcement expertise of USDA OIG.
        Recently, successful prosecutions of criminal enterprises have
    included a multiagency sting operation in San Francisco, which netted
    three importers who attempted to bribe a Government official to
    expedite the entry of their food shipments from Hong Kong into the
    United States without the required inspections. The other two importers
    pled guilty, one to receipt of adulterated food in interstate commerce
    and the other to importing adulterated product and bribery. A Federal
    jury found the third importer guilty of bribery, money laundering,
    smuggling, entry of adulterated foodstuffs, and conspiracy. He was the
    leader and organizer of this criminal activity and had obstructed
    justice by providing false testimony at his trial. Because of the
    serious risk to public health and safety caused by the smuggling of
    salmonella-laden seafood into the country, the judge also granted the
    Government's motion for upward departure from sentencing guidelines.
    This case resulted from work initiated by the San Francisco Interagency
    Import Task Force, which has been targeting firms involved in illegally
    importing plants and animals that may present a threat to America's
    food supply. This investigation alone cost OIG approximately $350,000
    in personnel, travel, and equipment costs.
        Based on notification by the California Department of Food and
    Agriculture that a Los Angeles agricultural products import firm may
    have smuggled tons of Mexican sweet limes into the United States, we
    initiated a joint criminal investigation with the U.S. Customs Service.
    In June 2000, a 27-count indictment was filed, charging three
    individuals and two firms with conspiracy, smuggling, and aiding and
    abetting. Two of the three indicted subjects have been arrested, with
    one awaiting trial and one convicted on charges relating to the
    transport of various agricultural products, including Mexican sweet
    limes, into California from Mexico. Laboratory examination showed that
    a substantial portion of the illegally imported Mexican sweet limes was
    infested with Mexican fruit fly larvae.
        We are also concerned with the large number of repeat offenders
    that USDA and State regulatory agencies have to deal with on a regular
    basis. Civil fines and administrative sanctions have simply become an
    additional ``cost of doing business'' for those repeat offenders who
    seek to skirt the dedicated efforts of the Department's regulatory
    agencies. These cases involve the smuggling of agricultural products,
    illegal meat processing operations, the deliberate introduction or
    threatened introduction of biological agents to attack this Nation's
    food supply, and assaults on employees in the Department's regulatory
    agencies as they carry out their official duties.
        For example, in one recent ongoing investigation, an anonymous
    letter containing an unknown powder alleged to be anthrax was sent to
    the owner of a federally inspected meat plant. Fortunately, the powdery
    substance was benign; however, it caused great concern for those plant
    employees who were exposed to the substance. It also caused economic
    disruption to the operation of the plant, which was forced to close for
    a half day until the identity of the substance could be determined
    through laboratory testing and the meat plant could be properly
    decontaminated. This hoax cost the plant thousands of dollars in lost
    production, hospital costs, and destroyed product. We cannot put a
    price tag on the anxiety caused to the plant employees while they
    wondered if they had been truly exposed to anthrax.
        In another recently completed investigation, we identified a
    corporation smuggling prohibited uninspected meat products into the
    United States. The foreign country where these meat products originated
    is prohibited from exporting them into the United States due to
    numerous livestock diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease, and
    sanitation concerns in their manufacturing plants. Such products pose a
    serious health hazard to the general public and livestock industry in
    America. On five previous occasions, the company had been caught by two
    separate USDA regulatory agencies smuggling these illegal meat products
    into the United States. On each of these occasions, the products were
    destroyed, and the company received a small fine. Recently, my office
    received information that the corporation was again importing these
    illegal, dangerous products. We have initiated a criminal investigation
    with DOJ to put an end to this flagrant skirting of the USDA regulatory
    process and ensure the protection of the public's health.
        While we continue to respond as quickly as we can, I am concerned
    that our efforts to respond to these incidents are severely hampered by
    a lack of personnel; proper protective equipment, such as biohazard
    suits and breathing equipment to ensure the health and safety of our
    staff, and specialized forensic equipment to gather evidence samples;
    and funding for specialized training on how to recognize and properly
    handle biohazardous materials.
        In addition to our investigative work, we have completed a series
    of audits to determine if the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
    has successfully implemented the new science-based Hazard Analysis and
    Critical Control Point (HACCP) system for inspecting meat and poultry
    in the United States. Our initial review included the implementation of
    HACCP, laboratory analyses, foreign imports, and the compliance program
    that carried over from the previous system. We found that while FSIS
    had taken positive steps to secure the safety of meat and poultry
    products, more needs to be done in all four areas reviewed. Overall, we
    concluded FSIS had reduced its oversight to less than what is prudent
    and necessary for the protection of the consumer.
        Based on these findings, we made numerous recommendations to FSIS
    for program improvement, and it has agreed to implement those
    recommendations. However, because FSIS' record in fulfilling promises
    of implementation is weak, we need a continued audit presence to
    monitor and ensure implementation of the recommendations. In addition,
    we are expanding our audit review of FSIS' program on meat and poultry
    products imported to the United States. We are also performing
    additional work to assess the equivalency determinations FSIS makes of
    foreign countries' inspection systems and to determine if FSIS'
    reinspection of foreign imports is working as intended. Even as we
    begin this work, we are worried that we will be unable to complete both
    this new audit and monitor implementation of the earlier
    recommendations with current staffing levels. We are concerned that if
    we are not able to do adequate monitoring and FSIS does not implement
    these recommendations, the U.S. food supply will be at risk.
    Antismuggling Program
        The escalation of smuggling activity involving food products has
    forced us to shift our resources to this arena. Such smuggling brings
    high dollars in underground ``black market'' commerce and is an
    increasingly serious problem to the Nation and especially to the
    economy of many agricultural States. Smuggling can and has resulted in
    the introduction of harmful exotic plant and animal pests, diseases,
    and invasive species which harm America's crops, forests, food supply,
    livestock, wildlife, and domestic animals, as well as the health of the
    American consumer. Such illegal activity can cost billions of dollars
    in destroyed crops and undermined agricultural markets--both foreign
    and domestic--and result in lost jobs, as well as create a serious
    health threat to the American consumer.
        To combat the ever-increasing smuggling activities, OIG has
    developed a three-pronged strategic approach which relies heavily on an
    expanded relationship with State, local, and Federal agriculture and
    law enforcement agencies. However, our antismuggling program has been
    limited due to our lack of resources, which I have described
    previously. Additional staffing is needed for these proactive
    initiatives, along with the necessary specialized law enforcement
    equipment.
        We also audited APHIS' Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ)
    practices for inspecting air and ship cargos and passengers arriving at
    the Miami and Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, ports. We identified
    vulnerabilities and weaknesses which increased the risk of prohibited
    products and pests entering the United States. OIG observed that PPQ
    inspectors did not inspect cargo ships upon arrival; did not inspect
    the baggage of 75 percent of arriving international airline passengers
    and 99 percent of cruise ship passengers arriving from foreign
    locations; did not assess fines as a deterrent against airline and
    cruise ship passengers found to have prohibited agricultural items in
    their possession when entering the United States; did not select
    samples of perishable cargo for inspection but, instead, allowed
    brokers to select the samples; nor did they ensure that caterers met
    all foreign arriving aircraft immediately upon arrival to remove, in
    seal-proof containers, any food or nonfood garbage.
        We recommended that APHIS assess penalties when warranted and
    determine if higher inspection fee rates were necessary to provide for
    sufficient resources. We recognize, as does APHIS, that inspections are
    resource-intensive, and that risks need to be assessed to determine
    where scarce resources should be directed. APHIS believes that airports
    handling international passengers pose the greatest risk. However, it
    has not presented OIG with a risk assessment that supports that
    contention, nor has it presented an assessment indicating additional
    staffing is needed because risks are inherent at both airports and
    seaports.
        Because of this audit and our concern with the smuggling into the
    United States of prohibited products, we have begun a broad-based
    review, evaluating APHIS' policies and procedures for identifying and
    assessing risk among the various agricultural goods imported into the
    United Sates. We also are reviewing the interaction between APHIS and
    the U.S. Customs Service to review the measures employed to detect
    pests that may enter the United States in both agricultural and
    nonagricultural related products. Our goal is to make recommendations
    that will help APHIS do its job better.
                               employee integrity
        A continuing priority for OIG is the investigation of criminal acts
    committed by USDA employees. We have identified approximately 55,000
    USDA employees whose positions place them in direct contact with the
    public on a regular basis, doing everything from inspecting meat and
    grading produce to providing loans and other program benefits. The only
    way to maintain the confidence of the taxpayers, consumers, and
    producers who use or rely on the Department's services is to know that
    USDA has a trusted and dedicated work force. And, while we want to
    emphasize that the evidence shows, and we firmly believe, that the
    highest percentages of these employees do their job with the utmost
    integrity, to maintain that trust, internal controls must be in place
    and operating. To quote a great American, Dwight D. Eisenhower, ``the
    unaudited deteriorates.''
        One case that demonstrates a situation where those controls broke
    down is our continuing investigation of the scheme by which
    Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) graders accepted bribes from
    produce wholesalers at the Hunts Point Market in New York City in
    return for downgrading produce. It also graphically demonstrates how
    corruption can have a major impact on the daily commerce of this
    country. This kind of investigation is very staff intensive and
    requires the use of specialized technical equipment, such as listening
    devices that are wired into the electrical system for long distance
    coverage. We currently have a significant number of corruption
    investigations similar to this one. This is an area where we must be
    ever vigilant, and where we simply must have the right tools and
    sufficient staffing to stop corrupt USDA employees from continuing
    their criminal activities.
                              financial integrity
        While some of the Department's agencies have achieved success with
    their financial systems and received clean financial opinions, other
    major systems have not. The Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the Risk
    Management Agency (RMA), and the Rural Telephone Bank received
    unqualified opinions in fiscal year 2000, which means their financial
    statements fairly presented their financial position. But the Forest
    Service (FS) and the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) were unable to
    complete their financial statements in time for us to audit them by the
    legislatively mandated timeframe of March 1. Also, Rural Development
    has not been able to properly determine the cost of their loan
    programs. Thus, it received a qualified opinion.
        The individual conditions of the agencies when taken together mean
    that for the past 7 fiscal years--1994 through 1999 and in our just
    released audit for 2000--we have issued a disclaimer of opinion on the
    Department's consolidated financial statement. This disclaimer means
    that the Department overall does not know whether it correctly reports
    all collected monies, the cost of its operations, or other meaningful
    measures of financial performance. Most importantly, some USDA managers
    do not have reliable financial information regarding how much has been
    spent on the cost of program operations and are being forced to make
    decisions ``in the dark'' without solid financial data. Not only can
    flawed decisions result, but the integrity of program dollars is put at
    risk of misuse or theft. Given USDA's annual budget authority of about
    $82 billion dollars in fiscal year 2001, the importance of having a
    strong financial reporting capability cannot be overstated.
        The main problems that USDA has to solve to improve its financial
    accounting which will result in improved opinions on these financial
    statements include: FS needs to improve its accountability and
    evaluation of its assets; Rural Development, CCC, and the Farm Service
    Agency (FSA) need to perfect models and gather the necessary data to
    support implementation of the model that will accurately reflect the
    costs of their loan programs; and the Department needs to complete
    implementation of its new accounting system--the Foundation Financial
    Information System.
        These major problems contribute to conditions that keep the
    Department from achieving a clean audit opinion. For example, we have
    been unable to substantiate the Department's fund balance with the
    Department of Treasury reported at over $38 billion. This account
    represents monies that can be spent in the future for authorized
    transactions. Last year we reported that Treasury records and the
    Department's records were out of balance by $5 billion. At the close of
    fiscal year 2000, the difference had been reduced to about $450
    million. In other words, the Department still has reported differences
    with Treasury of this amount, $450 million, and does not know the
    reason why. Think of this in terms of your personal checking account.
    Your check register says one thing but the bank says you spent a higher
    amount, and you cannot figure out the difference.
        FS has been impaired by a lack of accountability over its assets.
    Historically, it has not been able to develop a meaningful asset
    valuation because it did not know what assets had been acquired, when
    the assets were obtained, or how much they cost. While FS has improved
    in recording assets, asset valuation continues to be a problem. To
    overcome this problem, FS needs to undertake an extraordinary level of
    effort to establish accountability and develop acceptable accounting
    records in order for agency management to fulfill its financial
    management and stewardship responsibilities.
        While the Department is working toward overcoming past encumbrances
    to an unqualified audit opinion, aggressive action is still needed to
    foster meaningful financial management as soon as possible. All of this
    activity significantly impacts OIG's resources. We have had to devote
    far more effort to the legislatively mandated audits of financial
    statements than envisioned by Congress because of the systemic
    weaknesses that have generated unauditable statements. While it may
    seem paradoxical, the demand on our resources will actually increase--
    not abate--as the Department moves closer to auditability because we
    will have much more to audit than we have had in the past. For the
    fiscal year 2000 financial statement audits, we scheduled more than 70
    auditors--over one-third of our audit staff--full time, for these
    audits. We estimate that the workload demands will require us to
    increase our financial staff to 90 auditors--about 40 percent of our
    audit staff--as we begin the fiscal year 2001 financial audits. In the
    absence of additional staff, critical program activity will go
    unaudited as we fulfill our statutory financial audit requirements.
    Additionally, these audits require the use of specialized data-mining
    software along with expert training for the auditors who use it. If
    these critical resource issues are not addressed, our ability to
    complete the statutory financial statement audits will erode, and we
    will not be able to audit other high-priority areas.
                        information resources management
    Computer Security
        Our fourth area of major concern is securing the availability,
    accuracy, and privacy of information in the Department's information
    technology systems. This remains a significant challenge for the
    Department. USDA agencies continue to expand their use of the Internet
    to provide services and information to the public, commonly referred to
    as ``e-government.'' E-government offers extensive possibilities for
    the Department to improve its delivery of services, collect
    information, and manage its operations. USDA has numerous information
    assets that include market-sensitive data on the agricultural economy
    and commodities, signup and participation data for programs, personal
    information on customers and employees, and accounting data. These
    information and related systems face unprecedented levels of risk from
    intentional or accidental disruption, disclosure, damage, or
    manipulation.
        Based on our audits, we believe significantly more action is needed
    to strengthen departmentwide information security. While the Department
    has been responsive to our recommendations, initiating prompt fixes to
    the vulnerabilities we have reported, additional work must be done. We
    have only been able to look at a few of the hundreds of systems within
    the Department. Information in USDA databases is market sensitive and,
    if misused, could cause economic chaos and harm prices farmers receive.
    USDA also operates the National Finance Center (NFC) in New Orleans.
    NFC pays salaries and other expenses exceeding $23 billion each year.
    It also houses the database for the Thrift Savings Program, which has
    assets of over $100 billion. We must ensure all of these assets are
    safeguarded and information is protected.
        The demands on OIG's resources in this area are increasing
    significantly. As I mentioned earlier, Congress passed the Government
    Information Security Reform Act, requiring annual reviews beginning
    this year of the Department's information security program. Each review
    must include an evaluation of the effectiveness of security control
    techniques for a sample of the Department's systems. These audits are
    extremely complex and costly because the auditors need specialized
    training and sophisticated software to perform them. At current funding
    levels, OIG will be hard-pressed to fulfill this legislative mandate.
        When we have been able to do work ``up front'' on computer systems,
    it has resulted in a success for the agencies developing the systems.
    We did this with FNS and the States as they were implementing
    Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) systems in the Food Stamp Program
    (FSP) and, as a result, EBT is a success for us and FNS as well as the
    States. It is now much easier to detect retailers who harm the program
    by buying benefits at half their cost or less, rather than selling
    food. With EBT, you can more readily pinpoint when and where this
    happens.
        Currently, 41 States and the District of Columbia use EBT systems.
    Thirty-seven of the systems have been implemented statewide, and
    approximately 74 percent of food stamp benefits, estimated at $12.6
    billion for fiscal year 2001, are issued through such systems. During
    fiscal year 2000, we completed reviews in Florida, Louisiana, North
    Dakota, South Dakota, and Utah and found all systems have been
    successfully implemented.
        All EBT systems to issue food stamp benefits must be in place by
    October 2002. To date, one-quarter of the benefits are not under an EBT
    system, and some States are either only partially under EBT or are in
    the process of converting. Some, such as California, Michigan,
    Mississippi, New York, and Virginia, have significant caseloads which
    will greatly affect their conversion. Thus, we must remain proactive in
    our approach to reviewing systems as they are implemented when
    adjustments and changes are more easily addressed.
                       other major challenges facing usda
    Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
        The national food stamp certification error rate for fiscal year
    1999, the last year completed, stands at 9.9 percent; while lower than
    in 1998, it still accounts for dollar-issuance errors of about $1.6
    billion, with overissuances being $1.1 billion of that amount. Yet, the
    number of dollars issued and participating households are going down.
    School districts are also finding high rates of error in households
    certifying their eligibility for free or reduced-price lunches. Recent
    statistics assembled by FNS for some selected States showed an error
    rate of about 20 percent. In Illinois alone, OIG found this accounted
    for excess program outlays of about $31 million in 1 school year. Other
    U.S. departments, such as Education and Health and Human Services, also
    use the school lunch data as a basis for distributing program funds, so
    the impact goes far beyond USDA. These areas need our attention, but we
    simply do not have the resources necessary to address this issue now.
    Operation Talon
        For more than 3 years, OIG has coordinated a nationwide law
    enforcement initiative dubbed ``Operation Talon,'' which has resulted
    in the arrest of over 7,000 fugitive felons. This initiative, which has
    been carried out in conjunction with other law enforcement agencies and
    State social service agencies across the country, was designed to
    identify, locate, and apprehend dangerous and violent fugitive felons
    who may also be illegally receiving benefits through FSP. Operation
    Talon has grown into a nationwide dragnet, currently encompassing
    fugitives wanted in 29 States, as well as Federal fugitives sought by
    the U.S. Marshals Service. The more serious offenses for which
    Operation Talon fugitive arrests have been made include 32 arrests for
    homicide; 48 for sex offenses, including rape and child molestation; 15
    for kidnapping/abduction; 390 for assault; 213 for robbery; and 1,604
    for drug/narcotic offenses. A number of States are removing arrested
    fugitives from their food stamp rolls, resulting in an estimated
    average savings to FSP of over $12.6 million. We have managed to
    leverage our success through the use of targeted asset forfeiture funds
    to pay for overtime costs and special equipment needs of the State and
    local law enforcement agencies participating in Operation Talon.
    However, since its inception 3 years ago, this program has cost OIG
    over $4.3 million in direct appropriated funds to spearhead Operation
    Talon in neighborhoods across America.
                                 crop insurance
        Based on our prior audit efforts, we believe the management of the
    Department's crop insurance programs will continue to provide
    challenges. Congress recognized the need for Federal Crop Insurance
    Program reform when it passed the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of
    2000 (ARPA). This Act requires the Secretary to reduce the potential
    for fraud, waste, and abuse in the program by mandating the exchange
    and comparison of relevant information received by RMA and FSA in the
    conduct of their respective production agriculture programs. Our audits
    have indicated weaknesses in the research and development of new types
    of crop insurance policies; conflicts of interest involving the
    insureds, insurance agents, and the loss adjusters; noncompliance with
    loss claim procedures by the loss adjusters; and inadequate quality
    control reviews by the insurance companies.
        To meet that congressional mandate, RMA and FSA have established
    working groups to implement the provisions of ARPA, including data
    reconciliation, FSA assistance in monitoring crop insurance programs,
    and RMA consultation with State FSA committees in formulating crop
    insurance policies and plans of insurance. Currently, OIG is assisting
    these working groups as they develop the framework to implement the
    congressional mandate. As RMA and FSA implement these controls, we will
    need to monitor and test them to ensure they are adequate and
    functioning as intended and provide timely feedback to RMA and FSA. We
    believe this proactive approach and working with the agencies early on
    will be more effective and result in greater cost savings to the
    Government than trying to recover incorrect payments.
                       business and industry loan program
        In fiscal year 2000, delinquency rates rose sharply in the Rural
    Business-Cooperative Service's Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed
    loan program. Fiscal year 2001 funding in this program increased to
    over $3 billion, tripling fiscal year 2000 levels. We believe the
    Department is facing the possibility of a dramatic increase in
    financial losses to the Government in this area. Factors, such as the
    growing presence of unregulated financial organizations--or
    nontraditional banks--with unorthodox financing and servicing
    arrangements that can mask delinquencies until a total financial
    failure occurs, make some of these loans even riskier to the
    Department.
        Ongoing nationwide audit work in this area is disclosing
    significant problems. We are expanding our efforts into a special
    initiative to assess the extent of this burgeoning problem and will
    make appropriate recommendations for needed legal, regulatory, and
    administrative changes.
        In prior years, we audited defaulted B&I loans whenever the loss to
    the Government exceeded $3 million. Frequently, these audits prevented
    USDA from paying fraudulent claims. However, staffing shortages now
    prevent our audit of all but the most egregious loss claims. Additional
    resources would allow more audits in this high-risk area and identify
    potentially fraudulent and abusive loss claims, resulting in the
    prevention of substantial funds from ever leaving the Department in
    payment of fraudulent claims.
                             rural housing program
        The Department's Rural Housing Program is another effort which will
    continue to need attention by the Department. The American
    Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act of 2000 was signed into law
    on December 27, 2000. It strengthened the ability of Rural Development
    to seek prosecution of individuals, both civilly and criminally, who
    abuse and defraud the Multi-Family Housing Program. Many of the reforms
    enacted will directly address the problems found in our nationwide
    initiative with the Rural Housing Service that identified and
    documented significant abuse and fraud in the Multi-Family Housing
    Program.
        We are continuing substantial audit and investigative efforts in
    this area to include cooperative efforts with DOJ to encourage
    acceptance of these cases for prosecution. The passage of the new
    legislative authority significantly increases the chances for
    successful prosecution.
                                   conclusion
        We are proud of our record and accomplishments at OIG. We
    continually assess where the risks for waste, fraud, and abuse are in
    the Department and direct our limited resources to those we judge to be
    at the highest risk. The question is, do we have sufficient resources
    to address all or even the majority of those area that are vulnerable
    and at risk? As I have indicated today, the answer is clearly, no.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to respond
    to any questions you may have at this time.

                                     ______

                       Food Safety and Inspection Service

              Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Billy, Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to have
    the opportunity to submit a statement for the record on the current
    status of Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) programs and on the
    fiscal year 2002 budget for food safety within the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture.
        Let me begin by saying that the risk-based modernization of the
    meat, poultry, and egg products inspection programs begun in 1996 has
    resulted in significant food safety improvements. Reductions in the
    prevalence of many microbiological contaminants, such as Salmonella,
    have occurred across all categories of meat and poultry products, and
    these have been accompanied by reductions in foodborne illness. These
    improvements would not have been possible without the consistent
    support of you, Mr. Chairman, and the Members of the Subcommittee. This
    support has enabled FSIS to complete implementation of the Pathogen
    Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Systems
    rule and to consolidate the resulting gains into a sound plan for the
    future.
        With HACCP in place, FSIS now has two major goals--first, to
    determine how we can assist in improving the quality and effectiveness
    of industry food safety programs, including HACCP, and second, to
    determine how FSIS can improve its effectiveness as a public health
    regulatory agency. We've identified five major areas of focus related
    to these goals.
        The first area involves the Agency's infrastructure and resources.
    FSIS' infrastructure needs to be improved to allow its workforce to
    carry out its regulatory responsibilities more effectively and
    efficiently. This is a very broad area that encompasses the assignment
    of work, increasing expertise and training, and enhancing data analysis
    and decision-making, communication, and workplace environment. Making
    these improvements requires a reevaluation of where and how the Agency
    executes its programs and utilizes its resources. This assessment is
    underway, and I will elaborate on its details later on in this
    statement.
        The second area of focus supporting our future goals is in the
    design and effectiveness of a risk-based food safety and inspection
    program. This area includes aspects of our modernization strategy that
    have been on a slower track due to our intensive focus on HACCP and
    Pathogen Reduction implementation. Regulatory reform, in-plant staffing
    patterns, residue control in a HACCP environment, and overall
    improvements in the Agency's ability to respond to future food safety
    problems will receive considerable attention as we move forward.
        Third, the Agency is committed to improving the workplace
    environment for its employees. This includes improvements in worker
    safety, quality of work life, and workforce diversity.
        Fourth, FSIS must focus its training and education needs on the
    scientific rationale for regulatory decisions and commit to whatever
    means are necessary within available resources to make training and
    education available to all employees.
        And finally, we will focus on improving how we communicate within
    the Agency and with the regulated industry. FSIS needs to ensure that
    its rules, procedures, and other regulatory information are clear,
    complete, easily understood, and accurate.
        This gives you a brief synopsis of our recent successes and
    thoughts on the Agency's future. I will elaborate on our future plans
    later in my statement, but before I do, let me first provide some
    context to the importance of these plans by briefly reviewing the
    mission and history of FSIS.
                                 fsis overview
        The mission of FSIS is to ensure that the Nation's commercial
    supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and
    correctly labeled and packaged, as required by the Agency's authorizing
    statutes. The FSIS Strategic Plan for 2000-2005 calls for a further 25
    percent reduction in the number of foodborne illnesses resulting from
    consumption of products the Agency regulates. Although existing public
    health data make it difficult to isolate specific contributions to
    achieving an overall reduction in foodborne illness, we can and do take
    specific action to control and monitor the prevalence of the foodborne
    hazards that can cause illness. Our goal is therefore to protect the
    public health by significantly reducing the prevalence of foodborne
    hazards in meat, poultry, and egg products.
        FSIS has a long, proud history of protecting the public health.
    Although the Agency under the current name was established by the
    Secretary of Agriculture on June 17, 1981, its history dates back to
    1906.
        In 1890, the U.S. passed a meat inspection law to assure European
    markets that meat from the United States was safe. However, the Meat
    Inspection Act of 1906 signaled the real beginning of domestic
    inspection in the United States. A year earlier, Upton Sinclair
    published his book, The Jungle, portraying unsanitary conditions in
    Chicago slaughterhouses. The book caused a public and political outcry.
    Meat sales around the country dropped nearly a third. With the 1906 Act
    began a system of continuous daily inspection in slaughterhouses using
    organoleptic (sight, smell, touch) inspection to detect unsanitary
    conditions and adulterated products. Poultry inspection began in 1926,
    on a voluntary basis, and in 1957, Congress passed the Poultry Products
    Inspection Act, which established mandatory, daily, continuous
    inspection of poultry products. Since 1994, FSIS has had additional
    food safety responsibilities under the Egg Products Inspection Act.
        FSIS published the landmark Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and
    Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems rule on July 25, 1996. The rule
    addresses the limitations of the original organoleptic inspection
    system in dealing with the problem of pathogenic microorganisms
    (harmful bacteria) on meat and poultry products. The rule clarifies the
    respective roles of government and industry in food safety, and therein
    makes better use of government resources in addressing food safety
    risks. Industry is accountable for producing safe food. Government is
    responsible for setting appropriate food safety standards, maintaining
    vigorous inspection to ensure those standards are met, and maintaining
    a strong enforcement program to deal with plants that do not meet
    regulatory standards.
                                 infrastructure
        With HACCP in place, FSIS has reached a major milestone in the
    evolution of the Nation's food safety and inspection program. The HACCP
    rule is not simply a new regulation, but a new way of doing business
    that enables FSIS to focus its attention and resources on the most
    significant food safety hazards. It serves to prevent food safety
    hazards rather than catching them after the fact. And HACCP never goes
    out of date, because it can be adapted as new scientific information
    comes along. Thus, HACCP serves as a foundation for continual
    improvement.
        As I mentioned earlier, one major area for improvement is to
    strengthen the FSIS infrastructure to better support HACCP. This is
    necessary in order to ensure that we focus our inspection efforts on
    those aspects of meat, poultry, and egg product production that present
    the greatest food safety concern. This requires FSIS to rethink its
    approaches to both slaughter and processing inspection. The Agency has
    launched a number of initiatives to do so. Before I describe them, let
    me first briefly review with you the major functions of USDA's food
    safety program. Each of these functions bears further elaboration,
    which I will do later as I describe current and planned initiatives
    associated with each.
    Meat, Poultry, and Egg Inspection Activities
        As you know, FSIS is a large agency, with approximately 10,000
    employees. This includes more than 7,600 inspection personnel stationed
    in approximately 6,000 meat and poultry plants who inspect more than
    8.5 billions birds, 133 million head of livestock, and 3.5 million
    pounds of liquid egg products annually. In fiscal year 2000, FSIS
    facilitated the export of an estimated 10 billion pounds of meat and
    poultry to approximately 100 countries throughout the world and began
    work on a new system to automate the certification of meat and poultry
    exports. Agency personnel also inspected 3.7 billion pounds of imported
    meat and poultry from 31 countries, of which 9 million pounds were
    refused entry into the United States. Eight million pounds of egg
    products were imported from Canada, of which 423 pounds were refused
    entry. Canada, and The Netherlands, remain the only countries certified
    to export egg products to the United States, and The Netherlands
    exported no egg products to this country last year. Mexico applied for
    export eligibility in fiscal year 2000.
        To ensure the safety of imported products, FSIS maintains a
    comprehensive system of import inspection, linking all U.S. ports of
    entry through a central computer system. This allows FSIS to establish
    compliance histories for countries and plants exporting to the U.S. and
    to communicate instantly among ports when problems are found at any
    individual port of entry. This system is one part of FSIS' efforts to
    verify the effectiveness of foreign inspection systems and also to
    support our sister agency, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
    Service (APHIS) in preventing the entry of meat or poultry products
    that present an animal disease threat to U.S. livestock.
        In light of recent events in Europe, the manner in which FSIS
    certifies foreign programs as possessing public health safeguards that
    are ``equivalent'' to the U.S. program is a subject of heightened
    interest. Annually, we review all foreign inspection systems in
    countries eligible to export meat and poultry to the U.S. In fiscal
    year 2000, FSIS reviewed the documentation of and performed on-site
    audits in 31 countries exporting meat and poultry products to the
    United States and was satisfied that each country had implemented
    Sanitation Standard Operating Procedures (SSOPs), HACCP systems, and
    Salmonella testing programs.
        FSIS is also responsible for assessing State inspection programs
    that regulate meat and poultry products that may be sold only within
    the State in which they were produced. The 1967 Wholesome Meat Act and
    the 1968 Wholesome Poultry Products Act require State inspection
    programs to be ``at least equal to'' the Federal inspection program. If
    a State chooses to end its inspection program or cannot maintain the
    ``at least equal to'' standard, FSIS must assume responsibility for
    inspection. There are currently 27 states that have a state meat or
    poultry inspection program and operate under cooperative agreements
    with FSIS. In these states, Federal funding is provided for up to one-
    half of the state's cooperative inspection program as long as the State
    maintains a program ``at least equal to'' the Federal program.
        In the past few years, some states have decided to re-establish
    inspection programs. Minnesota established a state inspection program
    on October 1, 1998, followed by North Dakota on October 1, 2000, and
    Missouri on January 1, 2001. The only state to terminate its inspection
    program in recent years was Alaska, which ended its state program on
    July 30, 1999. In fiscal year 2000, FSIS reviewed 87 state-inspected
    establishments in 13 states.
        Another part of the FSIS food safety program involves our three
    multidisciplinary laboratories, which conduct laboratory testing for
    microbiological contamination, chemical and antibiotic residues,
    pathological conditions, processed product composition, and economic
    adulteration. FSIS performed tests on more than 371,000 product samples
    in fiscal year 2000.
        FSIS also conducts compliance and enforcement activities to address
    situations where unsafe, unwholesome, or inaccurately labeled products
    have been produced or shipped. The objective of these activities is
    two-fold--one, to make a critical appraisal of compliance with meat and
    poultry regulations, and two, as a result of certain critical
    appraisals, to take enforcement action where necessary. In fiscal year
    2000, more than 50,000 compliance reviews were conducted. As a result
    of these reviews and other activities, approximately 28 million pounds
    of meat, poultry, and egg products were detained for noncompliance with
    the respective laws, and eight criminal convictions were obtained
    against firms and individuals for violations of the meat and poultry
    inspection laws. In addition, industry voluntarily recalled more than 5
    million pounds of meat, poultry, and egg products.
        With the shift in recent years toward greater mass production and
    distribution of food, and greater globalization in food trade, the
    identification and tracking of potential food hazards has become a much
    more complex activity. In response, FSIS has developed strong
    partnerships with state, local, and foreign public health agencies and
    stakeholders to better coordinate the investigation of and response to
    food safety hazards and outbreaks of foodborne illness. These
    partnerships are vital to FSIS' ability to effectively perform its
    public health mission.
        Given the strength of the economy in recent years, and commensurate
    increases in industry growth, FSIS has been challenged in its ability
    to hire and train enough qualified personnel to meet growing demands
    for in-plant inspectors, while at the same time ensuring a full
    conversion of all plants to HACCP-based operations. We are grateful,
    Mr. Chairman, that in fiscal year 2000, Congress provided FSIS with an
    additional $11 million, which we used to hire 203 new, permanent, full-
    time (PFT) inspectors in meat and poultry slaughter plants. This
    funding also enabled us to add other-than-permanent staff years to the
    inspection work force in order to provide plants with relief personnel
    on an as-needed basis. This additional hiring activity enabled FSIS to
    meet its targeted inplant employment level of 7,610 in fiscal year
    2000--a minimum level that the Agency, within current baseline funding,
    plans to maintain to satisfy industry's expected demand for increased
    inspection services throughout fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002. I
    would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that as of March 31--the end of
    the second quarter of fiscal year 2001--FSIS in-plant employment had
    reached 7,630.
    Field Automation
        The Agency's Field Automation and Information Management (FAIM)
    initiative is the major vehicle by which FSIS is providing its
    workforce with the technology tools to support HACCP-based regulatory
    determinations and actions in the field.
        The end of fiscal year 2000 represented a milestone for the Field
    Automation and Information Management (FAIM) initiative. FSIS completed
    implementation of the Federal FAIM initiative on schedule and under
    budget. In fiscal year 2001, FAIM is beginning a cycle of replenishing
    original equipment. That cycle will continue in fiscal year 2002.
        In its first five years, FAIM distributed more than 4,200 desktop
    and notebook computers and trained more than 5,400 FSIS inspection
    personnel. An automation program of this scope demands ongoing support
    activities to realize gains from the initial investment. Each FAIM user
    must be provided with technical support, hardware maintenance,
    telecommunications, supplies, and an expanded collection of software
    applications and computer-based training. Employee turnover means
    training new people.
        The replenishment cycle includes replacing hardware and peripherals
    that were purchased five years ago. While the recommended replacement
    schedule for office computers is every three years, FAIM has stretched
    its cycle to five years. For FSIS inspection personnel to continue
    running standard operating systems and software applications, their
    systems must be replaced with newer equipment.
    New Statutory Requirements
        As part of the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act, FSIS acquired
    additional regulatory responsibilities in the form of mandatory ratite
    and squab inspection. The Agency has begun the process of converting
    the current voluntary program to a mandatory one. An interim final rule
    is being developed to ensure that appropriate regulations are in place
    on April 26, 2001, the statutorily established date of enactment.
            targeting risk in the food safety and inspection program
        A key component of FSIS' effort to increase the resources available
    to support HACCP is the implementation of the HACCP-based Inspection
    Models Project, or HIMP. As the Committee may know, HACCP alone does
    not change the role of the slaughter inspector. Under HIMP, FSIS has
    been developing new models for slaughter inspection that better define
    what FSIS inspection personnel and industry should do under the HACCP-
    based system. For the past two years, volunteer plants are extending
    their HACCP and other process control systems to cover certain sorting
    activities that had been done by FSIS inspectors. Plants having such
    systems in place to prevent meat and poultry products that are unsafe
    or unwholesome from entering the food supply are also required to meet
    FSIS performance standards for food safety and other consumer
    protections and carry out these activities under FSIS inspection and
    verification. Based on preliminary data, this system of establishment
    controls and Agency inspection shows great promise for increased food
    safety. The new system, which the HIMP project is intended to test,
    allows slaughter establishments greater flexibility in meeting their
    responsibilities under the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP regulations and
    permits FSIS to deploy its inspectors more effectively.
        To begin the process of better defining what inspection personnel
    and industry should do under HACCP, on June 10, 1997, FSIS published a
    Federal Register notice explaining the HIMP project and soliciting
    public input. Four public meetings have since been held to obtain
    feedback on draft inspection models, review diseases and conditions
    identified by the Agency as posing food safety risks, clarify new
    inspection procedures and performance standards developed through the
    project, and review preliminary industry performance data.
        As the Subcommittee members are aware, a group of FSIS inspectors,
    their union, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE),
    and a consumer group filed a lawsuit challenging the HIMP project. On
    June 30, 2000, the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
    that the type of ``oversight inspection'' performed by Federal
    government inspectors in HIMP plants violated the FMIA and PPIA.
        Following the Court of Appeals' ruling, FSIS, in September 2000,
    redesigned the HIMP project to position an FSIS carcass inspector in a
    fixed location on each slaughter line. The most recent court decision,
    in January 2001, found that the redesigned HIMP inspection model met
    statutory requirements. The union has appealed this latest decision,
    but plants continue to operate under the HIMP pilot.
        As the redesigned inspection models run in HIMP plants, the Agency
    is collecting data to determine HIMP's achievements. FSIS will evaluate
    the models to ensure that the modification to include a stationary
    carcass inspector has been effective.
        Results to date are encouraging. In the 16 plants counted in the
    agency's baseline plant performance review, the traditional system
    achieved a 0.1 percent rate for infectious conditions and a 1.5 percent
    rate for fecal contamination. Under the Models Project, in which plant
    sorters address these defects with FSIS verification inspection, those
    numbers have been reduced to an average of nearly zero and 0.2 percent
    respectively. In every category, important food safety gains have been
    achieved.
        If data continue to show food safety gains, the Agency plans to
    continue the HIMP project and expects to amend its regulations on
    inspection of young chickens to incorporate the model system of
    inspection. Should this system prove successful, we will investigate
    similar changes in the inspection of the slaughter of other species
    based on the results of the model.
        As for processing inspection, traditionally, the Agency made
    assignments of processing inspectors based on factors such as the
    physical size of the establishment, the volume of production, and the
    complexity of the processing operation--complexity referring to the
    level of technology involved with or overall sophistication of a
    process, rather than the relative level of food safety hazard it
    presented.
        FSIS believes that its efforts could be more effective and
    efficient if assignments were based on a risk analysis system. FSIS is
    exploring ways to link the degree of risk presented by products
    produced by an establishment to the frequency and intensity of
    inspection that establishment would receive. Under a risk-based system,
    an establishment's compliance history could also play a role in
    determining inspectors' assignments.
        FSIS is in the early stages of developing such a system and is
    committed to deal with this issue through a public process over the
    course of the next year. As directed in the fiscal year 2001
    Appropriations Act conference report, the Agency developed and
    submitted to Congress on March 5, 2001, a report on its efforts to
    evaluate opportunities for greater flexibility in the allocation of
    processing inspection resources. Additionally, a public meeting is
    planned for June to discuss this project in the broader context of
    FSIS' efforts to establish improved approaches to regulation.
    Regulatory Reform
        The Agency's evaluation of HACCP also includes an ongoing effort to
    review existing regulations. During the last several years, FSIS has
    been reviewing its regulations to eliminate duplication and
    inconsistency with its own and other agencies' regulations, and to
    revise its numerous ``command-and-control'' regulations. The review
    effort is targeted at improving the consistency of the regulations with
    the July 25, 1996, Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule.
        Since 1995, FSIS has published a series of final rules that
    contributes to the accomplishment of regulatory reform by: removing
    command-and-control requirements for label approval; eliminating
    requirements for partial quality control programs; consolidating the
    listings of food ingredients permitted for use in meat and poultry
    products and expanding the permitted uses of food irradiation;
    consolidating, streamlining, and reducing to performance standards the
    sanitation requirements for meat and poultry establishments; replacing
    with performance standards the command-and-control requirements for
    processing certain meat and poultry products; eliminating required
    prior approval of blueprints and equipment for meat and poultry
    establishments; prescribing a single set of rules of practice governing
    Agency enforcement actions under the Federal Meat Inspection Act and
    the Poultry Products Inspection Act; and eliminating remaining
    requirements for partial quality control (PQC) programs in meat and
    poultry processing plants.
        In the fiscal year 2001 Appropriations Act conference report,
    Congress directed FSIS to report on a variety of topics related to its
    regulatory reform and rulemaking activities, as well as matters
    involving in-plant staffing, workforce training, and the role of
    microbiological criteria in the production and regulation of meat and
    poultry products. FSIS has completed, or is nearing completion, most of
    these reports and many have already been submitted to Congress.
    Residue and Microbiological Testing
        Integral to both efforts to build a HACCP-based infrastructure and
    design an improved food safety program are initiatives that enhance the
    FSIS science program--particularly the risk assessment, analytical, and
    laboratory support activities that form its core. The information
    obtained from these activities provides an indispensable framework
    within which the Agency controls and reduces the incidence of foodborne
    illness in the United States.
        While FSIS' HACCP regulations list chemical contamination,
    pesticides, and drug residues as sources of food safety hazards, the
    Agency did not change its approach to residues with the implementation
    of HACCP. Bringing residue control under HACCP has the potential to
    provide even more public health protection than the current approach.
    Under HACCP, it is the establishment that assesses the hazards and
    decides how it will control them. FSIS will be responsible for
    verifying that the plant's controls are working.
        FSIS began the process of bringing residue control under HACCP with
    a public meeting held last December. The meeting highlighted a number
    of advantages of such a change, but it also raised a number of
    questions that the Agency will have to consider in deciding how to
    proceed.
        Another priority for our residue control program is implementing
    changes that bring it into compliance with European Union (EU) residue
    testing requirements for exporting meat products to EU member
    countries. During fiscal year 2000, FSIS began a major effort in this
    regard, and further work is planned in fiscal year 2002 to complete the
    process. I will discuss this initiative later in my statement when I
    review the increases requested in the proposed fiscal year 2002 FSIS
    budget.
        In the area of microbiology, we are doing sampling as a means of
    verifying the effectiveness of plants' HACCP plans. FSIS has
    established performance standards for Salmonella to measure whether
    plants are successful under HACCP in controlling pathogens. Recent data
    for large, small, and very small meat and poultry slaughter plants show
    a significant decrease in the prevalence of Salmonella as compared to
    pre-HACCP baseline data.
        The establishment of baseline profiles for meat and poultry will
    provide a yardstick for measuring the effectiveness of changes over
    time. In fiscal year 2000, we finished baseline testing for
    Campylobacter testing in raw chicken carcasses.
        The members of the Subcommittee are well acquainted with the
    lawsuit filed by Supreme Beef Processors (Supreme) in November 1999.
    This lawsuit was filed to enjoin USDA from suspending inspection
    services at Supreme's operations after the company failed the
    Salmonella performance standard for the third consecutive time. Under
    the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP rule, three consecutive failures to meet
    the performance standard constitutes failure to maintain sanitary
    conditions and results in the suspension of inspection services.
        Following the issuance of a temporary restraining order and a
    preliminary injunction prohibiting USDA from suspending inspection
    services, the Court issued a decision on May 25, 2000. The Court held
    that USDA exceeded its statutory authority in issuing and seeking to
    enforce the Salmonella performance standard. The Court found that,
    under 21 U.S.C. 601 (m)(4), meat is adulterated only when USDA finds
    that the conditions of the establishment are insanitary. However, the
    presence of Salmonella on the end product cannot be used to determine
    whether the establishment is insanitary because the presence of
    Salmonella is not ``solely--or even substantially--dependent upon the
    sanitation in a grinder's establishment.'' The Court rejected USDA's
    argument that controls over incoming raw products are important
    sanitation measures, and that the lack of adequate controls constitutes
    insanitary conditions. USDA appealed the decision on September 9, 2000.
    On September 26, 2000, Supreme filed a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy
    petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District
    of Texas. The Court of Appeals immediately issued an order staying the
    appeal due to Supreme's bankruptcy petition. The parties filed briefs
    and the Court of Appeals subsequently lifted the stay. FSIS' reply to
    the initial filing of briefs will be issued shortly.
                             workplace environment
        As mentioned earlier in this statement, the Agency is working on
    improving the workplace environment, most importantly its safety, and
    establishing a common civil rights understanding among all employees.
    In October 2000, FSIS completed the mandatory civil rights training of
    all its employees. As of September, all non-inplant employees had
    completed sexual harassment training delivered over the Internet. By
    the end of the current fiscal year, our non-inplant employees will have
    completed special emphasis training on the unique concerns of women,
    minorities and persons with disabilities in the same manner. We also
    have identified and are now addressing workplace issues that contribute
    to employee dissatisfaction and lower productivity, including issues of
    workplace violence which, this past year, manifested themselves in a
    most tragic manner for the Agency and have created an intensified focus
    on the safety and health of the FSIS workforce.
        On June 21, 2000, two FSIS compliance officers and a California
    Department of Food and Agriculture investigator were shot and killed in
    a San Leandro, California, sausage-processing plant. Another California
    inspector escaped with his life. These officials were conducting a
    joint review of the plant because it was suspected of violating both
    Federal and state meat inspection laws. In response to this tragedy,
    FSIS has formed an internal task force of employees from throughout the
    Agency to make recommendations for preventing violence in the plants we
    regulate. Additionally, the Milbank Memorial Fund is studying, under
    cooperative agreement with the Agency, the causes of violence and
    conflict in the food safety workplace. The Fund is bringing together
    leaders from industry, consumer groups, FSIS, labor, and employee
    organizations to examine how these groups can better relate to one
    another given the respective and sometimes competing roles they play in
    the food safety environment. A report of the Fund's findings is
    expected to be released in the next few weeks.
     upgrading education, training and professional skills in the workforce
        Another way in which FSIS seeks to maximize its effectiveness as a
    regulatory public health agency is by increasing the scientific
    expertise of its workforce. Since the implementation of the Pathogen
    Reduction/HACCP rule, the Agency's frontline workforce needs a broader
    scientific and analytical background in order to verify Pathogen
    Reduction/HACCP requirements and deal more effectively with high
    priority and emerging food safety hazards.
        To assess the knowledge and training requirements of our future
    workforce, FSIS formed the Workforce of the Future Steering Committee
    in July 1999 to oversee our workforce planning activities and to guide
    this transition of the workforce. We established the FSIS Training and
    Education Committee for 2001 and Beyond (TEC 2001) to examine our
    current education and training activities, conduct an assessment of
    Agency needs, develop an education vision for the Agency, and develop a
    strategy for educating and training our employees for the 21st century.
    TEC 2001 is focusing education and training on the scientific and legal
    basis for making regulatory determinations and implementing statutory
    authorities. In addition, TEC 2001 is exploring partnerships with
    stakeholder groups such as industry, international trading partners,
    state and local agriculture and public health agencies, and academia to
    provide for shared food safety education opportunities.
        One of FSIS' workforce initiatives is the Consumer Safety Officer
    (CSO). The CSO is a professional position requiring a general
    scientific background. FSIS believes that introducing into the
    frontline workforce CSOs with scientific and analytical skills will
    improve our ability to fully modernize our inspection system. We are
    grateful for your allowing us the opportunity to begin introducing CSOs
    into meat and poultry plants in fiscal year 2001. Our goal is to
    position 35 CSOs in in-plant settings by the end of the fiscal year.
        By way of review, CSOs will support in-plant inspection personnel
    in verifying HACCP system adequacy; facilitate industry innovation,
    outbreak prevention and containment; apply risk analysis; improve
    compliance through effective communication with industry; and address
    unique problems that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary
    approach. Additionally, CSOs focus particular attention on assisting
    small and very small plants in the design and implementation of HACCP
    plans, Sanitation SOPs, E.coli monitoring plans, and microbiological
    control strategies. In doing so, CSOs help FSIS comply with the Small
    Business Regulatory Enforcement Flexibility Act (SBREFA), which
    requires that Federal agencies act to mitigate the adverse impact of
    new regulations on small business by providing them assistance and
    guidance.
        In February 2000, FSIS provided a report to Congress on its plans
    to introduce the CSO occupation into the Agency much more gradually
    than originally planned, to minimize relocation and other costs. In
    February of this year, the Agency completed a survey of inspection
    personnel and has determined how many of these and other employees now
    satisfy the educational requirement for the CSO occupation.
                        communication with stakeholders
        I've discussed the ``regulatory'' part of our activities, but our
    ``public health'' role also includes extensive communication with
    stakeholder groups. Our communication programs seek to increase
    understanding by these groups of our mission, authority, regulations,
    and procedures.
    Consumer and Food Safety Education
        Primary among our stakeholders are consumers. FSIS education
    programs are designed to prevent foodborne illness. We develop outreach
    materials and activities based on current scientific and consumer
    research, social marketing, and educational research. Some programs
    target consumers who are at greatest risk from foodborne illness--the
    very young, the elderly, pregnant women, people who have chronic
    diseases, and people with compromised immune systems.
        Among these activities, the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline has for
    15 years provided a toll-free national service to consumers,
    information multipliers and professionals with questions about safe
    preparation of meat, poultry, and other foods, and foodborne illness
    prevention. In fiscal year 2000, the Hotline handled more than 86,000
    calls.
        We also reach out to consumers and others with food safety
    education campaigns. In May 2000, we launched the ThermyTM
    campaign to promote the use of food thermometers in the home. Millions
    of consumers already have seen the message. Partnerships are being
    developed to put ThermyTM on point-of-purchase packages and
    exhibits. Several large grocery store chains launched their own
    thermometer promotions during fiscal year 2000.
        Another highly successful campaign, Fight BAC__TM, has
    reached millions and shows no signs of slowing. The Partnership for
    Food Safety Education, made up of Federal agencies, industry
    organizations, and consumer groups, combined resources for this
    campaign. The Partnership formed an alliance with Wal-Mart to launch a
    promotion in approximately 800 Wal-Mart Stores across the country on
    September 9, 2000.
        We strive to reach not only consumers, but also health
    professionals. One achievement of which we are extremely proud is the
    publication of Diagnosis and Management of Foodborne Illnesses, A
    Primer for Physicians. This set of publications was produced in
    cooperation with the American Medical Association (AMA), the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA), and provides physicians with information on
    diagnosing, treating, and reporting diarrheal foodborne illness.
    Physicians can earn three hours of continuing medical education credit
    with this primer. Response to the primer's release in January 2001 was
    enthusiastic. All three agencies and the AMA have received thousands of
    requests for it.
    Federal, State, and Industry Partnerships
        FSIS works closely with State and local public health and food
    safety authorities, as well as with sister Federal agencies, such as
    FDA and the CDC, to coordinate food safety strategies and emergency
    response activities.
        Nationwide surveillance of foodborne illness outbreaks is a long-
    standing example of interstate cooperation that is coordinated by FSIS
    and CDC. Under an agreement between the two agencies, CDC conducts
    active population-based surveillance of foodborne diseases. This
    involves the on-going and systematic collection of foodborne illness
    data to detect outbreaks and monitor disease trends and patterns. Data
    collected are used to determine the need for public health emergency
    response and to assess the effectiveness of efforts to prevent
    foodborne disease and outbreaks over time.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Foodborne Diseases Active Surveillance
    Network (FoodNet) grew to nine states with the addition of Colorado.
    Approximately 28 million Americans are now covered by the system. A
    companion system, the PulseNet computerized database, matches the DNA
    fingerprint of foodborne diseases and accelerates the traceback process
    to the source of the contamination. PulseNet has been especially
    successful in identifying dispersed illnesses with potentially common
    sources of implicated product and alerting the regulatory agencies so
    that they can take appropriate action.
        FSIS also participates each year in the Conference for Food
    Protection (CFP). The CFP provides a bi-annual forum for Federal,
    State, and local government representatives to meet with industry,
    academia, and consumers on recommended changes to the Food Code. FSIS
    collaborates with FDA on publication of the Code in order to provide
    Federal guidance to the States and others with regulatory
    responsibility for retail food safety. Adoption of the Code increases
    uniformity of food safety regulation among jurisdictions, which
    benefits both commerce and consumers.
        To augment its sponsorship of the Food Code, FSIS has partnered
    with the Association of Food and Drug Officials (AFDO) and the
    University of Florida to develop and pilot a train-the-trainer course
    on safe meat and poultry processing at retail. Because the increasing
    amount of processed meat and poultry produced at retail is exempt from
    Federal inspection, State and local agencies must ensure food safety in
    retail environments. Until recently, however, little or no training was
    available to State and local inspectors who oversee retail activity.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2001, AFDO is offering the course nationwide
    through its network of regional affiliates with a goal of training as
    many as possible in the elements of HACCP-based safe meat and poultry
    processing.
        Another established FSIS partnership is that which it maintains
    with animal producer groups at the State level. The Animal and Egg
    Production Food Safety (AEPFS) program is a non-regulatory program
    whose principal purpose is to: (1) educate producers about the impact
    of the farm-to-table initiatives of the Pathogen Reduction/HACCP
    regulation and, (2) coordinate efforts to identify and encourage the
    adoption of practices that reduce or prevent human pathogens from
    developing in or on animals and eggs submitted for processing.
        AEPFS carries out its mission through the use of cooperative
    agreements, contracts, interagency task groups, external cooperative
    activities, guidance materials, and speeches. Its funding is used to
    develop animal and egg production food safety partnerships in
    cooperation with state animal health officials, FDA, and the Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service Partnerships are in place with 24
    states in such areas as quality assurance, residue avoidance, animal
    waste management, records management, managed culling practices, herd
    health hygiene, biosecurity, and proper sanitation in the production,
    transportation, and marketing of food animals.
        AEPFS is working with its counterparts in USDA's APHIS to develop
    the role of FSIS veterinarians in performing surveillance for foreign
    animal diseases, including Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and
    Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD). The program is also focusing on improved
    coordination with other Federal, State, and foreign veterinary and
    public health agencies to ensure that both disease threats do not
    affect domestic food animal populations.
    Codex Alimentarius Commission (Codex)
        FSIS also plays a leading role in the United States' participation
    in global dialogue on the setting of international food safety
    standards. The GATT Uruguay Round Agreements Act designated USDA as the
    lead agency for U.S. participation in the sanitary and phyto-sanitary
    standard setting activities of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. FSIS
    coordinates USDA's participation in these activities. Through notices
    published in the Federal Register, FSIS advises the public of the
    standard-setting activities of the Commission, as well as of the dates
    and agendas of its meetings.
        Codex plays an important role in FSIS' ability to fulfill its
    mission. First, its sanitary and phytosanitary standard-setting
    activities protect consumers by improving food safety. Second, these
    activities help ensure that sound science is the basis for establishing
    international food safety standards. In this way, Codex helps
    facilitate fair trade in agricultural products.
        Codex has grown in importance since it was designated as one of the
    three international standard-setting organizations whose health and
    safety standards serve as key reference points in settling trade
    disputes under the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures.
    Currently, 165 nations, representing 98 percent of the world's
    population, are members of Codex.
        As an active member of Codex, the United States has the opportunity
    to make the international food safety standard setting process work
    better. We have taken the position that Codex is the existing
    organization that the world's governments should use to discuss food
    safety issues and especially to set standards. We have also proposed
    changes in many areas where we believe that progress is needed. As
    chairman of Codex, I have proposed five major priorities for improving
    the Codex process.
        First, is the fundamental importance of science-based decision
    making. Codex health and safety standards must continue to be based on
    sound science and risk analysis.
        Second, we need to improve the efficiency and speed of the Codex
    process.
        Third, we must ensure that Codex has adequate technical and
    financial support from its parent organizations--the World Health
    Organization (WHO) and Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO).
        Fourth, is the importance of increasing and strengthening the
    participation of developing countries in Codex.
        Finally, Codex should work toward achieving broader participation
    by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in order to ensure that Codex
    positions have the broadest possible support and acceptance.
        Codex received an additional $1 million in funding in fiscal year
    2001, for which I again wish to thank the Subcommittee. The U.S. Codex
    Office has designated these funds for three types of activities:
        (1) Outreach: The U.S. frequently finds itself taking positions on
    issues that are directly in conflict with the positions that have been
    taken by other government groups. The voting system in Codex assigns
    one vote per country, regardless of size. We believe that if other
    countries, especially developing countries and countries in this
    hemisphere, understood the technical reasons for the U.S. positions, we
    would be able to count on more allies in the Codex sessions. Therefore,
    we are using these funds to increase our contacts and activities with
    these countries.
        (2) U.S. Hosted Meetings: In the past, the U.S. Codex Office has
    had to approach various U.S. agencies, on an ad hoc basis before each
    meeting, to ask for the necessary funds to conduct the meeting.
        (3) Delegate Training: U.S. delegates and alternates to Codex
    meetings are generally technical experts who are highly regarded in
    their fields, but who have little experience in international diplomacy
    and cross-cultural interactions. A third portion of the budget is being
    used to conduct training sessions for U.S. delegates that will enable
    them to be more effective representatives of the U.S. position.
        Mr. Chairman, this Committee's support of Codex and FSIS' role in
    it has made a tremendous difference in the credibility of U.S.
    leadership in the setting of worldwide food safety standards. I thank
    you for that support and assure you that it will be instrumental in
    accomplishing the goals I've outlined above for the future of the
    organization. These action items will be discussed later this year at
    the 24th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, scheduled for
    July 2-7 in Geneva, Switzerland, and at the first Global Forum of Food
    Safety Regulators, taking place in October in Bangkok, Thailand. For
    this Global Forum, the FAO and WHO have proposed four possible agenda
    items: experiences in the reduction of foodborne hazards; global food
    safety emergency communications; precaution in risk management; and
    consumer information and participation.
    Response to Office of Inspector General (OIG) Findings
        Before I move on to the Agency's budget request for fiscal year
    2002, I want to make you aware of the FSIS responses to reports and an
    investigation by USDA's Office of Inspector General.
        During fiscal year 2000, USDA's Office of Inspector General
    initiated a series of audits of FSIS to determine whether the Agency's
    meat and poultry inspection program remains effective under HACCP.
    These audits covered HACCP in general, the laboratory program, import
    inspection and foreign program reviews, and compliance activities.
        With respect to the FSIS laboratory and quality assurance program,
    OIG's report was generally complimentary of the timeliness and accuracy
    of FSIS' testing for pathogens, residues, food chemistry, and species
    identification on meat and poultry product samples. However, the report
    recommended that FSIS institute stronger procedures and controls to
    ensure that all regulated meat and poultry establishments are subject
    to product testing, and that the Agency work to improve the response of
    inspection personnel to requests for product samples from inspected
    establishments. Additionally, it stated that FSIS should strengthen its
    quality assurance programs to ensure that all FSIS and accredited
    laboratories used by the Agency are in full compliance with applicable
    standards and are producing valid and supportable analytical results.
        FSIS generally concurs with the findings and recommendations made
    by the Inspector General with respect to its laboratory and quality
    assurance operations, but has communicated to OIG that its report
    prematurely uses the International Organization for Standardization
    (ISO) Guide 17025 as a standard for FSIS laboratories, and that the
    Agency's current standards are valid and are still being met. However,
    to maintain high laboratory standards and as part of its effort to
    expand and upgrade its laboratory capacity in response to European
    Union requirements, FSIS has initiated the ISO 17025 accreditation
    process. This effort, which comprises a major portion of our fiscal
    year 2002 budget request, will, upon completion, address most of the
    issues identified by the OIG in its report.
        Second, FSIS is reviewing several federally-inspected
    establishments in New York and New Jersey to ensure that meat and
    poultry products produced in those establishments are safe and
    wholesome. These reviews support an ongoing investigation by the USDA
    Office of Inspector General regarding allegations of plants operating
    without proper inspection. The OIG is also investigating whether the
    Agency took proper safeguards last summer during a lengthy
    refrigeration failure at a plant in New York City. The FSIS reviews
    will focus on examining HACCP systems and Sanitation Standard Operating
    Procedures to determine whether each facility has a HACCP and SSOP plan
    in place that is effective and ensures the production of safe food for
    consumers. This review involves establishments in the New York
    metropolitan area. I believe that the FSIS workforce and the vast
    majority of the plants we inspect work very hard to ensure the safest
    meat and poultry products possible for the American public.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        The FSIS budget request for fiscal year 2002 supports the Agency's
    goals for the HACCP food safety environment. It provides us with the
    resources needed to improve the quality of industry food safety
    programs, while also not imposing user fees of any kind. This budget
    request helps us complete the transition to a modern, public health
    regulatory agency.
        For fiscal year 2002, FSIS is requesting $715.5 million, a net
    increase in appropriated funds of $20.3 million. Of the $20.3 million
    proposed increase in the budget, $18.4 million is for pay and benefit
    increases. FSIS employee salary, benefits, and inspector travel between
    plants takes up nearly 90 percent of the FSIS budget. Federal and State
    pay raises, benefits, and increases in health insurance and retirement
    benefit costs have a serious effect on our ability to staff plants if
    not fully funded.
        FSIS' fiscal year 2002 budget also includes a request for $875,000
    for the Grants-to-States program, primarily for increased pay costs at
    the state level. It is imperative that states are fully funded for
    their share of the cooperative programs to permit continued cooperation
    with the states toward a more closely coordinated national food safety
    program.
        Earlier I mentioned concerns about the safety of imported meat and
    poultry. These concerns accompany increased requests by foreign
    countries to export meat and poultry products to the United States.
    Because of this, we are requesting an increase of $699,000 and three
    staff years in fiscal year 2002 to bolster our efforts to assure the
    continuing equivalence of foreign inspection systems. FSIS has a
    fundamental statutory responsibility to assure the equivalence of
    foreign production systems for all imported meat, poultry, and egg
    products entering commercial channels of distribution. Increased
    comprehensive reviews of foreign inspection programs will verify system
    equivalence and provide opportunities to reinforce HACCP requirements
    through the outreach and education element of the reviews. The
    requested resources are necessary to adequately staff our annual
    program of comprehensive foreign program reviews and to meet the
    growing need for more complex initial eligibility reviews.
        In fiscal year 2000, the Agency completed routine audits of
    establishments, laboratories conducting residue and microbiological
    analyses, and government inspection systems in 31 countries. In
    addition, an initial verification audit was performed in one country
    requesting equivalence status. To assess the equivalence of the
    systems, reviews focused on five risk areas: sanitation, animal
    disease, residue controls, slaughter/processed product controls, and
    enforcement controls. In addition, for each audit, we evaluated HACCP
    programs, Sanitation SOPs, and generic E. coli and Salmonella testing
    procedures. FSIS also conducted Canadian audits under the United States
    and Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA).
        While FSIS conducts a residue monitoring program for meat and
    poultry produced in the United States, the EU requires additional
    residue testing for certain hormones, animal drugs, and other compounds
    in meat that it imports. Currently, there are no Federal or private
    laboratories in the U.S. that have on-going residue testing programs or
    capacity to meet the EU requirements. We are therefore also requesting
    an increase of $4,301,000 and 13 staff years to expand residue testing
    of meat products to meet the EU requirements.
        In recent years, the EU has attempted to stop the import of U.S.
    meat products because FSIS does not maintain a mechanism for permanent,
    uninterrupted testing and analysis of some chemical compounds.
    Additionally, since 1990, the EU has blocked the importation of most
    U.S. beef products because they might contain hormone residues. During
    the past three years, meat exports to Europe; primarily pork,
    horsemeat, and non-hormone treated beef; have decreased. These exports
    decreased by almost 20 percent from 2000 to 2001 alone. Future exports
    are in further jeopardy, due to EU assessments of the inadequacy of the
    FSIS National Residue Program (NRP). In the last three years, we have
    increased significantly the number of compounds tested in the NRP.
    However, we have also prioritized and rotated the sampling and analysis
    of some chemical compounds that we judge to have important public
    health significance. For example, several EU-required compounds are
    ranked as high-priority compounds in FSIS' ranking profile, but FSIS
    lacks the capacity to permanently incorporate regular testing of these
    substances into the NRP. Other compounds that the EU requires testing
    for, such as Nitroimidizoles, are not considered by FSIS to be high
    food safety priorities. In other cases, FSIS plans to test for EU--
    required compounds, but at sample volumes insufficient to satisfy EU
    requirements.
        FSIS does not presently have the laboratory capacity to test for
    the compounds prescribed in EU Council Directive 96/23/EC Annex I
    (Groups A and B). This directive prescribes the compounds for which
    testing must be conducted in order to export meat products to Europe.
    FSIS has assured that U.S. product can still be exported to the EU, and
    is in compliance with EU requirements, by making arrangements for
    residue testing of U.S. products at independent laboratories in the
    Netherlands and Canada.
        Laboratory capacity is the NRP's chief limiting factor in testing
    for these compounds on a permanent basis. To immediately carry out the
    additional testing needed to satisfy EU requirements, we must modify
    FSIS laboratories. Currently, unusable space can be modified to house
    additional equipment, provide needed storage and refrigeration space,
    and to provide space for the additional chemists required to supplement
    the NRP's existing analytical methods expertise. The NRP needs
    additional analytical methods and equipment, such as more sophisticated
    mass spectrometers, extraction manifolds, gas- and liquid-
    chromatographs, graphite and muffle furnaces, a drying oven, and an
    acid fume hood, to comply with EU requirements. We also need to add
    chemists and laboratory support specialists, as well as a chemical
    engineer, to the NRP's current staff.
        An essential element of expanding the NRP to meet EU requirements,
    as well as meeting Agency needs for a credible laboratory program, is
    the accreditation of FSIS laboratories under International Standards
    Organization (ISO) Standard 17025. This accreditation will demonstrate
    and document the competency and credibility of the NRP according to
    internationally recognized standards. FSIS began the ISO accreditation
    process in late 1997 and anticipates its completion in fiscal year
    2002. Expansion of the NRP to comply with EU requirements increases the
    scope of activities to be certified as part of the Agency's ISO
    accreditation process. As a result, this request also includes funding
    to complete ISO accreditation and to fund the extensive audits required
    to finalize certification.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. Thank you for
    your continued support. Thank you also for the opportunity to submit
    testimony to the Subcommittee on how FSIS is working with Congress and
    other partners to become a risk-based regulatory public health agency
    that can better assure the safety of meat, poultry, and egg products
    for American consumers.
                                     ______

                           Food and Nutrition Service

          Prepared Statement of George A. Braley, Acting Administrator

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, I am
    George Braley, the Acting Administrator of the Food and Nutrition
    Service (FNS). In my normal role as the Associate Administrator for the
    Food and Nutrition Service, I have, from time to time, appeared before
    the Subcommittee. I wish to thank you and the other Subcommittee
    members for the opportunity to submit my witness statement which will
    address the key aspects of the fiscal year 2002 budget request for FNS.
                              2002 budget request
        FNS requests $36.6 billion in new budget authority for fiscal year
    2002, a level that will maintain the Nation's nutrition assistance
    safety net. The nutrition assistance programs are essential to fighting
    hunger and improving nutrition for children and low-income people. The
    request meets the priorities described in both USDA's strategic plan
    2000-2005, and Fiscal Year 2002 Annual Performance Plan. These plans
    focus the programs on results--results in improving food security and
    nutrition for the people they serve, and results in providing strong
    stewardship for the taxpayer investment in nutrition assistance.
        The fiscal year 2002 request includes funds to fully support all of
    the FNS Federal nutrition assistance programs.
                               food stamp program
        The Food Stamp Program continues to serve the Nation as the primary
    source of nutrition assistance for low-income Americans. The program's
    mission is to ensure that low-income Americans have access to a
    nutritious, healthful diet. By providing nutrition assistance and
    promoting healthy food choices, the Food Stamp Program can improve the
    nutritional status of low-income individuals, protect their health, and
    strengthen the food and agricultural economy.
        We are requesting $22.0 billion for the Food Stamp Program in
    fiscal year 2002. This request is sufficient to serve an average of
    18.4 million people each month with an average monthly benefit of
    $78.35 per person. The cost of the Thrifty Food Plan--the basis for
    determining food stamp benefits--is projected to rise about 3.1 percent
    from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2002. Participation is projected
    to rise by about 805,000 people, reflecting a slight increase in
    projected unemployment rates (an indicator of the population eligible
    for benefits). The projected increase in participation, coupled with
    the projected increase in average monthly benefits (from $74.88 in
    fiscal year 2001), results in a $1 billion increase in benefit costs
    above the current estimate for fiscal year 2001.
        The projections are based on current economic forecasts from the
    Office of Management and Budget. To guard against unforeseen changes in
    economic conditions, our request includes a benefit reserve of $1
    billion, a $900 million increase over fiscal year 2001. This benefit
    reserve will ensure that funds are quickly available if participation
    increases faster than expected, thereby ensuring the program's ability
    to get food to people who need it.
        Also included under the Food Stamp account is $100 million
    authorized for the purchase of commodities for The Emergency Food
    Assistance Program and $1.3 billion to fund the Nutrition Assistance
    Program for Puerto Rico. Our request also includes $72.8 million for
    the Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR), a slight
    reduction from fiscal year 2001 reflecting a decline in inventory
    purchases and non-continuation of a one-time $3 million bison purchase
    made in fiscal year 2001. The FDPIR provides benefits to eligible needy
    persons living on or near Indian reservations and is authorized by the
    Food Stamp Act. The budget estimates that participation in the program
    during fiscal year 2002 will average 120,360 persons monthly, a slight
    increase from fiscal year 2001.
                            child nutrition programs
        The purpose of the Child Nutrition Programs is to assist State and
    local governments in providing healthful, nutritious meals to children
    in public and nonprofit private schools, child care institutions,
    including family day care homes and summer recreation programs. FNS is
    requesting $10.1 billion--a 5.7 percent increase above the fiscal year
    2001 estimate. We estimate that in fiscal year 2002, the requested
    funds, plus about $344 million in projected carryover funds available
    from fiscal year 2001, will support:
      --4.7 billion meals in the School Lunch Program;
      --282 million snacks in the After School Snack Program;
      --1.4 billion meals in the School Breakfast Program;
      --1.8 billion meals in Child Care Centers and Day Care Homes;
      --152 million meals in the Summer Food Program; and
      --120 million half pints of milk in the Special Milk Program.
        Due to predicted increases in school enrollment in fiscal year
    2002, average daily participation in both the National School Lunch
    Program (NSLP) and the School Breakfast Program (SBP) are projected to
    be somewhat higher than in fiscal year 2001--an increase estimated to
    be 1.4 percent in the NSLP and about 3.7 percent in the SBP. The
    combination of increased meal reimbursements and the projected growth
    will require a fiscal year 2002 increase of $382 million over fiscal
    year 2001.
        In the Child and Adult Care Food Program, we project a 3.3 percent
    increase (59 million) in meals served over fiscal year 2001. The
    increase in the per meal subsidy and the projected growth in
    participation will require an additional $112.4 million in fiscal year
    2002 over fiscal year 2001.
        Included as part of our child nutrition request is $2 million for a
    school lunch integrity program that will (1) examine the current
    application and application verification processes for school meals
    programs and (2) explore potential alternatives to the current process.
                   school meals initiative and team nutrition
        The School Meals Initiative for Healthy Children regulation updated
    the nutrition standards for school meals and recognized the importance
    of training and technical assistance for school food service
    professionals and nutrition education for students. To implement this
    regulation, the Food and Nutrition Service established the Team
    Nutrition Initiative, a comprehensive, structured plan for improving
    the nutritional standards of school meals as well as creating an
    environment in the school cafeteria, in the classroom and in the
    community that fosters good dietary practices among children and their
    families. This initiative involves schools, parents and the community
    in efforts to continuously improve school meals and to promote the
    health and education of about 50 million school children in more than
    97,000 schools Nationwide. Team Nutrition works to change current
    behaviors to be more supportive of healthy eating and physical activity
    through (1) training and technical assistance for school food service
    professionals, (2) interactive nutrition education for children and
    their parents and (3) support for school and community leaders. These
    strategies are accomplished through direct Federal operations as well
    as grants to State agencies. In fiscal year 2002, we are requesting a
    total of $10 million for Team Nutrition, the same level appropriated
    for fiscal year 2001.
    special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children
                                     (wic)
        The purpose of the WIC Program is to improve the health of low-
    income nutritionally at-risk, pregnant, breastfeeding and postpartum
    women, infants and children up to their fifth birthday. WIC
    participants receive three primary benefits: nutritious food packages
    designed to supplement their diets; nutrition education intended to
    improve their nutrition practices; and referrals to other critical
    health and social services.
        We are requesting $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2002, an increase of
    $94 million over fiscal year 2001, to provide nutrition education and
    food benefits to a monthly average of 7.25 million needy women, infants
    and children.
                     wic electronic benefit transfer (ebt)
        FNS is engaging in activities complementary to the Food Stamp
    Program to advance EBT and Electronic Service Delivery (ESD) system
    development to improve program benefit delivery and client services for
    the WIC Program. Our WIC Program request for fiscal year 2002 includes
    $6 million which will be dedicated to EBT development. Our goal is to
    successfully implement EBT/ESD in States that have embarked on
    planning/pilot testing and eventually expand EBT/ESD development to
    additional States. The following describes some of the progress in each
    of the projects:
        Michigan is in the final stages of its contract negotiations with
    its contractor, Citibank, for an 18-month pilot which will demonstrate
    a new hybrid approach for WIC electronic service delivery. System
    testing is expected to occur sometime toward the end of 2001.
        New Jersey continues to plan for an ESD pilot which will include
    partnerships with managed care providers, HMO's and other entities. A
    final Request for Proposal for EBT services is expected to be released
    in 2001.
        New Mexico and Texas have completed a joint procurement for WIC EBT
    services. New Mexico plans to launch their pilot in August 2001, and
    Texas in February 2002. Texas and New Mexico have chosen an alternative
    strategy for development, which includes in-house development for EBT
    processing, supported by EBT contracted services.
        Ohio launched its off-line, smartcard EBT pilot in the Dayton, Ohio
    area on October 16, 2000, in conjunction with existing off-line chip
    card technology already in place for the Ohio Food Stamp Program. The
    WIC pilot is expected to run through July 2001, at which time Ohio may
    continue current pilot operations or expand the pilot beyond the Dayton
    area.
        PARTNERS (Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
    Island, and Connecticut) continues planning a multi-State, multi-
    program procurement for pilots in all six States. PARTNERS plans to
    utilize hybrid card technology (on-line magnetic stripe and off-line
    integrated circuit chip/smart card) to deliver WIC food benefits as
    well as maintain and exchange health services information in
    partnerships with a variety of health service providers. The next step
    is to procure the services of a contractor for the design, development,
    and implementation of the pilots, and to procure a contractor for an
    independent evaluation of the pilot projects.
        Wyoming EBT includes WIC and Food Stamps sharing the same
    electronic service delivery smartcard and retailer platform. Food
    Stamps is 100 percent rolled out with WIC at about 80 percent. WIC
    expects to complete its roll-out of the system in the fall of 2001.
    Wyoming WIC is also seeking partnerships with other health agencies for
    cost containment purposes.
        Nevada, Wyoming and North Dakota (Health Passport Project)--This is
    a field demonstration project of the Western Governor's Association to
    demonstrate the use of an individual, secure portable electronic health
    record using smartcard technology. Seventeen programs (including WIC)
    are linked through an application program interface to manage the 500
    ``common data'' elements across programs in a smartcard.
                     wic farmers' market nutrition program
        The WIC Farmers' Market Nutrition Program (FMNP) provides WIC
    participants access to fresh fruits and vegetables while also expanding
    the awareness and use of farmers' markets by consumers. The requested
    level of $20 million for fiscal year 2002 is the same as the fiscal
    year 2001 level. In fiscal year 2001, three new State agencies were
    approved to participate in the FMNP. Currently 41 State agencies are
    participating in the program.
                         commodity assistance programs
        The Commodity Assistance Programs include funding for the Commodity
    Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) and administrative funding for The
    Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP). Our budget request for
    fiscal year 2002 includes:
      --$95.0 million for the women, infants, and children and elderly
            caseload in CSFP; and
      --$45 million for TEFAP State and local agency administrative
            expenses in addition to the $100 million for commodity
            purchases available in the Food Stamp account providing for a
            total program of $145 million.
        The CSFP level requested for fiscal year 2002 will support
    projected average monthly participation of 94,400 women, infants and
    children as well as a projected average monthly participation of
    355,600 elderly. The request of $95.0 million (the same as appropriated
    in fiscal year 2001), in conjunction with use of about $4 million in
    inventory, will allow for a total program of about $99 million in
    fiscal year 2002 which will support the increase in participation of
    about 23,000 participants per month. Any unobligated balances at the
    end of the current fiscal year will, at the beginning of fiscal year
    2002, be subject to recission.
                       nutrition program for the elderly
        Our request for the Nutrition Program for the Elderly (NPE) is
    $149.7 million, the same as the fiscal year 2001 level. Public Law 106-
    501, the Older Americans Act of 2000 enacted November 13, 2000,
    required that each grantee or State receive a proportion of available
    funds equal to the proportion of meals served by that grantee or State
    in the preceding fiscal year. In previous fiscal years (prior to fiscal
    year 2001), NPE was funded on a payment per meal basis. The requested
    level will support in fiscal year 2002 about the same number of meals
    served in fiscal year 2001.
                          food program administration
        Our Food Program Administration (FPA) request for fiscal year 2002
    is $127.5 million--an increase of $8 million over fiscal year 2001.
    Almost $4 million of the requested increase is to provide for pay costs
    of the agency staff and management personnel funded from this account.
    Additionally, we are requesting an increase of $1.8 million with which
    to improve FNS' information technology capacity. We expect the majority
    of States--perhaps as many as 75 percent--to begin to replace or update
    the large automated systems which are critical to the successful
    delivery of agency programs. Each year, FNS provides upwards of $300
    million in support of State systems. This requested increase will
    provide for a needed increase in agency oversight and review of State
    agency documentation activities and expenditures.
        Also requested as part of the increase is $200,000 for support of
    improved work force diversity and succession planning. FNS sorely needs
    these resources to support implementation of a human capital management
    strategy that addresses serious leadership, retention and succession
    concerns. Agency projections are that about 80 percent of the career
    senior leaders and about 30 percent of the total work force could
    retire within five years. FNS must address this serious challenge.
        Since FNS is the most appropriate agency to perform program and
    performance assessments that respond directly to the needs of agency
    program policy makers and managers, our request includes $3 million of
    the overall $12 million USDA nutrition research request. Such
    assessments are essential to ensuring that the FNS programs achieve
    their missions effectively. These operational assessments provide the
    foundation for strategic planning, program outcome measurement and
    program innovation needed to respond to emerging issues and problems
    and support effective stewardship of the substantial taxpayer
    investment in nutrition assistance.
                                   conclusion
        The mission of FNS is to increase food security and reduce hunger
    in partnership with cooperating organizations by providing children and
    low-income people access to food, a healthful diet, and nutrition
    education in a manner that supports American agriculture and inspires
    public confidence. This fiscal year 2002 budget request reflects our
    commitment to the achievement of this mission. We also believe that our
    request for $36.6 billion is crucial to continue efficient program
    operations. Mr. Chairman, this summarizes the FNS fiscal year 2002
    budget request. I will be happy to answer questions that you or other
    members of the Subcommittee may have.
                                     ______

                           National Appeals Division

                Prepared Statement of Norman G. Cooper, Director

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
    appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2002 budget request for
    the National Appeals Division.
                                  introduction
        The National Appeals Division (NAD) was established by the
    Secretary of Agriculture pursuant to the Reorganization Act of 1994.
    The Act consolidated the appellate functions and staffs of several USDA
    agencies under a single administrative appeals organization. NAD
    appeals involve program decisions of the Farm Service Agency, the Risk
    Management Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
    Rural Development agencies. In addition, in states covered by the
    United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, NAD Hearing
    Officers adjudicate and the Director makes final determinations on
    applications for fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). NAD
    is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, and has regional offices
    located in Indianapolis, Indiana; Memphis, Tennessee; and Lakewood,
    Colorado. NAD's staff of 133 includes 75 hearing officers.
                                    mission
        Our mission is to conduct evidentiary administrative appeals
    hearings and reviews arising out of program decisions of certain USDA
    agencies. Our strategic goal is to conduct independent evidentiary
    hearings and issue timely and well-reasoned determinations which
    correctly apply USDA laws and regulations. NAD's mission is statutorily
    specific, but its operation is dynamic and challenging, given the
    complexities of changing laws, regulations and policies affecting USDA
    program decisions.
        We are also requesting $372,000 for pay costs in order to maintain
    current staffing levels. There is little flexibility for absorbing
    additional costs. NAD would be adversely impacted in its ability to
    execute its mission without the increase for pay costs.
        That concludes my statement, and I look forward to working with the
    Committee on the 2002 National Appeals Division budget.
                                     ______

                           Economic Research Service

              Prepared Statement of Susan E. Offutt, Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to have the
    opportunity to present the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    Economic Research Service (ERS).
                                    mission
        The Economic Research Service provides economic and other social
    science research and analysis on efficiency, efficacy, and equity
    issues related to agriculture, food, natural resources, and rural
    development to improve public and private decision making.
                                     budget
        The Agency's request for 2002 is $67.2 million, a net increase of
    $1.3 million from the 2001 appropriation. The net increase consists of
    four parts: a $1.2 million increase for the purchase and dissemination
    of retail meat prices; a $.6 million increase for economic analysis and
    expert witness litigation support for the Pigford Consent Decree; a
    $1.5 million increase for pay costs; and a $2 million decrease for
    performance and program assessments related to the administrative
    responsibilities of running the food assistance programs. Funding for
    these performance and program assessments in 2002 is included in the
    Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) budget.
                    ers contributions to mission area goals
        ERS shares five general goals with its fellow agencies in the
    Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area: (1) a highly
    competitive agricultural production system, (2) a safe and secure food
    supply, (3) a healthy and well nourished population, (4) harmony
    between agriculture and the environment, and (5) enhanced economic
    opportunity and quality of life for all Americans. These goals are
    fully consistent with the U.S. Department of Agriculture mission.
    Goal I: The agricultural production system is highly competitive in the
            global economy
        ERS helps the U.S. food and agriculture sector effectively adapt to
    changing market structure and post-WTO and post-NAFTA trade conditions
    by analyzing the linkages between domestic and global food and
    commodity markets and the implications of alternative domestic and
    international policies on competitiveness. ERS economists analyze
    factors that drive change in the structure and performance of domestic
    and global food and agriculture markets; provide economic assessments
    of structural change and competition in the food industry; analyze how
    global environmental change, international trade agreements, and
    foreign trade restrictions affect U.S. agricultural production,
    exports, imports, and income; and provide economic analyses that
    determine how fundamental commodity market relationships are adjusting
    to changing trade, domestic policy, and structural conditions.
        ERS will continue to work closely with the World Agricultural
    Outlook Board and USDA agencies to provide short- and long-term
    projections of U.S. and world agricultural production, consumption, and
    trade. Cooperative efforts will seek to understand how commodity price
    and farm income variability affect market performance and interact with
    Federal policies and programs. ERS has sustained the frequency of
    reporting on commodities' outlooks, while strengthening the analysis
    that leads to a better understanding of reported observations and
    improving access to timely information through the use of the ERS Web
    site. ERS has established quarterly meetings with commodity groups and
    is now expanding the roundtables to include a wider spectrum of
    customers to provide feedback on the ERS market analysis and outlook
    program.
        In addition, ERS will continue to work closely with the Foreign
    Agricultural Service and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative to
    ensure that negotiations under the auspices of the World Trade
    Organization and regional trade agreements are successful and
    advantageous for U.S. agriculture. Research will target options and
    prospects for further liberalization in global markets, building on
    recent ERS findings such as empirical evidence that tariffs on food and
    agricultural products constitute the most significant barrier to
    increased market access for U.S. products. ERS' January 2001
    publication, Profiles of Tariffs in Global Agricultural Markets,
    demonstrates the Agency's ability to provide critical information on
    the levels of protection in food and agricultural markets, and also on
    the variations across countries and commodities that may be critical to
    understanding the benefits and costs of alternative negotiating
    proposals. ERS will also continue to conduct and build upon research
    designed to significantly improve understanding among decision makers
    of the changing structure of the food marketing chain (for example, the
    implications for producers of the increasing replacement of open
    markets by contractual arrangements and vertical integration).
    Understanding the Dynamics of Produce Markets, published in August
    2000, and U.S. Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Marketing, published in
    January 2001, demonstrate the expertise that ERS has built in
    explaining and analyzing critical changes in vertical relationships in
    the food system, and the implications for producers and others
    throughout the supply chain.
        ERS analyses can help guide and evaluate resource allocation and
    management of public sector agricultural research--a key to maintaining
    increases in productivity that underlie a strong competitive position
    for U.S. farmers. ERS economists track and seek to understand the
    determinants of public and private spending on agricultural R&D;
    evaluate the returns from those expenditures; and consider the most
    effective roles for public and private sector research entities.
    Economic Issues in Agricultural Biotechnology, released in March 2001,
    demonstrates ERS' understanding of and ability to communicate the role
    of biotechnology and intellectual property rights in reshaping the
    public-private balance and partnerships in agricultural research.
    Purchase and Dissemination of Retail Meat Prices
        The request for an increase of $1,197,000 in fiscal year 2002 is
    necessary to meet the requirements imposed by the Mandatory Livestock
    Price Reporting Act of 1999 which seeks to improve the price reporting
    of meat products. The funding will be used to purchase retail price and
    volume data from retailers and to aggregate the data. The data will be
    maintained in a database and will permit the monthly electronic
    publication of retail sales quantity, value and average price at the
    national level for the major meats, such as beef, pork and chicken; and
    for other meats, such as turkey, veal and lamb. This initiative will
    enhance transparency of pricing systems in livestock and meat markets.
    It will also provide a foundation for continuing analysis of rapid
    structural changes in food and agricultural markets to aid in policy
    decisions related to market regulation, competition, information
    services, consumer demand, and rural development.
    Goal 2: The food production system is safe and secure
        ERS focuses on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of public
    policies and programs designed to protect consumers from unsafe food by
    analyzing the benefits of safer food and the costs of food safety
    policies; efficient and cost-effective approaches to promote food
    safety; and how agricultural production and processing practices affect
    food safety, resource quality, and farm workers' safety. This research
    helps government officials design more efficient and cost-effective
    approaches to promoting food safety. For example, ERS works closely
    with various USDA agencies and the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention (CDC) on pathogen reduction efforts, including Hazard
    Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP). The ERS research program
    provides detailed and up-to-date appraisals of the benefits of safer
    food, such as reducing direct medical costs and indirect costs
    associated with productivity losses from foodborne illnesses caused by
    microbial pathogens. Tracing the Costs and Benefits of Improvements in
    Food Safety, published in October 2000, provided policymakers with
    information about who ultimately benefits from reduced foodborne
    illnesses and who ultimately pays the costs of food safety regulations.
    ERS received increased funding for work under Goal 2 in fiscal year
    1999 and fiscal year 2000. Using this funding ERS administered a
    competitive process through which several grants were awarded. The
    projects, for which results are expected in 2002, are applying state-
    of-the-art valuation methodologies to measure consumers' willingness to
    pay for reductions in food safety risks from microbial pathogens in
    foods.
        Understanding how food prices are determined is increasingly
    important in responding to domestic and international market events and
    opportunities that promote the security of the U.S. food supply. As the
    farm share of the food dollar declines, accurate retail price forecasts
    depend more heavily on understanding the marketing system beyond the
    farmgate. ERS systematically examines the factors that help set retail
    prices, including an assessment of the roles of the transportation,
    processing, manufacturing, wholesaling and retailing sectors; the
    impact of imports and exports; and linkages to the total economy.
    Goal 3: The nation's population is healthy and well-nourished
        ERS helps identify efficient and effective public policies that
    promote consumers' access to a wide variety of high-quality foods at
    affordable prices. ERS economists analyze factors affecting dietary
    changes as well as trends in America's eating habits; assess impacts of
    nutrition assessments and the implications for the individual, society
    and agriculture; and provide economic evaluations of food nutrition and
    assistance programs, such as factors determining changes in Food Stamp
    program participation. In 2000 ERS published The Decline in the Food
    Stamp Program Participation in the 1990s, which detailed and analyzed
    the decline in participation from 27.5 million participants in 1994 to
    18.2 million in 1999.
        Analysis of nutrition education efforts considers what kinds of
    information motivate changes in consumer behavior, the food cost of
    healthy diets, the influence of food assistance programs on nutrition,
    and the implications of healthy diets for the structure of the food
    system. In 2000, ERS released the study, WIC and the Nutrient Intake of
    Children, which found that participation in the WIC program had a
    significant positive effect on children's intake of several nutrients,
    including iron. The finding regarding iron was especially useful since
    low intake of iron, which may lead to anemia, is considered to be an
    important public health issue.
        Through the Food Assistance and Nutrition Research Program (FANRP),
    ERS will continue to conduct studies and evaluations of the Nation's
    food assistance programs. FANRP research is designed to meet the
    critical needs of USDA, Congress, program managers, policy officials,
    USDA program clients, the research community, and the public at large
    in relation to the design and effectiveness of food assistance
    programs, diet quality, and nutrition education. FANRP research is
    conducted through internal research at ERS and through a portfolio of
    external research. Through partnerships with other agencies and
    organizations, FANRP is enhancing national surveys by adding a food
    assistance dimension. FANRP's long-term research themes are dietary and
    nutritional outcomes, food program targeting and delivery, and program
    dynamics and administration.
    Goal 4: Agriculture and the Environment are in Harmony
        In this area, ERS research and analytical efforts in cooperation
    with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) support
    development of Federal farm, natural resource, and rural policies and
    programs. Such efforts promote long-term sustainability goals, improved
    agricultural competitiveness, and economic growth. This effort requires
    analyses of the profitability and environmental impacts of alternative
    production management systems in addition to the cost-effectiveness and
    equity of public sector conservation policies and programs. ERS
    analysts focus on evaluating the benefits and costs of alternative
    agricultural and environmental policies and programs in order to assess
    the relationship between improvements in environmental quality and
    increases in agricultural competitiveness. For example, in its January
    2001 publication Agri-Environmental Policy at the Crossroads:
    Guideposts on a Changing Landscape, ERS focused on the issues and
    tradeoffs that policymakers would face in designing a program of agri-
    environmental payments. ERS is continuing to work with NRCS to provide
    a combination of economic, farm structural, and geographic information
    to inform ongoing decision making about the design of conservation
    programs and the regulation of animal waste.
        ERS is seeing the payoff of its having put increasing emphasis on
    understanding and analyzing trends in adoption of genetically modified
    crops and the emergence of markets for both genetically modified and
    non-genetically modified commodities--becoming a leader in the public
    sector in releasing new and timely information on this topic. In 2000,
    Genetically Engineered Crops for Pest Management in U.S. Agriculture
    reported that adoption of genetically engineered (GE) crops with traits
    for pest management has risen dramatically since their commercial
    introduction in the mid-1990s. The research provided important new
    understanding of the impacts of adopting GE crops on crop yields, net
    returns, and pesticide use.
    Goal 5: Enhanced economic opportunity and quality of life for rural
            Americans
        The ERS contribution to this goal is based on analysis that
    identifies how investment, technology, employment opportunities and job
    training, Federal policies, and demographic trends affect rural
    America's capacity to prosper in the global marketplace. ERS economists
    analyze rural financial markets and how the availability of credit
    (particularly Federal credit) and public spending, taxes, and
    regulations influence rural economic development. ERS analyzes the
    changing size and characteristics of rural and farm populations and the
    implications of these changes on the performance of rural economies. In
    addition, ERS studies the economic structure and performance of non-
    farm economic activities in rural areas, including the rebound in
    population growth in non-metropolitan counties.
        ERS also monitors rural earnings and labor market trends with
    emphasis on regional and other disaggregations in order to provide
    insight into the determinants of variation in trends among rural
    counties. Such work yields a better understanding of the factors that
    promote rural vitality and the opportunities for effective public
    sector intervention.
        An ERS study currently underway will identify and analyze factors
    affecting growth in remote rural areas. This study is part of a multi-
    country international project conducted under the auspices of the
    Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Other studies
    are investigating the effects of various policy scenarios, including
    increases in the minimum wage and the Earned Income Tax Credit, on the
    poverty and employment status of rural welfare recipients. ERS
    researchers are also examining Federal credit and tax policies to
    assess their impact on farm families and the intergenerational transfer
    of farm assets. Researchers are also assessing the impacts of
    structural and policy changes on the costs and availability of
    electric, telecommunications, and financial services in rural America.
        ERS continues to monitor the financial situation of the farm sector
    through establishing farm business organization and performance
    benchmarks. This task includes study of the financial position of
    farmers who employ technological advances and innovative risk
    management strategies in their businesses, compared with the financial
    position of farmers who use more traditional approaches.
        ERS has developed and widely disseminated a new farm typology that
    goes beyond the traditional classification of farms by sales class
    alone to a grouping that is much more reflective of operators'
    expectations from farming, stage in their life cycle, and dependence on
    agriculture for household income. Continued applications of the
    typology are bringing new understanding about the diversity of the U.S.
    farm community, factors that can enhance success among small and
    minority-owned farms, and the implications for the different types of
    farms of alternative approaches to providing safety nets for farm
    households. In October 2000 ERS published A Safety Net for Farm
    Households, which applies the typology to four scenarios for government
    assistance to agriculture based on the concept of ensuring some minimum
    standard of living.
     economic analysis and expert witness support for the pigford consent
                                     decree
        The request for an increase of $600,000 is for costs associated
    with economic analysis and expert witness litigation support for the
    Pigford Consent Decree which is from a class action lawsuit that
    alleges racial discrimination in the administration of USDA farm loan
    and benefit programs. The USDA and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
    determined that it was critical that expert economic analysis be made
    available to support DOJ work. ERS's role is to generate an objective
    estimate of economic damages in each particular case using a
    consistent, understandable, and defensible methodology that is based on
    standardized farm accounting procedures.
                     customers, partners, and stakeholders
        The ultimate beneficiaries of ERS's program are the American people
    whose well-being is improved by informed public and private
    decisionmaking leading to more effective resource allocation. ERS
    shapes its program and products principally to serve key decision
    makers who routinely make or influence public policy and program
    decisions. This clientele includes White House and USDA policy
    officials and program administrators/managers; the U.S. Congress; other
    Federal agencies and State and local government officials; and domestic
    and international environmental, consumer, and other public
    organizations, including farm and industry groups interested in public
    policy issues.
        ERS depends heavily on working relationships with other
    organizations and individuals to accomplish its mission. Key partners
    include: the National Agricultural Statistics Service for primary data
    collection; universities for research collaboration; the media as
    disseminators of ERS analyses; and other government agencies and
    departments for data information and services.
                                closing remarks
        I appreciate the support that this Committee has given ERS in the
    past and look forward to continue working with you and your staff to
    ensure that ERS makes the most effective and appropriate use of the
    public resources. Thank you.
                                     ______

          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

            Prepared Statement of Dr. Colien Hefferan, Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to submit the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget for the
    Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
    one of four agencies in the Research, Education, and Economics (REE)
    mission area of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). I
    am especially honored as this is my first opportunity to submit
    testimony to this Committee as the Administrator of CSREES.
        CSREES works in partnership with the land-grant university system,
    other colleges and universities, and public and private research and
    education organizations, in concert with the Secretary of Agriculture
    and the intent of Congress, to initiate and develop agricultural
    research, extension and higher education programs. This partnership has
    a breadth of expertise that is ready to deliver solutions to problems
    facing U.S. agriculture today. For example, University of California
    scientists are developing a foot-and-mouth disease transmission model
    to simulate a wide range of possible epidemic patterns and identify
    eradication strategies for each. The model will ultimately be used to
    address important questions about foot-and-mouth disease eradication
    and is expected to be a useful tool for veterinary decision-makers,
    when and if the disease returns to the United States. Through extension
    and education activities, the system will be able to mobilize personnel
    to inform and assist producers and the public on technological advances
    about this and other agricultural problems.
        The broad portfolio of CSREES programs has supported scientific
    discovery from conception to application. Formula funds have leveraged
    dollars from other sources, provided the start-up funds needed for an
    investigator to establish a research program and build the capacity to
    compete successfully in a competitive program, and allowed for a rapid
    response to an emerging problem. Competitively funded research from the
    National Research Initiative (NRI) has supported individual
    investigators undertaking basic research aimed at generating new
    knowledge. Research results are applied to real life problems through
    the Cooperative Extension System's outreach efforts. All of these
    efforts are undertaken in an environment that prepares students to meet
    the ongoing needs of agriculture, the environment, individuals and
    communities.
        It is this coordinated, continuum of science--discovery to
    application--that has strengthened U.S. agriculture and has made the
    U.S. the world leader in science. For example, in 1998, scientists at
    Iowa State University received an NRI award for $130,000 entitled,
    ``Optimizing Marker-assisted Selection for Genetic Improvement of
    Livestock.'' The primary goal of this award was to develop advanced
    mathematical methods for selection and breeding strategies needed to
    achieve superior livestock. A subsequent Initiative for Future
    Agriculture and Food Systems award entitled, ``Mapping and Use of QTL
    for Marker-assisted Improvement of Meat Quality in Pigs,'' made to the
    same scientists in 2000 for $587,722, built on work supported by the
    NRI award and was the first extended, large-scale study to identify
    desirable pork quality traits in commercial breeds. The results of this
    study will be accessible by interested stakeholders for industry
    implementation.
        CSREES continues to strive to meet the recurring challenge of
    ensuring that its programs are flexible and responsive to national
    needs, as expressed by stakeholders and as reflected in Department and
    Administration priorities. In a recent speech, Secretary Veneman
    identified research and development as the way to find new solutions
    for issues related to energy, biotechnology, food safety, and the
    environment. CSREES-supported research and education are meeting these
    challenges.
        Work is being conducted under the National Research Initiative and
    formula programs on biobased products to address energy and other needs
    that will generate information and tools for farmers to grow, harvest,
    and process alternative crops, and for manufacturers to convert
    renewable, raw materials to useful products for industry and/or
    consumers. For example, Smith-Lever formula funding has helped Colorado
    extension alternative crops specialists study three fiber crops--Kenaf,
    sunn hemp and sesbania--that can be processed into particle board,
    paper, and even lumber. These products could provide the public with an
    excellent alternative to wood products, the demand for which continues
    to climb.
        The use and impact of biotechnology is transforming many sectors,
    including agriculture. CSREES-supported biotechnology research funded
    through formula funds and competitive grants not only has the potential
    to facilitate the development of enhanced foods and new food products,
    but also new non-food products, including lubricants, oils, and
    plastics.
        The CSREES integrated research, extension and education Food Safety
    Program is supporting research to reduce the risk of drug residues in
    food products as well as the level of microbial resistance to
    antibiotics. This cutting edge research will greatly improve the safety
    and quality of the Nation's food supply, and also will contribute to
    reducing the chance of microbes causing illness that is not treatable
    in the human population.
        In a Nation that values the environment--clean air and water,
    unique ecosystems, and pristine land--we must ensure that our
    production practices, as well as our public policies and programs
    affecting these practices, are consistent with the dual objectives of
    promoting competitiveness while preserving natural resources and
    environmental quality. To achieve these goals, a better understanding
    of the complex interactions between agricultural production and the
    environment is needed. Scientists in Missouri, supported by Hatch Act
    funds, have developed new methods of capturing nutrients in swine waste
    for crops, reducing fertilizer costs by $1,700 to $6,500 for each of
    the state's family-operated swine farms, at the same time reducing
    nitrogen in water. High phosphorus concentrations in the soil from
    poultry litter were troublesome until Delaware scientists, supported by
    Hatch Act funds, helped to develop new feed programs that allow
    chickens to digest phosphorus more efficiently. Phosphorus in poultry
    litter has been reduced by as much as 80 percent, helping protect water
    in poultry production areas nationwide. California extension personnel
    helped reduce sediment that was trapping 1,300 pounds of pesticide
    residues in the ecosystem and harming river wildlife in the San Joaquin
    River and Sacramento Delta. Approximately 68 percent of the farmland in
    the area is under management systems that have kept tons of sediment
    out of rivers, lakes, and streams.
        CSREES is committed to seven overarching themes in its fiscal year
    2002 budget and proposes sustained funding at the fiscal year 2001
    level for:
      --Competitively awarded grant programs such as the NRI and the
            Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems;
      --Funding for targeted areas, including Pest Control Related, Food
            Safety, and other national priority issues;
      --Integrated research, extension, and education activities, as
            evidenced by continued support at the $41.8 million level for
            the Integrated Activities Account;
      --A balanced program portfolio, as evidenced by sustained support at
            the fiscal year 2001 level for all formula programs;
      --Continued support for partnerships to reach diverse audiences
            through funding for the 1890 and 1994 land-grant institutions,
            Alaska Native-Serving and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions,
            and for Hispanic-Serving Institutions;
      --Development of human capacity to address the need for a highly
            trained cadre of quality scientists, engineers, managers, and
            technical specialists in the food and fiber systems through
            funding the Higher Education Programs; and
      --Streamlined management and improved accountability of CSREES
            programs through sustained support for the Research, Education,
            and Economics Information System, and through the integration
            of research, extension, and education under certain programs as
            intended in the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education
            Reform Act of 1998.
                       fiscal year 2002 budget highlights
        The CSREES budget proposal, which totals nearly $1 billion,
    provides funding for ongoing programs, and key provisions of the
    Agricultural Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. The
    fiscal year 2002 budget proposes to fund most programs at the fiscal
    year 2001 level, with the exception of about $118 million for earmarked
    projects, which are proposed for elimination. Programs receiving
    continued support in fiscal year 2002 include:
        Research and extension formula programs proposed for funding at the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of $544 million. CSREES works
    closely with partner institutions through the annual planning process
    and other means to target funds to priority issues facing agricultural
    producers, natural resource managers, and rural residents. The fiscal
    year 2002 budget proposes $106 million for the NRI to fund grants that
    address key problems of national scope through research in the
    biological, physical and social sciences as related to agriculture. The
    program provides the critical agricultural knowledge base needed to
    solve immediate and future agricultural problems; it is the seed needed
    to assure continuing scientific advancement in agriculture. NRI is a
    unique program within CSREES that complements, but does not duplicate,
    the Integrated Research, Education, and Extension (Integrated) programs
    and the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems program.
        One of the most crucial variables in the food and fiber system is
    scientific and professional human capital. The research and education
    agenda of the future depends on a highly trained cadre of qualified
    scientists, engineers, managers, and technical specialists. The budget
    funds CSREES Higher Education Programs at about $35 million, including
    $7.1 million to be added to the principal of the Native American
    Institutions Endowment Fund to improve the education capacity at Tribal
    colleges. The types of activities that can be supported with the
    interest derived from the endowment funds recently have been expanded
    to include facility renovation and construction projects. The budget
    also includes $3 million for a program initiated in fiscal year 2001
    for Alaska Native-serving and Native Hawaiian-serving Institutions.
        Americans recognize that their quality of life depends largely on
    economic, physical, and institutional factors affecting their families,
    businesses, and communities. The fast pace of changes in these factors,
    and their increasingly complex interactions, present a growing
    challenge. CSREES, in partnership with the land-grant university
    system, enhances the capabilities of individuals, families, and
    communities to improve their quality of life. The fiscal year 2002
    budget proposes continued support for programs such as Expanded Food
    and Nutrition Education Program, Children, Youth and Families, and
    Youth Farm Safety Education and Certification.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget provides $38 million for Food Quality
    Protection Act (FQPA) related pest control activities, the same as the
    fiscal year 2001 level. Emphasis is placed on developing alternatives
    to replace chemical pest controls that are at-risk of being taken off
    the market due to the stricter pesticide registration requirements
    resulting from the implementation of FQPA. The FQPA Risk Mitigation
    Program aims to establish longer-term pest control alternatives for
    major crops while the Crops at Risk Program supports projects to
    develop intermediate term alternatives in place of pesticides used on
    fruit and vegetable crops.
        The Administration has proposed not to continue funding for program
    earmarks. We believe that competitive, peer-reviewed programs that
    respond to nationwide issues and have national application, and formula
    programs represent a higher priority use of taxpayer dollars.
                               mandatory programs
        The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes funding for the Fund for Rural
    America (Fund) program. As determined by the Secretary, funding
    supports competitive grants for research, education, and extension.
    Projects under the Fund are for national, regional and multistate
    system level approaches to strengthen international competitiveness,
    productivity, efficiency and profitability; to enhance natural resource
    management and environmental stewardship; and to strengthen rural
    communities. The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes $120 million for the
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) program,
    which focuses on research that is cutting-edge, multi-institutional and
    directly linked to producer and consumer issues through extension or
    education programs. In fiscal year 2000, the agency received almost
    1,000 proposals for the IFAFS program, 25 percent of which were rated
    highly meritorious by peer reviewers; the agency was able to fund fewer
    than 9 percent of these proposals. The budget also proposes funding for
    the Community Food Projects grants program at $2.5 million (supported
    with mandatory funds provided by the Food and Nutrition Service's Food
    Stamp Program).
                                    summary
        The broad portfolio of CSREES programs, including both formula
    based and competitively-awarded funds, ensures that research extends
    the transfer and implementation of practical outcomes. With this broad
    portfolio as a base, the strong Federal, State, and university
    partnership has supported great successes that have far reaching
    impacts on the food we eat, the environment in which we live, human
    health, and the quality of life of our citizens.
                                     ______

            Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

          Prepared Statement of David R. Shipman, Acting Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am pleased to
    highlight the accomplishments of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
    Stockyards Administration, and to submit our fiscal year 2002 budget
    proposal.
        GIPSA is part of USDA's Marketing and Regulatory Programs, which
    works to ensure a productive and competitive global marketplace for
    U.S. agricultural products. Our mission is to facilitate the marketing
    of livestock, poultry, meat, cereals, oilseeds, and related
    agricultural products, and to promote fair and competitive trading
    practices for the overall benefit of consumers and American
    agriculture.
        GIPSA has both regulatory and service roles. Our Packers and
    Stockyards Programs (P&S) ensure open and competitive markets for
    livestock, meat, and poultry while providing financial protection to
    livestock producers. The Agency's Federal Grain Inspection Service
    (FGIS) provides the U.S. grain market with Federal quality standards
    and a uniform system for applying them. It also provides impartial,
    accurate measurements of grain quality to promote an equitable and
    efficient U.S. grain marketing system. GIPSA helps ensure fair and
    competitive marketing systems for all involved in the merchandising of
    livestock, meat, and poultry, and grain and related products.
                                  organization
        We are headquartered in Washington, DC. Our P&S program area has
    180 employees and three regional offices. The Atlanta Regional Office
    is responsible for national issues relating to poultry production and
    processing; the Denver office for livestock concerns; and the Des
    Moines office focuses on swine production and processing. Legal,
    financial, and economics experts from the various locations work
    together to address national issues and more effectively monitor
    emerging technology, evolving marketing strategies, and other issues
    affecting the industries and the constituencies served by the Agency.
        Federal grain personnel work as part of a unique public-private
    partnership with over 2,000 State and private inspectors to provide
    high-quality inspection and weighing services on a user-fee basis
    across the Nation. Federal inspectors service 38 export elevators in
    Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, Ohio,
    Oregon, and Texas. Eight delegated States provide service at an
    additional 19 export elevators located in Alabama, California,
    Minnesota, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and
    Wisconsin. In Canada, official service on U.S. grain transported
    through Canadian ports is provided under a cooperative agreement by the
    Canadian Grain Commission with GIPSA oversight at 7 locations. Fifty-
    nine (59) designated agencies service the domestic market under GIPSA
    supervision. In fiscal year 2000, this unique mix of Federal, State,
    and private inspection agencies provided nearly 2 million inspections
    on over 238 million metric tons of grains and oilseeds; weighed over
    105 million metric tons of grain; and issued more than 89,000 official
    weight certificates.
        Our Technical Center in Kansas City, Missouri, is GIPSA's central
    laboratory for technical leadership and support for the official
    inspection system and U.S. grain industry. The Center is home to the
    GIPSA Biotechnology Reference Laboratory, which accredits private
    testing labs conducting DNA-based testing for biotechnology derived
    grains and verifies the performance of rapid tests for biotechnology
    derived grains.
                 gipsa's packers and stockyards programs (p&s)
        The P&S Program fosters fair competition, and guards against
    deceptive and fraudulent practices affecting the movement and price of
    meat animals and their products. The production and marketing of
    livestock, meat and poultry are an important part of American
    agriculture and the Nation's economy.
        With only 180 employees, P&S monitors the livestock, meat, and
    poultry industries, estimated by the Department of Commerce in fiscal
    year 2000 to have an annual wholesale value of $142 billion. At the
    close of 2000 there were 1,318 stockyards; 6,195 market agencies and
    dealers, 2,039 packer buyers registered with GIPSA. An estimated 6,000
    slaughtering and processing packers are subject to the Act. In fiscal
    year 2000, 266 slaughtering packers, each of whom purchased over
    $500,000 of livestock in 1999, were required to be bonded and file
    reports with GIPSA. In addition, there were 205 poultry firms and a
    significant number of meat distributors, brokers, and dealers subject
    to the Act.
        Last year, GIPSA conducted over 1,800 investigations, a 33 percent
    increase over the previous year. Most violations were corrected
    voluntarily, with several resulting in livestock and poultry producers
    receiving additional funds for the sale of their products. During
    fiscal year 2000, 17 administrative or justice complaints were issued
    (a net increase of 5 over the previous year) to bring subject firms
    into compliance with the Act. In addition, USDA issued 13 decisions and
    orders against 21 individuals or firms for violating the Act.
        GIPSA continues to provide payment protection to livestock and
    poultry producers. Financial investigations during last year resulted
    in $5.9 million being restored to custodial accounts established and
    maintained for the benefit of livestock sellers. This is more than
    double fiscal year 1999 restoration figures of $2.7 million. Since the
    1976 amendments to the P&S Act, livestock sellers have been paid $59.7
    million under the statutory trust provision. In 2000, one poultry trust
    complaint received by GIPSA that resulted in payment of $250,000 to
    live poultry growers. By comparison, there were none in 1999. During
    fiscal year 2000, 192 insolvent dealers and market agencies corrected
    or reduced their insolvencies by $6.7 million, an increase of more than
    $2 million from the previous year. Insolvent packers corrected or
    reduced the insolvencies by $2.2 million.
        Many producers and growers are not adequately aware of the
    protections provided under the P&S Act. In the past 2 years, GIPSA
    stepped up outreach activities to better educate the industry about the
    Act and GIPSA's regulatory role in the market. GIPSA held a series of
    town hall meetings to discuss salient issues with many different
    segments of the poultry and swine industries. In fiscal year 2000,
    GIPSA held 12 outreach programs in the major U.S. poultry producing
    areas. Participants agreed that the poultry industry has a greater
    awareness of GIPSA's authority under the Act and regulations because of
    these efforts. As a result of participation in the town hall meetings,
    grower-oriented organizations and integrators have invited GIPSA to
    attend industry meetings and conferences. GIPSA plans to participate in
    another series of meetings with beef and sheep industry
    representatives.
        In addition to the town hall meetings, GIPSA sponsored a Millennium
    Conference to better understand the issues facing our constituencies
    and to honor millennium farmers. We also sponsored a series of regional
    meetings with States Attorneys Generals, and Agricultural Commissioners
    and Secretaries to help us develop stronger strategic alliances in
    serving the agricultural community. We recognize the importance of
    staying in touch with growers, producers, and federal and state
    representatives to understand, stay abreast, and anticipate issues
    confronting the industry. GIPSA has actively cultivated a broader base
    of understanding with growers and producers through public outreach. We
    anticipate continuing this effort.
        Our regulatory responsibilities are at the heart of our mission. To
    this end, GIPSA closely monitors practices that may impede the free
    trade of livestock, meat, and poultry. A high priority is placed on
    investigating all complaints and further developing information
    received concerning allegations of anticompetitive, unjustly
    discriminatory, or unfair behavior in the livestock, meat, and poultry
    industries. Appropriate corrective action is initiated when evidence of
    these practices is discovered.
        Rapid Response teams continue to address urgent industry issues and
    are deployed when a situation warrants immediate attention or action.
    The ability of these teams to respond within 36-48 hours of being
    notified of a crisis provides the public with more immediate
    notification of fiduciary problems with a stockyard or market agency.
    Last fiscal year, 15 teams were deployed to investigate cases in 9
    states. Teams helped recover more than $3 million for growers and
    producers. The Agency also provides a hotline (1-800-998-3447) on which
    constituents may anonymously voice their concerns. GIPSA responds to
    and investigates all issues addressed by the callers. Last year the
    Agency responded to 140 calls, compared to 126 in 1999.
        GIPSA also is strengthening investigations and assessments of
    competitive implications of structural changes in the livestock,
    meatpacking, and poultry industries. To further this initiative, GIPSA
    entered into five cooperative research agreements in fiscal year 1999.
    Two examine competitive conditions in the beef markets, two address
    competitive issues and compensation methods used in the broiler
    production, and the final project examines bidding behavior in a
    laboratory setting to gain insights into expected behavior in actual
    markets. These projects will be completed in fiscal year 2001 and
    fiscal year 2002.
        GIPSA also has made arrangements to obtain special procurement
    information annually from the Nation's top 15 steer and heifer
    slaughter firms. This information is related to livestock purchased
    through contracts, packer feeding arrangements, or marketing and
    formula-priced transactions. Much more work is needed to determine the
    effects of these captive supplies in both the beef and pork industries.
        Currently, GIPSA is litigating two major cases against two of the
    largest packers in the Nation. The first involves a firm alleged to
    have violated the Act by failing to notify sellers that it had changed
    its equation for estimating the lean percent of animals purchased on a
    carcass merit basis. It is alleged that the company underpaid more than
    1,250 farmers by about $1.8 million. The second case, and the complaint
    filed, alleges that a company retaliated against a producer by failing
    to bid or purchase his or her animals. GIPSA has incurred major
    expenses and resources preparing for each of these cases. As an
    example, in the first instance, we spent almost a $\1/2\ million in
    litigating this case.
        In addition to normal regulatory duties, GIPSA has been tasked with
    four Congressional Mandates, which will impact the Agency next year,
    and in subsequent years. They are the Swine Contract Library, Captive
    Supply Study, annual Assessment the Cattle and Hog Industries, and the
    Agency's implementation of the GAO Report.
        The first mandate, the Swine Contract Library, was contained in the
    Agricultural Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-78), signed
    into law on October 22, 1999. It amended the P&S Act to require GIPSA
    to establish and maintain a library of contract provisions offered by
    packers to swine producers for the purchase of swine and to make these
    provisions available to the public. The swine contract library must
    include swine packing plants with a slaughter capacity of 100,000 swine
    or more per year; this includes approximately 50 plants owned by 29
    packers which account for over 95 percent of the market. These 29
    packers are required to provide monthly reports to GIPSA specifying the
    number of swine committed and the maximum number of swine to be
    delivered over the next six to twelve months by contract type.
        GIPSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on September 5,
    2000 and is drafting the final rule. In addition to the rulemaking
    process, GIPSA has devoted resources to implement the actual contract
    library, involving computer hardware and software development, and data
    collection forms. The library will use a Web-based system facilitating
    data input from swine packers and data access by the public.
        The second mandate is a study directed by a Conference Report
    (House Report No. 106-948) for GIPSA to complete a comprehensive study
    on the issue of Captive Supply by September 30, 2001. As mandated, the
    report will examine and report on whether or not cattle that are
    procured pursuant to a captive supply arrangement by a packer's non-
    reporting subsidiary, affiliate and owners, officers and employees are
    being included in the percentages as captive supply. Additionally, the
    report will include the rationale for differences in captive supplies
    reported in the P&S Annual Statistical Report and those reported by
    other entities.
        The third mandate requires the Agency to submit an annual report to
    Congress that assesses the cattle and hog industries. The Packers and
    Stockyards Act was amended in the Grain Standards and Warehouse
    Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-472) to require the Agency to
    submit an Annual Report Assessing the Cattle and Hog Industries. The
    report will include an assessment of the general economic state of the
    cattle and hog industries, changing business practices in these
    industries and areas of concern under the P&S Act. It is estimated that
    2,000 staff hours and $72,000 were spent in compiling this report for
    2000.
        The final mandate began with the General Accounting Office's (GAO)
    Report to Congress, issued in September 2000, ``Actions Needed to
    Improve Investigations of Competitive Practices.'' The Grain Standards
    and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-472) required
    implementation of the recommendations in the GAO Report as well as a
    report describing the actions taken to improve investigations of
    competitive practices by November 9, 2001. The report and the actions
    needed to improve investigations are concomitantly moving forward.
        The GAO report addressed actions to improve GIPSA's ability to
    investigate complex issues. The report suggests that the Secretary of
    Agriculture develop a teamwork approach with GIPSA economists and
    Office of General Counsel (OGC) attorneys for complex investigations.
    We began implementing this recommendation a month after the September
    report with combined competition training for legal specialists,
    economists and OGC attorneys. GIPSA now has two legal specialists in
    each regional office. We have formalized procedures within P&S Programs
    by instituting investigation reviews by senior management when cases
    involve issues of competition, are deemed to be complex, are considered
    to be a large investigation, involve more than one unit (financial,
    competition, trade practices) in the investigation, when more than one
    region is involved, or when unusual amounts of resources are required.
    The regional attorneys review each case before they are submitted for
    consideration to senior management. Once senior management has reviewed
    each case the investigation proceeds, and each case is monitored
    throughout the investigation. OGC has been asked to review the
    investigation plans prior to commencement of the investigation and thus
    has been integrated into the investigative process of complex cases at
    their initiation.
        The GAO report recommended that GIPSA improve its competitive
    investigations by adopting methods and guidance similar to those used
    by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission
    (FTC). GIPSA, working through the Department's Office of the General
    Counsel, is reviewing DOJ and FTC investigative procedures.
        The GAO report recommended that the Secretary modify the grade
    structure for economists. The process of upgrading economists' and
    legal specialists' positions is underway and will hopefully allow GIPSA
    to hire and retain well-qualified individuals. We have reviewed and
    instituted procedures that will better use the legal expertise of our
    legal specialists in each regional office. The advice and critical
    legal review of the cases should improve the process and allow GIPSA to
    operate more effectively.
        The GAO report also suggests that GIPSA provide industry
    participants and Congress with clarifications of the Agency's views on
    competitive activities by reporting changing business practices in the
    cattle and hog industries and identifying market operations or
    activities which raise concerns. We were mandated to provide an annual
    report assessing the cattle and hog industries, and to conduct a study
    on the issue of captive supplies. We have also taken action to hire an
    outreach coordinator to improve our communication with Congress and the
    public we serve. We also anticipate using the knowledge gained in
    broad-based investigations by communicating that intelligence to the
    industry or industries that it addresses.
        In addition to the Congressional mandates, GIPSA will be
    participating in a GAO review initiated by Senator Daschle to examine
    our economic models. He has asked the GAO to ``assess the extent to
    which these models may be understating the effects of imports, market
    concentration, and the use of marketing agreements and forward
    contracts on domestic cattle prices.'' Senator Daschle has also
    requested that GAO provide recommendations on how our models could be
    ``improved or revised, to provide the most comprehensive analysis
    possible of the impact of certain factors on prices at the producer
    level, including: import volumes and competition; increasing use of
    marketing agreements and forward contracts; and increasing
    consolidation in the processing, wholesaling and retail distribution
    sectors.'' We fully expect GAO to review the 1996 packer concentration
    study, the follow-up cooperative agreements with universities that
    examined concentration and captive supplies, and other activities
    relating to concentration and captive supplies. GAO expects to complete
    its investigation within one year.
        While working to be wholly responsive to Congressional mandates and
    to provide timely and insightful information to GAO, GIPSA has
    initiated the development of rules to help us better serve our various
    constituencies. The rules will support our enforcement of the Act by
    defining requirements needed for our investigations of violations of
    the Act. We are currently working on six rulemaking initiatives. They
    are, in priority order based on program needs and the least number of
    steps for completion and implementation: swine contract library, packer
    record keeping, contract disclosure, non-reporting of price, premiums
    and discounts, and string sales.
        Swine Contract Library.--GIPSA is drafting a final rule for the
    Swine Contract Library. The proposed rule would require certain packers
    to file swine marketing or purchase contracts with GIPSA and would
    require GIPSA to publish monthly reports about available swine
    marketing contracts.
        We hope to move all of the proposed regulations forward in the next
    year.
        During fiscal year 2000, GIPSA amended existing scales and weighing
    regulations under the Act. The feed weighing regulation now includes a
    requirement of weighing feed whenever the weight of feed is a factor in
    determining payment or settlement under a livestock or poultry growing
    arrangement.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, GIPSA teams of legal,
    financial, economic specialists will be addressing 8 cases scheduled
    for hearing, including reparations; 14 cases pending review in the
    Agency, and 50 cases pending review in the OGC (this number includes
    referrals, docketed complaints and reparations).
        GIPSA will actively seek to serve the industry by: providing
    payment protection to livestock and poultry producers; increasing the
    number of competitive investigations of potential violations of the
    Act; pursuing voluntary corrections of violations of the Act which will
    likely result in livestock and poultry producers receiving additional
    funds; continuing to reach out to both educate and inform
    constituencies served by the agency of the benefits and protections
    offered to livestock and poultry producers; monitoring and responding
    rapidly to complaints of anticompetitive, unjustly discriminatory or
    unfair behavior in the livestock, meat and poultry industries; pursuing
    cooperative agreements which contribute valuable information to GIPSA's
    economic understanding of the industries; facing off with industry
    giants and expending resources to address violations of the Act;
    responding thoroughly and responsibly to all governmental inquiries and
    Congressional mandates; pursuing rulemaking which enhances GIPSA's
    ability investigate and litigate violations of the Act.
                    gipsa's federal grain inspection service
        GIPSA's grain inspection program facilitates the marketing of U.S.
    grain and related commodities under the authority of the U.S. Grain
    Standards Act (USGSA) and the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 (AMA).
    GIPSA provides the market with descriptions (grades) and testing
    methodologies to measure the quality and quantity of grain, rice,
    edible beans, and related commodities; provides an array of inspection
    and weighing services, on a fee basis, through a unique partnership of
    Federal, State, and private laboratories; and ensures that the
    standards are applied and the weights recorded fairly and accurately.
    As an impartial, third-party in the market, we advance the orderly and
    efficient marketing and effective distribution of U.S. grain and other
    assigned commodities from the Nation's farms to domestic and
    international buyers.
        For an average cost of 23 cents per metric ton of grain in fiscal
    year 2000, exporters received USDA export certificates from GIPSA which
    they used to market over $20 billion worth of cereals and oilseeds.
    Likewise, here at home, buyers and handlers requested over 1.9 million
    domestic inspections that facilitated the trading of 128 million metric
    tons of cereals and oilseeds.
        To date, the official grain inspection system has operated in a
    supply driven food chain. Grain was produced, delivered to the elevator
    and marketed as a commodity with limited concern about specific
    consumer quality preferences. Buyers relied on the grades and standards
    to describe the general quality needed to produce a quality product and
    provide the ultimate consumer with abundant and wholesome food.
        Today, the need for more efficient processing and the demands of
    consumers are rewriting the rules. Growth in specialty grain markets
    and the controversy over biotechnology-derived crops are forcing the
    U.S. grain production and marketing system to examine how it will
    handle volumes of large specialty (non-commodity) products. This
    transition will likely result on greater reliance on contracting,
    alliances, vertical integration, and other coordinated mechanisms. It
    also will drive the industry, from producer to processor, to establish
    quality assurance systems to meet tougher and more demanding quality
    specifications while retaining, as much as possible, the inherent
    benefits of the current grain production, handling, and processing
    system.
        GIPSA's role in this new and evolving marketplace involves
    providing reliable and practical methods to measure the end-use quality
    attributes of commodities and specialty products (including non-
    biotech-derived crops) at the earliest stage of the marketing system.
    The fair and orderly marketing of grain depends on all in the marketing
    chain having access to information on the true value of grain. GIPSA
    must also work with the industry from producer to processor to
    facilitate the development of quality assurance systems that compliment
    or, in some incidences reduce the frequency of, product testing while
    ensuring quality and capturing the benefits of the current marketing
    system.
        The need for increased segregation in production and marketing will
    increase costs by hampering certain inherent economies of scales and
    efficiencies provided in the current commodity market. Consequently,
    industry members will strive to realize greater internal efficiencies
    through such processes as e-commerce. The official inspection system
    must understand and respond to these market needs.
        To address the greater need of providing all players in the market
    with the information they need to effectively market biotech and non-
    biotech grains, in fiscal year 2001, GIPSA opened a biotechnology
    reference laboratory. The lab provides standardization for the
    sampling, reference methodologies, and rapid tests for biotech grains.
    GIPSA's laboratory certifies the performance of rapid tests for the
    analysis of biotech events, and will accredit independent laboratories
    using DNA-based testing to determine the presence of modified DNA in
    grain. Through this laboratory, GIPSA is responding to the market's
    need for independent sources to verify the reliability and credibility
    of biotech analyses that differentiate non-biotech from biotech grains
    and oilseeds. This facilitates information exchange, which, in turn,
    decreases transaction costs and increases overall market efficiency.
        During fiscal year 2001, GIPSA has been instrumental in the
    Department's efforts to ensure StarLinkTM corn is used for
    only approved feed and non-food industrial uses. StarLinkTM,
    developed by Aventis CropScience, is the trade-name for corn
    genetically modified to be pest resistant by producing a protein called
    Cry9C. The Environmental Protection Agency registered
    StarLinkTM corn for domestic feed and non-food industrial
    uses only. In October 2000, Aventis requested voluntary cancellation of
    its StarLinkTM registration, after the variety was found in
    the human food chain.
        GIPSA's biotech reference lab has validated seven rapid test kits
    for the analysis of Cry9C in corn. These kits are used by all segments
    of the grain industry to detect Cry9C in corn and to market such corn
    to only approved uses. We are also using this technology to provide
    official USDA testing and certification services for the presence of
    StarLinkTM corn under the authority of the United States
    Grain Standards Act.
        In the international arena, GIPSA, working with the Foreign
    Agricultural Service, was instrumental in developing and then updating
    a protocol addressing Japan's concerns with food corn imports that may
    contain low levels of StarLinkTM corn. StarLinkTM
    is not approved for food or feed use in Japan. The protocol provides
    for a practical quality assurance process to meet the Government of
    Japan's regulatory requirements for StarLinkTM corn. The
    protocol provided a framework from which the industry has developed
    processes to meet the requirements of other importers of U.S. corn.
        Finally, GIPSA is in the midst of a rulemaking undertaken to
    improve consumer access to information on biotechnology. GIPSA, in
    conjunction with the Agricultural Marketing Service, published an
    advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) seeking public comment on
    USDA's role in facilitating the marketing of grains, oilseeds, fruits,
    vegetables, and nuts in today's marketplace with biotech and non-
    biotech crops. The ANPR was published in the Federal Register on
    November 30, 2000, with a comment period closing February 28, 2001. In
    response to public requests, GIPSA reopened and extended the comment
    period until April 16, 2001. To date, GIPSA has received almost 2,900
    comments, the majority of which call for the labeling of biotech foods.
        Our efforts to respond to the market's needs for services to
    facilitate the marketing of biotech and non-biotech grains have been
    substantial. But a great deal of activity has been underway in other
    areas as well.
        GIPSA evaluates and implements new technology in the official
    inspection system in response to market needs. Further, the performance
    of existing official inspection methods is routinely evaluated and
    improvements are developed as needed. Official inspection methods
    (including calibration equations) are made available to commercial
    inspection users to enhance consistency between official and commercial
    grain inspection results. We are in the process of implementing several
    types of new technology for grain inspection:
      --Digital imaging is being piloted to certify the percentage of
            broken kernels in milled rice. This new technology could
            greatly improve the accuracy, consistency, and objectivity of
            inspection and grading. GIPSA also is using digital imaging to
            measure the vitreousness of Hard Red Spring and Durum wheats.
            Finally, we are exploring using digital imaging to help
            inspectors better interpret and grade difficult or unusual
            grain characteristics, facilitate training for inspectors, and
            convey to customers visual information on grain condition.
      --GIPSA's work on mycotoxin analysis continues to expand. In addition
            to establishing aflatoxin testing and reference methods, GIPSA
            developed and validated a fumonisin reference method, which
            allowed us to initiate evaluation of fumonisin test kits for
            use in the official inspection system.
      --We are working with the North American Export Grain Association to
            develop an automated grain inspection system for use at export
            elevators. An automated system will provide export elevators
            with constantly updated grain inspection information five times
            faster than present manual methods, and may reduce costs to the
            industry and enhance GIPSA's efficiency.
      --GIPSA is working with researchers from academia and the USDA
            Agricultural Research Service to define wheat protein quality
            and to develop practical, rapid methods for assessing wheat
            protein quality in marketing channels.
      --We continue to cooperate with entities from Canada, Australia, and
            several European countries to develop and test a ``global''
            near-infrared transmission (NIRT) calibration to measure the
            quantity of protein in wheat and barley protein testing. The
            calibration, based on tests of nearly 40,000 samples of wheat
            and barley, uses artificial neural network technology to
            achieve excellent accuracy for very diverse grain types.
      --GIPSA is working to develop an NIRT calibration for extractable
            corn starch. This initiative responds to the needs of suppliers
            of corn to the corn wet milling industry, who require a quick
            method to determine the extractable starch present in corn.
        GIPSA also is keeping pace with the grain industry's move from
    paper to e-commerce to streamline, automate, and improve business
    transactions. Recent advances in information technology have provided
    the U.S. grain marketing system with tools to provide instantaneous
    exchange of electronic documents and data among all parties in the
    trade chain. Electronic commerce companies and business-to-business
    ventures focused on local, regional, national, and international grain
    sales are emerging at a record pace, and are resulting in new alliances
    within the grain industry. Electronic commerce is improving market
    efficiency, facilitating transparent pricing, offering new price risk
    management tools to producers, and providing more seamless
    transactions.
        GIPSA is keeping pace with our customers' migration toward this
    marketing process. We are taking part in pilot tests and demonstrations
    with electronic commerce vendors, and adopting the latest hardware,
    software, and available technology so that we are prepared to enter and
    participate in the electronic commerce arena. GIPSA is actively
    involved in developing a system to send inspection information
    generated at multiple locations directly to a customer. We also are
    prepared to submit electronic inspection information into a vendor's
    document handling system at the request of applicants. Finally, GIPSA
    also is pilot testing a computer generated inspection certificate for
    export cargoes. The pilot will assess global bank and importer
    acceptance of the new documents.
        All of our efforts to improve and streamline our programs and
    services are paying off for our customers, both in terms of their
    bottom lines and in greater customer satisfaction. GIPSA's service
    delivery costs (adjusted for inflation), decreased from $0.27 per
    metric ton in fiscal year 1994 to $0.23 per metric ton in fiscal year
    2000, saving American agriculture over $5 million in fiscal year 2000
    alone. These savings in inspection service costs pale in comparison to
    the savings achieved by the industry through improved productivity.
        We are an integral part of America's grain handling
    infrastructure--a superior infrastructure of storage facilities, rail
    lines, and waterways that makes American agriculture preeminently
    successful in the global marketplace. We recognize our role and will
    continue to provide all members of the U.S. grain handling system with
    the innovative, high-quality official inspection services they need to
    efficiently and effectively meet the challenges of a changing marketing
    environment.
        Our outreach and educational efforts to our international customers
    are maintaining strong open markets for America's grains and oilseeds.
    One indicator is the number of foreign complaints lodged with GIPSA
    regarding the quality or quantity of U.S. grain exports. In fiscal year
    2000, the number of complaints from importers decreased by 35 percent
    from fiscal year 1999 levels. GIPSA received 13 quality and quantity
    complaints from importers on grains inspected under the U.S. Grain
    Standards Act, involving 355,853 metric tons, or about 0.3 percent by
    weight, of the total amount of grain exported during the year. This
    compares to 20 quality and 2 quantity complaints received in fiscal
    year 1999, representing about 1.4 percent of grain exports by weight.
        In fiscal year 2000, GIPSA also responded to customers' needs for
    technical assistance overseas. Exporters, importers, and end users of
    U.S. grains and oilseeds, as well as other USDA agencies, USDA
    cooperator organizations, and other governments, frequently ask for
    GIPSA expertise, thus requiring personnel to travel overseas. Overseas
    activities include representing the Agency at grain marketing and grain
    grading seminars, meeting with foreign governments and grain industry
    representatives to resolve grain quality and weight discrepancies,
    helping other countries develop domestic grain and commodity standards
    and marketing infrastructures, assisting importers with quality
    specifications, and training local inspectors in U.S. inspection
    methods and procedures. Last year, GIPSA received 19 requests for
    technical assistance overseas.
        Our efforts to facilitate the trade of U.S. grains include direct
    efforts to remove trade barriers. In fiscal year 2000, GIPSA played an
    integral role in ensuring open markets for America's products by
    working with APPAMEX, a Mexican grain importers association, to address
    Mexican importers' grain quality concerns. GIPSA inspectors conducted
    two sets of seminars in Mexico to explain U.S. sampling and inspection
    method. In fiscal year 2001, GIPSA will hold additional seminars,
    conduct two monitoring experiments, and work with officials of Mexico's
    Ministry of Trade and Ministry of Agriculture to help develop a
    national inspection system in Mexico patterned after GIPSA's.
        Also in fiscal year 2000, GIPSA resolved prior weight complaints
    from the Philippine Association of Flour Millers (PAFMIL). Thanks to a
    collaborative cargo monitoring program initiated by GIPSA, and the
    efforts of a U.S. team of government and industry representatives who
    reviewed the grain handling, scales, and weighing systems at each of
    PAFMIL's four flour mills, PAFMIL implemented various improvements to
    their weighing and handling systems which resolved their concerns.
        Finally, GIPSA developed and implemented TCK smut certification
    procedures to facilitate the marketing of U.S. wheat to China and India
    in light of their concerns about TCK smut in imported U.S. wheat
    shipments. GIPSA's procedures helped enable the United States to reach
    a trade agreement with China.
        At home, GIPSA regularly holds seminars and meetings to educate
    foreign visitors and customers about the quality and value of U.S.
    grain exports. In fiscal year 2000, GIPSA representatives met in the
    United States with 89 teams from 50 countries to provide information,
    technical guidance, and educational seminars. These international
    outreach efforts help promote greater harmony between U.S. and
    international standards, and foster a better understanding of the U.S.
    grain marketing system, the official U.S. grain standards, the national
    inspection system. This, in turn, reduces the risk of new barriers in
    today's open and freer global marketplace, enhances purchasers'
    confidence in U.S. grain, and facilitates the export of U.S.
    agricultural products.
        The grain program will continue to work to ensure our relevance and
    value to American agriculture. We are reaffirming our commitment to
    facilitating the marketing of U.S. grain by responding to our
    customers' needs and providing the highest quality grain inspection and
    weighing services to all whom we serve.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        GIPSA's budget request for fiscal year 2002 is $32.9 million under
    current law for salaries and expenses and $42.5 million for our
    Inspection and Weighing Services. GIPSA also is submitting legislation
    to collect $3.8 million in new user fees in fiscal year 2002.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget proposes a current law
    request for grain inspection of $15.1 million. There are proposed
    increases of $200,000 to support GIPSA's increased role in
    international trade services and trade activities, $500,000 to develop
    an ISO-9000 certification program, $100,000 to process comments on a
    biotechnology rule, and $400,000 to develop and refine technology to
    detect the presence of biotechnology derived grain and genetic traits
    expressed in grain. Proposed legislation of $3.8 million in new user
    fees to cover the costs of grain standardization activities also is
    being submitted. The budget also proposes a request of $17.8 million
    for the Agency's P&S Programs. The budget includes an increase of
    $756,000 for pay costs.
        The $200,000 increase would allow GIPSA to strengthen its role
    international trade services and activities. In the post-GATT
    environment of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the North
    American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the liberalizing trade
    requirements have prompted some grain and oilseed importing countries
    to create other barriers to limit or restrict market access. GIPSA has
    become increasingly involved in addressing international grain trade
    issues such as emerging sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) issues and
    other technical barriers to trade.
        Other significant international activities underway include working
    with our Mexican counterparts to develop a centralized grain grading
    system and internal quality control program similar to that used in the
    United States; and a bilateral exchange with China to share information
    and expertise on our respective grain grading systems.
        Our trading partners also are beginning to formulate domestic
    policies on agricultural biotechnology which will have far reaching
    implications. In June 2000, at the request of the Foreign Agricultural
    Service, GIPSA took part in a four-country fact finding mission in Asia
    to share information on the practical implications of implementing laws
    or regulations requiring testing and labeling of grains developed
    through modern biotechnology. These types of exchanges will become
    increasingly important as countries consider new policies to address
    consumers' ``right to know'' or perceived food safety concerns.
        The requested additional funding for fiscal year 2002 will be used
    for salary and benefits for one additional staff person, plus travel
    and related expenses while on long-term temporary overseas assignments.
        The $500,000 increase is to develop an ISO-9000 certification. ISO
    9000 is a quality assurance system standard established by the
    International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The standard
    establishes a quality management system that assures the quality of a
    service or a product through internal process controls. ISO 9000 is
    globally recognized and accepted as a standard designed to produce
    consistent and reliable quality outputs. Through documentation,
    training, quality control measurements, audits, and customer feedback,
    ISO 9000 has become an international industry standard for producing
    quality services and products.
        The U.S. grain industry is experiencing extraordinary and rapid
    changes in the grain marketing structure. Bioengineering and advances
    in information technology serve as a catalyst for this change. New
    value-added products, such as high oil corn, nutritionally dense corn,
    etc., are emerging onto the market at exceptional rates. These new
    value-added products provide producers an opportunity to produce grain
    products at lower costs. Further, information technology advances, such
    as web-based marketing companies, allow the producer to deal directly
    with buyers.
        GIPSA recognizes the changing market will place severe demands on
    the official grain inspection program to properly label and identify
    these various value-added products. In response to these demands, GIPSA
    believes the implementation of an ISO-9000-based program will
    facilitate the marketing of grains and provide producers the
    opportunity to enjoy financial benefits while maintaining minimal
    Federal involvement in the process. Therefore, GIPSA seeks funding to
    develop an ISO-9000 certification program where GIPSA is recognized as
    an ISO certifier.
        GIPSA shall initiate the multi-year process to obtain full national
    accreditation as an ISO-9000 certifier of segmented grain industry
    accreditation entities. Once this goal is achieved, the American public
    and grain industry, in particular, will benefit from increased sales
    due to greater world recognition and confidence in buying U.S. grain
    products that are produced and marketed under the same international
    standards as used in the rest of the world.
        On May 3, 2000, a series of initiatives was announced to strengthen
    the science-based regulations for biotechnology and to improve consumer
    access to information on biotechnology. One specific initiative calls
    for USDA to publish an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPR) in
    the Federal Register to seek input from producers, consumers, industry,
    scientists, and other interested persons on how USDA can best
    facilitate the marketing of grains, oilseeds, fruits, vegetables, and
    nuts in a market that includes both crops derived from biotechnology
    and other crops. At the request of the Department, GIPSA took the lead
    on this initiative, and the ANPR was published on November 30, 2000.
        The ANPR seeks comment in 2 broad areas: (1) current market needs
    and practices and the costs and benefits associated with those
    practices; and (2) the feasibility of and need for, USDA' s involvement
    in quality assurance or other programs to facilitate the marketing of
    these products in today's evolving market place. If the majority of
    commentors recommend that USDA has a role to play in offering or
    overseeing quality assurance or other programs, GIPSA will publish a
    subsequent proposed rule and final rule. Publication of the proposed
    rule with comment period should occur in fiscal year 2001. Comment
    analysis and preparation of a final rule will occur in fiscal year
    2002.
        This rulemaking is being carried out via a web-based system for
    public submission and review of comments. This system provides the
    public with the flexibility to submit comments via the Internet, e-
    mail, mail, and fax. All comments received are posted to the website
    and are searchable.
        Maintaining the web structure, and processing and analyzing
    numerous comments will require substantial staff commitment. The
    requested additional funding for fiscal year 2002 will be used for
    salary and benefits, maintaining the web structure, analysis of the
    proposed rule comments, and preparation of a final rule.
        The comments may also identify a need for further studies or
    research prior to publishing a proposed rule. The current commodity
    market is evolving due to biotechnology and ready solutions may not be
    apparent without further study.
        The budget proposes a $400,000 increase for developing and refining
    technology to detect the presence of biotechnology derived grain and
    genetic traits expressed in grain.
        Although GIPSA does not regulate biotechnology, the Agency must
    respond to the accelerated rate at which new crops are entering the
    market due to advances in biotechnology. GIPSA's role is to facilitate
    the marketing of grain and provide grain markets with standardized
    analytical procedures to better assess the value of grain for end use
    and pricing purposes. GIPSA will continue to provide method standards
    and improve the biotechnology reference center designed to assist in
    standardizing the analytical procedures for assessing biotechnology
    derived grains. The fair and orderly marketing of grain is dependent
    upon all in the marketing chain having access to information on the
    true value of grain. It is essential that GIPSA be funded with the
    additional resources for the program to continue. Funds will be
    allocated for proper staffing and purchase of advanced technology for
    the measurement of transgenic material in grain.
        Additionally, there is a proposed decrease of $599,000 for the
    development of a biotechnology reference facility. The fiscal year 2001
    Appropriation included a one-time only increase of $600,000 (less 0.22
    percent rescission) for the development of a biotechnology reference
    facility to provide standardized methodologies and rapid assessments
    used to test bioengineered grains. Development and construction of the
    facility has been completed. The Agency started offering services
    during the first half of fiscal year 2001.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify on behalf of the Grain Inspection, Packers and
    Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). I will be happy to answer any
    questions the Committee may have.
                                     ______

                    Office of the Chief Information Officer

      Prepared Statement of Ira L. Hobbs, Acting Chief Information Officer

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, the Department of
    Agriculture appreciates this opportunity to share with you our
    progress, and the challenges we continue to face, as we utilize
    information technology--IT--resources to improve services and program
    delivery to the American people.
        The Office of the Chief Information Officer--OCIO--provides USDA
    agencies with IT policy guidance and oversight, data center and
    telecommunications operational support services, and desktop support
    for the Office of the Secretary and the USDA National Appeals Division.
    In line with the Clinger Cohen Act, Policy, operational guidance, and
    oversight are provided in areas such as capital planning and investment
    control, information security, privacy, information technology
    architecture, telecommunications, information management and
    collection, and, most recently, electronic government.
        The OCIO also manages the USDA National Information Technology
    Center--NITC--headquartered in Kansas City, Missouri, with a software
    development facility in Ft. Collins, Colorado and a support office in
    Washington, D.C. The NITC, with a $52 million budget funded by USDA's
    Working Capital Fund, provides innovative, cost-effective and secure
    information technology solutions to support the specific missions of
    USDA's agencies. NITC also provides computer services to the Federal
    Aviation Administration, the General Services Administration, and other
    government clients on a reimbursable basis.
        OCIO's goal is to enhance USDA's corporate stewardship of the
    information technology resources that Congress provides. OCIO is
    working in partnership with USDA agencies to address the challenges
    that all institutions face in a rapidly changing information technology
    environment, as well as specific issues facing USDA because of its
    varied missions. Over the past year, we have made measurable progress
    in specific areas, which I will discuss in greater detail later. They
    include:
      --Providing effective leadership and oversight to the Department's
            Service Center Modernization Initiative--SCMI;
      --Enhancing the security of our financial and information assets and
            protecting the privacy of our customers;
      --Promoting the development of e-Government at USDA;
      --Improving the management of the Department's telecommunications
            resources; and
      --Strengthening the management of our human and capital IT assets.
         usda's fiscal year 2002 information technology budget summary
        The Department's overall budget request for information technology
    in fiscal year 2002 totals almost $1.5 billion in budget authority.
    This is higher than the $1.4 billion budget for fiscal year 2001. This
    amount funds staff, hardware/software purchases and support, contractor
    services, telecommunications, and other infrastructure expenditures.
    Almost thirty percent of the total IT spending, approximately $440
    million, funds entitlements which are distributed to the states in
    support of the Food Stamp and the Women, Infants and Children
    programs--this includes Advanced Planning Documents and Electronic
    Benefits Transfer Grants to States. The IT budgets for the county-based
    support agencies, which include the Farm Service Agency--FSA, the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service--NRCS, and the Rural Development
    Mission Area--RD--agencies, total approximately $370 million or 25
    percent of the USDA total IT budget. The USDA Forest Service's IT
    budget of about $315 million comprises another 21 percent of the
    Department's total. Thus 76 percent of the Department's $1.5 billion in
    IT spending is spread across just three mission areas.
        For fiscal year 2002, we estimate that almost forty percent of the
    Department's IT budget will be devoted to infrastructure and office
    automation in support of all program mission areas, while the remaining
    sixty percent will be in direct support of USDA's primary program
    delivery systems.
        To improve the overall corporate management of USDA's IT resources,
    and to take advantage of economies of scale when purchasing IT products
    and support, OCIO has established a Department-wide IT Asset Management
    Team to investigate opportunities for enterprise software licensing to
    improve methods for managing capital asset inventories, and to develop
    USDA IT policy recommendations and guidelines. Through the Team's
    efforts during the past year, several agencies acquired ad hoc query
    and report generation tools and selected software using enterprise-wide
    licensing methods; achieving significant cost savings in the process,
    thereby allowing funds to be used elsewhere by the agencies. This
    demonstrates the possibilities for economies of scale when USDA
    agencies work effectively together to find common solutions. These
    efforts will continue and expand in the foreseeable future.
        service center modernization initiative--information technology
        Mr. Chairman, the Service Center Modernization Initiative remains
    among USDA's highest priorities. This initiative, which includes the
    Common Computing Environment--CCE, is a major cornerstone of our
    modernization and technology improvement efforts. In March 2000, the
    Deputy Secretary modified the OCIO's role from one of oversight only to
    direct management of IT resources provided by Congress for this
    initiative. In response, OCIO established a new structure for managing
    the Service Center Modernization Initiative-Information Technology--
    SCMI-IT. This structure relies heavily on the three partner agency
    chief information officers--CIOs--and interagency technical teams
    working with the OCIO project management staff to resolve technical
    issues and manage the nine projects that are crucial to the
    modernization. The Executive Officer of the National Food and
    Agriculture Council is included to maintain coordination with other
    SCMI activities. OCIO also moved forward to fully involve employee
    unions and associations and USDA conservation partners in this
    structure.
        The scope of this initiative includes the program services of the
    Farm Service Agency, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and
    the Rural Development Mission Area. These county-based agencies
    delivered about $55 billion in farm, conservation and rural development
    programs and services during fiscal year 2000. These services are
    provided through a network of over 5600 county level offices at 2,500
    co-located sites, and a field workforce of 36,000 Federal and FSA
    county employees working with an additional 7,000 conservation district
    employees and 8,000 volunteers. The CCE, together with reengineered
    business processes, will enable USDA customers to do business with the
    Department electronically, maximize data sharing between agencies,
    increase staff efficiencies and provide many other direct customer
    benefits.
        When the SCMI-IT started in 1996/97, IT equipment and systems at
    the Service Centers consisted largely of 1980's and early 1990's
    technology that had been only minimally enhanced. These legacy IT
    systems were acquired and developed independently by each of the three
    Service Center agencies prior to office collocations. Collocation was
    implemented but the necessary funding to ensure that all IT systems
    could be properly integrated under a common IT infrastructure was not
    provided. Nor was a common management structure put into place.
    Instead, Service Centers had to rely on an ad-hoc assortment of
    separate IT systems that could often not be connected. Telephone
    systems were separated, Internet access was limited, multiple word-
    processing and spreadsheet software packages were in use, and data
    transmission capabilities were limited. This ``stove-piping'' of
    systems prohibited information sharing among agencies, employees and
    customers, and had a direct impact on the service that employees could
    deliver to customers.
        From fiscal year 1997-fiscal year 2000, significant progress was
    made in addressing portions of the ``stove-pipe'' technology issue. An
    initial shared telecommunications system was installed; about 35,000
    identical workstations with common office automation software and over
    7,500 shareable printers were acquired, as were a small number of other
    devices such as digital cameras, scanners and Global Positioning
    System--GPS--units. Additionally, FSA acquired a legacy system
    connectivity solution. More recently, progress has been made in the
    following key areas:
      --The OCIO Project Management Office working with the Service Center
            agencies facilitated the development of an integrated operating
            budget for fiscal year 2001 SCMI-IT activities. The process
            included the identification of specific activities for each of
            nine SCMI-IT teams, prioritization of each activity,
            development of alternatives and presentation and justification
            to decision makers.
      --USDA communicated an overall plan for SCMI-IT in a new document
            entitled ``Service Center Modernization Initiative--Information
            Technology Blueprint.'' The Blueprint provides a clear vision
            and plan for the IT component of the SCMI. It describes what is
            being done, why it is being done and how the SCMI-IT will
            benefit employees and customers.
      --In November 2000, OCIO awarded a contract for network servers for
            state and field offices of the county-based agencies. The
            network servers are a linchpin of the CCE and will tie together
            the nearly 35,000 CCE workstations that have been purchased
            over the past two years. The servers enable us to manage these
            workstations from a central location, provide a common e-mail
            and messaging system, support initial reengineered processes,
            and provide additional security and remote management tools.
      --To meet the initial requirements of the Freedom to E-file Act and
            the Government Paperwork Elimination Act--GPEA, two e-
            Government mandates which require online access to farm and
            other programs by June 2002 and October 2003 respectively, USDA
            invested $1.3 million in fiscal year 2000 in the Electronic
            Access Initiative (EAI). The EAI is designed to establish the
            technological infrastructure needed to support the first phase
            of providing electronic access for customers. Three mirror
            image Web farms were put in place during the first quarter of
            fiscal year 2001. A comprehensive security plan was also
            developed to guide the implementation activities to ensure
            safe, secure and reliable access. This infrastructure was used
            by the agencies to make 52 agency forms available on-line by
            December 18, 2000, in order to meet the initial requirements of
            the Freedom to E-File legislation. Currently, over 200 of the
            Service Center agencies' most widely used forms are now
            available for farmers and rural customers to access and
            download via the Internet. Additional forms are being added as
            they are converted and cleared through the Office of Management
            and Budget--OMB.
        Major activities this calendar year include the deployment of the
    network servers that were procured in the first quarter. Also, an
    additional $2 million capital investment is planned for the EAI this
    year: about $1 million to build the basic infrastructure capacity and
    $1 million for digital signature and other security-related solutions
    necessary to implement the phased requirements of the Freedom to E-File
    legislation. Other initiatives include updating integrated project
    plans; continuing to strengthen overall project management;
    finalization of all CCE architecture components; continued upgrading of
    CCE workstations; providing adequate training for Service Center
    employees; and upgrading of the Geographical Information Systems
    strategy for Service Center agencies.
        One of the major challenges remaining for SCMI-IT is to ensure that
    affordable telecommunications capacity is available for rapidly
    expanding online services. The Freedom to E-File Act, GPEA, and the
    movement of the agencies to more Web based applications are increasing
    the required telecommunications ``pipe size'' or ``bandwidth''. The
    SCMI-IT Telecommunications team is developing a strategic
    telecommunications plan that identifies current and future bandwidth
    requirements and pilot tests technical alternatives, such as virtual
    private networks and satellite communications, to meet these
    requirements.
        The SCMI-IT Security Team is also developing a comprehensive
    security assessment and plan for the full CCE environment. The plan
    will identify security problems and risks and the actions needed to
    address the risks. Additionally, security monitoring and audit tools
    will be acquired, and a security response team will be established and
    trained over the remainder of fiscal year 2001.
        Two significant and positive changes that have facilitated progress
    in the CCE initiative were (1) OCIO's increased management role over
    the IT portion of SCMI and (2) the new direct appropriations that
    Congress provided for CCE capital investments.
        By the end of this calendar year, all SCMI agencies' employees
    should have access to modern and compatible workstations, the agencies
    will be on a common robust e-mail system, agencies will be able to
    electronically share information among themselves and with customers
    and fully utilize the Internet, and they will be able to reduce the
    technology administration burden on the field through central remote
    management of the systems.
        Your continued support of this effort is essential for completion
    of the CCE and the timely high-quality program services it will bring
    to USDA customers. For fiscal year 2002, $59.4 million, the same as the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation, is requested to continue the CCE
    implementation. These funds will be used to:
      --Upgrade the telecommunications capacity to support e-Government and
            Web based internal applications--$15 million;
      --Acquire and deploy large capacity applications servers needed to
            implement geographic information system--GIS--applications--
            $32.4 million;
      --Purchase long term GIS software licenses for all Service Center
            agencies--$5.0 million;
      --Complete the EAI Web farm initiative--$1.0 million;
      --Provide training in the technologies--$3.0 million;
      --Support technical architecture, project operations, and computer
            security improvements--$3.0 million.
        The fiscal year 2002 investments will complete the major server and
    software components of the CCE.
        As you know, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget mentions that
    USDA will merge the IT staff of the three county-based service center
    agencies into one IT service organization. To properly operate and
    maintain the new shared CCE technology, we believe common support is
    both logical and necessary. The details of how to establish this IT
    support have not been worked out. As we look at options for providing
    this support we will work with Congress and other appropriate parties.
                       computer (cyber) systems security
        We are also continuing to focus on cyber-security. We appreciate
    the funding which the Congress made available in the OCIO fiscal year
    2000 and fiscal year 2001 appropriations to strengthen our Cyber-
    Security program. With these funds, we have started to build a modern
    cyber-security program equipped with the staff expertise and management
    to identify and address security vulnerabilities across the
    Department's many different agencies, platforms, and networks. Given
    the pervasive and growing nature of the cyber-security threat to all
    organizations, we will continue to implement the cyber-security plan we
    developed in August 1999. The fiscal year 2002 budget request maintains
    funding for the Cyber-Security program at $4.5 million.
        As we have noted in past testimony, the information that USDA
    agencies manage affects both the financial markets and lives of
    individuals. The National Finance Center--NFC--in New Orleans processes
    payroll and administers the Thrift Savings Plan for Federal employees.
    Rural Development's loan portfolio exceeds $80 billion. The data
    collected by the National Agricultural Statistical Service--NASS--is
    vital to the health of our nation's financial markets. Our systems have
    personal and financial information on millions of customers and on each
    of our employees. Even more, USDA is increasingly using the Internet to
    provide customers information about programs and services, and will
    eventually use it to empower them to transact business with the
    Department online. With annual payments totaling billions of dollars,
    we must take prompt and comprehensive action to mitigate what is now an
    unacceptable high risk of data and potential financial losses.
        To implement the Security Action Plan, OCIO has been systematically
    building a USDA Cyber-Security Program. To lead this program, an
    Associate CIO for Cyber-Security was appointed in March 2000. Along
    with acquiring staff and contractor expertise, the OCIO Cyber-Security
    program has actively engaged USDA's agencies in identifying and
    addressing urgent weaknesses in policies and procedures, training, day-
    to-day network management, and monitoring and reporting while
    developing more detailed implementation plans. In addition, an advisory
    council consisting of senior executive program officials and IT
    personnel from across the Department has now officially been chartered
    to provide broad input into all aspects of cyber-security program and
    policy development and implementation.
        Over the past year, important progress has been made in several
    areas. For example, the Cyber-Security program is:
      --Continuing to obtain staff expertise to supplement resources
            already on board. Specialists in Physical Security,
            Configuration Management, and Access Control have recently been
            hired. These specialists have already begun to conduct
            oversight activities, while also providing hands on problem
            solving, training, and promoting awareness in these
            specialties. Staff soon to be on board will include two
            Security Engineers, Telecommunications Specialists, and
            Security Specialists, as well as an Information Survivability
            Manager, a Policy Analyst, and a Privacy Analyst.
      --Working closely with the USDA agency IT community to revise
            existing security policies and procedures, draft new ones, and
            develop implementation plans to mitigate problems and
            systematically improve security practices. These include
            policies on firewalls, reporting, configuration management,
            unauthorized access, and others.
      --Providing training for USDA security personnel to implement the
            Department's revised security policies, share best practices,
            and to address specific problems as they arise continues to be
            a critical activity for the Cyber-Security program. Training
            has been conducted in areas such as configuration management,
            incident response, risk assessment, risk analysis, and Disaster
            Recovery and Contingency Planning.
      --Conducting onsite reviews at critical facilities, including the
            National Finance Center and the National Information Technology
            Center. The reviews are designed to determine if security
            measures, both in place and planned, are adequate to protect
            the integrity, availability and safety of information
            resources.
      --Making risk assessments an integral part of USDA's security program
            by using industry expertise to develop comprehensive
            methodologies that will provide agencies with standardized
            tools and techniques for performing assessments.
      --Employing contract expertise to assist with the definition of USDA
            security architecture requirements, establishment of the
            Department's security baseline and the development of a
            security architecture methodology.
        These activities, as well as the policy changes noted before, have
    already yielded noticeable results. Through implementing the technical
    and procedural changes mandated by the firewall and server guidance,
    the Department has in effect started the process of ``tightening'' its
    networks and ``hardening'' its computers so they are less susceptible
    to intrusion and exploitation. USDA has changed its approach to cyber-
    security management and operation. Instead of permitting all electronic
    data and flows to enter our networks and run on our systems, we now
    permit access only to authorized services related to USDA business
    needs. This represents a fundamental, 180-degree paradigm shift in
    USDA's computer security framework.
        These initiatives are focused on strengthening information security
    management at the corporate level. However, while we strengthen the
    Department's perimeter, individual agencies are also deploying a wide
    range of security mechanisms. These are critical, as the Department is
    only as secure as its weakest link. The NFC, the NASS, the Agricultural
    Marketing Service, and other agencies are continuing to protect the
    valuable information assets that they manage by deploying firewalls,
    intrusion detection systems, and public key infrastructures.
        Each of these agency-specific efforts is important; however, I must
    reiterate that USDA is only as secure as its weakest link. When fully
    implemented, the plan we have developed will ensure that USDA
    implements comprehensive security practices, while increasing our
    ability to materially enhance our security in an environment where the
    challenges will continue to grow exponentially.
                                  e-government
        Strengthening cyber-security is even more critical as the
    Department increasingly makes programs and services available online in
    response to public expectations, and legislative and Administration
    mandates. In addition, GPEA, the Freedom to E-file Act, the Office of
    Management and Budget--OMB--Performance Goals and Management
    Initiatives for the fiscal year 2002 Budget, and other mandates all
    stress the President's vision of a government that has a citizen-based
    focus, is results-oriented, and, where practicable, market-driven. OMB
    notes that expanding the application of online procurement and other e-
    Government services and information is one of five major reform
    initiatives highlighted by the President.
        E-Government represents a fundamental change in the way USDA
    agencies deliver programs and services, as well as how we process
    administrative functions. Most USDA agencies are continuing to expand
    the amount of information available to customers and employees online.
    During the past year the county-based agencies, working with OCIO,
    agreed upon and began implementing a common Web farm infrastructure to
    forge a more consistent approach to placing farm programs online. Other
    important applications, for instance are the export/import licenses
    managed by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and
    financial disclosure forms that some USDA employees are required to
    complete, are also now available online.
        Notwithstanding these and other successes, coordinating and
    directing this process across the Department presents significant
    challenges for USDA's programmatic leaders, as well as the information
    technology community. In most cases, the host of Web sites run by USDA
    agencies are supported by scores of servers, and other technology,
    which is decentralized and often redundant across agencies. Web enabled
    applications are often developed without adequate consideration of the
    impact on the Department's telecommunications network, and in an
    environment where we cannot effectively leverage each agency's
    initiatives across the Department. More efforts need to be made to
    share solutions and best practices across agencies.
        In addition to improving coordination across USDA, program and IT
    leaders are faced with other critical challenges. These include:
      --Managing the change to e-Government while maintaining existing
            program models;
      --Prioritizing e-Government initiatives;
      --Reengineering USDA's business processes to be customer-centered and
            optimized for the Internet;
      --Funding e-Government initiatives within existing budgets; and
      --Building a secure, reliable, technical infrastructure capable of
            delivering programs and information 24 hours a day, 7 days a
            week, 365 days a year.
        The Department has taken initial steps towards developing a
    coordinated management framework to guide USDA's transition to
    electronic government. The Chief Information Officer has been charged
    with coordinating Department-wide e-Government planning and
    implementation. A senior management position, the e-Business Executive,
    was established within the OCIO to lead the effort. Further, each
    mission area has appointed a Senior Executive Program Leader to serve
    on an Executive e-Government Council and work with the e-Business
    Executive to develop plans to implement GPEA, Freedom to E-file and
    other e-Government initiatives. USDA's initial GPEA plans were
    submitted to OMB on October 31, 2000. The Executive Council will
    develop and articulate USDA's corporate vision for e-Government and be
    responsible for the ongoing planning and implementation of e-Government
    initiatives. Key tasks for implementing e-Government at USDA include:
      --Developing a Department-wide strategy and standards, and
            determining baselines and performance metrics, as required by
            Presidential Memorandum, to move towards a digital Department;
      --Identifying innovative e-Government and e-Business applications
            within the private sector and other federal agencies, and
            sharing best practices with USDA agencies, focusing on
            mitigating risks;
      --Ensuring that USDA's e-Government initiatives meet customer needs
            through outreach and other customer assessment initiatives;
      --Analyzing e-Government applications within USDA agencies,
            determining where possible linkages exist, and, where
            practical, leveraging successes across the Department;
      --Improving coordination and developing standardized approaches to
            cross-cutting issues, including: use of the Internet, Intranet,
            and Extranet, data warehousing, data mining, electronic mail
            and other electronic directories, online forms, privacy, and
            training our IT staff to integrate Web-based applications into
            the Department's technical infrastructure; and
      --Working with state and local partners, and other agencies, to
            develop applications that utilize the Internet to actually
            conduct e-Business from a customer-centric perspective.
        These tasks will demand a tremendous amount of time and resources
    from USDA agencies. The Department is developing a corporate strategy
    for e-Government to ensure that we maximize the resources that are
    being devoted to this effort. In this effort, our emphasis is on
    leveraging solutions and capitalizing on lessons learned across USDA.
                         enterprise network initiative
        The diverse set of programs that USDA supports require substantial
    telecommunications resources. As noted earlier, the Service Center
    modernization efforts, and especially e-Government initiatives, are
    also rapidly creating additional requirements for the increased
    bandwidth services and telecommunications equipment necessary to
    operate effectively and securely in an online environment.
        The Department's telecommunications networks can be compared to the
    nation's highway system. Many local and State roads and highways feed
    into the Interstate system--an enterprise network of sorts that allows
    high volume traffic to flow across the country. The enterprise
    telecommunications backbone consists of a corporate network (interstate
    highway) with feeder networks (primary and secondary roads) managed at
    the agency level.
        Our vision is to develop a modern and efficient enterprise/
    corporate network. During the past year, the Department forged a
    significant agreement towards realizing this vision. For the first
    time, and after considerable effort by OCIO, several USDA agency Chief
    Information Officers (including those serving the county-based
    agencies, the food and nutrition programs, and the Forest Service) have
    agreed to and signed off on the fundamental vision for developing and
    operating a shared corporate telecommunications network consistent with
    the Department's integrated information technology architecture. As
    envisioned, the Universal Telecommunications Network (UTN) will
    provide:
      --a robust corporate telecommunications network that meets agency/
            Department business requirements;
      --a stable technical architecture which efficiently integrates
            telecommunications and security components and is flexible to
            changes in requirements;
      --cost-effective, secure, and reliable services twenty-four hours a
            day, seven days a week (24x7);
      --the full range of network management functions (i.e., network
            coordination and monitoring, and fault, performance,
            accounting, configuration, and security management); and,
      --Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to ensure that services are
            delivered consistent with mutually agreed-upon performance
            metrics.
        The collective endorsement of the UTN is a significant milestone
    towards our ongoing efforts to improve management of USDA's
    telecommunications networks. The UTN will allow USDA to take advantage
    of economies of scale and provide the potential to acquire best value
    telecommunications services by maximizing our collective buying power.
    This includes obtaining the lowest possible price to design and deploy
    new telecommunications technology across the Department.
                strengthening information technology management
        Also critical to our ability to improve management of USDA's
    information technology resources are our ongoing efforts to utilize
    capital planning and investment controls, establish our architecture,
    and implement other aspects of the Clinger-Cohen Act. These will
    continue to be high priority activities for us in fiscal year 2002.
        The Capital Planning Investment and Control or CPIC process is key
    to our capacity to strengthen the corporate management of the
    Department's IT resources. The goal of CPIC is to help agencies better
    plan for, acquire, and implement information systems to improve their
    operating performance. CPIC permits the Department to make more
    informed and intelligent investment decisions regarding IT capital
    acquisitions. Through USDA's Capital Planning Process, the Executive
    Information Technology Investment Review Board--EITIRB, which is
    chaired by the Deputy Secretary, reviews, monitors and approves the
    Department-wide information technology investments in support of USDA
    business objectives. The EITIRB's review ensures that the Department's
    major IT investments are fully aligned with its business processes and
    architecture, and that the corporate impacts of these investments have
    been fully considered.
        Major capital investments in the Department's fiscal year 2002 IT
    investment portfolio continue to include: the Service Center
    Modernization Initiative; the Forest Service 615 Project, which has
    replaced old Data General hardware and software throughout the agency;
    and the ongoing deployment of the Foundation Financial Information
    System, the core accounting software designed to consolidate over 100
    separate financial reporting systems and help USDA conform to the
    requirements of the Federal Financial Manager's Integrity Act.
        The CPIC procedure for major systems is supplemented by a
    moratorium on all ``significant'' IT acquisitions that has been in
    place since November 12, 1996. No significant IT acquisitions are to be
    made unless the CIO issues a waiver from the moratorium. Since the
    beginning of the moratorium, more than 700 acquisitions have been
    approved through this waiver process.
        USDA has also standardized the means by which project managers
    report information on investments. All USDA agencies are using the
    Information Technology Investment Portfolio System (I-TIPS), an
    enterprise-wide, automated system for inventorying, documenting,
    prioritizing, tracking and evaluating potential IT investments. USDA's
    entire IT portfolio--comprising approximately 600 investments--is
    currently in I-TIPS. With I-TIPS in place, USDA agencies now have a
    convenient tool for capturing baseline information and tracking current
    updates on projects' costs, schedules, risks and benefits.
                               usda architecture
        In September 2000, USDA issued Version 2 of its ``USDA Enterprise
    Architecture''--EA, which provides the vision, principles, standards,
    concepts, methods, and governance framework for an enterprise-centric
    approach for information and information technology architecture. EA
    Version 2:
      --Contains a high-level description of USDA's current enterprise
            architecture;
      --  Establishes a future architecture direction that supports USDA's
            vision of electronic government;
      --Lays out the concepts underlying the implementation of the EA;
      --Sets forth principles and technical standards guiding future
            investments; and
      --Documents the transition to a more enterprise-centric environment
            through an established governance system that will guide the EA
            implementation process.
                               workforce planning
        Last, but perhaps most important, is the issue of workforce
    planning. Effectively managing its IT resources requires USDA and other
    Federal departments to recruit and retain highly skilled information
    technology employees trained in Federal IT management. We also face the
    challenge of competing with the private sector to recruit and retain
    skilled IT professionals. Towards this end, we are working with USDA's
    human resources community to implement a professional development
    strategy that includes the recruitment and retention of IT
    professionals across the Department.
        In November 2000, OCIO released a comprehensive report, Analysis of
    USDA's IT Workforce, which was presented to the USDA community. The
    report analyzed the seven major IT job series represented in the USDA
    workforce from 1996 to 2000. It used computer modeling based on various
    assumptions about future hiring and retirement patterns to forecast
    workforce trends through 2005. The report concluded that USDA faces the
    following three major IT workforce challenges: 1) growing retirement
    eligibility, 2) high turnover rates at lower grade levels, and 3)
    rising average grade levels, leading to a reduced number of employees
    in the IT developmental pipeline.
        To develop strategies to address these issues, OCIO, together with
    the USDA Office of Human Resources Management, is overseeing the
    Department-wide IT-Human Resources--HR--Workforce Planning and
    Development Working Group. The working group is comprised of HR and IT
    specialists from various agencies. They are focusing on major hurdles
    identified by the agencies such as pay differentials between government
    and private industry, the need for stronger IT management by IT and
    non-IT managers throughout the Department, more IT training
    opportunities within the Department, the need for a more thorough exit
    interview process, institution of retention bonuses such as transport
    incentives, and the need for closer IT-HR collaboration in order to
    improve the recruitment and retention of IT personnel. The Group serves
    a critical role in the Department-wide development and implementation
    of IT skills assessments and training delivery.
        OCIO also continues to play an active role in addressing IT
    workforce issues at the Federal level. I serve as co-chair of the
    Federal CIO Council IT Workforce Committee. This has resulted in a very
    active and visible role for USDA in the government's IT workforce
    improvement agenda. USDA's staff is particularly involved in two of the
    Committee's major agenda items, government-wide implementation of the
    Clinger-Cohen core competencies and implementation of recommendations
    cited in the CIO Council's report, Meeting the Federal IT Workforce
    Challenge (June, 1999).
        USDA is also engaged in successful collaboration and partnership
    with the Office of Personnel Management--OPM, a necessary step for
    improving the Department's IT workforce. Two USDA agencies are
    participating in OPM's ongoing IT jobs pilot program, which uses a
    competency-based approach to human resources management. USDA has also
    supported the following OPM activities: revision of the classification
    and qualification standards for IT occupations, development of new IT
    parenthetical specialty titles, and contracting with the National
    Academy of Public Administration to conduct a Comparative Study of IT
    Pay Systems, which will make recommendations on how the federal
    government can better compete for IT talent. Additionally, USDA
    supported OPM in its approval of a government-wide special salary rate
    for certain IT employees that went into effect in January 2001.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, the Department of
    Agriculture faces critical challenges as it transitions into this new
    e-Government era of providing services to our customers online. To meet
    these challenges, we are strengthening our Cyber-Security program to
    better protect our growing information assets; we are designing a
    telecommunications network capable of supporting the increased online
    demands we all expect; and we are coordinating a Department-wide e-
    Government effort to ensure customers and staff can easily access and
    use these new Internet-based services.
        We are also focusing on the Service Center Modernization
    Initiative, which will bring USDA's county offices into the 21st
    century while reducing the burden on our customers. The Common
    Computing Environment is key to effectively modernizing the services we
    deliver to farmers, ranchers, and other customers of our county-based
    agencies. This effort continues to be among the Department's highest
    information technology priorities.
        Finally, by strengthening the overall management of USDA's IT
    resources through our maturing capital planning investment and control
    process and our IT workforce initiatives, we are well on our way to
    realizing the benefits envisioned in the Clinger-Cohen Act.
        We ask for your support for these initiatives, and look forward to
    working with you in the Congress to achieve these important objectives.
                                     ______

                          Departmental Administration

        Prepared Statement of Paul W. Fiddick, Assistant Secretary for
                                 Administration

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I want to thank you
    for the opportunity to submit this statement supporting the President's
    budget proposal for fiscal year 2002 for USDA Departmental
    Administration. As you are aware, Departmental Administration takes in
    a wide range of activities and responsibilities. Our mission is to
    provide leadership in administrative areas and to provide those
    services that make the farm and other programs of the Department work
    better. Today, I want to report to you on some of our activities over
    the last year and indicate some of the administrative challenges facing
    the Department.
                                  civil rights
        The Office of Civil Rights provides overall leadership and
    direction to USDA agencies to ensure enforcement and compliance with
    civil rights laws, rules and regulations in employment and program
    delivery; and to ensure that all USDA customers and employees are
    treated fairly with dignity and respect. Where necessary, the Office of
    Civil Rights (CR) mandates corrective action to make sure these
    standards are maintained.
        Major activities include policy development, education and
    technical assistance, analysis and evaluation of USDA programs and
    activities to ensure equal access and participation, and resolution of
    employment and program discrimination complaints.
        Civil Rights Impact Analyses have been conducted on 100 percent of
    new and revised significant USDA regulations to ensure that USDA
    program policies and procedures comply with applicable statutes and
    regulations.
        As of March 2001, a total of 85,061 USDA employees had completed
    civil rights training since January 1, 2000. The training was made
    available in both Spanish and English, and in alternative formats such
    as large print and Braille. Fifty-four percent of the trainees
    completed the training online, the first effort of this magnitude in
    the Federal Government. Beginning in summer 2000, diversity training
    has been provided for managers and supervisors in the Washington, D.C.
    area. Training will be completed in May 2001. In addition, training is
    being provided as a result of recommendations from several USDA
    employee listening sessions in the summer of 2000 to train all USDA
    managers and supervisors on employment-related areas including conflict
    management and effective communication with employees.
        With regard to complaints processing, of the 1,088 program
    complaints in the backlog as of January 1997, all but two cases have
    been resolved. During the period of October 1999 to January 31, 2001,
    the number of open program discrimination complaints was reduced from
    1,248 to 508, a 60 percent reduction. During that same period, the
    average processing time for program cases was reduced by 12 days.
        An analysis of employment complaint filing trends in the current
    USDA employment caseload shows that a substantial number of the
    complaints were filed by a few employees who file multiple complaints.
    Of the 1,870 employment cases being processed as of January 31, 2001,
    749 were filed by just 235 employees. These numbers show that two-
    tenths of one percent of USDA's workforce accounts for 40 percent of
    all employment complaints in the system. USDA is using several methods
    to resolve and reduce the number of discrimination complaints: early
    intervention, mediation, and various alternative dispute resolution
    methods.
                                    outreach
        During fiscal year 2001, Office of Outreach's priority is to
    identify a measure for minority participation in USDA programs and
    identify effective outreach measures. Using agency outreach plans and
    census data, barriers to participation of underserved groups and the
    means to overcome the barriers will be identified.
        The Outreach for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers grants (``2501''
    Program) provides training and technical assistance to underserved
    groups of farmers and ranchers. The President's Budget requests that
    the program be maintained at the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level of
    $3 million.
                  small and disadvantaged business utilization
        During fiscal year 2000, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged
    Business Utilization (OSDBU), cosponsored with USDA's Rural Business-
    Cooperative Service and the University of Nebraska, a symposium on
    ``Innovative Strategies for Small and Limited Resource Agricultural
    Producers.'' This symposium brought together a number of the nation's
    leading figures in small farm innovations and as a result of the
    symposium, several of the participants initiated projects in future
    agriculture and food systems.
        Also in fiscal year 2000, OSDBU led two projects addressing small
    business capabilities and barriers to dealing with e-Commerce and e-
    Government for Native American and Hispanic-owned businesses. Iowa
    State University is currently conducting a survey of Native American
    business in the twelve states in the North Central Plains; and
    Southwest Texas State University is surveying Hispanic businesses on a
    nationwide basis. The results of these studies will be used to help
    direct effective USDA-sponsored technical and other program assistance
    to these groups.
        During fiscal year 2001, OSDBU has also been working
    collaboratively with the Department's Rural Development agencies, the
    Agricultural Marketing Service, the Farm Service Agency, and the
    Department of Defense (DOD) to develop a USDA Mentor-Protege Program
    based on the DOD model. The proposed program would provide incentives
    for USDA prime contractors in food manufacturing to help small
    disadvantaged businesses and women-owned small businesses develop
    technical and business capabilities.
                       conflict prevention and resolution
        Since 1998, the Conflict Prevention and Resolution Center has led
    the Department's conflict prevention and resolution activities,
    focusing especially on the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
    This office has provided agencies with guidance and assistance that has
    led to the development of new ADR programs and expansion and
    improvement of others. In fiscal year 2000, an ADR policy was
    established that encouraged the use of ADR in workplace and program
    disputes. There was a 40 per cent increase in the use of ADR to resolve
    workplace disputes over fiscal year 1999. Also in fiscal year 2000, a
    video was created to help employees understand mediation, and the
    first-ever National Mediator Training Conference was held for employees
    who mediate workplace disputes. The Center developed a model conflict
    management-training package, and trained managers in Departmental
    Administration.
        In fiscal year 2001, Departmental Administration will issue new
    policy for using ADR to resolve disputes in the EEO complaint process,
    and will expand its ADR policy for other types of disputes. The Center
    and the Office of Civil Rights are working collaboratively to ensure
    that ADR is more widely used to resolve EEO complaints. Also, a Guide
    explaining the many options available to employees to resolve workplace
    conflict has been published and is being distributed to USDA employees
    nationwide. The Center will be actively promoting greater use of ADR
    and other collaborative processes to resolve program disputes, and will
    continue to promote conflict management and ADR training for employees
    and managers. Finally, the Center is developing a tracking system to
    monitor conflict prevention and resolution activity.
                         crisis planning and management
        In October 1998, the Department was directed to develop contingency
    plans to ensure the continuity of operations during a full range of
    potential emergencies, including the potential for terrorist use of
    weapons of mass destruction. Departmental Administration was assigned
    the lead responsibility for the development of the USDA Headquarters
    Continuity of Operations (COOP) Plan. It covers the essential functions
    of USDA agencies located in 18 buildings in the National Capital
    Region, and includes provisions for: lines of succession; emergency
    delegations of authority, where permissible and in accordance with law;
    the safekeeping of vital resources, facilities, and records; emergency
    acquisition of resources to reestablish essential functions; and the
    identification of emergency relocation sites.
        Three exercises were conducted in the late summer and early fall of
    1999 to test and fine-tune the COOP Plan. Throughout fiscal year 2000
    we continued these efforts by conducting a formal assessment with FEMA;
    adding a Family Assistance annex to assist USDA employees in better
    preparing for a COOP emergency; and updating COOP emergency relocation
    site planning. In fiscal year 2000, we also prepared for the Y2K
    Millennium rollover and assisted in the disaster response and recovery
    efforts resulting from Hurricane Floyd.
        In December 2000, the Office of Crisis Planning and Management
    (OCPM) was created. In addition to its other functions, OCPM
    coordinates activities among USDA agencies and other Federal entities
    in response to potential domestic outbreak of foreign animal diseases.
                    federal excess personal property program
        Section 923 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act
    (FAIR) of 1996, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to acquire and
    transfer excess Federal personal property to any of the 1994 Tribal
    Institutions, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and the 1890 colleges and
    universities, including Tuskegee University. In fiscal year 2000, the
    Office of Procurement and Property Management (OPPM) transferred $3.2
    million worth of personal property under the program, bringing the
    total to greater than $7.7 million since the program began in fiscal
    year 1999. This program provides much needed property and equipment to
    institutions that otherwise would not be able to acquire property due
    to limited funds and will improve the institutions' capability in the
    areas of research, educational, technical, and scientific activities.
        In May 2000, OPPM also published a Federal Excess Personal Property
    handbook that was distributed to eligible Institutions to provide a
    clear understanding of how the program works, what it takes to get
    started, and key points of contact. This handbook is also available on
    the Internet. We continue our efforts to inform the eligible
    institutions on this program.
                        biobased products and bioenergy
        The Department's support and promotion of biobased products and
    bioenergy in fiscal year 2000 resulted in an estimated 100,000 gallons
    of biodiesel fuel being used in USDA vehicles and equipment. The
    Agricultural Research Service Center in Beltsville, Maryland has taken
    the lead in biodiesel use. This winter, a biodiesel heating oil blend
    was used to heat twelve buildings at the site on a demonstration basis.
        Based on USDA's experience, other Federal agencies such as the
    Department of Energy and the Department of Interior's National Park
    Service, have begun purchasing biodiesel for their fleets as part of
    the overall federal petroleum reduction strategy.
                               procurement policy
        During fiscal year 2001, USDA will be implementing FedBizOpps to
    electronically advertise our contracting opportunities and furnish
    solicitation copies via the Internet and will work to increase the use
    of Performance Based Service Contracting (PBSC). In fiscal year 2000,
    use of PBSC contracts increased slightly, but much more needs to be
    done. We are setting a very ambitious target for fiscal year 2002 and
    developing a strategic plan to deal with the barriers to increasing
    PBCS contract use.
                           human resources management
        The Office of Human Resources Management (OHRM) is providing
    leadership and oversight for the workforce planning process by
    providing assistance to attract, develop, and retain the quality and
    representative workforce USDA agencies and staff offices need to
    accomplish their missions. Workforce planning is critical for the
    effective and efficient use of human resources to ensure optimal
    alignment with the budget and program planning processes.
        Downsizing has resulted in serious skills mix issues, an aging
    workforce, and training deficiencies in the Federal workforce. As a
    result, the General Accounting Office has recently put human capital
    management on the list of Federal programs and operations that it
    considers to be ``high risk.'' That designation, coupled with the very
    real challenges that USDA and other agencies face in rebuilding
    talented workforces after several years of downsizing, should result in
    much greater emphasis on workforce planning, recruitment and retention
    strategies, and succession planning.
        As USDA agency workforces decline and the demand for workplace
    personnel flexibility increases, it will be imperative that we be able
    to track and manage human resources management information. The current
    personnel systems cannot meet the future needs of workforce management.
    To bring this capability up to the level needed to support critical
    program missions, we are working to replace the outdated administrative
    systems with systems based on newer technology.
        OPM has changed its regulations governing performance appraisal in
    the Senior Executive Service. These changes include the incorporation
    of balanced measures in evaluating executive performance. USDA is
    required to evaluate executive performance starting in October 2001
    using measures that balance organizational results with customer
    satisfaction, employee perspectives and other measures that are
    appropriate. OHRM has established a departmentwide task group that will
    develop a plan to implement the requirements and draft a new SES
    performance plan that incorporates balanced measures.
                           government ethics program
        The Office of Ethics will enter its third year commencing in fiscal
    year 2002. It has quickly established itself to service directly all
    non-career appointees and all senior executive throughout the
    Department and to provide ethics policy and training for all USDA
    staff. In order the reach all USDA staff, stationed all over the world,
    the office employed an Internet Web Site as its principal tool for
    training and financial disclosure reporting. The success of this
    approach has attracted many other Federal Departments and Agencies also
    to employ the USDA ethics web site as their vehicle for training and
    reporting. This informal and gratis cross servicing has saved many
    thousands of dollars in what would be duplicative development work
    within the Executive Branch.
                      agriculture buildings and facilities
        The Fiscal Year 2002 Budget requests $188 million for Agriculture
    Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments. This amount includes an
    increase of $5 million for rental payments to the General Services
    Administration and continues to fund renovation of the South Building.
    The building is 10 years older than the Pentagon and is in dire need of
    repair and renovation to make it safe, efficient, and functional. The
    required renovation work includes fire protection systems, abatement of
    hazardous materials, and replacement of over-aged and inefficient
    utility systems. Phase 1 of the renovation is complete and Wing 3 has
    been reoccupied. We are expecting to begin Phase 2 construction later
    this year and complete the detailed design of Phase 3 so that
    construction contracts will be ready for procurement in fiscal year
    2002.
                         hazardous materials management
        The Hazardous Materials Management Program is needed to meet USDA
    compliance responsibilities under the Comprehensive Environmental
    Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act, and related state and local laws and regulations and to
    meet the USDA goal of completion of all cleanup actions by the year
    2045. Activities supported by this program contribute directly to
    USDA's strategic goal of maintaining and enhancing the Nation's natural
    resources and environment.
        We must cleanup and restore lands and facilities currently and
    formerly under USDA jurisdiction, custody, and control and ensure
    responsible management in the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous
    materials and waste. USDA cleaned up 29 sites in fiscal year 2000,
    plans to cleanup 61 sites in fiscal year 2001, and since 1987, has
    cleaned up over 2,200 sites resulting from USDA activities or
    activities attributed to non-USDA parties. However, the cleanup of
    environmentally damaged sites is becoming more challenging as the
    smaller, less complex sites have already been dealt with.
                              direct appropriation
        For the direct Departmental Administration appropriation, the
    Budget requests $37 million. This amount is $1 million above the fiscal
    year 2001 appropriation level providing for the mandatory pay cost
    increases. The increase is needed in this relatively small organization
    to avoid the erosion of critical operational and support capabilities.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
    statement on the Departmental Administration budget for fiscal year
    2002. I want to reiterate our appreciation for the strong support which
    this Subcommittee has given us.
                                     ______

                             Rural Housing Service

           Prepared Statement of James C. Alsop, Acting Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for this
    opportunity to testify on the Rural Housing Service's fiscal year 2002
    Budget Proposal.
        The Department of Agriculture's Rural Housing Service (RHS) assists
    rural America in a variety of ways. Our loan and grant programs promote
    healthy rural communities by helping to provide decent and affordable
    housing as well as essential community services, such as fire
    protection, health care centers, and childcare centers. Through
    partnerships with the private, public, and nonprofit sectors, RHS
    provides financial and technical assistance to low-income families and
    rural communities. RHS helps those who do not have effective access to
    credit because of the isolated nature or small scale of rural markets.
    We also provide credit to low-income families and communities that
    otherwise could not afford mortgage or other debt service payments.
        With the $5.8 billion program funding for fiscal year 2002, RHS
    will provide assistance to more than 67,000 households for single-
    family housing homeownership or repairs, construct more than 5,200 new
    rental-housing units, and provide rental assistance to more than 42,000
    very low-income rural renters. Additionally, the fiscal year 2002
    budget will provide support for more than 170 new or improved health
    care facilities, more than 150 new or improved fire and rescue
    facilities, and more than 80 new or improved childcare facilities. It
    also will create or preserve more than 40,000 jobs in rural America and
    serve more than 13 million rural Americans.
        In this era of unprecedented economic prosperity, RHS programs
    ensure that some of rural America's most vulnerable members, including
    low-income elderly, children, farm workers, and Native Americans, share
    in our Nation's good fortune. Let me show you some examples of how we
    have assisted rural America.
                rhs homeownership programs reach the underserved
        In fiscal year 2000, RHS celebrated the 50th anniversary of the
    Section 502 direct loan homeownership program. During the past 50
    years, the program has made tremendous strides in improving the overall
    quality and affordability of the Nation's rural housing stock. Our
    customers are happy with their homes. According to a recent Economic
    Research Service (ERS) report titled Meeting the Housing Needs of Rural
    Residents, 90 percent of recent Section 502 direct loan borrowers think
    that their current home is better than their last one. These same
    satisfied customers are people whom the private market has difficulty
    serving. Ninety percent say that without assistance from us it would
    have taken them more than two years to purchase a comparable home, and
    44 percent believe they could never have purchased a home without the
    Section 502 direct loan program. Twenty-nine percent of RHS borrowers
    are members of minority groups as compared to 15 percent of all recent
    low-income homeowners, and 32 percent of our customers are female
    single parents, as compared to 12 percent of all recent low-income
    homeowners. In addition, 15 percent of Section 502 households have at
    least one member with a disability. Almost three-quarters of the
    borrowers surveyed were first-time homeowners. The typical Section 502
    financed house is a six-year old, detached single-family dwelling with
    three bedrooms and one bathroom. The median purchase price was about
    $64,900.
        In Cantril, Iowa, a single mother with four children was sent to
    RHS by the local bank to see about getting a repair loan for her
    dilapidated home, which had bad wiring and an unsafe furnace. An
    inspection of the home showed it to be uneconomical to repair. However,
    the local Rural Development office found the applicant qualified for a
    Section 502 direct loan to buy or build a house. Because the old house
    is located on a double lot, there is space to build the new house
    alongside the old one. The family will move into the new home and the
    old one will be demolished. Not only will the family have greatly
    improved housing conditions, but the community will benefit by the
    replacement of a deteriorated house with a modern, attractive home.
        In fiscal year 2002, the Budget proposes to direct just over $1
    billion through the Section 502 direct loan program to low- and very-
    low income residents who have no other hope of achieving homeownership.
    These funds will enable more than 15,500 low-income rural Americans to
    become homeowners. An additional $3.1 billion in the Guaranteed Section
    502 program will help about 40,000 low- and moderate-income rural
    households become homeowners. In fact, 30 percent of the loans made in
    the Guaranteed Loan program were made to low-income rural residents.
    That helped stretch the Agency's 502 Direct loan funds and reinforced
    the critical role Rural Development plays in housing rural residents.
    Based on the estimates used by the National Association of Home
    Builders, the fiscal year 2002 budget will help create about 36,000
    jobs through the construction of new homes.
        The proposed fiscal year 2002 Self-Help Housing Technical
    Assistance Grants program has a funding level of nearly $34 million. By
    allowing families to earn ``sweat equity'' by helping to build their
    own homes, the Self-Help program makes housing affordable for many
    hard-working, very low-income families who otherwise would never be
    able to own their own homes. About half of the program's participants
    are members of minority groups, and a significant portion is
    farmworkers. The program requirements are tough: participants must
    contribute 65 percent of the labor towards construction of their homes.
    Because owning a home is so important to them, these families are
    willing to work at their regular jobs and then put in as much as 35
    hours a week building their houses. We anticipate that the fiscal year
    2002 budget will allow RHS to gain approximately 20 new technical
    assistance grants in those areas that currently do not have Self-Help
    programs. This, in turn, will enable more than 1,500 families to build
    their own homes.
        The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota, the second
    largest reservation in the Nation, desperately needs inexpensive
    housing. RHS has funded a number of different housing developments on
    the reservation. One of these is a unique self-help housing program.
    Self-help housing is natural for Native Americans who are accustomed to
    helping family and neighbors build their homes. The Oglala Sioux Tribe
    Partnership for Housing worked with RHS to tailor the program to the
    needs of Native Americans. Floor plans are designed with input from the
    program participants. Homebuyer education is offered to participants to
    assist them in buying and maintaining their homes. Instead of being
    located in one development, the homes are built by the self-help
    participants in a construction yard and then moved to individual sites
    on land already owned by the various families throughout the
    reservation. This allows the participants to live near their extended
    families. In addition to funding the self-help program, RHS provides
    mortgage assistance to many of the homebuilders.
       rhs partners with private and nonprofit organizations to increase
                          homeownership opportunities
        Homeownership can have a tremendous impact on families' lives and
    on the strength of rural communities. However, RHS cannot address this
    issue alone. We must work with partners. Leveraging has become an
    integral part of how we do business. RHS is collaborating with a number
    of private and public partners to meet the housing needs of low-income
    families and individuals.
        RHS originally established the Rural Home Loan Partnership (RHLP)
    as a pilot project initiated with the Federal Home Loan Bank System
    (FHLB) and the Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation. Now, RHS
    has expanded the RHLP to include other partners. In the RHLP, a local
    nonprofit or community development corporation partners with a local
    lender and RHS provide homeownership education and single-family
    mortgages to very-low- and low-income rural residents. In fiscal year
    2000, the RHLP produced 1,334 new homeowners using $76 million in RHS
    loans and grants and $27.6 million from other lenders. For every dollar
    RHS invests in affordable housing, an RHLP partner contributes another
    36 cents. The first year's success began with 10 local partnerships;
    the pilot has expanded each year to its current level of 263 partners.
        In Batavia, New York, the RHLP Program helped a family of three
    teenagers and their mother buy a home. RHS partnered with Rural
    Opportunities, Inc., (ROI) and the Bank of Castile to create the loan
    package for this family. The borrower attended the homebuyer education
    class presented by ROI, which helped her understand the loan
    application process as well as budgeting and figuring what loan
    payments she could afford. The end result was an affordable home for
    the family. In fiscal year 2000, RHS partnered with ROI on 22 RHLP
    loans.
         rhs rental programs serve the most vulnerable rural americans
        Although RHS housing programs have been successful, many rural
    residents still live in substandard housing. According to the Housing
    Assistance Council's recent report titled The State of Rural Rental
    Housing, more than 900,000 rural rental households, 10.4 percent, live
    in either severely or moderately inadequate housing. More than one
    million rural renter households are ``worst case needs'' households,
    which the Department of Housing and Urban Development defines as having
    an income below 50 percent of the area median household income, being
    extremely cost-burdened or inadequately housed, and receiving no
    Federal housing assistance. Of those rural renters with worst case
    needs, 92 percent pay more than one-half of their income, about $6,000,
    for housing.
        Together, the RHS Section 515 Rural Rental Housing program and the
    Section 521 Rental Assistance (RA) program provide decent, safe, and
    affordable housing to those families who need it most. The Section 515
    program provides loans at an interest rate of 1 percent to build
    affordable housing, while the Rental Assistance program ensures that
    tenants pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent.
        The average annual income of our Section 515 tenants is just under
    $7,700. Forty-two percent of our 432,000 tenant householders are
    elderly, 14 percent have a handicap or disability, 25 percent are
    members of minority groups, and 72 percent are women. The fiscal year
    2002 budget of $114.3 million for the Section 515 housing will help
    build more than 1,700 much-needed new Section 515 units, repair or
    rehabilitate another 4,000 units, and keep another 1,000 units in the
    program.
        The $688 million fiscal year 2002 funding for the Section 521
    program is essential to ensuring the integrity and financial stability
    of our Section 515 and Section 514/516 loan and grant programs. Well
    over 93 percent of our RA budget will be used to ensure that more than
    42,000 RA contracts are renewed and that the people living in these
    units can remain in affordable housing. The remainder of the RA funding
    will be used for newly constructed units and to keep rent affordable
    when repair and rehabilitation are needed for existing units.
        In Warrenton, Missouri, low-income senior citizens who are no
    longer able to maintain their own homes have the option of living at
    Meadow Wood Apartments. This apartment complex for seniors and
    handicapped individuals was financed through an RHS Section 515 loan.
    RHS also provides qualifying tenants with rental assistance, so that
    they pay no more than 30 percent of their income for rent. There are 16
    one-bedroom apartments in four brick buildings at Meadow Wood. They are
    all on a single floor, so residents have no stairs to climb. A communal
    laundry facility is at the center of the complex. A month after the
    complex opened, all but three apartments were occupied.
        RHS has been working diligently to improve the integrity of its
    Rural Rental Housing program. RHS is working with the Office of
    Inspector General (OIG) to identify and correct any fraud or abuse. We
    have also implemented a new internal tracking system to better monitor
    and manage our $11.9 billion rental portfolio. We are also working to
    improve coordination with other agencies and departments that are
    involved in the fraud, waste, and abuse detection and enforcement
    process.
       rhs provides essential facilities to distressed rural communities
        Along with decent and affordable housing, many communities also
    lack essential community facilities such as childcare centers, fire
    stations, and health care centers. This shortage not only impacts the
    quality of life for community residents but also makes it more
    difficult for communities to attract and retain businesses.
    Fortunately, our Community Facilities (CF) direct and guaranteed loan
    and grant programs provide funding for these essential facilities.
        In Mississippi's Delta region, the Aaron E. Henry Community Health
    Services is providing an unusual service to residents of Coahoma,
    Panola, Quitman, and Tallahatchie counties. With funding provided by
    RHS Community Facilities, the center purchased 15-passenger vans and
    bus shelters to provide low-income residents with transportation to
    appointments at health centers or to get prescriptions filled at local
    shopping centers. RHS also provided the funding for the new Aaron E.
    Henry Community Health Services Center in Clarksdale.
        The $478 million for Community Facilities programs for fiscal year
    2002 will allow us to continue our commitment to childcare, which is
    especially important in rural areas. A staggering 24 percent of rural
    America's children live in poverty. Research by USDA's Economic
    Research Service suggests that young rural children are more likely to
    live in poverty than older children because rural areas lack the
    childcare facilities that enable parents to go to work. Without
    adequate childcare facilities, many rural parents face a tough choice:
    go to work to increase their family's income but worry about whether
    their children are safe and well cared for, or live in poverty in order
    to stay home to take good care of their kids. The high-quality
    childcare centers financed by the Community Facilities program allow
    parents to go to work with peace of mind. Not only that, they help
    address the larger problem of rural child poverty.
        In Dallas, Pennsylvania, RHS helped fund the Little Meadows
    Learning Center, owned by Ecumenical Enterprises, Inc. The center was
    created to complement a geriatric campus, consisting of a nursing
    center, an assisted living center, and two apartment complexes, already
    operated by Ecumenical Enterprises. The childcare center provides work
    site childcare for employees of the geriatric campus as well as quality
    childcare for the local community. Daycare is provided for children
    from infants through pre-school. An after-school program is available
    for older children. The Little Meadows Learning Center offers childhood
    educational programs and intergenerational programs with residents of
    the geriatric campus. The need for childcare in the community was
    clearly demonstrated when the center, with 115 spaces for children,
    reached 90 percent occupancy within a few months of opening.
        Fiscal Year 2002 Community Facilities budget includes nearly $6
    million to continue the Rural Community Development Initiative that
    Congress funded for the first time in fiscal year 2000. This initiative
    will help build the capacity of rural organizations to undertake
    essential housing and economic development projects in their
    communities. There is a great need in rural America for technical
    assistance to foster leadership development, organizational capacity,
    program initiatives, and the adoption of new technology. This is
    especially true in remote and isolated rural areas.
        I have discussed the funding for the major RHS programs. Now, let
    me take a moment to show you how the budget will help some of our most
    vulnerable rural citizens: the elderly, farm workers, and Native
    Americans.
    rhs provides rural america's elderly with safe, affordable housing and
                         essential community facilities
        Elderly rural Americans face critical housing and long-term care
    challenges. Although only 28 percent of all elderly households reside
    in rural areas, 39 percent of elderly households living in moderately
    or severely inadequate housing reside in rural areas. Many live in
    housing that they cannot reasonably afford. Over 50 percent of the
    elderly renters living in rural areas spend at least 30 percent of
    their income on housing.
        RHS programs ensure that these financially overburdened rural
    elderly can live in good and affordable housing. Currently, our Section
    515 rural rental-housing program is providing maintenance-free,
    accessible homes to more than 200,000 elderly households who can no
    longer handle the burdens of homeownership. For elderly rural people
    who want to remain in the homes they own, we provide the Section 504
    loan and grant programs. These programs make substandard homes safe and
    decent by financing such things as indoor plumbing, electric heating
    and cooling systems, safe wiring, roof and floor repair, and the
    installation of features to accommodate disabilities. In fiscal year
    2000, $58.9 million in loan and grant money was used to repair more
    than 11,000 homes under the Section 504 program. The fiscal year 2002
    budget includes nearly $30 million for the Section 504 grant program,
    which serves very low-income seniors, and $32 million for the Section
    504 loan program in which about half of the beneficiaries are elderly.
    With this money, RHS can help make about 12,000 substandard homes safe
    and decent.
        In McHenry, Kentucky, a rural coal mining area, RHS helped a 91-
    year-old widow make her home liveable. With only Social Security and
    Black Lung benefits, she could not afford the necessary repairs to her
    home. The leaking roof had severely damaged the ceilings, walls and
    eaves of the house. In her bedroom, the ceiling and walls had separated
    far enough that daylight showed through. In the winter, the bedroom was
    unusable because of the cold drafts and had to be sealed off from the
    rest of the house. There were no storm windows on the house. The RHS
    Section 504 loan and grant programs provided funds to repair the house,
    making it warm and secure during cold, rainy weather.
        The RHS Community Facilities program finances a range of service
    centers for elderly people, including nursing homes, boarding care
    facilities, assisted care, adult day care, and intergenerational care
    centers that serve both elderly people and children at the same time.
    Since its inception in 1974, the Community Facilities program has
    invested $688 million in centers that directly benefit seniors and
    millions more in health care services that serve both seniors and the
    general population.
                   rhs programs serve america's farm workers
        Although the housing needs of the elderly are a severe problem,
    their situation is not the worst in rural America. Farm workers and
    Native Americans are the two most poorly housed groups in America. Farm
    workers enable America to maintain its agriculture production levels
    and compete in world markets, yet they are the lowest-paid group of
    workers in the nation. While their labor ensures food security through
    the successful production and distribution of our nation's agricultural
    crops, farm workers live in substandard housing, sometimes without
    basic sanitary facilities, safe heating and cooking equipment, and a
    supply of clean water.
        RHS provides housing to farm workers primarily through two
    programs: the Mutual Self-Help program, which I have already described,
    and the Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing program, which is the only
    national source of farm labor housing construction funds. Participants
    in either of these programs must be permanent residents or U.S.
    citizens. Tenants in our farm labor housing must earn a substantial
    portion of their income through farm work. Eighty-nine percent of
    tenants in RHS-financed farm labor housing are minorities, primarily
    Latino and African-American.
        Fiscal Year 2000, RHS used $49.5 million to build 818 farm labor-
    housing units. The fiscal year 2002 budget of $43.4 million for the
    Farm Labor Housing program will enable us to finance construction of
    approximately 700 new units as well as address our anticipated need to
    rehabilitate and repair about 500 existing units. It will also allow us
    to provide childcare facilities as a part of some complexes. This
    funding will be highly leveraged because RHS partners with other public
    and private funding organizations in the vast majority of the projects
    it finances.
        Housing costs in California are high and there is a severe shortage
    of affordable housing. Thousands of low-income year-round farm workers
    live in substandard mobile home parks, campers and crude shelters. In
    Riverside County, lucky farm workers live in Desert Garden Apartments
    in Indio. This complex, built by the Coachella Valley Housing
    Coalition, and funded primarily through the RHS Farm Labor Housing
    Program, offers many special features, including energy-efficient
    housing, a childcare center, an after-school program with computers, a
    community garden, and a resident community council.
        A grant from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
    provides funding to counsel residents on homeownership, financial
    planning, and credit management. Other classes for adults include
    creative writing (through interactive software), English as a Second
    Language, and employment and leadership training programs.
        In addition to providing farm workers with housing, RHS also
    provides them with essential community facilities, such as childcare
    and health care centers. The CF program has also been successful in
    meeting the needs of migrant farm workers, who are difficult to serve
    because of the transient nature of their work. In conjunction with the
    Department of Health and Human Services, we have funded a number of
    migrant health care clinics and migrant Head Start centers.
                  native americans benefit from rhs assistance
        In rural areas, Native Americans suffer from some of the worst
    poverty levels, housing, and access to basic community and health
    services in the country. RHS continues its extensive outreach to Native
    Americans by working to overcome barriers to lending on trust land and
    by providing grant funds whenever possible.
        The Section 504 housing repair loan and grant programs are often
    the first RHS programs to be used on a reservation. Section 504 loans
    are especially easy to use because if the loan is less than $2,500, no
    real estate security is needed. Thus, the problem of lending on trust
    land is avoided.
        Last year, Rural Development in Wisconsin approved their first
    Guaranteed Rural Housing loan to Native Americans on tribal trust land.
    This loan, under the Rural Housing Native American Pilot initiative,
    enabled the parents and two teenage children to have a three-bedroom
    manufactured home built in Keshena, on the Menominee Indian
    Reservation. The tribe helped the family by paying for the well, septic
    system and water system hookups. A successful collaboration between the
    Rural Housing Service, the Indian tribe, the local bank, and Bureau of
    Indian Affairs, and the manufactured home dealer/contractor made it
    possible for this family to have a new home.
        RHS has worked hard to increase its investments in Indian Country.
    We have financed numerous Section 515 multi-family housing complexes
    across the nation. We typically provide about 10 percent of our Housing
    Preservation Grant funds to organizations that serve Native Americans.
    Through small Section 525 Technical Assistance Grants to non-profit
    organizations, we fund credit counseling and homebuyer education to
    Native Americans to help them qualify for RHS single family housing
    loans and become successful homeowners.
        Assistance for Native Americans has been a Community Facilities
    priority for a number of years. Native American communities, especially
    those on reservations, have many needs beyond housing--needs such as
    medical centers, libraries, community centers, childcare centers, Head
    Start facilities, and fire stations and trucks. In addition to these
    needs, the CF program funds a variety of buildings for tribal colleges,
    including housing for teachers in isolated areas.
        In Montana, RHS works with tribes on the reservations in various
    ways. On the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, housing is in short
    supply. RHS is funding two multi-family housing projects for the
    reservation. The homes are doublewide mobile homes, which can
    accommodate large families. Because of their low incomes, occupants
    will receive rental assistance from RHS. In Browning Montana, on the
    Blackfeet Reservation, the Community Facilities program funded a new
    multi-use student center, which includes a bookstore, classrooms,
    offices and library for Blackfeet Community College. CF funds are also
    being used to equip an early-childhood center on the reservation, which
    offers prenatal care and daycare for up to 150 children.
     rhs moves employees from welfare to work at the centralized servicing
                                     center
        RHS's commitment to helping people become self-sufficient extends
    to its employees. Since 1997, the USDA Centralized Servicing Center
    (CSC) in St. Louis, Missouri, has worked with the St. Louis
    Transitional Hope House and the American Red Cross to employ former
    welfare recipients. The CSC has selected a total of 24 employees
    referred through the partnership with Hope House. Starting as worker
    trainees, 14 of these employees have since moved into permanent loan
    processor positions. In May 2000, the CSC received a USDA Secretary's
    Honor Award for training and ongoing support of its Welfare-to-Work
    employees.
        Welfare-to-Work employees are initially hired to work as Customer
    Service Representatives. This helps the trainees because (1) they
    receive in-depth training on all areas of the CSC; (2) they can take
    advantage of flexible scheduling; and (3) there is a special
    supervisory team to give them individual support and training. Once
    they make the transition to a working environment, they may apply for
    other positions. Long-term employees assist the new employees in
    meeting the obligations of the jobs.
        Success gives our employees the courage to continue their growth.
    One employee, who started in the Welfare-to-Work program, now is
    enrolled in college pursuing a degree in accounting. She manages to
    maintain her family, work, and school obligations and continues to work
    toward improving her future.
        I hope I have illustrated for you the many ways that RHS programs
    improve life in rural areas. We have great opportunities to assist
    rural people and their communities in becoming self-sufficient. I have
    mentioned only a few examples of how RHS makes a difference in the
    lives of so many rural Americans.
        Through our partnerships and leveraging efforts, we can expand the
    reach of our resources even further. The funds in the fiscal year 2002
    budget will enable us to continue reaching underserved people in rural
    areas where our help is needed the most.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, with your continued
    support, RHS looks forward to improving the quality of life in rural
    America by helping to build competitive, active rural communities
    through our Community Facilities and housing programs.
                                     ______

                              Farm Service Agency

          Prepared Statement of James R. Little, Acting Administrator

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to present the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Farm Service
    Agency (FSA). Our proposals are based on existing legislative
    authorities and assume the expiration of current ad hoc disaster and
    emergency provisions. I would like to highlight the proposals for FSA's
    various activities: the commodity and conservation programs funded by
    the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC); the farm loan programs of the
    Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund; and our other appropriated
    programs. I will also summarize our request for administrative support.
                          commodity credit corporation
        Domestic farm commodity price and income support programs are
    administered by the Farm Service Agency and financed through the CCC, a
    government corporation for which FSA provides operating personnel.
    Commodity support operations, handled primarily through loans, payment
    programs, and some limited purchase programs, currently include those
    for corn, barley, oats, grain sorghum, wheat and wheat products,
    soybeans, minor oilseed crops, cotton (upland and extra long staple),
    rice, tobacco, milk and milk products, peanuts, and sugar.
        The CCC is also the source of funding for the Conservation Reserve
    Program (CRP) administered by FSA, as well as many of the conservation
    programs administered by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. In
    addition, CCC funds many of the export programs administered by the
    Foreign Agricultural Service. When called upon, CCC also finances
    various disaster assistance programs authorized by Congress. The
    Corporation is authorized to borrow funds from the Treasury to finance
    CCC programs on an on-going basis, and repays these borrowings, with
    interest, from program receipts and from appropriations provided by
    Congress for reimbursement of net realized losses.
    Program Outlays
        The current 2002 budget estimates largely reflect supply and demand
    assumptions for the 2001 crop, based on October 2000 data. CCC net
    expenditures for fiscal year 2002 are estimated at $13.1 billion, down
    nearly $7.5 billion from a level of $20.5 billion in fiscal year 2001,
    and $19.2 billion below the record high of $32.3 billion in fiscal year
    2000.
        The net decrease in projected fiscal year 2002 CCC expenditures
    primarily reflects the expiration of $4.5 billion in 2001 emergency and
    market loss assistance authorized by the Agricultural Risk Protection
    Act and the 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act. Other components
    include decreases of about $1.4 billion in loan deficiency payments,
    nearly $300 million in Section 416 ocean transportation, and about $120
    million in production flexibility contract payments. Also, no CCC
    expenditures will take place in fiscal year 2002 for computer equipment
    or related services due to the limits placed on such expenditures in
    the 1996 Farm Bill and subsequent legislation.
        The CCC budget includes two General Provision proposals for this
    appropriations bill: to cap the fiscal year 2002 Environmental Quality
    Incentives Program at $174 million and to prohibit implementation of
    the Conservation Farm Option Program in fiscal year 2002. These actions
    would reduce fiscal year 2002 CCC expenditures by $5.5 million and $2.1
    million, respectively.
    Reimbursement for Realized Losses
        The fiscal year 2001 appropriations act authorizes CCC to replenish
    its borrowing authority as needed from Treasury, up to the amount of
    realized losses recorded in CCC's financial statements at the end of
    the preceding fiscal year. Under this authority, we are projecting that
    in fiscal year 2001 CCC will draw approximately $24.0 billion for
    fiscal year 2000 losses. In addition, nearly $1.3 billion in fiscal
    year 2001 net realized losses has already been reimbursed to CCC during
    the first quarter of this fiscal year as authorized by the Agricultural
    Risk Protection Act of 2000 to cover emergency provisions of that act.
    Without this reimbursement, CCC's ability to continue to assist farmers
    would have been jeopardized.
        The fiscal year 2002 budget proposes to revise the provision of the
    current appropriations that confines reimbursement for realized losses
    to those recorded at the end of the preceding year. Our request would
    provide a current, indefinite appropriation to reimburse the
    Corporation for all actual net realized losses, including those
    recorded in the current fiscal year. This would provide CCC added
    flexibility to avert a possible funding shortfall during periods of
    imminent borrowing authority depletion, without emergency action on the
    part of Congress.
    Conservation Reserve Program
        The CRP, administered by FSA, is USDA's largest conservation/
    environmental program. It is designed to cost-effectively assist farm
    owners and operators in conserving and improving soil, water, air, and
    wildlife resources by converting highly erodible and other
    environmentally sensitive acreage from the production of agricultural
    commodities to a long-term resource-conserving cover. CRP participants
    enter into contracts for periods of 10 to 15 years in exchange for
    annual rental payments, along with cost-share and technical assistance
    for installing approved conservation practices. The authorizing
    legislation currently allows enrollment of up to 36.4 million acres.
        In fiscal year 2000, a general CRP signup (signup 20) was held from
    January 18, 2000, through February 11, 2000. Of the 3.5 million acres
    offered, 2.3 million were approved for enrollment, with contracts
    beginning in fiscal year 2001 and rental payments beginning in fiscal
    year 2002. The fiscal year 2002 budget assumes that no general signup
    will be held in fiscal year 2001; however, a 1-year extension
    opportunity was announced in January 2001 for contracts that are
    scheduled to expire in September 2001 with an original duration of less
    than 15 years. Additional acres will also be accepted into the CRP
    during fiscal year 2001 through continuous signup, the Conservation
    Reserve Enhancement Program, and the Farmable Wetlands Pilot Program.
        In fiscal year 2001, CCC will pay approximately $1.54 billion for
    rental costs and about $127 million for sharing the cost of
    establishing permanent cover on the enrolled acreage. The bulk of the
    rental payments, covering acres enrolled in regular signups, were
    issued early in the fiscal year. For fiscal year 2002, the budget
    projects a general signup of 1.36 million acres and CCC program costs
    of approximately $1.79 billion, consisting of $1.68 billion for rental
    payments on previously enrolled and extended acres, and $111 million
    for cost-share assistance.
                               farm loan programs
        The loan programs funded through the Agricultural Credit Insurance
    Fund provide a variety of loans and loan guarantees to farm families
    who would otherwise be unable to obtain credit. Access to adequate farm
    credit is often the only way for some farmers to continue their
    operations.
        As a result of the weakness in much of today's farm economy, the
    demand for FSA loans and loan guarantees remains high in fiscal year
    2001. Activity is expected to be particularly heavy in direct farm
    ownership loans and guaranteed farm operating loans with interest
    assistance. The fiscal year 2002 budget, anticipating a continued high
    demand, proposes a total program level of about $3.86 billion in loans
    and guarantees, an increase of $764 million over fiscal year 2001. The
    largest segment of FSA lending is carried out in cooperation with
    private lenders through the guarantee programs. This budget continues
    strong support for guaranteed loans, with a proposed program level of
    $3 billion.
        For direct farm ownership loans we are requesting a loan level of
    $128 million, an increase of $278 thousand over the fiscal year 2001
    appropriated level. The proposed program level would enable FSA to
    extend credit to about 1,100 small and beginning farmers to purchase or
    maintain a family farm. As required by law, the agency has established
    annual county-by-county participation targets for members of socially
    disadvantaged groups, based on demographic data. Also, 70 percent of
    direct farm ownership loans are reserved for beginning farmers and
    about 35 percent are made at a reduced interest rate to limited
    resource borrowers, who may also be beginning farmers. For direct farm
    operating loans we are requesting a program level of $600 million, $76
    million above the fiscal year 2001 level, to provide nearly 12,250
    loans to family farmers.
        For guaranteed farm ownership loans in fiscal year 2002, we are
    requesting a loan level of $1 billion, an increase of $132 million over
    2001. This program level will give approximately 4,000 farmers the
    opportunity to either acquire their own farm or to save an existing
    one. One critical use of guaranteed farm ownership loans is to allow
    real estate equity to be used to restructure short-term debt into more
    favorable long-term rates. For guaranteed farm operating loans we
    propose an fiscal year 2002 program level of $2 billion, compared to
    $1.4 billion in 2001. This level will enable over 12,500 producers to
    finance their farming operations in the face of continued poor economic
    conditions. This program enables commercial lenders to continue to
    extend credit to farm customers who, under current adverse
    circumstances, have become an increased credit risk. Without this
    backing, those farmers would be forced to seek direct loans from FSA.
        The Budget also proposes $25 million in emergency disaster loans in
    fiscal year 2002, sufficient to provide close to 400 low-interest loans
    to producers whose farming operations have been damaged by natural
    disasters. In addition, our budget proposes $2 million for Indian tribe
    land acquisition loans and $100 million for boll weevil eradication
    loans.
                          other appropriated programs
        State Mediation Grants State Mediation Grants assist States in
    developing programs to deal with disputes involving a variety of
    agricultural issues--distressed farm loans, wetland determinations,
    conservation compliance, pesticides, and others. Operated primarily by
    State universities or departments of agriculture, the program provides
    neutral mediators to assist producers, primarily small farmers, in
    resolving disputes before they culminate in litigation or bankruptcy.
    The program was reauthorized through fiscal year 2005 by the Grain
    Standards and Warehouse Improvement Act of 2000. The Budget requests
    $2.993 million to maintain the program at the current level, with 27
    certified States receiving grants.
    Emergency Conservation Program
        To restore farmland damaged by natural disasters and return it to
    productive agricultural use, the disaster and emergency title of the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations act provided $79.8 million for the
    Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). So far this fiscal year, just
    under $40 million has been allocated to share the cost of repairing
    damage caused by drought, floods, tornadoes, and other disasters across
    the country. Claims are pending for damage from ice storms in a number
    of States, and additional claims are anticipated as a result of the
    recent flooding of the Mississippi River, as well as any other
    disasters that may occur. Most of the available funding is likely to be
    allocated by the end of the fiscal year.
        The President's Budget requests no ECP funding for fiscal year
    2002. However, the $5.6 billion governmentwide National Emergency
    Reserve proposed in the President's Budget could provide for emergency
    conservation needs.
    Dairy Indemnity Program
        The Dairy Indemnity Program compensates dairy farmers and
    manufacturers who, through no fault of their own, suffer income losses
    on milk or milk products removed from commercial markets due to
    residues of certain chemicals or other toxic substances. Payees are
    required to reimburse the Government if they recover their losses
    through other sources such as litigation. The fiscal year 2002
    appropriation request of $100 thousand, together with carryover
    unobligated funds expected to be available at the end of fiscal year
    2001, would cover a higher than normal but not catastrophic level of
    claims.
                             administrative support
        The costs of administering all FSA programs are funded by a
    consolidated Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account. The account is
    comprised of direct appropriation, transfers from program loan accounts
    under credit reform procedures, user fees, and advances and
    reimbursements from various sources.
        The fiscal year 2002 Budget proposes funding of $1.213 billion from
    appropriated sources, including credit reform transfers, for a net
    increase of about $71 million over the fiscal year 2001 level. This net
    increase has two components: ADP activities and non-Federal county
    offices.
        Our S&E request includes just over $40 million for computer-related
    costs that formerly would have been funded by CCC. The 1996 Farm Bill
    imposed a cap of $275 million for CCC-funded automated data processing
    (ADP) obligations for fiscal year 1997 through 2002. Subsequently, two
    separate legislative actions reduced the cap by a total of $87 million
    to achieve budgetary offset savings in unrelated programs. The last of
    the funding under the resulting $188 million cap was exhausted early in
    fiscal year 2001, making it necessary for FSA to draw upon S&E funding
    to support basic ADP maintenance and operating needs. The $40 million
    requested for ADP under S&E for fiscal year 2002 would provide:
      --$26 million for basic operating costs, including hardware and
            software upgrades, licenses and renewals, contractor support
            for hardware and software, and maintenance of mission-critical
            systems essential for program delivery.
      --$7.8 million to begin the process of converting and migrating some
            of FSA's 50 legacy automated systems to the Common Computing
            Environment (CCE) to support the Service Center modernization
            effort. Transition to the CCE is necessary not only to improve
            customer service and administrative efficiencies, but also to
            meet the requirements of the Freedom to E-File Act and similar
            mandates.
      --$3.5 million for FSA's share of LAN/WAN/Voice installation and
            operation under the Department's Service Center modernization
            initiative, to provide a solid telecommunications
            infrastructure for the CCE, electronic access, and other ADP-
            related improvements.
      --$2.7 million for FSA's share of the Geographical Information
            System, which is at a critical point of implementation in
            providing digital geo-spatial data and the tools to make
            practical use of the information collected.
        The remaining net increase of $31 million for S&E reflects Federal
    office and non-Federal county office costs of pay raises, promotions,
    and within-grade increases, as well as other costs of maintaining
    permanent county office staffing at the 2001 level. Temporary non-
    Federal county office staffing needs are expected to decline modestly,
    by 461 staff years, as the expiration of ad hoc disaster and emergency
    legislation reduces the workload associated with crop and market loss
    assistance in fiscal year 2002. Since we cannot predict the
    programmatic impact of a new farm bill, or whether new emergency
    disaster assistance will be enacted, our estimates assume a
    continuation of ongoing workload activity. When a new farm bill is in
    place, or other legislation affecting workload is enacted, fiscal year
    2002 staffing requirements may need to be reexamined.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy to
    answer your questions and those of the other Subcommittee Members.
                                     ______

                                RELATED AGENCIES

                           Farm Credit Administration

     Prepared Statement of Honorable Michael M. Reyna, Chairman and Chief
                               Executive Officer
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Michael Reyna,
    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Farm Credit Administration
    (FCA or Agency). This is my second report to you as the Chairman of the
    FCA Board. As you know, the FCA Board is a three-member board. Ann
    Jorgensen, who also serves as the Chair of the Farm Credit System
    Insurance Corporation (FCSIC), joins me on the Board. The third
    position on the FCA Board is currently vacant.
        I will highlight the FCA's accomplishments during the past year,
    report to you briefly on the condition of the Farm Credit System (FCS
    or System), and present our fiscal year 2002 budget request.
                   mission of the farm credit administration
        The mission of the FCA is to promote a safe and sound, competitive
    FCS so agriculture and rural America will continue to have a permanent,
    dependable, and affordable source of credit in both good and bad times.
    We are not involved in the daily management of System institutions.
    Instead, our responsibility is to ensure that the System complies with
    applicable statutes and regulations, and operates in accordance with
    safe and sound banking practices. We believe that the FCS will continue
    to play an important role in financing agriculture in the 21st century.
    We strive to maintain a regulatory environment that enables System
    institutions to remain financially strong and competitive so they can
    meet the changing demands of rural America for credit and other
    services. In doing so, our primary focus is to ensure the long-term
    safety and soundness of the FCS and develop rules and polices that
    respect market forces.
                        fiscal year 2002 budget request
        We are proud of our accomplishments as the safety and soundness
    regulator of the FCS and of our ability to contain costs while
    fulfilling our mission. I assure you that we will continue our
    commitment to effectiveness and cost-efficiency. We will regularly
    review how additional progress can be made in meeting these objectives.
    I am personally committed to a program of continuous improvement.
        Before I present the budget request, I respectfully bring to the
    Committee's attention that the FCA's administrative expenses are paid
    for by the institutions that we examine. The FCA does not receive a
    Federal appropriation, but instead is funded through annual assessments
    of FCS institutions.
        For fiscal year 2002, I propose a budget of $38,736,000. While this
    is an increase of $383,000, or 1 percent, above the $38,353,000 for
    fiscal year 2001, I can assure you that we are cognizant of our
    responsibility to be good stewards of the System's resources. Most of
    this increase is due to adjustments in compensation and benefits for
    our workforce. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and
    Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA) requires the FCA to keep the salaries
    of its employees comparable to those of other Federal financial
    institution regulators.
        Our fiscal year 2002 budget request supports a staffing level of
    293.6 full-time equivalents (FTEs). By comparison, our fiscal year 2001
    budget supported a staffing level of 301.6 FTEs. Although our staffing
    level has declined by 8 FTEs from the previous fiscal year, I believe
    we can continue to maintain the right mix of positions and skills
    necessary to implement our Strategic Plan and accomplish our mission.
    The proposed budget that we formally submitted to the Committee
    provides details on the various expense categories and other
    highlights.
                        fiscal year 2000 accomplishments
        I am proud of our many accomplishments during the past year. In
    fiscal year 2000, we continued our efforts to achieve the goals of our
    Strategic Plan through (1) effective risk identification and corrective
    action, and (2) sensible regulation and public policy.
        We have worked hard to maintain the System's safety and soundness
    at a time when the agricultural economy is experiencing stress. At the
    same time, we are continually exploring options to reduce regulatory
    burden on the FCS and ensure it fulfills its public policy mission to
    provide constructive, competitive, and dependable credit and related
    services to agriculture and rural America.
    Examination Programs
        One of our highest priorities is the development and implementation
    of efficient and effective examination programs that meet the high
    standards and expectations of the Congress, investors in System debt
    obligations, the farmers, ranchers, and cooperatives that own System
    banks and associations, and the public at large. We conduct
    examinations according to risk-based examination principles, which
    means we set the scope and frequency of each examination based on the
    level of risk in the institution.
        We continuously identify, evaluate, and proactively address these
    risks. We also use an examination cycle of up to 18 months for certain
    institutions, where appropriate, as permitted by the Farm Credit System
    Reform Act of 1996. We continually enhance our risk identification
    capabilities. Our Early Warning System identifies existing and
    prospective risk at FSC institutions. Each institution is reviewed
    quarterly to identify changes in its risk characteristics, and the
    Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS) rating is adjusted as
    needed. In addition, we use our forecasting model semiannually to
    identify and evaluate prospective risk in FCS institutions over the
    next 12 to 24 months under ``most likely'' and ``worst case''
    scenarios, respectively. This includes monitoring trends in prices for
    various commodities. This proactive approach is intended to evaluate an
    institution's financial condition and performance under various
    scenarios to identify institutions with emerging risks and the
    potential for deterioration. This allows us to implement our
    differential supervision program to address and correct potential
    problems. We continue to enhance our modeling capabilities so that we
    can identify in a timely manner economic developments that may affect
    the financial condition of FCS institutions.
        FIRS uses six components--Capital, Assets, Management, Earnings,
    Liquidity, and Sensitivity to interest rate risk (CAMELS)--to measure
    the performance of each FCS institution. The FCA assigns every
    institution a composite rating and a rating for each of the six
    individual rating components at least quarterly. The FIRS ratings
    reflect current risk and conditions throughout the System. In addition,
    our examiners provide continuous oversight of System institutions to
    ensure that risk in the System is adequately monitored and addressed.
        I am especially pleased to report that for the first time in the
    System's history, more FCS institutions are rated ``1'', which is the
    highest FIRS category, than are rated ``2''. As of February 26, 2001,
    all rated System institutions, except one small association, achieved a
    composite rating in the two highest of the five FIRS categories.
    Currently, no System institution is under an enforcement action.
        During fiscal year 2000, other Federal agencies used our expertise.
    Pursuant to an agreement with the Small Business Administration (SBA),
    the FCA conducted examinations of Small Business Lending Companies that
    are licensed to make SBA guaranteed loans. In fiscal year 2000, the FCA
    helped train examiners in the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) who
    now review an increasing number of agricultural loans made by savings
    associations. These arrangements help us to maintain the high quality
    skills of our examiners and defray some of the costs of our operations
    while providing valuable assistance and service to other Federal
    agencies.
    Strategic Planning and Performance Plans
        During fiscal year 2000, we focused on improving our methods for
    measuring the FCA's performance under the Strategic Plan. We refined
    the Annual Performance Plan covering Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002 in
    accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. The
    Performance Plan lists our performance measures and goals, many of
    which link to strategic goals, objectives, and initiatives. These goals
    and objectives help us to deal effectively with rapid changes in
    agriculture and the System during both strong and weak economic
    conditions. We also use these performance measures and goals to assess
    our ultimate effectiveness in ensuring the safe and sound operation of
    the FCS.
    Regulatory, Policy, and Philosophy Initiatives
        Congress has given the FCA Board statutory authority to establish
    policy and prescribe regulations necessary to ensure that FCS
    institutions comply with the law and operate in a safe and sound
    manner. We strive to adopt sound and constructive policies and
    regulations, using a proactive and preventive approach that reflects
    the changing needs of agriculture. Our objective is to promulgate
    regulations that achieve safety and soundness goals while minimizing
    regulatory burden on System institutions.
        During fiscal year 2000, we continued our efforts to remove
    geographic barriers within the FCS that limit the credit options of
    eligible farmers and ranchers and prevent System institutions, as
    single industry lenders, from diversifying concentrations in their loan
    portfolios. We repealed regulations that required an FCS bank or
    association to provide notice or obtain consent before it participated
    in loans that commercial banks and other non-System lenders made in the
    chartered territories of other System institutions. A Farm Credit bank
    and five of its affiliated associations opposed the final rule and
    subsequently filed suit in the United States District Court for the
    District of Columbia. Their suit asked the court for a declaratory
    judgment that the final rule is invalid and contrary to law. This
    action is currently pending.
        The FCA is developing a new rule that would remove geographic
    lending barriers that have restricted the operations of FCS
    associations for decades. As a result, this rule would enable each
    direct lender association to apply for and obtain a charter that would
    authorize it to lend and offer related services to farmers, ranchers,
    and other eligible customers without geographic restrictions. The rule
    would require each association to comply with stringent business
    planning requirements and safety and soundness criteria. Each
    association must continue to serve, on a priority basis, the credit
    needs of farmers, ranchers, and other eligible borrowers in its local
    service area, which in most cases is the area it served before the
    removal of territorial boundaries. Expanded charters would not include
    territories of certain associations in four states that the FCA, by
    law, cannot overcharter unless the shareholders, in some cases the
    boards, and the funding banks of these associations consent. The FCA
    has proposed new regulations that would provide a process for the
    shareholders, boards, and the banks of the affected associations to
    vote on allowing other FCS associations to serve these areas.
        During fiscal year 2000, the FCA adopted final rules concerning
    regulatory burden on FCS institutions, civil money penalties, standards
    of conduct, flood insurance, and disclosure to shareholders. Our
    proposed regulations addressed termination of FCS status, loans to
    designated parties, FCS funding of commercial banks and other financing
    institutions, loan purchases and sales, and issuance of stock in
    service corporations. The FCA Board issued two policy statements. One
    emphasized the obligation of FCS institutions to protect the privacy of
    personal information about their borrowers, while the other provided
    System institutions with more guidance about official and trade names.
    Corporate Activities
        During the past year, many FCS associations have merged or adopted
    new corporate structures that include wholly owned operating
    subsidiaries. These restructurings are expected to lower risk through
    diversification, reduce operating expenses, and enable associations to
    use their capital more efficiently while offering their customers a
    broader array of services on a one-stop basis. The FCA has devoted much
    time and energy in the past year to processing and approving these
    corporate applications. In fact, the number of corporate applications
    received by the FCA set a new record. In fiscal year 2000, we processed
    and approved 93 applications, which was double the 46 applications that
    we processed the previous year. We were able to handle the increased
    workload with our existing staff by reprioritizing other work and using
    creative and streamlined approaches for processing the applications. We
    met all 60-day review requirements of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as
    amended (Act), unless waived by the applicants, and granted approval
    before the requested effective date in every case.
                      condition of the farm credit system
        I am pleased to report that the FCS is a financially strong and
    reliable source of affordable credit to agriculture and rural America.
    The quality of loan assets, risk-bearing capacity, stable earnings, and
    capital levels collectively reflect a healthy System that has rebuilt
    its financial strength and improved its management systems. Despite
    various external factors affecting agriculture, such as reduced export
    demand, adverse weather conditions, and low commodity prices, the
    System's strong financial position will help it weather adverse effects
    from potential deterioration in the agricultural economy.
        Since 1994, the System has steadily earned $1 billion or more each
    year. This has resulted in a large capital cushion that will enable the
    System to absorb losses and remain a viable lender to agriculture
    during downturns in the agricultural economy.
        The quality of the System's loan portfolio has remained generally
    favorable despite continued adverse economic conditions in the
    agricultural sector and a slight deterioration in the performance of
    certain loans to cooperatives. Signs of deterioration have yet to
    materialize in the System's loan portfolio, and early warning
    indicators are much more positive than in the mid-1980s when the System
    last experienced serious asset quality problems.
        Loan volume continues to grow, while the level of nonperforming
    loans, including nonaccrual loans,\1\ consistently remains low.
    Delinquent loans also remain minimal at less than half of one percent
    of total loans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Nonperforming loans consist of nonaccrual loans, accruing
    restructured loans, and accruing loans 90 days or more past due.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The System continues to build capital through retained earnings.
    Total capital as a percentage of total assets has increased from 14.2
    percent as of September 30, 1996, to 15.6 percent as of September 30,
    2000. All institutions met their regulatory capital requirements, and
    most greatly exceeded them. Permanent capital ratios at System banks
    and associations ranged from a low of 9.94 percent to a high of 38.2
    percent compared with the 7.0 percent minimum regulatory capital
    requirement.
        Better management practices have resulted in stronger loan
    underwriting standards at most System institutions. Adherence to strong
    loan underwriting standards usually results in sound loans.
    Additionally, this helps insulate an institution's capital from
    excessive risk in a challenging operating environment. As a result of
    improving their management and internal controls, System institutions
    have been diligent in identifying and dealing with troubled loans early
    on. Also, improved asset/liability management practices have enabled
    System banks to effectively manage interest rate risk.
        Economic stress in agriculture, however, is beginning to temper
    this good news. Prices for many agricultural commodities are low while
    farm production costs, particularly for energy, are increasing. As a
    result, the profit margins of many farmers are squeezed. Federal
    support for agriculture over the past several years has been necessary
    to help farmers repay their loans. Obviously, farmers, System
    institutions, and the FCA would much prefer that more favorable
    commodity prices would generate higher profits and better income for
    agriculture. In addition to strong capital and diligent management at
    System banks and associations, Federal assistance to farmers has also
    played an important role in helping the System maintain the quality of
    its loan portfolio.
        Two indicators of profitability, net interest margins and net
    interest spreads, have been trending downward since 1995. Return on
    assets has also followed a declining trend for the past six years,
    although it increased in 2000. While these downward trends raise
    concerns, they also stress why retained earnings and strong capital are
    crucial to the continued financial strength of System institutions.
        The allowance for loan losses continues to be adequate to cover
    risk in the loan portfolios. Since 1993, the System has steadily
    increased its allowance for loan losses to almost $2 billion at the end
    of 2000. This increase is necessary to protect against the stress in
    the farm economy.
        Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the System is the fact that it
    is a single-industry lender in a shrinking market. The number of
    farmers and ranchers has steadily declined ever since the System was
    founded in 1916. However, the System's mission is to finance
    agriculture in both good and bad economic times. The loan portfolios of
    System institutions, as single-industry lenders, are concentrated in
    agricultural commodities. As of September 30, 2000, there were 197
    instances at 135 associations where loans to a single commodity
    exceeded capital. The System lends overwhelmingly to agriculture, which
    is the sector of the economy that is particularly vulnerable to changes
    in commodity prices, currency fluctuations, bad weather, diseases,
    pests, and other difficulties. The FCA will remain ever vigilant with
    regard to its safety and soundness mission in the face of the
    challenges confronting the System.
                   federal agricultural mortgage corporation
        The FCA has oversight and examination responsibility for the
    Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which is commonly known as
    Farmer Mac. Congress established Farmer Mac in 1988 to operate a
    secondary market for agricultural mortgage and rural home loans. In
    this capacity, Farmer Mac creates and guarantees securities that are
    backed by mortgages on farms and rural homes. We monitor Farmer Mac's
    operations and financial condition and provide periodic and timely
    reports to Congress.
        On February 21, 2001, we adopted a final risk-based capital
    regulation for Farmer Mac. The new regulation is designed to ensure
    that Farmer Mac has sufficient capital to meet its mission, especially
    during times of economic stress. The final rule establishes a risk-
    based capital stress test that will determine the minimum level of
    risk-based regulatory capital necessary for Farmer Mac to maintain
    positive capital during a 10-year period if stressful credit and
    interest rate conditions occur. The final rule requires Farmer Mac to
    run the risk-based capital stress test at least quarterly to determine
    the adequacy of its capital and to report the results to the FCA. The
    stress test is based on a statistical model used to project Farmer
    Mac's capital sufficiency over the 10-year stress period.
        The FCA continues to monitor Farmer Mac's debt issuance and non-
    mortgage investment strategy. We also examine Farmer Mac's strategic
    and operational business planning. In 2000, Farmer Mac had $10.4
    million in net earnings, compared with $6.9 million in 1999 and $5.7
    million in 1998. Farmer Mac's capital remains above the minimum
    prescribed by the Act and its total loan program activity continued to
    increase, reaching $3.19 billion at December 31, 2000.
        In conclusion, we are proud of our efforts and accomplishments in
    ensuring the safety and soundness of the Farm Credit System. We will
    continue to efficiently manage our resources while performing FCA's
    mission in the way Congress intended. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my
    colleague on the Board, Ann Jorgensen, and myself, I thank you for the
    opportunity to share this information with you.

                         ADDITIONAL SUBMITTED QUESTIONS

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

                    advanced genetic technologies, kentucky
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Advanced Genetic Technologies, Kentucky grant.
        Answer. This is a new special grant this year. The agency has
    requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
    been received. Preliminary communications with the principal researcher
    indicate that the project involves development of a high throughput
    deoxy-ribonucleic acid analysis facility. This will be used in genomics
    research projects on agricultural species aimed at (1) discovering
    genes and mechanisms to reduce the impact of diseases and pests on
    agricultural plants and animals, (2) metabolic engineering to produce
    novel commercial and pharmaceutical products from plants, and (3)
    enhancing crop and livestock productivity through genomics-facilitated
    breeding.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the principal researcher, the national need is
    that a fundamental understanding of crops and livestock, their
    symbionts and their pests can be gained far more rapidly and
    definitively by genomics tools and associated technologies. Information
    about whole genomes--such as very high density genetic maps or
    sequences of chromosomes--facilitates discovery of genes associated
    with metabolism, stress and parasite resistance, and yield. At the
    regional and local levels, the infrastructure generated through this
    grant will allow genomic analysis of local specialty crops and animals,
    a focus on their metabolites, pests and diseases, and an understanding
    of how plants and animals are or can be adapted to local environmental
    conditions.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to increase the
    productivity of agricultural plants and animals by high-throughput
    genomic approaches. Similar research has been ongoing at this site, but
    at a much lower level than will be made possible by the research
    support technology to be funded by this award. Previous research
    included improvements of genetic maps of soybean, wheat, horses, and
    cattle; identification of plant genes for leaf senescence, organ
    development, stress tolerance, disease resistance, and secondary
    metabolism; and identifying genes in microorganisms that either enhance
    the productivity of plants and animals or contribute to the diseases of
    plants and animals.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated is $473,955.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The present commitment of non-Federal funds and sources
    provided for this grant is approximately $300,000 from State and
    Agricultural Experiment Station Funds and approximately $25,000 for 0.3
    full time equivalents in faculty time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is conducted at the University of Kentucky,
    Lexington Campus, College of Agriculture/Kentucky Agricultural
    Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is June 30, 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is the first year of the grant so a previous
    evaluation of the project has not been conducted. The agency will
    convene a merit review panel to evaluate the project when a proposal
    for fiscal year 2001 is received.
                   advanced spatial technologies, mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Advanced Spatial Technology, Mississippi grant.
        Answer. This research will evaluate the use of site-specific
    technology and assess the economics of this application for site-
    specific precision farming. Cultural practices will be studied and
    integrated into a management system using site-specific technology to
    monitor yield and variable rate application. This project will expand
    on work conducted under the Spatial Technology Special Research Grant
    funded at $350,000 in fiscal year 1997 and $600,000 in 1998.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is to provide farmers with
    unbiased information on the application and economics of site-specific
    technologies for cotton, soybean, and rice production in the mid-south.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to evaluate site-
    specific technologies and develop recommendations for management
    decisions related to fertilization, pest control, and other cultural
    practices. Yield monitor and variable rate technology have been
    evaluated and are being adopted by farmers.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $350,000; for fiscal
    year 1998 it was $600,000; for fiscal years 1999-2000 was $1,000,000
    per year; and for fiscal year 2001 is $997,800 for total of $3,947,800.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant are $620,300
    in 1998, $942,000 in 1999, and $974,000 in 2000. These funds are state
    appropriations that support the salaries of scientists and their
    support staff.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted on various Mississippi
    Agricultural Experiment Station facilities and farmer fields around the
    state.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Project Manager recognizes that it will take several
    years of field research to develop and demonstrate these technologies.
    Some objectives have been completed and results are being put into
    practice by farmers. Others are long term and will require multiple
    years to complete. Results from all experiments are evaluated at years
    end and used to fine tune remaining objectives as well a initiate
    priority new ones.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project is subject to a thorough peer review in
    preparation of the grant proposal in addition to the year end
    assessment of progress for each experiment. A program update and field
    tour is held during the growing season for farmers, extension, and
    other researchers. Substantial improvements have been made in yield
    monitor for cotton harvesters and all program integration.
                          aflatoxin research, illinois
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been conducted under the Aflatoxin Research, Illinois grant.
        Answer. This research is focused on development of strains of corn
    which will be highly resistant to infection with Aspergillus flavus and
    the production of aflatoxin under field conditions. Transfer of genetic
    material from resistant strains to other usable, inbred strains of corn
    is underway, and these new strains are being field tested to determine
    level of resistance to fungal infection.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. There is continuing concern about the role of aflatoxins as
    carcinogens in the human population. The aflatoxin material is also
    toxic to animals and humans. The presence of the fungus in corn results
    in a lower value for the crop and the possible rejection of the corn.
    Aflatoxin contamination continues to be a serious problem in the
    southern and southeastern U.S., with additional outbreaks also
    occurring during severe drought conditions in the upper mid-west and
    other areas during the past few years.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was the reduction of
    infestation of corn with Aspergillus flavus and the consequent
    reduction of aflatoxin in the corn produced. The approach being used is
    to develop strains of corn which are genetically resistant to
    infestation with the fungus. The researchers have produced strains with
    resistance genes for both prevention of infection with A. flavus as
    well as the production of the aflatoxin itself. Field trials have been
    in progress to determine effectiveness of these resistance factors
    under normal growing conditions when exposed to the fungus. The work
    has now progressed to the stage where it seems likely that more than
    one gene will have to be transferred to produce strong resistance to
    the Aspergillus infection and production of aflatoxin.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1990, $87,000; fiscal year 1991, $131,000; fiscal
    years 1992-1993, $134,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $126,000; fiscal
    years 1995 through 2000, $113,000 per year; and for fiscal year 2001,
    $130,712. A total of $1,420,712 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
    fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds have been from state appropriated
    dollars in the form of principal investigator and technical salaries,
    equipment usage, and experimental plot expenses. These have been at the
    level of $130,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 and $24,747 for fiscal
    year 1999. In fiscal year 2000, $65,000 in state and institutional
    funds were provided plus $59,890 in related indirect costs not
    supported by the grant.
        Question. Where is this work being performed?
        Answer. The research is being performed in the Department of Crop
    Sciences at the University of Illinois.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    was 1995, but the project was revised last year to continue into fiscal
    year 2002. The primary reason for the extension of the work is that
    there appears to be multiple resistance genes which are necessary to
    prevent both the infection with the fungus and the synthesis of the
    aflatoxin compound. The investigators are very optimistic about the
    future success of this approach. This work was discussed at a meeting
    of Multi-State Research Project NC-129 on January 25-26, 1999, in New
    Orleans, Louisiana, and the Principal Investigators are members of the
    Technical Committee of this project. This committee is very supportive
    of this line of research.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was evaluated in 1996 and again in March,
    2000. The investigators have made good progress on this project. They
    have identified two genes which are required to have good protection
    against the fungus. They are testing several approaches to determine
    which will give them the best protection against the fungus.
    Unfortunately, the resistance to the Aspergillus flavus fungus which
    produces aflatoxin does not seem to carry over to other fungi such as
    Fusarium moniliforme, the origin of fumonisins. During the review it
    became apparent that a major impediment to more rapid progress is the
    lack of funds to permit larger scale field trials to test the
    transformed strains.
           agricultural diversification and speciality crops, hawaii
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agricultural Diversification and Specialty Crops,
    Hawaii grant.
        Answer. A variety of research efforts are taking place, and they
    have outreach components that are adding value for clients. Work on the
    development of the most efficient post-harvest processing methodology
    for stevia, a natural sweetener, has begun and results are encouraging.
    Work on a production manual for fish in traditional Hawaiian fishponds
    on Molokai has also begun. This manual, written for the small
    entrepreneur, will include the results of production research. Work on
    food safety continues with a food safety survey sent out to 2,100
    produce growers in December, 2000. This survey also had 20 frequently
    asked questions about food safety so that nearly all of Hawaii's
    produce growers have now become aware of the issue of food safety.
    Collaboration with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture has also led to
    the future establishment of a cadre of food safety auditors at the
    College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, the Hawaii
    Department of Agriculture, and the private sector. Our website
    continues to be a major resource for information on food safety. Our
    ``Profit Estimator'' poster was available for clients in February 2000.
    This unique cost of production and profit estimation tool will allow
    any entrepreneur to calculate their costs and profit in five minutes
    without using a computer, software, or calculator. This project
    continues to advise the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company on the
    possibility of starting a large-scale white taro production and
    processing operation in high pressure minimal processing for pineapple
    and other tropical fruits. The cause of premature fading of pineapple
    slices has been determined, and the temperature, pressure, and time
    relationship has been identified to achieve sterility. Plans are
    underway to work with the Hawaii Department of Agriculture and the
    Hawaii Agricultural Statistics Service to build a website where users
    can generate a graph of the prices of commodities found in the market
    place each day. The user can then define a time period and display the
    nature of price rises and declines. This information can help fine-tune
    production decisions.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Hawaii's economy continues to lag behind national averages
    where growth is concerned. The various projects under the umbrella of
    the Diversified Agriculture and Specialty Crop grant rely on research
    information to build decisionmaking tools. These tools help
    entrepreneurs make more informed decisions. When entrepreneurs make
    better decisions they have a higher chance of making a profit in
    business. The decisionmaking tools are being used in Hawaii, the
    Pacific, and on the mainland.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the original proposal was to screen potential
    food and non-food crops for commercial development in Hawaii and then
    make earnest attempts to work with willing and able entrepreneurs to
    move the results of research to the private sector. While the
    University of Hawaii continues to screen crops to help entrepreneurs
    pick the best ones for production and the market place, there are few
    decisionmaking tools that can help entrepreneurs take their products
    more successfully to market. Thus, there is an emphasis on information
    tools such as websites and the profit estimation/cost of the production
    poster. To help farmers prepare for increased food safety scrutiny, the
    University of Hawaii is working with Hawaii State agencies and other
    non-profits to reach out to farmers with critical information.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows, fiscal years 1988-1989, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-
    1993, $154,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $145,000; fiscal years 1995-
    2001, $131,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $130,712. A total of
    $1,989,712 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The University of Hawaii provides in-kind support in the
    form of laboratory and office facilities, equipment and equipment
    maintenance, and administrative support services which was $68,503 in
    fiscal year 1992; $75,165 in fiscal year 1993; approximately $75,000/
    year in fiscal years 1994-1996, and approximately $20,000/year in
    fiscal years 1997-2000. Funds are also being leveraged from other
    private sector, state, and Federal sources for the development of
    nutraceuticals.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Hawaii's
    College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources on the island of
    Oahu, and other Hawaiian islands as necessary.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date for additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Profit/cost of the production poster will be available in
    February 2001. The Lei plant manual will be out in the first quarter of
    2001. Work on Molokai fish production will conclude in December 2001.
    Work is just starting on transportation and food safety issues and will
    continue through 2002. Work on business related information tools will
    continue through 2002. Work continues on high pressure processing of
    tropical fruits and will continue through 2002. Work on nutraceuticals,
    particularly cultural practices and disease management of kava and
    stevia, is continuing through 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
    staff scientist who has determined that this research is progressing to
    reach the goals set forth in the proposal.
          agricultural diversity/red river, minnesota and north dakota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agricultural Diversity/Red River, Minnesota and
    North Dakota, grant.
        Answer. This project has been an effective contributor to economic
    growth through a program of regional collaboration that helps to
    strengthen the region's competitive position in the global marketplace.
    A key and overarching goal of the project has been to bring together
    people and resources to enhance economic development for the region.
    This multi-year, multi-phase project will have six specific components.
    They are: (1) vegetable growing research--especially field and
    glasshouse related research, (2) vegetable collection and storage
    research and/or related storage or distribution business development,
    (3) development of processing industries for the fresh market or
    research related to the fresh products for market, (4) development of
    marketing and/or supply associations among vegetable producers, (5)
    development of processing industries for the ready-to-eat salad market
    or research related to ready-to-eat products, and (6) development of
    processing industries for the frozen vegetable products market or
    research related to frozen products.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Initially the growing of vegetables in the region was
    driven by an opportunity to meet increasing consumer demands for fresh
    vegetables, and the northern plains states of Minnesota, North Dakota,
    and South Dakota have been identified as one area that could meet this
    need. The opportunity to add a high-value crop to the rotation cycle
    for northern Great Plains farmers can help to decrease their dependence
    upon program crops. The shift in cropping patterns can have a positive
    effect on farm income and lessen the need for outside or Federal
    financial assistance. Interest in the potential for adding higher value
    crop to the rotation cycle, including vegetables, has increased
    significantly in the past two years due to the poor farm economy.
    Research on the potential for adding new crops to the region's
    production base could help stabilize the farm economy in the region and
    lessen the need for outside financial assistance to farmers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original project goals include: (1) Conduct three
    replicated field trials on growing of carrots; (2) Continue study of
    vegetable growing techniques in Europe and continue negotiations with
    vegetable growing research facilities/laboratories in Europe to
    transfer growing knowledge to the region; (3) Review current and future
    market opportunities for further development of the industry and
    identify strategies and partners for pursuing these opportunities and
    take appropriate organizing steps; (4) Develop and maintain a web page
    for this vegetable industry project; (5) Conduct market research for
    establishment of a ready-to-eat delicatessen salad processing facility
    in the region; (6) Conduct market research for establishment of a
    ready-to-eat fresh-bagged salad processing facility in the region; (7)
    Continue business development planning for establishment of a ready-to-
    eat delicatessen salad processing facility in the region; and, (8)
    Continue business development planning for establishment of ready-to-
    eat and fresh-bagged salad processing facility in the region.
        To date this grant has accomplished the economic incubation of a
    new deli-salad production system and industry for the region.
    Additional new regionally based industries that are being promoted,
    developed, and served by this grant include vegetable dehydration,
    greenhouse table vegetable production and alfalfa processing.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
    with appropriations for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 of $250,000 each
    year and $374,175 in fiscal year 2001 for a total of $1,124,175
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Efforts have been made to secure non-Federal funding from
    individual states and commodity groups. To date the States of North
    Dakota and Minnesota have been a source of approximately $65,000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out in Minnesota, North Dakota,
    and South Dakota.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Progress is being made on the original objectives. It is
    expected that this will be a multi-year, multi-phase project.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
         Answer. The project is evaluated by review of the proposal and the
    annual project reports. An on-site review was conducted during June of
    2000. This project has been an effective contributor to economic growth
    through a program of regional collaboration that helps to strengthen
    the region's competitive position in the global marketplace. A key and
    overarching goal of the project has been to bring together people and
    resources to enhance economic development for the region. This project
    funding has facilitated the formation of a networking strategy that
    links manufacturing, financial, legal, transportation, trade services,
    and economic development sectors into a region-wide economic growth
    effort and to create a Red River region marketing program. The Red
    River Trade Council has become an important resource to the region in
    the development of grower driven alliances. The Red River Trade Council
    and its affiliate organization, The Northern Great Plains Initiative
    for Rural Development, currently serve as the staff for the FarmConnect
    effort in Minnesota, and they also serve as the resident agent for the
    U.S. Ag Producers Alliance. The project has had a strong presence on
    the world wide web and has facilitated entry of rural manufacturing
    business and agri-business into web-based e-business.
             ag-based industrial lubricants research program, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agricultural-Based Industrial Lubricants Research
    Program, Iowa grant.
        Answer. This project is a continuation of ten years of activity
    conducted to target specific applications, establish baseline
    performance data, develop formulations of additives and chemical
    modifications, administer laboratory and field tests, characterize, and
    build relationships for commercialization of industrial lubricants
    derived from U.S. grown vegetable-based oils. Baseline performance data
    will be compiled to establish fatty acid compositions, guide genetic
    modifications, additive development, establish standards relative to
    toxicity and biodegradability, and characterize compatibility with
    specific metallic and non-metallic components. The grant has been peer
    reviewed internally at the University of Northern Iowa.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    research, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Primary local and regional need is related to expanding
    value-added applications of agricultural commodities in order to
    stimulate increased demand and raise crop prices paid to farmers. On a
    national level, pursuant to the Biomass Research and Development Act of
    2000, Executive Orders 13101 and 13114, the need is to provide
    renewable, safer, more environmentally-sound alternatives to petroleum-
    based industrial lubricants. Furthermore, there is a belief that there
    are international possibilities for the use of genetically-modified
    soybean-based lubricants. Considering the controversy in Europe for
    genetically-modified food, premium quality lubricants made of
    genetically modified domestic crops present a potential for use in a
    more non-controversial area i.e., industrial lubricants.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the program was sponsored by non-
    Federal funding to develop a soybean-based hydraulic oil which was
    introduced to market in July of 1997 as BioSOY hydraulic fluid. Field
    testing of two grease formulations and a dielectric transformer coolant
    are near completion, as well as development of a two-cycle engine
    lubricant, and bar and chain oil. A large volume of technical data has
    been compiled specific to crop-based oil and lubricants. This program
    has identified and has begun servicing a broad array of market
    development requirements, including demonstrating specific performance
    features, expanding awareness, and supporting government purchase
    initiatives. In September 1999, two new soybean-based lubricants were
    licensed to West Central Coop and are now commercial products. Those
    were a chain saw bar oil called SoyLINK and a fifth wheel grease called
    SoyTRUK. A new marketing arm spin-off from the University Foundation is
    planning to market 12 soybean oil-based lubricants developed through
    this program.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Federal funding for this project began with a 1998
    appropriation of $200,000. Fiscal years 1999 and 2000 appropriations
    are $250,000 each year; and fiscal year 2001 is $349,230, for a total
    of $1,049,230 appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since 1992 this research program has received cash grants
    from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, Carver Scientific Research
    Initiatives, in addition to several in-kind donations from industry, to
    develop and coordinate commercialization of what has since become
    BioSOY hydraulic oil. Beginning in 1995, the state of Iowa began to
    support the program through its Wallace Technology Transfer Foundation.
    Beginning in 1996, state funding was provided by legislative
    appropriation through the Iowa Department of Economic Development.
    Additional funding has been provided by the Iowa Department of
    Agriculture and Land Stewardship. In fiscal year 2000 $150,000 was
    appropriated through the Iowa Department of Economic Development,
    $25,000 from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board, $25,000 from Iowa
    Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, $32,500 from John
    Deere, and other awards and service revenues totaling approximately
    $75,000. State funding for fiscal year 2001 in the amount of $400,000
    has been requested through direct appropriation to the university.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Laboratory and literature studies are being carried out
    primarily at the Ag-based Industrial Lubricants Research Program
    facility in Waverly, Iowa, with minor portions of activity being
    conducted on the campus of the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar
    Falls, Iowa, and other labs. Field tests are being conducted at Sandia
    National Laboratories, U.S. Department of Army test sites, some
    municipalities, and in industrial equipment located throughout the
    nation. A short line Iowa-based railroad and a class I railroad have
    been testing soybean-based rail/flange grease with success. The rail
    systems in San Francisco--BART--and in Oregon--Tri-Met--now use
    soybean-based rail flange grease at their facilities. The Iowa
    Department of Transportation has begun conversion of most of its mobile
    equipment to the soybean-based hydraulic fluid developed under this
    program
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives have been met, in part, with the
    optimization, demonstration, and commercialization of the soy-based
    hydraulic fluid, chain and bar lubricants, grease for semi-trucks, plus
    several other products that are being commercialized this year. Data
    collection, additive and modification research, characterization, and
    supplier development objectives of the last year are ongoing.
    Commercialization of the dielectric transformer coolant is an added
    objective and has been expedited through to field testing. Activities
    to expand public awareness and support government purchase initiatives
    have been added to the original objectives. Field testing of some
    products is expected to be completed within a year. Additional
    lubricants in the metalworking applications are targeted for
    development and field testing with commercialization expected in two
    years. The program has begun to identify price reduction strategies for
    the first generation lubricants to make final cost of these products
    competitive with conventional petroleum lubricants. The price of some
    soybean-based greases developed with genetically-modified soybeans are
    anticipated to approach prices of conventional oils by the conclusion
    of the current project period.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The cognizant staff scientist reviews quarterly reports and
    has determined that this research is conducted in accordance with the
    mission of the agency.
                    agriculture telecommunications, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agriculture Telecommunications, New York grant.
        Answer. This program encourages the development and utilization of
    an agricultural communications network to facilitate and strengthen
    agricultural extension, resident education, and research, and domestic
    and international marketing of U.S. commodities and products through a
    partnership between eligible institutions and the USDA.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The following needs will be addressed by this program:
      --Make optimal use of available resources for agricultural extension,
            resident education, and research by sharing resources between
            participating institutions;
      --Improve the competitive position of U.S. agriculture in
            international markets by disseminating information to
            producers, processors, and researchers;
      --Train students for careers in agriculture, natural resource
            management, environmental science, human sciences, and the food
            industries;
      --Facilitate interaction among leading agricultural scientists;
      --Identify new uses for farm commodities and increase the demand for
            U.S. agricultural products in both domestic and foreign
            markets.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this program is to encourage the development
    and utilization of an agricultural communications network to facilitate
    and strengthen agricultural extension, resident education, and
    research, and domestic and international marketing of U.S. commodities
    and products through a partnership between eligible institutions and
    the USDA. Various educational, extension, and technology transfer
    projects have been funded through the program in fulfillment of this
    goal.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The project began in fiscal year 2000. Appropriations for
    fiscal year 2000 was $425,000 and for fiscal year 2001 is $424,065 each
    year for a total of $849,065. The project was previously funded under
    the Extension Activities account.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided, by fiscal year?
        Answer. Prior to fiscal year 2000, the project received a 100
    percent match of funds from non-Federal sources. However, beginning in
    fiscal year 2000, it became a special research grant and does not
    require a match of funds from non-Federal sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Cornell University will award grants competitively
    throughout the U.S.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Individual projects being funded address ongoing needs for
    information dissemination and technology transfer. As each project is
    completed the results are evaluated to determine the success of meeting
    the program's objectives.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
        Answer. The agency evaluated this project each year via a report
    from institutions funded. The following highlights the programs funded
    under this project:
        The University of Minnesota, Washington State University,
    University of Arizona, and Virginia Tech will collaborate to develop
    and pilot a model for a national system for technology-enhanced
    pesticide applicator training and education. The model can be
    replicated in other national programs that require certification.
        Oregon, Maryland, Vermont, Kentucky, Alabama, Wisconsin, Oklahoma,
    Kansas, California, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, and Arizona will
    collaborate to develop a comprehensive knowledge resource for alfalfa,
    the National Alfalfa Information System, providing an improved
    information resource for educational programs.
        Florida, Kentucky, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas have developed a
    national real-time Internet web-based radio network for agricultural,
    food, human and natural resource related information to present and
    promote new and existing educational information from land-grant
    universities and colleges providing the public with the latest up-to-
    date information.
        Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado, Minnesota, and Wisconsin
    established a library of Internet-based teaching modules in plant
    biotechnology that facilitate interactive learning to assemble programs
    that target the education needs of agricultural professionals.
        Idaho, Colorado, Nevada, and California developed multiple courses
    for a national audience of persons related to mealtimes in child
    programs, including the USDA Child Care Food Program. The program
    provides research-based information via distance education to those who
    feed children in group settings and offers on-going accessible course
    work and in service training.
        Pennsylvania, California, Texas, and Puerto Rico have developed
    web-based learning programs for food industry professionals designed to
    empower current and future food processing industry professionals to be
    effective product development team players, problem solvers, decision
    makers, and communicators with the ultimate goal of assisting companies
    in creating the expertise to develop and market new products.
        Missouri and Colorado teaming with USDA's Meat Animal Research
    Center are using the world wide web and computing resources to deliver
    a sophisticated decision support tool to producers, educators, and
    researchers linking herd based, bioeconomic simulation models related
    to cattle production systems.
        Indiana and Kentucky with 33 other universities have designed a
    national interactive computer-based learning project for youth. This
    network is an integral component of curriculum developed by the
    National 4-H Cooperative Curriculum System for youth ages 8-19.
        Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Texas
    developed an inter-institutional program of studies leading to a
    Masters of Science in family financial planning through distance
    education. The program uses the expertise of several institutions to
    provide opportunities for pursuit of higher education and lowers
    barriers to inter-institutional collaboration.
                        agriculture water usage, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agriculture Water Usage, Georgia grant.
        Answer. The project will determine agricultural water use in
    Georgia using a two percent statistical sample of water sources.
    Equipment has been purchased and personnel hired to conduct the
    project.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Water has become a major issue in the southeast. The tri-
    state water ``issue'' between Florida, Georgia, and Alabama involves
    allocating interstate waters in the primary river basins that begin in
    the Atlanta area. These allocation formulas are completed and ready for
    use. The salt water intrusion problem associated with coastal Georgia
    and South Carolina is also a major issue. Both of these problems suffer
    from a lack of data on agricultural water use across the state. This
    program seeks to develop a monitoring and modeling strategy to
    determine the quantity of water used by agricultural irrigation. The
    program is designed to begin in Georgia and allow expansion of the
    program into neighboring states for a better estimate of agricultural
    water use.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The project hired strategic personnel for the monitoring
    program and development of the equipment and the database to be used
    for obtaining volunteers for the monitoring phase. This integrated
    project will involve the development of computer based models to take a
    monitoring sample and extrapolate that information for the entire
    state.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
    The appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $300,000 per year
    and for fiscal year 2001 is $299,340 giving a total of $899,340.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The State of Georgia through the Georgia Department of
    Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division appropriated
    $289,000 for fiscal years 1998-1999 and is expected to appropriate
    $250,000 per year for an additional 4 years to help support this
    project.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted from the University of Georgia,
    College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences. The primary
    coordination of the program will be centered in the Biological and
    Agricultural Engineering Unit at Tifton, Georgia, but the program will
    involve input from personnel in Griffin and Athens and researchers
    outside the University of Georgia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project, within the overall agricultural water use
    program, is anticipated to be completed within the original 5-year time
    frame. Since this project is new, objectives have not been completed to
    date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project is new and has not been through an agency
    evaluation; however, the investigators prepare quarterly reports for
    the State. The procedures used to conduct the project have been peer
    reviewed, and publications developed by the project will be peer
    reviewed. One product has been produced, ``Irrigation Conservation
    Practices for the Southeast U.S.'', a 60-page report.
                             agroecology, maryland
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agroecology, Maryland grant.
        Answer. The agency has requested the university to submit a new
    grant proposal that has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is to protect the largest
    estuary of the Chesapeake Bay in the U.S. that is fed by eight states.
    Maryland is trying to achieve its share of the 40 percent nutrient
    reductions required by the new Chesapeake 2000 Agreement while
    maintaining economically-viable agriculture and natural resources.
    Agriculture is the predominant land use and economic engine for
    Maryland. It requires the generation of additional science-based
    knowledge and policy guidance in the fields of biological, physical,
    and social sciences.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal is the generation of science-based policy
    decisions towards reaching the 40 percent reduction goals while
    maintaining viable agriculture and natural resource industries. Fiscal
    year 2001 is the first year for this project.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were $285,000 state appropriations.
        Question. Where will the research be carried out?
        Answer. This is the first year for this grant, but the principal
    investigator envisions that work will be carried out at appropriate,
    well-equipped laboratories and field sites throughout the University of
    Maryland system and the state.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is still being clarified for the first year. The principal investigator
    anticipates that this project will play an ongoing role in assisting
    agriculture in achieving long-term nutrient reduction and other
    cooperative goals of the Chesapeake Bay Program.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since fiscal year 2001 is the first year of the project, no
    evaluation has yet been conducted.
               alliance for food protection, nebraska and georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Alliance for Food Protection, Nebraska and
    Georgia grant.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation supports the
    continuation of a collaborative alliance between the University of
    Georgia Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement and the
    University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology.
    Fiscal year 2000 funds supported research at the University of Nebraska
    on the detection, identification, and characterization of food
    allergens, the effects of processing on peanut allergens, and
    investigation of the efficacy of using various types of thermal
    processes to reduce or destroy the toxicity and mutagenicity of certain
    Fusarium metabolites in corn and corn products. Research at the
    University of Georgia was directed toward determining the foodborne
    significance of Helicobacter pylori, determining the effect of
    antimicrobials to eliminate Arcobacter from pork, determining the
    survival of E. coli O157:H7 at reduced water activity, and using
    extrusion cooking to destroy peanut allergens. Proposals from the
    University of Georgia and the University of Nebraska in support of the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation have been requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researchers believe the proposed research
    addresses emerging issues in food safety which have national, regional
    and local significance. Specifically, research will address bacterial
    pathogens that can cause ulcers, cancer, and diarrheal illness, toxic
    fungal metabolites in corn products, and allergens in foods that cause
    serious reactions, including death in sensitive people. These emerging
    issues affect consumers, the food industry, and food producers at all
    levels--national, state, and local.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to: (1) facilitate
    the development and modification of food processing and preservation
    technologies to enhance the microbiological and chemical safety of
    products as they reach the consumer, and (2) develop new rapid and
    sensitive techniques for detecting pathogens and their toxins as well
    as toxic chemicals and allergens in foods. The University of Nebraska
    developed assays for detection of peanut, milk, egg, almond, walnut,
    pecan, and hazelnut residues in processed foods; produced high-quality
    antibodies for these assays; identified and characterized a soybean
    allergen and two sunflower seed allergens; discovered clues as to the
    reason why Brazil nuts cause severe allergic reactions; discovered that
    certain types of Fusarium fungi do not produce mutagenic substances;
    developed a simple liquid chromatographic procedure for determination
    of moniliformin toxin; found that the corn flake manufacturing process
    can reduce levels of fungal toxins such as aflatoxin and fumonisins;
    also found that low levels of carcinogenic aflatoxins in corn grits
    might be reduced to less than regulatory actions levels by the corn
    flake manufacturing process; discovered that making corn flakes with
    sucrose did not help to reduce fumonisin levels, but that adding
    glucose, or toasting the flakes helped to reduce the fumonisin levels
    significantly; and created reagents that can be used to develop a rapid
    method to test corn for moniliformin toxin.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996,
    and $300,000 per year was appropriated in fiscal years 1996 through
    2000, and $299,340 in fiscal year 2001 for a total appropriation of
    $1,799,340.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were $117,000 state funds and $250,000 industry and miscellaneous in
    fiscal year 1996 and were estimated to be a minimum of $111,000 state
    funds and $305,000 industry and miscellaneous in fiscal year 1997;
    $70,000 state funds and $295,000 industry and miscellaneous funds in
    fiscal year 1998; $25,000 state funds and $250,000 industry funds in
    fiscal year 1999; and are estimated to be a minimum of $25,000 state
    funds and $25,000 industry funds in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Georgia
    Center for Food Safety and Quality Enhancement in Griffin, Georgia, and
    at the University of Nebraska Department of Food Science and Technology
    in Lincoln, Nebraska.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
    researchers anticipate that work will be completed on the original
    objectives in 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposals submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    A review of the proposal from the University of Nebraska was conducted
    on May 4, 2000, and good progress was demonstrated on the objectives
    undertaken in 1998. A review of the proposal from the University of
    Georgia was conducted on May 4, 2000, and good progress was
    demonstrated on the objectives undertaken in 1998.
                        alternative crops, north dakota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Alternative Crops, North Dakota program.
        Answer. The alternative crops project has two main thrusts--
    development and utilization of alternative or specialty crops and novel
    or new utilization of traditional crops. The goals of the project are
    to diversify income at the farm gate, and reduce reliance on
    monoculture to help alleviate pest problems, while providing new
    agricultural and industrial products to society. Some of the new areas
    under investigation include feeding of co-products from value-added
    industry to livestock; development of white corn and white wheat as
    alternative crops; alternative crops for aquaculture diets; development
    of unique dry bean market classes; alternative legumes for crop
    rotations; and expanding utilization of dry peas and lentils. Previous
    work continues with oilseed crops such as crambe, rapeseed, and
    safflower as a renewable supply of industrial oil, products from food
    crops for novel new uses in paints, coatings, food ingredients, and the
    development of new biochemical and enzymatic processes to refine oils
    for industrial uses. The projects funded in this appropriation are
    evaluated by a peer-panel chosen by the Associate Dean of Research at
    North Dakota State University. The internal peer review was conducted
    on the following criteria: (1) development of novel uses for new and
    existing crops, (2) development of niche crops and diversified
    agriculture opportunities, (3) identification of identity-preserved
    products, (4) adaptation of alternative corps, (5) scientific merit,
    (6) feasibility and practicality, (7) interdisciplinary efforts, (8)
    private sector involvement, and (9) potential economic benefit.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Regionally, the temperate areas of the Midwest have the
    potential to grow a great number of different crops but are in need of
    publicly-sponsored research efforts to reveal the most practical,
    efficient, and economical crops and products to pursue.
        Growers in surrounding states are currently utilizing the
    information generated by research conducted through this grant. The
    principal researcher believes that nationally developing new crops and
    new markets for agricultural products is critical for both
    environmental and economic reasons. Enhanced biodiversity that comes
    from the successful commercialization of new crops aids farmers in
    dealing with pests and reducing the dependency upon pesticides. New
    markets are needed to provide more economic stability for agricultural
    products, especially as Federal price supports are gradually withdrawn.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was and still is to
    introduce, evaluate, and test new crops which will broaden the economic
    diversity of crops grown in North Dakota. The primary emphasis
    continues to be the adaptation and development of new crops,
    utilization of new and existing crops, and creating value-added
    agricultural opportunities. A brief review of accomplishments includes:
    adaptation and expanded production of new crops including crambe,
    canola, field pea, lentil, lupin, chickpea, amaranth, and buckwheat;
    development of alternative crops and crop co-products for new markets
    in livestock and fish feeds; expanded knowledge on technical aspects of
    biochemical means of splitting oilseed fatty acids; deriving red dye
    and pectin from sunflower; creating new uses for various oilseeds; and
    developing improved nutritional profiles for selected food and feed
    crops. These efforts have forged a strong link with the private sector
    and successfully spawned several crops and products into profitable
    private sector businesses.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Appropriations by fiscal year are as follows: 1990,
    $494,000; 1991, $497,000; 1992 and 1993, $700,000 per year; 1994,
    $658,000; 1995, $592,000; 1996 through 2000, $550,000 per year; and
    2001, $623,625. A total of $7,004,625 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1991, $10,170 was provided by state
    appropriations. In fiscal year 1992, $29,158 was also provided by state
    appropriations and self-generated funds. In fiscal year 1993, $30,084
    was provided by state appropriations. In fiscal year 1994, $161,628 was
    provided by state funds, $3,189 provided by industry, and $9,020
    provided by other sources, totaling $173,837. In fiscal year 1995,
    $370,618 was provided by state appropriations, $1,496 provided by self-
    generated funds, $1,581 provided by industry, and $5,970 was provided
    in other non-Federal funds totaling $379,665 for fiscal year 1995. In
    fiscal year 1996, $285,042 was provided by state appropriation, $4,742
    provided by industry, $14,247 provided from other non-Federal funds
    totaling $304,031 for 1996. In fiscal year 1997, $462,012 was provided
    by state appropriations, $8,080 was provided by self-generated funds,
    $8,217 was provided by industry, and $103,063 was provided from other
    non-Federal funds totaling $581,372 for fiscal year 1997. In fiscal
    year 1999, $984,251 was provided through state appropriations, $40,198
    provided through self-generated funds, $13,010 provided by industry,
    and $87,942 from other non-Federal sources for a total of $1,125,401.
    In fiscal year 2000, $368,664 in state appropriations, $93,408 in other
    non-Federal funds, and $31,886 in industry funds for a total of
    $493,958 were provided for this grant
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is conducted on the campus of North Dakota State
    University and at six different research extension centers in North
    Dakota. Work is also done in eastern Montana.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2001 is the twelfth year of activity under this
    grant. The primary emphasis has been to find new crops with non-food
    uses and create value added products. The original objectives have been
    met, however, new opportunities have become known as previous research
    has identified new crop alternatives and innovative crop utilization
    ideas.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The cognizant staff scientist annually reviews the project
    and has determined that the research is conducted in accordance with
    the mission of this agency.
                    alternative crops for arid lands, texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Alternative Crops for Arid Lands, Texas grant.
        Answer. This grant is to develop the two most abundant plants in
    the southwestern U.S., i.e. mesquite and cactus, into commercial crops
    through a combination of applied research and market development. In
    Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California these plants occupy 72
    million acres. This grant is peer reviewed internally and external
    reviewers include a private sector cactus breeder, the Texas
    Agricultural Extension Service, and a specialist in wood products
    marketing.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    goal?
        Answer. The semi-arid regions of the U.S. that border with Mexico
    in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California have some of the highest
    unemployment rates, lowest economic returns per acre, and lowest
    incomes in the U.S. The two most abundant plant species in this region
    are prickly pear cactus and mesquite. By working with Mexican
    researchers, this grant will help to stabilize the economic situation
    of rural poor in Mexico and the U.S. There are few crops capable of
    being grown sustainably in these regions. Due to the nitrogen fixing
    capability, and thus soil improving properties of mesquite and high
    water use efficiency of cactus, these plants contribute to sustainable
    agriculture and will diversify southwestern agriculture. This research
    group is the only center in the U.S. developing these plants as crops.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to dramatically improve the economic returns
    and year-to-year economic stability in the southwestern United States
    from arid and semi-arid lands. For cactus, the goal has been to provide
    improved varieties that can be harvested and processed into food and
    forage. Over 50 hybridizations were conducted between the top producing
    fruit accessions of cactus. Reciprocal hybridizations for 14 different
    accessions were successfully harvested and viable seed recovered.
    Germination trials have yielded more than 100 seedlings from which
    selected hybrids will be transferred to the field in the spring of
    2001. Plots planted in late summer of 1999 are growing well with few
    plant deaths. Data on pads and number of fruit have been analyzed and
    will be combined with data collected in the spring of 2001. Selected
    cuttings from different accessions have been planted and subjected to
    freezing temperatures to evaluate freeze damage. Long term storage of
    pollen is very important, and storage trials are underway to determine
    optimum conditions. For mesquite, the goal is to increase its value as
    a result of better tree form. Germination and survival rates for 20
    sources for superior trees in Texas were evaluated. Seedling height
    prior to transplanting has been found to be an important factor that
    affects survival rate. A meeting was held with a ranch owner in Freer,
    Texas, to evaluate mesquite trees for possible inclusion in a mesquite
    productivity study. The Eighteenth Annual Los Amigos del Mesquite
    Conference, sponsored by the Wray Charitable Trust was planned and
    carried out in the fall of 2000. The conference topic was ``The
    Mesquite Bean and Its Utilization''. Subjects such as mesquite bean
    flour and cattle feed as well as mesquite tree management that fosters
    soil conservation, proper pruning procedures for mesquite trees, and
    long term development of mesquite products were presented. Ten
    mesquite-related companies were represented at the conference.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $94,000. For fiscal
    years 1995 through 1997 the appropriation was $85,000 per year; for
    fiscal years 1999 through 2000 was $100,000 per year; and for fiscal
    year 2001 is $99,780. A total of $648,780 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1994, $43,215 was provided by the Texas
    legislature.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being conducted by Texas A&M University,
    Kingsville, Texas.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. For cactus, the original objective of the project was to
    provide improved varieties of cactus for fruit and napolitos marketing.
    Researchers anticipate that improved varieties should be available in
    two to four years. Currently, a small Texas and California cactus
    industry exists, and more economic growth can be achieved with the
    introduction of new varieties. For mesquite, the objective to improve
    the economic return largely has been met, since markets for mesquite
    lumber, flooring, furniture, and barbecue work products continue to
    improve. Other related objectives such as growth and form, genetic
    screening, and breeding will take longer to complete.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
    staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
    with the mission of the agency.
                    alternative nutrient management, vermont
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Alternative Nutrient Management, Vermont grant.
        Answer. In January 2001, the agency requested the University of
    Vermont to submit a grant proposal which will be completed soon. The
    project will investigate the effectiveness of constructed wetlands to
    treat farm runoff and manure to protect adjacent water sources.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Developing more cost effective and efficient strategies to
    protect groundwater from pollution with farmyard waste is a local,
    regional, and national priority.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to use a constructed wetland
    comprised of different plant ecosystems to study how the plant biomass,
    the species or combination of plants, and the harvesting of plants and
    climatic conditions modify the effectiveness of nutrient removal from
    the farm effluent introduced into the system. The research is yet to
    commence although substantial planning and literature evaluation has
    been conducted.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    with an appropriation of $189,582.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This project will be cooperative with colleagues across the
    University, in Natural Resource Conservation Service, and in the
    Vermont Department of Agriculture. We do not know the precise levels of
    non-Federal funds that will be expended over the course of the project.
    We expect there will be substantial additional investments of state and
    university funds in salaries, support costs, and equipment
    expenditures.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Vermont's
    Paul Miller Research Center.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This will be a 1-year project completed at the end of 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since this is a new project, no agency evaluation has
    occurred.
                      alternative salmon products, alaska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Alternative Salmon Products, Alaska grant.
        Answer. The overall goal of the Alternative Salmon Products Program
    for fiscal year 2000 was to develop market-desired salmon products
    using wild-caught salmon. The project assisted Alaska salmon producers
    in sustaining current and entering new markets. The main approach has
    been a competitive grant process for proposals on marketing of salmon
    products. In addition, an assessment of the Hong Kong smoked salmon
    trade was to be performed. According to the Principal Investigator, a
    call for proposals on the Marketing Mini-grants has been put out and
    the proposals will be judged. Proposals for fiscal year 2001 have been
    requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Alaska salmon industry has lost considerable market
    share worldwide to farmed salmon production. In 1994, the farmed salmon
    market share surpassed Alaska's market share of the world's salmon
    supply and has continued to climb every year since. In 1997, Norwegian
    farmed salmon production exceeded Alaska wild stock harvests. Also in
    1997, Chilean Coho salmon exports to Japan exceeded North American
    sockeye salmon exports to Japan. Japan has traditionally been Alaska's
    strongest and most lucrative export market. The Alaska salmon industry
    is a multi-state industry. Though the product is harvested in Alaska,
    the benefits are shared with fishermen residents in Washington State,
    Oregon, California, and throughout the nation.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The broad research goal of the Alternative Salmon Product
    Program is the development of market-desired salmon products using
    wild-caught salmon. In 1998 and continuing, researchers involved in the
    Pinbone Removal Machine Project are addressing the problem of deboning
    wild-caught fish in appropriate volumes, so that they can be marketed
    as frozen skinless, boneless fillet portions rather than simply as
    headed and gutted frozen fish or canned salmon. New products such as
    this would allow Alaskan wild caught salmon to compete more effectively
    with pen-reared salmon. The researchers have designed, built and tested
    four prototype pinbone removal machines, making sequential improvements
    in processing plants during the 2000 salmon season.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The initial funding for the Alternative Salmon Products
    program was $400,000 per year on fiscal years 1998 and 1999; fiscal
    year 2000, $552,500; and fiscal year 2001, $643,581. A total of
    $1,996,081 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Industry will contribute approximately $50,000 based on
    estimated cost of $50,000 per plant for commercial testing of beta
    prototype.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work will be conducted at the University of Alaska,
    Fairbanks, the University of Alaska Fishery Industrial Technology
    Center in Kodiak Alaska, in Hong Kong, and in a variety of salmon
    product processing plants across Alaska.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The Pinbone Machine Project under the Alternative Salmon
    Product Program, including original and related objectives, will be
    completed with fiscal year 2000 funding. Other projects, like the
    Alternative Salmon Management Program will take about two years to
    complete the objective.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The proposal received in support of the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation was reviewed for merit on September 14, 2000. The
    project's thrust is to assist Alaska Salmon producers to sustain market
    penetration by entering new markets with value added products. The main
    approach was to award competitive grant proposals on marketing Salmon
    products. Assessment of trade in Hong Kong smoked Salmon was also part
    of the proposal.
                     animal science food safety consortium
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Animal Science Food Safety Consortium program.
        Answer. The Food Safety Consortium is focused on accomplishing six
    objectives: (1) to develop techniques for rapid detection of infectious
    agents and toxins in meat and poultry; (2) to develop a statistical
    approach for evaluating potential health risks; (3) to identify
    effective intervention points to control microbiological or chemical
    hazards; (4) to develop monitoring methodologies to detect these
    hazards in the distribution chain; (5) to develop technologies to
    complement the development of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control
    Point--HACCP--programs by USDA; and (6) to estimate costs and benefits
    associated with intervention alternatives.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. A safer meat product food supply would reduce the economic
    losses related to days away from work, medical treatment, and even
    human suffering and death as a result of foodborne illnesses. The costs
    are estimated at over $5 billion a year. The Consortium's participation
    in technology transfer to health departments and trade associations are
    helping on a regional and local level to educate consumers and food
    handlers on safe handling procedures. Scientific-based testing that is
    being developed will help provide food that will be accepted in
    international markets and increase exports and sustainable rural
    economies at home. On a regional and local level, each of the
    institutions are involved in HACCP program training for industry and
    are holding seminars for industry to discuss food safety research
    findings. In addition, the University of Arkansas is teaching food safe
    programs to children in state elementary schools.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to bring together research and
    expertise of institutions in three states in order to best address the
    areas of poultry, beef, and pork meat production from the farm to the
    consumer's table. In coordination with each other, they seek to develop
    detection, monitoring, and prevention techniques to control or prevent
    the presence of infectious agents and chemical toxins in the food
    supply.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,400,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,678,000;
    fiscal year 1991, $1,845,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $1,942,000;
    fiscal year 1994, $1,825,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $1,743,000 each
    year; fiscal year 1997, $1,690,000; fiscal years 1998-2000, $1,521,000
    each year; and fiscal year 2001, $1,631,403. A total of $22,002,403 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $1,611,947 in 1991; $1,639,050 in 1992; $1,726,153 in
    1993; $2,304,223 in 1994; $2,075,145 in 1995; $2,796,097 in 1996;
    $2,600,545 in 1997; $1,850,899 in 1998; $3,421,866 in 1999. Thus, from
    1991 through 1999 a total of $20,025,925 in non-Federal funds was
    provided.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University,
    Kansas State University, University of Arkansas at Fayetteville,
    University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences at Little Rock, and
    Arkansas Children's Hospital.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The research projects from the Consortium continue to
    evolve and build on the original objectives first set out in 1989. The
    principal investigators have developed patented tests that have
    significantly reduced the time necessary to detect pathogens in the
    processing plants.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. There has never been a formal evaluation of the Food Safety
    Consortium but instead an annual conference is organized at which a
    designated representative from CSREES attends. Along with other invited
    agency representatives, such as the Food Safety and Inspection Service,
    the Agricultural Research Service, and the Economic Research Service,
    CSREES participates in a steering committee meeting which critiques
    projects and discusses research priorities. Peer reviews are conducted
    by expert scientists who are not members of the Consortium, to
    determine those projects selected for funding.
                    apple fire blight, michigan and new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Controlling Fire Blight Disease of Apple Trees,
    Michigan and New York grant.
        Answer. This project studies fire blight in apple trees, which is a
    bacterial disease that can kill spurs, branches, and sometimes entire
    trees. The management of this disease is difficult because only one
    antibiotic treatment is available. The objectives of this research are
    to develop fire blight resistance varieties, evaluate biological and
    chemical control methodologies for disease management, and develop an
    education and extension component for disease management.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Fire blight is a destructive bacterial disease of apple
    trees throughout the U.S. that can kill the trees. In the northeast,
    the disease is more prevalent because of humid weather conditions.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goals of this research are to develop transgenic apple
    trees through various molecular technologies, to develop new approaches
    to antibiotic treatments of disease, to develop an early screening
    technique for tree sensitivity to the disease, to evaluate biological
    and cultural controls, and to develop and improve education and
    extension components of disease management. The last objective involves
    using disease prediction models.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Fiscal year 1997 was the first year funds were appropriated
    for this grant at $325,000. For fiscal years 1998 through 2000,
    $500,000 per year, and $498,900 in fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $2,323,900 has been appropriated.
        Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds for 1997 were $40,127 for Michigan
    and $104,166 for New York. The funds for 1998 were $40,071 from
    Michigan and $104,166 from New York. The state appropriated funds for
    1999 were $49,771 for Michigan and $106,689 from New York. The state
    appropriated funds for 2000 were $43,200 for New York and $46,178 for
    Michigan.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Michigan State University
    and Cornell University, New York Experiment Station.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated date of completion for the original
    objectives was 2000. The objectives have not been met. It is estimated
    by the researchers that three to five years are needed to complete this
    project.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last merit review of this project was in January 1999.
    A site visit was made to Michigan State University in March 1999 and to
    Cornell University, Geneva and Ithaca, New York in April 1999. Both
    principal investigators were visited as well as the field sites.
    Surveys of established apple orchards and new planting in New York
    showed losses of up to 255 trees due to fire blight infections of
    rootstocks. Several new materials for control of fire blight on
    susceptible varieties gave promising results in field trails. Improved
    techniques to transfer genes into apples and to obtain flowering on the
    transgenic trees have been developed so that transgenic fruits can be
    examined within two years. In research in Michigan, a total of 50 phage
    isolated from fire blight were characterized with the potential of
    using these to control the disease. A new plant growth regulator that
    controls vegetative growth in apple appeared to make trees less
    susceptible to fire blight. A detailed study of the role of the hrpA
    gene in fire blight virulence has been completed with a better
    understanding of its involvement in virulence in the disease.
                             aquaculture, arkansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that will be
    funded under the Aquaculture, Arkansas project.
        Answer. CSREES has requested that the University of Arkansas at
    Pine Bluff submit a grant proposal for this new research activity that
    will focus on maximizing production efficiency of farm-raised catfish
    under changing market conditions and offshore competition.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This is a new project to be initiated in fiscal year 2001.
    The agency has requested the university submit a research proposal
    which has not been received to date. The principal researcher indicates
    that the U.S. farm-raised channel catfish industry is facing increased
    competition from imported catfish, increasing costs due to expansion of
    regulations, increasing labor costs, and changing market demands. Gains
    in productivity will be required for the industry to continue growing
    to provide employment opportunities and serve as a catalyst for
    economic growth in impoverished rural areas of the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a new research grant to be funded in fiscal year
    2001.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $237,476.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates that significant non-Federal
    funding will be provided in fiscal year 2001 primarily from state
    sources to cover the salaries of the principal investigators. A total
    of $85,000 is anticipated for fiscal year 2001 consisting of $46,600
    from state appropriations, $20,000 from the Arkansas Catfish Checkoff
    Fund, $11,000 from private sector in-kind contributions, and $7,400
    from facility use.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted at the University of
    Arkansas at Pine Bluff.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is the first year of this project and the agency is
    currently awaiting submission of the research proposal.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this new project
    on an annual basis. The university will be required to submit an
    accomplishment report each year when the new proposal is submitted to
    CSREES for funding. Since this is the first year of the program, CSREES
    will conduct an external peer review of the proposal. The 2001 CSREES
    review will be completed within three weeks of submission of the
    proposal. The researchers will be requested to develop a research
    proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology Council's
    Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development.
                              aquaculture, florida
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Aquaculture, Florida grant.
        Answer. CSREES is in the process of reviewing the submitted
    proposal. The research will focus on developing procedures for hatchery
    seed production of two potential bivalve species applying dry tempering
    methods to increase the survival of Florida culture clams in
    refrigerated storage using molecular genetic techniques to examine hard
    clam stock diversity, determining the suitability of a freshwater clam
    for use in tertiary treatment of agricultural wastewater, and
    evaluating the efficacy of best management practices in pollutant
    reduction associated with food and baitfish farms.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This is the first year of this new grant proposal. The
    proposed research addresses critical local needs that have been
    identified by the Shellfish Aquaculture Advisory Committee and the
    Florida Food and Bait Aquaculture Advisory Committee. The research
    findings and results will also be of interest and applicable to other
    similar aquaculture operations and conditions in the southern region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to improve and
    strengthen aquaculture in Florida by enhancing the existing hard clam
    sector, developing new commercial species, and developing improved and
    practical pollutant reduction practices through interrelated research
    activities.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $445,019.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates that significant non-Federal
    funding will be provided in fiscal year 2001 primarily from state
    sources to cover the salaries of the principal investigators and
    operating expenses for the laboratory. As the program develops,
    additional non-Federal funding is expected.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The location of the work site(s) will be included in the
    new grant proposal when it is received by CSREES for processing to
    award the grant funds.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is a new research grant to be funded in fiscal year
    2001. The agency has not received a grant proposal to date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this new project
    on an annual basis. The university will be required to submit an
    accomplishment report each year when the new proposal is submitted to
    CSREES for funding. Since this is the first year of the program, CSREES
    will conduct an external peer review of the proposal. The 2001 CSREES
    review will be completed within three weeks of submission of the
    proposal. The researchers will be requested to develop a research
    proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology Council's
    Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development.
                             aquaculture, louisiana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Aquaculture, Louisiana grant.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has not been received to date. Research under this
    program has addressed critical problems in the commercial aquaculture
    industry including crawfish, catfish, striped bass, and other emerging
    species. The university has completed studies in the area of fish
    nutrition, fish health, fish genetics, production management
    strategies, alternative species, seafood processing, product quality,
    product safety, and broodstock development.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigator indicates that information
    generated from the funded research will have broad application for
    local, regional, and national aquaculture industries. The researchers
    indicate that there is a need to improve production efficiency for a
    number of important aquaculture species in order to enhance the
    profitability and sustainability of the aquaculture industry in the
    region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to provide science-
    based information through a basic and applied research base that
    specifically addressed the needs of the aquaculture industry in
    Louisiana and the southern region. Research funded by this program has
    led to improved feed formulations, production of fish vaccines,
    improved extraction and detection methods for off-flavor compounds,
    improved product quality and safety, procedures for the production of
    genetic maps for channel catfish, evaluation of growth hormones in
    channel catfish production, development of cryopreservation techniques
    for germplasm preservation, reduction of phosphorus in aquaculture
    effluents, improved forage-based systems for crawfish, as well as
    improved production, harvesting, and processing technologies for a
    number of important species. Research continues to be directed at
    important opportunities to enhance production efficiency and commercial
    viability of sustainable aquaculture systems in Louisiana and the
    southern region.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Research to be conducted under this program continues
    efforts initiated under the Aquaculture general program in fiscal years
    1988 through 1991. The work supported by this specific program began in
    fiscal year 1992 and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was
    $390,000 per year, $367,000 in fiscal year 1994, $330,000 each year in
    fiscal years 1995-2000, and $329,274 in fiscal year 2001 for a total of
    $3,456,274.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates that non-Federal funding for this
    program is as follows: in fiscal year 1991, $310,051; in fiscal year
    1992, $266,857; in fiscal year 1993, $249,320; in fiscal year 1994,
    $188,816; in fiscal year 1995, $159,810; in fiscal year 1996, $150,104;
    in fiscal year 1997, $158,808; in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $110,101;
    and in fiscal year 2000, $447,269. The primary source of this funding
    was from state sources and self-generated funds with minor
    contributions from industry and other non-Federal sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Louisiana State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original specific objectives were to be completed in
    1990. These specific research objectives have been met, however,
    research required for long-term growth of the aquaculture industry in
    Louisiana and the southern region continues to be addressed. The
    specific research outlined in the current proposal will be completed in
    fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Grants are awarded to scientists within the university on a
    competitive peer-review basis. The entire proposal is reviewed by
    agency Program Managers on an annual basis. The 2000 agency review
    determined that the proposal was well written with objectives clearly
    stated. The research approach, methodology, timetable, and experimental
    design were sound and addressed important opportunities for the
    commercial culture of catfish, crawfish, and tilapia in the southern
    region. The feasibility of attaining objectives during the life of the
    proposed research was excellent, and the research team was well-
    qualified. The proposed research built on work initiated in previous
    years, and progress on previous work was well documented. The proposed
    research is consistent with national goals and needs outlined in the
    National Science and Technology Councils--NSTC--Aquaculture Research
    and Development Strategic Plan.
                 aquaculture research, stoneville, mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
    the Aquaculture Research Stoneville, Mississippi grant.
        Answer. The agency has requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. Research under this program has
    addressed the critical needs of the farm-raised channel catfish
    industry including practical feeding and nutrition strategies, fish
    health and water quality management, and acoustical in-pond monitoring
    technologies.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigator indicates that results from this
    project continue to have a significant impact on the competitiveness of
    a significant segment of the domestic aquaculture industry, namely
    channel catfish. The farmed-raised channel catfish industry accounts
    for over 70 percent of total domestic aquaculture production. Research
    funded by this program is directed towards improving feeds and feeding
    strategies, enhancing aquatic animal health, and acoustical monitoring
    and inventory of catfish in pond production systems. These findings
    will have long-term impacts on the economic viability of the farm-
    raised channel catfish industries in the southern region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to address the
    research needs of the farm-raised channel catfish industry in the areas
    of water quality and nutrition. Results from this research have led to
    improved water quality management practices in commercial catfish ponds
    and improved diet formulation and feeding strategies that have been
    widely adopted by the industry. Research findings from this program
    have had a direct impact on reducing the cost of catfish feed without
    reducing performance and productivity. Researchers have demonstrated
    that fish meal levels can be significantly reduced in commercial
    catfish diets. Fish health monitoring efforts are also expected to
    enhance production efficiency. Additionally, sonar hardware and
    software technologies are being refined and evaluated for use in stock
    assessment in channel catfish ponds.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal years 1980-1981, $150,000 per year; fiscal year 1982,
    $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1984, $270,000 per year; fiscal year 1985,
    $420,000; fiscal years 1986-87, $400,000 per year; fiscal year 1988,
    $500,000; fiscal year 1989, $588,000; fiscal year 1990, $581,000;
    fiscal year 1991, $600,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $700,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $658,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $592,000 each year;
    fiscal year 1998, $642,000; $592,000 per year in fiscal years 1999
    through 2000; and $590,698 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $10,819,698
    has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates a total of $2,101,508 in non-
    Federal funding to support this research for fiscal years 1991-1994;
    $1,128,451 in fiscal year 1995; $601,473 in fiscal year 1996; $463,990
    in fiscal year 1997; $464,266 in year 1998; $740,000 in fiscal year
    1999; and $770,000 in fiscal year 2000. Non-Federal funding is
    primarily provided by state funds. Additional funding is also provided
    from product sales, industry contributions, and other miscellaneous
    sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The grants have been awarded to the Mississippi State
    University Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station. All nutrition
    research is conducted at the Delta Branch Experiment Station,
    Stoneville, Mississippi. The acoustical research is conducted in
    cooperation with the National Center for Physical Acoustics at the
    University of Mississippi.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the specific original
    research objectives was 1984. The original objectives have been met,
    however, projects funded by subsequent grants continue to address the
    critical research needs of the channel catfish industry. The specific
    research outlined in the current proposal will be completed in 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency Program Managers and Program Specialist evaluate
    the progress of this project on an annual basis. The agency's fiscal
    year 2000 evaluation concluded that the proposal was well written, the
    objectives were clearly stated, and the experimental design and
    scientific approach were sound. The researchers were leading
    authorities in this area of research and were well aware of the
    complexity of the industry and the implications of their research.
    Significant progress had been reported on research objectives under
    this program, and a strong linkage between the researchers and the
    catfish industry has led to the accelerated adoption of research
    findings within the industry. The research from this program continues
    to have a tremendous impact on the industry by improving production
    efficiency in commercial catfish ponds through improved feeds and
    feeding strategies. The proposed research is consistent with national
    goals and needs outlined in the National Science and Technology
    Councils--NSTC--Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
                          aquaculture, north carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Aquaculture, North Carolina grant.
        Answer. The agency has requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The researchers indicate that the
    funding will be used to support and expand research efforts in areas
    with species that are important to the aquaculture industry in North
    Carolina and the U.S. including hybrid striped bass, tilapia, flounder,
    and catfish.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigator indicates that the proposed
    research will impact aquaculture production technology for several
    species of cultured finfish with regional and national implications
    that could significantly impact the economic viability of coastal and
    rural communities across the nation.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the project was targeted at resolving
    specific impediments to aquaculture efficiency, profitability, and
    growth in the Mid-Atlantic region. Research has led to improved vaccine
    administration methods for rainbow trout, improved broodstock
    maintenance methodologies for striped bass, and reduction of
    environmental impacts by improving system technologies and feeding
    strategies in hybrid striped bass production ponds. Under the fiscal
    year 2000 grant, research was initiated to improve technology for
    commercial production of the summer flounder. Studies have been
    initiated to enhance reproductive efficiency, to develop faster-growing
    all female populations, and to evaluate biochemical growth regulating
    factors in summer flounder.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $150,000. The project
    was not funded in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The fiscal year 2000
    appropriation was $255,000 and for fiscal year 2001, $299,340 is
    appropriated. A total of $704,340 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university reported a total of $94,000 of non-Federal
    funding to support research carried out under this program for fiscal
    year 1997. The university estimates non-Federal funding of $200,000 for
    fiscal year 2000, and $221,000 for fiscal year 2001. The primary source
    of the non-Federal funding is from state sources.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at North Carolina State
    University and their aquaculture research field station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This program was initiated in fiscal year 1997 and was
    funded for one year. The original objectives were completed. Funding
    was not appropriated in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. The anticipated
    completion date for the expanded objectives for the fiscal year 2000
    proposal is July 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency's fiscal year 2000 review indicated that the
    proposal was well written, objectives were clearly stated, and the
    methodology and experimental design were sound. The research team is
    well qualified and has the appropriate background. Facilities for the
    project are excellent. The research timetable presented was ambitious
    for a 12-month period. The proposed research is consistent with the
    goals and objectives of the National Science and Technology Council's--
    NSTC--Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
                             aquaculture, virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Aquaculture, Virginia grant.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The proposed research will
    continue to evaluate culture methods and the economic viability of
    closed recirculating aquaculture systems. Fish culture technologies and
    waste management will be refined, off-flavors and product quality will
    be evaluated, and marketing strategies will developed for these
    systems.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The investigators indicate that there is a need to develop
    a highly-competitive, sustainable aquaculture industry that uses closed
    recirculating system technologies in order to meet consumer demand for
    cultivated aquatic foods that are of high quality, safe, competitively
    priced, nutritious, and are produced in an environmentally responsible
    manner. Research refining culture system technologies has the potential
    to significantly enhance domestic aquaculture production.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify
    commercially-viable aquaculture species utilizing recirculating
    aquaculture system technology, verifying production and culture
    management protocols utilizing this technology, analyze production
    budgets providing information upon which to build business plans,
    investigate marketing development strategies, and prepare scientific,
    technical, and popular publications to disseminate the results of this
    research. Research was initiated in fiscal year 1999. Site selection
    and development has been completed and production trials are underway.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This was a new research initiative in fiscal year 1999 and
    $100,000 per year was appropriated for fiscal years 1999 through 2000,
    and $99,780 in fiscal year 2001. The total appropriation for this grant
    is $299,780.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates a minimum of $90,000 of non-
    Federal funding in fiscal year 1999; $34,853 in fiscal year 2000; and
    $158,000 in fiscal year 2001. This support is provided primarily from
    state sources. In addition the university reports substantial in-kind
    support from research cooperators.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted through the Virginia
    Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
    State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, and at the Southwest Virginia
    Aquaculture Center in collaboration with private aquaculture firms in
    Virginia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This original proposal outlined a three year project. The
    fiscal year 1999 grant provided funding for the first year of the
    project and the fiscal year 2000 grant provided funding for the second
    year. The anticipated completion date for the fiscal year 2000
    component of the project is 2001. It is anticipated that the fiscal
    year 2001 grant will provide funding for the third year of the proposed
    project with minor modifications.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency evaluates the progress of this project on an
    annual basis. The fiscal year 2000 agency evaluation concluded that
    objectives described in the proposal were relevant to state, regional,
    and national goals. The objectives, methodologies, and experimental
    design were sound. Personnel and facilities were appropriate for the
    stated objectives, and objectives should be attained within budgetary
    and time constraints. The proposed research is consistent with goals
    and needs of the National Science and Technology Council's--NSTC--
    Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
                            aquaculture, washington
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Aquaculture, Washington grant.
        Answer. The agency has requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. This is a new program that will
    be initiated in fiscal year 2001. The university indicates that the
    research will address the critical needs of the trout farming industry
    in the U.S. including the hatchery sector of the industry which
    provides high quality trout eggs for international markets.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The researchers indicate that the project will focus on the
    current constraints to the expansion of the industry that include
    threats from foreign and domestic pathogens which could impact both
    foreign and domestic markets. Research efforts should lead to improved
    production efficiency and enhanced aquatic animal health management in
    the trout farming industry with regional and national implications. The
    researchers indicate that the research goals and objectives are
    consistent with those outlined in the National Science and Technology
    Council's--NSTC--Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The researchers indicate that original goals will be to
    improve and expand trout aquaculture at the regional and national level
    through improved animal health management, improved water quality and
    effluent management, and improved product quality and new product
    development.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates a total of $148,323 non-Federal
    funding to support this project in fiscal year 2001 primarily from
    state sources. The university also reports significant in-kind support
    from the industry.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Washington State University
    in cooperation with industry.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project will be initiated in fiscal year 2001 with the
    anticipated completion date for the original objectives in 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will conduct the initial review of this proposal
    when it is submitted for funding. The proposal may be externally peer
    reviewed as part of the evaluation.
          aquaculture product and marketing development, west virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Aquaculture Product and Marketing Development,
    West Virginia, grant.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The research program is aimed at
    developing a viable and competitive aquaculture industry in West
    Virginia and the Appalachian region. The specific objectives of the
    project address state and regional needs by improving the short-term
    viability and long-term sustainability of aquaculture production and
    processing firms in West Virginia and similar areas of Appalachia.
    Specific research strategies include the development of marketing
    strategies for trout producers and processors, increasing the economic
    efficiency and profitability of trout-based enterprises, improving the
    consistency and quality of fresh trout fillets and value-added smoked
    trout products, utilization of impaired mine waters for aquaculture,
    and implementation of a technology transfer component to disseminate
    information generated by this project to the aquaculture industry in
    Appalachia.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a regional and
    national need to evaluate marketing and product development for small
    scale aquaculture systems in rural communities. In addition, there is a
    need to improve the efficiency of these systems and to evaluate the use
    of impaired mine waters for aquaculture.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop sound
    marketing strategies for aquaculture products, improve the economic
    efficiency of aquaculture production systems, and improve the quality
    and variety of aquaculture products in West Virginia and the
    Appalachian region. Marketing surveys have been conducted for fee
    fishing operations and food fish production systems. Researchers have
    developed baseline information on the economics of production and
    processing relevant to small-scale facilities. Studies to evaluate the
    quality of aquaculture products from these small-scale systems have
    been implemented. Efforts to evaluate impaired mine waters for
    aquaculture production have recently been initiated.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1998, $600,000; $750,000 for each of fiscal years
    1999 through 2000; and $748,350 in fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $2,848,350 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates total non-Federal funding
    available for this program at $440,000 for fiscal years 1998 through
    2001. The primary source of this funding is from state sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at the University of West
    Virginia in Morgantown and at off campus sites with a variety of
    cooperators.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1998. Research
    addressing the original objectives has essentially been completed and
    objectives have been met. Research initiated in fiscal years 1999 and
    2000 is currently underway, and the anticipated completion date for
    these objectives is fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency's fiscal year 2000 review indicated that the
    proposal was well written with objectives clearly stated. The research
    approach, methodology, timetable, and experimental design were sound.
    The research was relevant and addresses an important opportunity for
    the commercial aquaculture industry in West Virginia and throughout the
    Appalachian region. The feasibility of attaining objectives during the
    life of the proposed research was excellent. The research team was well
    qualified and has the appropriate background. Facilities are adequate
    to conduct the proposed research. The proposed research builds on work
    initiated in previous years and progress on previous work is well
    documented. The proposed research is consistent with national goals and
    needs outlined in the National Science and Technology Council's--NSTC--
    Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
                asparagus technology and production, washington
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Asparagus Technology and Production, Washington
    grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant and the University of Washington is
    preparing a proposal for submission.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The asparagus industry in Washington and other states is
    suffering severe economic loss due to competition from countries where
    labor and other costs of production are lower. This has necessitated
    producing more asparagus for the fresh market, developing advanced
    technologies, and delivering this information to the producers. This
    research will enable Washington asparagus producers to remain
    domestically and internationally competitive.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this grant is to develop new technologies for
    harvesting and packaging fresh asparagus that will reduce labor inputs
    and allow asparagus growers from the U.S. to remain competitive.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $224,505.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, $145,000 from an asparagus grower
    assessment was spent addressing these issues. In fiscal year 2000,
    $123,000 from an asparagus grower assessment and $30,000 from the State
    of Washington was provided. In is anticipated that this level of non-
    Federal funding will continue throughout the life of the project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out at Washington State
    University and Michigan State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is the end of fiscal year 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. A peer review of the project will be
    undertaken by the performing institution and reported on annually.
    CSREES will conduct a thorough evaluation of the proposal once it is
    received.
       babcock institute for international dairy research and development
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Babcock Institute, Wisconsin grant.
        Answer. The Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
    Development was established with participation of the University of
    Wisconsin-Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, School of
    Veterinary Medicine, and the Cooperative Extension Division. The
    objective of the Babcock Institute is to link the U.S. dairy industry
    with the dairy industry in the rest of the world through degree
    training, continuing education, technology transfer, adaptive research,
    scientific collaboration, and market analysis.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the need is to strengthen
    dairy industries around the world, to enhance international commercial
    and scientific collaborative opportunities for the U.S. dairy industry,
    and to draw upon global perspectives to build insight into the
    strategic planning of the U.S. dairy industry.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the Institute remains the linkage of the U.S.
    dairy industry with the rest of the world through training, continuing
    education and outreach, technology transfer, adaptive research,
    scientific collaboration, and market analysis. Initial efforts were
    focused on planning and staffing. An initial activity was, and
    continues to be, the development of multi-language extension materials
    about basic management techniques essential to optimize performance of
    U.S. dairy cattle overseas. This activity has grown to include manuals
    on Breeding and Genetics, Lactation and Milking, and Basic Dairy Farm
    Financial Management published in English, Spanish, French, Russian,
    and Chinese. Research on potential implications of the North American
    Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA--and the General Agreement on Tariffs and
    Trade--GATT--on the U.S. dairy industry was completed. A technical
    workshop on dairy grazing in New Zealand and the Midwest was organized
    and held in Madison, Wisconsin, during the fall of 1993. A technical
    workshop on Nutrient Management, Manure and the Dairy Industry--
    European Perspectives and Wisconsin's Challenges--was held in Madison,
    Wisconsin, during September 1994. A round table was held in January
    1995 addressing ``World Dairy Markets in the Post-GATT Era''. Sponsored
    the Great Lakes Dairy Sheep Symposium in 1995 and 1996. Created a World
    Wide Web site in 1996 for distribution of Babcock Institute technical
    dairy fact sheets in four languages. The first International Dairy
    Short Course for a group of producers and technicians from Argentina
    has been organized on the University of Wisconsin Campus. Scientists'
    are being supported in collaborative research with New Zealand
    primarily to gain a better understanding of grazing systems as related
    to dairy management. An analysis of the impact of changes in European
    dairy policies has been completed. The Institute sponsored a Minnesota-
    Wisconsin Dairy Policy Conference to provide insights into current
    agricultural programs and policy issues in the dairy sector of the U.S.
    economy. During the past year more than 30 publications have appeared
    as a result of funding through the Babcock Institute. These report the
    results of research collaboration and scientific exchange, world market
    and trade analysis, or are for use in international education and
    training programs.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $75,000 per year; fiscal year
    1994, $250,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $312,000 per year; fiscal year
    1999, $400,000; fiscal year 2000, $510,000; and fiscal year 2001,
    $598,680. A total of $3,156,680 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. During fiscal year 1992, $13,145 of State funds were used
    to support this program and $19,745 of State funds in fiscal year 1993
    for a total of $32,890 during the first two years of this research.
    Information is not available for fiscal years 1994-2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Wisconsin-
    Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Babcock Institute's overarching mission has been to
    link the U.S. dairy industry and its trade potential with overseas
    dairy industries and markets. The original objectives of this project
    have remained consistent over the years. However, each year specific
    objectives were proposed to further the mission of the Institute and to
    build on previous accomplishments. The Institute has accomplished
    specific objectives each year in a timely manner. The Babcock Institute
    has remained true to its original objective of linking Wisconsin and
    the U.S. to dairy industries around the world. This objective remains
    increasingly important with continued development of international
    markets for dairy products and technologies. The university researchers
    anticipate that work currently in progress will be completed by
    September 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Babcock Institute undergoes two independent review
    processes each year. The first is done by a committee of university and
    industry representatives who review the annual research proposal and
    amend it prior to submission to the agency. The annual proposal is
    reviewed by agency technical staff prior to approval for fund release.
    In addition, the institute was included in a comprehensive review of
    the programs of the Department of Dairy Science at the University of
    Wisconsin in May 1995. The agency project officer has conducted two
    onsite reviews of the institute since its formation in 1992. The most
    recent review has found that the approach proposed by the researchers
    is appropriate and that the researchers are well qualified to perform
    the objectives as stated. The objectives of the proposal are within the
    mission of USDA and CSREES.
                       beef technology transfer, missouri
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Beef Technology Transfer, Missouri grant.
        Answer. This is a new project starting in fiscal year 2001. CSREES
    has requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not
    yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is for the adoption of
    technology to enhance vertically-aligned independent and corporate beef
    producers. Missouri is currently the second largest cow-calf producing
    state in the country. Accessing and the delivery of pre-harvest beef
    production technology is critical to the future success of beef
    producers in the state and region to optimize and improve beef quality
    and product value.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to enhance the
    information base available to beef producers involved in vertically-
    coordinated production systems to capture retail case value. Input from
    Missouri state commodity groups, implementation of beef advisory groups
    to the land-grant university representing producers throughout the
    state, and interaction with a new age producer cooperative that has
    begun with a business goal of marketing beef products and capturing
    retail case value are examples of recent, innovative accomplishments
    and university/producer interactions to date. Conceptually, this moves
    the paradigm from marketing of beef toward the concept of marketing
    specific and consumer-oriented beef products.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: approximately $350,000 state appropriations for fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research and/or outreach will be conducted at the
    University of Missouri-Columbia and Lincoln University, Columbia,
    Missouri.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for original, additional,
    and related objectives is January 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project, and no evaluation has been
    conducted.
                         biobased technology, michigan
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Biobased Technology, Michigan grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant, and funds will be used to develop and
    demonstrate new biobased polymers derived from agricultural resources.
    Polymer technology allows a highly-customizable material to be
    developed, such as medical plastics that can resist blood clot
    formation and infections. Funds will be used to develop and optimize
    the reaction and recovery processes to produce succinic acid.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Biobased technologies offer environmentally-preferable
    products and processing technologies that expand agricultural markets,
    create job opportunities in rural America.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This grant is new in fiscal year 2001. Prior research to
    justify this new work includes the development and scale-up of a
    fermentation process to produce succinic acid. Polymer research has
    been successful in changing the surface characteristics of medical
    devices to optimize performance such as resisting blood clot formation.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, and a proposal has not yet been
    received, the source and amount of non-Federal funds for this research
    is unknown.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work will be carried out at Michigan State University.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, no evaluation has been
    conducted.
                      bioinformatics initiative, virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Bioinformatics Initiative, Virginia grant.
        Answer. This is a new special grant this year. The agency has
    requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
    been received. Preliminary communications with the principal researcher
    indicate that the project involves the development of software and
    database tools for comparative genomic analysis of model organisms such
    as Arabidopsis and Medicago relative to agriculturally-important crops
    such as tomato, potato, soybean, and others.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the principal researcher, the national need is
    that a considerable amount of Federal funding in plant genomics, with
    the exception of the rice genome, goes into model organisms of marginal
    agricultural importance such as Arabidopsis thaliana and Medicago
    truncatula. In order to make use of and leverage the Federal investment
    in the genomics of model organisms, the principal researcher states
    that it is necessary to build analytical information bridges between
    model genomes and agriculturally-important crops thereby enhancing
    technology transfer and economic development.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to advance critical
    information and communications technologies to support the analysis,
    manipulation, transmission, and end use of massive volumes of complex
    data being generated by contemporary genome research. The research is
    just getting started at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
    University--VPISU.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated is $473,955.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The Commonwealth of Virginia is providing operational
    support of $11.6 million for the 2000-2002 biennium for the Virginia
    Bioinformatics Institute. This amount is projected to increase to $12
    million per year thereafter. VPISU is raising additional funds from the
    private sector of currently indeterminate amount for the Virginia
    Bioinformatics Institute.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is conducted at the Virginia Bioinformatics
    Institute, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
    Blacksburg, Virginia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is September 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new special grant so it has not been evaluated
    yet. The agency will convene a merit review panel to evaluate the
    project upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2001.
            biomass-based energy research, oklahoma and mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Biomass-Based Energy Research, Oklahoma and
    Mississippi, grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested Oklahoma State University to submit a
    grant proposal that has not yet been received. The research will
    address conversion of biomass to ethanol. Through the establishment of
    the Oklahoma State and Mississippi State University Consortium, both
    universities are continuing the development of an ethanol gasification-
    bioconversion process that utilizes all of the biomass, including the
    lignin. While making it more cost efficient than other methods of
    ethanol production, this process utilizes all portions of biomass/
    feedstock material: grasses, crop residues, processing plant
    byproducts, and animal wastes.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Gasification-bioconversion provides an additional method
    for the development of ethanol while developing an alternative source
    of income in rural America.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This grant is new and the research will build upon existing
    expertise for utilizing crop residues, grasses, byproducts, and animal
    wastes.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $900,016.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, and a proposal has not yet been
    received, the source and amount of non-Federal funds for this research
    is unknown.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work will be carried out at Oklahoma State University
    and Mississippi State University.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
         Answer. Since this is a new grant, no evaluation has been
    conducted.
                         biotechnology, north carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Biotechnology, North Carolina grant.
        Answer. This is a new special grant this year. The agency has
    requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
    been received. Preliminary communications with the institutional
    research administrator indicate that the project involves integrated
    biotechnological and genetic systems for enhanced forest productivity
    and health. Three areas of focus are: (1) genetic control of wood
    quality; (2) understanding and managing invasive species threats to the
    Fraser fir Christmas tree industry; and (3) development of propagation
    and deployment systems for elite oak genotypes.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the institutional research administrator, the
    need for this research is to enhance the competitiveness of the
    southern region in the production of industrial wood through genetic
    manipulation, to combat invasive pathogens of various ornamental trees,
    and to develop advanced techniques to capture genetic quality and
    replicate elite genotypes of hardwood forest species more efficiently.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to improve the
    competitiveness of southern U.S. wood production, to better manage
    invasive pathogens of ornamental trees, and to increase the
    distribution of elite hardwood trees in natural forest settings. The
    research is just getting underway at North Carolina State University.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Existing research and extension resources at North Carolina
    State University will be used to complement the Federal funding to
    carry out the proposed research. The forest industry is also expected
    to provide in-kind support in the form of field work and laboratory
    analyses. The exact amount of these contributions is not known at the
    present time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is conducted at North Carolina State
    University and various sites in the southern Appalachians and elsewhere
    in the southeast U.S.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives, according to the institutional research administrator, is
    five years from project inception or approximately September 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new special grant so it has not been evaluated
    yet. The agency will convene a merit review panel to evaluate the
    project upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2001.
              blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Blocking Anhydrous Methamphetamine Production, Iowa
    grant.
        Answer. Since starting in fiscal year 2000, research under this
    grant has examined several possible ways to chemically treat anhydrous
    ammonia intended for use as an agricultural fertilizer so that it
    cannot be used for making the illegal drug methamphetamine.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher has indicated that anhydrous
    ammonia, a commonly used agricultural fertilizer, can be used as an
    ingredient for making methamphetamine, an illegal and highly addictive
    drug which has posed a drug enforcement problem for Iowa and other
    Midwestern states in recent years.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to discover a chemical
    procedure that will render anhydrous ammonia ineffective in producing
    methamphetamine while keeping the anhydrous ammonia cost-efficient and
    effective as a fertilizer. Preliminary results suggest that certain
    metal salts in catalytic amounts can be effective at inactivating the
    drug-producing reaction.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This grant began in fiscal year 2000 with an appropriation
    of $212,500. The appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $247,454 for a
    total of $459,954 appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. State funds in an amount of less than $5,000 were used to
    get the project started in fiscal year 1999. The state plans to cost-
    share the salaries of the principal investigator and a faculty
    collaborator in the amounts of $20,000 and $25,000 per year,
    respectively.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted in the Chemistry Department
    at Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigator anticipates completing the
    original objectives of the project in two or three years. Additional or
    related objectives have not been specifically identified at this time.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was evaluated by a merit review panel convened
    by the agency on April 17, 2000. The panel recommended approval of the
    project pending receipt of supplemental information on administrative
    aspects of the project. The supplemental information was received, and
    the agency is satisfied that the program is being administered in
    compliance with the purpose of the grant. A merit review panel will be
    convened to re-evaluate the project upon receipt of a proposal for
    fiscal year 2001.
                         bovine tuberculosis, michigan
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been conducted under the Bovine Tuberculosis, Michigan grant.
        Answer. Bovine tuberculosis has been discovered to be present in
    free-ranging white-tailed deer and other wild life in Michigan.
    Eradication of the organism/disease from the state's deer population
    has been mandated. To address this issue this project will work on
    three objectives: (1) Determine the spatial relationships in
    transmission of bovine tuberculosis relating to feeding habits and
    factors in the habitat; (2) Determine the survivability of
    Mycobacterium bovis--M. bovis--in the environment; and (3) Determine
    other wild or domestic hosts for M. bovis transmission through
    epidemiological studies of naturally-infected hosts.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research relates to the critical problem
    of bovine tuberculosis which has now been discovered to have spread
    into the white-tailed deer population in the state of Michigan. If
    information on the scope of this disease in deer and methodologies to
    monitor and reduce this problem is not available soon, it will present
    a serious threat to the largely tuberculosis-free national cattle herd.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research is to develop information
    about the spread of the bovine tuberculosis organism, M. bovis, within
    the deer population of Michigan. Appropriate control programs cannot be
    devised until the epidemiologic information is available. The research
    team has reported that there is clear evidence that supplemental
    feeding of deer is associated with the prevalence of M. bovis in the
    deer population. The other component of the epidemiological study
    concerns the survival of the M. bovis organism in the environment. To
    date, all samples tested--approximately 190--from cattle farms, deer
    feeding sites, and captive cervid operations have been negative. Either
    oral or intratracheal inoculation of pigeons can result in shedding of
    the M. bovis organism in feces. However, only the intratracheal
    inoculation seems capable of producing active disease in the pigeons.
    The group has also initiated a literature search to identify relevant
    existing risk assessment models and initial work on a model has begun.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    with an appropriation of $170,000 and $324,285 in fiscal year 2001. The
    total amount appropriated is $494,285.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
    fiscal year?
        Answer. During fiscal year 2000, an additional $650,000 were
    provided from institutional--Michigan State University--and state
    funds--Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources.
        Question. Where is this work being performed?
        Answer. The research is being performed in the College of
    Veterinary Medicine, Michigan State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is 2002. The research team has made good progress in identifying
    potential risk factors for the occurrence of tuberculosis in the wild
    deer herds as well as the studies on the potential role of pigeon as
    either active or passive carriers of the organism.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was initiated in fiscal year 2000, and due to
    the short time interval since it was started, no formal, onsite
    evaluation has been done at this time. The CSREES representative has
    had regular contact with personnel at Michigan State University to
    monitor this research effort.
                          brucellosis vaccine, montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been conducted under the Brucellosis Vaccine, Montana grant.
        Answer. This project will study the immune response of bison to
    Brucella abortus antigen which has been incorporated into an organism
    that can be given orally to the animals. The objective is to produce an
    oral vaccine that can be easily administered to the bison without
    subjecting them to intensive handling procedures.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. The research project is intended to develop a strategy for
    vaccinating or immunizing cattle against brucellosis by incorporation
    of Brucella abortus genes into an orally-administered system. The need
    for this program relates to the problem associated with bison which are
    infected with Brucella abortus, the causative agent of brucellosis,
    within the Yellowstone bison herd.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the project was to accomplish
    incorporation of Brucella genes which code for specific antigens into
    Salmonella species of bacteria and test the efficacy of oral
    administration of this material in developing systemic immunity in
    bison. At this time, the research team has been successful in
    demonstrating that an immune response to a test organism does occur
    after oral exposure, and the antibodies do appear in secretions of the
    reproductive tract. They are currently testing the feasibility of
    intranasal vaccination as a possible alternative to the oral route and
    are also working on development of methods to permit incorporation of
    the lipopolysaccharide--LPS--from B. abortus into a potential vaccine
    product.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $150,000; for fiscal year
    2000, $425,000; and for fiscal year 2001, $494,909 for a total of
    $1,069,909.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
    fiscal year?
        Answer. The source and amount of non-Federal funds for fiscal year
    1999 was $67,401 from state sources, and $15,300 from state sources in
    fiscal year 2000. In addition, the university contributed unpaid
    overhead costs on the grant.
        Question. Where is this work being performed?
        Answer. The work is being performed in the Department of Veterinary
    and Molecular Biology at Montana State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    was May, 2002 or three years from the initiation of the project.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project began in the summer of 1999 and there has been
    no formal onsite evaluation as yet.
            center for animal health and productivity, pennsylvania
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Center for Animal Health and Productivity,
    Pennsylvania grant.
        Answer. This research is designed to reduce nutrient transfer to
    the environment surrounding dairy farms in the Chesapeake Bay
    watershed. Progress to date includes the development of an individual
    dairy cow model which will predict absorbed amino acids and the loss of
    nitrogen in manure. This model has been developed into a user-friendly
    software so that trained farm advisors can evaluate herd nutrient
    management status while on a farm site. A whole farm model has been
    developed which integrates feeding and agronomic practices to predict
    utilization of nitrogen and farm surpluses. Using these tools, a survey
    of dairy farms in the region has been done to assess nitrogen status on
    dairy farms and potential management practices to reduce nitrogen
    excesses on dairy farms. Refinement of the model tools and research to
    refine estimates of the environmental fate of excess nitrogen from
    dairy farms is in progress. During the last two years, researchers have
    discovered that a significant fraction of total nitrogen in feed is
    lost from the animal housing facility in the form of ammonia
    volatilized to the atmosphere. Preliminary estimates indicate that as
    much as 50 percent of the nitrogen consumed by dairy cows is lost as
    ammonia to the atmosphere before waste ever reaches the manure storage
    and management system. Two on-site reviews of the program have been
    conducted by the CSREES Project Officer and a third is planned during
    2001. The animal and farm models have been published in peer reviewed
    scientific journals. Scientists funded by the grant regularly
    participate in public meetings related to animal nutrient management
    systems.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that reducing non-point
    pollution of ground and surface water by nitrogen from intensive
    livestock production units are of concern nationally, and especially in
    sensitive ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. This research is designed
    to find alternative feeding, cropping, and management systems which
    will reduce net nutrient flux on Pennsylvania dairy farms to near zero.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research remains the development
    of whole farm management systems which will reduce nutrient losses from
    the farm to the environment external from the farm to near zero. To
    date the researchers have developed their own models to more accurately
    formulate rations for individual dairy cows which permit the comparison
    of alternative feeding programs based upon both maximal animal
    performance and minimal nutrient losses in animal waste. This model is
    being tested on select commercial dairy farms to evaluate the extent to
    which total nitrogen losses in manure can be reduced without impacting
    economic performance of the farm. At the same time, whole farm nutrient
    models have been developed to evaluate alternative cropping systems
    which will make maximum use of nutrients from animal waste and minimize
    nutrient flux from the total farm system. These tools are currently
    being used to survey the current status of nutrient balance on farms in
    the area and efforts to fine tune the tools are in progress. The recent
    discovery of the quantitative significance of nitrogen loss as ammonia
    to the atmosphere and potential transport from the farm and
    redeposition to the earth's surface raises a whole new aspect of
    nutrient management.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. A grant has been awarded from funds appropriated in fiscal
    year 1993 for $134,000 and in fiscal year 1994 for $126,000. In fiscal
    years 1995-2000, $113,000 per year was appropriated, and $112,751 in
    fiscal year 2001. A total of $1,050,751 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This information is not available at the present time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of
    Pennsylvania, College of Veterinary Medicine at New Bolton Center,
    Pennsylvania.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The University researchers anticipate that work currently
    underway will be completed by September 2001. This will complete the
    original objectives of the research. The principal researcher indicates
    that consideration has been given to the broadening of objectives to
    include additional nutrients in the model system, but this has been
    dropped because technical expertise required is currently not readily
    available.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Center for Animal Health and Productivity Project was
    last reviewed in June 1997. An onsite review by agency technical staff
    was conducted in June 1995. It was concluded that project objectives
    are within the goals of the program, are within the mission of both the
    USDA and CSREES, and the institution is well equipped and qualified to
    carry out the research project. The institution has made excellent
    progress toward the completion of the original goals of the project,
    but still must evaluate the effectiveness of the use of the new tools
    developed in reducing nutrient runoff from commercial dairy farms
    within the watershed of the Chesapeake Bay.
                       center for rural studies, vermont
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Center for Rural Studies, Vermont project.
        Answer. The Center for Rural Studies project involves applied
    research focused on developing and refining social and economic
    indicators used to evaluate the impact of economic development
    programming and activities. The Center is perfecting a delivery format
    for technical assistance for community and small business development.
    A major component of current research relates to utilization of the
    world wide web as a delivery vehicle. Project proposal undergoes a
    merit review within the agency.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This is an on-going project to demonstrate the effective
    development and implementation of applied research, training,
    education, and technical assistance related to rural development. The
    grant has addressed methodology and strategies for assessing rural
    development program impacts and perfecting planning tools to assist
    rural areas in land use and economic planning activities.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished?
        Answer. The original goal was to create a database and analytical
    capability for rural development programming in Vermont. Examples of
    past accomplishments include maps presented to target child hunger
    programs, targeted areas for other types of rural development program
    intervention, analytical reports to guide the development of retail
    shopping areas, an ``Economic Handbook for Vermont Counties,'' and
    strategies for using the world wide web to disseminate information.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The grant was initiated in fiscal year 1992. Appropriated
    amounts are: fiscal year's 1992-1993, $37,000 per year; fiscal year
    1994, $35,000; fiscal year's 1995-1998, $32,000 per year; fiscal year
    1999-2000, $200,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $199,560 for total
    appropriations of $836,560.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Fiscal year 1991 included $91,130 in state matching funds.
    Fiscal years 1993, $143,124; fiscal years 1994-1996, $3,547 state
    matching funds. Fiscal years 1997-1998 state dollars were $2,931, plus
    researcher's salary. No non-Federal dollars were provided for fiscal
    years 1999-2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
    the University of Vermont. Parts of the research and application were
    done in association with the Lamoille County Planning Commission and
    the Addison County Planning Commission.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
    original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
    objectives presented for fiscal year 2000 will be completed by June 30,
    2001. The proposal for fiscal year 2001 has not been received to date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
    they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
    conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
    annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Agency
    evaluation of the project includes peer review of accomplishments and
    proposal objectives and targeted outcomes. A state level peer review
    was also performed for the Year 2000 project.
                      chesapeake bay agroecology, maryland
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, Maryland grant.
        Answer. The Chesapeake Bay Agroecology, Maryland project focuses on
    increasing our understanding of nutrient cycling, retention, and
    utilization by vital agricultural industries located within the
    vulnerable Chesapeake Bay watershed ecosystems that have been impacted
    by outbreaks of the toxic microorganisms Pfiesteria. There is a
    specific focus on Maryland's Eastern Shore. This research focus has
    been identified as a priority by the State of Maryland's Blue Ribbon
    Pfiesteria Action Commission Report of 1997 and by a Research,
    Education and Economics--REE--strategic plan emphasis, Greater Harmony
    Between Agriculture and the Environment, that calls for a better
    understanding of the linkages between agricultural production, water
    and soil quality range and forest land health, and habitat protection.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The continued viability of Maryland's important coastal
    agricultural economy and the protection of the Chesapeake Bay's and
    Atlantic coastal aquatic and agricultural resources from future
    Pfiesteria outbreaks depends on our ability to prevent future toxic
    algal blooms by stemming the flow of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other
    agricultural nutrients into estuarine waterways.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The objective of this research is to increase our
    understanding of nutrient cycling, retention, and utilization by vital
    agricultural industries located in the coastal regions of the
    Chesapeake Bay and to develop new technologies and strategies that
    limit the loss of nutrients into waterways while preserving and
    enhancing vital agricultural industries. The project was initiated in
    1999, and research results from 2000 are just becoming available.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. This project was initiated in fiscal year 1999. There were
    $150,000 per year in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and $174,615 in fiscal
    year 2001. Total appropriations are $474,615.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The State of Maryland has pledged to match 100 percent of
    the Federal funds provided in fiscal year 2000 and in the future years
    of the Chesapeake Bay Agroecology project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research will be conducted at the University System of
    Maryland institutions and field research stations located throughout
    Maryland.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Major progress has been made towards meeting specific
    project goals, as well as regional objectives. However, the issues
    being addressed are complex, and solutions will require a long-term
    approach.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. The project has not yet been evaluated by the agency.
    However, the projects supported by this Special Grant are peer reviewed
    by an independent external scientific panel prior to awarding of funds.
                      chesapeake bay aquaculture, maryland
        Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
    the Chesapeake Bay Aquaculture, Maryland grant.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The objective of the Chesapeake
    Bay Aquaculture project has focused on improving the culture of striped
    bass and its hybrids through genetic improvement, reproductive biology,
    nutrition, health management, waste management, and product quality.
    The research is aimed at enhancing production efficiency and product
    quality, and provides a good balance between basic and applied
    research. Recently, research efforts have expanded to include the
    evaluation of nutrient remediation capabilities of seaweed culture
    systems.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigator indicates that the Mid-Atlantic
    region of the U.S. continues to play a significant role in the overall
    expansion of the domestic aquaculture industry. Research supported
    through this program will assist in enhancing the culture of striped
    bass and its hybrids in the U.S. Additionally, research supported
    through this program will address the management of aquaculture
    effluents by enhancing nutrient uptake with cultured aquatic plants.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original research goal was to generate new knowledge
    that can be utilized to address serious problems limiting the expansion
    of the aquaculture industry in Maryland and the Mid-Atlantic region.
    The program has focused on closing the life cycle, enhancing production
    efficiency, decreasing effluents, and improving product quality under
    aquaculture conditions of striped bass and its hybrids. Research has
    been conducted in the areas of growth, reproduction and development,
    nutrition, aquacultural systems, product quality, and aquatic animal
    health. Progress has been made in developing controlled artificial
    spawning techniques, cryopreservation of sperm, and refining the
    nutritional requirements. Efforts to evaluate nutrient remediation
    capabilities of seaweed culture systems have also been initiated.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
    1990 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $370,000. The
    appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $437,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1994, $411,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $370,000 each year, fiscal
    years 1999 and 2000, $385,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $391,138.
    A total of $4,733,138 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates the amount of non-Federal funding
    for this program is as follows: in fiscal years 1991 and 1992,
    $200,000; in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, $175,000; in fiscal year 1995
    $400,000; in fiscal year 1996 $536,000; in fiscal year 1997
    approximately $400,000; in fiscal year 1998, $360,000; in fiscal year
    1999, approximately $360,000; and $783,055 in fiscal year 2000. The
    university reports that these funds are from direct state
    appropriations and other non-Federal funding sources.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Maryland.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original specific research objectives were to be
    completed in 1993. The original specific research objectives have been
    met, however, research funded through this grant continues to address
    problems faced by the hybrid-striped bass industry in Maryland and
    throughout the U.S. The specific research outlined in the current
    proposal will be completed in fiscal year 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES staff evaluate the progress of this project on an
    annual basis. The agency's fiscal year 2000 review of this project
    concluded that the research objectives were relevant and addressed
    important opportunities in the aquaculture industry. The feasibility of
    attaining the stated objectives during the life of the proposed
    research was considered good, the research team was well-qualified and
    has the appropriate background, facilities were adequate, the budget
    was appropriate for the proposed activities, and the proposed research
    addressed priority needs of the aquaculture industry at the state and
    regional levels. The proposed research is consistent with national
    goals and needs outlined in the National Science and Technology
    Councils--NSTC--Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
                             citrus canker, florida
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Citrus Canker, Florida grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant at the University of Florida, Institute
    of Food and Agricultural Sciences. This project is engaged in short-
    and long-term research directed at the infection of commercial and
    residential citrus trees by the Xanthomonas bacterium which causes
    Citrus Canker disease. Priorities for the research are targeted at
    developing knowledge and technology in support of eradication of this
    invasive species in the short term, and in support of development of
    mechanisms in the long term for citrus to resist the infection process
    and disease development.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Citrus Canker is a devastating disease caused by an
    invasive bacterial pathogen. Fresh outbreaks of this disease threaten
    the viability of the important citrus industry in Florida and other
    states.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. A team of microbiologists, plant pathologists, geneticists,
    and horticulturists are working together on three major goals: (1)
    evaluate potential materials that can delay or interfere with the
    bacterial infection process on susceptible host material; (2)
    characterize aspects of canker biology, ecology, and epidemiology--
    disease development--that might be manipulated to reduce infection or
    to predict more effectively where infection has taken place; and (3) to
    develop mechanisms within the host plants that will increase their
    resistance to infection and disease development. Included are enhancing
    differences in susceptibility among citrus cultivars and the
    introduction of additional resistance mechanisms derived from the
    pathogen or from plants with resistance to other similar bacterial
    diseases. Educational objectives of this project focus on development
    and delivery of current information on the organism, the disease, and
    efforts to eliminate it. The targets of this educational effort are:
    (1) commercial citrus producers, harvesters, and those who work in
    contact with citrus trees which may be exposed to the disease; (2)
    homeowners with citrus planted in their yards; (3) the general public
    who seeks information on the eradication effort and its necessity; and
    (4) regulators and policy makers who are interested in science-based
    actions and policies.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $4,739,550.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been identified that have been
    provided for this research.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out within the Florida
    Agricultural Experiment Station, which is part of the Florida Institute
    of Food and Agricultural Sciences, and includes Research and Education
    Centers dealing with citrus at Lake Alfred, Bradenton, Immokalee, and
    Homestead.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is the end of fiscal year 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. The University of Florida intends to
    operate this project as an internal competitive grants program.
    Submitted proposals will be reviewed by a peer panel. CSREES will
    annually review the request for proposals and will consult with the
    university on the development of the peer review process.
                                citrus tristeza
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Citrus Tristeza research grant.
        Answer. Seven projects were selected for funding through a CSREES
    competitive grants program. Some of the research included: survey
    information on distribution of the brown citrus aphid and Citrus
    Tristeza Virus in Louisiana and Texas; the development of resistant
    citrus varieties to the virus; better understanding of virus strains;
    and the disease complex and biological control efforts on the brown
    citrus aphid in Florida and California.
        Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Citrus Tristeza virus is a problem in all citrus growing
    areas of the U.S. and Puerto Rico. The recent introduction of a new
    vector, the brown citrus aphid, into Florida has allowed for another
    pathotype of the virus to be introduced. The new pathotype is more
    destructive and causes greater damage than those pathotypes already
    established in the citrus producing areas.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this research is to reduce citrus losses in
    citrus; characterize and detect citrus tristeza virus strains;
    understand the biology and control of the brown citrus aphid and the
    epidemiology of citrus tristeza virus; identify host plant resistance;
    assess crop loss caused by citrus tristeza virus; develop strains of
    citrus tristeza virus strains that induce cross-protection in citrus,
    and provide virus free budwood.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
    at the appropriation level of $500,000. The appropriation for fiscal
    year 2000 was $595,000 and for fiscal year 2001, $740,368. A total of
    $1,835,368 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. There are no non-Federal funds provided for this grant.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being carried out at land grant universities
    and research centers in Florida, Louisiana, California, and Texas.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is the second year of this funding. An anticipated
    completion date has not been determined as the original objectives have
    not been met at this time.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. All projects underwent a peer review at the University
    level, a scientific peer review, and an agency merit review in August,
    2000.
              competitiveness of agriculture products, washington
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Competitiveness of Agriculture Products, Washington
    research grant?
        Answer. This research identifies international marketing
    opportunities for Northwest firms in the forest products and food
    products sectors.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Most food processing firms are small. Their export sales
    are made in many widely scattered markets with different languages,
    customs, institutions, and market structures. These markets have also
    been subjected to wrenching changes. University researchers provide a
    central and stable core of knowledgeable experts who can guide small
    export businesses in navigating these markets successfully.
        Forest products from the Pacific Northwest can be shipped to Asian
    markets for less than the cost of shipping them to the eastern
    population centers in the U.S. Research has opened Asian markets to
    U.S. light frame construction building technology, providing good
    opportunities to export higher-valued secondary-manufactured products
    to Japan and China. Research has also been focused on forest management
    alternatives that can better satisfy environmental goals with less
    negative impacts on timber-dependent communities. The Northwest
    agricultural economy is highly dependent upon being able to export
    given that food production in the region greatly exceeds food
    consumption.
        Northwest wood products companies that could export are generally
    small and are not able to provide their own research. Construction
    technologies used in Asian markets are inferior to U.S. technology, yet
    there is a long history of use and cultural appreciation of traditional
    methods. Deregulation and change in these markets has required
    extensive research on comparability of alternative product and building
    standards, quality and service needs, training in the U.S. technology,
    and customization to foreign consumer values. The Pacific Northwest can
    grow more wood with higher quality using more advanced technologies
    while reducing the impact on timber-dependent communities from harvest
    constraints to protect certain species.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to provide the information on markets and
    product technologies that can open higher-valued international markets
    to U.S. exporters. Foreign purchasers need information on the
    advantages of U.S. products, and U.S. exporters need information on the
    substantially different quality and service requirements for serving
    foreign markets. If the U.S. can remain competitive and retain its
    presence in these markets in the face of a stronger dollar, exports
    should return to a high growth path once Asian economies recover.
    Evidence to date suggests this is indeed happening.
        The food production research has focused on finding new market
    opportunities for Pacific Northwest producers, solving technical
    impediments to exports, and developing new products and new processes
    that will enhance exports. It has pinpointed emerging market
    opportunities in Southeast Asia, China, Japan, Taiwan, Korea, India,
    Mexico, and Latin America. It has improved the export quality of
    diverse products, such as asparagus, apples, grass-seed, cherries,
    pears, potatoes, onions, and wheat. It has helped commercialize high-
    value products such as Wagyu beef, azuki beans, wasabi radish, edamame,
    and burdock, and pioneered new food processing technologies that
    produce higher-quality, fresh-like, shelf-stable products and save
    energy and reduce waste.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work began in fiscal year 1992. The appropriation for
    fiscal years 1992-1993 was $800,000 each year; fiscal year 1994,
    $752,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $677,000 each year; $680,000 in
    fiscal years 1999-2000; and $678,504 in fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $7,098,504 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $716,986 State appropriations, $209,622 product sales,
    $114,000 industry, and $661,119 miscellaneous for a total of $1,701,727
    in 1991; $727,345 State appropriations, $114,810 product sales,
    $299,000 industry, and $347,425 miscellaneous for a total of $1,488,580
    in 1992; $1,259,437 State appropriations, $55,089 product sales,
    $131,000 industry, and $3,000 miscellaneous for a total of $1,448,526
    in 1993; $801,000 State appropriations, $1,055,000 product sales,
    $1,040,000 industry, and $244,000 miscellaneous for a total of
    $3,140,000 in 1994; $810,000 State appropriations, $42,970 product
    sales, $785,000 industry, and a $2,000,000 gift of a ranch due to the
    International Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade
    Center's research on Wagyu cattle for a total of $3,637,970 in 1995;
    $844,000 State appropriations, $45,000 product sales $900,000 industry,
    and $45,000 miscellaneous for a total of $1,834,000 in 1996; $876,000
    State appropriations and $1,606,000 industry for a total of $2,482,000
    in 1997; $1,180,000 State appropriations and $604,000 industry for a
    total of $1,784,000 in 1998; $1,551,000 State appropriations,
    $1,006,400 industry, $62,000 product sales, and $30,096 miscellaneous
    for a total of $2,649,496 in 1999; $673,152 State appropriations,
    $488,000 industry, and $13,900 miscellaneous for a total of $1,175,052
    in 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The food research is being carried out by the International
    Marketing Program for Agricultural Commodities and Trade--IMPACT--at
    Washington State University, Pullman; and the forest products research
    is carried out at the Center for International Trade in Forest
    Products--CINTRAFOR--at the University of Washington, Seattle.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date of the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was projected for 3 years duration to be
    completed following fiscal year 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide the summary of the last evaluation conducted?
        Answer. Two evaluations of the Washington State University
    component of the project were conducted in 1992 by USDA. The State of
    Washington Legislative Budget Committee gave the Washington State
    Center exemplary marks for meeting its objectives. On-site reviews are
    conducted annually of the University of Washington component of the
    project through annual meetings of the project's Executive Board,
    attended by the agency's staff. Both components are reviewed annually
    by the agency. The project is meeting the key objective of trade
    expansion through innovative research. The University of Washington
    project was formally reviewed by the agency in 1991. State reviews were
    completed in 1992 and 1994. A formal review by the University was
    completed in 1997. A broad survey of constituents impacted by the
    research was completed, resulting in a very favorable review of the
    Center's activities and a recommendation to continue this research. In
    1998, State of Washington legislation eliminated the requirement for
    state reviews of the Center, including one scheduled for 1999, based on
    hearings that focused on the other favorable reviews and the continuous
    oversight by the Executive Board.
                       cool season legume research, idaho
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Cool Season Legume Research, Idaho grant.
        Answer. The Cool Season Legumes, peas, lentils, chickpeas, and fava
    bean are considered minor crops on the national scale but are major in
    importance across the northern tier of states where all U.S. production
    is located. In addition to providing for U.S. consumption, they
    represent important export commodities and are important rotational
    crops in areas where a limited number of crops can be grown. Production
    research is urgently needed to improve economics in order to remain
    competitive in a world economy. The multi-state multi-disciplinary
    research is divided toward crop improvement, crop protection crop
    management, product development, and human nutrition.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The project is multi-state involving 5-7 states each year
    and representing the majority of U.S. production. Therefore, the
    program is national in scope.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the original goal of this
    project was to improve efficiency and sustainability of cool season
    food legumes through an integrated collaborative research program.
    Research on genetic resistance to important virus diseases in peas and
    lentils, and evaluation studies of biocontrol agents for root disease
    organisms on peas are underway. Other studies are evaluating
    integration of genetic resistance and chemical control. Considerable
    progress has been made using biotechnology to facilitate gene
    identification and transfer. Management system studies have addressed
    tillage and weed control issues. Results of previous years' work is
    already in use by area farmers and are helping to sustain the industry
    facing increasing competition from abroad and increasing production
    cost at home.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
    with appropriations for fiscal year 1991 of $375,000; fiscal year 1992
    and 1993, $387,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $364,000; fiscal year
    1995, $103,000; and fiscal years 1996 and 2000, $329,000; and fiscal
    year 2001, $328,276. A total of $3,589,276 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant were as
    follows: 1991, $304,761 state appropriations, $14,000 industry, and
    $18,071 other non-Federal; 1992, $364,851 state appropriations, $15,000
    industry, and $14,000 other non-Federal; 1993, $400,191 state
    appropriations, $19,725 industry, and $10,063, other non-Federal; and
    1994, $147,607 non-Federal support. Non-Federal support for 1995 was
    $150,607; for 1996 it was $386,887; for 1997 $384,628; for 1998
    $392,000; for 1999 $557,000; and for 2000 $443,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research has been conducted at agricultural experiment
    stations in Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York,
    Montana, North Dakota, and New Hampshire. The funds have been awarded
    competitively among participating states and not all states receive
    funds each year.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The projected duration of the initial project was five
    years. Revised objectives are expected to be completed in 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation?
        Answer. The project is evaluated annually by a university/industry
    advisory panel. Proposals are peer reviewed at the universities and by
    the agency National Program Leaders. This research has provided vital
    information which is already being used to improve production
    management. However, a number of critical issues related to insect and
    disease control as well as crop quality remain to be addressed.
    Breeding for insect and disease resistance is given the highest
    priority, while crop management alternatives to help reduce disease and
    insect pest problems will continue to be studied.
                     cranberry and blueberry, massachusetts
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Cranberry/Blueberry, Massachusetts grant.
        Answer. Molecular genetics is being used to develop a system that
    will allow farmers to predict when dodder will emerge in their fields.
    This will allow accurate timing of herbicide application which will
    enable farmers to use less herbicide. In addition, molecular genetics
    is being used in an attempt to induce natural defense mechanisms in
    cranberry plants that will reduce the need for fungicide applications
    to protection cranberry fruit from rotting organisms.
        Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The research is a new approach to managing pests associated
    with cranberries and blueberries in Massachusetts. The program is
    focusing on the use of molecular genetics to reduce pesticide
    dependency in cranberry production. The research will be applicable to
    all states where cranberries are produced.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goals of this research are to determine whether early
    emerging and late emerging dodder populations can be differentiated
    using molecular markers; to determine the relationships among several
    isolates of a fungus which might be used in biological control; to
    screen various plant pathogen fungi isolates for infectivity and
    virulence and determine the presence of genes in these isolates; and
    develop an in vitro assay system for root rot and induce resistance in
    cranberry plants caused by different isotypes of the fungus. To date,
    markers have been developed that differentiate between early and late
    emerging dodder populations. Strains of Phytophthora cinnamomi have
    been identified with potential to be used as elicitors of systemic
    acquired resistance.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 and 2000 was $150,000. The
    appropriation in fiscal year 2001 is $174,615. A total of $474,615 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds are provided for this grant.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of
    Massachusetts Cranberry Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is fiscal year 2005.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project underwent a merit review at the agency level in
    January 2001. It was determined that the investigators are making
    significant progress toward the achievement of their stated objectives.
    The remaining objectives should be attainable within a period of four
    years. The investigators are publicizing the results of their research,
    both in professional venues as well as to producers. The quality of
    this project was determined to be high.
              cranberry-blueberry disease and breeding, new jersey
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Cranberry-Blueberry Disease and Breeding, New
    Jersey grant.
        Answer. The work has focused on identification and monitoring of
    insect pests on blueberries and cranberries; the identification,
    breeding, and incorporation of superior germplasm into horticulturally-
    desirable genotypes; identification and determination of several fungal
    fruit-rotting species; and identification of root-rot resistant
    cranberry genotypes. Overall, research has focused on the attainment of
    cultural management methods that are environmentally compatible, while
    reducing blueberry and cranberry crop losses.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project involves diseases having major impacts on New
    Jersey's cranberry and blueberry industries, but the findings here are
    being shared with experts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and New England.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was the development of cranberry and
    blueberry cultivars compatible with new disease and production
    management strategies. Over 75 blueberry selections with wild blueberry
    accessions resistant to secondary mummy berry infections have been
    moved into advanced testing identified. The biology and seasonal life
    history of spotted fireworm on cranberries has been determined. A
    pheromone trap-based monitoring system for cranberry fruitworm was
    developed and further refined for commercialization. Blueberry fruit
    volatiles attractive to blueberry maggots were identified and tested in
    the field. Researchers have planted over 4,500 cranberry progeny for
    evaluation. Seven major fruit-rotting fungal species were identified,
    and their incidence in 10 major cultivars of blueberry and cranberry
    were determined. It is likely that resistance to fruit rot is specific
    to fungal species.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987,
    $95,000 per year; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $260,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1990, $275,000; fiscal years 1991 to 1993, $260,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $244,000; fiscal years 1995 to 2000, $220,000 each
    year; and fiscal year 2001, $219,516. A total of $3,648,516 has been
    appropriated
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. State and non-Federal sources are providing funds in the
    amount of 250,000 each year.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at the New Jersey
    Agricultural Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The completion date for the original objectives was 1995.
    Those objectives have not been met. To complete the breeding, disease
    and insect management, and provision of new management guidelines for
    extension and crop consultants, it is estimated that an additional five
    to nine years will be required.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
        Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project occurred in
    January 1999. In summary, the evaluation stated that the effort has
    continued to be highly productive and resulted in improved management
    strategies, new plant materials, and environmentally-balanced
    pesticides being used by growers. Some specific accomplishments
    included continued evaluation of blueberry and cranberry germplasm for
    yield, color, fruit rot, and flavor; and development of an efficient
    plant regeneration system for cranberry for genetic transformation.
    Other research includes trap and lure development for monitoring the
    cranberry fruitworm and evaluation of several aphidicides in
    blueberries. The discovery of an anti-sporulant in a registered
    fungicide provide for a novel use patent for blueberry anthracnose
    control.
                                critical issues
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Critical Issues grant.
        Answer. These funds support research on critical issues related to
    new or emerging pests and diseases of animals and plants. The program
    is expected to initiate research in a short time period until other
    resources can be secured to address the issue. The program began in
    fiscal year 1996 when potato late blight and vesicular stomatitis in
    animals were the two targeted emerging problems chosen for funding.
    Funding for these two projects was continued with fiscal year 1997
    funds to permit orderly conclusion of work leading to integrated pest
    management efforts for the potato late blight and for further surveys
    on wildlife reservoirs of the vesicular stomatitis virus. During fiscal
    year 1998, these funds were used for support of a project on a newly
    emerging corona virus strain that is a probable cause of severe
    outbreaks of shipping fever or pneumonia in transported beef cattle.
    For plant diseases, fiscal year 1998 funds were used to support two
    major research projects on a new disease of sorghum, Sorghum Ergot. The
    two projects were Epidemiology and Life History of Ergot and
    Development of Integrated Control of Sorghum Ergot. In fiscal year
    1999, Johne's Disease of cattle was identified by both veterinary
    researchers and USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service--
    APHIS--animal disease control staff as a major issue. For plants in
    fiscal year 1999, research was supported on the insect-vectored
    disease, Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl virus. For fiscal year 2000, plant
    research was supported to address monitoring of Mexican rice borer
    movement into sugarcane in Texas and Louisiana, the rate and spread of
    Cactoblastis moth on U.S. cactus, and incidence of cucurbit yellow
    stunting disorder virus in U.S. cucurbits. The research on Johne's
    disease issues was continued in fiscal year 2000, with continued
    emphasis on the possible linkage between this disease in cattle and
    Crohn's disease in humans.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Vesicular stomatitis was of national impact due to its
    similarity to foot and mouth disease and the negative effect on
    movement of horses, cattle and swine during an outbreak. Since 1992,
    new, highly virulent strains of the potato late blight fungus,
    Phytophthora infestans, caused severe losses in potato and tomato
    production throughout the U.S., resulting in what some experts term a
    national crisis. From 1993 to 1995, a series of meetings involving
    growers, consultants, industry, academia, and government assessed the
    growing problem, and participants concluded that extraordinary steps
    were needed to mobilize research efforts that would help address the
    problem in the near term. Bovine shipping fever causes heavy economic
    losses to the beef industry in cattle being shipped to feedlots, and
    vaccines for currently recognized viruses seem to be ineffective in
    certain settings in preventing outbreaks. The isolation of a probable
    new virus, bovine respiratory corona virus, represents an opportunity
    to contribute to the reduction of this disease complex in cattle.
    Sorghum Ergot is a serious disease of sorghum which was first detected
    in Texas in March, 1997. It rapidly spread to almost all sorghum
    growing regions of the U.S. by September 1997. Johne's Disease has been
    identified by several commodity and animal health organizations as the
    leading problem for dairy cattle owners and also a serious issue for
    beef producers. Decisions on specific research needs and focus of
    research projects is decided after consultation with a variety of
    commodity stakeholders, other USDA agencies, especially APHIS,
    scientists in the land grant system, and other public input. Tomato
    Yellow Leaf Curl virus is a newly introduced disease into Florida that
    has caused considerable crop loss and now has moved into Georgia. This
    disease is vectored by the silver leaf whitefly and affects tomatoes,
    beans, and other vegetables. The disease symptoms are severe stunting,
    distortion, and high rates of flower loss. Mexican rice borer, a pest
    of sugarcane in the Lower Rio Grande valley of Texas, is a new and
    emerging pest which threatens sugarcane production in Louisiana. The
    biocontrol agent, Cactoblastis cactorum, was accidently introduced into
    Florida from the Caribbean Islands in 1989. Even though this species
    was introduced into the Caribbean basin as a biocontrol agent for
    cacti, it now threatens many native species of cacti in Florida and has
    the potential to spread to other cactus species in the United States.
    The Old World virus, cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus, was first
    found in melons from Texas and northern Mexico in 1999. In other parts
    of the world it has become the most important virus in cucurbits.
    Determination of incidence and spread in the U.S. is important,
    particularly since the primary vector species Bemisia argentifolii is
    well established in Florida, other southern states, California, and
    Arizona.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research supported by this program is to
    focus on specific questions or issues which are considered to be most
    important in developing control or prevention programs for the disease
    agent under investigation, whether in plants or animals. Thus, for the
    animal studies, the focus has been on identifying natural reservoirs of
    the vesicular stomatitis virus and insects which are capable of
    transmitting the disease among animals; determining the precise
    significance of the apparent new corona virus in shipping fever
    pneumonia of beef cattle; and developing a sub-unit vaccine for Johne's
    Disease in cattle and determining the significance of a linkage between
    Johne's Disease and Crohn's disease of humans. In spite of a very large
    research effort, the natural reservoir for vesicular stomatitis virus
    is still unknown. The bovine respiratory disease work on the apparently
    new respiratory corona virus has validated the role of this virus in
    outbreaks of pneumonia in cattle vaccinated for other known causes of
    shipping fever. This virus has now been isolated from animals with
    pneumonia in other states. Research was initiated to provide growers
    with the knowledge and technologies they need to reduce economic losses
    resulting from potato late blight with less reliance on pesticides.
    Research initiated with fiscal year 1996 funds is making progress in
    developing modeling tools and management approaches that are an
    important step towards reducing the devastating effects of late blight.
    The National Late Blight Fungicide Trial provided important information
    on the efficacy of an array of fungicide programs. A World Wide Web
    site was established to provide growers, researchers, and industry with
    the latest information on management of potato late blight. The
    research projects on Sorghum Ergot were intended to develop information
    about the history and epidemiology of the disease which would lead to
    studies on development of integrated control programs for this fungus.
    Research on Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus has aided in the
    understanding of which field crops other than tomato serve as a source
    of virus infection. Weed reservoirs were also studied as potential
    whitefly infection sites. These results will help in the development of
    field management strategies for this virus. Another research project
    tested transformed tomatoes that had been selected for resistance to
    Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl virus. This approach was successful in
    developing resistant tomatoes to another similar virus and is expected
    to produce highly resistant tomato varieties to Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl
    virus. Incidence and spread of cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus,
    Cactoblastis moths, and the Mexican rice borer are all significant for
    agriculture and horticulture in the U.S.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. $200,000 were appropriated in fiscal years 1996-2000 and
    $199,560 in fiscal year 2001 for a total appropriation of $1,199,560 to
    date.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This information is not currently available.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. From 1996 to 1997, the vesicular stomatitis work was
    conducted at the University of Arizona and Colorado State University.
    The potato late blight work has been conducted at Washington State
    University, Oregon State University, University of Idaho, University of
    Wisconsin, the Pennsylvania State University, and North Carolina State
    University. In 1998, the bovine respiratory disease work was performed
    at Louisiana State University. The Sorghum Ergot work was done at the
    University of Nebraska and Texas A&M University. In fiscal years 1999
    and 2000, the research on Johne's Disease was performed at Iowa State
    University and the University of Iowa. The research on Tomato Yellow
    Leaf Curl Virus was carried out at the Gulf Coast Research and
    Education Center, University of Florida, Bradenton, Florida, and the
    Tropical Research and Education Center, University of Florida,
    Homestead, Florida. The research on the Mexican rice borer is conducted
    in Texas and Louisiana, the research on Cactoblastis is being done in
    Florida and the incidence of cucurbit yellow stunting disorder virus is
    being done in regions where the primary vector, Bemisia argentifolii,
    is known to occur.
        Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
    of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Critical Issues funds are intended to support the
    initiation of research on issues requiring immediate attention until
    other, longer-term resources are available. The objectives of the
    projects are short-term and are expected to be completed within a 1-2
    year period. This has been true for the vesicular stomatitis and potato
    late blight work. These projects have been reviewed to ensure
    compliance with the original goals during fiscal year 1997. The
    subsequent project grants for potato blight in 1997 and for Sorghum
    Ergot and bovine respiratory disease in 1998 had short term goals and
    were completed by the end of their project years in late spring 1999.
    Similarly, the objectives of the research funded with fiscal year 1999
    funds were completed by the summer of 2000. For the Johne's Disease
    work, the emphasis is on determining the likelihood of a link between
    this disease of cattle and Crohn's Disease in humans and also
    developing a vaccine to prevent further spread within the cattle
    population. For Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus, the emphasis is on field
    management of the disease and the development of virus resistant
    varieties of tomato. For Mexican rice borer, Cactoblastis, and cucurbit
    yellow stunting disorder virus work the primary focus is on
    determination of incidence and spread.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. All projects were reviewed for scientific merit before
    funding decisions were made. Also, scientists being supported with
    these funds are in close contact with CSREES' National Program Leaders
    in these areas so that the agency is kept abreast of developments as
    they occur. Each investigator is required to submit a detailed report
    at the end of the funding period to document their accomplishments with
    these funds. In addition, site visits are arranged when convenient to
    include as part of other official travel to that state. The vesicular
    stomatitis research had a site visit review in early 1998 and was
    reviewed as a completed project in March 1999 during a program review
    at the University of Arizona. The final results of the bovine
    respiratory work were submitted to CSREES for review in early fall
    1999. The plant related projects have received similar reviews as the
    projects have moved forward, and the results are being reported at
    regional and national meetings.
                      dairy and meat goat research, texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Dairy and Meat Goat Research, Texas grant?
        Answer. The program has addressed a range of issues associated with
    goat production. Research by scientists at the International Dairy Goat
    Center, Prairie View A&M University, focuses on problems affecting goat
    production in the U.S. Issues included are the study of nutritional
    requirements of goats, disease problems, methods to improve
    reproductive efficiency in the doe, the use of gene transfer to improve
    caprine genetics, and the evaluation of breeding schemes to improve
    meat and milk production. Currently, research is in progress to assess
    the economics of alternative breeding and rearing systems for goats in
    the southeastern region of the U.S., to study the incidence and impact
    of intestinal parasites, and to develop least-cost health management
    strategies for parasite control.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that nationally, most of
    the farm enterprises that include goats are diverse and maintain a
    relatively small number of animals. Responding to disease, nutrition,
    breeding, and management problems will improve efficiency of production
    and economic returns to the enterprise.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to conduct research
    that will lead to improvement in goat production among the many small
    producers in the U.S. Research has been conducted to develop and
    improve nutritional standards, improve genetic lines for meat and milk
    production and to define mechanisms that impede reproductive efficiency
    in goats. Current efforts focus on the development of enterprise budget
    management tools for goat producers in the Texas gulf coast region.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded through appropriated funds as
    follows: $100,000 per year for fiscal years 1983-1985; $95,000 per year
    for fiscal years 1986-1988; no funds were appropriated in fiscal year
    1989; $74,000 for fiscal year 1990; $75,000 per year for fiscal years
    1991-1993; $70,000 for fiscal year 1994; $63,000 per year for fiscal
    years 1995-2000; and $62,861 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $1,394,861
    has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university reports no non-Federal funds expended on
    this program.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Prairie View A&M University
    in Texas.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The overall objective of this research is to support the
    needs of small farms engaged in the production of meat and milk from
    goats along the Texas Gulf Coast. The university researchers continue
    to address those needs on an annual basis, and anticipate that work
    currently in progress will be completed by the end of fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Dairy/Meat Goat Research grant was reviewed last in
    June 1997. The project objectives are within the goals of the program,
    are within the mission of both USDA and CSREES, and the institution is
    well equipped and qualified to carry out the research project.
                     dairy farm profitability, pennsylvania
        Bonilla. Please provide a description of the research that has been
    funded under the Dairy Farm Profitability, Pennsylvania grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
    proposal that has not yet been received. This is a new project that
    will be initiated in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what it the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is national in scope. The dairy
    industry is undergoing significant structural change. Producers must
    adopt and improve practices that will enable them to remain profitable
    as these changes occur.
        Question. What was the original goal for this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to identify and develop
    improved dairy management practices that will help producers sustain
    and improve the profitability of their operations. Since the project is
    just now being implemented, there are no accomplishments to report at
    this time.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
    2001. The appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Some preliminary related work has been conducted at the
    Pennsylvania State University. A proposal for this new project is just
    being developed so at this date, no non-Federal funds have been
    provided for this grant.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Pennsylvania State
    University
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Since the proposal has not yet been received, anticipated
    completion dates are not available at this time.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since this is a new project, no evaluation has yet been
    conducted.
                    delta rural revitalization, mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi project?
         Answer. The Delta Rural Revitalization, Mississippi project
    involves applied research and outreach focused on creating new and
    expanded economic development opportunities for the Mississippi Delta
    region. The project has gone through several phases in the delineation
    of a strategy for long range development within the region. Phase I was
    completed with the delivery of a baseline assessment of the economic,
    social, and political factors that enhance or impede the advancement of
    the region. Phase II of the project evaluated the potential for
    entrepreneurship and small business creation as mechanisms to improve
    economic conditions. Phase III is now focusing on technical assistance
    to Delta region manufacturing firms to strengthen their ability to
    provide employment and incomes and includes the development and
    refinement of data bases and development statistics. The proposals are
    submitted for internal review and evaluation within the agency.
    Recommendations are presented to enhance impact on regional and
    national agendas and provide greater impact on targeted region.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This is an on-going pilot to demonstrate the effective
    development and implementation of applied research, training,
    education, and technical assistance related to job and business
    development as a development strategy. The principal researcher
    believes that the databases, technical assistance, and analytical
    capability will increase the effectiveness of economic development and
    entrepreneurial activity in the region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished?
        Answer. The applied research and outreach project was designed to
    increase ability to strategically guide economic development through
    target industry attraction. An analytical baseline for the Delta region
    has been developed to benchmark economic development progress and to
    profile potential arenas of opportunity. An entrepreneurial forum was
    established to help new business ventures with start-up advice and
    assistance. A venture capital association was formed to help both
    inventors and businessmen find capital resources to carry out
    development initiatives. The emphasis of the project is now shifted to
    technical assistance for existing industries. During the past budget
    year, activity of this project has been directed to expanding the use
    of information technology in economic development in the Mississippi
    Delta.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
    following amounts per year: fiscal year 1989, $175,000; fiscal year
    1990, $173,000; fiscal year's 1991-1993, $175,000 per year; fiscal year
    1994, $164,000; fiscal year's 1995-2000, $148,000 per year; and fiscal
    year 2001, $204,549. A total of $2,129,549 has been appropriated and
    awarded.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Total non-Federal funds directed to this project, as
    reported by Mississippi State University, are: fiscal year 1991,
    $117,866; fiscal year 1992, $84,402; fiscal year 1993, $68,961; fiscal
    year 1998, $57,404. Reports for other years indicate no non-Federal
    funds.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
    Mississippi State University and sub-contractors.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1990. The
    original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
    objectives being presented for the current year should be completed by
    September 30, 2001. The current year proposal has not been submitted to
    date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
    they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
    conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
    periodic reports to the agency to document impact of the project.
    Significant suggestions have been offered to improve the relevance and
    impact of this project. An assessment of the project was conducted by
    the Social Science Research Center at Mississippi State University and
    a report compiled in November 1996. A site review was conducted in
    April 1999 to assess the merits of research efforts underway. A review
    and evaluation by an outside consultant is currently underway.
                       designing foods for health, texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Designing Foods for Health, Texas grant.
        Answer. Designing fruits and vegetables for improved health and
    nutrition will be the overall goal. Health scientists have documented
    that naturally-occurring compounds such as flavonoids, carotenoids, and
    antioxidants have health benefits to prevent heart disease, stroke, and
    some forms of cancer. The research objective is to develop fruits and
    vegetables that have uniform, high levels of these compounds so all
    consumers can prevent chronic diseases through their diet. The fiscal
    year 2000 grant supports research through September 2001. CSREES
    requested the university submit a grant proposal for fiscal year 2001
    that has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for continuing this research is to improve the
    quality of many different fruits and vegetables. Health scientists have
    documented that several fruits and vegetables have naturally-occurring
    compounds that promote health and prevent disease. The medical
    community advocates that preventing disease is more advantageous than
    trying to cure it. For example, a large effort of Texas health science
    centers is to develop improved diets that can aid in prevention of
    colon, esophagus, and prostate cancers. A wide range of improved fruits
    and vegetables for health will provide an enormous benefit for
    consumers worldwide, and will help people who may not know of the
    additional benefits of consuming the new varieties but like the texture
    and taste.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to design fruits and
    vegetables that assist in preventing diseases through diet. With plant
    breeders and medical scientists now working together, goals can be
    established to develop varieties that provide more nutrition and assist
    in preventing disease in children through the elderly. The most
    exciting accomplishment has been the development of the new carrot,
    BetaSweet. It was designed to be attractive, crisp in texture, have
    excellent sweet carrot flavor, and to contain a higher content of beta-
    carotene than most orange carrots in the marketplace. Beta-carotene is
    a major source of Vitamin A and is thought to play additional roles in
    preventing certain forms of cancer, especially oral cancer. This carrot
    also contains high levels of anthocyanins that are normally found in
    fruits such as grapes and blueberries. They are known to be excellent
    antioxidants that prevent blood clotting, aid in the prevention of some
    cancers, heart disease, and strokes. The researchers are also improving
    health promoting aspects of the BetaSweet carrot by adding lycopene,
    which is found in tomatoes. Lycopene is thought to play a role in the
    prevention of prostate cancer. All these improvements are being done
    using conventional breeding.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999,
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $250,000; for fiscal
    year 2000 $318,750; and for fiscal year 2001, $561,761. A total of
    $1,130,511 has been appropriated.
        Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were $206,500 from university funds and $165,000 from an endowment fund
    in 1999, and $240,000 from university funds and $180,600 from an
    endowment fund in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Vegetable and Fruit
    Improvement Center and other research centers within the Texas
    Agricultural and Mechanical University System.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original overall objective of developing fruits and
    vegetables that contain high levels of naturally-occurring compounds
    that have health benefits continues to be addressed. The specific
    objective of improving the carrot by increasing the carotenoid and
    anthocyanin content while maintaining superior flavor and textural
    properties will be completed in 2001. Related objectives include
    increasing quercetin and anthocyanin levels in onions; carotene and
    anthocyanins in peaches; carotene in melons; carotene, quercetin,
    vitamin C, and lutein in peppers. Some of these objectives will be met
    by the end of 2003 and will include other crops such as tomatoes and
    citrus in the near future.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project director conducted a review by peer scientists
    at Texas Agricultural and Mechanical University prior to submitting the
    proposal for fiscal year 1999. The Vegetable and Fruit Improvement
    Center has a very active advisory board of industry professionals who
    review the Center's research programs annually.
                         diaprepes/rootweevil, florida
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Diaprepes/Rootweevil, Florida grant.
        Answer. The funds are requested to address objectives established
    by an interagency/industry task force. CSREES will request the
    university to submit a grant proposal for this award. Among the most
    critical priorities are: Assessment of the plant injury and economic
    damage caused by the root weevil on horticultural, agronomic, and
    ornamental plants in the affected area, and the potential for the pest
    to spread beyond its current range; Development and use of monitoring
    tools to evaluate population levels, regions infested, and to predict
    where economic damage is likely to occur; Development, field
    evaluation, and implementation of management tools that individually
    will assist in weevil management within existing pest management
    programs in citrus and other affected crops. Tools to be developed are
    chemical, biological, cultural and mechanical methods.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Diaprepes abbreviatus is a pest introduced into Florida
    from its native Caribbean Islands in the late 1960's, but remained very
    localized in few citrus groves until the late 1980's when the pest
    began to spread. Known as a serious pest of a wide range of plants,
    this pest has the potential to affect traditional agriculture and also
    native plants. The potential exists for enormous economic losses in the
    home landscape industry, a multi-billion dollar business in Florida and
    the Southeast. Further, movement could expand the impact of this pest
    to other areas of the U.S., and could invoke regulatory concerns
    between trading partners and commerce. Individual plants which are
    attacked are injured through root loss, underground stem damage, and in
    the case of citrus, plant death. Whole blocks of citrus are
    progressively being killed, and the area cannot be replanted to citrus
    or other susceptible crops. Present management needs involve the
    development and evaluation of methods to locate and reduce larval and
    adult populations by a combination of treatments that are effective,
    safe, and economical.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. Research on this pest has concentrated in the past year on
    further development of management approaches for citrus, as well as
    development of information and management options for the pest on a
    wide range of other crops and native plants. Aspects of the biology of
    the weevil under investigation within this program include
    understanding the attraction cues that allow adult weevils to identify
    and locate host plants on which to feed and lay eggs. Leading from this
    research is the development of monitoring and trapping methods, which
    help us understand seasonal and spatial movement of the weevil
    populations. This in turn allows for the proper timing of applied
    controls. Field research is refining the use of selected pesticides for
    adult control on host plant foliage and use of short-residual
    pesticides for interference with young larvae as they fall from the
    canopy to infest roots. The evaluation of commercially-available
    parasitic nematodes to attack and kill root weevils and the testing of
    a native nematode are presently under investigation. Introduction and
    evaluation of parasitoid insects which attack and kill weevil eggs also
    is underway. Integration of these tools into a system which will reduce
    crop impact and slow weevil spread is the ultimate goal of this
    research effort. Establishment of cooperative research efforts in Texas
    are progressing following the finding of this pest in Texas in late
    2000.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2000 was the first year of the grant and
    $297,500 was appropriated. For fiscal year 2001, $394,131 is
    appropriated for a total of $691,631.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Investment of state funds will continue to be made in this
    research. University of Florida has several programs that have focused
    their efforts on Diaprepes research, including the entomologists,
    pathologists, and plant improvement teams. Internal funds, as well as
    effort, have been redirected to address this problem. The citrus
    growers of Florida have dedicated considerable grant dollars from a
    self-tax for research, and more recently, other commodity groups are
    contributing to fund research. In-kind support through cooperation,
    shared equipment, and other means are being provided to address the
    issue.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out at the University of Florida
    with cooperative field studies in the new infested area of Texas.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Completion of some of the objectives will continue past the
    period of the current funding proposal, with evaluation and definition
    of new or modified objectives and priorities to be specified in a
    report which will accompany a new proposal.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project which will be evaluated as
    accomplishments are reported.
                          drought mitigation, nebraska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Drought Mitigation, Nebraska grant.
        Answer. The National Drought Mitigation Center in the School of
    Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Nebraska has a
    comprehensive program aimed at lessening societal vulnerability to
    drought. Activities of the Center include: promoting and conducting
    research on drought mitigation and preparedness technologies, improving
    coordination of drought-related activities and actions within and
    between levels of government, and assisting in the development,
    dissemination, and implementation of appropriate mitigation and
    preparedness technologies in the public and private sectors.
        Emphasis is directed toward research, outreach projects, and
    mitigation/management strategies that stress risk minimization.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Federal Emergency Management Agency has recently
    estimated that annual losses attributable to drought in the U.S. are
    between $6-8 billion. Drought impacts are escalating in response to
    increasing demands for water and other natural resources, increasing
    and shifting population, new technologies, and social behavior. These
    impacts are diverse and affect the economic, environmental, and social
    sectors of society. This fact was reinforced dramatically in 1996 in
    the Southwestern U.S. Impacts of drought in Texas alone were estimated
    to be more than $5 billion.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to create a National
    Drought Mitigation Center and develop a comprehensive program aimed at
    lessening societal water shortages and vulnerability to drought. The
    Center has created an information clearinghouse and is delivering
    information to a diverse audience of users through its web site. Over
    50,000 users now access the Center's web site each month. The Center's
    award winning web site was used extensively by state and Federal
    agencies during the 1999 drought to assist in the evaluation and
    response process. This web site networks users of drought-related
    information in the U.S. and elsewhere with information that would
    otherwise be unavailable or inaccessible.
        The National Drought Mitigation Center played an important role in
    the response of Federal and state government to the 1996 severe drought
    in the Southwest and southern Great Plains states. The Center provides
    timely and relevant information on drought severity and alternative
    response, mitigation, and planning measures. The Center participated in
    the Multi-state Drought Task Force workshop organized at the request of
    President Clinton and helped formulate long-term recommendations to
    improve the way this Nation prepares for and responds to drought. The
    Center is also a member of the Western Governors' Association Drought
    Task Force. This Task Force made recommendations to reduce the risks
    associated with drought in the western U.S.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant received an appropriation
    of $200,000 in fiscal years 1995 through 2000 and $199,560 in fiscal
    year 2001 for a total appropriation of $1,399,560.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The University of Nebraska contributed $75,737 of non-
    Federal funds in support of this research in fiscal year 1995, $58,977
    in fiscal year 1996, and $61,545 in fiscal year 1997. The University of
    Nebraska contributed $67,819 in fiscal year 1998 and $74,887 in fiscal
    year 1999.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted at the University of
    Nebraska-Lincoln.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The research conducted under this project is being
    undertaken within a series of nine tasks. Significant progress on each
    of these tasks has been made, but these activities are ongoing. The
    information clearinghouse has been created, but new information and
    documents are continuously added to the web site in response to users'
    needs and requests. In addition, the drought watch section is updated
    monthly to assist users in evaluating current climate and water supply
    conditions. Research on new climatic indices to monitor drought and
    water supply conditions are being tested, and mitigation technologies
    and existing state drought plans are continuously evaluated. New
    activities are also being initiated in response to the growing interest
    and awareness in drought mitigation in the United States and elsewhere.
    The activities of the Western Drought Coordination Council provide the
    Center with a broadening range of research needs on an annual basis.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was peer-reviewed at the time the proposal was
    prepared in 1998. Each year, when the new proposal is prepared, the
    proposal is reviewed on the campus and again by agency representatives.
    The project is evaluated for progress toward completion of objectives,
    new activities proposed, and accomplishments.
                              ecosystems, alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Ecosystems, Alabama grant.
        Answer. In 1998, CSREES approved a proposal from Auburn University
    to support projects at two Community Colleges in Alabama--Faulkner
    State Community College and Alabama Southern Community College. The
    Faulkner State Community College's project is intended to: (1) fund the
    development of distance education classrooms for estuarine- and marine-
    related education, and (2) to establish an aquaculture-related
    veterinary technician education program. The Alabama Southern Community
    College project will purchase and install laboratory equipment to
    further the education capacity of the Center for Excellence in
    Forestry, Paper, and Chemical Technology.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the local, regional, or national need for this
    project?
        Answer. Faulkner State Community College asserts that their
    veterinary technician program will be the only such program in the
    country providing the first two years of the degree program leading to
    an A.A. degree at Faulkner State, and the second two years leading to a
    bachelor's degree at Auburn University. The distance education capacity
    is intended to better integrate marine and estuary research into
    education activities.
        The Center for Excellence in Forestry, Paper, and Chemical
    Technology at Alabama Southern Community College is believed to be a
    unique educational opportunity in the Southeastern U.S. due to the
    merging of four individual technology training programs. These programs
    are: (1) Industrial Maintenance, (2) Electronics and Instrumentation,
    (3) Paper Process, and (4) Chemical Process training.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goals for these projects include the development of a
    veterinary technician training program and integration of marine and
    estuary research into classrooms at Faulkner State Community College;
    and to establish a state-of-the-art wood paper process and chemical
    process laboratory at Southern Alabama Community College.
        The fiscal year 1998 objectives for Faulkner State Community
    College were to establish a distance education web site to enhance
    integration of marine and estuarine environmental research and to
    establish a 2+2 veterinary technicians program with an emphasis on
    marine/aquaculture. The distance education web site is in place and has
    been tested. In addition, classrooms have been tested and some faculty
    have been trained in the use of the media/hardware. After further
    assessment, it was decided that the proposed Veterinary Technician
    Program would not be cost effective. With the fiscal year 1999
    proposal, Faulkner State Community College proposed instead to
    establish a 2+2 Environmental Science degree program.
        The fiscal year 1998 objectives for Alabama Southern Community
    College was to have completed, tested, and placed into operation the
    chemical, pulp, and paper process laboratories in the areas of (1)
    Process Control, (2) Crystallization, (3) Batch Reactor, and (4)
    Digester by June 2000. The Process Controls, Crystallization, and
    Digester laboratories were completed. The Batch Reactor is currently
    being completed. The completion of the Batch Reactor was delayed
    because the original corporation designated to do the work on this
    project was unable to follow through. However, Auburn University took
    the responsibility of preparing the engineering specifications for the
    Batch Reactor, and the unit will be functional by the end of summer
    2001.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Funds were appropriated for this grant beginning in fiscal
    year 1998. In fiscal years 1998 through 2000, $500,000 was appropriated
    each year, and in fiscal year 2001, $498,900 is appropriated. A total
    of $1,998,900 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided to support this project?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been identified to support this
    project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The project is being conducted at the Faulkner State
    Community College Aquaculture Center in Alabama and at the Alabama
    Southern Community College Center for Forestry, Paper, and Chemical
    Technology.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Alabama Southern Community College project proposal
    indicates a two-year budget for project completion. The Faulkner State
    Community College proposal was for one year only. The objectives have
    not yet been met but are well underway.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project had a merit review before it began in fiscal
    year 1998. Subsequent projects were peer reviewed by the respective
    institutions for the fiscal year 1999 allocation.
                   efficient irrigation, new mexico and texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Efficient Irrigation, New Mexico and Texas grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
    proposal that has not yet been received. It is anticipated that it will
    request funding for research to increase the efficiency of agriculture
    and urban landscape irrigation and encourage the development of
    efficient water markets in the Rio Grande Basin.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
    program?
        Answer. Growing demand and drought have created critical water
    supply issues for much of the southwest. This project is designed to
    improve irrigation efficiency and water conservation in the Rio Grande
    basin in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. The crux of the problem is that
    a total water management system, which would assist agriculture and
    urban interests, does not exist. As a result, water is released on
    demand often resulting in inefficient management. Water problems will
    only increase as the population in this region grows and more industry
    is located to this region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. Subject areas addressed will include irrigation district
    studies; irrigation system management; urban landscape and in-home
    water conservation; environment, ecology and water quality protection;
    saline and waste water management and water use; basin-wide hydrology,
    salinity modeling, and technology; and communications/oversight/
    biometric support/accountability.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $1,185,386.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. Sources of any non-Federal funds will be identified in the
    grant proposal.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. This research will be carried out by Texas A&M University
    and New Mexico State University. Coordination will be provided through
    the Water Resources Institute at Texas A&M University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have them objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the first phase is
    April 30, 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the, last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project. An agency review will be conducted
    prior to awarding the grant.
                   environmental biotechnology, rhode island
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Environmental Biotechnology, Rhode Island grant.
        Answer. This is a new special grant this year. The agency has
    requested the university to submit a grant proposal that has not yet
    been received. Preliminary communications with the institutional
    research administrator indicate that the project is part of an ongoing
    environmental biotechnology initiative approved by the Rhode Island
    Board of Governors for Higher Education in 1998. The goal of the
    initiative is to enhance the educational, training, and research
    capacities of the biological and environmental sciences of the
    university through development of state-of-the-art research and
    training facilities including core facilities for genomics,
    transgenics, imaging, and bioinformatics.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the institutional research administrator, this
    project will strengthen research and training programs in marine and
    environmental biology and ecology in response to public needs for
    research, for practical problem solving in government and industry, and
    for the public and private needs of scholars, technological experts,
    and future leaders.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to enhance the
    educational, training, and research capacities of biological and
    environmental sciences of the institution through development of state-
    of-the-art research and training facilities. Accomplishments in the
    first two years include receipt of four awards totaling $600,000 from
    the Rhode Island Champlin Foundation to equip biotechnology teaching
    laboratories, receipt of a Federal challenge grant for a transgenics
    teaching facility and training, and commitment of $2.1 million toward
    the Slater Center of Excellence in Biotechnology at the institution.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $189,582.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In addition to the non-Federal Champlin and Slater Center
    funds referred to earlier, the university has funded a significant
    amount of renovation in the laboratories equipped by the Champlin
    funds, and it has absorbed the cost of developing alternative space to
    free space for a turf-grass business incubator facility on-campus.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is conducted on the campus of the University
    of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Currently planned interim facilities that will house the
    equipment purchased under this special grant are intended to meet
    campus needs for the environmental biotechnology core facility until a
    new facility is completed in 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new special grant so it has not been evaluated
    yet. The agency will convene a merit review panel to evaluate the
    project upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2001.
                      environmental horticulture, florida
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Environmental Horticulture, Florida grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant, and the University of Florida is
    preparing a grant proposal for submission.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Agriculture in the six counties of north-central Florida
    has suffered economically with the decline in the tobacco industry.
    This is a rural area with very little industrial development and so the
    agricultural decline has been a hardship. The environmental
    horticulture industry offers hope for renewed economic growth in this
    area.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this grant is to establish the Green Industries
    Education Institute. This institute will identify and promote
    alternative horticultural crops that can be grown in north-central
    Florida. Appropriate cultural techniques will be developed for these
    crops. Courses will be developed that will re-train the growers in this
    area in these techniques. In addition, a curriculum will be developed
    that will train workers in the skills that will be required by this new
    industry.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $340,000 was appropriated by the state
    of Florida to develop this project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out at the University of Florida,
    Florida A&M University, and the North Florida Community College.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is the end of fiscal year 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. A peer review of the project will be
    undertaken by the performing institution, and the agency will conduct a
    thorough evaluation of the proposal once it is received.
                        environmental research, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Environmental Research, New York grant.
        Answer. This research has several major goals. These are: (1) to
    better understand the impacts of nutrient flows, principally nitrogen,
    from agriculture on non-agricultural ecosystems, forests, wetlands, and
    water resources in mixed ecosystem landscapes; (2) to improve knowledge
    of agricultural contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and effects
    of projected climate change on crop production; and (3) to develop
    innovative approaches and technologies for improving the efficiency of
    agricultural production. New thrusts include: (1) to improve
    understanding of the impacts of land application of biosolids on the
    sustainability of New York agriculture and on water quality, and to
    develop management practices and guidelines for sustainable use of
    biosolids in New York agriculture; and (2) to evaluate spatial and
    temporal variability of crop yields within fields and to develop
    management practices that increase productivity, increase the
    efficiency of use of inputs, and reduce environmental impacts of
    agriculture.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Programs supported by the special grant are multi-
    disciplinary in nature involving technical scientists from a range of
    disciplines, together with social scientists and economists. Due to the
    complexity of agriculture and environmental interactions at all levels,
    the needed research is complex and requires much time. Additionally,
    translation of knowledge from plot or field studies to larger scales,
    such as landscape to regional and global, is needed to provide
    information that is useful to policymakers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. One goal of the program is to identify impacts of nitrogen
    flows from agricultural lands on adjacent natural ecosystems, forests
    and wetlands, and water resources and to devise management strategies
    to minimize these impacts. Leaching of nitrogen from maize-based
    cropping systems has been shown to be higher when organic sources of
    nitrogen, manures, and plow-down alfalfa are used as nitrogen sources
    for crop growth compared to use of inorganic fertilizers. A computer-
    based nitrogen decision support system to improve recommendations for
    on-farm nitrogen management is being used in New York.
        A second goal of the program is to investigate several interactions
    between agriculture and climate change. Studies of methane fluxes to/
    from soils showed that northern hardwood forests are both a source and
    a sink for this powerful greenhouse gas and overall may be a net source
    of methane. In contrast, upland agricultural systems were consistently
    found to be a sink for methane. Use of legume green manures to supply
    nitrogen in an organic production system increased methane emissions
    two-fold, creating a conflict between a sustainable agriculture
    practice and the environment.
        No-tillage agriculture was shown to increase preservation of
    existing soil organic carbon, but accumulation of carbon derived from
    crop inputs was higher with conventional tillage. Inputs of carbon to
    soils from root exudates and residues were found to be more important
    to carbon sequestration in soils than were residues from the tops of
    plants.
        Soil quality assessments at the Chesapeake farms sustainable
    agriculture project on Maryland's Eastern shore, where various cropping
    systems are being compared with the conventional corn-soybean rotation,
    have shown that soil quality improves as the cropping system becomes
    more complex, involves less tillage, and has more organic inputs.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
    with an appropriation of $297,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
    appropriation was $575,000 per year; $540,000 in fiscal year 1994;
    $486,000 each year in fiscal years 1995 through 1999; $400,000 each
    year for fiscal years 2000-2000; and $399,120 for fiscal year 2001. A
    total of $5,216,120 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1991, Cornell University provided $27,893
    and the State of New York provided $118,014. In fiscal year 1992,
    Cornell University provided $37,476, and the State of New York provided
    $188,915. In fiscal year 1993, Cornell University provided $13,650, and
    the State of New York provided $243,251. In fiscal year 1994, the State
    of New York provided $214,989. In fiscal year 1995, the State of New
    York provided $233,085. In fiscal year 1996, the State of New York
    provided $388,301. In fiscal year 1999, the State of New York provided
    in excess of $400,000 to support this research and contributed
    approximately $300,000 in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at Cornell University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original estimate was for a 5-year program, and many of
    the initial objectives in the nitrogen and climate change areas have
    been met. New objectives evolved from the original work, and the
    program was also oriented to consider broader dimensions of
    environmental management, particularly strategies for community-based
    watershed management involving linkage of technical knowledge with
    social and local governmental perspectives and needs. Estimated
    completion items for the current program that started in 1999 are:
      --Watershed science and management
      --Effects of elevated carbon dioxide on crop yield potential
      --Remington farms sustainable agriculture project--a 10-year project
      --Carbon storage in soils
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was peer reviewed in 1997, 1998, and 1999.
    Overall, the project was rated very high. The agency conducted a merit
    review of the project in 2000 and is planning a more formal review of
    the project in the coming year.
                  environmental risk factors/cancer, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Environmental Risk Factors/Cancer, New York grant.
        Answer. The agency has requested the University to submit a renewal
    grant proposal which has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The American Cancer Society estimated that over 182,800
    women in the U.S. will be newly diagnosed with breast cancer during
    2000 and that 41,200 will die from this disease. The role of
    environmental risk factors, such as pesticides, is of concern to women,
    their families, the agricultural community, and policymakers. This
    project, emphasizing risk reduction information, will work at filling
    that void.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original and continuing goals of this research are:
        1. To establish and expand the database of critical evaluations on
    the current scientific evidence of carcinogenicity for selected
    agricultural chemicals. This will include writing critical evaluations
    on the breast cancer risk of chemicals used in agricultural settings
    and the role of selected agrochemicals in childhood cancer.
        2. To communicate effectively information in the database to a
    variety of audiences, including the scientific community, Federal
    agencies, public health professionals, the agricultural community, and
    the public using printed materials and electronic formats on the
    Internet.
        3. To ensure that the public will have access to science-based
    information written in non-technical language about environmental
    factors and the risk of breast cancer and childhood cancers.
        4. To increase the knowledge and use of practical strategies aimed
    at breast cancer risk reduction for residents in rural areas. Efforts
    to address this objective will include: a) simple, attractive, printed
    educational materials tailored for families in rural areas; b)
    videotape-based educational workshops for use with groups of rural
    women; and c) enhancement, adaptation, and continued use of the Breast
    Cancer Environmental Risk Factors--BCERF--interactive display.
        5. To effectively incorporate breast cancer risk reduction messages
    into health care and health screening settings in rural areas with
    tailored printed materials and interactive display. Satellite video-
    conferencing and supporting web site will allow expanded efforts
    throughout the U.S.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997,
    and in fiscal years 1997-1999, $100,000 was appropriated per year;
    fiscal year 2000, $170,000; and fiscal year 2001, $226,501 was
    appropriated for a total of $696,501.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $150,000 state appropriations for fiscal year 1996;
    $250,000 per year in state funds were provided for fiscal years 1997
    and 1998; $350,000 state funds for fiscal years 1999 and 2000; and
    $350,000 state funds were requested for fiscal year 2001 with two
    possible supplements of $150,000 each also proposed.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research and outreach is conducted at Cornell
    University, Ithaca, New York.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project began in April 1997. Because of the success of
    meeting the original objectives in New York State, BCERF efforts are
    being refined to address multiple community settings and tailored for
    regional efforts. The anticipated completion date is June 30, 2002.
        Objectives met:
      --The bibliographic database was established during year one and is
            updated and expanded each year. It currently has over 5,000
            entries with over 400 added each quarter. Also, it includes
            full bibliographies of all pesticide and dietary/lifestyle
            scientific critical reviews.
      --Critical Evaluations: the breast cancer risk of nine pesticides--
            four in fiscal year 1997, three in fiscal year 1998, and two in
            fiscal year 1999--have been completed. The completion of two
            additional critical evaluations is anticipated by the end of
            the current fiscal year. One critical evaluation was published
            in a peer-reviewed journal and four other manuscripts submitted
            for publication.
      --Science-based information material--fact sheets--have been
            developed for the nine pesticides and for multiple pesticide-
            related issues. Also, fact sheets were developed on diet/
            hormone/lifestyle breast cancer risk factors and general
            information on breast cancer. Seven additional fact sheets are
            to be developed in the current fiscal year.
      --Two video teleconferences and an in-service have been held and
            evaluated. Follow-up telephone surveys of 1997 facilitators at
            BCERF satellite video conference downlink sites and
            participants at the June 1997 on-campus training program was
            completed. These results informed the design of the rural
            initiative and prepared the program for broader
            videoconferencing.
      --The interactive computer Rural Exhibit was completed and evaluated
            in 1999. It was enhanced, refined, and used broadly this year.
      --The BCERF web site was revamped and relaunched in 1997-1998. The
            number of browsers accessing the BCERF home page rose from
            approximately 400 hits per month during the summer of 1998 to
            over 1,000 hits in November 1998 and 3,490 hits in December
            1998. Hits remain with an average of about 3,000 per month.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. As a relatively new project, a complete evaluation has not
    been conducted, although the proposal is currently under review.
    Periodic progress reports have been made throughout the year. The
    project is moving towards achieving its desired goals. A final
    evaluation will be made after June 30, 2001. BCERF has evaluated most
    components of the program, with further evaluation planned. To date,
    BCERF has done an evaluation of the video teleconferences and in-
    service and has had the pesticide fact sheets reviewed by focus
    groups--breast cancer survivors and women not having breast cancer. The
    participants brought a variety of perspectives to the discussion,
    providing BCERF with a wealth of important feedback on our fact sheets
    and educational approach. Some of the conclusions drawn from this
    evaluation have already resulted in simple changes made in the
    preparation of current fact sheets. Other feedback from this evaluation
    will inform planning efforts for the education component in general.
        Evaluation played a key role in the development of the interactive
    computer rural exhibit. To develop the exhibit, qualitative and
    quantitative information was gathered about the knowledge, attitudes,
    and beliefs of rural women regarding environmental risk factors and
    breast cancer. In addition, BCERF conducted brief surveys of rural
    women attending several rural conferences and events. The complete
    exhibit was tested at two farm shows and the New York State Fair in
    Fall 1999, partnering with professionals and organizations such as
    those providing mobile mammography. An adapted, more mobile version,
    was tested in four New York State counties. To evaluate the value of
    critical evaluations to scientists and Federal agency personnel, a fax-
    back survey was sent. The majority of respondents--82 percent--found
    the critical evaluations to be relevant to their work. This year 17
    scientists have requested critical evaluations.
                     environmentally safe products, vermont
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Environmentally Safe Products, Vermont grant.
        Answer. This research is designed to develop an environmentally-
    friendly wood finish coating formulation system by using whey proteins.
    Whey proteins are a cheese-making byproduct. If successful, the new
    natural and environmentally-friendly wood coating product will be used
    for wood painting and coating, such as furniture, toys, and other
    wooden crafts.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Almost all the wood finish/coating products available in
    the United States markets contain both environmentally-unfriendly and
    health hazardous ingredients, for example, methoxymethylethoxpropanol
    and butoxymethylethoxy-propanol. Therefore, our country needs natural
    and environmentally-safe wood coating products in order to protect our
    environment and the health of people.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop and
    optimize an environmentally-friendly wood finish coating formulation
    system by using whey protein as a binding material. This research
    started in the second half of 2000. Five prototype wood coating mixes
    have been formulated. The chemical characteristics of the formulations
    have been analyzed. The coating materials have been applied on
    experimental wood samples. A workshop has been built which is designed
    for this project. The mechanical properties of the coating on wood
    samples will be studied.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $170,000 and for fiscal year
    2001 is $245,459. The total amount appropriated is $415,459.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. A total of $4,000 was provided by Vermont Wood and Dairy
    Industries for preliminary studies.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being carried out at the University of
    Vermont, Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    of the project is October 2002. Some of the objectives have been met.
    Anticipated completion date of additional objectives is October 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
    staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
    with the mission of the agency.
                        exotic pest diseases, california
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Exotic Pest Diseases, California grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant. CSREES has requested that the
    university submit a grant proposal that has not yet been received. The
    principal investigator has indicated that the grant will be awarded on
    a competitive basis to scientists at a number of universities.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Exotic and invasive pest species are a severe national,
    regional, and state problem. In California, recent invasive species
    include the glassy-winged sharpshooter that vectors Pierce's disease,
    Formosan subterranean termite, red imported fire ant, Africanized honey
    bee, giant Arundo, scotch broom, burrowing nematode, rice blast
    disease, Chinese mitten crab, and many others. Pierce's disease
    threatens the state's $33 billion grape industry and has caused an
    estimated $12-14 million loss in the Temecula grape-producing region
    over the last year.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a new grant. The proposal has not yet been received
    and the work has not yet begun. The goal of this research is to fund
    research on exotic pest diseases affecting California agricultural,
    urban, and natural systems.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for the fiscal year is $1,247,250.
        Question. What is the source and the amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: California commodity boards fund approximately
    $400,000 per year in research on invasive species; and the State of
    California funds approximately $600,000 per year in fruit fly research.
    The total non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant were as
    follows: $600,000 state appropriations and $400,000 miscellaneous in
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Where will this work be carried out?
        Answer. California will conduct this research through a competitive
    grants program with a majority of the research on endemic exotic
    species to be done in California. Some research may be done in Texas,
    Florida, or Hawaii by USDA co-investigators in cooperation with
    University of California scientists.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or elated objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objective
    is the end of fiscal year 2005.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is the first year for this project, and it has not yet
    been reviewed.
                        expanded wheat pasture, oklahoma
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Expanded Wheat Pasture, Oklahoma grant.
        Answer. This project was designed to develop improved
    supplementation programs and new systems for technology delivery to
    reduce production risk of raising cattle on wheat pasture. The work
    involves evaluation of grazing termination date on grain and beef
    production, assess the impact of wheat cultural practices, and develop
    an economic model to evaluate alternative decisions on grain/beef
    production. Additional effort is directed toward development of cool
    season perennial forage grasses to complement wheat pasture.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that this work addresses
    the needs of wheat/cattle producers of Oklahoma as a primary focus.
    However, it would appear to have application regionally in adjacent
    wheat growing states.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop
    economically-viable management systems for use of wheat for
    supplemental pasture for beef cattle before the crop starts making
    grain. This work has already shown how the use of feed supplements can
    increase net profit from cattle grazing on wheat pasture. The study has
    identified management practices, e.g. date of planting, cultivar
    selection, grazing intensity, and date of cattle removal that produce
    the optimum grain yield and cattle gain. A Wheat/Stocker Management
    Model has been developed as a decision aid to help producers assess
    income risk in the operation. Work is underway on a Wheat Grazing
    Systems simulation model.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989
    and appropriations were as follows: fiscal year 1989, $400,000; fiscal
    year 1990, $148,000; fiscal year 1991, $275,000; fiscal years 1992-
    1993, $337,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $317,000; fiscal years 1995-
    2000, $285,000 each year; and fiscal year 2001, $292,355. A total of
    $3,816,355 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $175,796 state appropriations in 1991; $174,074 state
    appropriations in 1992; and $236,584 state appropriations in 1993. The
    non-Federal support for 1994 was $238,058 for state appropriations.
    Funds for fiscal year 1995 were $275,426, for 1996 were $120,000, for
    1997 were $190,510, for 1998 $224,500, for 1999, $222,650, and for
    2000, $234,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being done at Oklahoma State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project started in 1989 with a projection of 10 years
    to complete the research objectives. Some objectives are nearing
    completion while others will require further study. A number of wheat
    cultivars have been identified which will tolerate grazing and still
    produce economic grain yields. The grazing cut off date for grain
    production has been established. However, year to year variation need
    additional study in order to develop a reliable decision support
    system. The revised projected completion date is 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This program is reviewed annually. Each year's funding
    cycle is peer reviewed internally and by CSREES National Program
    Leaders for scientific merit and relevance. Results from this project
    are currently being used by ranchers to help with management decisions
    concerning stocker cattle grazed on wheat that will be harvested for
    grain. Current work is designed to refine the current information and
    identify wheat cultivars and grazing management for optimum economic
    return.
                       expert ipm decision support system
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Expert Integrated Pest Management Decision
    Support System grant.
        Answer. A prototype information and decision support system was
    developed in collaboration with Purdue University and the U.S.
    Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory that integrates and
    manages information from multiple data sources. Development of this
    system now continues with the collaboration of the Office of Pest
    Management Policy--OPMP--and the National Science Foundation Center for
    Integrated Pest Management at North Carolina State University.
    Components of the Pest Management Information Decision Support System--
    PMIDSS--include information on the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency--EPA--review status of pesticides, crop losses caused by pests,
    status of minor use registrations, current research in progress, and
    priorities of integrated pest management implementation teams. PMIDSS
    data, along with OPMP and Pesticide Impact Assessment Program--PIAP--
    crop profiles, provide the background information that is critical to
    the development of commodity-specific Pest Management Strategies in
    response to Food Quality Protection Act-driven regulatory decisions.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. When fully operational, PMIDSS will serve national,
    regional, and local needs for research and extension activities. At the
    national level, the system supports the USDA and EPA Memorandum of
    Understanding to identify crop protection gaps and to find alternatives
    to pesticides either under Food Quality Protection Act regulatory
    review or those being lost due to pest resistance. The system will
    assist in the identification of priorities for the Pest Management
    Alternatives Program, Crops at Risk from Food Quality Protection Act--
    FQPA--Implementation and the Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Programs,
    and regional Integrated Pest Management--IPM--Special Grants and
    Special Projects. With the new implementation of the USDA Regional Pest
    Management Centers, PMIDSS technology is critical to the information
    needs of these Centers. It will provide a mechanism for decision
    transparency and for all stakeholders to interact with the priority
    setting process. The ultimate result will be to help insure that
    farmers have adequate alternatives for managing pests at the specific
    local level.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of PMIDSS was to refine the process of
    identification for Integrated Pest Management needs of the UDSA, EPA,
    and states. This goal reinforces the state and Federal partnerships to
    disseminate important pest management information for improved decision
    making and environmental quality, and to address future needs. In 1996
    and 1997, the program addressed priority commodity pest management
    needs resulting from voluntary pesticide cancellations and regulatory
    cancellations, responding to the Memorandum of Understanding, and
    supplemental Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA and EPA. The
    supplemental Memorandum of Understanding was signed in April 1996, at
    which time there were 58 pesticides and 374 uses identified and
    prioritized. The process included information on cancellations
    furnished by EPA. Selected uses were sent to the states' Pesticide
    Impact Assessment Program and Integrated Pest Management networks.
    Impacts of cancellations affecting individual states were reported for
    inclusion in the decision support system. Twenty-five minor use crops
    on which 40 specific pests were identified in the 1997 Request For
    Proposals. Results were also used by the regional IPM grants program
    Request For Proposals. In 1999, information sources from PMIDSS were
    used as source material for the development of a number of Crop
    Profiles. In 2000, the Crop profile use continued and the pest
    management Strategic Plans also accessed components of PMIDSS for
    baseline information. PMIDSS had undergone a complete rewrite during
    this last 2 years. PMIDSS was originally begun prior to the initiation
    of the World Wide Web. It has now been rewritten, using Java and Cold
    Fusion Structured Query Language queries, with all data now stored on a
    Structured Query Language Windows NT server. This means that no
    software other than the standard browser is required to access the
    information. All of the time-sensitive data has been updated and a
    searchable database of the new Pest Management Strategic Plans has been
    developed. Presently, user-customizable interfaces are being developed.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. This work began in 1994, with CSREES administrative
    funding. In fiscal year 1995, $172,000 was appropriated. In fiscal year
    1996, we expended $177,000 in a cooperative agreement with Purdue
    University and Argonne National Laboratory from Pest Management
    Alternative Special Grant Funds, $21,000 from Research, Extension, and
    Education Evaluation Funds, and $40,000 from PIAP. In fiscal years
    1997-1998, we expended $165,425 and $177,000 to Purdue University and
    Argonne National Laboratory. In fiscal years 1999 through 2000 we
    expended $177,000 per year and in fiscal year 2001, $176,611 was
    appropriated to go to North Carolina State University Center for IPM to
    make the system web-based and provide access to multiple databases.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds support the Pest Management
    Information Decision Support System.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Presently, the bulk of the work is carried out in
    Washington, D.C. and in Raleigh, North Carolina. CSREES has National
    Program Leaders in IPM, PIAP, and Inter-regional Project-4 program
    areas working on the PMIDSS. The Center for Integrated Pest Management
    at North Carolina State University manages the web server where the
    pest management information system is located and is developing the
    multiple concurrent database search and decision support capability.
    Interaction and information is provided by every state in our system.
    We are in the process of strengthening the role of Land Grant partners
    in this program, and additional database access is being developed
    through the Center for Integrated Pest Management, at North Carolina
    State University and through a sub-contract with George Mason
    University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated complex date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Our original estimate was two to three years with adequate
    resources to complete the developmental work. However, the design
    considerations became more complex with the 1996 passage of FQPA.
    Program needs dictated an expansion and change in information bases. In
    addition, the web technology that was unavailable in 1994 is now a
    major and needed part of the program strategy. We feel we are
    reasonably addressing FQPA objectives with available resources and this
    effort may need to become an ongoing activity USDA.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. PMIDSS underwent a formal review in June 1997, and a major
    piece of the system, the Pest Management Alternatives Program
    WorkBench, was reviewed by regionally-selected land grant scientists
    and others in November 1997. In August 1998 a progress review evaluated
    the engineered software product and determined the need for a web
    accessible multiple database search and look-up function for the
    system. A concept review held in September 1998 demonstrated the
    functionality of a web-based decision support system. The June review
    recommendations included: focus the system on the needs of the Pest
    Management Alternatives Program, timely delivery of the software
    product to USDA, and development of a plan to sustain the system in a
    user-friendly, widely-available format. The November evaluation of the
    WorkBench brought the following comments and recommendations: the
    WorkBench provides good linkages to relevant databases and brings
    together essential information on pest management issues; the system
    should be placed on the World Wide Web for greater access and utility;
    tell potential users that it is available; and invest in high quality
    databases to support and enhance data integrity of the WorkBench.
    Development now focuses on the needs of the Pest Management
    Alternatives Program, Crops at Risk Program, Risk Avoidance and
    Mitigation Program, the requirements of FQPA and an easy-to-use
    interface for data search and access. Data access is focused on current
    and transparent databases to address critical FQPA needs.
                  farm injuries and illnesses, north carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Farm Injuries and Illnesses, North Carolina
    grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
    proposal that has not yet been received. It is anticipated that it will
    request funding for research on health and safety issues in
    agriculture, forestry, and fisheries models for future interventions
    and outcomes evaluation. The initial research focus in this funding
    period would be heat exposure of field workers and supervisors and the
    resultant risk of heat exhaustion.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need?
        Answer. The dominant rural occupations in North Carolina are
    agriculture, forestry, and fisheries. North Carolina has the second
    largest number of farmers in the U.S. Agriculture employs 21 percent of
    the state's workforce. Agriculture, forestry, and fishing are three of
    the four most dangerous occupations in the U.S. Agriculture, forestry,
    and fisheries specific occupational illness and injury include: death
    due to trauma, heat stroke, amputations, musculoskeletal disorders,
    skin cancer, hearing loss, chronic respiratory problems, infectious
    disease, emotional stress, and toxic pesticide related illness. This
    population is often underserved medically because of geographic
    isolation, economic constraints, and sometimes lack of understanding
    about the need for health care. We have very little data about the
    health problems of this population. Current health statistics available
    in North Carolina do not identify occupation. Though individuals in
    these industries have many problems common to other rural citizens,
    they are exposed to unique occupational and environmental hazards that
    can lead to health problems not seen in others.
        There is no hard data on the magnitude of heat stroke in field
    workers from surveys, emergency room visits, or death certificates.
    Reporting of heat stroke death in North Carolina is not mandatory
    unless there are five deaths from a single event. Under high heat index
    conditions, heat illness escalates from self-treatable to true medical
    emergency over a few hours. It is poorly understood and often
    mismanaged. There are numerous interactions with medications, alcohol,
    and drugs that exacerbate heat related illness. Older farmers and
    workers are at much higher risk. Since heat related illness is
    preventable, there is a real need to both increase awareness and
    determine instantaneous risk of heat illness in the field.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. Preliminary planning is underway. The goals of the research
    are to: (1) evaluate the factors involved and the role each plays in
    heat related illness, (2) research existing methods and develop a
    comprehensive database for capturing data on heat exhaustion and other
    health problems unique to this population, and (3) develop a plan for
    intervention based on the outcome of the field research.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. Sources of any non-Federal funds will be identified in the
    grant proposal.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The field operations for this research project will be
    carried out on eastern North Carolina farms. The work will be done
    collaboratively by faculty and staff located at East Carolina
    University, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical University, and
    North Carolina State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have them objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
        Answer. The anticipated completion date is one year from receipt of
    the award.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project. An agency review will be conducted
    prior to awarding the grant.
                   feed barley for rangeland cattle, montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Feed Barley for Rangeland Cattle, Montana grant.
        Answer. This project supports research on the nutritional value of
    barley cultivars as feed for beef cattle. This research will assist the
    breeding and selection of superior barley types that can be more
    competitive with other feed grains and improve farmer income from
    barley crops grown in rotational systems in the Northern Great Plains.
    The project was subjected to a merit review.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Barley is grown extensively as a feed grain in the U.S.
    Based upon both chemical analysis and the experience of some cattle
    feeders, the principal investigator believes barley should have a feed
    value on a par with corn or wheat. Currently, barley is listed as
    inferior to both corn and wheat in feed hand books and is, therefore,
    discounted in the feed market. Comprehensive feeding studies of various
    barley types will be conducted to document the value as a feed grain
    for beef cattle.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The research has examined the use of laboratory analysis of
    barley for predicting feeding quality for beef cattle. They have
    identified several characteristics, including particle size and starch
    content, which are important in feed quality. They have then used some
    of this information to select among barley strains for best feeding
    quality. They have now determined that marker-assisted selection of
    barley varieties will be a viable approach to incorporating feed
    quality into a barley breeding program.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996
    with an appropriation of $250,000; for fiscal year 1997, $500,000; for
    fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $600,000 each year; for fiscal year 2000,
    $637,500; and for fiscal year 2001, $692,473. The total appropriation
    is $3,279,973.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds for this project were $160,000 in 1996,
    $174,500 in 1997, and $168,000 in 1998. No information is available for
    1999, 2000, or 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Montana State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Completion of the original objectives is anticipated in
    fiscal year 2001. Integration of findings into management systems is
    expected by fiscal year 2005 with outreach and information
    dissemination completed by fiscal year 2010.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project is evaluated annually. It undergoes a
    scientific merit review by two Department Heads and three peer faculty
    members. It is reviewed again by a CSREES National Program Leader upon
    submission to the agency.
                   fish and shellfish technologies, virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Fish and Shellfish Technologies, Virginia grant.
        Answer. The agency has requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The project will be initiated in
    fiscal year 2001. The project will focus on minimizing effluents from
    commercial recirculating aquaculture systems, aiding commercial fish
    producers in intensifying their production capacity, and
    characterization of solid and liquid wastes from intensive aquaculture
    production systems.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The investigators indicate that there is a regional and
    national need to advance recirculating system technologies and to
    enhance waste management in these systems in order to develop
    environmentally-compatible aquaculture systems and management
    practices. In addition, intensification of aquaculture production
    systems will become increasingly important in areas with limited water
    supplies. This research could have significant impact on the future of
    domestic seafood production reducing dependence on foreign products.
    The researchers indicate that the research goals and objectives are
    consistent with those outlined in the National Science and Technology
    Council's--NSTC--Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to enhance the
    economic viability and environmental compatibility of intensive
    aquaculture production systems as alternative agricultural enterprises.
    To achieve these goals, researchers will characterize effluent
    discharges from commercial fish farms in Virginia, develop design
    criteria to enhance intensification of commercial fish farm with
    limited water supplies, and conduct studies to minimize waste
    production in commercial scale recirculating aquaculture systems. This
    project will be initiated in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $473,955.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates in excess of $50,000 of non-
    Federal funds will be made available in fiscal year 2001 coming
    primarily from state and other sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted through the Virginia
    Agricultural Experiment Station, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
    State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, and in collaboration with
    private aquaculture producers in Virginia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the fiscal year 2001
    grant is fiscal year 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the proposal once it is submitted.
                              floriculture, hawaii
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Floriculture, Hawaii grant.
        Answer. The research carried out with these funds involves
    wholesale and retail U.S. and Japan market research, development of new
    varieties for aesthetic values and pest resistance, and pest management
    strategies to meet quarantine needs and consumer expectations.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The researcher believes the tropical cut flower and foliage
    industry in Hawaii, which includes anthurium, orchids, flowering
    gingers, bird of paradise, heliconia, protea, and cut foliage is worth
    over $50 million primarily in out-of-state sales. Development of
    disease resistant cultivars and quarantine pest management strategies
    that reduce pesticide usage are high priority issues at the national
    and international level.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to develop superior
    Hawaii anthuriums, orchids, protea, and exotic tropical flower
    varieties with disease resistance, particularly to anthurium blight
    which devastated the Hawaii anthurium industry through the mid-1980's
    and reduced Hawaii's market share. Additionally, research focused on
    development of post-harvest handling practices and quarantine pest
    control. To date, a new anthurium cultivar has been patented and
    released. Additional blight resistant cultivars are being propagated
    and tested by the anthurium industry. Disease resistant protea
    germplasm has been obtained from South Africa and is being used in the
    protea breeding program. A post-harvest hot water dip treatment has
    been developed and is being used commercially on tolerant cut-flower
    species to meet quarantine requirements.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $300,000; fiscal years 1990-1993, $296,000
    per year; fiscal year 1994, $278,000; fiscal years 1995-2000 $250,000
    each year; and fiscal year 2001, $249,450. A total of $3,511,450 has
    been appropriated since 1989.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: State appropriations of $87,937 in 1995, $56,680 in
    1997, and $62,600 in 1998 for a total of $207,217 since 1995.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted by the University of Hawaii at
    Manoa and Hilo.
        Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The objectives in the original project were to maintain
    Hawaii floricultural industry competitiveness. This objective continues
    to be the principal direction for the projects. Because the industry
    and the markets are changing, pests are becoming resistant and newer
    strains are emerging. As quarantines requirements continually change,
    the need for new technologies continue, the objective remains valid and
    the need for this research continues.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The individual projects funded under this Special Research
    Grant are annually evaluated by a panel of peers prior to awards. Each
    project goes through a merit review within their own institution to
    ensure that good science is being used. In addition, the principal
    investigator and the Acting Dean and Director of the College of
    Agriculture in Hawaii met with the CSREES liaison to this project on
    April 17, 2000, in Washington, DC. The project accomplishments were
    reviewed and the research objectives and performance goals for fiscal
    year 2000 were presented, justified and discussed. Future research
    needs and related production issues were also discussed. The principal
    investigator demonstrated good progress, strong leadership and
    judicious use of project funds. The review also allowed the Federal
    partner to provide input to the direction of the project and for the
    state scientists and administrators to demonstrate the accomplishments,
    competency, and merit of this grant that they manage.
       food and agriculture policy research institute, iowa and missouri
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done at the Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute, Iowa
    and Missouri program.
        Answer. The Food and Agriculture Policy Research Institute--FAPRI--
    was established by Iowa State University and the University of
    Missouri, Columbia, in 1984. The purpose of the Institute is to conduct
    comprehensive analysis and disseminate results about the economic
    impacts of U.S. food, farm, and trade policies to agricultural
    producers, agribusinesses, and public policymakers. Iowa State conducts
    research on the economic interrelationships within and between domestic
    and foreign food and agricultural markets from the farm gate to market
    destinations; develops and maintains databases and analytical support
    systems to facilitate the analysis of agricultural and trade policy
    issues; and evaluates the impacts of U.S. and foreign commodity supply,
    demand, and public policy programs on agricultural trade. The
    University of Missouri maintains models of the domestic agricultural
    economy and directs its efforts primarily to the analysis of domestic
    policy issues. The two universities maintain linkages with a number of
    other universities who provide data and analytical support to the
    system.
        The universities maintain a comprehensive analytical modeling
    system of the U.S. and international food and agricultural sectors to
    evaluate near and long-term economic implications of alternative farm
    policies for the basic commodities. Each year, and more often if
    conditions require, the system is used to provide economic information
    on potential impacts out to 10 years in the future of farm policies on
    farm prices, income, output, government program costs and means to
    enhance the management of farm programs at the national level.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Nation's agricultural sector and its components are
    subject to numerous Federal policies and programs. FAPRI is the only
    publicly-supported, non-Federal organization with the analytical
    capability to assess and evaluate the numerous public policies and
    programs affecting the agricultural sector and report results to a
    broad constituency including farmers, agribusinesses, and Federal and
    State policymakers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to develop the analytical capability
    to assess and evaluate U.S. farm policies on the U.S. agricultural
    sector, and disseminate this information to farmers, farm and other
    agricultural organizations, and public policymakers. The mission has
    been expanded to include assessment of trade and environmental policy
    impacts and their interaction with the agricultural sector at national,
    regional, and farm levels. The models in place are also used to assess
    fiscal and monetary policy implications and impacts of new technologies
    such as biotechnological innovations on the agricultural sector.
        Both institutions maintain large econometric models and data sets
    which are regularly updated to analyze farm and trade policy
    alternatives and the impacts of various programs on the several sub
    sectors of the agricultural economy. This update was especially
    valuable for conducting analysis to assess policy options for the 1996
    farm bill. During the past year, FAPRI completed 35-40 studies
    addressing policy issues such as assessments of the 1996 Farm Bill,
    alternative ethanol programs, USDA's proposed milk market order reform,
    U.S.-Canada agricultural trade, the importance of fast track to U.S.
    agriculture economic recession in the Middle East, and the economic
    meltdown in Russia. Numerous studies were completed addressing
    improvements made to the empirical modeling system to improve domestic
    and international policy capabilities. The FAPRI staff has made
    numerous public appearances throughout the U.S. to agricultural groups
    and Congressional committees and Executive branch groups addressing
    policy issues.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal years 1984-1985, $450,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-
    1987, $357,000 per year; fiscal year 1988, $425,000; fiscal year 1989,
    $463,000; fiscal year 1990, $714,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $750,000
    per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $850,000
    each year; fiscal years 1997-2000, $800,000 per year; and fiscal year
    2001, $947,910. The total amount appropriated is $12,018,910.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $260,355 State appropriations, $113,565 industry, and
    $37,913 miscellaneous for a total of $411,833 in 1991; $321,074 State
    appropriations, $51,500 industry, and $35,100 miscellaneous for a total
    of $407,674 in 1992; $234,796 State appropriations and $70,378 industry
    for a total of $305,174 in 1993; $78,286 State appropriations, $43,925
    industry, and $29,750 miscellaneous in 1994 for a total of $151,961 in
    1994; $80,155 State appropriations, $37,128 industry, and $42,236
    miscellaneous for a total of $159,519 in 1995; $124,123 in State
    appropriations with no other funding for 1996; $79,000 in State
    appropriations, $50,000 industry, and $25,000 miscellaneous for a total
    of $154,000 in 1997; and $88,800 State appropriations, $75,200
    industry, and $34,687 miscellaneous for a total of $198,687 in 1998.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The program is carried out at the Center for Agriculture
    and Rural Development, Iowa State University and the Center for
    National Food and Agricultural Policy, University of Missouri.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is a continuing program of research and analysis for
    the purpose of assessing farm and related policy actions and proposed
    actions likely to affect the agricultural sector and its components.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The annual proposal is carefully reviewed by the CSREES
    program leader for adherence to stated objectives and progress before
    the special research grant is awarded. It is also peer reviewed prior
    to its submission. No formal evaluation of this program has been
    conducted.
                             food irradiation, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Food Irradiation, Iowa grant.
        Answer. Since the Linear Accelerator Facility was placed in
    operation in March 1993, studies on the effect of irradiation on shelf-
    life extension, safety and quality of ground beef, beef steaks, ham,
    pork chops from loins, chicken breasts, and turkey have been conducted.
    Studies combining irradiation with high hydrostatic pressure and
    cooking using whole chicken breasts, turkey, and ham, have been
    conducted to determine the combination of these treatments that will
    yield a shelf-stable product while maintaining high eating quality.
    Several studies were conducted to determine whether consumers can
    detect a difference between irradiated and non-irradiated ground beef
    patties. Experiments were also conducted to investigate consumer
    acceptance of pork products irradiated to prevent trichinosis. Test
    markets of irradiated chicken breasts were conducted to determine
    consumers' willingness to pay for irradiated products. Studies on the
    effect of packaging materials on quality of irradiated meat have been
    completed. Quality changes in ready-to-eat meat and poultry products
    irradiated to control Listeria are under investigation. The fiscal year
    2000 funds are supporting research from May 1, 2000 through June 30,
    2001. A proposal in support of the fiscal year 2001 appropriation has
    been requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes consumers' attention and
    concern about the safety of fresh meat and poultry has increased with
    recent outbreaks of foodborne illness from E. coli 0157:H7 and Listeria
    monocytogenes in the past decade. The meat industry has also expressed
    interest regarding the quality of irradiated products and how this
    process can be used to yield high quality fresh meats and ready-to-eat
    products that are free of pathogens. The massive recall of over 50
    million pounds of frankfurters and luncheon meats due to illness caused
    by Listeria monocytogenes contamination has resulted in huge economic
    losses in years 2000 and 2001. With clearance of Food and Drug
    Administration and USDA of irradiation of red meat--December 23, 1999--
    research leading to commercialization of this technology has been
    enhanced. Additionally, researchers from eight other research
    institutes have used the irradiation facility for research projects.
    Thus, the principal researcher believes this research to be of
    national, regional, and local need.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to generate knowledge
    necessary to develop a research and technology transfer program leading
    to commercial use of irradiation of foods whereby consumers would be
    provided with food products with enhanced safety. The effectiveness of
    irradiation, using an electron beam accelerator, in destroying known
    pathogenic bacteria in pork and beef has been determined. Mathematical
    models have been developed to predict the growth of bacteria in low-
    dose irradiated ground pork. Demonstration of irradiation technology
    has been presented to some commercial firms, and plans are being
    developed for some large scale test markets.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
    when $100,000 was appropriated for this project. The appropriations for
    fiscal years 1992 and 1993 were $237,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
    $223,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $201,000 each year; fiscal years
    1998-2000, $200,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $224,505. Total
    appropriated for are $2,224,505.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The project received $1,037,270 in State of Iowa funds--$1
    million of which was for capital construction--in fiscal year 1991;
    $37,942 in state funds and $67,800 in industry grants in fiscal year
    1992; $68,897 in state funds, $78,300 in industry grants, and $9,666 in
    user fees in fiscal year 1993; $70,652 in state funds, $35,420 in
    industry grants, and $47,788 in user fees in fiscal year 1994; $72,772
    in state funds, $100,000 in industry grants, and $55,211 in user fees
    in fiscal year 1995; $81,540 in state funds, $115,300 in industry
    grants, and $50,963 in user fees in fiscal year 1996; $77,963 in state
    funds, $253,450 in industry grants, and $46,550 in user fees in fiscal
    year 1997; and $100,200 in state funds, $205,900 in industry grants,
    and $36,200 in user fees in fiscal year 1998; $125,000 in state funds,
    $213,800 in industry grants, and $34,900 in user fees in fiscal year
    1999; and $109,000 in state funds, $115,000 in industry grants, and
    $48,300 in user fees in fiscal year 2000. Information for fiscal year
    2001 is not available at this time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigator anticipates that the project's
    original objectives will be met within a few years after the USDA final
    rules are issued for ready-to-eat meat and poultry products.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A review of the proposal supporting the fiscal year 2000
    appropriation was conducted on May 23, 2000. Previous studies funded
    under this project have provided useful information toward
    understanding how irradiation can be useful in eliminating or reducing
    foodborne pathogens in meat products. It is anticipated that the
    proposed research will continue to further the understanding of how
    irradiation can be used to improve shelf-life and enhance safety of
    meats and meat products.
                   food marketing policy center, connecticut
        Question. Please provide a description of the research done under
    the Food Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut grant.
        Answer. The Food Marketing Policy Center was established in 1988 at
    the University of Connecticut at Storrs. The Center seeks to improve
    the performance of the food production and marketing system by
    conducting research on food and agricultural marketing and related
    policy questions. The Center is primarily an economic research
    organization, but it conducts interdisciplinary research as appropriate
    and it communicates results to the public. Key users include farm and
    consumer organizations, agricultural business firms, public agencies,
    state legislatures, and the U.S. Congress. The research proposal was
    subject to an administrative review and a peer review by the university
    prior to submission to CSREES.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The research addresses an ongoing national need to monitor
    the performance of the U.S. food system and to recommend policies that
    improve performance for the benefit of farmers, merchants, processors,
    and consumers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The ongoing research goal is to identify marketing problems
    and assess alternatives that improve economic performance of the U.S.
    agricultural and food marketing sector. The Center serves as a core
    research group for Multi-State Research Project NE-165, Private
    Strategies, Public Policies, and Food System Performance. The research
    agenda includes industrial organization, strategic marketing, economics
    of food safety, cooperatives, and public policy, including antitrust
    and regulation.
        The Center is a prolific provider of high quality theoretical and
    empirical work, and makes significant scientific, management, and
    policy contributions. The Center has prepared over 50 working papers,
    40 policy research reports, 20 policy issue papers, 8 books and
    numerous chapters, a number of MS and PhD theses, and has distributed
    scientifically-important research articles to researchers, industry,
    Federal and state legislators, and decision makers.
        This grant supports research projects in two problem areas: impacts
    of changes in strategies, technologies, consumer behavior, and policies
    on the economic performance of the food system; and impacts of private
    and public strategies on improvements in food safety and quality.
    Recent accomplishments include: evidence that more concentrated retail
    markets have higher retail prices, brands with greater market share
    have greater ability to raise prices, residents in low income areas
    lack comparable access to retail stores. Forthcoming reports examine
    the impact of Walmart supercenters on local markets; milk pricing
    policies in the Northeast; the ability of firms to differentiate their
    products based on safety or process--e.g. animal welfare, ecological
    impact, organic--attributes; and the impact of sanitary/phyto-
    sanitary--SPS--and technical trade barriers on food quality/safety/
    price attributes available in the U.S. and other countries. Expert
    testimony before the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys
    general has resulted in tougher antitrust enforcement, and has caused
    at least one firm to withdraw from a retail mega-merger. The Center
    maintains an extensive database, including special tabulations of
    Census data and private data, that facilitates research by a large
    number of university-based researchers.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1988, $150,000; fiscal year 1989, $285,000; fiscal
    year 1990, $373,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $393,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1994, $369,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $332,000 per year; fiscal
    years 1999-2000, $400,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $493,911. A
    total of $4,977,911 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are State appropriations as follows: $234,259 in fiscal year 1991;
    $231,741 in fiscal year 1992; $201,288 in fiscal year 1993; $234,557 in
    fiscal year 1994; $219,380 in fiscal year 1995; $134,399 in fiscal year
    1996; $135,490 in fiscal year 1997; $164,772 in fiscal year 1998;
    $163,895 in fiscal year 1999; and $343,302 in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being carried out at the University of
    Connecticut and the University of Massachusetts.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1987 was for 24 months. According
    to the principal researcher, the objective of conducting policy-
    oriented research on food manufacturing and distribution industries to
    assist state and Federal policy makers in improving the performance of
    the food system is still an ongoing public concern, given increasing
    levels of concentration in food processing. The current phase will be
    completed in 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in April
    2000, as it evaluated the 2000 project proposal. The review noted that:
    ``The stated objectives, addressed through nine continuing projects and
    one new one, are scientifically valid, and the procedures specified for
    each are appropriate. The Principal Investigator and associated
    researchers are nationally and internationally recognized and are
    clearly competent to execute this project.''
                        food processing center, nebraska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Food Processing Center, Nebraska grant.
        Answer. The University of Nebraska Food Processing Center has been
    conducting short-term, highly-applied research projects to assist small
    and mid-sized food processing companies and entrepreneurs to develop or
    improve processes and products and to develop new food processing
    enterprises. Projects were selected based on the estimated economic
    impact of the technical assistance or the criticality of the technical
    assistance to the future of the firm or venture. Priorities were placed
    on projects relating to the safety of the food product or process and
    to the fulfillment of regulatory mandates such as nutrition labeling,
    use of approved and effective ingredients, and adherence to regulations
    imposed by foreign governments. In addition, several research projects
    were conducted to improve or assess the quality, extend the shelf-life,
    or assess or improve the processing efficiency of specialty food
    products which impacted several processors or used alternative
    agricultural products. A proposal in support of the fiscal year 2001
    appropriation has been requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the primary impact of
    this project will be statewide. Small and mid-sized food processing
    companies and entrepreneurs have limited technological capabilities for
    addressing issues related to product development, process development,
    product and process evaluation, food safety, quality assurance, and
    regulatory mandates. The short-term research and technology transfer
    projects conducted as part of this overall project will aid these
    companies in appropriately addressing these oftentimes complicated
    issues.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to assist small and mid-sized
    food processing companies and entrepreneurs to develop or improve
    processes and products and to develop new food processing enterprises.
    Technological evaluations were conducted for 89 individuals or
    companies interested in developing new food processing businesses.
    These evaluations included formulations, processes, processing
    equipment, packaging, shelf-life, sensory, nutritional attributes,
    microbiological quality, regulatory considerations, and other factors.
    Additionally, microbiological analyses, shelf-life assessments,
    sanitation audits, and nutritional analyses were conducted for numerous
    Nebraska food companies.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992.
    The appropriations were $50,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-1993 ;
    $47,000 for fiscal year 1994; $42,000 per year for fiscal years 1995-
    2000; and $41,908 for fiscal year 2001. A total of $440,908 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The Food Processing Center received $402,389 in state funds
    and $1,993,914 in food industry grants and miscellaneous sources from
    1992 through 1999. Data for fiscal year 2000 are not available.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Nebraska.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. Because this project supports ongoing technical assistance
    to clients, the objectives are ongoing. The original objective of
    assisting entrepreneurs and small and mid-sized food processing
    companies to develop/improve products and/or processes have been
    successfully met.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A CSREES science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    A review of the proposal was conducted on May 24, 2000. Progress under
    previous grants for this project appears to be satisfactory, with
    numerous examples of assistance cited and summaries of short-term
    projects provided by the principal investigator.
                              food quality, alaska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Food Quality, Alaska grant.
        Answer. Research has been aimed at completing a number of smaller
    projects that have significance to seafood quality and safety in the
    Alaska Seafood Industry. To identify the most important projects, the
    investigators consulted with informed people from state and Federal
    agencies and from industry. The vetted projects mentioned address
    pertinent research needs in the area of improving seafood quality and
    safety. The subprojects are: (1) Bioprocessing of Marine Bacteriocins
    for Enhancing Seafood Safety; (2) Molecular Tracking of Listeria
    monocytogenes in Smoked Salmon Processing Plants for Eradication by
    Directed Sanitation; (3) Evaluation of Clostridium sporogenes as a
    Substitute for Botulism Testing of Low-Salt, Vacuum-Packaged Seafoods
    including smoked salmon and sujiko; and (4) Using an Electronic Nose to
    Improve Seafood Quality.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Seafood Industry is the largest employment sector in
    Alaska. Many of the small coastal communities in Alaska have a local
    fish packing plant that has been the major source of income in their
    economies. In 1998, Alaska harvested approximately two million metric
    tons of fish, all for human food. This is greater then 60 percent of
    the U.S. total for fish landings. Furthermore, if one focuses on fish
    harvested for human food, Alaska's share represents an even greater
    percentage because there are no reduction fisheries in Alaska and all
    harvested species are used, at least in part, for human food.
        The salmon industry is regional, involving thousands of fishermen
    and processing workers from Washington, Oregon, California, and
    throughout the nation that come to Alaska to participate in the
    fishery. In recent years, the Alaska salmon industry has suffered
    economically from increased competition from international salmon
    farmers, mainly in Norway and Chile. They have made great inroads in
    many traditional markets, surpassed Alaska in salmon production, and
    now set the product standard in the marketplace. One key for American
    businesses to recapture and strengthen their salmon markets is to
    guarantee and promote the quality of wild Alaska salmon. This project
    will provide the industry with the research and information needed to
    accomplish this.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to ensure a
    consistent and predictable level of handling and quality for Alaska
    seafood. In doing so, the project will help Alaska seafood processors
    strengthen or maintain their place in domestic and international
    markets. The goals for each of the subproposals are listed as follows:
    (1) The long-range goal is to utilize novel, natural, and safe
    biopreservatives to eliminate potential bacterial pathogens in
    seafoods. Work is in progress on the isolation of broad- and narrow-
    spectrum bacteriocins from new producing strains and applied to
    inactivate Listeria monocytogenes in minimally-preserved seafood
    products stored under extended refrigeration. (2) Other goals include
    molecular typing of L. monocytogenes strains isolated from four smoked
    fish processing plants in Alaska; to determine if site-directed
    sanitation methods reduce the incidence of the organism; and to
    determine if growth of inoculated C. sporogenes can be used to indicate
    temperature-abuse of low-salt, vacuum-packaged seafoods. Work is in
    progress. (3) A final goal is to: determine specific compounds that are
    indicators of quality loss in fresh and frozen seafoods; train a hand-
    held electronic nose to recognize these early indicators of quality
    loss in seafoods; compare the trained electronic nose with the
    traditional chemical, physical, and sensory techniques used to evaluate
    seafood quality under controlled conditions; and to evaluate the
    electronic nose in an operating seafood processing plant.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $350,000 each
    year and $349,230 for 2001 totaling $1,049,230.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The State of Alaska, the Alaska Seafood Marketing
    Institute, the University of Alaska, and the industry will contribute
    considerable personnel hours. We estimate the non-Federal contributions
    for the entire group of four subproposals is approximately $25,000-
    $30,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work will be administered at the University of Alaska
    Fairbanks. Field work will be carried out in numerous Alaska fishing
    communities.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion of the full objectives of this
    research is one year from date of the award.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project application was reviewed for merit by a CSREES
    specialist on August 3, 2000. Progress for the previous grant is
    satisfactory. Research on the use of marine bacteriocins, molecular
    biology of L. monocytogenes, and using electronic nose to test seafood
    quality appeared satisfactory.
                              food safety, alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Food Safety, Alabama grant.
        Answer. Auburn Research Centers Food Safety Program is developing a
    method of food inspection that involves the placement of a sensor chip
    on food items. The goal is for these chips to automatically inventory
    and assess the safety at any point from source to consumption of
    appropriate fresh food products sold in the U.S.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Most food-borne illness can be attributed to bacteria. The
    sensor chips developed at Auburn University will target detection of
    the bacteria that causes most of these illnesses. This technology could
    result in financial savings nationally, regionally, and locally through
    the prevention of food-borne illness and its related costs. Up to 33
    million Americans become ill each year from food borne disease.
    Estimates indicate that as many as 9,000 of these individuals will die
    with another one million suffering permanent disabilities. The USDA
    estimates that foodborne illness costs the U.S. economy $14.2 billion
    in lost productivity annually. This project will improve the safety of
    our food supply chain leading to an improved quality of life for every
    citizen and resident of the U.S. In addition to these costs to the
    public and the nation, the costs to industry of settling civil
    litigation due to foodborne disease can be immense. The 1993 Jack-in-
    the-Box hamburger incident, which infected 433 individuals, resulted in
    lawsuit settlements of $126 million dollars. This research when
    implemented should greatly reduce the incidence of foodborne illness.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project is to reduce the
    incidence of food-borne illness through the use of a sensor chip that
    will assess the safety of food items as they move through the food
    chain. Already to date, the researchers have demonstrated a new method
    for the detection of Salmonella bacteria that has the potential to
    greatly reduce detection times. Current industrial methods require that
    a sample of suspect food be taken to the laboratory where tests require
    a minimum of 6 to 48 hours to determine a food is safe to eat. The new
    technology can identify harmful levels of Salmonella bacteria in a few
    minutes and will be packaged as a portable hand-held unit that may be
    used on the food production line. Additionally, Auburn University has
    demonstrated a working stamp-sized radio frequency identification
    sensor tag that can be used to automatically inventory and trace food
    within seconds. This tag stores information from farm to its final
    destination and can be interrogated to rapidly provide information to
    identify the source of a contamination or food problem should it be
    detected at a latter date downstream.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in June 1999. The
    appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $300,000; for fiscal year 2000,
    $446,250; and for fiscal year 2001, $519,854. A total of $1,266,104 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Expenditures of non-Federal funds from state and
    corporations totaled $577,350 in fiscal year 2000 and $674,890 has been
    allocated for expenditure in fiscal year 2001. This will bring the
    total of non-Federal funds to $1,252,240 for the first two years.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Auburn University through
    the Auburn Research Center for Detection and Food Safety.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The project is part of a 10-year program to develop and
    implement an entirely new sensing and information technology for the
    detection of foodborne pathogens. Annual objectives are set for each
    year. All objectives for year one were exceeded or met. Already the
    project has completed 50 percent of the second year objectives.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The interim results of the project were reviewed during a
    meeting with the Project Investigator in October of 2000. The interim
    results of the research were found to be satisfactory.
                   food safety research consortium, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Food Safety Research Consortium, New York grant.
        Answer. This is a new project to be started in fiscal year 2001.
    Research related to food safety research will be supported by this
    grant. CSREES has requested the university to submit a proposal in
    support of fiscal year 2001 funds, which has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project will develop improved methods to help the food
    industry control contamination with the bacterium Listeria
    monocytogenes. This bacterium causes serious foodborne disease in
    humans and is responsible for an estimated 500 foodborne deaths
    annually in the U.S. The presence of this bacterium is also commonly
    responsible for costly food recalls, even though many contaminated food
    products may not cause human disease. There is a national need to
    develop tools that will help food processors to prevent contamination
    of their products with this bacterium and to understand which types of
    Listeria monocytogenes may cause disease when present in foods.
        Question. What is the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this research is to develop a collection of
    Listeria monocytogenes isolated from various food processing plants and
    from various sites within processing plants for characterization by DNA
    fingerprinting to elucidate the specific DNA subtypes of this organism
    associated with contamination. DNA fingerprints for these Listeria
    monocytogenes, as well as fingerprints for Listeria monocytogenes from
    humans, will be assembled into an electronic fingerprint database
    accessible to other researchers, public health officials, and industry.
    This database will provide the food industry with access to modern DNA
    fingerprinting tools and will help them to better control Listeria
    monocytogenes contamination.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This is a new project for fiscal year 2001. For fiscal year
    2001 $284,373 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Funding in the amount of $122,245 has been provided to the
    International Life Sciences Institute, North America.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work will be carried out at the Department of Food
    Sciences at Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Collaborators include
    ABC Research, Gainesville, Florida.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives of this project should be completed
    by September 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project beginning in fiscal year 2001. No
    evaluation has been conducted by USDA.
                     food systems research group, wisconsin
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Food Systems Research Group, Wisconsin program.
        Answer. The Group conducts research on contemporary issues
    affecting the organization and competitiveness of the U.S. food system
    in domestic and international markets. The issues include new
    technologies, market structure, firm behavior, and government policies
    and programs. Studies have been completed on pricing of cheddar cheese,
    fed cattle, and hogs; changes in private label product markets; causes
    of structural change in the flour milling, soybean oil milling, wet
    corn milling, cottonseed milling, beef packing, and broiler processing
    industries; competition in U.S. food markets; and the relationship
    between U.S. food market structure and the industry's performance in
    global markets. The research proposal was subject to an administrative
    review and a peer review by the university prior to submission to
    CSREES.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that the U.S. food system
    is changing rapidly in response to a large number of global economic,
    social, and technological changes. Research is needed to determine the
    effects of these changes on the system's organization and performance,
    and to ascertain needed adjustments in public policies based upon sound
    research. There is a national need to assess and evaluate the
    organization and performance of the Nation's food industry to ensure
    that it continues to satisfy performance expectations of farmers and
    consumers and adheres to acceptable standards of conduct. In spite of
    the growing concentration in food production-processing and increasing
    public policy questions concerning the performance of this industry,
    few organizations like the Food Systems Research Group are providing
    research needed for public and private decision making.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to assess and evaluate the
    organization and performance of the U.S. food industry and provide
    recommendations for improvements. Recent research results include the
    following: (1) firm concentration trends in a number of food industry
    subsectors, such as dairy, have been analyzed as preparation for
    determining the impact of increasing consolidation on producers,
    consumer, and others; (2) models of arbitrage pricing were developed
    and used to estimate allocative efficiency in broiler, beef, and pork
    subsectors; allocative inefficiency appears in all three because
    participants do not adequately anticipate dynamic market changes;
    vertical integration in broilers has greatly improved production
    efficiency but not allocative efficiency; (3) resource allocation to an
    ``office of technology transfer'' seems to be the most important factor
    affecting diversity biotechnology patent production, strategic behavior
    of Wisconsin agribusiness firms was documented in three case studies:
    one firm operates in the mature artificial breeding industry, and the
    other two are involved in cheese production.
        The project has completed numerous studies on economic structure
    and performance issues of the U.S. food manufacturing and distribution
    system. Basic research is conducted on market theories; effects of
    mergers, new technologies, and firm conduct on industry structure and
    organization; factors affecting industry prices, profits, efficiency
    and progressiveness; and impact of public policies and regulations on
    food system organization and performance.
        Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal years 1976-1981, $150,000 per year; fiscal years 1982-
    1985, $156,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $148,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1990, $219,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $261,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $245,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $221,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1999, $225,000; fiscal year 2000, $425,000; and fiscal year
    2001, $498,900. A total of $5,395,900 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: State appropriations of $120,304 in 1991; $119,448 in
    1992; $85,188 in 1993; $96,838 in 1994; $59,435 in 1995; $50,636 in
    1996; $56,421 in 1997; $64,004 in 1998; $75,115 in 1999; and $40,218 in
    2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The grant supports research at the University of Wisconsin,
    Madison.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1976 was for a period of 36
    months. The current phase of the program will be completed in 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in April
    2000, as it evaluated the 2000 project proposal and concluded: The Food
    Systems Research Group at the University of Wisconsin is undergoing
    leadership changes. An Interim Director has been appointed while a new
    director is being sought. The Group continues to attract a number of
    respected researchers that do very good work.
              forages for advanced livestock production, kentucky
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Forages for Advanced Livestock Production,
    Kentucky grant.
        Answer. Forage-based livestock production in Kentucky and
    surrounding states depends primarily on tall fescue. There are more
    than 35 million acres of tall fescue in the region. The objective of
    this project is to use traditional plant breeding and molecular mapping
    of tall fescue and related species to develop cultivars with reduced
    endophyte toxicity and improve production and persistence.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The focus of this research will be in Kentucky; however the
    results will have extensive application in the surrounding states where
    tall fescue is the principle forage grass. Therefore this project is
    regional in nature.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop improved
    cool season forage cultivars form tall fescue and related species and
    improve the economics of forage-based livestock production in the
    region.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
    2000. The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $212,500, and fiscal
    year 2001 is $374,175 a total of $586,675 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The principle investigator estimated non-Federal funds
    provided by the state in support of this work was $130,000 in the year
    2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Kentucky Research
    Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is fiscal year 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The initial proposal was subjected to peer review and
    approval process at the initiating institution and received additional
    review by CSREES National Program Staff. Results from the first year
    will be used to refine objectives and approaches for year 2001
    proposal.
                          forestry research, arkansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Forestry Research, Arkansas grant.
        Answer. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center offers programs of
    research, education, and outreach to the landowners of Arkansas and the
    surrounding region. This has been accomplished through continuing
    education events for landowners, the development of a series of
    distance-learning tutorials, and the funding of 20 assistantships for
    the first two classes of graduate students in the new forest resources
    master's program. A partial list of workshops includes: Uneven-aged
    Silviculture of Loblolly and Shortleaf Pine Forest Types; Environmental
    Law & Policy; Timber Income Tax Update; Thinning Methods and
    Operations; Introduction to Arc View 3.0; Estate Planning; Forest
    Finance Applications: Basic Tools for Daily Practice; and Opportunities
    in Forest Regeneration. The educational thrust has combined Center and
    private dollars to establish one of only three of the country's Arc
    View Learning Centers for natural resources. To better provide the
    highly educated professionals needed in the natural resources
    professions, educational tutorials are being developed in dendrology--
    tree identification, plant morphology, silvics--that aid in the (1)
    transfer of students in community colleges to institutions with forest
    resources offerings, and (2) forest resources education of non-majors
    at institutions without forest resources faculty. Furthermore, the
    University of Arkansas activated a new Master of Science program in the
    Fall 1998.
        Research projects address issues of species diversity, richness,
    redundance, and the resilience of disturbed and undisturbed hardwood
    stands of the Mississippi River floodplain. Furthermore, research has
    indicated that neotropical migratory birds are indicators of ecosystem
    health. Factors influencing their breeding range include habitat
    destruction/alteration and forest fragmentation. Thus, issues of re-
    establishment and structure of hardwood stands are important for
    timber, non-timber values, and the quality of life enjoyed regionally,
    nationally, and internationally. Also, other projects are contributing
    to the development of (1) a biological control agent for the southern
    pine beetle, (2) alternative forest crops for the economically-
    depressed Delta region, and (3) technologies for enhanced fiber and
    wood production from nonindustrial and industrial lands. Newer projects
    include an important regional social science study of the resource
    ethical values held by people of the southern U.S. and a comprehensive
    study for forest growth and yield.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
    research?
        Answer. With the reduced levels of production of wood products from
    the Northwest, southern forests are increasingly having to produce a
    major portion of wood products for the U.S. This increased demand and
    production make it critical that the forestry community understand the
    possible environment effects of forestry practice. Social implications
    of the conflicts between forest production and environmental quality
    will become more and more important. Collectively, the projects address
    the sustainable management of southern forests.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to develop alternative forest
    management strategies for achieving multi-resource objectives; i.e.,
    production of timber, wildlife, recreation, and other values of the
    forest on private industrial and non-industrial forest lands and pubic
    lands. Significant progress has been made in several areas. Some
    examples include: developing intensive fiber farming systems as
    alternatives to soybeans for Mississippi Delta farmers, taking the
    first step toward biological control of the southern pine beetle by
    discovering the nutrient needs of predators of the beetle so predators
    can be grown and studied in artificial cultures. The first survey of
    nonindustrial landowners in Arkansas for 15 years has been conducted.
    The survey shows that because of the average age of landowners--60+
    years--there will be a massive change in ownership in the next 10-20
    years. Landowners continue to not be aware of assistance programs. The
    survey also indicated a concern about government programs and possible
    intervention on private land. This information will be useful in
    understanding future timber supply trends from private holdings and in
    the design of assistance and educational programs.
        Ongoing projects include a broad array of topics competitively
    awarded within the Center. These include best management practices,
    ecological characteristics, effects of different forest management
    regimes, stream-sided buffer zone effectiveness, effects of winter
    logging, and secondary processing efficiency.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows:

            Grant Year                                        Grant Received
    1994....................................................        $470,000
    1995....................................................         523,000
    1996....................................................         523,000
    1997....................................................         523,000
    1998....................................................         523,000
    1999....................................................         523,000
    2000....................................................         523,000
    2001....................................................         521,849
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................       4,129,849

        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funding and its source provided to this
    grant in 1994 was $411,726 State appropriations and $380,000 industry
    for a total of $791,726; $491,301 State appropriations and $785,262
    industry for a total of $1,276,563 for 1995; a total of $695,204 from
    State and industry sources for 1996; a total of $1,115,341 from these
    sources in 1997; and an estimated total of $1,000,000 for 1998. For
    1999, the State legislature appropriated approximately $850,000 above
    the 1998 level. For 2000, the state contributed $1,607,000 to the
    project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The Arkansas Forest Resources Center is administered from
    the School of Forest Resources on the campus of the University of
    Arkansas at Monticello. Individual studies are being conducted at the
    University of Arkansas at Fayetteville and several locations across the
    State.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Grants were received in 1994-2000 with funds distributed
    for use over the 3 to 5 years following the activation year. Projects
    are on schedule; work from 1994 and 1995 funding is nearing completion.
    Forestry research is long term. Center objectives and selected projects
    will be continued beyond the life of individual grants using the
    infrastructure and capacity developed with these Special Research
    Grants.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. In 1991, an agency team visited the University and reviewed
    faculty qualifications, supporting sources, and the feasibility of the
    proposal. The team exit report indicated the faculty was highly
    capable, the infrastructure needed strengthening, and the proposal
    concepts were feasible. Since 1991, there has not been a formal program
    review. A review planned for the year 2000 has been rescheduled for
    2001 because of a change in forest resources leadership at the
    University.
           fruit and vegetable market analysis, arizona and missouri
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Fruit and Vegetable Market Analysis, Arizona and
    Missouri program.
        Answer. The purpose of this research is to provide timely knowledge
    and analysis of the impacts of trade, environmental, monetary, and
    other public policies and programs upon the Nation's fruit and
    vegetable industry to farmers, agribusinesses, and policymakers through
    a program of empirical assessment and evaluation.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The U.S. fruit and vegetable sector is experiencing
    increased growth from greater domestic and export demand. However, the
    growth of this sector depends upon its ability to compete domestically
    and internationally and to conform with the regulatory environment in
    which it operates. This program of research provides increasingly
    critical information to farmers and policymakers on the implications
    and impacts of various policies and programs such as environmental,
    trade, labor, and food safety. It is the only such program providing
    analysis of the total U.S. sector.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to develop the analytical capability to assess
    and evaluate public policies and programs impacting the U.S. fruit and
    vegetable industry and disseminate the results to policy makers,
    industry organizations, producers, and other users. Proposals have been
    submitted that outline long-range plans and specific projects for
    funding. Models have been developed for 18 major--as measured in
    production, consumption, and trade--United States fruits and vegetables
    representing 80 percent of the farm value of the U.S. fruit and
    vegetable industry. Trade models for those commodities with a
    significant import and/or export sector will also be developed. These
    models feed in to a larger food and agricultural sector model to
    support analysis of cross commodity and policy effects.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This research program was initiated in fiscal year 1994.
    Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
    year 1994, $329,000; fiscal years 1995 through 1998, $296,000 per year;
    fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $320,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001,
    $347,234. A total of $2,500,234 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funding and its source provided to this
    grant in 1994 was $50,073 State appropriations and $11,000 industry for
    a total of $61,073; $21,876 State appropriations and $36,624 industry
    for a total of $58,500 for 1995; a total of $62,400 from State and
    industry sources expected for 1996; and $50,000 each year from these
    sources in 1997 and 1998.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out at Arizona State University
    and the University of Missouri.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The university researchers anticipate that this is an
    ongoing project to look at the impact of various public policy
    proposals on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation. However annual
    proposals are peer reviewed for scientific merit and relevance; also
    each annual budget proposal is carefully reviewed and work progress is
    compared with prior year's objectives. Informal discussions with
    congressional staff indicate that the analyses are extremely useful.
                     generic commodity promotion, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Generic Commodity Promotion, New York program.
        Answer. The grant supports, in part, the National Institute on
    Commodity Promotion Research and Evaluation which provides objective
    analyses of national and state commodity checkoff programs designed to
    enhance domestic and export demand for U.S. agricultural products.
    ``Checkoff'' programs collect funds from producers to pay for
    advertising and promotional programs. The overall project proposal was
    peer reviewed at the university level; a competitive peer review
    process is used to select specific research projects.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher states that producers are
    contributing about $1 billion annually to commodity research and
    promotion funds designed to expand the domestic and export markets for
    their products. The number of commodity groups participating and the
    size of the funds available could continue to grow. The 1996 Federal
    Agriculture Improvement and Reform--FAIR--Act requires all Federally-
    constituted research and promotion boards to evaluate their programs at
    least every five years. Accurate evaluations require the development of
    sophisticated techniques that differentiate the impact of research and
    promotion expenditures from several other market influencing factors.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to determine the economic effectiveness of
    generic promotion programs designed to increase the sales of
    agricultural commodities in domestic and international markets.
    Accomplishments over the last five years include: (1) understanding key
    economic relationships in the advertising and promotion of milk and
    dairy products, beef, cotton, and eggs, and the exports of beef, pork,
    and wheat; (2) discovering that ``pulsed'' advertising is superior to
    uniform advertising; (3) understanding the factors affecting producer
    attitudes toward checkoff programs; (4) developing a comprehensive
    database of advertising expenditures for all food products; (5)
    developing new techniques using scanner data; (6) developing new
    methods of estimating the relationships among advertising, promotion,
    government support programs, and government policy; (7) developing new
    methods of measuring advertising ``wearout;'' (8) determining the
    sensitivity of results using various methods; (9) explaining the effect
    of socioeconomic and market factors on the impact of advertising; (10)
    estimating optimal allocation of advertising expenditures by type of
    media; and (11) comparing the relative returns from generic and brand
    advertising. The Institute has sponsored educational workshops and
    conferences for promotion board leaders and for elected and appointed
    public officials responsible for developing public policy and
    administering checkoff programs.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by the grant began in fiscal year 1994.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $235,000; for fiscal years
    1995-1999, $212,000 per year; for fiscal year 2000, $198,000 per year;
    and for fiscal year 2001, $197,564. A total of $1,690,564 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal matching funds and sources allocated to
    this grant by Cornell University are as follows: $97,333 a year in
    State appropriations for 1994-1996; $125,650 for 1997; $130,430 each
    for 1998 and 1999; and $130,000 for 2000. Collaborating institutions
    performing work under subcontracts also contribute non-Federal matching
    funds.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out at Cornell University in
    collaboration with eight other land-grant universities.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 21
    months, however, the need to evaluate the benefits of commodity
    promotion and research programs is a growing regional and national
    concern as producers take on greater responsibility for marketing their
    products. An increasing number of promotion and research programs are
    being evaluated. The current phase of the program will be completed in
    2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in March
    2000, as it evaluated the 2000 project proposal, and determined that:
    ``The project has sound objectives and procedures that are helping
    private and public decision makers effectively expand markets for U.S.
    agricultural products leading to a highly competitive agricultural
    production system and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans. The
    proposal carefully documents the progress and results of several
    ongoing projects supported by the grant at a number of universities.
    The principal investigator, as well as other faculty and staff at
    Cornell University, is well-recognized for research in the economics of
    commodity promotion.''
                                 global change
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Global Change, Colorado grant.
        Answer. Radiation from the sun occurs in a spectrum of wavelengths
    with the majority of wavelengths being beneficial to humans and other
    living organisms. A small portion of the short wavelength radiation,
    what is known as the Ultraviolet, or UV-B Region of the spectrum, is
    harmful to many biological organisms. Fortunately, most of the UV-B
    radiation from the sun is absorbed by ozone located primarily in the
    stratosphere and does not reach the surface of the earth. The discovery
    of destruction of the stratospheric ozone layer and development of the
    ozone hole over polar regions has raised concern about the real
    potential for increased UV-B irradiance reaching the surface of the
    earth and the significant negative impact this could have on all
    biological systems including man, animals, and plants of agricultural
    importance. There is an urgent need to determine the amount of UV-B
    radiation reaching the earth's surface and to learn more about the
    effect of this changing environmental force. CSREES is in the process
    of establishing a network for monitoring surface UV-B radiation which
    will meet the needs of the science community of the U.S., and which
    will be compatible with similar networks being developed throughout the
    world. The fiscal year 2000 grant supports work through September 2001.
        This grant is part of a government-wide initiative. The research is
    closely coordinated with other Federal agencies involved in the U.S.
    Global Change Research Program Inter-agency UV-Monitoring Network Plan.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes destruction of the
    stratospheric ozone layer, our shield from the full intensity of solar
    radiation, continues to increase. This creates a high priority need for
    information to document not only the levels of UV-B radiation reaching
    the earth's surface, but the climatology of that radiation. The U.S.,
    and the rest of the world, needs to know the strength of the UV-B
    radiation reaching the earth and the potential impact on all forms of
    life, especially animal and plant life of agriculturally-important
    species. The principal researcher believes this research to be of
    national as well as regional and local importance.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The USDA UV-B Network is to provide accurate,
    geographically-dispersed data on UV-B radiation reaching the surface of
    the earth and to detect trends over time in this type of radiation. A
    primary problem which had to be overcome in order to reach this goal
    was the development of instrumentation adequate to make the
    measurements required for the monitoring network. A major advance
    occurred during 1996 with the availability to the network of a new
    multi-band instrument which will provide the spectral information
    needed to support both biological and atmospheric science research and
    to serve as ground-truth for satellite measurements. These instruments
    have been deployed and are currently in operation at 29 monitoring
    sites across the U.S., including Hawaii and Alaska. The researchers
    plan to have additional sites in Puerto Rico, Oregon, North Carolina,
    and Oklahoma, but these plans are on hold due to lack of funding to
    support their installation and operation.
        Two grants to design and build six advanced spectroradiometers have
    been awarded under the CSREES National Research Initiative Competitive
    Grants Program. These instruments are to be used in a research network
    to make precise measurements of the total UV-B spectra at selected
    research sites. The first of these instruments failed to meet spectral
    performance standards when tested and calibrated by the National
    Institute of Science and Technology. An alternative design, which
    resulted in a much larger and more difficult instrument to deploy, has
    been developed. The first of the advanced instruments was deployed at a
    U.S. Department of Commerce research site at Table Mountain near
    Boulder, Colorado, during the fall of 1998. The second and third were
    installed at a Department of Energy solar radiation research site in
    Oklahoma and at an Agricultural Research Service Plant Stress site in
    Beltsville, Maryland, during 1999. Additional funding will be required
    to support the deployment of additional research instruments.
        To gain experience in network operation, broadband instruments
    along with ancillary instruments were installed at ten sites and have
    been in operation for the last 72-84 months. These sites are now
    equipped with a full compliment of instruments including the new multi-
    band instrument. Sixteen additional sites developed since 1997 are
    similarly equipped with broadband and the new multi-band UV instrument.
    Data from each site is transmitted daily to Colorado State University
    for preliminary analysis, distribution, and archiving. These data are
    available, within 24 hours of collection, on the Internet via a World
    Wide Web Site located in the Natural Resources Research Laboratory at
    Colorado State University. USDA is also a participant in the
    development of a central calibration facility at the U.S. Department of
    Commerce facilities in Boulder, Colorado. The purpose of the central
    calibration facility is to ensure uniform and acceptable calibration
    and characterization of all instruments used in interagency UV-B
    monitoring programs.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992,
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $2,000,000 per
    year; fiscal year 1994 was $1,175,000; fiscal year 1995 was $1,625,000;
    fiscal year 1996 was $1,615,000; fiscal year 1997 was $1,657,000;
    fiscal years 1998 through 2000 were $1,000,000 per year; and in fiscal
    year 2001, $1,430,845. A total of $14,502,845 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $162,000 state appropriations in 1993; $183,106 state
    appropriations in 1994; and $285,430 provided by Colorado State
    University in 1995.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Colorado State University is managing the operating
    network, which when completed will include all regions of the country.
    At least 30 sites are planned for the climatological network including
    sites in Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico in order to provide broad
    geographic coverage. Ten sites have been operational with broad band
    instruments for up to seven years, and 29 sites are now operational
    with new generation instruments. The research level network began with
    the first instrument installed at the Table Mountain, Colorado
    instrument intercomparison site and the second and third have been
    installed at the USDA Plant Stress Laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland,
    and the U.S. Department of Energy Solar Radiation site near Ponca City,
    Oklahoma, as part of the Atmospheric Radiation Measurements field
    network in 1999.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. As with other weather and climate observations, this
    network will be an ongoing need for the predictable future. These
    measurements will provide information on the nature and seriousness of
    UV-B radiation in the U.S. and will provide ground truth validation to
    other predictions of UV-B irradiance. The project has nearly met its
    first objective of the establishment of a climatological network to
    monitor UV-B radiation at the surface of the earth. Years of operation
    will be required to measure trends in UV-B radiation and to develop
    models to predict the climatology of UV-B radiation.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency has assigned two technical staff to continuously
    monitor activities in the global change research program. A team of
    three experts in UV-B radiation measurement technology reviewed
    specifications for the development of the advanced spectroradiometers
    in July 1996 prior to the procurement of major components of the
    instrument. A panel of radiation spectra scientists were brought in to
    review data derived from the new multi-band instruments in December
    1996 to advise on the interpretation and analysis of data derived from
    these instruments. Agency staff is in contact with program management
    on a weekly basis and has visited the program headquarters six times
    during the last year. The annual plan of work has been reviewed by
    three scientists prior to approval by the agency. A review of the UV-B
    Monitoring Program by a panel of technical experts from outside the
    Department is planned for April 2001.
                             grain sorghum, kansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Grain Sorghum, Kansas grant.
        Answer. This project was designed to improve the yield improvement
    of grain sorghum cultivars by developing early maturing hybrids with a
    longer grain filling period. The research focuses on identification of
    sorghum germplasm, which have a longer grain filling period or earlier
    maturation date. These traits may be used to shift more of the
    production to grain and less to vegetative growth, thus enabling more
    efficient use of the limited water supply. These funds are awarded to
    scientists working on sorghum at Kansas State University.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The focus of this research is toward the non-irrigated
    lands of Kansas where sorghum can produce a grain crop under conditions
    that would not be possible with corn and is, therefore, very important
    in the rotation with wheat. While the research is directed toward
    Kansas conditions, it would also apply to adjoining states.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify germplasm
    and use it to develop grain sorghum cultivars that mature earlier and
    produce more grain. Initial studies have identified genetic
    characteristics controlling grain yield under a range of climatic
    conditions. Researchers have identified several sorghum lines, which
    have a grain-filling period as much as one-third longer than U.S.
    adapted parent lines. Analyses show that variability exists, the trait
    is genetically controlled, and incorporation into adapted germplasm can
    be accomplished. Simulation of expected production gains has been
    initiated.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1997 through 2000 was $106,000,
    and for fiscal year 2001 is $105,767 for a total of $529,767.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In 1998, Kansas State provided support via salaries and
    associated fringe benefits of $31,852, associated indirect costs of
    $14,652, and in-kind costs of $45,580, for a total of $92,084. In 1999,
    a total of $95,700 was provided and for 2000, $97,200 was provided.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted on Kansas State University
    research facilities.
        Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The objectives of this project, which began in 1997, are to
    develop sorghum parental lines with genetically-longer grain fill
    duration and identify changes in management necessary to optimize grain
    production in these lines. Five years or more are required to
    accomplish the objectives. The first objective has been completed. The
    researchers expect to complete the next three original objectives by
    2004 and subsequent objectives by 2006. Preliminary results have
    contributed toward the understanding of factors controlling grain yield
    and the development of higher yielding sorghum cultivars for Kansas.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project is subjected to the institutional review and
    approval process, as well as review by CSREES National Program Staff.
    In addition, stakeholder input was obtained through formal and informal
    methods. The institutional review of the project confirmed that high
    priority issues of the sorghum industry in Kansas and other sorghum-
    producing states were being addressed.
     grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, id, or, & wa
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Grass Seed Cropping Systems for Sustainable
    Agriculture, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington grant.
        Answer. This program was developed to provide management systems
    for sustainable grass seed production without field burning of the
    straw residue following harvest which results in adverse air quality
    problems. Grass seed yields are often significantly reduced the
    following season if the residue is not burned.
        Funds from this grant are awarded competitively to scientists at
    Oregon State University, the University of Idaho, and Washington State
    University engaged in research on grass seed production. Each award has
    passed a merit review by peer scientist.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that according to
    information provided by technical committees representing researchers
    and the grass seed industry, the need for this research is to develop
    sustainable systems of seed production that do not depend on field
    burning of straw residue. Much of the grass seed for the U.S.,
    including lawn grasses, is produced in the area. Field burning of straw
    residue creates unacceptable levels of air pollution, and yields of
    some cultivar decline without burning. This is a regional issue that
    impacts the national supply of grass seed.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal for this project is to develop grass seed
    production systems that do not depend on field burning of straw
    residue. To date joint planning by state experiment station
    administrators and researchers from the three states with industry
    input has developed an integrated regional research effort to solve the
    problem.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000; for fiscal years
    1995-2000, $423,000 each year; and for fiscal year 2001, $422,069. A
    total of $3,430,069 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal support for this project in fiscal year
    1994 was $266,055; $298,052 for fiscal year 1995; $282,053 in fiscal
    year 1996; $301,650 in fiscal year 1997; $310,700 in fiscal year 1998;
    $346,500 in fiscal year 1999; and $334,800 in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted by the three state
    agricultural experiment stations in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Completion of the initial objectives was anticipated to
    take five years and, therefore, should be completed in 1999. Revised
    goals leading to application of new management systems have been
    developed and should be completed in 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The entire project is reviewed annually by a steering
    committee for focus and relevance. The combined proposal is reviewed by
    CSREES before funds are awarded.
        Considerable progress has been made toward identifying the
    consequences of phased out field burning of straw residue on grass seed
    production. Current and future efforts are directed toward development
    of sustainable systems without field burning. This program is subject
    to annual comprehensive evaluation by a team of peer scientists,
    industry representatives, and farmers. The results are used to guide
    research for the next year. Each proposal is subjected to the
    institution project approval process and reviewed by the CSREES
    National Program Leader.
                             human nutrition, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Human Nutrition, Iowa grant.
        Answer. This research aims to develop animal and plant foods with
    nutritionally-optimal fat content and to improve utilization of foods
    containing non-nutrient health protectants, components that may reduce
    health risks. The research includes food production and processing,
    human and animal nutrient utilization, consumer food choices, and
    economic impacts of designed food to support optimal nutrition. The
    fiscal year 2000 grant supports research efforts of 30 investigators
    from seven disciplines through June 2001.
        CSREES requested that the university submit a grant proposal for
    fiscal year 2001, which is now under CSREES merit review.
        Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
    national, regional or local need for this research?
        Answer. The research addresses food quality, nutrition, and optimal
    health. Much of the research focuses on improving the nutritional
    quality of foods important to the economy of the Midwest, while making
    those improvements economically feasible. Ongoing research focuses on
    increasing health protective lipids and plant chemicals in human foods.
    Such foods have recently been called functional foods, and the
    development of functional foods is of high priority to the food
    industry. In ongoing projects, novel strategies are being developed for
    the dietary reduction of heart disease risk. Recent studies have
    included genetic modification of plant foods for animal and human
    diets.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the Center for Designing Foods to Improve
    Nutrition, the administrative unit for this grant, is to improve human
    nutrition and health maintenance by determining how to improve animal
    and plant food fat content and how to increase availability of health-
    protectant factors in the human food supply.
        The Center's research group on soybean health effects has built
    upon its international reputation for the soybean isoflavone database,
    by demonstrating the importance of isoflavones with soy proteins in
    lowering circulating cholesterol and in maintaining bone density.
    Scientists in the Center have also contributed to the development of
    strategies for dietary control of high cholesterol and heart disease
    risk. Pork was modified to contain high polyunsaturated fatty acids
    that were found to lower circulating cholesterol in human subjects.
        Additional projects are aimed at genetically-modifying plants to
    enhance their human health benefit. One project is assessing the plant
    genes that control vitamin content with the aim of modifying vitamin
    content in the future. Another project focuses on controlling the genes
    that regulate carotenoid synthesis to provide a better utilized pro-
    vitamin A source for the developing world. A third project developed
    strategies to improve the bioavailability of resveratrol, a cancer
    preventative agent, from genetically-modified alfalfa that accumulates
    this compound. Ongoing research is based on earlier studies that
    demonstrated improved carotenoid bioavailability in fats with high
    saturated fatty acid content. Shea butter is used for cooking in sub-
    Saharan Africa and has a high saturated fatty acid profile. This
    project will determine if using shea butter as a vehicle for vitamin A
    fortification will improve vitamin A status in compromised populations.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
    with an appropriation of $300,000. The fiscal years 1992-1993
    appropriation was $500,000 per year; $470,000 in fiscal year 1994;
    $473,000 per year in fiscal years 1995 through 2000, and $471,959 in
    fiscal year 2001. A total of $5,079,959 has been appropriated.
        Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $293,000 university, $312,869 industry, and $14,000
    miscellaneous in 1991; $90,000 state appropriations, $473,608
    university, $131,160 industry, and $116,560 miscellaneous in 1992;
    $307,500 state appropriations, $472,081 university, and $222,267
    industry in 1993; $486,000 university and $254,000 private in 1994;
    $210,000 university and $200,000 private in 1995; $613,770 university
    and $207,811 private in 1996; $690,736 university and $458,000 private
    in 1997; $502,124 university and $700,000 private in 1998; $363,000
    university, $3,109,000 private, and $2,617,000 other Federal in 1999;
    and $804,639 private and $2,957,877 other Federal in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the Center for Designing
    Foods to Improve Nutrition, Iowa State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original overall objective to design foods to improve
    nutrition is continuing to be addressed. A new set of related
    objectives will be initiated in 2001.
        Bonilla. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The grant proposals for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 have
    undergone extensive scientific peer review by the grantee. Progress and
    objectives were further reviewed in May 1999 by the Center's newly
    formed External Advisory Council and in May 2000 by the Departmental
    and Center Review Committee, and their recommendations are being
    implemented. Space allocations for Center research activities have been
    clarified and a full time Director is being recruited.
                           human nutrition, louisiana
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Human Nutrition, Louisiana grant.
        Answer. Obesity remains a worldwide epidemic. The grant entitled
    ``Dietary Fat and Obesity'' examines three aspects of this problem.
    Will the surreptitious replacement of dietary fat reduce body weight?
    Will fluctuations in daily fat intake influence the ability to use fat?
    How do good and bad fatty acids produce their different health effects?
    The fiscal year 2000 grant supports research through September 2001.
    CSREES has requested that the university submit a grant proposal for
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
    national, regional or local need for this research?
        Answer. Obesity is the second leading cause of preventable death.
    If dietary fat plays a role in the epidemic of obesity, reducing fat
    intake might help alleviate its consequences. Identifying individual
    risk factors for susceptibility to obesity and its health consequences
    in the environment of a high fat diet will enable the targeting of
    these special populations for intervention.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The overall goal of this grant is to identify the basis for
    the susceptibility to obesity of people who eat high-fat diets and to
    understand how they differ from those people who are resistant to
    becoming obese when eating a high-fat diet. The principal finding of
    the past year has been the strong relationship of insulin and fitness
    to the ease with which people become obese. The best indicator of the
    risk of storing fat is the level of insulin. The identification of
    these relationships opens up a new group of possible strategies for
    prevention of obesity.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991,
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1991-1993 was $800,000 per year;
    for fiscal years 1994-2000 was $752,000 per year; and for fiscal year
    2001, $750,346. A total of $8,414,346 has been appropriated.
        Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $523,100 state appropriations in 1991; $515,100 state
    appropriations and $2,216,606 private in 1992; $536,100 state
    appropriations and $940,000 private in 1993; $627,000 state
    appropriations and $3,775,000 private in 1994; $546,100 state
    appropriations and $3,100,000 private in 1995; $1,471,000 state
    appropriations and $2,488,000 private in 1996; $1,998,000 state
    appropriations and $2,104,000 private in 1997; $987,000 state
    appropriations and $1,892,000 private in 1998; $1,004,000 state
    appropriations and $3,136,000 private in 1999; and $1,085,000 state
    appropriations and $1,685,000 private in 2000
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Pennington Biomedical
    Research Center, Louisiana State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original overall objective was to identify the basis
    for the susceptibility to obesity of people who eat high fat diets and
    to understand how they differ from those people who are resistant to
    becoming obese when eating a high fat diet. It is anticipated that
    several specific objectives will be completed in 2001. On March 13,
    2001, a site visit team will provide external peer review of the
    projects proposed for completion in 2001 and will also review research
    projects proposed for 2001 and 2002, which address the related
    objective of further characterization of the susceptibility to positive
    energy balance when exposed to a high dietary fat environment by
    evaluating a broader population, including men and women, African
    Americans, and Caucasians with varying fitness conditions.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. In March 1999 an on-site panel of researchers evaluated the
    proposed objectives and experimental protocols. The critiques from this
    site visit were used to revise the final proposal. Another site visit
    is planned on March 13, 2001, to assess the progress and evaluate a new
    set of related objectives, as well as future research protocols. The
    site visit panel will include four imminent peer scientists, and the
    evaluation will be on the basis of originality and feasibility of the
    research plan, potential impact of the research results, and
    appropriateness of the research to the mission of USDA. The site visit
    team will produce a report of the review to be submitted to the
    Principal Investigator and to the responsible National Program Leader
    in CSREES. The research protocols will not be implemented until they
    have met acceptable standards by all review criteria.
                           human nutrition, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Human Nutrition, New York grant.
        Answer. This grant continues to bring together investigators who
    focus on issues that range from improving our understanding of key
    roles of nutrients at the molecular level to the development of
    improved strategies to enable consumers to adopt newly created
    knowledge easily and effectively. At the molecular end of the spectrum,
    emphasis is given to nutrient-gene interactions, and at the consumer
    end, emphasis is given to the role that a supportive environment plays
    in enabling consumers to make desired changes in their eating patterns.
    The fiscal year 2000 grant supports research through September 2001.
    This grant supports the second year activities for 14 research projects
    begun during the 1999 fiscal year. The focus of this program is to
    address the individualization of nutrient requirements from a broad
    multidisciplinary perspective. CSREES requested the university submit a
    grant proposal for fiscal year 2001 that has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the principal researcher, what is the
    national, regional, or local need for this research?
        Answer. In the past decade, and in particular the past five years,
    there has been an explosion of knowledge concerning individual
    differences in the genetic control of the metabolism which underlay
    disease processes and health maintenance. Because metabolism cannot
    exist without the provision of nutrients and because nutrients
    influence genetic control, an understanding of genomics is fundamental
    to the development of nutritional sciences, from the biological to the
    social. Further, knowledge of the individuality will become critical
    for the development of appropriate nutrition programs and policies,
    ranging from food system concerns, to the philosophy and design of
    dietary guidelines and guidance, to the implementation and evaluation
    of food assistance programs. For all of these applications there is a
    need for an integrated consideration of individual differences, not
    just in biology, but also in personal and cultural experience with food
    and other lifestyle and environmental exposures.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The 1990 Dietary Guidelines emphasize a reliance on plant-
    based foods. This emphasis was designed to control caloric consumption,
    reduce fat intake, modify the composition of ingested fats, enhance the
    consumption of foods associated with reduced cancer risk, and
    simultaneously insure that nutrient needs are met in the proportion
    that is recommended. The researchers continue to address information
    gaps that relate to these health goals and to the policy aims for their
    implementation and that limit the more effective enhancement of
    consumer practices. The recently released Dietary Guidelines continue
    this emphasis and are consistent with the programmatic direction that
    has become the hallmark of this project since its inception.
        Selected highlights of research accomplishments include significant
    findings on the role of antioxidants found in foods that may protect
    from some cancers. One study has identified a biomarker for selenium in
    the blood that is suspected to play an important role in cancer-
    protective metabolites and serve as an end point measure of selenium
    status in cancer prevention trials. Other anti-cancer research involves
    retinoic acid, a metabolite of vitamin A. Research supported by this
    grant has helped understand the role of retinoic acid binding proteins
    in regulating the multiple functions of retinoic acid, especially in
    its role as an anticarcinogenic agent. We are exploring new avenues of
    nutrition research related to the interaction of genes and the
    nutritional environment. One study has successfully adapted
    methodologies used in the study of behavioral response of rats to iron
    and folate deficiencies to an experimental mouse model. Mice are the
    animal of choice in genetic studies, and this advance provides new
    opportunities for future research in functional genomics.
        Epidemiologic research on the biological effect of folic acid
    deficiency on cardiovascular disease and certain cancers has shown that
    both dietary levels of this vitamin and a biomarker of folate acid
    status, homocysteine in the blood, are related to increased blood
    pressure in the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.
    Other research has been examining food insecurity in Hispanic, black,
    and white elderly persons who live at home. This research has shown
    that neither the most commonly used definition of food insecurity nor
    the Federal measure used in the U.S. Census are sufficient in
    describing the problems among the elderly. As a result, food insecurity
    status of the elderly is misunderstood and underestimated in the U.S.
    We expect to propose new ways of measuring this problem to the USDA in
    Spring 2001.
        Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal years 1990-1991, $556,000
    per year; fiscal years 1992-1993, $735,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
    $691,000; fiscal years 1995 through 2000, $622,000 each year; and
    fiscal year 2001, $620,632. A total of $8,075,632 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $154,056 state appropriations and $2,456 private in
    1991; $238,430 state appropriations and $60,746 private in 1992;
    $19,401 state appropriations and $22,083 private in 1993; $202,441
    state appropriations and $1,175 private in 1994; $296,794 state
    appropriations in 1995; $348,127 in state appropriations and $39,593
    private in 1996; $133,162 state appropriations in 1997; $8,185
    university appropriations, $166,752 state appropriations, and $7,905
    private in 1998; $6,395 university appropriations, $164,244 state
    appropriations, and $7,414 private in 1999; and $17,598 university
    appropriations, $205,917 state appropriations, and $16,717 private in
    2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Cornell University, New
    York.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The university changed the focus of research funded by this
    grant complement, the university's initiative in mammalian genomics as
    well as the human and social science issues that relate to food and
    nutrition. Progress has been consistent with the proposed time lines.
    They anticipate completing the specific objectives in 2001 and plan to
    concentrate on an expanded nutritional genomics theme for the fiscal
    year 2001 proposal.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES made a site visit on May 27, 1999, to evaluate the
    change in focus. The grant proposal for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was
    also subjected to independent peer review coordinated through the
    Cornell Agricultural Experiment Station. Two peer reviewers from a list
    of four submitted by the Project Director were selected by the Station
    Director. The reviewers were given the following eight criteria:
    scientific merit, clarity of objectives, appropriate methodology,
    feasibility of attaining objectives, accomplishment during preceding
    project period, research performance and competence of investigators,
    significance of anticipated results for agriculture, forestry or rural
    life, and relevance of the proposed work to regional and national
    goals. They gave the proposal an overall score of slightly below
    outstanding. The reviewers did report serious concerns with the
    objectives of two proposals that were subsequently not funded.
    Modifications were also made to experimental designs of other projects
    based on recommendations from the reviewers. The next peer review is
    scheduled to occur in Spring 2001 in conjunction with developing the
    next proposal.
                       hydroponic tomato production, ohio
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Hydroponic Tomato Production, Ohio grant.
        Answer. This research is designed to develop and demonstrate state-
    of-the-art hydroponic vegetable production technology to achieve year-
    round high quality-tomato production. The project will develop and test
    decision support functions and distribute them through the Internet,
    and to develop and test automated control system. Results will be
    extended to other vegetable crops.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The research is needed to develop and evaluate management
    protocols for economical production of green house tomatoes as an
    alternative crop.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of the research are to develop and test
    protocols for management systems for operation of year round green
    house tomato production as an alterative crop.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 1998
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $140,000; for fiscal
    years 1999 and 2000 was $200,000 each year; and for fiscal year 2001,
    $99,780. A total of $639,780 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal provided by
    fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for support of the project
    are $19,400 for fiscal year 1998; $24,500 for fiscal year 1999; and
    $30,000 for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted by the Ohio State
    Agricultural Experiment Station at selected locations in Ohio.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigator for this project anticipates
    completion of the original objectives in fiscal year 2002. Revised
    objectives are projected for completion in 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was subjected to a peer review in the
    institution and again reviewed by CSREES National Program Staff.
                  illinois-missouri alliance for biotechnology
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology
    grant.
        Answer. The Illinois-Missouri Alliance has initiated a competitive
    grants program in agricultural biotechnology for research in targeted
    priority areas of need related to corn and soybeans. The scope of
    interest includes production, processing, marketing, utilization,
    inputs, and support services, along with economic, social,
    environmental, and natural resource concerns. The Alliance has
    solicited research project proposals from scientists at Illinois and
    Missouri and other midwestern institutions and has conducted peer
    reviews for science quality, commercial feasibility and potential
    economic impact to select the proposals that will be funded. In 2000
    the Alliance awarded three new research grants at three institutions
    totaling $900,703. In 1998 the Alliance started an on-line magazine
    called AgBioForum devoted to the economics and management of
    agricultural biotechnology. The purpose of AgBioForum is to provide
    unbiased, timely information and new ideas leading to socially-
    responsible and economically-efficient decisions in science, public
    policy, and private strategies pertaining to agricultural
    biotechnology. In its second year of operation, AgBioForum experienced
    over 135,000 hits from individuals in universities, industry,
    government, and international organizations.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigator has indicated that the goal of
    the Alliance is the pre-commercial development of emerging
    biotechnology discoveries for agriculture. The midwestern region
    produces more than half of the nation's output of corn and soybean
    crops and is critical to domestic food security and U.S.
    competitiveness in global agricultural markets. Alliance grants are
    awarded on a regional basis to advance corn and soybean production in
    the Midwest. The Alliance is implementing a research strategy that it
    hopes will generate important biotechnological developments that are
    rapidly adaptable to unique local soil, climatic, and socioeconomic
    conditions of the region. Alliance grants are awarded to projects with
    a clearly defined marketable product or service derived from
    biotechnology research.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2000 was the sixth year of funding for the
    Alliance. The research program focuses on the two major commodity
    crops, corn and soybeans, as produced, processed, and marketed in the
    midwest. The goal of this biotechnology program is to fund integrated
    research and development projects that will lead to specifically-
    defined practical technologies for commercialization. The projects
    funded in fiscal year 2000 include efforts to: (a) better understand
    consumer attitudes toward products that have been improved through
    biotechnology and the basis for those attitudes; (b) evaluate options
    and strategies for more effectively communicating the benefits and
    risks of biotechnology; and (c) develop new soybean varieties with
    added healthful constituents, with special emphasis on antioxidants.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995.
    The appropriations for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 were $1,357,000 each
    year; for fiscal year 1997, $1,316,000; for fiscal years 1998 through
    2000, $1,184,000 per year; and for fiscal year 2001, $1,239,268
    bringing the total appropriations to date to $8,821,268.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The Alliance has not specified a required amount of
    matching funds, but it is expected that most projects will have
    commitments for significant direct and in-kind non-Federal support such
    as faculty salaries, graduate student stipends, and funding from
    industry and commodity groups. Since Alliance projects are still
    underway, the exact amount of the non-Federal contribution is still
    unknown. The non-Federal contribution is expected to be substantial,
    and a system for accounting for future non-Federal contributions is in
    place.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
         Answer. The research projects identified are being conducted at
    the University of Illinois, the University of Missouri, Iowa State
    University, Northwestern University, Southern Illinois University, and
    the USDA Agricultural Research Service.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Each project proposal for Alliance funding has a target
    date for completion. The four initial projects were three-year studies
    with anticipated completions at the end of fiscal year 1998. Most of
    the second and third rounds of projects are also three-year studies
    that were to be completed at the end of fiscal years 1999 and 2000,
    respectively.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Illinois-Missouri Biotechnology Alliance was evaluated
    for scientific merit by a review panel convened by the agency on April
    17, 2000. The panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt
    of supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project.
    The supplemental information was received, and we are satisfied that
    the program is being administered in compliance with the purpose of the
    grant. A merit review panel will be convened to re-evaluate the project
    upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2001.
               improved dairy management practices, pennsylvania
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Improved Dairy Management Practices, Pennsylvania
    grant.
        Answer. The research focuses on developing methods to help dairy
    farmers in the adoption of new technology and management practices
    which lead to improved dairy farm profitability. Individual research
    projects funded by the grant are determined by a competitive peer
    review process administered by the Institution using peers from
    Institutions located primarily in other states.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the local need is for the
    identification and implementation of profit-enhancing management
    strategies for Pennsylvania dairy farms in response to changing market
    conditions and emerging technologies. The current focus is to reduce
    cow losses due to salmonella infections, to evaluate an effective fiber
    index system for the formulation of rations fed to dairy cattle, and to
    evaluate induced lactation in dairy heifers as a method to increase
    profitability of Pennsylvania dairy farms.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of this research remains the same, which
    is the development of methods to help dairy farmers in the adoption of
    new technology and management practices which lead to improved dairy
    farm profitability. A farm management survey is complete, and analysis
    of results is in progress. Farm financial models have been developed
    and are undergoing a field test on selected farms. Workshops to teach
    elements of business management to dairy farmers have been conducted,
    and survey instruments are in place to monitor effectiveness of
    workshops. Research is currently underway to develop improved models
    for nutrient management on northeastern dairy farms, to evaluate the
    potential role of intensive grazing systems to replace harvested
    forage, and to better understand how decisions are made by dairy farm
    families. Refinement of an expert computer-based system to assist dairy
    farmers in controlling the udder disease, mastitis, is underway. A
    study to evaluate the induction of lactation on dairy profitability is
    underway. An additional study to evaluate the impact of improved
    protein nutrition during late gestation on dairy cow performance has
    been initiated.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $335,000 per
    year. The fiscal year 1994 appropriation was $329,000; $296,000 each
    year in fiscal years 1995-2000; and $397,124 in fiscal year 2001. A
    total of $3,172,124 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. During fiscal year 1992, $354,917 were from State funds,
    and $16,000 from Industry, for a total of $370,917. During fiscal year
    1993, $360,374 were from State funds and $16,000 from Industry for a
    total of $376,374. Information is not available for fiscal years 1994-
    2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the Pennsylvania State
    University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The principal researcher anticipated completion of the
    original objectives by March 1994. The original objectives were met.
    Availability of continued funding has permitted the institution to
    develop a competitively-awarded grant program within the institution to
    address priority issues related to management of dairy farms. Proposals
    are reviewed and ranked by peers in other institutions prior to award.
    It is anticipated that awards from the fiscal year 2001 appropriation
    will be complete in September 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency accepts technical review of specific proposals
    funded by this grant on an annual basis. The overall proposal is
    reviewed by the agency on an annual basis. In addition, technical staff
    has conducted an onsite review of the program in 1993 and in 1995. The
    overall objective of the work funded by this grant has direct
    relationship to the development of Integrated Management Systems as
    well as to aspects of animal production systems for animal well-being
    and impact on the environment.
            improved early detection of crop disease, north carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Improved Early Detection of Crop Disease, North
    Carolina grant.
        Answer. This project involves detecting pathogens on crops before
    symptoms appear. The project will examine several remote sensing
    systems to combine photonic instruments.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigator indicates that the project has
    potential of creating a universal remote sensing biosensor platform for
    early warning crop disease detection.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to produce a crop-based
    biosensor with which to monitor the onset and spread of crop diseases
    for the purpose of early crop disease detection. They have made strides
    in the measurement of a green fluorescent protein in transgenic plants
    by using fluorescence spectrophotometer and laser-induced fluorescence
    imaging. These techniques are pivotal in gathering the induced plant
    photonic signal which will serve as an early indicator of plant
    diseases.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $170,000 and for fiscal year
    2001 is $197,564. The total appropriation is $367,564.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds are not provided for this grant.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of North
    Carolina-Greensboro.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This grant was issued in 2000. It is anticipated that
    significant progress can be made in the next four years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The overall grant is reviewed annually by CSREES'
    scientific staff.
                       improved fruit practices, michigan
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    done under the Improved Fruit Practices, Michigan grant.
        Answer. Funds from this grant will be awarded competitively to
    scientists at Michigan State University working with these crops. This
    research will involve a multidisciplinary approach to reduce chemical
    use on apple, blueberry, and sour cherry, three important Michigan
    fruit crops, and improve the management of dry edible beans and sugar
    beets. Research will be conducted on crop management techniques and
    reduced chemical use.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes Michigan's need for this
    research is to develop and maintain/expand their tree fruit and small
    fruits industry. There is a need to improve the culture and management
    of dry edible beans and sugar beets in order for Michigan farmers to
    sustain production of these crops.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The planned objectives of the research are to reduce the
    chemical contamination of the environment from fruit production and
    improve production practices for beans and beets through multi-
    disciplinary research, including pesticides, and the development of new
    nonchemical production methods.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $494,000, for fiscal years
    1995-2000, $445,000 each year; and for fiscal year 2001, $444,021. A
    total of $3,608,021 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    in fiscal year 1994 were $437,338 from state appropriations and
    $135,000 from industry; for fiscal year 1995, $574,494 were from state
    appropriations and $127,000 from industry; and a total of $908,969 for
    fiscal year 1996. The non-Federal funds for fiscal year 1997 totaled
    $752,500, for fiscal year 1998, total $729,145; for fiscal year 1999,
    total $1,332,300; and for fiscal year 2000, total $986,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at Michigan State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Principal Investigators have reported significant
    progress toward improved cultural practices for these speciality crops
    which is expected to reduce the need for chemical pesticides. Some of
    the original objectives were completed by the end of fiscal year 1999.
    Long-term goals are expected to take an additional five years with a
    projected completion date of 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project has been subjected to a comprehensive review
    with each funding cycle. The annual proposals, including all of its
    sub-projects, are subjected to peer review before submission to CSREES
    to be reviewed by National Program Staff. The project has progressed
    toward the objective of developing management practices and strategies
    for economical production of speciality crops in Michigan with reduced
    chemical pesticide use. At the end of each research cycle, priorities
    are adjusted for the next year's funding. The evaluation is performed
    by scientists at Michigan State University.
                     infectious disease research, colorado
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been conducted under the Infectious Disease Research, Colorado grant.
        Answer. The purpose of this project is to establish a
    multidisciplinary research center to study infectious animal diseases
    which have a critical economic impact. The ``Center for Economically
    Important Infectious Animal Diseases'' will work collaboratively with
    universities and state and Federal agencies. The focus will be on the
    impact of diseases such as vesicular stomatitis, various Mycobacterium
    species--M. bovis, M. tuberculosis, M. avium subsp.paratuberculosis--
    and brucellosis, methods for risk analysis, antimicrobial resistance
    issues, and development of vaccines for some of these diseases.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is to provide valid risk
    assessment models for diseases which affect both animal and public
    health and which can have a serious impact on international trade.
    Livestock producers and the industry need this type of information to
    enable them to make correct disease management decisions. The Center
    utilizes commodity advisory groups to prioritize specific disease
    problems and will focus on those diseases with the greatest potential
    for economic impact. The Center currently has an Advisory Committee
    which comprises the private sector--commodity groups--academia, and
    Federal and state health officials. This group meets once or twice
    annually to review direction of the Center's programs and decide on
    critical priorities for the next year.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal was to establish a regional center that would
    foster interactive work on risk assessment, disease control, and
    minimize the economic impact of disease outbreaks in livestock. The
    Center has been successful in obtaining additional funding from a
    variety of sources to initiate studies on diseases such as vesicular
    stomatitis and tuberculosis. The coordinating structures have been
    established, and the Center has now reported several successes from
    their research program. They have been conducting long term
    surveillance for vesicular stomatitis on sentinel herds in the U.S. as
    well as in three other countries--Costa Rica, El Salvador, Mexico--
    south of the U.S. where this virus can be endemic in nature. Progress
    is also being made on newer, molecular technique-based diagnostic tests
    for Mycobacteria which are involved in tuberculosis or Johne's disease
    outbreaks.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
    with appropriations in fiscal year 1999 of $250,000; in fiscal year
    2000, $255,000; and in fiscal year 2001, $299,340, for a total of
    $804,340.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
    fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1999, the project also received the
    following funds: other Federal agency grants, $85,750; private
    foundation grants, $39,488; and state funds, $33,120 for a total of
    $158,358. For fiscal year 2000, the Center received $195,000 in other
    grants in support from private companies and foundations, $7,000 from
    the UN-International Agency for Atomic Energy, and the university
    contributed $119,276 in related indirect costs for a total non-Federal
    contribution of $321,276.
        Question. Where is this work being performed?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at the College of
    Veterinary Medicine, Colorado State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date is 2003. The work is
    proceeding on the designated schedule, and it is expected that the
    objectives will be met in a timely manner.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of it.
        Answer. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1999, and no
    formal on-site evaluation has been done at this time. The CSREES
    representative has kept in close contact with the Center Director and
    will attend the meeting of the Center's Advisory Committee on March 2,
    2001, at which time a detailed review of the programs and functions of
    the Center for Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases will
    be done.
              institute for food science and engineering, arkansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Institute for Food Science and Engineering,
    Arkansas grant.
        Answer. As the flagship center for the Institute of Food Science
    and Engineering, the Center for Food Processing and Engineering has as
    its objectives to facilitate and encourage value-added research and
    improve the processing of agricultural products. The Center for Food
    Safety and Quality, with a mission to conduct research on the safety
    and quality of foods relative to microbiological and chemical hazards,
    was activated on January 1, 1997. Researchers within the Center for
    Human Nutrition are focusing on identification and evaluation of
    important dietary phytochemicals present in fruits, vegetables, grains,
    and legumes grown in Arkansas and the Southern region, enhancement of
    phytochemical content through advanced breeding techniques, and the
    development of new value-added products with elevated levels of these
    health promoting compounds. A proposal in support of the fiscal year
    2001 appropriation has been requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Institute will provide technical support and expertise
    to small and mid-sized food processors that usually do not possess
    adequate expertise in-house. The economy of the southern region will be
    improved through the creation of new jobs and a high multiplier effect
    from the research.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to establish an
    Institute of Food Science and Engineering at the University of
    Arkansas-Fayetteville. The full implementation of research findings is
    estimated to have a potential economic impact for the food industry of
    over $25 million annually.
        The Institute staff has assisted national food processing companies
    in development and quality improvement of thermally-processed products
    as well as serving small commercial kitchens and start-up. The
    Institute's Food and Agricultural Organization--FAO--Center of
    Excellence has been involved with a number of training-related
    activities in Latin America and the Caribbean to promote good
    agricultural practices related in the production and handling of fresh
    produce for export to the U.S. This activity is vitally important to
    the U.S. consumer because approximately 40 percent of fresh fruits and
    vegetables are imported.
        To date, 108 publications, two IMPACT reports and a newsletter have
    served to keep the industry and fellow scientists informed of research
    activities. The publication of two comprehensive manuals and six
    Extension fact sheets has supplemented several Hazard Analysis Critical
    Control Point--HACCP--and Better Process Control Schools as important
    technology transfer activities.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996.
    The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was $750,000 each
    year; $950,000 for fiscal year 1998; $,1,250,000 each year for fiscal
    years 1999 through 2000; and $1,247,250 in fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $6,197,250 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    include $184,700 in state funds and $85,500 from industry in fiscal
    year 1996; $146,023 in state funds and $279,728 from industry in fiscal
    year 1997; $57,584 in state funds and $243,225 from industry in fiscal
    year 1998; $62,479 in state funds and $394,589 from industry in fiscal
    year 1999; $63,564 in state funds and $409,470 from industry in fiscal
    year fiscal year 2000; and $65,344 in state funds and $211,342 from
    industry. Including equipment donations of $738,369 and training of the
    Descriptive Sensory Panel valued at $200,000, industry has made a total
    contribution of $3,141,917. Adding Food and Agricultural Organization
    contributions of $88,000 and direct state contributions of $663,094,
    non-Federal support totals $3,893,011.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of Arkansas
    at Fayetteville.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The principal researcher anticipates that work will be
    completed on the original goals in fiscal year 2002. The objectives
    related to research and service to industry, food entrepreneurs and the
    general public continue to be ongoing.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    In a review of the proposal on May 25, 2000, the assessment was that
    satisfactory progress was demonstrated in meeting the goals of the
    Institute.
                           integrated pest management
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Integrated Pest Management research grant.
        Answer. The research supported by this grant develops new pest
    management tools to address critical pest problems identified by
    farmers in an agricultural production region. Funds are distributed
    through the Regional Integrated Pest Management--IPM--Grants Program
    using a competitive process which includes technical and merit review
    at the regional and national levels. Projects funded by the Regional
    Grants Program develop new pest management tactics to replace
    management tools lost as a result of regulatory action, pest
    resistance, and other factors. Alternative pest management tactics are
    identified and validated in a production setting. Education and
    training programs are conducted to help producers implement new
    tactics.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The ability of the Nation's agricultural production system
    to keep pace with domestic and global demand for food and fiber is
    dependant on access to safe, profitable, and reliable pest management
    systems. For a variety of reasons, including the Food Quality
    Protection Act--FQPA--of 1996 and pest resistance, many of the chemical
    control options farmers have relied on for many years are no longer
    available. The loss of these important tools is likely to continue at
    an accelerated rate over the next several years and will have
    significant impacts on pest management systems in the U.S. over the
    next decade. The minor use crops, high value crops grown on relatively
    few acres, will be particularly hard hit during this period. For these
    reasons and others, it is essential that farmers be provided with new
    pest management tools and better information so they can remain
    competitive in today's global marketplace. These research grant funds
    are an important part of the Department's plan to assist farmers in
    finding effective pest management alternatives so they can adjust to
    changes in pesticide availability resulting from implementation of the
    FQPA.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this research is to provide farmers with new
    pest management options that allow them to reduce dependance on
    pesticides, improve profitability, and protect vital natural resources.
    The research supported by this research grant has made important
    contributions to increasing knowledge about new approaches to pest
    management. The following are some examples:
      --In California, a resource and training program was developed in a
            CD-ROM format to help retail nursery personnel and Master
            Gardener volunteers solve garden and landscape problems using
            least toxic pest control methods. This program is now in use in
            every county in California.
      --In Texas, a statistically-valid and user-friendly method was
            developed to monitor a variety of pests and natural enemies on
            a number of important crops. As a result, and together with the
            Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, the Texas Agricultural
            Extension Service and the Texas Integrated Pest Management
            Program, personnel are being hired throughout the state to
            implement IPM strategies for greenhouse and nursery crops.
      --In New England, researchers have been investigating the possibility
            of establishing populations of a natural enemy to control red
            mite in apple orchards. Results show that this biological
            control method can probably be sustained in most northeastern
            orchards and may eradicate the need for chemical control
            throughout this apple growing area.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1982, $1,500,000; fiscal years 1983 through 1985,
    $3,091,000 per year; fiscal years 1986 through 1989, $2,940,000 per
    year; fiscal year 1990, $2,903,000; fiscal year 1991, $4,000,000;
    fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $4,457,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
    $3,034,000; fiscal years 1995 through 2000, $2,731,000 each year; and
    fiscal year 2001, $2,724,992. A total of $60,494,992 has been
    appropriated since fiscal year 1981.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. A study of the source of non-Federal funds that contribute
    to this research effort was conducted in 1993-1994 with the following
    results: In fiscal year 1993, state appropriations, $841,017, product
    sales, $33,987, industry grants, $17,081, and other, $31,737; for
    fiscal year 1994, state appropriations, $2,303,458, product sales,
    $77,157, industry grants, $210,110, and other, $216,552. These studies,
    which have not been repeated since 1994, demonstrate a trend toward
    greater annual state investments in Integrated Pest Management
    programs.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Scientists in all states are eligible to compete for this
    funding on a competitive basis. In fiscal year 2000, grants were
    awarded to Colleges of Agriculture in 23 states.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Due to the passage of the FQPA in 1996, the economic and
    environmental pressures facing U.S. agriculture are at least as great
    today as they were in 1981 when Federal funds were first appropriated
    for this research grant. It is important for government to address the
    needs of agricultural producers by supporting research and extension
    efforts to develop alternative pest management approaches. It is
    anticipated that the need for this work will only increase as new pests
    emerge, existing pests become resistant to current control methods, and
    as new pesticide regulations are implemented.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Projects funded by this research grant are awarded through
    a competitive process that evaluates relevance to stakeholder needs and
    technical merit. Progress reports are reviewed to evaluate
    accomplishments and special attention is given to studies involving new
    control strategies relating to at-risk sites with pest management usage
    patterns impacted by FQPA implementations.
                    integrated production systems, oklahoma
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Integrated Production Systems, Oklahoma grant.
        Answer. This grant focuses on the development of efficient
    management systems for production of watermelons and blackberries under
    intensively-managed conditions. The work will address biotic and
    abiotic production components under southeastern Oklahoma conditions
    for use in production guidelines. This will include planting densities,
    fertilizer studies, weed management and insect and disease control.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research.
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the need for this
    research is focused on the local area of southeastern Oklahoma, an area
    that is economically depressed and in need of alternative crops to
    diversify the dominant cow/calf livestock production.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop new and
    alternative crops to supplement and diversify the cow/calf livestock
    agriculture of southeastern Oklahoma with emphasis on horticultural
    crops. Work to date has shown promise for strawberries, blackberries,
    cabbage, melons, and blueberries. Research results to support an expert
    system will be developed for grower use.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Work supported by this grant started in fiscal year 1984
    and the appropriations were: fiscal year 1984, $200,000; fiscal year
    1985, $250,000; fiscal year 1986, $238,000; fiscal years 1987-1989,
    $188,000 per year; fiscal years 1990-1991, $186,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1992, $193,000; fiscal year 1993, $190,000; fiscal year 1994,
    $179,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $161,000 each year; fiscal years
    1999-2001, $180,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $179,604. A total
    of $3,369,604 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $165,989 state appropriations in 1991; $160,421 state
    appropriations in 1992; and $164,278 state appropriations in 1993. Non-
    Federal support for 1994 was $141,850 for state appropriations. Funds
    for fiscal year 1995 were $129,552; for 1996, $146,000; for 1997,
    $152,000; for 1998, $148,000; for 1999, $151,000; and for 2000,
    $137,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being done at the West Watkins
    Agricultural Research and Extension Center at Lane, Oklahoma, a branch
    of the Oklahoma State Agricultural Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives of this project were to develop a
    production system for alternative crops with economic potential for
    southeastern Oklahoma. Each year's funding cycle has addressed specific
    crop and management objectives to be completed over two-years time.
    These short term objectives have been met for each of the completed two
    year projects. However, the original objective of developing
    alternative cropping systems is very long term and has not been
    completed. The current project is projected for completion in 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Each of the annual project proposals has been put through
    the institutions review and is reviewed by a CSREES scientist before
    approval. In addition to the annual review of individual proposals, a
    comprehensive review of the Lane Agricultural Center, where this
    research is conducted, was conducted in 1993. This review showed that
    work supported by this grant is central to the mission of that station
    and represents an important contribution to the agriculture of the
    area. This work has provided practical management information for
    farmers of southeastern Oklahoma that has improved their ability to
    economically-produce small fruit and vegetable crops. This project is
    evaluated internally at the end of each year in order to set priorities
    for the next year.
            intelligent quality sensor for food safety, north dakota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Intelligent Quality Sensor for Food Safety, North
    Dakota grant.
        Answer. This is a new project starting in fiscal year 2001. The
    long-range goal of this project is to build portable intelligent
    quality sensors for detecting food borne pathogens and measuring food
    quality. The investigators at North Dakota State University have
    indicated that they start by reconfiguring and improving currently
    available sensors to detect the volatile compounds produced by stored
    meat and relate the volatile compounds to the type of food borne
    pathogen present in the meat.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is to develop rapid methods to
    detect contamination of food by pathogenic microorganisms. An online
    detection system will increase the speed with which food safety can be
    assured. Details will be known when the proposal is received from the
    principal investigator.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this project is to improve the safety and
    quality of the food. The goal will be achieved by developing
    intelligent quality sensors to detect food quality and food borne
    pathogens. The investigators from North Dakota State University have
    indicated that they have conducted preliminary research on the
    development of sensors for detecting odors in meat. In this project,
    they also propose to reconfigure and improve these sensors to detect
    food borne pathogens. Accomplishments will be reported at the end of
    this project period.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $141,688.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university will show the matching resources in the
    proposal.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at North Dakota State
    University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    of this new project is August 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. There was no project last year and no evaluation was
    conducted.
                  international arid lands consortium, arizona
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the International Arid Lands Consortium, Arizona
    grant.
        Answer. Fiscal year 2001 is the eighth year that CSREES has funded
    the International Arid Lands Consortium. The Forest Service supported
    the program during fiscal year 1993 to develop an ecological approach
    to multiple-use management and sustainable use of arid and semiarid
    lands. Projects that began in 1997-2000 will continue to be funded to
    address issues of land reclamation, land use, water resources
    development and conservation, water quality, inventory technology, and
    remote sensing. All proposals are peer reviewed and awarded
    competitively, whereby the principal investigator must be from a
    Consortium member institution.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the consortium is devoted
    to the development, management and reclamation of arid and semi-arid
    lands in the United States, Israel, and elsewhere in the world. The
    International Arid Lands Consortium will work to achieve research and
    development, educational and training initiatives, and demonstration
    projects. The current member institutions are the University of
    Arizona; the University of Illinois; Jewish National Fund; Jordan's
    Higher Council for Science and Technology; New Mexico State University;
    South Dakota State University; Texas A&M University, Kingsville; and
    Desert Research Institute, Nevada. Affiliate membership includes
    Egypt's Ministry of Agriculture and Land Reclamation Undersecretary for
    Afforestation. The USDA's Forest Service works very closely with The
    International Arid Lands Consortium through a service-wide memorandum
    of understanding.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the Consortium was and continues to be
    acknowledged as the leading international organization supporting
    ecological sustainability of arid and semi-arid lands. To date, 74
    projects have been funded, 51 of which are to conduct research and
    development, 14 for demonstration projects, and 9 for international
    workshops. Funds approximating $6.2 million have been used to fund
    these projects.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The International Arid Lands Consortium was incorporated in
    1991. Funds were appropriated to the Forest Service in 1993. Additional
    funds were received during each of the years that followed. $329,000
    per year has been appropriated for fiscal years 1994 through 1998;
    $400,000 per year for fiscal years 1999 and 2000; and $493,911 for
    fiscal year 2001. Total appropriations are $2,938,911.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Members of the International Arid Lands Consortium have
    provided funds to support the Consortium office in Tucson, Arizona, and
    for printed materials as needed. Each member has provided travel and
    operations support for semi-annual meetings, teleconferences, and other
    related activities. In fiscal years 1993-1996, $60,000 in state
    appropriations were provided. Industry provided $84,083, $100,000, and
    $25,000 in fiscal years 1993, 1995, 1996, respectively. Additional
    funds of $34,000 were received during 1996 from the Egyptian affiliate
    member to enhance future collaboration. Funds of $50,000 from industry
    were received during 1998-2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is currently being conducted at the University of
    Arizona, South Dakota State University, Texas A&M University,
    Kingsville, New Mexico State University, University of Illinois,
    Nevada's Desert Research Institute, and several research and higher
    education institutions in Israel, Jordan and Egypt.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the projects? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
        Answer. All research and demonstration projects that started in
    1993 through 1996 have been completed. The projects started in 1997 and
    1998 are expected to be completed within 12 months depending upon the
    nature of the project. Projects started in 1999 and 2000 will be
    completed within two years. Six international conferences and workshops
    were held during 1994 through 2000. The International Arid Lands
    Consortium is an organization with long-term goals.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The cognizant staff scientist reviews the project semi-
    annually and has determined that the research is conducted is in
    accordance with the mission of the agency.
                         iowa biotechnology consortium
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Iowa Biotechnology Consortium grant.
        Answer. This Consortium is engaged in jointly planned research
    activities between Iowa State University--ISU, the University of Iowa--
    UI, and the City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Both fundamental and applied
    research studies are being conducted to identify opportunities to
    convert agricultural processing wastes into value-added products. These
    waste streams include harvesting residues as well as food processing
    wastes, the latter of which can place enormous burdens on municipal
    waste management systems. The overall project involves broad and
    coordinated research approaches for the cost-effective disposal of
    wastes along with efforts to recover and utilize byproduct materials
    generated by the biotechnology industries. Individual projects
    supported by these funds include various studies in the areas of
    analytical methodology, separation and recovery of waste components,
    value-added products from wastes, anaerobic digestion and waste
    disposal, animal feeding of waste products, and land applications of
    waste products. Annual funding decisions for individual studies to be
    included in the overall project are based on a competitive peer review
    process with panel evaluations.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The environmental burden associated with agriculture and
    the agricultural processing industries is recognized as a growing
    problem in the U.S. These researchers are interested in discovery
    investigations that will lead to technological breakthroughs allowing
    the recovery and recycling of energy, chemicals, and materials from
    agriculture-related processing wastes. While these investigators are
    working with wastes that are generated in the State of Iowa, similar
    waste streams are generated by agricultural industries across the U.S.
    Thus, the researchers believe that their studies encompass national,
    regional, and local needs because the potential technologies, which can
    be developed from their research, would have nationwide applications.
    In many respects, this ongoing research effort anticipates the rapidly
    expanding national interest in bio-based products and genetically
    modified plants and animals.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The primary goal of this project is to conduct fundamental
    and applied research aimed at enhancing the recovery and utilization of
    by-product materials from waste streams generated by new and emerging
    biotechnology industries, with emphasis on agribusiness. Early in the
    project, research emphasized characterization of waste streams from
    agricultural processing industries and developing anaerobic digestion
    technologies suitable for treating these streams. This early work has
    resulted in commercially-successful anaerobic digesters used in both
    Iowa and other states. Success in these endeavors has led to new
    research activities aimed at producing value-added products from the
    waste streams. For example, researchers at ISU are investigating ways
    to produce hydrogen instead of methane from anaerobic digesters; are
    testing a process to break down agricultural residues such as oat hulls
    and corn stover into compounds that can be converted to ethanol, lactic
    acid, polyols, and other industrial chemicals; and are culturing
    microorganisms that naturally appear in the vents and tanks at
    agricultural processing plants to see if they could be useful in
    recovering value-added products from waste streams from the plant.
    Researchers at UI have developed a biodegradable sugar-based plastic
    with extraordinary water-absorbant properties for use in personal care
    products, such as disposable diapers; are effecting bio-transformations
    of agriculturally-derived byproducts to generate antioxidant food
    products, vitamin-like growth factors and flavors, such as vanillin;
    and have demonstrated the value of constructed wetlands for the
    treatment of landfill leachates.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,225,000; fiscal year 1990, $1,593,000;
    fiscal year 1991, $1,756,000; fiscal year 1992, $1,953,000; fiscal year
    1993, $2,000,000; fiscal year 1994, $1,880,000; fiscal years 1995-1996
    $1,792,000 each year; fiscal year 1997, $1,738,000; in fiscal years
    1998 through 2000, $1,564,000 each year; and in fiscal year 2001,
    $1,560,559. A total of $21,981,559 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant were
    as follows: $623,803 from the State of Iowa, $42,813 from the city of
    Cedar Rapids in 1991; $768,287 from the State of Iowa, and $365,813
    from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1992; $858,113 from the State of Iowa,
    and $170,000 from the city of Cedar Rapids in 1993; $841,689 from the
    State of Iowa, and $36,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1994;
    $1,016,505 from the State of Iowa, and $36,000 from the city of Cedar
    Rapids in 1995; $862,558 from the State of Iowa, and $40,000 from the
    City of Cedar Rapids in 1996; $1,044,864 from the State of Iowa, and
    $50,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1997; $303,549 from the State
    of Iowa, and $50,000 from the City of Cedar Rapids in 1998; and
    $293,461 from the State of Iowa, and $59,400 from the City of Cedar
    Rapids in 1999. In fiscal year 2000, $377,410 was obtained from the
    State of Iowa.
        In addition, leveraging of Federal grant monies has been obtained
    in the form of industrial matching funds or contracts for related
    projects. Some of the more noteworthy awards are as follows: $20,000
    from Archer Daniels Midland; $342,720 from Ajinomoto; $40,000 from
    BASF; $18,000 from Bluestem Solid Waste Agency; $1,748,975 from
    Cargill; $177,200 from Heartland Lysine, Inc.; $48,000 from Horizon
    Technology, Inc.; $75,274 from Iowa Corn Promotion Board; $65,200 from
    Iowa Energy Center; $80,273 from National Corn Growers Association,
    $25,000 from National Pork Producers Council; and $11,500 from
    PathoGenesis Corporation.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Iowa State University and
    the University of Iowa, in collaboration with the City of Cedar Rapids.
    In addition, field studies are being conducted at various sites
    throughout Iowa, including the facilities of participating industries
    located in Cedar Rapids and other Iowa communities.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. No firm date was established to complete this research at
    the beginning of the project, and the nature and goals of the research
    have evolved over the life of the project. The Consortium was
    originally created as a partnership between the City of Cedar Rapids
    and the participating universities to assist the city in dealing with
    wastes associated with corn and oat processing and milling, involving
    bio-catalysis to produce high-fructose syrups and one of the largest
    fermentation facilities in the world. More recently, new agricultural
    biotechnology industries have been attracted to Cedar Rapids and have
    added greatly to the volume of industrial waste streams. The
    researchers continue to work closely with the City of Cedar Rapids and
    the industries generating these waste streams. While significant
    progress has been made in analyzing waste streams and in devising
    laboratory procedures for extracting useful products, commercialization
    is still needed. The City of Cedar Rapids is investing its funds in
    special waste treatment facilities to conduct large scale tests of new
    treatment methods. Several years will be required to complete these
    tests and to refine separation technologies.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Consortium conducts a call for pre-proposals, open to
    all researchers at ISU, UI, and Cedar Rapids. Projects received from
    this call are individually peer-reviewed by researchers outside the two
    universities, who submit written comments. At ISU, a three-member panel
    made up of individuals from agricultural processing industries is
    convened to rank the projects and revise budgets based on the written
    reviews. The decisions made by this panel are used to assemble an
    overall grant application. Once the completed grant application is
    submitted to CSREES, it is again evaluated for scientific merit by an
    agency biotechnology peer panel that makes recommendations regarding
    approval for the award. The Iowa Biotechnology Consortium proposal for
    fiscal year 2001 has not yet been received, but once it is available, a
    CSREES review panel will be convened to review and evaluate the
    proposed studies in the grant application and to make recommendations
    regarding overall approval of the project. In addition, the panel will
    assess progress during the past year as a part of the approval process
    and post-award management. Also, a site visit was made by a National
    Program Leader to the research facilities of Iowa State University
    during the past year.
                           ir-4 minor crop management
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the IR-4 Minor Crop Management grant.
        Answer. The IR-4 Minor Crop Management Program is a highly-
    effective effort between the State Agricultural Experiment Stations,
    CSREES, and the USDA Agricultural Research Service--ARS. The basic
    mission of IR-4 is to aid producers of minor food crops and ornamentals
    in obtaining needed crop protection products. IR-4 provides the
    national leadership, coordination, and focal point for obtaining data
    to support the regulatory clearance through the Environmental
    Protection Agency--EPA--for pesticides and biological control agents
    for specialty food crops such as fruits and vegetables as well as non-
    food crops like turf and ornamentals. In many cases, the agricultural
    chemical industry can not economically justify the time and expense
    required to conduct the necessary research for products with limited
    market potential. With assistance from IR-4, registration-related costs
    are manageable, and producers of a large number of small acreage crops
    such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, herbs and other specialized crops
    have access to necessary pest control products. In order to accomplish
    the above, a four-step process has been developed. Step one involves
    research prioritization. Yearly workshops are conducted that involve
    growers, commodity organizations, university research and extension
    specialists, EPA staff, and industry representatives to determine which
    projects are the most critical to minor crop agriculture. Step two is
    research planning. Research protocols are written after careful review
    and comments from stakeholders. Step three is research implementation.
    A typical IR-4 program consists of both field and laboratory phases.
    For the field work, researchers apply the crop protection chemical to
    the target crop according to the experimental protocol. The crop is
    harvested and transferred to the laboratories where the chemical
    residues in the crop, if any, are determined. All field and laboratory
    research is conducted under EPA's Good Laboratory Practices. Step four
    is data submission and approval. The data are critically reviewed and
    formatted into a regulatory package and submitted to the EPA for their
    review. If appropriate, the EPA will approve the submission and grant a
    tolerance to use the chemical on the target minor crop.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This is a national effort which identifies needs by a
    network of users, commodity groups, and state university and Federal
    researchers. This research is highly significant to national and
    regional as well as local needs. The basic mission of IR-4 is to aid
    producers of minor food crops and ornamentals in obtaining needed crop
    protection products. IR-4 is the principal public effort supporting the
    registration of crop protection products and biological pest control
    agents for approximately $40 billion minor crop industry, representing
    40 percent of the total farm crop value in the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    be accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to obtain minor use pesticide registrations
    with a high priority placed on those pesticides classified as Reduced
    Risk, assist in the maintenance of current registrations, and to assist
    with the development and registration of biopesticides. For 2000, IR-4
    submitted 115 data packages to EPA that supported 588 new minor food
    use clearances. During the past three years, over 1,183 new minor food
    use clearance requests were submitted to IR-4 from growers, state, and
    Federal scientists and extension specialists. The Food Use part of the
    IR-4 Program continues to have a high productivity which, according to
    EPA, supports 40 percent of all EPA pesticide registrations. Since the
    program's inception in 1963, IR-4 has been granted over 5,500 food use
    clearances.
        For ornamental crops in 2000, IR-4 obtained 1,155 pesticide
    clearances which included 29 biopesticide uses on ornamental. Since
    1977, IR-4 has assisted with the registration of over 8,800 crop
    protection chemicals and biological pest control agents on nursery
    stock, flowers, and turf grass. The ornamental industry accounts for
    over 25 percent or $12 billion of the total minor crop value in the
    U.S. Biopesticides have been an important IR-4 thrust since 1982. EPA
    granted 56 IR-4-supported biopesticide food use clearances in 2000.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds as
    follows: Program redirection in fiscal year 1975, $250,000; fiscal year
    1979, $500,000; fiscal years 1976-1980, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1981, $1,250,000; fiscal years 1982-1985, $1,400,00 per year;
    fiscal years 1986-1989, $1,369,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
    $1,975,000; fiscal year 1991, $3,000,000; fiscal years 1992-1993,
    $3,500,000; fiscal year 1994, $6,345,000; fiscal year 1995 through
    1997, $5,711,000 per year; fiscal years 1998 through 2000, $8,990,000
    per year; and fiscal year 2001, $8,970,222. A total of $89,469,222 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $891,856 state appropriations and $65,402 industry in
    1991; $1,002,834 state appropriations and $104,292 industry in 1992;
    $1,086,876 state appropriations and $310,133 industry in 1993; $550,160
    state appropriations, $408,600 industry, and $924,169 miscellaneous in
    1994; $775,432 state appropriations, $266,714 industry, and $751,375
    miscellaneous in 1995; and an estimated $800,000 state appropriations,
    $250,000 industry, and $800,000 miscellaneous in each years of 1996
    through 2000. This is a total of $16,387,843 from fiscal year 1991
    through 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Field work is performed at the State and Territorial
    Experiment Stations. Laboratory analysis is conducted primarily at the
    California, New York, Florida, and Michigan Agricultural Experiment
    Stations with assistance by the Puerto Rico, Hawaii, North Dakota,
    North Carolina, Washington, Virginia, and Idaho Agricultural Experiment
    Stations. Field Research Centers located in Hawaii, Oregon, Washington,
    California, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota, North
    Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Texas, New Jersey, New York, Maryland,
    and New Hampshire conduct the field residue program. Protocol
    development, data assimilation, writing petitions and registration
    processing are coordinated through the New Jersey Agricultural
    Experiment Station. ARS is conducting minor use pesticide studies at
    field locations in California, Georgia, Ohio, South Carolina, Texas,
    and Washington. ARS laboratories in Georgia, Maryland, and Washington
    are cooperating with analyses.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. IR-4 is involved in research on biological systems that by
    their nature are ever changing and presenting new challenges to
    agriculture. The IR-4 workload is anticipated to be long term because
    of public sensitivities regarding food safety and the environment, and
    the eventual loss of a large number of conventional pesticide
    registrations for minor crops because of the 1996 Food Quality
    Protection Act--FQPA. FQPA presents a serious challenge to minor crop
    pest management. It is estimated that there will be significant loss of
    conventional pesticide registrations for minor crops. IR-4 has
    developed a strategy to minimize the impact of loss of the critical
    pest control tools needed by our domestic minor crop growers. The IR-4
    strategy involves the following factors: (1) facilitating regulatory
    clearance of Reduced Risk pesticides for minor crops; (2) when
    appropriate, develop risk mitigation measures for existing minor use
    registrations; (3) assist with the registration of biologically-based
    pest control products for minor crops; and (4) register and maintain
    pesticides essential to integrated pest management systems.
        With the implementation of the 1995 Strategy Plan, IR-4 has
    achieved significant accomplishments. Since FQPA requires that EPA
    review all of the nearly 10,000 tolerances by 2006, it is anticipated
    that the IR-4 program will have a significant challenge to help bring
    new crop protection solutions to minor crop growers well into this
    century.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Each year the grant applications are peer reviewed and
    reviewed by CSREES senior scientific staff. A summary of those reviews
    indicate excellent progress in achieving the objective of providing
    safe pest controls for minor uses. In December 1997, CSREES sponsored a
    peer review of the project by a panel chaired by a retired
    Administrator of USDA-ARS and representatives from USDA, EPA, commodity
    groups, the food processing industry, the crop protection industry and
    the land grant university system. A report was issued January 1998. The
    report covered the areas of response to FQPA, project operations,
    accomplishments, good laboratory practices, the ARS companion program,
    and future outlook with specific recommendations for each area. The
    review panel was ``in unanimous agreement that IR-4 is a very
    successful program which serves an important need to producers of
    agricultural products for ultimate consumption by the American public.
    The program is effectively and efficiently administered by a dedicated
    professional staff.'' The goal in 2000 and beyond will be to build on
    this basis and fully implement the recommendations of the panel. This
    review and previous reviews have resulted in significant improvement in
    the IR-4 program's productivity and quality of research. Additionally,
    the customers served by IR-4 have provided input to the program to
    enhance its effectiveness.
              jointed goatgrass--aegilops cylindricum, washington
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Jointed Goatgrass, Washington grant.
        Answer. Research is conducted by about 30 scientists in 10 western
    and mid-western states on systems for suppression of jointed goatgrass
    in winter wheat production systems. Research includes integrated
    cultural management, reduction of seed in the soil, identification of
    more competitive wheat varieties and crop rotations, and best
    management practices projects. These projects demonstrate to wheat
    producers the integrated system for managing jointed goatgrass and show
    how to determine the most effective and efficient way to introduce
    herbicide-resistant wheat into the integrated system. The premier
    research projects continue to be four regional, long-term integrated
    management studies conducted across nine states. In these studies,
    various cultural control practices such as seeding rates, row spacing,
    planting dates, seed size, competitive varieties, fertilizer placement,
    crop rotations, and tillage practices are being evaluated as an
    integrated management system for the suppression of jointed goatgrass.
    Research is also being conducted on soil conditions responsible for
    persistence of jointed goatgrass in the soil seedbank, timing and
    intensity of tillage on seed persistence in the soil, gene flow between
    wheat and jointed goatgrass, identification of crop traits making wheat
    more competitive against jointed goatgrass and modeling on how
    agronomic practices affect herbicide-resistance in jointed goatgrass.
    All funded projects have a technology transfer component and a national
    extension coordinator who insures that growers and extension personnel
    are fully informed about all options for managing this devastating
    weed. The National Extension Coordinator is housed at Washington State
    University.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Jointed goatgrass infests nearly five million acres of
    winter wheat lands in the west and mid-west. Through the efforts of the
    national program, the rate of spread of this weed has decreased
    significantly in the past five years. However, jointed goatgrass still
    costs wheat producers in the U.S. an estimated $145 million annually in
    lost yield, reduced quality, production of less profitable crops,
    increased management costs, and reduced land values. Control of jointed
    goatgrass in a standing wheat crop is impossible with currently
    available technology because seed survives in the soil for five years
    or more. Because jointed goatgrass is genetically related to wheat,
    there are no herbicides currently available that will control jointed
    goatgrass selectively in wheat. Jointed goatgrass has increased rapidly
    in the past 25 years in part because of widespread adoption of
    conservation tillage systems. Jointed goatgrass proliferated in such
    systems, and it greatly impeded the universal adoption of such reduced
    tillage. The principal investigator and the National Association of
    Wheat Growers believe this research is of high national and regional
    importance.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this project is to reduce the devastating
    effect of jointed goatgrass on winter wheat production and quality, and
    to prevent the spread of this weed into new, non-infested areas.
    Numerous individual cultural control practices have been evaluated in
    several states as to their effectiveness for the suppression of jointed
    goatgrass and on the growth and yield of wheat. Four regional, long-
    term integrated management projects have been established where three
    or more individual cultural control practices have been combined into
    an integrated management system for the suppression of jointed
    goatgrass in winter wheat. Results from these projects show that
    combining three or more individual cultural control practices into an
    integrated management system will suppress jointed goatgrass and
    improve the yield and quality of winter wheat. Significant progress has
    been made in understanding gene flow between wheat and jointed
    goatgrass. This information will be very valuable in managing the
    introduction of herbicide-resistant wheat for the control of jointed
    goatgrass. A bioeconomic model has been constructed that combines
    jointed goatgrass population biology information, weather data, and
    responses of jointed goatgrass and wheat to various cultural control
    practices, and predicts wheat yields, response of jointed goatgrass,
    and economic outcomes from changing production practices. In 2000, two
    regional best management practices projects were initiated to
    demonstrate to wheat producers the integrated systems approach for
    managing jointed goatgrass and to determine the most effective and
    efficient way to introduce herbicide-resistant wheat into the
    integrated system. In 1999, a symposium on jointed goatgrass was held
    as part of the Western Society of Weed Science meetings. At this
    symposium, ten papers were presented outlining the latest research and
    technology transfer activities of this national program. Information
    presented at this symposium was used to establish new priorities for
    this program and to guide the program for the next five years. Since
    1994, six regional symposia have been held to transfer to producers and
    extension personnel the latest information on the identification,
    biology, and management of jointed goatgrass in winter wheat. A World
    Wide Web site has been established and updated annually to further
    enhance information transfer. Summaries of annual progress reports are
    also posted on the website. Also, a videotape, a poster, and a slide
    set have been produced to assist extension personnel in transferring to
    producers information on jointed goatgrass biology and management.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $329,000; for fiscal years
    1995-1997, $296,000 each year; $346,000 for fiscal year 1998; $360,000
    each year in fiscal years 1999 through 2000; and $359,208 in fiscal
    year 2001 bringing the total appropriations to $2,642,208.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant were as
    follows: for 1994, $82,198 state appropriations, $82,256 from industry,
    and $14, 871 miscellaneous; for fiscal year 1995, $67,442 state
    appropriations, $38,496 from industry, $13,304 miscellaneous; for each
    fiscal year 1996-1997, an estimated $70,000 state appropriations,
    $50,000 from industry, and $14,000 miscellaneous; for 1998, $231,335
    state appropriations, $42,570 from state wheat commissions, and $15,000
    miscellaneous; for fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $258,122 state
    appropriations, $87,750 state wheat commissions, and $72,100
    miscellaneous. The total of non-Federal funds has been $1,691,416.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted by university scientists in
    10 western states that have serious jointed goatgrass infestations.
    These universities include Washington State University, which is the
    principal coordinating institution and which receives the grant, and at
    universities in Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Utah, Oregon,
    Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was initiated to accomplish significant results
    in six years, and significant accomplishments have been made. However,
    the jointed goatgrass problem will require four more years to
    accomplish all of the objectives and to have effective management
    practices available for producers to control jointed goatgrass in
    winter wheat.
        Question. When was the agency evaluation of this project? Provide a
    summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. Each year the sub-projects are peer reviewed for scientific
    merit and adherence to the program objectives by a panel of scientists
    and producers. CSREES's scientific staff reviews the overall grant
    annually. Sub-contract grants to the various universities are awarded
    using a peer review process coordinated by Washington State University.
                 livestock and dairy policy, new york and texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Livestock and Dairy Policy, New York and Texas
    grant?
        Answer. The purpose of this grant is to assess the possible
    economic impacts on the U.S. livestock and dairy sectors from various
    macroeconomic, farm, environmental, and trade policies and new
    technologies. Both Cornell University and Texas A&M University conduct
    analysis of these policies and disseminate the information to
    policymakers, farmers, and agribusinesses. Cornell focuses on sector-
    level dairy policies, and Texas A&M focuses on policies affecting
    livestock and dairy at the farm level.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Information on the implications of new and alternative
    farm, trade, and macroeconomic policies affecting the livestock and
    dairy sectors is of special interest to policy-making officials,
    farmers, and others. Such information enables farmers and
    agribusinesses to make necessary adjustments to their operations to
    enhance profitability and for national public officials to consider
    alternatives to sustain adequate supplies and minimize costs. The
    principal researchers believe this research to be of national,
    regional, and local significance.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been done to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to establish a specialized research
    program that could provide timely and comprehensive analysis of
    numerous policy and technological changes affecting livestock and dairy
    farmers and agribusinesses and advise them and policymakers promptly of
    possible outcomes. This goal has been achieved, and the program
    continues to provide timely assessments and evaluations of provisions
    and proposed changes in agricultural policies, the General Agreement on
    Tariffs and Trade, and the North American Free Trade Agreement; various
    income and excise tax measures; and alternative pricing measures for
    milk. The institutions were integrally involved in several current
    studies relating to dairy provisions in the 1996 farm legislation.
    These studies contributed significantly to the development of proposed
    regulations called for in this legislation. Both institutions maintain
    extension outreach programs to disseminate results of their analysis
    throughout the U.S. They have organized a national Dairy Markets and
    Policy Extension committee to advise and assist them in this effort.
    This latter committee was especially helpful to USDA in educating
    farmers about proposed milk marketing order changes last year.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $450,000; fiscal year 1990, $518,000; fiscal
    years 1991-1993, $525,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $494,000; fiscal
    years 1995-1998, $445,000 each year; fiscal years 1999 through 2000,
    $475,000 each year; and fiscal year 2001, $568,746. A total of
    $6,335,746 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $37,420 State appropriations in 1991; $162,086 State
    appropriations and $133,278 product sales for a total of $295,364 in
    1992; $301,817 State appropriations, $1,412 industry, and $7,121
    miscellaneous for a total of $310,350 in 1993; $24,702 State
    appropriations and $5,961 industry for a total of $30,663 in 1994;
    $235,526 State appropriations for 1995; $250,000 in State
    appropriations for 1996; and approximately $245,000 in State funding
    for 1997 and 1998.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at Cornell University and
    Texas A&M University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This program is of a continuing nature for the purpose of
    assessing existing issues and proposed policy changes affecting the
    livestock and dairy industries.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. No formal evaluations of this project have been conducted.
    Annual proposals for funding, however, are peer reviewed for relevance
    and scientific merit. CSREES staff are also in regular contact with
    principal researchers at each institution to discuss progress toward
    project objectives. Discussions with congressional staff and USDA
    policy makers support the usefulness of policy analysis provided by
    this project.
                       lowbush blueberry research, maine
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Lowbush Blueberry Research, Maine grant.
        Answer. Interdisciplinary research is being conducted on many
    aspects of lowbush blueberry culture and processing including
    investigations into factors affecting processing quality; biological
    control of insect pest; sustainable pollination, weed, disease, and
    fertility management; cold heartiness; and group water protection.
        Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Maine produces 99 percent of all lowbush blueberries or 33
    percent of all the blueberries in the U.S. This work has major local
    impact, and helps maintain the continued availability and high quality
    of this native fruit commodity.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original research goal was to provide answers to unique
    lowbush blueberry production, pest, and processing problems. Research
    to date indicates that the field sanitizer was able to use heat to
    control insect pests without adversely affecting plant growth, while
    providing a non-chemical alternative for pest management. Biological
    control agents were used to control fireworms. Lowbush blueberry yields
    were increased by use of native and alfalfa leafcutter bees. Mechanical
    harvesting was found to be effective and produced equivalent yields and
    fruit quality when compared to hand harvest, resulting in growers
    having a more efficient harvesting method for blueberries. Products for
    the use in food industry are being extracted from cull berries,
    therefore, improving utilization, economics in processing, and reducing
    waste.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1990, $170,000; fiscal year 1991, $202,000; fiscal
    years 1992 and 1993, $185,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $208,000;
    fiscal years 1995 to 2000, $220,000 per year; and in fiscal year 2001,
    $259,428. A total of $2,529,428 has been appropriated to date.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Direct industry support was about $65,000 per year from
    fiscal years 1996 to 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of Maine.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives have not yet been met. The
    University of Maine researchers estimate that the project will be
    concluded at the end of fiscal year 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last agency merit review of this project was January
    2000. Research accomplishments included: investigations of post
    emergence; grass specific herbicides to control weeds rather than the
    use of broad spectrum; timing of fertilization treatments; and
    comparisons of various fertilizer combinations have indicated that
    fertilizers containing nitrogen increase yields. Other research
    accomplishments include the insect management of blueberry maggots
    through behavioral control and the use of less toxic chemicals from
    control of blueberry flea beetles.
                            maple research, vermont
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Maple Research, Vermont Grant?
        Answer. The research aims to determine the sources of heavy metals
    and other substances accidentally introduced into maple sap and syrup,
    and to explore methods to reduce or eliminate contaminants through
    modification of maple sap collection and syrup manufacturing equipment
    and through changes in production techniques.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local focus for this
    research?
        Answer. Maple plays a substantial role in the cultural heritage of
    areas which produce syrup. Syrup is the first agricultural crop of the
    year in these areas, and provides a significant source of income to
    rural America during a season when other agricultural practices are
    inactive. Identifying sources of processing contaminants and finding
    ways to reduce contaminants is critical in assuring consumers that
    maple food products are not harmful.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished?
        Answer. The goal of this research project is to conduct
    investigations on maple tree physiology, the ecology and management of
    maple stands, and related aspects of the maple syrup industry in
    Vermont and throughout the northeast. The primary goal of this work has
    been to identify sources of lead and other contaminants of maple syrup
    and to determine ways to reduce these contaminants.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Work under this project began in fiscal year 1985. Annual
    appropriations in support of this project are as follows: fiscal year
    1985--$100,000; fiscal years 1986 and 1987--$95,000 per year; fiscal
    years 1988 and 1989--$100,000 per year; fiscal years 1990 through
    1993--$99,000 per year; fiscal year 1994--$93,000; fiscal years 1995
    through 1997--$84,000 each year; fiscal years 1998 through 2000--
    $100,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $118,738. This sums
    $1,649,738.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal years?
        Answer. Non-Federal fiscal support for this project is provided by
    two primary sources and one secondary source. The primary sources are
    state appropriations and product sales. The secondary source is local
    support and national maple industry support, however that support is
    not available each year. The total non-Federal contribution from these
    sources provides an average ratio of .86 to 1. The low ratio was .6 to
    1 early in the project. More recently the ratio has been 1.1 to 1.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at the Proctor Maple
    Research Center, a field station of the Vermont Agricultural Experiment
    Station at the University of Vermont.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The work from this project, relative to maple tree
    physiology and management of maple stands has been completed.
    Identifying the sources of heavy metals and other contaminants in maple
    sap and syrup, as well as research determining the best and most cost-
    effective way to reduce contamination is ongoing with as anticipated
    completion date of 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Project proposals and progress reports are reviewed and
    evaluated annually by USDA. Satisfactory progress has been made on tree
    physiology and maple tree--sugar bush--management. Work on identifying
    sources and controlling contaminants of maple products is progressing
    and is being monitored by the agency.
                               meadowfoam, oregon
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Meadowfoam, Oregon grant.
        Answer. This funding was used for genetics and biotechnology
    research directed towards increasing the productivity of the oilseed
    crop meadowfoam. This crop is grown as a source of oil for chemical,
    cosmetic, and personal care product industries. The research has
    focused on the development of genetically and agronomically-superior
    varieties for farmers, processors, and end users. The proposal will be
    internally and externally reviewed for scientific merit. This research
    will be reviewed by state and Federal scientists and administrators for
    merit and progress.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This research fills the need for the development of
    renewable sources of industrial chemicals and of new rotation crops for
    agriculture. This research is needed to create a more abundant and
    inexpensive supply of meadowfoam oil for the chemical industry. The oil
    produced by meadowfoam has unique physical and chemical properties that
    are being exploited by the chemical industry to develop a wide range of
    chemical feedstocks and end products. Meadowfoam can be grown on wet
    soils, a rarity, and is widely used by turf and forage seed producers
    as a rotation crop in grass seed production fields. The development of
    agronomically-superior varieties is needed to increase on-farm
    productivity, grower profits, and the supply of meadowfoam oil.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original long range goal of this research was to
    increase the productivity of meadowfoam as an oilseed crop for farmers.
    This research had led to the development of new varieties, Wheeler and
    OMF164, that out-yield previous varieties and state of the art tools
    for genetically manipulating economically-important traits, for
    example, chemical composition of the oil, insect resistance, and oil
    yield. Wheeler was officially released to the seed industry in 2000.
    OMF164 is scheduled for release to the seed industry in 2001.
    Significant progress has been made on the development of molecular
    tools and a genome map for increasing selection efficiency and
    precision and gaining an understanding of the genetics of economically-
    important traits.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in 1999 and the
    appropriation for fiscal years 1999 through 2000 is $300,000 per year,
    and for fiscal year 2001 is $299,340. A total of $899,340 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Oregon State University is providing $60,781 in matching
    funds.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being carried out in field, greenhouse, and
    laboratory facilities at Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional and related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is June 2001. The project start date was July 1, 1999. The original
    objectives have been met or will be met by June 2001, and significant
    progress has been made towards additional and related objectives. The
    latter should be met by June 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator as appropriate. The evaluation is conducted by the
    cognizant staff scientist who has determined that research to date is
    in accordance with the mission of the agency.
                       michigan biotechnology consortium
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Michigan Biotechnology Consortium grant.
        Answer. The objective of the Consortium's research program is to
    develop bioprocessing technology to manufacture products from
    agricultural raw materials; to increase the utilization of agricultural
    raw materials; reduce agricultural surpluses; degrade agricultural and
    associated wastes, thereby decreasing environmental costs of
    agricultural products and processes; and to reduce the need to import
    foreign petroleum.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that the development of
    value-added products from agricultural raw materials will increase
    their utilization, reduce commodity surpluses and environmental costs,
    and decrease the need for foreign petroleum thus contributing
    significantly to local, regional, and national priorities.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this research is to select and develop market-
    viable technologies for the production of industrial products from
    agricultural raw materials. The Consortium has used funding from the
    Special Grants program to develop technologies now in the marketplace.
    Examples include production of lactic acid from corn which resulted in
    the building of a $200 million plant in Nebraska. Agricultural
    resources were used as a feedstock for plant growth formulations that
    enhance productivity and reduce plant stress; biodegradable plastic
    resins for compostable films used in lawn and leaf litter bags;
    agricultural mulch films and other soluble films; biodegradable plastic
    resins for injection molded products such as disposable cutlery; all-
    natural food flavors; calcium magnesium acetate deicer; and
    biodegradable adhesives. The byproduct of cheese production--whey--was
    used to produce high-quality, high-value optically-pure chiral
    intermediates for pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals.
        A sand/manure separation system for dairy farms was developed to
    cost-effectively separate manure from sand and recycle both components.
    Numerous enzymes have been characterized and are now in use to provide
    value added modifications in the processing of agricultural products.
    Improved methods to clean up herbicides, pesticides, and other
    agricultural materials have been developed.
        Special grant funding in fiscal year 2000 allowed the Consortium to
    develop high value animal feeds from agricultural residues;
    biodegradable paint/rust removers; biobased polymers for medical,
    electronic, and environmental applications; naturally-occurring
    bioactive compounds and biocontrol agents; and methods to improve the
    economics of ethanol production by producing high value co-products.
    Funding also supported a technology transfer program that brought
    researchers from over 30 land grant universities, Federal laboratories,
    and Departments of Agriculture together with Consortium researchers to
    review numerous commercially-promising biobased agricultural
    technologies.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $1,750,000; fiscal year 1990, $2,160,000;
    fiscal year 1991, $2,246,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $2,358,000 per
    year; fiscal year 1994, $2,217,000; fiscal year 1995, $1,995,000;
    fiscal years 1996 and 1997, $750,000 per year; fiscal years 1998
    through 2000, $675,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $723,405. A
    total of $19,332,405 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant were as
    follows: $1,750,000--State of Michigan, $160,000--industry, and
    $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1991; $1,750,000--State of Michigan,
    $175,000--industry, and $1,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1992;
    $1,750,000--State of Michigan and $100,000 from industry in 1993;
    $1,750,000--State of Michigan, $175,000--industry, and $100,000 from
    miscellaneous in 1994; $200,000--State of Michigan and $2,035,000 from
    industry in 1995; $1,250,000--State of Michigan, $350,000--industry,
    and $6,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1996; $402,500--industry and
    $10,000,000 from miscellaneous in 1997; $500,000--State of Michigan and
    $1,060,000 from industry in 1998; $1,400,000--State of Michigan and
    $1,356,000 from industry in 1999; and $1,500,000 from industry in 2000.
    A total of $35,763,500 has been provided to support this work by non-
    Federal sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted on the campus of Michigan
    State University and at the Michigan Biotechnology Institute
    International. Demonstrations of technology occur throughout the U.S.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Consortium reports specific milestones for technology
    development over a five-year period. Specific milestones for
    technologies which will be commercialized in fiscal year 2001 were
    established in fiscal year 1997 and updated annually. The Consortium
    has been successful in effectively closing the gap between research and
    commercialization within each five-year period.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Michigan Biotechnology Institute was evaluated for
    scientific merit by an agency peer review panel on April 17, 2000. The
    panel recommended approval of the project pending receipt of
    supplemental information on administrative aspects of the project. The
    supplemental information was received, and the agency is satisfied that
    the program is being administered in compliance with the purpose of the
    grant. A merit review panel will be convened to re-evaluate the project
    upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2001.
             midwest advanced food manufacturing alliance, nebraska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance,
    Nebraska grant.
        Answer. The stated purpose of the Midwest Advanced Food
    Manufacturing Alliance is to expedite the development of new
    manufacturing and processing technologies for food and related products
    derived from U.S.-produced crops and livestock. The Alliance involves
    research scientists in food science and technology, food engineering,
    nutrition, microbiology, computer science, and other relevant areas
    from 12 leading midwestern universities and private sector researchers
    from numerous U.S. food processing companies. Specific research
    projects are awarded on a competitive basis to university scientists
    with matching funds from non-Federal sources for research involving the
    processing, packaging, storage, and transportation of food products.
    Projects selected for funding are merit reviewed by non-participating
    university scientists, industry scientists, and scientists from
    professional organizations. Close cooperation between corporate and
    university researchers assure that the latest scientific advances are
    applied to the most relevant problems and that solutions are
    efficiently transferred and used by the private sector.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    project?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the food manufacturing
    industry is the number one manufacturing industry in the midwestern
    region and that opportunities for trade in high-value processed food
    products will grow exponentially on a worldwide basis. The Alliance is
    positioned to fill the void in longer range research and development
    for the food industry. Though the focus is regional, it is anticipated
    that impacts may also be local and national.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal was to expedite the development of new
    manufacturing and processing technologies for food and related products
    derived from U.S.-produced crops and livestock. This is accomplished by
    conducting a research proposal competition among faculty from the 12
    participating universities to fund research projects where matching
    funds are available from industry. Proposals are reviewed for
    scientific merit by independent scientists, and final selection of
    projects includes consideration of industrial interest and commitment
    on non-Federal matching funds.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $470,000; for fiscal years
    1995-2000, $423,000 each year; and fiscal year 2001, $460,984. A total
    of $3,468,984 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Industry matching funds were $823,148 in fiscal year 1994;
    $414,164 in fiscal year 1995; $576,600 in fiscal year 1996; $429,579 in
    fiscal year 1997; $557,549 in fiscal year 1998; and $490,496 in fiscal
    year 1999. Information on non-Federal funds for fiscal years 2000 and
    2001 are not available at this time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being coordinated by the Nebraska Agricultural
    Experiment Station at Lincoln. Specific research projects are also
    being conducted at eight other universities that are part of the
    Alliance.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The overall objectives of the Alliance are ongoing. Funding
    supports the continuing and evolving needs and opportunities for foods
    manufactured and processed from U.S.-produced crops and livestock. Nine
    projects were funded from fiscal year 1998 funds with anticipated
    completion and final reports due by May 31, 2000. Reports from 1998
    funded projects indicate that substantial progress has been made in the
    direction of expediting the development of new manufacturing and
    processing technologies. Eleven projects were funded from fiscal year
    1999 funds with anticipated completion and final reports due by May 31,
    2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    A review of the proposal for fiscal year 2000 was conducted on May 24,
    2000.
                      midwest agricultural products, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Midwest Agricultural Products, Iowa program.
        Answer. The Midwest Agribusiness Trade Research and Information
    Center does applied research to improve the global competitiveness and
    marketability of agricultural products produced in the Midwest and
    disseminates the results to small and medium-sized agribusinesses.
    Projects include analyses of potential international markets for U.S.
    agricultural products and equipment/technology; attitudes of foreign
    consumers; and development of new/improved U.S. products to meet
    foreign needs. The overall project proposal was peer reviewed at the
    university level, and individual research activities are reviewed by
    the principal investigator and other faculty.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that agribusiness firms
    in the United States, especially small to medium-sized firms, have a
    large unrealized potential to expand export sales and foreign business
    ventures. These untapped opportunities exist in the Pacific Rim and in
    emerging markets such as Mexico, China, and Eastern Europe. The
    reluctance of small to medium-sized firms to explore these market
    opportunities is, in part, due to the high cost of market information
    and analysis and the perceived high risk of doing business in new
    markets. This project meets the needs of these firms at the local,
    regional, and national level.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to enhance the exports of agricultural
    commodities, value-added products, and equipment produced by Midwestern
    agribusiness firms by providing research and educational programs as
    well as assistance to individual firms. Recent research has analyzed
    the impact of several international developments on U.S. Exports:
    Berlin Accord Reforms; development of Chinese agriculture and potential
    for exports of agricultural products and agricultural and processing
    equipment; comparative advantage of Argentina in corn, soybean, wheat,
    sunflower, beef, and pork production; and Central and Eastern Europe
    accession to the European Union. A ``Port of Des Moines'' study
    examined the potential for developing a U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade
    corridor along I-35 as a means of facilitating north-south trade and
    creating business opportunities in the central Midwest region. In
    total, over 20 research papers were prepared in 1999. The primary
    audience is small- to medium-sized agribusiness firms because they
    often lack the resources to conduct studies or acquire sufficient
    marketing information necessary for international trade.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992.
    The appropriation for fiscal years 1992-1993 was $700,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $658,000; fiscal years 1995-2000, $592,000 per year;
    and fiscal year 2001, $644,579. A total of $6,254,579 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $185,495 State appropriations and $373,897 industry for
    a total of $559,392 in 1992; $183,192 State appropriations and $318,966
    industry for a total of $502,158 in 1993; $127,948 State appropriations
    and $500,394 industry for a total of $628,342 in 1994; $258,053 State
    appropriations and $389,834 industry for a total of $647,887 for 1995;
    $165,425 State appropriations for 1996; $162,883 State appropriations
    for 1997; $143,850 State appropriations and $51,384 industry for a
    total of $195,234 in 1998; $72,934 State appropriations and $45,860
    industry for a total of $118,794 in 1999; and $76,563 State
    appropriations in 2000. Industry contributions were not reported for
    1996, 1997, and 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The program is carried out by Iowa State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 24
    months. However, the objective of expanding the export capacity of
    small to medium-sized agribusiness firms is an ongoing regional and
    national concern. The current phase of the program will be completed in
    2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in April
    2000, as it evaluated the project proposal for 2000, and concluded
    that: ``The project has sound objectives and procedures that are
    helping agribusiness effectively expand markets for U.S. agricultural
    products leading to a highly competitive agricultural production system
    and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans. The principal
    investigators are well recognized for their leadership in this area.''
                           milk safety, pennsylvania
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Milk Safety, Pennsylvania grant.
        Answer. The overall goal of the milk safety program is to provide
    insight into factors that help ensure an adequate and safe milk supply.
    The research has focused on factors that affect milk production,
    processing, manufacturing, and consumption. Special attention has been
    given to ways of preventing and/or treating pathogens that enter the
    milk supply. Projects are selected for funding each year based on
    competitive, peer reviews by scientists outside the recipient
    institution. The fiscal year 2000 grant is supporting research through
    June 30, 2001. A research proposal in support of fiscal year 2001
    appropriations has been requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The question of microbial safety is of paramount interest
    to the milk/dairy industry at all levels. Dairy products have been
    associated with several large outbreaks of staphylococcal food
    poisoning. Coagulase negative Staphylococcus infections are one of the
    most common intramammary infections of dairy cattle, and bovine
    mastitis, the most important infectious disease affecting the quality
    and quantity of milk produced in the Nation, costs producers an average
    $180 per cow per year. Listeria monocytogenes is present in about four
    percent of raw milk and has the potential to grow to dangerous levels
    during refrigerated storage, making pasteurization critical in
    preventing foodborne illnesses from this organism. The population of
    infants, elderly, and immunosuppressed individuals at risk for
    Listeriosis in the U.S. continues to grow rapidly. Understanding the
    growth of Listeria will provide pathways to minimize the occurrence of
    food poisoning related to milk and dairy products. Pathogenic E. coli
    species, including E. coli O157:H7, are of public health concern. For
    products which receive minimal thermal processing or which may be
    preserved primarily by acidification, development of additional means
    of controlling the growth of these foodborne pathogens is of critical
    importance in guaranteeing a safe milk supply. Ensuring safety of dairy
    products impacts not only consumer health and confidence in the safety
    of the food supply, but economic viability as well.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The research is aimed at minimizing or eliminating future
    foodborne disease outbreaks from milk and dairy products. Researchers
    demonstrated that when subjected to a sublethal heat shock prior to
    pasteurization, Listeria monocytogenes becomes much more heat-resistant
    than previously thought, likely requiring the design of new
    pasteurization guidelines to ensure the safety of dairy products. A
    simple, fast, sensitive, specific and inexpensive method was developed
    for the detection of Listeria monocytogenes in dairy products that will
    allow dairy processors to rapidly and easily screen for the presence of
    this pathogen in their products and in the processing environment. A
    computer model of pathogenic growth in dairy products has been
    developed for common pathogens in specific products. These predictive
    models are valuable risk assessment and Hazard Analysis and Critical
    Control Point--HACCP--implementation tools for milk/dairy industry. It
    is estimated that Staphylococcus aureus is responsible for nearly one-
    third of all food poisoning in the U.S., and this illness results from
    the ingestion of Staphylococcal toxins. Researchers have identified
    potential approaches for enhancing natural defense mechanisms of the
    bovine mammary gland through vaccination and immunoregulation.
    Discoveries of factors influencing growth of Staphylococcus aureus are
    being used to prevent or contain growth of this pathogen in foods.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded for milk consumption and milk
    safety from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal years 1986 through
    1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990, $281,000; fiscal year 1991,
    $283,000; fiscal year 1992, $284,000; fiscal year 1993, $184,000;
    fiscal years 1994-1998, $268,000 per year; fiscal year 1999, $250,000;
    fiscal year 2000 $297,500; and fiscal year 2001, $374,175. A total of
    $4,433,675 has been appropriated for milk safety.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The University estimates that non-Federal funds contributed
    to this project include the following costs and salaries: $265,000 for
    fiscal year 1991; $224,700 for fiscal year 1992; $142,600 for fiscal
    year 1993; $252,168 for fiscal year 1995; $621,903 for fiscal year
    1998; $460,423 for fiscal year 1999; and $265,168 for fiscal year 2000.
    No data available for fiscal years 1994, 1996, and 1997.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at the Pennsylvania State
    University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The researchers anticipate that research supported by this
    grant should be concluded in 2002. Continuing and evolving needs
    related to the safety of milk and dairy products are expected to reveal
    new related objectives.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    The proposal supporting the fiscal year 2000 appropriation was reviewed
    on May 25, 2000, and the agency science specialist concluded that the
    projects addressed important issues related to safety of milk and dairy
    products, were scientifically sound, and that satisfactory progress was
    being demonstrated using previously awarded grant funds.
                             minor use animal drugs
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Minor Use Animal Drug grant.
        Answer. The National Agricultural Program to Approve Animal Drugs
    for Minor Species and Uses--NRSP-7--was established to obtain the Food
    and Drug Administration--FDA--approval of animal drugs intended for use
    in minor species and for minor uses in major species. The objectives of
    the program are to identify the animal drug needs for minor species and
    minor uses in major species; generate and disseminate data for the
    safe, effective, and legal use of drugs used primarily in therapy or
    reproductive management of minor animal species; and facilitate the FDA
    in obtaining approvals for minor uses. Studies are conducted to
    determine efficacy, target animal safety, human food safety, and
    environmental safety. The shortage of drugs for minor food animal uses
    is a concern well recognized by animal producers, veterinarians, animal
    scientists, and regulators. The funds for the special research grant
    are divided between the four regional animal drug coordinators and the
    headquarters at Cornell University for support of the drug approval
    program. The NRSP-7 funds are being utilized by the State Agricultural
    Experiment Stations where the regional animal drug coordinators are
    located as well as by other stations to develop data required for
    meeting approval requirements. Participants in the research program
    consist of the regional coordinators, State Agricultural Experiment
    Stations, USDA's Agricultural Research Service--ARS, schools of
    veterinary medicine, and the pharmaceutical companies. Research
    priorities are continually updated through workshops and meetings with
    producer groups representing species categories such as small
    ruminants, game birds, fur-bearing animals, and aquaculture species.
    Each request for drug approval is evaluated by the technical committee
    according to established criteria which include significance to the
    animal industry, cost of developing the necessary data, availability of
    a pharmaceutical sponsor, and food safety implications. The fiscal year
    2000 research grants terminate between May and July 2002. The 2001
    grant proposals have been requested by the agency. All grants are
    reviewed for relevance to industry needs and undergo scientific peer
    review.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Animal agriculture throughout the U.S. has relied on
    chemical and pharmaceutical companies to provide their industry safe
    and efficacious drugs to combat diseases and parasites. The high cost
    incurred to obtain data to approve these drugs, when coupled with
    limited economic returns, has limited the availability of approved
    drugs for minor uses and minor species. The economic losses due to the
    unavailability of drugs to producers for minor species and minor uses
    threatens the economic viability of some segments of the animal
    industry. The need for approved drugs to control diseases in minor
    species and for minor uses in major species has increased with
    intensified production units and consumer demand for residue-free meat
    and animal products. The program provides research needed to develop
    and ultimately culminate in drug approval by FDA for the above
    purposes. The goals are accomplished through the use of regional animal
    drug coordinators as well as a national coordinator to prioritize the
    need; secure investigators at Federal, state, and private institutions;
    and oversee the research and data compilation necessary to meet Federal
    regulations for approval. All drug approvals are national, although
    industry use may be regional. For example, certain aquaculture and the
    game bird industries are concentrated in specific geographic sections
    of the country. The administration believes this research to be of
    national, regional, or local need.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the NRSP-7 Minor Use Animal Drug
    Program was to obtain approval by the FDA for animal drugs intended for
    use in minor species and for minor uses in major species. This
    continues to remain the dominant goal of the program. In recent years,
    the research program has expanded or given additional emphasis to
    aquaculture species, veal calves, and sheep. The importance of
    environmental assessment, residue depletion, determination of
    withdrawal time, and occupational environmental safety have
    increasingly been given more attention during the approval process to
    help assure consumer protection.
        Since the beginning of the program, over 300 drug use requests have
    been received from animal producers, universities, and veterinarians
    for the development of data in support of the filing of a New Animal
    Drug Approval. Currently, data representing 30 Public Master Files have
    been published in the Federal Register. The Public Master File
    publication enables pharmaceutical companies to extend their label
    claims to minor species by referencing the published file in their New
    Animal Drug Approval filing. Furthermore, these data also enter the
    public domain as presentations to professional groups, publication of
    peer-reviewed articles, and inclusion in the Food Animal Residue
    Avoidance Databank--FARAD. Through these channels, NRSP-7 provides data
    supporting the safe and effective use of therapeutics in minor species
    by consumers. Moreover, the Minor Use Animal Drug Program has averaged
    an expenditure of only about $200,000 for each drug approved for minor
    species.
        In 2000, two Public Master Files, based on data submitted by NRSP-
    7, were published in the Federal Register indicating drug approval by
    the FDA. They were: ceftiofur for the treatment of bacterial pneumonia
    in goats and tilmicosin for the control and treatment of chronic
    respiratory disease in sheep. In addition, two Public Master files are
    currently under review at the FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine--CVM.
    These drugs and their use are: oxytetracycline for otolith marking of
    fish and ivermectin pour-on for hypodermosis in American bison. New
    studies have been initiated for the study of tilmicosin in veal calves
    and tylosin for American Foulbrood in honeybees.
        In addition to the development of data for FDA review, the NRSP-7
    program initiated a species grouping program designed to make the drug
    approval process more efficient for all minor species. Research on
    species grouping was continued that will enable game birds and fish to
    be evaluated on the basis of one or two marker species. With species
    grouping, safety and efficacy studies of a drug in one species could be
    extrapolated to other species within the same class. Considering that
    the aquatic and game bird classes contain at present ten and eight
    economically-significant production species, respectively, rates of
    Public Master File publications could be increased many-fold. The FDA/
    CVM and the U.S. Geological Survey are cooperating and supporting this
    program to the fullest extent, thereby demonstrating a prime example of
    Federal interagency collaboration in coordination with academic
    institutions, pharmaceutical industries, and commodity interests to
    effectively meet an urgent public health need. Question. How long has
    this work been underway and how much has been appropriated by fiscal
    year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
    amount of $240,000 per year for fiscal years 1982-1985; $229,000 per
    year for fiscal years 1986-1989; $226,000 for fiscal year 1990;
    $450,000 for fiscal year 1991; $464,000 per year for fiscal years 1992
    and 1993; $611,000 for fiscal year 1994; $550,000 per year for fiscal
    years 1995-2000; and $548,790 in fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $7,939,790 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $156,099 state appropriations, $29,409 industry
    contributions and $11,365 miscellaneous in 1991; $265,523 state
    appropriations, $1,182 product sales, $10,805 industry contributions,
    and $59 miscellaneous in 1992; $212,004 state appropriations, $315
    industry contributions and $103 miscellaneous in 1993; $157,690 state
    appropriations and $7,103 miscellaneous in 1994; $84,359 state
    appropriations in 1995; $191,835 non-Federal support in 1996; $357,099
    non-Federal support in 1997; $104,596 state appropriations and $97,375
    industry contributions in 1998; $317,225 state appropriations and
    $9,678 industry contributions, and $7,000 miscellaneous in 1999; and
    $349,250 state appropriations and $9,500 industry contributions in
    2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The grants have been awarded to the four regional animal
    drug coordinators located at Cornell University, the University of
    Florida, the University of California-Davis, Iowa State University, and
    to the National Coordinator at Cornell University. The location of the
    regional coordinator for the north central region moved from Michigan
    State University to Iowa State University due to personnel changes.
    Research is conducted at these universities and through allocation of
    these funds for specific experiments at the State Agricultural
    Experiment Stations, the USDA-ARS, the U.S. Department of Interior, and
    in conjunction with several pharmaceutical companies.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. Selected categories of the Special Research Grants program
    address important national/regional research initiatives. The overall
    objectives established cooperatively with FDA and industry remain
    valid. However, specific objectives continually are met and revised to
    reflect the changing priorities for FDA, industry, and consumers.
    Research projects for this program have involved 20 different animal
    and aquaculture species with emphasis given in recent years to research
    on drugs for the expanding aquaculture industry and increasing number
    of requests from the sheep and game bird industries. The program
    involves research on biological systems that by their nature are ever
    changing and presenting new challenges and/or threats to agriculture.
    Especially with the new sensitivities about food safety and environment
    protection, there is a high priority for continuation of these ongoing
    projects.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency conducted a formal review of the Minor Use
    Animal Drug Program in 1997. An external review team of experts
    representing animal drug research and development, the veterinary
    profession, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia found the program
    to be very productive. Recommendations from the review included: (a)
    improve the visibility of the Minor Use Animal Drug Program; (b)
    improve working relationships with the veterinary and pharmaceutical
    communities; (c) and acquire additional support for the program by
    pharmaceutical companies, universities, and the Federal government to
    meet the identified national needs with emphasis on responsiveness to
    industry needs and food and environmental safety. In 1999, stakeholders
    representing the sheep, aquaculture, goat, and game bird industries met
    with CSREES administration and NRSP-7 representatives to define
    research priorities for the Minor Use Animal Drug Program. Annually,
    grant proposals are scientifically peer reviewed, and twice a year the
    agency and program representatives meet with the FDA representatives to
    evaluate progress and to prioritize research requests. Workshops are
    held periodically to identify priorities for the program whereby
    producers, pharmaceutical companies, FDA, and researchers participate.
                          molluscan shellfish, oregon
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Molluscan Shellfish, Oregon grant.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The research under this program
    was initiated in fiscal year 1995. The overall goal of the program is
    to benefit the west coast shellfish industry through conservation,
    genetic improvement, and wise management of genetic resources for
    molluscan shellfish. A molluscan shellfish germplasm repository and
    selective breeding program have been established. The program has
    worked cooperatively with the west coast oyster industry, and improved
    selected lines of oysters have been provided to commercial producers.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The researchers indicate that there is a national need for
    a molluscan broodstock development program. This line of research will
    benefit the commercial shellfish industries on the west coast and
    nationally through the conservation of shellfish lines with desirable
    traits, studies involving genetic manipulation to increase disease
    resistance and enhance growth, and judicious husbandry practices
    utilizing molluscan shellfish resources.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of this research program were to
    establish a repository for molluscan shellfish germplasm, to establish
    breeding programs for commercial production of molluscan shellfish, and
    to establish a resource center for the industry researchers, and other
    interested parties in the U.S. and abroad. The oyster broodstock
    selection program has been implemented in partnership with industry and
    performance trials of selected stocks continue at commercial sites.
    Over 120 families have been evaluated at commercial sites in fiscal
    year 2000. Production and evaluation of top-performing selected
    families are conducted each year, with top-performing families selected
    to produce the next generation. Comparisons between inbreed and
    outbreed crosses are also underway.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995
    with an appropriation of $250,000; fiscal year 1996 was $300,000;
    $400,000 in each of fiscal years 1997 through 2000; and $399,120 in
    fiscal year 2001. A total of $2,549,120 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates a total of $135,454 of non-Federal
    funding in fiscal year 1995 primarily from state sources; in fiscal
    years 1996 though 2000 no formal cost sharing was reported. However,
    the university indicates that significant resources in terms of
    equipment, facilities, utilities, and personnel have been applied to
    this program. There is also significant in-kind contributions from the
    industry.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at Oregon State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Specific research objectives outlined in the original
    proposal were completed in 1996. Researchers have broadened the scope
    of the project from the original objectives, and it is anticipated that
    these specific objectives will be completed in 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency's fiscal year 2000 review concluded that the
    researchers were well qualified and that the research addresses an
    important opportunity in the aquaculture industry. The research team is
    well qualified and has the appropriate background. Commercialization of
    research findings has been accelerated because of the close cooperation
    with industry and field testing at commercial sites. Progress on
    previous work is well documented and the work complements other
    research being funded though the USDA on molluscan shellfish. The
    proposed research is consistent with national goals and needs outlined
    in the National Science and Technology Council's--NSTC--Aquaculture
    Research and Development Strategic Plan.
                        multi-commodity research, oregon
        Question. Please provide a description of the research done under
    the Multi-commodity Research, Oregon program?
        Answer. The Multi-commodity Marketing Research project helps to
    support the Food Innovation Center, a joint venture of Oregon State
    University and the Oregon Department of Agriculture for multi-
    disciplinary, multi-agency research and education. The project helps to
    keep Pacific Northwest agricultural businesses competitive by
    investigating and developing potential value-added market and product
    opportunities. The project analyzes domestic and international market
    potential and marketing strategies, conducts sensory analyses of
    consumers preferences, examines packaging and logistics problems, and
    performs strategic planning for the food industry. A major effort is
    directed at understanding Asian consumers and markets. The research
    proposal was peer reviewed at the university prior to submission to
    CSREES.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Oregon and other Pacific Northwest states produce a wide
    variety of agricultural commodities and products with export potential
    to Pacific Rim countries. Research and analysis are necessary to guide
    agricultural producers and processors in assessing markets, developing
    market strategies, and creating appropriate value-added products.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this research project is to gain better
    specific understanding of the technical, economic, and social
    relationships that define Oregon's value-added agricultural sector, and
    examine how these factors affect the economic performance of the
    sector. This project investigates and develops innovations in value-
    added agriculture to improve the economic performance of the
    agricultural and food manufacturing sectors in the Pacific Northwest.
        Recent research results follow: A survey of food processors
    provided valuable data on processing costs and indicated increasing
    efficiency in the firms. A study of Chinese home infrastructure and
    refrigeration measured their impacts on demand for food imports from
    the U.S. China's soybean prices responded to changes in Chicago prices,
    but on a lagged basis. Asians living in the U.S. for a few years have
    very similar food preferences as people in their native lands, hence
    they provide a lower cost method of studying food consumption behavior
    in those cultures. Asians respond differently to hedonic scales than
    U.S. consumers; Asians never use the extreme ``dislike'' choices. A new
    pasteurization process has been developed and has a patent pending. A
    database of over 1,200 food processing firms allows the investigators
    to determine potential strategic gaps in the region's food processing
    industry and serves as a guide to future research and education
    programs.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The research began in fiscal year 1993. The appropriation
    for fiscal year 1993 was $300,000; fiscal year 1994, $282,000; fiscal
    years 1995 through 2000, $364,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001,
    $363,199. The total amount appropriated is $3,129,199.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funding for this grant was $177,574 in State
    appropriations in 1993, and $162,394 in 1994. The project involves the
    use of Oregon State University administrative personnel, equipment,
    utilities and facilities that are indirect costs to the project. These
    costs constitute an Oregon State University contribution to the project
    that is not allowable as a reimbursable expense. Because the Oregon
    state appropriations process penalizes the university for reporting
    nonreimbursed indirect costs, the university has not reported the
    amount of non-Federal funds appropriated for fiscal years 1995-2001.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is carried out at Oregon State University in
    Corvallis and at the Northwest Food Innovation Center in Portland,
    Oregon.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1993 was for a period of 12
    months, however, the goal of enhancing Oregon's value-added
    agricultural sector is an ongoing regional and national concern.
    Progress on the original objectives is as follows: baseline data have
    been accumulated; an economic growth assessment model is being refined;
    global competitiveness is being assessed for value-added Pacific
    Northwest agricultural products; targets for performance are being
    worked out with agricultural industries; and trade teams have been
    involved in assessing the ability of U.S.-based industries to meet the
    demands for noodle production for Asian markets. The current phase of
    the program will be completed in 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in June
    2000, as it evaluated the 2000 project proposal, and determined that:
    ``The research is relevant and compatible with the USDA and CSREES
    missions, especially the profitability and competitiveness of the
    American agricultural sector. The stated objectives are scientifically
    valid and achievable, and the procedures specified for each objective
    are appropriate to the research tasks. The proposal was subjected to
    peer review by experts with the necessary scientific knowledge and
    technical expertise. The principal investigator and the associated
    researchers are competent to execute this project.''
               multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, hawaii
        Question. Please provide a description of the research funded under
    the Multi-cropping Strategies for Aquaculture Research grant in Hawaii.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. This research program focuses on
    the opportunities of alternative aquaculture production systems,
    including the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds on the island of Molokai. A
    community-based research identification process has been used to
    develop specific research needs and prioritize objectives in this
    program. Current research includes work in the area of water quality
    characterization to accelerate permitting of aquaculture systems. Field
    testing of alternative species and management systems in the ancient
    Hawaiian fish ponds is currently underway. The university indicates
    that the scope of the program will be refined in fiscal year 2001
    proposal.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researchers indicate that the primary need
    for this research is to assist the native Hawaiians in improving the
    profitability and sustainability of the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds and
    other appropriate aquaculture systems as part of a total community
    development program on the island of Molokai.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this program was to develop technology
    for the co-production of shrimp and oysters in aquacultural production
    systems. Research led to the development of oyster production systems
    that have been field tested under commercial conditions. In fiscal year
    1993, the university redirected this program to develop sustainable
    subsistence and commercial aquaculture systems on Molokai while
    maintaining the culture and physical environment unique to the island.
    Production methods have been developed for a number of species.
    Researchers have characterized water quality within and between fish
    ponds in order to establish criteria for permitting and management of
    the ancient Hawaiian fish ponds. Multidimensional field testing of
    restored fish ponds is underway to determine yield and management
    systems for native species and polyculture systems.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This research was initiated in fiscal year 1987 and
    $152,000 per year was appropriated in fiscal years 1987 through 1989.
    The fiscal year 1990-1993 appropriations were $150,000 per year;
    $141,000 in fiscal year 1994; $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-2000, each
    year; and $126,721 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $2,085,721 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university reports a total of $137,286 of non-Federal
    funding for this program in fiscal years 1991-1994; $318,468 in fiscal
    years 1995-1996; $116,730 in fiscal year 1997; $197,000 in fiscal year
    1998; and no non-Federal funds are available for this project for
    fiscal years 1999 and 2000. The university has provided direct
    technical and management support for this program.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted through the University of
    Hawaii on the island of Molokai.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The completion date for the original project was 1993. The
    original objectives were met. The specific research outlined in the
    current proposal will be completed in fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency's Program Managers review this program on an
    annual basis. The agency's fiscal year 2000 evaluation indicated that
    adequate progress was reported on specific tasks and that the research
    was relevant and addresses an important opportunity for the aquaculture
    industry on Molokai. The objectives were clearly stated and the project
    was integrated into several other community based programs to support
    aquaculture development on Molaki.
          national beef cattle genetic evaluation consortium, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under National Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, New
    York grant.
        Answer. This is a new project. CSREES has requested the university
    to submit a grant proposal which has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Beef is the most popular meat in the U.S. In 1997, 25.4
    billion pounds of beef were produced with a total retail value of $50.6
    billion. The production of high quality, healthy, and affordable beef
    begins by identifying the best breeding animals. Genetic superiority
    can be evaluated by estimating Expected Progeny Differences on
    prospective breeding animals. For selective breeding, Expected Progeny
    Differences have been the most important technology available to
    seedstock and commercial cattle producers. Analysis of beef records to
    calculate Expected Progeny Differences for the vast majority of
    seedstock cattle in the U.S. occurs at four universities: Colorado
    State University, Cornell University, University of Georgia, and Iowa
    State University. The success of this genetic evaluation program has
    been greatly influenced by the existence of an established delivery
    system to make this information readily available to all producers.
    Expected Progeny Differences are widely reported by breed associations
    through sire summary reports and artificial insemination companies that
    distribute semen of sires with superior Expected Progeny Differences.
    Application of this technology has resulted in significant genetic
    improvement trends for the economically-important traits. It is
    critically important to further develop, coordinate, and utilize this
    technology in order to further enhance the competitiveness of beef
    production, both domestically and globally.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a consortium involving the four universities that
    have been primarily responsible for the research and development of
    beef cattle genetic evaluation in the U.S. This project will develop
    and implement improved methodologies and technologies for genetic
    evaluation of beef cattle for the purpose of maximizing the impact
    genetic programs have on economic viability, international
    competitiveness, and sustainability of beef producers, and to provide
    consumers affordable and healthy beef products.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
    2001. The appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided in fiscal year 2001 are
    approximately $300,000 by the four universities involved and $360,000
    by the beef industry, primarily breed associations.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the four universities
    involved in this consortium: Colorado State University, Cornell
    University, University of Georgia, and Iowa State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
    is fiscal year 2007.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project. The proposal will be peer-reviewed
    at the university prior to submission. A merit review will be conducted
    by the agency prior to funding.
            national biological impact assessment program, virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the National Biological Impact Assessment Program,
    Virginia grant.
        Answer. The National Biological Impact Assessment Program--NBIAP--
    supports the environmentally-responsible use of biotechnology products
    to benefit agriculture and the environment. This project supports the
    Information Systems for Biotechnology which is a national resource in
    agricultural biotechnology information. This program serves the
    research community by providing information about biotechnology
    regulations, environmental issues associated with the release of
    genetically-modified organisms, risk assessment, and risk management
    through a web site. The web site also contains searchable databases,
    documents and resource lists, monthly newsletters, and original printed
    reference materials. Risk assessment workshops are conducted to promote
    science-based regulatory decisions.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This program serves as a unique and comprehensive source of
    biotechnology information. This online system provides scientists,
    nationally and internationally, with timely and important information
    about new research and regulatory and environmental developments in
    agricultural biotechnology. This was the first online system to address
    the rapidly increasing information needs of the agricultural
    biotechnology community, and it continues to be the most comprehensive
    and heavily used source of critically-needed information.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original and current goal of the program is to
    facilitate and assess the safe application of new techniques for the
    genetic modification of plants, animals, and microorganisms to benefit
    agriculture and the environment. Since its inception in 1989, the
    program has developed tools and resources to provide scientists,
    regulators, teachers, administrators, and the interested public with
    value-added, unbiased information in a readily accessible form. The
    computer-based system has developed into an internet site serving more
    that 6,600 requests per month coming from over 42 countries. The site
    includes documents pertaining to regulatory oversight biotechnology
    products, policy statements, and risk assessment and management.
    Searchable databases include records of all environmental releases of
    genetically-engineered organisms conducted under authority of the USDA,
    Institutional Biosafety Committees, State Regulatory contacts,
    biotechnology research centers, and companies. A monthly News Report,
    covering research, regulatory, legal, and international issues is
    distributed by request to 1,800 e-mail and 600 print subscribers.
    Biosafety training workshops have been conducted for scientists and
    state regulatory officials. Current activities include risk assessment
    workshops and publication of a guidebook for safely conducting research
    in greenhouses.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $125,000; fiscal year 1990, $123,000; fiscal
    years 1991-1993, $300,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $282,000; fiscal
    years 1995-2001, $254,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $253,441. A
    total of $3,207,441 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University--
    VPISU--contributes administrative and clerical support of approximately
    $5,000 per year.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The program is administered and the research conducted in
    the Biochemistry Department at VPISU. Former and current partners in
    the program include Pennsylvania State University, Louisiana State
    University, North Carolina Biotechnology Center, Michigan State
    University, Arizona State University, the USDA-National Agricultural
    Library, Institute for Biotechnology Information, and the University of
    Minnesota.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Ensuring the environmentally-responsible use of
    agricultural biotechnology products is an ongoing and important task.
    Opportunities for plant and animal improvement through biotechnology
    are expanding as more genes are identified and new methods are
    developed for introducing specific beneficial genes into plant and
    animal populations. As more genetically-modified plants and animals are
    commercialized, there will be a continuing, high priority need to
    provide current, science-based information to assure long term safety
    and efficacy of the use of genetically-modified organisms in
    agricultural production systems.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An external peer-review was conducted in April 2000. The
    panel concluded that this project is making a large, positive impact on
    the agricultural biotechnology community by providing objective, useful
    information in several easily accessible formats. The web site, News
    Report, workshop proceedings, and other reference material are well-
    designed, easy to use, and informative. The number of subscribers to
    the monthly News Report, number of hits on the web site, and number of
    workshop proceedings distributed collectively indicate a strong demand
    for the products of this program. A recent user survey clearly indicate
    that users appreciate the high quality, objectivity, and clear
    presentation of the information available. The panel strongly concluded
    the program should be continued, and, if possible, expanded to reach
    even more users. It was recommended that a mission statement be
    developed to help facilitate the continued success of the program.
              nematode resistance genetic engineering, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Nematode Resistance Genetic Engineering, New Mexico
    grant.
        Answer. This research is designed to investigate naturally-
    occurring compounds from diverse sources that may confer pesticidal
    resistance if introduced into agronomic plants. The main target pests
    are plant parasitic nematodes and also certain insects. The work is
    using molecular biological techniques to incorporate genes into
    agronomic plants which will shorten the timeframe to produce transgenic
    plants.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that the successful
    development of these techniques and subsequent transfer of genes with
    insecticidal and/or pesticidal activity into agronomic plants will
    provide an environmentally-sound system for all plants susceptible to
    pests. The principal researcher believes the project has the potential
    for both regional and national application.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to provide an
    alternative approach for the control of plant parasitic nematodes and
    certain insects through the use of molecular biological technologies to
    transfer pesticide resistance to plants. More recently, an insecticidal
    protease inhibitor gene has been used in transformed plants. A unique
    technique utilizing insect intestinal membrane vesicles was used as a
    tool for detection of specific protein binding domains. The resulting
    gene has been successful in managing Colorado potato beetles for four
    years in field trials with transformed potato.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
    and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $150,000 per
    year; $141,000 in fiscal year 1994; $127,000 in fiscal years 1995-2000
    each year; and $126,721 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $1,479,721 has
    been appropriated thus far.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $65,000 state appropriations in 1991; $62,000 in state
    appropriations in 1992; $75,000 in state appropriations in 1994; and
    $75,000 state appropriations in 1995. For 1996, the university and the
    Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory are providing matching
    contributions in faculty and staff salaries, facilities, equipment
    maintenance and replacement, and administrative support. In 1997, there
    were no matching non-Federal funds. In 1998 and 1999, state
    appropriated funds were $48,000 and $71,000, respectively. In 2000, the
    non-Federal funds were $70,000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the New Mexico State
    University and at collaborating universities in the region.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives have not as yet been met. The
    estimated completion date for this project is in 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review
    conducted in January 2000. In summary, the overall goal of this project
    is to use molecular technology to develop pesticide capability in
    plants of agronomic importance. A plant transformation system was
    developed to improve the historically difficult transformation of
    monocots more efficiently. In field trails of transformed eggplants and
    potatoes, high levels of effectiveness against insects have been found.
    Other constructs are being used in many crops to determine resistance
    to nematodes and other crop pests.
                       nevada arid rangelands initiative
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative grant.
        Answer. The Nevada Arid Rangelands Initiative will provide
    coordination of Federal and State agencies to address the highest
    priority issues related to management of public lands in Nevada. The
    project will support a mix of research, education, and action programs
    to develop healthy multiple uses for rangeland, improve management
    education programs, improve economics at the ranch community and county
    level, and develop a decisionmaking module for public land use.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The research proposal is directed toward public land
    management in Nevada, but would have relevance to other states with
    large acreage of arid public lands.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to develop research
    management and educational programs to promote healthy, productive and
    sustainable use of Nevada rangeland.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $255,000 and for fiscal
    year 2001 is $299,340. The total appropriation is $554,340.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The estimate for non-Federal funds provided for this
    program from state funds was $237,000 for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Nevada
    Research Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project is under development, however anticipated
    completion for the original objectives should be five years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was peer reviewed and subjected to the
    institutional project approval process. In addition it was reviewed by
    CSREES National Program Staff.
                         new crop opportunities, alaska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the New Crop Opportunities, Alaska grant.
        Answer. The overall goal of the ``New Crop Opportunities'' project
    is to investigate new opportunities in crops, value-added processing,
    and markets for Alaskan agricultural products, including forest
    products.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The profile of the agricultural industry is changing from a
    commodity-centered industry to one composed of diverse enterprises.
    There are a number of new crops in Alaska that show promise in consumer
    markets both inside and outside the state. New markets also appear
    feasible for crops that are in the experimental phase of production or
    can be wild harvested in Alaska. Value-added processing of agricultural
    crops in Alaska will contribute to the state's economic diversity.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been the project to date?
        Answer. The specific goal is to generate new knowledge that will
    benefit the agricultural industry and lead to new economic
    opportunities for entrepreneurs. The research is organized into three
    specific objectives: (1) new crops in promising consumer markets; (2)
    new markets for experimental field-cultivated and wild-harvested crops;
    and (3) value-added processing of agricultural crops. Research was
    begun in September 2000. Because of the short period of time in
    process, not all of the projects included have progress reports. Work
    continues on efficacy tests of Trichoderma atroviride in controlling
    diseases on ginseng. A golf green and research plots have been
    established at the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station in
    Fairbanks to continue the evaluation of turfgrass species, evaluation
    of fungicides for control of snowmold and other fungi, and develop best
    management practices for golf green maintenance in the subarctic.
    Research designs are complete for spring 2001 establishment of new
    plots and continued evaluation of existing plots for the evaluation of
    best management practices for forage legumes in interior Alaska. Field
    trials with salad greens for cut-salad and whole-fresh markets were
    evaluated in the fall of 2000 and variety selections have been made to
    continue the work in spring 2001. The horticultural component of the
    peony market study begins in the spring, and plans are being made for
    visits with appropriate marketers of the peony crop to European
    countries. A graduate student has begun the literature survey to
    accompany the work with cultivated lingonberry. A successful muskox
    industry workshop and trade show, including five of the six world
    producers of qiviut products, was held in November 2000 in conjunction
    with the Alaska Agricultural Symposium resulting in an organizing
    meeting for a new Association of Alternative Livestock Producers. A
    cost study has been completed on the potential for crushing oilseeds in
    Alaska and investigations of alternative markets for diverse oil
    products has begun.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $425,000. For fiscal
    year 2001, the appropriation was $494,909. A total of $919,909 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. There will be nine percent of the total grant amount
    received by the Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station provided
    to the University of Alaska Fairbanks in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for
    overhead recovery.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work will be carried out by the School of Agriculture
    and Land Resources Management and the Agricultural and Forestry
    Experiment Station at its experimental farms in Fairbanks and Palmer,
    at various locations near Fairbanks, and at its remote research site in
    Delta Junction.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 projects are anticipated to be
    completed in three years from the start date. The objectives have not
    been met because the projects have just begun. There are no anticipated
    additional or related objectives that will be added to the existing
    projects.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
    staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
    with the mission of the agency.
                        new crop opportunities, kentucky
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the New Crop Opportunities, Kentucky grant.
        Answer. Researchers at the University of Kentucky began work in
    2000 on 13 projects. Research on horticultural crops has focused on:
    bacterial spot resistance, yields, and quality in bell and speciality
    peppers; blackberries for fresh and processing markets; identification
    of underutilized landscape plants and plants native to Kentucky that
    have landscape potential and development of production systems for
    these plants; greenhouse production of bedding plants, vegetables,
    flowering pot plants, and herbs using a controlled water table
    subirrigation system or a float system; and valuation of annual and
    perennial garden flowers. Research on agronomic crops has focused on:
    integrated pest management in corn; evaluation of high-value traits for
    corn in Kentucky; breeding soft white winter wheat for Kentucky;
    development of nitrogen fertilization strategies for the control of
    protein levels and quality in soft white winter wheat; testing of novel
    soybean varieties to provide reliable information grain yield and
    quality characteristics; development of packages of management
    practices for novel soybean varieties; breeding triple-null
    lipoxygenase soybean cultivars that should produce better-tasting
    soyfood products; analysis of the profit and risk potential of
    speciality grains; and determination of drying, storage, and
    germination characteristics of selected speciality grains.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This research addresses a regional need to find alternative
    crops to replace tobacco.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to offer new
    opportunities for crop diversification, technology transfer, and
    demonstrations. Accomplishments to date include: establishment of a web
    site to provide information about research projects of the New Crop
    Opportunities Center and results, as available; links to decision aids
    available through the USDA to help farmers determine the economic
    feasibility of specific new crops for their enterprises; information
    about a variety of alternative crops that has resulted from past
    research at the University of Kentucky; notification of upcoming
    meetings of interest to Kentucky farmers; and development of an exhibit
    about the New Crop Opportunities Center and its research. This exhibit
    has been on display at Lexington, Louisville, Princeton, Horse Cave,
    Versailles, and Morehead in Kentucky, and at a conference in
    Evansville, Indiana. Printed materials about the New Crop Opportunities
    Center have been distributed to all of these locations, as well as to
    County Extension Agents across the state. The exhibit will also be on
    display at six meetings in January. On-farm demonstration sites have
    been established around the state for the blackberry, pepper, soybean,
    and wheat projects. Interest in demonstration plots has been high. For
    example, 39 counties asked to participate in the blackberry
    demonstrations. Annual and perennial garden flowers were evaluated at
    the University of Kentucky and demonstrated at four locations around
    the state in 2000. Results from the first year of the pepper,
    greenhouse production of lettuces, greens and herbs, and the annual and
    perennial garden flower evaluation projects have been posted on the
    Center's web site as have the results for a blackberry marketing study
    conducted in 2000. Wheat and soybean breeding research has been
    initiated, as have wheat fertilization, and landscape and native plants
    project.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2000?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000;
    the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $595,000, and for fiscal
    year 2001 is $723,405. The total appropriation is $1,318,405.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been provided.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work will be carried at the University of Kentucky,
    its research centers in eastern and western Kentucky, at arboreta and
    botanical gardens, and on cooperating farms across the state.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objective of some of the research projects
    will be met by the end of fiscal year 2001. Other projects will require
    more time, and many will address additional or related objectives.
    These are expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
    staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
    with the mission of the agency.
                nonfood agricultural products program, nebraska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Nonfood Agricultural Products Program, Nebraska
    grant.
        Answer. This work focuses on the identification of specific market
    niches that can be filled by products produced from agricultural
    materials, developing the needed technology to produce the product, and
    working with the private sector to transfer the technology into
    commercial practice. Major areas of application include starch-based
    polymers, use of tallow as diesel fuel, improvements in ethanol
    production, use of vegetable oil as drip oil for irrigation wells, as a
    two cycle engine oil and as a chain saw bar oil, production of
    levulinic acid, the extraction of wax from grain sorghum, and
    production of microcrystalline cellulose from crop biomass. The
    Nebraska Dean and Director of Agricultural Research has initiated a
    review process that parallels the process used for Experiment Station
    projects. Two to three faculty members are asked to critically review
    the proposal using criteria as described by CSREES in the letter
    soliciting proposals for 2001.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes our ability to produce
    agricultural commodities exceeds our needs for food and feed. These
    commodities are environmentally-friendly feedstocks which can be used
    in the production of many biochemicals and biomaterials that have
    traditionally been produced from petroleum. The production of the
    commodities and the value-added processing of these commodities is
    regional in scope.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The objectives are to identify niche markets for industrial
    utilization of agricultural products; improve and develop conversion
    processes as needed for specific product isolation and utilization;
    provide technical, marketing, and business assistance to industries;
    and coordinate agricultural industrial materials research at the
    University of Nebraska, Lincoln. Accomplishments include
    commercialization of soybean-based drip oil for irrigation wells.
    Bruning Grain Co. Marketing is marketing approximately 12,000 gallons
    per year of ``Soy Bio Drip.'' MCC Technologies, Inc. continues to
    develop a business plan for production of microcrystalline cellulose
    from crop residues such as corn cobs, wheat straw, and cellulose via a
    reactive extrusion process developed by the university's Industrial
    Agricultural Products Center. Various hardness grades of plastic
    particle media blast using a combination of commercially-available
    biodegradable polymers have been produced. A water resistant starch-
    based foam has been developed and a patent is pending. A
    commercialization strategy is being developed. Also, an alternative
    process for producing biodiesel has been developed and a patent is
    pending. A patent is pending on a sorghum-based road deicer that was
    developed and which is currently being produced for a trial test this
    winter. All of these commercialization projects are the result of
    research efforts, most of which have been supported by the Nonfood
    Agricultural Products Program. Two Small Business Innovation Research,
    Phase I, proposals have been funded for technologies developed at the
    Center. A Phase II proposal on levulinic acid is currently being
    prepared.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The funding levels for this project are $109,000 in 1990;
    $110,000 per year in fiscal years 1991-1993; $103,000 in fiscal year
    1994; $93,000 in fiscal year 1995; $64,000 per year in fiscal years
    1996-2000; and $63,859 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $1,018,859 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funding for this project is: in fiscal year
    1992, $315,000; fiscal year 1993, $330,000; fiscal year 1994, $330,000;
    fiscal year 1995, $309,000; fiscal year 1996, $251,000; fiscal year
    1997 $250,000; fiscal year 1998, $340,000; fiscal year 1999, $260,000;
    and fiscal year 2000, $250,000. These funds were from Nebraska Corn,
    Soybean, Wheat, Sorghum, and Beef Boards; World Wildlife Fund; Nebraska
    Bankers Association; United Soybean Board; National Corn Growers
    Association; Bioplastics, Inc.; Biofoam, Inc.; and MCC Technologies,
    Inc.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being conducted at the Industrial Agricultural
    Products Center, L.W. Chase Hall, University of Nebraska, East Campus,
    Lincoln, Nebraska.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The objectives of the original projects have been
    completed. Specific objectives have been identified in each renewal
    request.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project is evaluated based on the annual progress
    report. The cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and
    determined that the research is conducted in accordance with the
    mission of this agency.
              nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialities, alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Nursery, Greenhouse, and Turf Specialities,
    Alabama grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant. The program objectives are: (1)
    evaluate woody landscape plants from a number of sources for those that
    are superior in the southeastern U.S. environment; (2) evaluate woody
    and herbaceous ornamentals for physiological adaptations including heat
    and drought tolerance; (3) evaluate a wide range of bedding plants and
    herbaceous perennials for landscape performance in major climatic
    regions of Alabama; and (4) evaluate performance and suitability of
    turfgrass genotypes for use in Alabama including biology and management
    of turfgrass pests and nutrient flux in turfgrass systems.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Nursery, greenhouse, and turf crops are of increasing
    importance in the state of Alabama and throughout the Nation. According
    to the 1998 Census of Agriculture, this segment of the agricultural
    economy grew at 18 percent per year during the period 1988 to 1998.
    This research will support the continued growth of this agricultural
    sector.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to identify landscape and
    ornamental plants that are particularly well-suited for the environment
    in Alabama and other areas of the southeastern U.S. By using plants
    that are so adapted, use of inputs such as fertilizers and pesticides
    can be reduced. This is a new grant, and the work has not yet begun.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated is $284,373.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. There is no non-Federal funding for this project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out by the Alabama Agricultural
    Experiment Station, Auburn University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is the end of fiscal year 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. A peer review of the project will be
    undertaken by the performing institution, and CSREES will conduct a
    thorough evaluation of the proposal once it is received.
                  oil resources from desert plants, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico grant.
        Answer. The Plant Genetic Engineering Laboratory at New Mexico
    State University has been exploring the potential for the production of
    high value industrial oils from agricultural products. The effort has
    been focused on transferring the unique oil producing capability of
    jojoba into oilseed rape and soybean. With the development of
    technology to both isolate the enzyme components of oil biosynthesis
    and successfully transform the target plants, significant advances have
    been made with jojoba. In addition, oil enzymes have been studied in
    castor, oilseed rape, desert primrose, cyanobacteria, and meadowfoam.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes desert plant sources of
    valuable oils for industrial applications are typically low yielding
    and limited in climatic areas for farm production. Genetic engineering
    offers an opportunity to move genetic capability to high yielding major
    crops. Many of the oils and their derivative acids, waxes, and others
    can directly substitute for imports of similar polymer materials,
    especially petroleum.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to transfer the unique oil-
    producing capability of jojoba and other native shrubs into higher
    yielding crops such as oilseed rape and soybean. This is a form of
    metabolic engineering, and it requires the transfer of coordinated
    groups of genes and enzymes into the host plant to catalyze the
    necessary biochemical reactions. Recent progress includes successful
    transformation of tobacco and alfalfa plants with oil metabolism genes
    from the meadowfoam plant and a cyanobacterium.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This research began in fiscal year 1989 with a $100,000
    grant under the Supplemental and Alternative Crops program. Grants have
    been awarded under the Special Research Grants program as follows:
    fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $200,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995-1996, $169,000 each year;
    fiscal years 1997 through 2000, $175,000 per year; and fiscal year
    2001, $174,615. A total of $2,248,615 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Matching funds from State and private sources used to help
    fund this project were $27,747 in fiscal year 1998 and $71,000 in
    fiscal year 1999. New Mexico State University and the Plant Genetic
    Engineering Laboratory also provide $90,000 for in-kind support per
    year including faculty salaries, graduate student stipends, facilities,
    equipment maintenance, and administrative support services.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted by the Plant Genetic
    Engineering Laboratory at New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New
    Mexico.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. An estimate of the total time in Federal funds required to
    complete all phases of the project is 3-4 years. The application of
    this research for improved management of natural resources will evolve
    and expand as technology in the area advances.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Oil Resources from Desert Plants, New Mexico project
    was evaluated for scientific merit by a review panel convened by CSREES
    on April 17, 2000. The panel recommended approval of the project
    pending receipt of supplemental information on administrative aspects
    of the project. The supplemental information was received and the
    agency is satisfied that the program is being administered in
    compliance with the purpose of the grant. A merit review panel will be
    convened to re-evaluate the project upon receipt of a proposal for
    fiscal year 2001.
                     organic waste utilization, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Organic Waste Utilization, New Mexico grant.
        Answer. Composted dairy waste is utilized as a pretreatment to land
    application. Composting dairy waste before land application may
    alleviate many of the potential problems associated with dairy waste
    use in agronomic production systems. Composting may also add value to
    the dairy waste as a potential landscape or potting medium. High
    temperatures maintained in the composting process may be sufficient for
    killing enteric pathogens and weed seeds in dairy waste. Noxious odors
    and water content may be reduced via composting. Composted dairy waste
    may be easier to apply, produce better seed beds, and not increase soil
    salinity as much as uncomposted dairy waste. Changes in the physical
    structure of the soil are being monitored for the effects of composted
    versus uncomposted amendments. This project undergoes annual peer
    review from academic institutions and experts from government and state
    agencies, and industrial partners.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the research will address
    the utilization of dairy waste combined with other high-carbon waste
    from agriculture and industry, including potash and paper waste, for
    composting. This approach to waste management will have high impact for
    states where dairy and agriculture are important industry sectors. This
    is especially true for New Mexico and the southwest U.S. where the
    dairy business is growing rapidly. This research will also provide an
    additional pollution prevention tool for the industrial sectors dealing
    with potash and paper waste. The principal investigator believes this
    research to be of local, regional, and national importance.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was and continues to be
    to determine the feasibility of simultaneously composting dairy waste
    from agriculture and industry. The research will determine effects of
    utilizing composted waste, as opposed to raw waste, as a soil amendment
    on plant growth, irrigation requirements, and nutrient and heavy metal
    uptake. Phase I, to determine the feasibility of simultaneous
    composting dairy waste with available high carbon wastes from
    agriculture and industry, has been completed. Phase II, to determine
    the appropriate ratios of waste to carbon substrate for successful
    composting is completed. Phase III, to determine the kinetics of
    nutrient release and effects of composted material on heavy metal
    uptake will be completed next year. The study of the second and third
    year application of the compost will be undertaken this year. This will
    identify the long term soil impact resulting from compost application.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1996 was $150,000; for fiscal
    years 1997 through 2000, $100,000 per year; and for fiscal year 2001,
    $99,780. A total of $649,780 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds for the duration of this grant from
    the state appropriation is $75,000. There is another $50,000 in-kind
    support from the industrial partners. Additionally, a sum of $15,000
    from the New Mexico State Highway Department has been leveraged by this
    project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being carried out in New Mexico under the
    direction of the Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium in
    collaboration with The Composting Council and industrial partners, such
    as N-Viro in Ohio, Plains Electric, and McKinley Paper in New Mexico.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Completion date of the initial phases was March 2000. The
    project has been progressing according to the specified targets. Phases
    I and II have been completed. Phase III is ongoing and will be
    completed by early 2001. Phase IV was added to evaluate the multi-year
    compost application on parameters such as plant growth, soil water
    retention, and soil salinity. Phase V will develop appropriate projects
    for the application of compost by state agencies for land reclamation.
    Particular attention will be paid to the unique soil characteristics of
    the desert southwest with higher background levels of salts and
    minerals. Application rates and maturity indicators will be developed
    in field trials that tailor these organic soil amendments to native
    vegetation, climate, and soil types. In addition, research will be
    undertaken on organic fertilizers developed from the runoff of
    composted waste. Field tests will be used to determine the
    effectiveness of these products. Phase V is projected to be completed
    by mid-2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project has been evaluated based on the semi-annual
    progress report and research findings presented at conferences. The
    cognizant staff scientist has reviewed the project and determined that
    this research is conducted in accordance with the mission of this
    agency.
                       pasture and forage research, utah
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Pasture and Forage Research, Utah grant.
        Answer. This is a multi-disciplinary effort to develop a forage
    livestock management system for improved profitability for Utah
    ranchers. The bulk of Utah's livestock production is based on forages.
    The primary tool for improving profitability of private grazing lands
    is through improved forage management. This research attempts to
    identify the physical and economical feasibility of utilizing
    intensively-rotated and irrigated pastures in the Intermountain West.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This research proposed under this Special Research Grant
    will address the issues related to management of forage livestock
    production in Utah to improve profitability. The research will focus on
    Utah but have application in adjacent inter-mountain states.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project is to develop a
    comprehensive guide for the management of irrigated pastures to assist
    livestock producers reduce cost and increase net returns.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000; for fiscal
    years 1998 and 2000, was $225,000 per year; and for fiscal year 2001,
    $249,450. A total of $1,124,450 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds in support of this project and related
    activities were $360,200 for 1997; $356,000 for 1998; $364,000 for
    1999; and $325,000 for 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Utah Agricultural
    Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigators anticipate the completion date
    for some objectives to be in 2002. Some issues will require additional
    time for resolution.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The grant is peer reviewed annually through the
    institutions project approval process as well as by the CSREES National
    Program Leader and the last on-site review took place in November 1999.
    The evaluation summary noted that the program, as implemented at the
    farm level, has already produced significant results in addressing
    problems of forage/livestock operations in Utah and the surrounding
    area.
            peach tree short life in south carolina, south carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Peach Tree Short Life in South Carolina grant.
        Answer. Progress continued in 2000 with focus on the evaluation and
    longevity and productivity of Guardian rootstocks on peach tree short
    life sites in the southeast and replant sites throughout North America.
    More fundamental work has involved the biochemical characterization of
    the egg-kill factor produced by a bacteria on nematode eggs. Other
    basic studies involved the cloning of genes associated with production
    and expression of toxins from bacteria. New studies were initiated on
    the use of solarization to reduce nematode populations for peach tree
    replant.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the principal researcher the problem of
    disease on peach, nectarine, and plum trees in the southeastern U.S. is
    very great. More than 70 percent of peach acreage in the southeast is
    affected. Research continued on the improvement of rootstocks and the
    use of the cultivar Guardian BY520-9, which has now been released in 22
    states including California, New Jersey, and Michigan where bacterial
    canker is a problem.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date.
        Answer. The goal of this research was the continued evaluation of
    productivity of peach using Guardian BY520-9 rootstocks in the presence
    of peach tree short life and investigations into novel management for
    ring nematodes by bacteria. Recent accomplishments include the increase
    in bulk commercial production of Guardian seed while two new Guardian
    selections have had very good nursery trails. Guardian rootstock
    continues to be tested in 22 states and is performing well. A marker
    for a gene for rootstock resistance to two root-knot nematode species
    was sequenced and successfully used to correctly sort current
    commercial rootstocks according to their known nematode resistance or
    susceptibility. A major find is that the egg-kill factor produced by
    the bacteria kills root-knot nematode eggs as well as ring nematode
    eggs.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1981, $100,000; fiscal years 1982 to 1985,
    $192,000 per year; fiscal years 1986 to 1988, $183,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1989, $192,000; fiscal year 1990, $190,000; fiscal years 1991 to
    1993, $192,00 per year; fiscal year 1994, $180,000; fiscal years 1995
    to 2000, $162,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $178,606. A total of
    $3,705,606 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources for this grant were as
    follows: $149,281 state appropriations in 1991; $153,276 state
    appropriations in 1992; $149,918 state appropriations in 1993; $211,090
    state appropriations in 1994; $193,976 in state appropriations in 1995;
    $169,806 in state appropriations in 1996 and 1997; $150,693 in state
    appropriations in 1998; $92,099 in 1999; and $92,099 in state
    appropriations in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at the South Carolina
    Agricultural Experiment Station.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The researchers anticipate that the work may be completed
    in fiscal year 2001. Adequate progress has been made to assure that the
    objectives will be met before the completion date.
        Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project was a merit
    review completed January 2000. In summary, the evaluation of peach
    rootstocks with resistance to peach tree short life is of continued
    importance in managing this disease. The use of biological control
    strategies in suppression of plant parasitic nematodes are a
    complementary area of research in that it can enhance disease
    management by protecting the peach rootstocks. Solarization of orchard
    sites prior to peach tree replanting significantly altered the
    microbial community and suppressed nematode multiplication in the
    rhizosphere. Some accomplishments were the increased production and
    release of commercial Guardian seed and continued evaluation of
    rootstock in 22 states and provinces. A molecular techniques that
    separates resistant and susceptible peach rootstocks was validated.
                       peanut allergy reduction, alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Peanut Allergy Reduction, Alabama grant.
        Answer. The industry, in conjunction with Alabama A&M University,
    the University of Florida, and the University of Georgia are trying to
    develop a response to the peanut allergy problem and have determined
    that research is needed in the following areas: (1) the possibility of
    reducing the allergenic potential of peanuts through bioengineering and
    traditional breeding targeted at modifying the peanut proteins
    responsible for causing allergic reactions; (2) development of vaccines
    and other means to desensitize people with peanut allergies; and (3)
    development of better marketing, handling, and processing methods to
    reduce allergy risks.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Peanut allergies present a major problem for the growth of
    the peanut industry nationally, regionally, and locally. In addition,
    food and peanut allergy is becoming a major public health issue of
    national importance and a high priority research area.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of this research are to (1) Screen
    divergent peanut germplasm including cultivated and wild Arachis
    species for levels of Ara h1, Ara h2, and Ara h3 peanut allergens to
    determine the potential of breeding for reduced allergenicity; (2)
    Genomic cloning and characterization of Ara h1, Ara h2, and Ara h3
    peanut allergen genes including the determination of gene family size
    and composition; (3) Characterization of Ara h1, Ara h2, and Ara h3
    gene expression; (4) Determine the potential for differential gene
    silencing of multi-gene family members; and (5) Down-regulate allergen
    genes using anti-sense transformation. The award notification was
    received in September 2000. Personnel is being hired and preliminary
    experiments conducted.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in September of
    fiscal year 2000. The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $425,000
    and $498,900 has been allocated for fiscal year 2001. The total
    appropriation is $923,900.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been provided.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is carried out at Alabama A&M University in
    collaboration with the University of Florida and the University of
    Georgia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date of the specific objectives
    outlined above is fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project with the award made in September
    2000. Therefore, no agency evaluation has been conducted. An internal
    review of the proposed project was conducted prior to awarding the
    grant in September 2000. The first agency evaluation is anticipated in
    2001.
                   pest control alternatives, south carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Pest Control Alternatives, South Carolina grant.
        Answer. This grant supports research and technology transfer to
    provide growers with alternatives for managing pests and to implement
    the use of new alternatives reducing the sole reliance on chemical
    pesticides.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The investigators contributing to the research and
    technology transfer at South Carolina believe that need for the
    development of alternatives for managing pests on vegetables is a
    regional and national problem. Contributions from the South Carolina
    work are projected to impact vegetable production in the southern
    region and consumers of vegetable production from the southern region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this program is to investigate alternative
    methods of managing insects, plant diseases, and nematodes in vegetable
    crops as complements to or as substitutes for conventional chemical
    sprays. The role of indigenous predators, parasites, and pathogens in
    controlling insect pests are being evaluated. The diamondback moth is
    the most serious pest of brassica crops such as cabbage, broccoli,
    cauliflower, and collards, and control of this pest alone costs growers
    millions of dollars per year. Integrated Pest Management approaches
    developed under this project conserve the indigenous biological control
    agents of the diamondback moth, especially the parasite, Diadegma, in a
    system that utilizes the microbial agent Bacillus thuringiensis, along
    with precise, yet time efficient, field scouting in collards in South
    Carolina. Other microbial agents, some from sources outside the U.S.,
    are being tested to identify those that are most virulent against
    insect pests here in the U.S. Results from other work on cultural
    techniques that suppresses insects and diseases are being incorporated
    into grower recommendations. A system of forecasting melon diseases
    avoids over spraying the crop, saves money for growers, and lessens
    environmental impact by chemical pesticides. This is complimented by
    development of melon varieties that have natural resistance to plant
    diseases.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1992
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $125,000 per
    year. In fiscal year 1994 the appropriation was $118,000; in fiscal
    years 1995 through 2000, $106,000 per year; and in fiscal year 2001 is
    $116,743. A total of $1,120,743 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. South Carolina has provided approximately $182,000 in
    personnel support and operating dollars per year from state
    appropriations, agricultural chemical industry, and other non-Federal
    grants-in-aid based on the principal investigator's estimate.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. This research and technology transfer program is being
    conducted at the South Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station,
    Clemson University at Clemson, Florence, and Charleston, South
    Carolina.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives of the project were for five-years.
    The project was revised in 1998 and continues.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Staff at CSREES evaluate this project annually from the
    annual project report which is submitted with the proposal for the next
    year of funding.
                          pest management alternatives
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Pest Management Alternatives special grant.
        Answer. This special research grant supports projects that help
    farmers respond to the environmental and regulatory issues confronting
    agriculture. These special grant funds support research that provides
    farmers with replacement technologies for pesticides that are under
    consideration for regulatory action by the Environmental Protection
    Agency--EPA--and for which producers do not have effective
    alternatives. The passage of the Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA--of
    1996 makes this special research grant of critical importance to the
    Nation's farmers. Through these grants, new pest management tools are
    being developed to address critical pest problems identified by farmers
    and others. Where effective alternative tactics have been developed,
    they are widely and rapidly implemented by farmers. The call for
    proposals for these special research grant funds is published in the
    National Register and funds are distributed through a national open and
    competitive grants program directed by CSREES. Research priorities are
    identified annually by stakeholders, commodity groups, government, and
    private scientists, and others interested parties.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research.
        Answer. Insect, weed, and disease pests always present a risk to
    agricultural production of food and fiber. For the Nation's
    agricultural production system to keep pace with the domestic and
    global demand for food and fiber it must have access to safe,
    profitable, and reliable pest management alternatives. For a variety of
    reasons, fewer pesticides are available today than just a few years
    ago. The FQPA is a major factor in reducing the number of pest
    management alternatives for U.S. producers. This grant provides new
    pest management tools and pest management information, with the intent
    of helping farmers remain competitive in today's global marketplace.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This research is conducted to help farmers respond to the
    environmental and regulatory issues confronting agriculture by
    providing them with new options for managing pests. The research
    supported by this special grant identifies new ways and products to
    manage pests during this time of great change. A few examples of
    successful outcomes from previous grants in this program include: ways
    to reduce organophosphates use in apple production; modified cropping
    systems that replace herbicide use in pumpkins and squash; surface
    amendments that reduce aerial pesticide pollutants; development of pest
    and natural enemy thresholds to improve pest scouting on wheat; models
    to improve pesticide use efficiencies in minor fruit crops; improved
    insecticide and herbicide spray technology; new selective insecticides
    to control broccoli insects; and use of non-traditional oil sprays to
    control mites on apples.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $1,623,000 each year, and
    fiscal year 2001, $1,619,429. A total of $9,734,429 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds are provided to this grants program.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. All state agricultural experiment stations, all colleges
    and universities, other research institutions and organizations,
    Federal agencies, private organizations or corporations, and
    individuals are eligible to compete for this funding. This research is
    currently being carried out by State Agricultural Experiment Stations
    and other research organizations located in 23 States.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The economic and environmental pressures facing U.S.
    agriculture today surpass those of 1996 when Federal funds were first
    appropriated for this special research grant. There will be a need for
    continued investment in research to develop new approaches to managing
    pests for the foreseeable future as the FQPA is implemented.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Each new Call for Proposals and all submitted project
    proposals are evaluated annually by a multi-disciplinary panel for both
    relevancy and scientific merit. A jointly sponsored USDA and EPA
    workshop to evaluate the progress and scope of this program was held in
    Arlington, Virginia on May 11, 1999. The conclusions were that the
    program was on course and making good progress and could do more with
    additional funding. The projects supported by this special research
    grant have consistently provided key knowledge needed in developing new
    approaches to pest management. The focus on pesticides targeted by FQPA
    assures that critical pest management alternatives are being addressed.
    This grants program has supported 93 projects in 29 states since it
    started five years ago.
                       phytophthora root rot, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded by the Phytophthora Root Rot, New Mexico grant.
        Answer. Research supported by this grant has concentrated on
    developing breeding strategies for developing durable resistant
    cultivars. As part of this work, a genetic population is being
    developed that will be used for molecular analysis of resistance.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project aims to halt the spread of Phytophthora root
    rot and foliar blight before chile production in the U.S. is sharply
    inhibited. Through the combination of Phytophthora root rot and foliar
    blight resistant cultivars and proper cultural practices, southwestern
    chile growers will be ensured a sustainable and profitable future and a
    leading place in the world market. Phytophthora is one of the major
    diseases of chile and has limited production in all states growing
    chiles.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal has been to reduce loss of chile
    production to the Phytophthora syndrome of diseases. Since beginning
    this research, the project has discovered that there are at least three
    different disease syndromes caused by the pathogen. In addition,
    resistance in the host to Phytophthora is multi-genic for each
    syndrome. Furthermore, cultural practices have been found that lessen
    the severity of the disease under commercial production conditions.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991
    with an appropriation of $125,000 for that year. Fiscal years 1992 and
    1993 appropriations were $150,000 per year; $141,000 in fiscal year
    1994; $127,000 per year in fiscal years 1995 through 2000; and $137,696
    in fiscal year 2001. A total of $1,465,696 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds from state appropriations and the
    California Pepper Commission were $255,614 in 1997; $253,614 in 1998;
    $250,000 from state appropriations and $61,000 from the New Mexico
    Chile Commission in 2000; and a state appropriation of $280,000 in
    2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being carried out at New Mexico State
    University in the Department of Agronomy and Horticulture. Greenhouse
    and field facilities are being utilized at the Fabian Garcia Science
    Center and at the Leyendecker Plant Science Research Center.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the research objectives
    is 2005. Additional special funding is sought for 2001 to continue New
    Mexico State University's Agriculture Experiment Station research
    efforts to control soil borne diseases in irrigated agriculture. The
    Federal funds provided in fiscal year 2000 helped accelerate research
    results.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Peer review is not required for renewal proposals provided
    that the project has not changed significantly, other scientific
    discoveries have not affected the project, or the need for the project
    has not changed. However, the CSREES Special Grant--Prevention of
    Soilborne Diseases in Irrigated Agriculture--has undergone scientific
    peer review. This project has been evaluated for technical quality and
    relevance to regional goals by researchers with the scientific
    knowledge and technical skills to conduct the proposed research work.
    They have read and made comments that were incorporated into the
    proposal.
                          pierce's disease, california
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Pierce's Disease, California grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant. CSREES has requested the University of
    California to submit a grant proposal defining a competitive process
    that will identify the best research, education, and extension programs
    to address this problem.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Pierce's Disease is a devastating disease of grapes that
    severely limits production wherever it occurs. It is vectored by the
    glassy-winged sharpshooter, which has recently expanded its range into
    California vineyards in the southern half of the state. California is
    the lead state in production of grapes for all uses, which include
    wine, fresh table, and raisins, with a total crop value approaching $40
    billion. Control of this important disease and management of its vector
    are essential to the continued viability of this vital agricultural
    industry.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a new grant and the proposal for funding is
    presently being developed. The primary goals of the proposal will be to
    slow the spread of the glassy-winged sharpshooter and to discover a
    method of controlling Pierce's Disease.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The work supported by this grant is being initiated in
    fiscal year 2001 and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is
    $1,895,820.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The total non-Federal contribution to this project for
    fiscal year 2001 is $1,250,000. The State of California has designated
    $750,000 for control of Pierce's Disease. In addition, the Town of
    Temecula in conjunction with Riverside County, both in California, have
    designated $250,000 toward this project in fiscal year 2001. The
    viticulture industry in California has contributed $250,000 toward this
    project in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out by the California
    Agricultural Experiment Station. Funds will be awarded competitively to
    scientists from around the country involved in research on Pierce's
    Disease.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is the end of fiscal year 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. Each proposal submitted to the
    project will undergo a peer review. CSREES will review annually the
    request for proposals developed for this program.
       plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded by the Plant, Drought, and Disease Resistance Gene Cataloging,
    New Mexico grant.
        Answer. The specific objectives of this project are to construct,
    curate, and distribute cDNA libraries for genes that are differentially
    expressed in response to drought or disease. The DNA sequence and the
    pattern of expression of these genes will be determined, and this
    information will be made publicly available in databases. The specific
    plants under investigation include representatives from the major crop
    plant families: legumes, grasses, and the Solanacea.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Water deficit stress is the most severe and ubiquitous
    stress plants face. As urban and agricultural needs for water continue
    to compete, it is of national importance to understand which genes
    control drought resistance. This problem is especially pronounced in
    the arid southwest of the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project was to develop the
    facilities to perform plant genomic research at the New Mexico State
    University in collaboration with other institutions in the state, Los
    Alamos National Laboratory, and the National Center for Genome
    Resources. The project was intended to develop plant functional
    genomics in the thematic area of biotic and abiotic stress responses.
    To date, cDNA libraries of drought responsive genes have been
    constructed from five different samples and one library of disease
    responsive genes. Scientists are now beginning to use microarray
    approaches to characterize gene expression profiles. DNA sequence
    information has been generated for several hundred genes from these
    libraries.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
    and has been supported with appropriations of the following amounts:
    fiscal years 1998 and 1999, $150,000 per year; fiscal year 2000,
    $212,500; and fiscal year 2001, $249,450. A total of $761,950 has been
    appropriated since fiscal year 1998.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. New Mexico Agricultural Experiment Station is providing six
    percent of co-Principal Investigators' salaries, at a cost of
    approximately $9,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is conducted primarily on the main campus of New
    Mexico State University in Las Cruces, New Mexico. Some collaborative
    work is conducted with scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory in
    Los Alamos, New Mexico, and with scientists at the National Center for
    Genome Resources in Santa Fe, New Mexico. A researcher from the Los
    Alamos National Laboratory, is collaborating on the microarray
    technology, and a researcher from the National Center for Genome
    Resources is collaborating on the gene expression database technology.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Principal Investigators developed a detailed project
    outline for a five-year project, from 1998 through 2003, with specific
    yearly goals and objectives. Each year a detailed progress report is
    provided specifically addressing the bulleted yearly goals and
    objectives. The project is on schedule. The anticipated completion date
    for the project is May 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last agency evaluation of this project was a merit
    review in March 2000. This evaluation noted that the faculty at New
    Mexico State University have been conducting research on genes involved
    in disease and drought resistance on a wide range of crops and have
    recently developed expertise and collaborative efforts in
    bioinformatics. It was further noted that this project addresses high
    priority objectives in plant genetics that are directed to
    economically-important crops and approval of funding was highly
    recommended.
                                potato research
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Potato Research grant.
        Answer. Scientists at several of the State Agricultural Experiment
    Stations are breeding new potato varieties, high yielding, disease, and
    insect resistant potato cultivars, adapted to the growing conditions in
    their particular areas, both for the fresh market and processing.
    Research is being conducted in such areas as protoplast regeneration,
    somoclonal variation, storage, propagation, germplasm preservation, and
    cultural practices. Congressional language for fiscal years 1997
    through 2001 has directed CSREES to award these funds on a competitive
    basis. In each of the years, CSREES published a request for proposals
    in the Federal Register and awarded grants competitively based on a
    scientific peer review.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This research effort addresses needs of the potato
    producers and processors throughout the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to improve potato production through
    genetics and cultural practices as well as improve storage for quality
    potatoes for processing and fresh market. This research has resulted in
    a number of new high yielding, good quality, disease, and insect
    resistant cultivars, which are now being used in the processing
    industry and in the fresh market. CSREES has been successful using a
    farmer review panel and a scientific peer panel in directing more
    regional comprehensive breeding programs that have resulted in potato
    varieties targeted to the specific growing conditions of that region. A
    number of the new cultivars have also been adaptable to other regions.
    These programs have also had success in identifying resistance to pests
    and pathogens in wild germplasm and are developing expertise to
    incorporate genetic engineering approaches as traditional components of
    the program.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1983, $200,000; fiscal year 1984, $400,000; fiscal
    year 1985, $600,000; fiscal years 1986-1987, $761,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1988, $997,000; fiscal year 1989, $1,177,000; fiscal year 1990,
    $1,310,000; fiscal year 1991, $1,371,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
    $1,435,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,349,000; fiscal years 1995
    through 1998, $1,214,000; fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $1,300,000 per
    year; and fiscal year 2001, $1,446,810. A total of $20,698,810 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $401,424 state appropriations, $4,897 product sales,
    $249,830 industry, and $30,092 miscellaneous in 1991; $567,626 state
    appropriations, $6,182 product sales, $334,478 industry, and $44,323
    miscellaneous in 1992; $556,291 state appropriations, $9,341 product
    sales, $409,541 industry, and $44,859 miscellaneous in 1993; $696,079
    state appropriations, $21,467 product sales, $321,214 industry, and
    $226,363 miscellaneous in 1994; $935,702 state appropriations, $35,376
    product sales, $494,891 industry, and $230,080 miscellaneous in 1995;
    and an estimated $900,000 state appropriations, $10,000 product sales,
    $400,000 industry, and $200,000 miscellaneous in each of the years 1996
    through 2000. A total of $13,170,056 in non-Federal funds have been
    provided from fiscal year 1991 through 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research work is being carried out at the New York,
    Idaho, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
    Washington, North Carolina, New Jersey, Wisconsin, and Colorado State
    Agricultural Experiment Stations. The grant to Colorado is divided by
    Colorado with the California and Texas Agricultural Experiment
    Stations.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was initiated to accomplish significant results
    in about five years, but because genetic varietal development takes
    from 5 to 10 years, we anticipate significant progress by 2006.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Beginning in fiscal year 1997, these funds have been
    awarded on a competitive basis using a scientific peer review. In
    addition, CSREES conducts a formal meeting with representatives from
    the potato industry to review research needs and provide input to the
    agency on the merits of the proposals.
                        precision agriculture, kentucky
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Precision Agriculture, Kentucky grant.
        Answer. Research will evaluate site-specific practices for
    production of corn and soybeans under field conditions. The work will
    compare various combinations of management practices, using site-
    specific technology, and evaluate economics of its application.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is to provide objective
    information about precision agriculture technologies to assist farmers
    in the development of management systems that are productive,
    economical, and environmentally benign.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to evaluate site-
    specified technologies and develop recommendations related to variation
    in fertility, erosion potential, drainage, and soil physical condition.
    The ultimate goal is to demonstrate the potantial economic and
    envrionmental benefits from precision practices.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1999 was $500,000 in fiscal year
    2000, $850,000; and in fiscal year 2001, $748,350 total of 2,098,350.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The estimate for non-Federal funds supporting this project,
    largely from state appropriations, was $425,000 in fiscal year 1999 and
    $787,000 in field year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research will be conducted at the Kentucky Agriculture
    Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for this project is 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project will be evaluated upon receipt of the required
    grant proposal.
                        pre-harvest food safety, kansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been conducted under the Pre-Harvest Food Safety, Kansas grant.
        Answer. Longitudinal studies on the fecal shedding of Escherichia
    coli 0157:H7--E. coli 0157:H7--by cattle on beef cow-calf ranches are
    being done to determine the impact of various routine management
    practices on the shedding rate. The purpose of the research is to
    develop an understanding of the management factors that contribute to
    the incidence of E. coli 0157:H7 in beef cattle. During the past two
    years, the project has been enlarged to include more monitoring of
    environmental and wildlife samples to determine reservoirs for E. coli
    0157:H7.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. The presence of E. coli in beef animals sent to slaughter
    can contribute to the contamination of meat products produced from such
    animals. This has increased the need for control measures that could
    reduce the incidence of such food-borne human pathogens in food animals
    during the production cycle. With the implementation of mandatory
    Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point--HACCP--programs for E. coli
    0157:H7 in slaughter plants, there is increased pressure for the
    livestock producer to deliver animals to slaughter with reduced
    prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7. This type of research has been
    identified as critical by all food animal commodity groups as well as
    public health officials and consumers. An additional problem has now
    emerged as we learn more about the ecology of the E. coli 0157:H7
    organism, namely, the ubiquitous nature of this bacterium in the
    general environment, including water sources as well as various species
    of wildlife.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to determine the incidence of E. coli
    0157:H7 in large versus small beef cow-calf operations and describe the
    management factors that contribute to or affect the rate of shedding of
    organisms in the feces of such animals. E. coli 0157:H7 has been
    detected in 3.11 percent of monthly fecal samples--n=3152--with 4.57
    percent of the 2,058 animals having at least one positive sample. Fecal
    shedding was normally transient; only one animal was positive on more
    than one sampling date. In addition, there was a difference in
    prevalence between farms. Sources of drinking water were also examined
    and 3.5 percent of 199 water samples were positive. Of particular
    interest was that 8.3 percent of 24 creek/stream samples and 2.9
    percent of 103 pond samples were positive. In addition, isolates of E.
    coli 0157:H7 have been obtained from wildlife, especially deer.
    Management practices on the ten farms are being examined to determine
    if there are specific risk factors that can be identified. As the work
    has progressed, however, the significance of the rather widespread
    presence of E. coli 0157:H7 in the general environment has resulted in
    added objectives to this important study.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1996.
    The appropriations for fiscal years 1996 through 2000 were $212,000 per
    year, and for fiscal year 2001 is $211,534. A total of $1,271,534 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds by
    fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds have been contributed to this project as
    follows: In fiscal year 1996 non-Federal funds were $150,000 in state
    appropriations and $91,450 in contributed indirect costs; 1997 non-
    Federal funds were $165,000 in state appropriated funds and $90,300 in
    contributed indirect costs; 1998 non-Federal funds were $175,000 in
    state funds and $91,500 in contributed indirect costs; 1999 non-Federal
    funds were $109,957 in state funds and $90,800 in contributed indirect
    costs; 2000 non-Federal funds were $125,193 in state funds and an
    additional $91,300 in contributed indirect costs.
        Question. Where is this work being performed?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at Kansas State
    University, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and at ranches in Kansas,
    Nebraska, and Colorado.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date was October 1, 1998 for the
    original objectives. However, the project was not initiated until
    several months after the expected start date of October 1, 1995 and the
    original objectives were completed in late spring of 1999. As the
    project has progressed, the Principal Investigator has added other
    important questions to the original research plan and has planned to
    look more closely at management interventions that could help reduce
    the incidence of E. coli shedding in beef cattle. During the past two
    years, the project has added objectives which are focused on
    environmental issues such as prevalence of E. coli 0157:H7 in wildlife
    as well as in various water supplies used by the cattle. Thus the
    project is expected to continue for some time after the original
    expected termination date. The research team has been very productive
    and has completed the original goals of the project but has taken the
    initiative to look further at the environmental issues.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was evaluated by an on-site visit on October
    28-29, 1997 by the CSREES National Program Leader. The project team was
    doing an excellent job, and the interactive collaboration was
    outstanding. The research team has also been successful in bringing
    other participants into the program. Also, the project leader provided
    a very comprehensive written report on December 4, 2000, which
    summarizes the current status of the research project. Several
    scientific papers have been given at scientific meetings. Three peer
    reviewed manuscripts have been published and two more are currently in
    the review process. Manuscripts are being published as rapidly as data
    are assembled, analyzed, and prepared for publication.
                 preservation and processing research, oklahoma
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Preservation and Processing Research, Oklahoma
    grant.
        Answer. Research has focused on the effects of preharvest and
    postharvest factors on the market quality of fresh and minimally-
    processed horticultural products, including pecans, watermelons,
    spinach, and various herb, spice, and colorant crops for further
    processing as nutraceuticals. Researchers have developed harvester
    prototypes for maximizing active component yield from marigold flowers
    and from sage, for incorporation with drying and threshing systems to
    accommodate further processing. Research focuses on integration of
    production, harvesting and postharvest handling systems for fresh
    market, and processing market horticultural products. Research
    continues on methods to determine textural properties of pecans, and is
    being extended for development of improved pecan grading and sorting
    systems. Precision farming operations using remote optical sensing
    technology to optimize chemical inputs and improve profitability for
    Oklahoma spinach production are being developed and implemented.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Technological improvements in fruit, nut, and vegetable
    handling systems are needed to supply domestic markets and support
    continued participation in international commerce. Processing systems
    under development for commercial adaptation will support market
    expansion of pecans and various nutraceutical crops, affecting product
    market potential and value regionally. Improvements in combined
    production, postharvest handling, and processing systems are necessary
    to support growth of the state and national horticulture and related
    agriculture industries and ensure competitive involvement in national
    and international commerce of horticultural commodities uniquely suited
    for production in Oklahoma. New extraction facilities will continue to
    have a positive impact on local economies, incorporating a new-value
    added processing industry, providing local employment opportunities,
    and a new local market for Oklahoma produced commodities.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research has been to define the major
    limitations for maintaining quality of harvested fruits, vegetables,
    tree nuts and nutraceutical crops, and prescribe appropriate
    harvesting, handling, and processing protocols to extend shelf life and
    enhance marketability of harvested horticultural commodities.
    Technologies and procedures previously developed for cucurbit, tree
    fruit, sweet corn, and okra systems are being applied to development of
    pepper, sage, spinach, and marigold cropping, handling, and light
    processing systems, with a targeted completion date of 2003. Research
    from this project provided the basis for commercial high relative
    humidity storage of peaches and is focusing on implementation of
    systems for maintenance of high active ingredients in nutraceutical
    crops to complement and extend efforts towards economical value-added
    extraction of foods.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1985, $100,000; fiscal year 1986, $142,000; fiscal
    year 1987, $242,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $267,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1990, $264,000; fiscal year 1991, $265,000; fiscal year
    1992, $282,000; fiscal year 1993, $267,000; fiscal year 1994, $251,000;
    fiscal years 1995-2000, $226,000 each year; and fiscal year 2001,
    $225,503. A total of $3,928,503 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. State funds have been provided as follows: fiscal year
    1991, $126,900; fiscal year 1992, $209,783; fiscal year 1993, $219,243;
    fiscal year 1994, $308,421; fiscal year 1995, $229,489; fiscal year
    1996, $366,570; fiscal year 1997, $397,881; fiscal year 1998, $205,662;
    fiscal year 1999, $206,334; and fiscal year 2000, $193,126. The state
    also invested $16.1 million for development of an Agricultural Products
    and Food Processing Center and approximately $2.0 million annually to
    staff and operate the facility.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being conducted at the Oklahoma State
    Agricultural Experiment Station, in conjunction with ongoing production
    research at the Wes Watkins Agricultural Research and Extension Center
    and the South Central Agricultural Research Laboratories.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. It is expected that ongoing research will be completed in
    2004. Additional related objectives beyond this date would address
    further opportunities for horticulture industry growth, innovative food
    processing technologies, and associated economic development.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    A review of the proposal supporting the fiscal year 2000 appropriation
    was conducted on May 11, 2000. Additionally, scientists from outside
    the university routinely review proposals prior to submission to the
    agency. The project was evaluated as part of a comprehensive site
    review in the fall of 1995, with a recommendation by the review team to
    continue and substantially expand the value-added product development.
                            produce pricing, arizona
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Produce Pricing, Arizona grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested Arizona State University to submit a
    grant proposal that has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This research is needed address a number of pricing issues
    and problems in the changing produce industry.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to understand a
    variety of pricing problems in the produce industry and to evaluate
    pricing alternatives.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This is a new project that begins in fiscal year 2001. The
    appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $75,833.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. We expect state appropriated funds to become a part of this
    project. The dollar amount will be included with the proposal.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at Arizona State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What if the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives and anticipated completion date
    will be specified in the forthcoming proposal.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the project when the first
    proposal is received.
                           protein utilization, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Protein Utilization, Iowa grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
    proposal that has not yet been received. The research will deal with
    the utilization of proteins to design new products. Research will be
    conducted at Iowa State University.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for research is to create value added market for
    new protein products with potential for national and international
    markets
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The overall goal of this project is to develop technologies
    that will add value to soybean proteins using industrial enzymes. The
    investigators propose to (1) improve the functional properties of soy
    proteins; (2) restore the functional properties of head-treated soy
    proteins; and (3) enhance protein recovery from soybeans and soy
    products. Iowa State University will team up with Genecor International
    Inc. to utilize the company's industrial enzyme library in achieving
    the goal. This is a new project, and the accomplishments will be
    reported at the end of the project period.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $189,582.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The sources of matching funds will be known when the full
    proposal is received from the university.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at Iowa State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is August 2002.
        Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since this the first year of the proposed award, no
    previous evaluation has been conducted.
                        rangeland ecosystems, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Rangeland Ecosystems, New Mexico grant?
        Answer. Current research is focused on the ecology of noxious and
    invasive weeds that are endemic to New Mexico's rangelands. Competitive
    research grants have been awarded that deal with studying the
    physiological and toxicological effects of these weeds on livestock.
        Question. According the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local focus for this
    research?
        Answer. Noxious weeds are a serious problem in the southwestern
    U.S. More than one-half of the rangeland is infested in New Mexico and
    about one-fifth of the rangeland in Texas. Under this program,
    researchers are working to develop an integrated weed management
    approach in rangeland ecosystems for that region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished?
        Answer. Research has led to the understanding of broom snakeweed
    and other noxious weeds resulting in a better understanding of plant's
    strategy for invasion and persistence. Currently, the primary focus of
    research is addressing the need for an integrated weed management
    approach for noxious weeds, especially broom snakeweed. Three general
    areas of research are ecology and management, biological control, and
    toxicology and animal health. One specific accomplishment is the
    biological control arena; several plant pathogens and insects are
    proving to be effective in broom snakeweed's control.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990, $148,000; fiscal
    year 1991, $150,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993, $200,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $188,000; fiscal years 1995 and 1996, $169,000 each
    year; fiscal year 1997, $175,000; fiscal year 1998, $185,000; and for
    fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $200,000 per year; and for fiscal year
    2001, $299,340. A total of $2,383,340 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $249,251 state appropriations in 1991; $200,110 state
    appropriations in 1992; $334,779 state appropriations in 1993; $302,793
    state appropriations in 1994; $294,451 state appropriations in 1995;
    and an estimated $300,000 in state appropriations in each fiscal year
    1996 through 2000. A total of $2,881,384 in non-Federal funds have been
    provided since fiscal year 1991 through 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at New Mexico State University
    and throughout the State of New Mexico under actual field conditions.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was initiated in 1991. Considerable progress
    has been made on many of the original objectives. Currently, additional
    and related objectives have evolved, and anticipated completion date
    for these is 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Each year the grant is peer reviewed with oversight by an
    administrative executive committee within the College of Agriculture
    and Home Economics at New Mexico State University. Additionally,
    CSREES' senior scientific staff review the progress of the grant. Those
    reviews indicated progress in achieving the objectives.
                         red snapper research, alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that will be
    funded under the Red Snapper Research, Alabama grant.
        Answer. The principal investigators will be developing techniques
    to culture red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher indicates that there is a regional
    need for red snapper research because of its importance to the Gulf
    states and the fact that it is presently considered to be an over-
    fished species by commercial and recreational interests. Current
    harvest limitations mandated by Federal actions have resulted in
    economic losses to coastal communities. Research will provide critical
    knowledge in efforts to restore native populations and stimulate the
    development of aquaculture enterprises in the Gulf region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The project was initiated in fiscal year 2000. The overall
    goal of the research is to develop hatchery, nursery, and growout
    methods for the mass production of red snapper that will lead to
    opportunities for aquaculture development and aid in management and
    restoration of wild stocks. Accomplishments in fiscal year 2000
    included refinement of egg quality evaluation methods to improve larval
    survival, development of hormone spawning protocols to improve the
    stimulation of egg release and natural fertilization, evaluation of
    diets to improve sexual maturation of brood stock, and initiation of
    studies on photoperiod and temperature manipulation to improve brood
    stock spawning.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $510,000 and for fiscal
    year 2001 is $723,405. The total appropriation for this project to date
    is $1,233,405.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The principal investigators indicate that non-Federal
    support for this project is provided by the use of state-owned public
    and private facilities. For fiscal year 2000 state appropriations
    included $20,000 for salary support and facility use and miscellaneous
    sources contributed $11,000 for a total of approximately $31,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted through the Alabama
    Agricultural Experiment Station at the Claude Peteet Mariculture Center
    located in Gulf Shores, Alabama, and at the Alma Bryant High School in
    Bayou La Batre, Alabama.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is fiscal year 2002. The project was initiated in fiscal year 2000.
    Studies are currently underway relating to spawning, diet development,
    broodstock development, and methodologies for growout of food-sized
    fish. Project objectives are anticipated to be met in fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this new project
    on an annual basis. The university submitted an accomplishment report
    for evaluation purposes for fiscal year 2000 activities that will be
    updated and included in the fiscal year 2001 proposal submitted to
    CSREES. The university is fulfilling its work objectives and expanding
    collaboration with other institutions conducting related research. The
    2001 CSREES review will be completed within three weeks of submission
    of the fiscal year 2001 proposal. The researchers will be requested to
    develop the research proposal consistent with the National Science and
    Technology Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and
    Development as in the past.
                      regional barley gene mapping project
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Regional Barley Gene Mapping Project grant.
        Answer. The Regional Barley Genome Mapping Project is a multi-
    disciplinary, multi-institutional project to develop a genome map of
    barley. Specific objectives are to: construct a publicly-available
    medium resolution barley genome map; use the map to identify and locate
    loci, especially quantitative trait loci controlling economically-
    important traits such as yield, maturity, adaptation, resistance to
    biotic and abiotic stresses, malting quality, and feed value; provide
    the framework for efficient molecular marker-assisted selection
    strategies in barley varietal development; identify chromosome regions
    for further, higher resolution mapping with the objective of
    characterizing and utilizing genes of interest; and establish a
    cooperative mapping project ranging from molecular genetics to breeding
    that will be an organizational model for cereals and other crop plants.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes barley breeders
    nationwide need information about the location of agriculturally-
    important genes controlling resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses,
    yield, and quality factors in order to rapidly develop new, improved
    cultivars and respond to disease and pest threats. This project
    provides that information along with appropriate molecular markers to
    track these traits through the breeding and selection process. The
    project is national in scope.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project has been to develop a
    restriction fragment length polymorphism map for barley and associated
    important genetic traits as a map to provide closely-linked molecular
    markers for barley breeders. The project successfully mapped 300
    molecular markers. Portions of the map are described as very dense and
    contain key location points for enhanced utility. The project is now
    using the map to locate quantitative traits loci of economic
    importance. These include genetic determinations for yield, maturity,
    rust resistance, plant height, seed dormancy, and components of malting
    quality. Technical papers have been published to report research
    results to the scientific community.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1990, $153,000; fiscal year 1991, $262,000; fiscal
    years 1992-1993, $412,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $387,000; and
    fiscal years 1995-1998, $348,000 each year; fiscal year 1999, $400,000
    fiscal year 2000, $425,000; and fiscal year 2001, $586,706. A total of
    $4,429,706 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $203,760 from industry in 1991; $212,750 from industry
    in 1992; $115,000 from industry in 1993; $89,000 from industry in 1994;
    and $35,000 from the State of Washington and $108,000 in other non-
    Federal funding, for a total of $143,000 in 1995, $163,000 for 1996,
    $178,240 in 1997. In 1998, $147,000; for 1999, $156,000; and for 2000,
    $154,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted in the following state
    agricultural experiment stations; Oregon, Colorado, Washington,
    Montana, Idaho, North Dakota, Minnesota, New York, Virginia, and
    California.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objective was to produce a genetic map of
    agronomically important traits of the barley genome. The anticipated
    time to complete this task was estimated at ten years with completion
    in 1999. The initial goals have been exceeded; however, maps are never
    ``done''. The next step will be physical mapping of gene-rich regions
    in order to study the genes and understand pathways. Researchers will
    focus on quality and disease resistence. This phase is projected for
    completion in 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. In 1998, the special grant proposal was subjected to the
    project approval process at Oregon State University, which is the lead
    university, and reviewed by an agency scientist. This project is made
    up of many competitively-awarded mini grants. A subgroup of the
    National Barley Improvement Committee, which is composed of elected
    representatives of research, growers, and industry, serves as the peer
    panel to review and select proposals based on relevance to the original
    objectives and scientific merit. Multi-disciplinary, multi-
    institutional, and continuing projects are given the highest priority.
    The overall project and its min-grants have been judged to be
    scientifically sound and appropriate for the stated objectives, based
    on comments and rating from peer scientists which is done on each
    support prior to selection.
         regionalized implications of farm programs, missouri and texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the program on Regionalized Implications of Farm
    Programs, Missouri and Texas grant.
        Answer. The University of Missouri continuously provides
    regionalized analysis of alternative farm program designs. This
    includes providing farm level analysis of national changes in
    agriculture policy.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research is to give farm-level or micro
    view of macro-level changes; and to provide as accurate and robust an
    analysis as possible in order to point out regional differences in
    policy alternatives.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original, as well as current, goal is to provide the
    farm community, agribusiness groups, and public officials information
    about farm, trade, and fiscal policy implications by developing
    regionalized models that reflect farming characteristics for major
    production regions of the U.S. The researchers have developed a farm
    level policy analysis system encompassing major U.S. farm production
    regions. This system interfaces with existing agricultural sector
    models used for farm, macroeconomic, and trade policy analysis. The
    universities have expanded the number and types of representative farms
    to 80. Typical farm models also are being developed for Mexico and
    Canada under a collaborative agreement for use in analyzing impacts of
    the North American Free Trade Agreement.
        Policy studies completed this past year at the request of
    policymakers and farm groups included analysis of the impacts of
    marketing loan provisions on farmers' economic viability; drought on
    farm income and farm viability; early provision of Agricultural Market
    Transition Act payments, risk management accounts; and other crop
    insurance and disaster assistance alternatives.
        Results of these analyses were presented to more than 60 different
    groups across the U.S., including both congressional agriculture
    committees. The Agricultural and Food Policy Center web site, which
    contains copies of all Working and Briefing Papers, was visited more
    than 345,000 times and more than 2 billion bytes of information was
    transferred.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1990 was $346,000. The fiscal
    years 1991-1993 appropriations were $348,000 per year; $327,000 in
    fiscal year 1994; $294,000 in each of the fiscal years 1995 through
    2000; and $293,353 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $3,774,353 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $288,843 State appropriations and $46,773 industry for
    a total of $335,616 in 1991; $45,661 State appropriations in 1992;
    $33,979 State appropriations in 1993; $40,967 State appropriations in
    1994; $161,876 State appropriations in 1995; $187,717 State
    appropriations for 1996; $137,100 for 1997; and $161,400 for 1998.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted by the Texas A&M University and
    the University of Missouri at Columbia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This program is of a continuing nature for the purpose of
    assessing the impacts of existing policies and issues and proposed
    policy and program changes at the individual firm level for feed grain,
    wheat, cotton, rice, oilseed and livestock producers. In addition, the
    representative farms are constantly being updated as farming practices
    change. Currently the researchers are making adjustments for the
    increasing use of Bt and Round-Up Ready seeds.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. No formal evaluation of this project has been carried out,
    however the CSREES representative is in regular contact throughout the
    year to track the progress of the stated objectives.
                            rice modeling, arkansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Rice Modeling, Arkansas grant.
        Answer. The purpose of this research project is to develop a
    regional, national, and global rice industry model for use in analyzing
    the impact of changes in domestic and foreign public policies on
    production, trade, stocks, substitute crops, farm prices, and domestic
    as well as global consumption.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Research is needed to assist both the U.S. rice industry
    and national policymakers in assessing the impact of existing and
    proposed changes in public policies for rice. This research enables
    improved analysis of both international and domestic policy changes on
    rice production, stocks, prices of substitute crops, and consumption.
    It has been, and is being used to analyze the impacts of farm policy
    proposals on the U.S. rice industry, to analyze the impact of the World
    Trade Organization--WTO--and the Uruguay Round agreements on United
    States trade, to analyze the impact of emerging rice importing and
    exporting countries on United States rice exports, and to analyze the
    market for different rice types--qualities--and seasonal demand and
    supply factors that affect the global rice market. The principal
    researcher believes this research addresses national, regional, and
    local needs.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop
    international, national, and regional models to analyze the impact of
    foreign and domestic policy changes, and forecast changes in
    production, trade, stocks, prices of substitute crops, farm prices, and
    consumption.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work actually began about four years ago and Federal
    research grants from various sources have totaled roughly $2 million
    prior to this year. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal
    year 1996. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 was
    $395,000; for fiscal years 1998 through 2000, $296,000; and for fiscal
    year 2001, $295,349 for a total appropriation of $1,973,349.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds over the four years prior to this
    year totaled approximately $500,000. For the 1996 fiscal year, state
    appropriations were $178,000; and for 1997 and 1998, $150,000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being carried out at the University of
    Arkansas-Fayetteville and the University of Missouri-Columbia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The domestic portion of the rice model has been completed.
    The international modeling research is a little over half completed and
    the researchers estimate another five years is required. The purpose of
    constructing the models, however, is to provide on-going analysis of
    the impact of various policy proposals on the U.S. rice industry.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluation of this project.
    However, annual proposals are peer reviewed for relevance and
    scientific merit. Also, each annual budget proposal is carefully
    reviewed for adherence to stated objectives and annual progress is
    discussed with the principal investigators.
                           rural development centers
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Rural Development Centers Program grant.
        Answer. There are four regional and two state level rural
    development centers funded under this grant. The four regional centers
    play a unique national role in linking the research and extension
    capacity of land-grant universities with local decisionmakers to
    address a wide range of development issues affecting rural America. The
    centers now collaborate on a number of national initiatives on key
    issues that touch all of rural America, but each continues a research
    program that addresses the particular needs of its region. National
    collaboration is underway on e-commerce and e-community opportunities;
    land use and sprawl; workforce quality in light of technological
    change, global competition, and Federally-restructured entitlement
    programs; community design methodology; the impacts of rural schools
    and public education on rural communities; and the complex links
    between food systems, rapidly changing agricultural production systems,
    and community systems.
        Research priorities are also identified by stakeholders and
    partners within the regions. The North Central Regional Center for
    Rural Development has mobilized scientists to examine the community
    implications of moving to a more bio-based economy; e-commerce
    opportunities for remote areas and American Indian reservations; small
    stores and retail trade; leadership capacity and economic options in
    areas of population decline; the impact of Federal place-based poverty
    reduction programs; and methods of sustainable, participatory
    development. In the Northeast Regional Center, attention is directed to
    land use and rural development; other land use issues such as farmland
    preservation, farming on the urban fringe, and urban sprawl; and the
    emergence and adoption of information technology and its use for rural
    economic development. The Southern Center portfolio includes research
    on the food assistance needs of vulnerable populations; increasing
    diversity of the rural south; the quality of life for children and
    youth; opportunities and drawbacks of e-business; a systems approach to
    sustainable development; transitions in southern agriculture and
    related environmental issues; water quality and quantity issues; health
    care infrastructure; land use in urban-proximity areas; and workforce
    preparation and opportunities for new quality jobs in the south. In the
    west, research is underway on issues of rapid growth and sprawl; public
    land issues; the impact of energy deregulation on rural electric co-
    operatives; civic capacity and youth leadership; and the wildfire and
    residential interface and long term forest health issues.
        The two state centers engage in research identified by stakeholders
    and partners in their respective states. In Louisiana, scientists are
    looking at rural school districts and teacher preparation; local
    government capacity; and access to and applications of information
    technology for rural organizations, agencies and individuals. In North
    Dakota, the principal investigator is studying the changing age
    structure and consequences for the state's labor force, as well as the
    contribution of the economic export services sector to counties in the
    state. In general, the research agenda of the centers taken together
    includes understanding trends and emerging issues in rural America;
    improving economic competitiveness and diversification; supporting the
    capacity for strategic planning; promoting constructive use and
    protection of our natural resources; and helping individuals, families,
    businesses, farmers, ranchers, and communities adjust to change and
    achieve prosperity.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or one of the
    principal investigators, what is the national, regional or local need
    for this research?
        Answer. Rural communities and rural economies are increasingly
    complex and multi-dimensional. Restructuring in agriculture, the rapid
    rate of change and its uneven effects in rural America, and impacts of
    global markets are creating new challenges and opportunities for
    people, families, communities, farms, ranches, and businesses. The mix
    of challenges varies from one region to another and from one community
    to another. Some rural and urban communities struggle together with
    rapid growth, sprawl, congestion, and environmental degradation. Others
    contend with severe unemployment, out-migration, and loss of businesses
    and vital services. The significant Federal-state policy shift to
    ``place-based'' development puts an increasing burden on local
    communities to envision, plan, and create their own futures. Many
    communities lack the capacity to deal with these challenges or to grasp
    alternative opportunities. Increasingly, they are turning to the land-
    grant system for research, information, education, and assistance.
        Although people living in rural America face an ever increasing
    number of public issues and problems needing resolution, the number of
    research faculty addressing broader rural issues is declining in many
    places. Multi-disciplinary, multi-state research supported by the four
    regional centers is even more crucial in this context. The regional
    centers have a proven track record of bringing together the most
    innovative minds--from both inside and outside the universities--to
    address cutting-edge issues without regard to state boundaries. They
    generate credible science-based information that clarifies these
    issues, and they provide science-based and tested tools for dealing
    with them. Their research and outreach activities support the public-
    private partnerships necessary to address the problems facing rural
    America.
        The regional centers have assumed a national role in moving forward
    the scientific disciplines that underpin agriculture and community and
    economic development. Their approach increases the capacity for multi-
    disciplinary thinking and research; seeds new research fields;
    facilitates creation of new teams of scholars engaged in multi-state,
    multi-disciplinary and multi-institution research; and quickly moves
    research results to the constituents who need them. In this manner they
    play a unique role in the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The Rural Development Center mission is to strengthen rural
    families, communities, and businesses by facilitating collaborative
    research and extension education through land-grant institutions and
    their partners in the various regions and nationally. Research programs
    are undertaken after evaluating broad regional and national priorities.
    Following are some accomplishments of selected research activities
    conducted under the auspices of various centers.
        The Southern Regional Development Center continues to receive
    national recognition for its Information Briefs, prepared to shed light
    on the host of challenges and opportunities facing governments,
    communities, and people in the South. They help national, state, and
    local leaders and officials understand and respond to the devolution of
    government services, rural transportation issues and welfare reform,
    family economics and individual development accounts, the cost of
    living, rural earnings capacity, job opportunities for low-income
    people, and child care issues. The center's Millennium Series generates
    research on persistent and emerging problems in the rural South, as
    well as optimistic trends. Current topics include wage levels and
    quality jobs, the economic health of agricultural and non-agricultural
    firms, rural racial and ethnic diversity, rapid urbanization and its
    effects on natural and environmental resources, the demand for better
    educated workers, labor force skills, entrepreneurial opportunities and
    strategies to diversify the rural economy, the changing structure of
    families and related family services needs, and barriers to health care
    quality and access. The full complement of policy briefs will stimulate
    public dialogue needed to create vibrant, healthy rural communities in
    the rural South. The center was again chosen by the Economic Research
    Service to be involved in a small grants program to support research on
    food assistance and the needs of vulnerable populations in the south.
        Like the other regional centers, the southern center links research
    with extension education in several ways. In fall 2000, it sponsored a
    direction-setting conference on ``Sustainable Development: Building
    Quality Communities.'' Co-chairs merged development perspectives from
    agriculture and natural resources and from community resource
    development to cross silos which have traditionally divided thinking
    about rural development across the country. In 2000, the center
    organized the first-ever institute designed to provide Extension agents
    a state-of-the-art health issues program. Recent integrated programs
    were continued. For example, with land-grant faculty in the southeast,
    the center developed and continues to sponsor the Southern Regional
    Community Development Institute. Diverse extension educators--
    agriculture, natural resources, family and youth development, community
    development, and middle management--spend five days attending sessions
    on understanding community, strategic planning, asset-mapping, social
    infrastructure, local government, problem-solving, economic and
    sustainable development, and leadership skills. Demand for the training
    continues, and the center held its third Institute in the summer of
    2000. The Mid-South Delta Institute also continues as an on-going
    participatory research and training program designed to help community
    leaders in northwest Mississippi develop skills in asset-mapping,
    strategic planning, building partnerships, and consensus-building.
        The North Central Regional Center for Rural Development continues
    to expand its extensive repertoire of research that informs policy and
    sustainable community development programs. It now plays a national
    role in considering the community implications of moving to a more bio-
    based agriculture. It is supporting research and public advocacy
    coalitions around different issues related to biotechnology, work
    critical to the process of developing and maintaining a trusted and
    high quality scientific base. Other research examines points of
    intersection between trends in agriculture and rural economic and
    community vitality; demographic shifts and increasing ethnic diversity;
    and research on industrial recruitment and value-added firms locating
    in rural communities. Current research also focuses on ingredients to
    reduce gross migration in rural areas, e-commerce viability in remote
    areas and for diverse populations, the match between leadership
    development curricula and areas of persistent poverty, and the
    geography of rural financing and investment capital. Each of these
    research program areas is fully integrated with extension activities in
    the north central region. Its integrated approach has won national
    recognition for the center in the areas of workforce preparation, state
    of the art community visioning and strategic planning, social
    indicators for community and economic planning, and Federal program
    assessment including the Empowerment Zone/Enterprise Community
    initiative and national workforce preparation programs. The center has
    also supported research that enhances the scientific methods land-grant
    faculty use in applied research on rural development. For example,
    research demonstrates the power and utility of clustering geographic
    and demographic data and linking geo-demographic clusters to
    Agriculture Census and Decennial data. Other research analyzes the
    future of small rural trade centers as providers of public services,
    the dynamics of rural retail trade, and the most critical needs of
    rural business communities. Through its workshops, conferences,
    training programs, and newsletter, Rural Development News, the North
    Central center provides research results and related educational
    materials to rural development professionals in land-grant and partner
    institutions and organizations across the country and internationally.
        In the Northeast Regional Center, strategic planning during the
    first six months of 2000 under a new director resulted in valuable
    stakeholder input and a focused list of research and extension
    priorities. Small research and extension grants are now targeted for a
    more effective return on invested dollars. As a top priority, grants
    now support integrated activities on land use and rural development,
    with a land use conference to follow sometime in 2001. Farmland
    preservation, farming on the urban fringe, urban sprawl, and urban-
    rural conflict are issues highlighted for research and outreach.
    Information technology also emerged as an important area for research,
    and regional research and planning grew out of a joint four-center
    national conference in 2000. To facilitate research dissemination and
    networking capability in the region, the Northeast center set up
    specific briefing rooms on its web-site on land use/sprawl, community-
    supported agriculture, community design, business retention and
    expansion, workforce preparation, youth development, local government
    issues, entrepreneurship, leadership visioning, and consensus-building.
    In addition, the center identified and reported on two major trends
    affecting rural counties in the northeast: a persistent and growing gap
    between per employee earnings in metro and non-metro counties; and the
    steady increase in the share of self-employed workers in the total
    workforce. The center is now evaluating implications of these trends
    for development strategies.
        As in the northeast, the Western Rural Development Center devoted
    part of 2000 to strategic planning and organizational development under
    a new director. One focus in the year was to build partnerships within
    the region, especially with the fabric of extension and experiment
    station program in the west. Input from these stakeholders helped
    identify priorities and programmatic goals. Because few faculty in the
    western land-grant institutions are actively involved in rural
    development work, the center organized a faculty development workshop,
    seeded the development of research proposals on rural development
    issues, and partnered with regional faculty on competitive grant
    programs, again in an effort to build the research capacity in the
    region. The center continued its work on a ``Rapid Growth Toolkit'' to
    help community leaders and local governments understand and address
    rapid growth at the community level.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1971, $75,000; fiscal year 1972, $225,000; fiscal
    year 1973, $317,000; fiscal years 1974-1981, $300,000 per year; fiscal
    years 1982-1985, $311,000 per year; fiscal years 1986-1987, $363,000
    per year; fiscal year 1988, $475,000; fiscal year 1989, $500,000;
    fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $500,000 per year;
    fiscal year 1994, $470,000; fiscal years 1995-1998, $423,000 per year;
    fiscal years 1999-2000, $523,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001,
    $521,849. A total of $11,685,849 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds available to the four regional centers,
    as previously reported, were: fiscal year 1991, $1,117,000; fiscal year
    1992, $790,000; fiscal year 1993, $900,000; fiscal year 1994, $776,591;
    and fiscal year 1995, $710,050; for a total of $4,293,641 across those
    five years. Non-Federal funds available to the four regional centers
    since 1995 were: fiscal year 1996, $3,559,662; fiscal year 1997,
    $1,322,237; fiscal year 1998, $2,660,048; fiscal year 1999, $1,472,249;
    fiscal year 2000, $1,300,990; fiscal year 2001, $1,573,316. The total
    for 1996 through 2001 is $11,888,502. Non-Federal partners sponsoring
    research and related extension programs through these centers since
    1995 include the Farm Foundation, the Northwest Area Foundation, the
    University of Kentucky's Tennessee Valley Authority Rural Studies
    Program, the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Upjohn Institute, the Kerr
    Center for Sustainable Agriculture, the National 4-H Council, the
    Heartland Center, Farmer's Legal Action Group, Pegasus Satellite
    Television, and Cornell University's Conneman project. Other Federal
    partners include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Small
    Business Administration, and in USDA--Rural Development, Economic
    Research Service, Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service,
    Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education, and National Resource
    and Conservation Service. The regional centers continue to expand their
    non-Federal partnership base and have established an impressive record
    of brokering partnerships with private foundations and non-governmental
    organizations, as well as other Federal partners, to meet their goals
    and extend the impact of their allocated Federal dollars.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The four regional rural development centers include the
    following: Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development at
    Pennsylvania State University; North Central Regional Center for Rural
    Development at Iowa State University; Southern Rural Development Center
    at Mississippi State University; and Western Rural Development Center
    at Utah State University. The state level rural development centers are
    at North Dakota State University and Louisiana Tech University. Most of
    the research sponsored by the four regional centers is performed by
    resident faculty at land-grant universities in the respective region
    through subcontracts from that center's grant.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
        Answer. The regional rural development centers were established to
    provide an on-going ``value added'' component to link research and
    extension and by doing so to increase rural development under the
    special conditions in each region. The work of the Centers is being
    carried out in all 50 states and in some territories. The Centers
    compile a report of annual accomplishments and share those with the
    states in the region. Accomplishments are now shared through
    sophisticated, interactive web sites. The list of needs is constantly
    evolving and is being addressed through projects that are matched to
    the constantly shifting local and regional agenda. The current phase of
    the program will be completed in 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The proposals for the four regional and two state centers
    have all undergone merit reviews. The regional centers enlist the help
    of academic and private/public foundations personnel on advisory
    committees, boards of directors, and technical advisory committees to
    help establish research and extension priorities and operating rules
    and to provide professional, technical counsel and peer evaluation of
    Center projects and the investigators. The projects are evaluated
    annually through peer review of scientific merit by the advisory
    committees and through merit review by the boards of directors against
    the five key issue areas and the objectives of each project for
    relevance, achievement, and initial impacts. Follow-up evaluation is
    carried out by the Center staffs in order to assess long-term impacts
    of these projects on local communities.
        The Southern Rural Development Center was engaged in strategic
    planning over the course of the last six months of 2000. Input from
    over 150 individuals was studied by the Technical Advisory Committee
    and discussed at its fall 2000 meeting. That committee will submit
    recommendations in January 2001 to the Center's board of directors.
        A full outside review of the North Central Regional Center for
    Rural Development was conducted in 2000. The review team concluded,
    ``The Center is doing consistently high quality work. It has had
    considerable impact on rural development research and extension in the
    land-grant universities across the region, and nationally, and it has
    been of benefit to many non-government organizations, community
    leaders, and state and Federal agencies beyond the land-grant system.''
    The team's positive assessment of the Center's performance led it to
    recommend that ``The Center should continue its integrative research-
    engagement approach in its own projects but it is now time to take this
    approach beyond its own projects and become a promoter and teacher of
    an integrative approach throughout the region and the country. The
    Center is a leader in rural development at the national and regional
    levels and has facilitated and nurtured the development of leadership
    among the region's states and communities.''
                      rural policies institute, ne, ia, mo
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Rural Policies Institute, Nebraska, Iowa, and
    Missouri grant.
        Answer. The Rural Policy Research Institute is a consortium of
    three universities designed to create a comprehensive approach to rural
    policy analysis. The Institute conducts research and facilitates public
    dialogue to increase public understanding of the rural impacts of
    national, regional, state, and local policies on rural areas of the
    U.S.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. There is a need to estimate the impacts of changing state
    and national programs and policies on rural people and places.
    Objective public policy analysis can provide timely and accurate
    estimates of the impacts of proposed policy changes to allow more
    reasoned policy discussions and decisions. The principal researcher
    believes this research meets national, regional, and local needs.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the Rural Policy Research Institute
    was to create a new model to provide timely, accurate, and unbiased
    estimates of the impacts of policies and new policy initiatives on
    rural people and places. That model was developed, and the Institute's
    policy analysis research and dissemination activities have expanded
    significantly. The Institute's programs develop in response to current
    and emerging issues in rural America. Work in 2000 centered on six
    Institute projects: the Community Policy Analysis Network, Rural Equity
    Capital Initiative, Rural Health Panel, Operation Rural Health Works,
    Targeted Rural Economic Development, and Rural Welfare Reform Panel.
    The Community Policy Analysis Network refined methods of modeling
    policy alternatives at the community level. Their efforts provide
    quantitative estimates of economic, demographic, and fiscal effects of
    policy alternatives on local communities of different types and in
    different regions. Members of the Network published 2 white papers, 9
    journal articles and book chapters, and 15 staff papers and research
    reports. The Rural Equity Capital Initiative mobilized scientists to
    examine issues related to access to capital for rural development and
    resulted in 2 policy briefs, 5 presentations at conferences, and
    consultations with governors in Ohio and Missouri. Rural Health Panel
    members published 6 policy papers, 2 policy briefs, and 2 journal
    articles. They also contributed to congressional staff briefings on
    medicare, prescription drugs, and other rural health insurance issues
    and presented papers at seven professional meetings. Through Operation
    Rural Health Works, the Institute published a policy brief on
    community-level impacts of losing health care infrastructure and
    produced a video on saving rural hospitals. Other outreach included
    Congressional testimony, presentations at 13 professional meetings, and
    workshops in Washington, D.C., and 13 states. The Institute's work on
    Targeted Rural Economic Development is a new project area. It resulted
    in presentations and extension programs in four states, website
    publications, and steps to establish partnerships for the project,
    including the U.S. Forest Service and the Economic Development
    Administration. The Rural Welfare Reform Panel published two white
    papers and a database on welfare reform research, and the Institute co-
    sponsored a national research conference and organized a congressional
    briefing on rural dimensions of welfare reform. During 2000, the
    Institute also analyzed classifications of metropolitan and
    micropolitan areas proposed by the Office of Management and Budget;
    developed methods to analyze the impacts of Living Wage legislation on
    workers, businesses, and the public sector; advised the National
    Governors' Association on workforce development and entrepreneurship;
    served as a consultant for the Wallace Institute on the Farm Bill and
    for the Kauffman Foundation on minority, rural, and non-profit
    strategic planning; served on the Pinchot Institute's Task Force
    reviewing the U.S. Forest Service Cooperative Forestry Programs; and
    worked with the Congressional Rural Caucus on numerous briefings. The
    Institute's work is published and cited in numerous academic journals,
    discussed in the media, and widely used by policy decision makers at
    all levels of government.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by these grants began in fiscal year
    1991 and the appropriation for fiscal year 1991 was $375,000. The
    fiscal year 1992 appropriation was $525,000; for fiscal year 1993,
    $692,000; for fiscal year 1994, $494,000; for fiscal years 1995-2000,
    $644,000 each year; and for fiscal year 2001, $820,192. A total of
    $6,770,192 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Aggregated non-Federal funds to support the Rural Policy
    Research Institute across the three involved universities include
    unrecovered indirect costs, salary support from university and other
    non-Federal sources, and various other grants, contracts, and
    reimbursable agreements. They amounted to $316,458 for fiscal year
    1991; $417,456 in fiscal year 1992; $605,302 in fiscal year 1993;
    $537,834 in fiscal year 1994; $584,516 in fiscal year 1995; for fiscal
    year 1996, $576,782; for fiscal year 1997, $186,859; for fiscal year
    1998, $153,614; for fiscal year 1999, $168,450 for; for fiscal year
    2000, $137,254; and an estimated $188,382 for 2001. Total to date,
    including the 2001 estimate, is $3,872,907.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The Institute's member universities are: the University of
    Missouri-Columbia; the University of Nebraska-Lincoln; and Iowa State
    University, Ames.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1991 was for a period of 24
    months; however, rural communities continue to be impacted by major
    socio-economic changes as well as state and Federal policy changes.
    Citizens and elected officials at all levels of government continue to
    need expert analysis of the impacts of current policies and policy
    changes and of alternatives. CSREES funding supports the Institute's
    ability to generate research on changing conditions in rural America
    and conduct briefings on a myriad of rural policy issues The current
    phase of the program will be completed in 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in February
    1999, as it evaluated the 1999 project proposal, and determined that:
    ``[The Institute] is an effective interdisciplinary, multistate effort
    that supports the mandates for collaboration in the Agricultural
    Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998. Its work supports
    CSREES strategic goals of enhancing economic opportunity and quality of
    life. The principal investigator and participants are well qualified to
    conduct the project.''
                         russian wheat aphid, colorado
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Russian Wheat Aphid, Colorado grant.
        Answer. Funding will support two key areas of research that are
    needed to assure long-term and sustainable Russian wheat aphid
    management. These are: (1) Discovering new crop genes which provide
    resistance to the Russian wheat aphid and incorporating them into
    commercially-acceptable wheat varieties, and (2) Integrating the
    available control tactics into the most effective, efficient, and
    environmentally-sound production systems for the Great Plains.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Russian wheat aphid is an exotic invasive pest that
    entered the western U.S. without its normal complement of biological
    control agents. This insect has rapidly become the most important
    insect pest of wheat in the western U.S. From 1986-1991, the total
    economic impact was estimated to be in excess of $657 million. In the
    same period, some 17.5 million pounds of insecticides were used
    nationally for Russian wheat aphid control. The cost to American
    farmers of insecticide treatments was over $70 million. In addition,
    the intense use of insecticides on a crop that previously received
    little insecticide treatment raised concerns about the impact on water
    quality, human health, food safety, non-target organisms, and general
    environmental quality. Direct losses in Colorado have been as high as
    $27 million in a single year with an average direct loss of above $11
    million per year since 1987.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goals of the research are to: (1) Discover new crop
    genes which provide resistance to the Russian wheat aphid and
    incorporate them into commercially-acceptable wheat varieties; and (2)
    Integrate the available control tactics into the most effective,
    efficient, and environmentally-sound production systems for the Great
    Plains. The techniques of molecular genetics are being employed to
    reach the goal of identifying new genes for resistance to Russian wheat
    aphid and incorporating them into commercially-acceptable wheat
    varieties.
        In addition, the mapping effort of this project will access cDNA
    libraries produced under a National Science Foundation grant awarded to
    a team of U.S. wheat researchers for the purpose of developing tools
    for wheat genomics. Progress has been made in Integrating Tactics for
    Management of the Russian wheat aphid. In 1998, experimental dryland
    cropping systems were established in eastern Colorado. Long-term
    studies compare the experimental systems with typical wheat production
    systems in the area. The experimental systems were designed to optimize
    the effects of environmentally-sound pest management tactics and
    Russian wheat aphid numbers through the actions of predators and
    parasites. In addition, the experimental systems were designed to
    optimize water use efficiency and other agronomic and profitability
    factors.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1998 through 2000 was $200,000
    per year; and for fiscal year 2001, $249,450. A total of $849,450 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. State appropriations and the Colorado Wheat Administrative
    Committee have demonstrated strong support for this effort. The total
    per year is approximately $775,000 in new funding from the state of
    Colorado and redirected funds from within the university.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted on the campus of Colorado State
    University, at Colorado State University research stations, and on the
    farms of cooperators throughout Colorado. Outreach and extension
    activities are being shared with scientists and wheat growers in
    Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, Kansas, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project is anticipated to continue for a total of five
    years with a completion date of July 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was evaluated by a CSREES site visit on
    February 4 and 5, 1999. Laboratory, greenhouse, and field research
    facilities available for the research program underway are excellent
    and progress has been excellent. Greenhouse space appears adequate for
    the work, and the units are well adapted for the wheat breeding
    program. Rearing facilities and the support personnel for maintaining a
    source of aphids used for bioassays are also excellent. Research
    laboratories are very well equipped for the studies, either proposed or
    underway, and there is strong technical support for the research which
    involves application of techniques of molecular genetics to wheat
    breeding. The research scientists represent strengths in both classical
    or traditional wheat breeding and new molecular genetics-based wheat
    breeding. The group also has strong, well recognized expertise in
    Russian wheat aphid biology, ecology, and management and also in
    dryland wheat production systems used in the Great Plains states. In
    short, there would appear to be few, if any, other locations which
    could match the combination of facilities, equipment, and scientific
    and technical support needed to achieve the goals of this project. The
    project is a multifaceted, multi-disciplinary program which is directed
    toward long-term solutions for Russian wheat aphid management utilizing
    a viable combination of approaches which requires the type of
    facilities and equipment available at this location.
                       safe vegetable production, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Safe Vegetable Production, Georgia grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant and the University of Georgia is
    presently preparing a grant proposal for submission.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the principal investigator, 1.37 billion tons
    of animal manure is produced annually in the United States.
    Approximately 90 percent of this is produced by cattle. Farm surveys
    indicated that 1 to 5 percent of the cattle shed E. coli 0157:H7, a
    human pathogen, in their manure. Since human consumption of organic
    produce is increasing at an unprecedented rate, and since many organic
    farmers use bovine manure as a fertilizer, research is needed to
    develop practical methods of treating manure to assure that it is safe
    when used as a fertilizer in vegetable production.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this project is to evaluate the hazards
    associated with manure used as fertilizer in vegetable production and
    to develop innovative and practical treatments to reduce the risk of
    spreading harmful microorganisms to crops from manure.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $284,373.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This is a cooperative project between the Center for Food
    Safety and Quality Enhancement, University of Georgia, Griffin; the
    Coastal Plain Experiment Station, University of Georgia, Tifton; the
    USDA/ARS Soil-Microbial Systems laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland; and
    private industry. Industry has committed $50,000 to this project for
    fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out at the Center for Food Safety
    and Quality Enhancement, University of Georgia, Griffin; the Coastal
    Plain Experiment Station, University of Georgia, Tifton; and the USDA/
    ARS Soil-Microbial Systems laboratory, Beltsville, Maryland.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is the end of fiscal year 2004. This is a new project and research of
    the original objectives has just begun.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. A peer review of the project will be
    undertaken by the performing institution, and the agency will conduct a
    throughout evaluation of the proposal upon receipt.
                       satsuma orange production, alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Satsuma Orange Production, Alabama grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant and Auburn researchers are presently
    preparing a grant proposal for submission.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Satsuma oranges are a type of orange commonly referred to
    as tangerines. In the past, there was significant production of satsuma
    oranges in Alabama. However, a series of unusually cold winters has
    placed this important production system at risk of being lost. Research
    is needed to determine practical new methods for raising satsuma
    oranges and to develop cold tolerant plant material.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify new ways
    of producing satsuma oranges under potentially unfavorable
    environmental conditions. This is a new grant and the work has not yet
    begun.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2001 is $473,955.
        Question. What is the amount and source of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Presently no non-Federal funds are being provided.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out by the Alabama Agricultural
    Experiment Station, with a subcontract to the Citrus Research Station
    of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is a new project and the anticipated completion date
    has not yet been determined.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. This is a new project. A peer review of the project will be
    undertaken by the performing institution and the agency will conduct a
    throughout evaluation of the proposal upon receipt.
                    sclerotinia disease research, minnesota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sclerotinia Disease Research, Minnesota grant.
        Answer. Research will focus on spring planted canola which is
    increasing in importance as an alternative crop in the upper midwest
    states of Minnesota and North Dakota. The main objective of the
    research is to develop strategies for growers to use to manage
    sclerotinia to prevent yield reductions in canola fields.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The scope of the research will be to investigate the
    disease Sclerotina, also known as white mold, affecting canola. This is
    a serious disease that affects a number of rotational crops such as
    sunflower, soybeans, dry beans, and canola in the Red River Valley of
    Minnesota and North Dakota. Yield losses can be as high as 50 percent.
    Canola is a source of an excellent low-saturated fat edible oil the can
    be used to meet increased consumer demands for healthy oil.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The main objective of the research is to develop strategies
    for growers to use to manage sclerotinia to prevent yield reductions in
    canola fields. There are six sub-objectives which are: variety
    evaluation and selection; fungicide evaluation for control of
    sclerotinia; sclerotinia forecasting model for sclerotinia control;
    sclerotinia ascospore infection techniques for canola; influence of
    crop rotation on canola diseases; and survey of grower fields for
    sclerotinia.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001 ?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $237,476.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since the proposal has not been submitted to CSREES, the
    non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant cannot be
    determined at this time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted jointly by the University of
    Minnesota and the North Dakota State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is five years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the programmatic merits of the
    proposal by at least one senior scientist. Additionally, the university
    will provide a peer review prior to submitting their grant.
             seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing, alaska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing,
    Alaska grant.
        Answer. This project was initiated in fiscal year 2000. The goal of
    this project is to improve and develop technologies in seafood
    harvesting, processing, product development, and marketing Alaska. The
    CSREES Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing Program for fiscal
    year 2000 has six subprojects. They are entitled: ``Building an
    Industrial Test Version of a High Capacity Automated Pinbone Removal
    Machine for In-Plant Tests'', ``Utilizing By-Catch: Developing
    Processes for Texturized, Cooked Minces for Food Service Application'',
    ``Opportunities for Flaked Products from Pink Salmon'', ``Feasibility
    Study--Evaluation of Spectroscopic and Imaging Technologies for
    Detecting Bruising in Salmon'', ``The Digital Observer Project--
    Development of Fish Recognition and Weight Estimation Software'' and
    ``Feasibility Study for Alaska Herring Food Product Diversification.''
    A proposal in support of fiscal year 2001 has been requested.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Alaska harvests more than half of all the fish landed in
    the U.S. and upwards of 65 percent of the food fish. The subprojects in
    this program are designed to help increase the value of Alaska's
    Seafood Industry through fostering greater utilization of the fisheries
    resources as human food and greater efficiency in their production.
    Federal support for research in this area has dropped from $17.3
    million to little more than $1 million nationwide, largely through a
    significant reduction in Saltonstall-Kennedy funds. The funds are
    appropriated from duty collected on imported seafood to National Marine
    and Fisheries Service, which in turn makes grants to U.S. universities.
    USDA traditionally has supported fish food research primarily from
    aquacultured fish. The State of Alaska and private industry have been
    supporting applied fisheries research. Though the product is harvested
    in Alaska, the benefits are shared with fishermen residents in
    Washington State, Oregon, California, and throughout the nation.
        Question. What is the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The objective is to complete the six subprojects listed
    above. These projects have considerable significance to the Seafood
    Industry. Informed people from government and industry helped to
    identify the most important objectives facing the industry. The
    subprojects mentioned address pertinent research needs in the areas of
    harvesting, processing, and marketing of Alaska seafood.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This project was started in fiscal year 2000 with an award
    of $552,500. In fiscal year 2001, the amount to be appropriated is
    $1,165,430. A total of 1,717,930 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Our estimates for industry contributions for the
    subprojects are as follows: (1) Building an Industrial Test Version of
    a High Capacity Automated Pinbone Removal Machine for In-Plant Tests,
    Summer 2000. Industry contributions total $18,000; (2) Utilizing By-
    Catch: Developing Processes for Texturized, Cooked Minces for Food
    Service Application. Industry contribution $28,000: (3) Opportunities
    for Flaked Products from Pink Salmon. Industry contribution $15,000;
    (4) Feasibility Study--Evaluation of Spectroscopic and Imaging
    Technologies for Detecting Bruising in Salmon. Industrial contribution
    $8,500; (5) Digital Observer Project--Development of Fish Recognition
    and Weight Estimation Software. This is part of a much larger project
    for which the total industrial contribution is over $200,000; and (6)
    Feasibility study for Alaska Herring Food Product Diversification.
    Industrial contribution $13,200. Total industry contribution is
    approximately $282,700.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted by scientists at the University
    of Alaska--Fishery Industrial Technology Center in Kodiak, Alaska; The
    University of Alaska, Fairbanks; The Center for Applied Regional
    Studies, Cambridge Massachusetts; Washington State University; and
    Cornell University.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion of the full objectives of this
    research is one year.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was reviewed on August 30, 2000. The proposal
    aims to advance the Alaskan Seafood Industry through research problems
    facing harvesting, processing, and marketing of seafood. The goal is to
    increase the resources and value of Alaskan seafood. New and value
    added products will be developed from pink salmon, herring, and arrow
    tooth flounder. Appropriate new technologies will be developed.
           seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing, mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Seafood Harvesting, Processing, and Marketing,
    Mississippi grant.
        Answer. Research related to seafood safety, quality, and by-product
    utilization has been supported by this grant. For fiscal year 2000,
    funds supported research on: (1) antimicrobial potential of phloxine B
    against Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli, Saccharomyces
    cerevisiae, and Aspergillus niger; (2) effects of starvation and acid
    stress on the growth characteristics, heat tolerance, freeze thaw
    stability, and virulence factor expression of Aeromonas hydrophila; and
    (3) processing yield and proximate composition, color, microbial
    counts, and surimi quality of mince obtained from under-utilized Gulf
    Coast fish. Funds from the fiscal year 2000 grant are supporting
    research through September 30, 2001. A proposal in support of fiscal
    year 2001 funds has been requested
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The national needs reflected in the project include
    providing consumers with affordable alternative seafood products and
    assessing the food safety implications of new antimicrobial agents and
    emerging pathogens. Continuation of this project will provide continued
    assistance to Gulf-Coast seafood processors in meeting new U.S.
    regulations as well as new international regulations that are important
    for Mississippi export products. Locally, catfish processors are a
    major employer of the severely economically-depressed Delta region of
    Mississippi. By further enhancing the value of catfish products, this
    project seeks to improve the livelihood of individuals both on the Gulf
    coast and in the aquaculture region of the state.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of the research were to improve the
    quality and safety of catfish and improve the utilization of catfish
    byproducts and underutilized marine species. Due to successes of the
    original project, subsequent efforts are focusing on additional uses of
    seafood and aquaculture foods by improving processing strategies and
    providing alternative products from waste materials. The project has
    thus expanded to include crab, shrimp, oysters, freshwater prawns,
    hybrid striped bass, tilapia, and crawfish. The Food and Drug
    Administration has passed rulings affecting the potential viability of
    Mississippi seafood and aquaculture harvesters and processors; emphasis
    is thus being placed on addressing possible adverse consequences
    resulting from these changes.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1990
    when $368,000 was appropriated for this project. The appropriations for
    fiscal years 1991-1993 were $361,000 per year; fiscal year 1994,
    $339,000; fiscal years 1995-2000 $305,000 each year; and fiscal year
    2001, $304,329. A total of $3,924,329 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The State of Mississippi contributed $1,949 to this project
    in fiscal year 1991; $41,286 in fiscal year 1992; $67,072 in fiscal
    year 1993; $91,215 in fiscal year 1994; $147,911 in fiscal year 1995;
    and $61,848 in fiscal year 1996. Product sales contributed $7,044 in
    1991, $13,481 in 1992, $13,704 in 1993, and $5,901 in 1994. Industry
    grants contributed $14 in 1992 and $31,796 in 1993. Other non-Federal
    funds contributed $80 in fiscal year 1991, $838 in 1992, and $17,823 in
    1993. The total non-Federal funds contributed to this project from 1991
    through 1996 was $501,962. In fiscal year 1998, $151,286 in state
    funds, $8,790 in self-generated funds, and $23,877 in other non-Federal
    funds were obtained. In fiscal year 1999, $65,998.05 in state funds
    were contributed to this project. Information on funding for 2000 is
    not currently available.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted by scientists in the
    Departments of Food Science and Technology and Agricultural Economics
    of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station at
    Mississippi State University and at the Coastal Research and Extension
    Center, Seafood Processing Laboratory, in Pascagoula, Mississippi.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigators anticipate that research on the
    original objectives will be completed in 2000. Continuing needs by
    Mississippi seafood and aquaculture harvesters and processors related
    to improved quality, safety, and utilization will require research and
    development of new technologies to expand this industry.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    The last review of the proposal was conducted on August 30, 2000. At
    that time, the agency science specialist believed that the projects
    addressed needs and interests of the regional seafood and aquaculture
    industries.
                         seafood safety, massachusetts
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Seafood Safety, Massachusetts grant.
        Answer. Research will be conducted to improve the safety of seafood
    products.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher indicates the need to strengthen
    the local and Northeast region fisheries industry by addressing and
    solving priority seafood safety issues critical to assuring public
    health and maintaining consumer confidence in a variety of
    economically-important fisheries and aquaculture products.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to investigate
    handling, storage, and processing techniques which will improve the
    food safety of seafood products. Accomplishments to date include
    examination of fresh fish samples at the retail level for the human
    pathogen, Listeria monocytogenes, and evaluation of several chemicals
    classified as generally regarded as safe to inhibit the growth of the
    human pathogen under investigation.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $255,000 and the fiscal year
    2001 appropriation is $277,388. The total appropriated for this project
    is $532,388.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2000, $13,000 was obtained from the American
    Meat Institute, and an additional $12,000 was made available from the
    Department of Food Science, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
    Industrial Endowment Fund. Additional non-Federal funds are anticipated
    for the fiscal year 2001 grant.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of
    Massachusetts-Amherst, Chenoweth Laboratory of the Department of Food
    Science through the Agricultural Experiment Station and in cooperation
    with seafood processing plants located in Gloucester and Boston,
    Massachusetts.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is fiscal year 2002. Work is progressing and is still ongoing relative
    to the original objectives.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency will evaluate the progress of this project on an
    annual basis. The university submitted an accomplishment report for
    evaluation purposes for fiscal year 2000 activities that will be
    updated in the new grant proposal submitted to CSREES for fiscal year
    2001 funding. The 2001 CSREES review will be completed within three
    weeks of submission of the fiscal year 2001 grant proposal.
                      small fruit research, or, wa, and id
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Small Fruit Research, Oregon, Washington, and
    Idaho grant.
        Answer. Funding for this special grant has been used to enhance the
    production and quality of small fruits--blackberry, blueberry,
    caneberry, cranberry, marionberry, raspberry, strawberry, and grape in
    the Pacific Northwestern states of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
    Research has been focused on crop genetics, production/physiology, pest
    management, berry/grape processing, marketing, and wine production.
    Proposals are reviewed and selected after evaluation of their
    scientific merit and relevance to priorities identified within the
    region.
        Question. According the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The importance of berry and grape crops to the region has
    long been recognized by the three northwest states: Washington, Idaho,
    and Oregon. These crops are mainstays of high-value, specialty
    horticulture. The universities and small fruits industry have made a
    strong commitment to the improvement of these crops as evidenced by the
    high level of internally-developed resources for research and
    marketing. There is a considerable demand for fresh and processed berry
    products in the U.S. and in urban Asian markets. Research on
    international consumer preferences, packaging, and products continues
    to be essential.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. Genetic improvement of small fruit cultivars continues to
    be a powerful tool using germplasm collection and identification, field
    evaluation of new germplasm, and advanced selections from breeding
    programs, virus identification and elimination, and approaches that
    utilize genetic engineering. Research is identifying cultivars and
    developing cultural practices that growers can utilize to reduce crop
    losses. Research is evaluating and investigating nutritional factors,
    cultural management, temperature stress, effects of pruning, micro
    propagation, cold hardiness/low temperature injury, and effects of
    viticulture practices on wine quality and of winery processing on wine
    quality.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001.
        Answer. The initial support for this grant was an appropriation in
    fiscal year 1991 for $125,000. The fiscal appropriation for 1992 and
    1993 was $187,000 per year; fiscal year 1994 was $235,000; fiscal years
    1995-1998 were $212,000 each year; fiscal year 1999 and 2000 was
    $300,000 each year; and is $324,285 for fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $2,506,285 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. There are no non-Federal funds supplementing this grant.
    This project involves the use of the Oregon State University
    administrative personnel, equipment, utilities, and facilities that are
    indirect costs to the project. These costs constitute an OSU
    contribution to this research project.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at Oregon State University,
    Washington State University, and the University of Idaho. Oregon State
    University is the lead institution for this project.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives are still valid researchable
    issues, therefore this is a continuing process with priorities annually
    re-evaluated to appropriately adjust research direction within the
    project objectives.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project evaluation process is accomplished annually by
    peer reviewers whom are chosen and organized by expertise according to
    the five technical working groups with input from the designated
    Agricultural Experiment Station Representatives in Washington, Oregon,
    and Idaho. The Program Administrator in each state contacts possible
    reviewers for each proposal. The chair of the review process annually
    rotate between the Agricultural Experiment Station representatives.
    Each submitted proposal is peer-reviewed by a panel of five
    individuals--three scientists and two industry representatives--and is
    grouped into one of the Center Technical Working Groups, namely
    genetics, pest management, production/physiology, processing/packaging,
    and marketing. Proposals are evaluated on the following criteria: (1)
    The nature of the proposed research and its relevance to the needs of
    the small fruit industries; (2) The relevance of the proposal to
    current small fruit research designated priorities; (3) The scientific
    expertise of the scientists involved--training, experience, and
    accomplishments relative to specific areas of small fruit research; (4)
    The appropriateness of the level of funding requested, vis-a-vis,
    availability of funds; and (5) The likelihood of success. Reviewers
    complete an evaluation sheet for each proposal, rating the five
    criteria on a scale of one to ten, with ten being the best. Previously
    awarded projects are given special consideration in order to allow for
    funding for up to three years--when appropriate progress is
    demonstrated. Compilation of evaluations are distributed to the three
    Agricultural Experiment Station Directors and the USDA-Agricultural
    Research Service--ARS--Horticultural Crops Research Laboratory Research
    Leader, who make the final determination of funding for each proposed
    project. Notification of awards are made in December. The peer review
    of all proposals is coordinated and processed through the Northwest
    Center for Small Fruit.
          southwest consortium for plant genetics and water resources
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded by the Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water
    Resources Grant.
        Answer. Work funded by this grant is cooperative, innovative, and
    relevant to crop adaptation in arid and semi-arid lands. The primary
    objectives of research funded by the Southwest Consortium are: to
    determine and evaluate tolerance to biological and chemical stresses in
    desert plants, to determine the impact of these stresses on
    susceptibility of plants to pests and pathogens as well as on the
    activities of symbionts and beneficial organisms, and to determine and
    evaluate genetic modification of plants that are targeted for better
    adaptability to stress of arid and semi-arid environments and the
    problems of water use efficiency and water quality.
        All funded research has a water and a genetic component and
    requires an interdisciplinary research team. The interdisciplinary
    research teams are formed from researchers at the five participating
    southwestern institutions, which include New Mexico State University,
    Texas Tech University, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of
    Arizona, and the University of California in Riverside.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This research is highly significant on all levels. The
    Southwest Consortium conducts an integrated program that identifies
    specific problems of southwest agriculture, coordinates water and
    biotechnology research aimed at solving these problems, and facilitates
    the transfer of this information for further research, development, and
    commercialization. This coordinated arid lands research is relevant,
    necessary, and can be applied regionally, nationally, and locally, as
    well as be applied for international improvements of arid lands
    agriculture.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original and ongoing goal of this research is to
    provide funding for the development of innovative and competitive
    research that is relevant to arid lands agriculture. The Southwest
    Consortium is a mini-grant program which awards seed money to
    researchers from the five participating institutions. Projects are
    selected for funding based on a thorough external and committee peer
    review. Over 50 projects have been funded since the Consortium was
    established in 1986, with numerous accomplishments in research relevant
    to arid lands agriculture. Among the most recent accomplishments are:
    genetic analysis of heat tolerance in cotton; hydraulic lift to improve
    drought tolerance in crop plants; molecular mapping of heat tolerance
    genes in corn; exploration of plant defenses to aphids and whiteflies;
    and identification of stress induced gene products using enhancer gene
    traps. Data collected from the first ten years of the Consortium--1986-
    1995--show that Consortium funding has been successfully leveraged by
    researchers toward the acquisition of an additional $4,836,208 in
    research funding from other agencies, and that a total of 88 peer
    review scientific publications resulted from Consortium work funded
    during this period.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated through the year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1986
    and has been provided with appropriations of the following amounts:
    fiscal year 1986, $285,000; fiscal years 1987 through 1989, $385,000
    per year; fiscal year 1990, $380,000; fiscal years 1991 through 1993,
    $400,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $376,000; fiscal years 1995
    through 2000, $338,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $368,188. A
    total of $5,792,188 has been appropriated since fiscal year 1986.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The source of matching funds is derived from the support
    from the five participating institutions in the form of support
    researchers, salaries, facilities, equipment maintenance, and
    administrative assistance. It is estimated that the amount of non-
    Federal supporting funds during fiscal years 1993-2000 is $100,000 per
    year.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research on this grant is conducted at the five
    participating institutions in the laboratories and support laboratories
    of the principal investigators on each mini-grant project.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Southwest Consortium was initiated in 1986. Each year,
    additional and related objectives have been developed and the
    anticipated completion date for these is 2002. The original objectives
    of the project have successfully been met.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation provided.
        Answer. Mini-grants are awarded competitively to support research
    that will lead to solutions of problems unique to agricultural
    production in the southwest. The mini-grant selection process is
    competitive with each proposal subjected to a rigorous review process
    that includes external scientific peer review and internal review by
    the Consortium Steering and Scientific Committees. A progress report is
    submitted for review by each funded mini-grant project prior to the
    award of second year funds. CSREES reviews the complete Southwest
    Consortium progress report on a yearly basis.
                        soybean cyst nematode, missouri
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Soybean Cyst Nematode, Missouri grant.
        Answer. The research being funded by this grant is crucial to the
    development of effective management strategies to understand host
    parasite relationships of the pathosystems and each of its components.
    Work has dealt mainly with identifying Heterodera glycines-resistant
    genes and incorporating them into agronomically-superior cultivars.
    Basic studies elucidate the fundamental biology of the cyst nematode in
    regard to new management strategies. Applied work dealt with evaluating
    production systems and to new management strategies. This project was
    not awarded competitively but has undergone peer review at the
    university level and merit review at CSREES.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that although this
    research is focused on the soybean cyst nematodes in Missouri, the
    problem is of regional and national significance. The soybean cyst
    nematode, Heterodera glycines is the most serious pest of soybean in
    the U.S. The problems continue to increase in the midwest where 12
    states have yield reductions in soybean because of this nematode. Due
    to the nematodes ability to adapt to resistant varieties over time, new
    varieties are continually needed.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this research is managing soybean cyst nematode
    through the various management strategies including the development of
    new resistant soybean varieties. To date, several nematode resistant
    soybean lines have been or will be released. The need for breeding
    soybean lines to develop resistant varieties with a broad spectrum of
    resistance continues. More fundamental research involves the
    utilization of new molecular technologies to identify genes responsible
    for resistance. Other aspects of the work relates to field management
    strategies for these nematodes.
        Question. How long has work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1979, $150,000; fiscal years 1980-1981, $250,000
    per year; fiscal year 1982, $240,000; fiscal years 1983-1985, $300,000
    per year; fiscal years 1986-1989, $285,000 per year; fiscal year 1990,
    $281,000; fiscal year 1991, $330,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $359,000
    per year; fiscal year 1994, $337,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $303,000
    per year; fiscal year 1998, $450,000, fiscal years 1999-2000, $475,000
    per year; and fiscal year 2001, $598,680. A total of $7,503,680 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $105,012 state appropriations in 1991; $84,368 state
    appropriations in 1992; $168,017 state appropriations in 1993; $118,725
    state appropriations in 1994; $33,498 in 1995 and 1996; $33,723 in
    state appropriations in 1997; $37,445 in state appropriations in 1998;
    and $201,994 in 1999 and $200,000 in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at the Missouri
    Agriculture Experiment Station and the University of Missouri.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Many objectives are being met, but genetic interaction of
    the soybean cyst nematode/soybean is extremely complex. The anticipated
    completion date of the continuing research is in 2004-2006.
        Question. What was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last evaluation of this project was a merit review in
    January 1999 and the renewal project was evaluated in 2000. In summary,
    continued development of new management strategies for the soybean cyst
    nematode is extremely important. Progress continues with nematode
    resistance being released yearly as well as excellent progress in other
    management strategies. Certified seed of MPV437-NRR was made available
    to farmers in 1999. A new soybean variety, ``Anand'' was released in
    2001. Another high yielding soybean strain, S96-1908 was developed that
    is resistant to all races of soybean cyst nematodes and is being
    evaluated in the uniform tests. More fundamental research involves the
    utilization of new molecular technologies to identify genes responsible
    for resistance. Seven genetic markers associated with loci controlling
    resistance to soybean cyst nematode were found in Peking, China, which
    may be useful in marker assisted selection for resistant lines. Other
    aspects of the work relates to field management strategies for these
    nematodes including effects of nutrient uptake on nematode development.
    A seven-year study of the effects of soybean cyst nematode on soybean
    growth and development was recently completed. It showed among other
    things that a grower's choice of tillage methods and date of planting
    are relatively unimportant in their strategy to control soybean cyst
    nematodes. Another study indicated that nitrogen accumulation and
    fixation are limited under high soybean cyst nematode infections.
                 steep iii--water quality in pacific northwest
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the STEEP III--Water Quality in the Pacific Northwest
    grant.
        Answer. The STEEP III study was established in 1996 as the third
    phase of the tri-state STEEP Program entitled, ``Solutions to
    Environmental and Economic Problems'' to meet the needs of farmers and
    ranchers in the Pacific Northwest in solving severe problems with soil
    erosion and water quality, while maintaining economically- and
    environmentally-sustainable agricultural production. An open call for
    research proposals is held by three cooperating states, Idaho, Oregon,
    and Washington. Awards are made competitively after both internal and
    external peer reviews within the states, and merit review by the
    agency. The project is in a new phase and is just known as STEEP
    because the STEEP III objectives have been completed.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to the research proposal, the soils of the
    Pacific Northwest wheat region are subject to severe wind and water
    erosion, which has taken a heavy toll of the topsoil in a little more
    than 100 years of farming. Due to the hilly terrain, water erosion has
    reduced potential soil productivity in the high rainfall areas of the
    region by about 50 percent. Wind erosion has reduced productivity on
    the sandy soils in the lower rainfall areas. Also, off-site
    environmental costs of water erosion are large. Although many of these
    are difficult to measure, they include damage from sediment to
    recreational areas, roadways, and other areas which costs taxpayers
    millions of dollars annually. Wind erosion, which occurs mostly in the
    spring and fall, also can be costly and environmentally damaging to air
    quality and causes increasing concerns for human health and safety from
    blowing dusts. Water quality degradation is of increasing concern in
    the agricultural areas of this region, since sediment is a major
    pollutant of surface water runoff which may also carry potential
    chemical contaminants. The complex hydrology of the region's landscape
    has made it difficult to identify the sources of these chemicals in
    surface and ground waters. A new major emphasis has been the funding of
    direct seed research in combination with reduction in summer fallow and
    more complex crop rotations. Direct seed is synonymous with no till
    where tillage is eliminated or reduced to a very minimum. Consequently,
    soil and wind erosion are reduced significantly improving soil and
    water quality and contributing to salmon recovery.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The primary goals are: to obtain and integrate new
    technical/scientific information on soils, crop plants, pests, energy,
    and farm profitability into sustainable, management systems; to develop
    tools for assessing the impacts of farming practices on soil erosion
    and water quality; and to disseminate conservation technology to the
    farm.
        The original STEEP and following STEEP II and STEEP III projects
    for erosion and water quality control, have provided growers a steady
    flow of information and technologies that have helped them meet
    economic, environmental, and resource conservation goals. Through the
    adoption of these technologies, the researchers believe that growers of
    wheat, barley, and other alternative crops have been able to reduce
    soil erosion by water and wind, improve water quality, and maintain or
    increase farm profitability. This has been accomplished through a tri-
    state, multi-disciplinary, multi-agency approach of basic and applied
    research, along with technology transfer and on-farm testing to assist
    growers with applying these research findings on their farms. The on-
    farm testing program has directly involved growers and stakeholders in
    the planning and conduct of the research and educational efforts--and
    has helped growers evaluate conservation options, such as residue
    management, to meet conservation compliance requirements.
        STEEP programs have helped position farmers with new conservation
    technologies, such as direct seeding management systems, well in
    advance of deadlines to meet current and anticipated policy
    requirements. This preparation protects farmers against potential
    penalties and loss of government program benefits. The new emphasis on
    direct seeding has significantly reduced summer fallow through more
    annual cropping and through more emphasis on alternative crops.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1991,
    and the appropriations for fiscal years 1991-1993 were $980,000 per
    year; in fiscal year 1994, $921,000; in fiscal year 1995, $829,000; in
    fiscal years 1996-2000, $500,000 per year; and in fiscal year 2001,
    $498,900. A total of $7,688,900 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $938,812 state appropriations, $63,954 product sales,
    $156,656 industry, and $16,994 miscellaneous in 1991; $1,025,534 state
    appropriations, $75,795 product sales, $124,919 industry, and $88,696
    miscellaneous in 1992; $962,921 state appropriations, $62,776 product
    sales, $177,109 industry, and $11,028 miscellaneous in 1993; $1,069,396
    state appropriations, $46,582 product sales, $169,628 industry, and
    $22,697 miscellaneous in 1994; and $1,013,562 state appropriations,
    $31,314 industry, and $107,151 miscellaneous in 1995. In 1996,
    Washington received $231,724 state appropriations; Oregon passed
    Measure 5 which reduced revenues and imposed funding restrictions so
    they were unable to provide any non-Federal cost-sharing or matching
    funds; and Idaho contributed $81,525 state support, and $86,242 in
    estimated non-Federal grant support, for a total non-Federal
    contribution of $167,767. In 1997, Washington received $197,234 state
    appropriations; Oregon continues to have Measure 5 as law and continues
    to be unable to provide any non-Federal cost-sharing or matching funds;
    and Idaho contributed $27,235 state support and $24,525 in estimated
    non-Federal grant support for a total non-Federal contribution of
    $51,760. In 1998-2000, these same general levels of support have been
    continued with sources of funds from the Environmental Protection
    Agency, Washington Wheat Commission, and PM-10 Air Quality.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work under STEEP III has been performed at laboratories
    and field research sites at the University of Idaho, Oregon State
    University, and Washington State University. Cooperative on-farm
    testing will be conducted in cooperation with growers on their fields
    in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The STEEP II project was completed in 1995, and the results
    were compiled in a final, 5-year report in January 1997 showing that
    the original objectives have largely been met. The STEEP III project
    started in 1996 and continued through the year 2000 as a 5-year
    project. Four modified objectives were identified in the new STEEP
    program for 2000. The objectives are: (1) determine the impact of
    farming practices and systems on soil, water, and air quality; (2)
    develop new technologies and increase efficiency of inputs which
    improve profitability of conservation farming systems; (3) assess the
    profitability of conservation systems; and (4) accelerate grower
    evaluation and adaptation of profitable conservation farm systems.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency's program manager annually reviews progress
    reports, proposes new research on the STEEP Program, and attends the
    annual meetings to assess progress. The program is evaluated within the
    states each year by three committees: grower, technical, and
    administrative. Annual progress is reported at an annual meeting and
    compiled into written reports. These reports and the meeting are
    reviewed annually. Grower and industry input is solicited at the annual
    meeting on research objectives and accomplishments. The most recent
    evaluation was made at the January 2000 annual meeting which
    highlighted direct-seeding technology. This highly successful meeting
    attracted many growers, scientists, and agricultural experts from the
    tri-state region. Another annual review and reporting session is
    scheduled for January 2001. Farmer surveys are also distributed at each
    annual meeting, and results are compiled to assess whether objectives
    are being successfully achieved.
                      sustainable agriculture, california
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture, California grant.
        Answer. This project aims to build upon and link across individual
    efforts to provide a more comprehensive picture of the potential
    impacts of ecologically-integrated farming systems and land management
    on environmental health, farm viability, and regional communities.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Central Coast of California is a global center of fresh
    fruit and vegetable production and innovative production and marketing
    methods. According to the research proposal, the project is needed to
    help the region respond to a new period of challenge arising from
    globalization of markets, environmental conservation needs, and the
    claims of Latino farm workers and small farmers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This project aims to develop economically-viable and
    environmentally-sound production systems for strawberries and
    vegetables, to enhance ecosystem health in multiple-use watersheds, and
    to assess the feasibility of alternative production and marketing
    strategies, including consumer education.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $255,000 and in fiscal
    year 2001 is $392,135. The total appropriation is $647,135.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds are shown in the project proposal, but
    the project entails a consortium approach involving several non-Federal
    partners, such as the Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau and regionally-
    based non-profit organizations which are likely to bring considerable
    in-kind contributions to the effort.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out by the Center for Agroecology
    and Sustainable Food Systems at the University of California-Santa Cruz
    in the Monterey Bay area of California.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date was May 1, 2001. The
    original objectives have not yet been completed.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
        Answer. No evaluation has yet taken place since the project has
    been underway less than one year.
                       sustainable agriculture, michigan
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture, Michigan grant.
        Answer. This project is intended to develop agricultural production
    systems that are highly productive and profitable and which provide
    high quality ecosystem services to local communities and to the
    environment. It examines how to achieve a high nutrient flow from soil
    to crops and animals, and back to soil, with low loss to ground and
    surface waters. The grant is allocated by the Michigan Agricultural
    Experiment Station to priority areas within the general area of
    sustainable agriculture. Grants are awarded based on research merit and
    proposal submission.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research.
        Answer. The principal researcher believes there is a need to better
    understand the biological processes occurring in Michigan's high-
    nutrient-flow crop and animal systems. With high water tables, networks
    of lakes and slow-moving streams, and concern about environmental
    standards, field contamination by agricultural production materials is
    a high priority.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The objective of this research is the identification,
    quantification, and description of production ecology information to
    permit its use in a significant way in farm management decision making.
    Key areas addressed include soil carbon and nitrogen flows, soil
    nematode population management, and weed seed predation and seedbank
    management.
        Accomplishments to date include the development of on-farm compost
    demonstration sites, collection of research data and computer software
    models on water table management, completion of initial research trials
    on rotational grazing at three sites in Michigan, widespread testing of
    cover crops in several crop rotation systems, and tests of the use of
    nematology community structure as a method of detecting difference
    among farming systems. Findings from this project have demonstrated
    that rotational grazing reduces production costs, and increases net
    profits, compared to traditional cow management. This project has also
    shown that composting is an effective way of stabilizing livestock
    waste, controlling odor, and improving nutrient composition for later
    land application. Cover crop development as an integrated tool is
    becoming quite advanced. Frost seeding of wheat with clover is
    increasingly used; approximately one-third of Michigan's wheat acreage,
    by some estimates, is overseeded. Results are being integrated into a
    series of practical publications partially supported by this grant. The
    first in the series, ``Michigan Field Crop Ecology,'' received an
    American Society of Agronomy award in 1998 for excellence as an
    Extension publication. A second volume, on field crop pest ecology was
    completed in January 2000, and similar volumes for fruit and vegetable
    ecology are under development. New work on organic apple production is
    very timely, given producers' growing interest in this area.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1994
    with an appropriation of $494,000; $445,000 were appropriated in fiscal
    years 1995 through 2000; and $444,021 in fiscal year 2001, bringing
    total appropriations to $3,608,021.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Matching funds were provided at the state level for
    $511,900 in fiscal year 1994, $372,319 for fiscal year 1995, and
    $359,679 in fiscal year 1996. Matching support was not reported in
    fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being carried out in Michigan at several
    locations by Michigan State University. Locations include the Kellogg
    Biological Station, the Upper Peninsula Experiment Station, and farms
    around the state.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original project, begun in 1994, was proposed through
    April of 1997. Its specific objectives were met, with additional
    objectives addressed in subsequent related proposals. The current
    project is scheduled to go through July 31, 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A formal evaluation of the Principal Investigator's program
    was concluded in 1997, commissioned by the C.S. Mott Foundation through
    an independent consultant. The project continues to have annual peer
    review. According to the Principal Investigator, the proposal has gone
    through the normal Michigan State University review process. First, all
    teams and collaborators of the project have met and reviewed the entire
    proposal with several suggestions and changes being incorporated.
    Second, research administrators in the fields of agronomy/soil science
    and entomology/pest management covering the major dimensions of the
    proposal have reviewed it for scientific appropriateness and accuracy
    as well as for overall balance and likelihood of achieving objectives.
    Their comments have been included as revisions to the proposal.
                   sustainable agriculture systems, nebraska
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture Systems program for
    Nebraska.
        Answer. This project is aimed at integration of field crops, animal
    production, agroforestry, livestock waste management, and diversified
    enterprises to meet production, economic, and environmental quality
    goals.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska and throughout the Midwest
    face increasing difficulties in maintaining profitable operations that
    are sustainable under increased production costs and more stringent
    environmental regulations. They continue to seek alternative production
    systems, integration of crop and animal enterprises, value-added
    products, including those from woody perennials, and new marketing
    approaches to secure more of the food dollar. Work on crop residue
    utilization is highly important to assess the loss of erosion
    mitigation when grazing occurs as well as the benefits of winter forage
    to production of lean beef. Erosion is still a major problem with
    monoculture cropping, and work with contour strips, residue management,
    and animal grazing is essential to provide good recommendations to
    farmers for how to manage fragile lands.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This project has addressed a number of questions related to
    the management of integrated crop and livestock enterprises. The work
    on composting has answered questions about the costs of composting,
    improved the nutrient content of compost, and evaluated different
    spreading technologies. Because elevated levels of nitrate have been
    found underneath the composting sites, studies are underway to compare
    different crops and shrubs as scavengers of nitrogen. The work on
    contour strip cropping, residue management, no-till planting, and cover
    crops has demonstrated ways to reduce erosion on highly erodible land.
    Studies of grazing on corn residues under different tillage and
    management systems are determining the forage value of residue and the
    impact of grazing on subsequent crop production. Plots that have been
    managed with organic methods for six years are providing local
    experience in this topic of increasing grower interest.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This project began in fiscal year 1992, with an
    appropriation of $70,000; subsequent appropriations are as follows:
    $70,000 in fiscal year 1993; $66,000 in fiscal year 1994; $59,000 in
    fiscal years 1995 through 2001; and $58,870 in fiscal year 2001. Total
    appropriations to date are $618,870.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Matching funds provided for this research include state
    funds in the amount of $25,313 for fiscal year 1992; $26,384 for fiscal
    year 1993; $27,306 for fiscal year 1994; $36,091 in fiscal year 1995;
    and $24,267 in fiscal year 1996. No matching funds were reported in
    fiscal years 1997 through 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted by the University of Nebraska
    at several locations in Nebraska, with the major part of the project at
    the Agricultural Research and Development Center near Mead, Nebraska.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original project proposed work through March of 1994.
    The current project proposes work addressing additional related
    objectives through June 30, 2001. It is expected that current
    objectives of the project will be met by this time period.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
        Answer. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project, but
    progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by our
    scientific staff. The grant was awarded competitively within the
    University of Nebraska, and the integrated farm project has been
    reviewed annually for technical merit and progress toward goals by the
    internal review process of the university.
                sustainable and natural resources, pennsylvania
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture and Natural Resources,
    Pennsylvania project?
        Answer. This project studies the cycling of nutrients in soil and
    crops with special emphasis on the development of indices for
    measurement of soil health. Specific goals are to identify indicators
    of a soil ecosystem that maintains a high level of active soil organic
    matter, and to develop nutrient and carbon budgets for managing on-farm
    cropping systems.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Degradation of soil health/quality is a most serious
    problem for agriculture both in the mid-Atlantic region and throughout
    the nation. State governments, both regionally and nationally, are
    attempting to address the issue of soil and water degradation in
    cropping systems and in intensive animal agriculture. Traditional soil
    test results are not providing the needed answers for effective
    nutrient management.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to understand the
    cycling of nutrients and to use that knowledge to develop practical
    indicators of soil quality and health. If farmers are to manage their
    farm lands properly, indicators of soil quality and health must be
    developed that can be used by agricultural producers and consultants.
    Efforts under this project have been devoted to this goal with
    significant accomplishments to date. Management practices have been
    found to affect soil microbiology, and the fate of nutrients from crop
    residues and legume cover crops is being elucidated. A significant
    indicator of soil quality has been identified: measurement of the
    decomposition of filter paper has been shown to be an effective
    indicator of plant residue decomposition, which in turn has been shown
    to be highly correlated to nitrogen mineralization and also shows
    promise as an indicator of soil biological activity. Experiments are
    underway to refine this approach. Results on microbial biomass work
    have been submitted for scientific publication by scientists at Rodale,
    and a Masters of Science thesis at the Pennsylvania State University--
    PSU--evaluated the ability of different indicators of soil quality to
    distinguish soil management histories.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported under this grant began in fiscal year
    1993. The appropriation for fiscal year 1993 was $100,000; $94,000 per
    year in fiscal years 1994 through 1998; $95,000 per year in fiscal
    years 1999 and 2000; and $99,780 in fiscal year 2001. A total of
    $859,780 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. A total of $369,574 in matching support from university,
    state, and private industry sources was provided in fiscal year 1997.
    No matching support was reported in fiscal years 1998 through 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted by the Pennsylvania State
    University with cooperators throughout the state, at the Hunter
    Rotation Experiment at PSU's R.E. Larson Research Center near Rock
    Springs, Pennsylvania, at the Rodale Institute Research Center near
    Kutztown, Pennsylvania, and on farms around the state.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project has met the specific objectives set forth in
    the original project which began in 1993 with an ending date in 1995.
    The continuing project addresses additional objectives related to the
    overall goal. The ending date for the current project objectives is
    June 30, 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
        Answer. There has not been a formal evaluation of this project, but
    progress reports have been submitted to the agency and reviewed by our
    scientific staff. The project undergoes regular internal evaluation and
    assessment as part of PSU's major effort in soil quality and nutrient
    management research.
                        sustainable beef supply, montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under Sustainable Beef Supply, Montana grant.
        Answer. The Sustainable Beef Supply, Montana, project develops a
    system to provide information feedback among the various segments of
    the beef industry. This program is a cooperative effort between the
    Montana Stockgrowers Association and Montana State University. A
    systems approach was adopted to allow for tracking of weaned, feeder
    calves from ranches in Montana to feedlots in other states and
    eventually to the packing plant. Information collected throughout the
    production chain is to be shared among all owners of the cattle.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The beef industry is becoming more focused on consumers,
    and specific quality and consistency targets are being established in
    all segments of the industry. In order to meet customer and consumer
    expectations for safe beef and return additional revenue to cattle
    producers, a systems network must be developed to ensure that a high
    quality and consistent product is being produced. Central to this
    networking approach is the exchange of information from the producer to
    the end user, customer, or consumer. This systems approach for
    information transfer is the foundation of the Montana Beef Network.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This project has three primary objectives: develop and
    provide educational programs aimed at meeting beef quality assurance
    standards, production, and marketing goals; certify feeder calves that
    have met defined health management protocols; and provide information
    feedback from the feedlot and packing plant to the cow-calf producers
    showing if the feeder calves met industry requirements for quality,
    consistency, and red meat yield. The funding was used to develop and
    distribute 1,500 training manuals and present over 45 educational
    programs on the Beef Quality Assurance. County agents were trained to
    provide this educational training within their counties. Approximately
    20,000 calves have been certified in 1999 and 2000. A state-wide audit
    of ranches has been initiated to determine value-added production and
    management practices. A research project was completed involving 12
    ranches to determine if a standardized weaning protocol, which includes
    vaccinations and nutrition, could reduce morbidity of calves after they
    entered the feedlot. Results suggest a possible benefit in terms of
    reduced illness after the calves reach the feedlot. One-day short
    courses were conducted in Billings and Lewiston, Montana, to present
    issues pertinent to the beef industry. Ten interactive-television short
    courses were presented in 2000 that focused on carcass evaluation,
    genetic management, backgrounding calves, nutrition, drought
    management, and marketing.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The program supported by this grant began in fiscal year
    1999. The appropriations were $500,000 in fiscal year 1999; $637,500
    for fiscal year 2000; and $742,363 for fiscal year 2001. The total
    appropriation is $1,879,863.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The Montana Department of Agriculture contributed $15,000,
    and the Montana Stockgrowers Association contributed $5,000 in fiscal
    year 2000. The Montana beef producers provided $10,000 in fiscal year
    2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This project is being conducted at Montana State University
    and on cooperating Montana ranches.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. It is anticipated that it will take five years of funding
    to fully achieve the objectives of this project. Progress to date has
    been very encouraging. Approximately 1,300 producers have received beef
    quality assurance training, and 38,000 calves have been certified. The
    goal is to increase the certification effort to include 75,000 feeder
    calves each year.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was peer-reviewed by faculty at Montana State
    University and also by Montana cattle producers prior to submission.
    The proposals were merit reviewed by the agency prior to funding.
             sustainable pest management for dryland wheat, montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sustainable Pest Management for Dryland Wheat,
    Montana grant.
        Answer. Montana State University researchers are studying the
    influence of four cropping sequences and two tillage systems on
    insects, weeds, plant pathogens, nutrient management, physical and
    biological properties of soil, economic profitability, and
    environmental benefits. The research is being conducted on large
    experimental blocks in the three different dryland farming regions of
    northern, central, and eastern Montana. Each site differs
    climatologically and agronomically from one another yet represents a
    significant production area within the state.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project addresses pest management issues under
    different cropping sequences and tillage practices utilized in the
    Northern Great Plains for dryland wheat production. The wheat-fallow-
    wheat system used by many farmers in the region favors the build up of
    many pests. Dollar losses due to insects, competitive weeds, and plant
    pathogens in dryland wheat production in Montana alone are staggering.
    For example, annual losses attributed to wheat stem sawfly exceeds $25
    million; wild oat infestations causes an estimated $50 million in
    harvest losses and management costs; and wheat streak mosaic has a
    monetary loss of $37.5 million. These and other pests also increase
    reliance on pesticides for crop protection which impacts environmental
    quality, increases production costs, and causes secondary pest
    outbreaks and resistance. The agronomic, environmental, and economical
    benefits of diversified crop rotations are numerous, but these benefits
    are largely unknown or not documented in dryland wheat production. This
    multi-disciplinary project can result in significantly reducing the
    economic impact of agriculturally-important pests by improving soil
    health, reducing production costs, and improving production efficiency.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of this research were to study the
    influence of cropping sequences, tillage systems, and different levels
    of inputs on dryland wheat production, pests, nutrient management,
    physical and biological properties of soil, economic profitability, and
    environmental benefits. The third cropping season was completed at the
    northcentral site and the second cropping season was completed at the
    central location in 2000. Data collection continues at these sites, but
    results and the influences of cropping sequences, tillage systems, and
    inputs into the systems have not been determined nor translated into
    useful strategies articulated for use by growers. Arthropod densities
    have increased from 1998 to 2000. Significantly more pests and
    beneficial arthropods were captured in spring wheat following fallow
    than other rotations. These arthropod data suggest that when pest
    numbers are elevated in particular crops, including spring wheat,
    mustard, sunflower, and Conservation Reserve Program land, beneficial
    numbers respond in kind. There was no detectable wheat streak mosaic
    virus, and there was no evidence of foliar fungal diseases in any of
    the wheat plots. The influence of crop rotation was not significant for
    Fusarium crown rot infection of spring wheat in 2000.
        The main objectives at the third research site in northeast Montana
    are determining the effects of forages on wheat yields, intensively
    crop for a more efficient use of water, and determine the value of
    feeding high quality forage in late summer. The entire 25-acre site was
    cropped to spring wheat in 1999 and lentils in 2000. Rotations include
    traditional wheat-fallow, wheat hay barley, wheat-hay barley-pea,
    wheat-sorghum sudan, and alfalfa. Useful results have not been reported
    at this stage in the research program.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $200,000; for fiscal
    years 1998 and 1999, $400,000 per year; for fiscal year 2000, $425,000;
    and for fiscal year 2001, $460,984. A total of $1,885,984 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds of $42,000, $80,000, and $80,000 from the
    Montana Wheat and Barley Committee were provided for project support
    during 1997, 1998, and 1999, respectively. The Montana Agricultural
    Experiment Station provided $25,000 in state support. Private
    industries provided $5,000 during 1999. Non-Federal funds of $85,335
    from the Montana Wheat and Barley Committee were provided for project
    support during 2000. The Montana Agricultural Experiment Station
    provided $35,000 in state support. Private industries provided $3,500
    during 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted in three distinct dryland areas
    of Montana in the north, central, and northeast located on producer-
    owned land. Each field site is within 45 miles of a Montana State
    University Agriculture Experiment Station research center.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was initially proposed for a duration of three
    years. However, this project is envisioned as a long term project and
    will require a total of 12 years to see it to completion.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Yearly progress reports will be used to track the
    effectiveness of the program of research. Assessment of the precision
    of biological control organisms and estimates of profitability,
    marketability, and risk will be used to assess progress. An onsite
    visit and review is anticipated during the growing season of 2001.
                     swine waste treatment, north carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Swine Waste Management, North Carolina grant.
        Answer. Research funded through the current grant continues to
    support research, development, and demonstration of innovative
    technology for swine waste management. Primary focus has been on
    various alternatives or modifications to traditional lagoon/spray-field
    technology. Specifically, this particular funded project is focusing on
    determining the technical and economic feasibility of utilizing a
    combination of technologies--systems approach--involving solids
    separation, aeration, and constructed wetlands, as well as value-added
    processing of generated biosolids, to treat swine manure.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    project?
        Answer. Nationally, regionally, and locally, discussions and
    efforts regarding animal waste management practices and the impact of
    animal agriculture on the environment are at the forefront of issues
    facing the livestock industry, pork production in particular. Soil and
    water quality issues associated with this industry have been identified
    to be: nutrient loading and fate of nitrogen, phosphorus, and metals--
    copper and zinc; and fate of pathogenic bacteria in the manure effluent
    and air emissions from animal production facilities. Air quality issues
    identified include emissions of ammonia nitrogen, greenhouse gases,
    dust, and odor. The attention directed to this subject area has
    resulted in research, development, and demonstration efforts by
    academic institutions, the private sector, as well as the livestock
    industry. The need for this project is further illustrated by the
    proposed Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations rule that was signed by
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator on December
    15, 2000. The rule proposes changes to the size of operation requiring
    permitting and effluent guidelines under the National Pollutant
    Discharge Elimination System Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation
    Guidelines and Standards for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations.
        In North Carolina, where livestock and poultry production account
    for approximately $5 billion in farm gate income annually, the
    sustainability of this industry has enormous economic implications.
    Several other states and local regions in which animal production
    agriculture contributes to the economy are facing the same concerns. As
    such, this research project will have a local, state, and national
    impact.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The specific goals for this project include: determine the
    effectiveness of the system at reducing nitrogen, phosphorus, metals--
    copper and zinc--ammonia volatilization, pathogenic microorganisms, and
    odor in the treated wastewater; determine the effectiveness of
    utilizing specialized waste processing equipment including a
    pelletizer, fluidized bed dryer, and flash dehydrator for blending and
    processing biosolids removed from the system into value-added products;
    and determine the economic feasibility of the system to include capital
    and operational costs.
        The original goal of this project was to evaluate a full-scale, on-
    farm constructed wetland system for swine waste which was supported by
    very promising reports of a five-year study of a prototype system on an
    actual swine farm. This goal has subsequently been re-enforced by the
    North Carolina Governor's request to develop alternatives to lagoons
    for swine waste management and the North Carolina Attorney General--
    Smithfield Foods, Inc. Agreement is to provide funding to implement and
    evaluate advanced technologies for swine waste management. The
    constructed waste management system described in the proposal has been
    installed, and a Ribbon Cutting ceremony was held to publicize startup
    of this full-scale system.
        In addition to the system described in the proposal, a dissolved
    air flotation unit has been added to provide greater reduction of
    solids, oxygen demand, and organics in the influent to the wetland
    system. This unit may also provide some oxidation of the nitrogen to
    nitrate to provide higher levels of denitrification in the wetland
    system. Overall, the addition of this dissolved air flotation unit
    should provide the performance of the wetland system to potentially
    reduce its size and thus the footprint for the overall waste treatment
    system. In addition, arrangements have been made with a local
    vermicomposting facility to take the solids removed by the incline
    screen and the dissolved air flotation unit and process them into a
    marketable vermicompost.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1997
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1997 was $215,000; fiscal year
    1998 was $300,00; fiscal years 1999-2000 was $500,000 per year; and
    fiscal year 2001 is $498,900. A total of $2,013,900 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This Federally-funded project has helped leverage funds
    from the state and private sector. From state funds for 1998, $25,000;
    1999, for $1,098,00; and for 2000, $0. From industry or commodity
    sources for 1998, $242,000; for 1999 $308,000; and for 2000 $1,450,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being conducted at North Carolina State
    University in Raleigh, North Carolina. The commercial site
    demonstration is located in Onslow County, North Carolina.
        Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
    of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The current project term dates are July 1, 2000, to June
    30, 2003. Based on progress to date, it is anticipated that project
    objectives will be completed by the June 30, 2003 date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES conducted an evaluation of the progress of this work
    during January 2001. The project has made significant progress towards
    meeting the original goals.
        This project is effectively integrated with the other animal waste
    management efforts at North Carolina State University, particularly
    those efforts of the Animal and Poultry Waste Laboratory. The long term
    viability of the state's swine industry will be dependent upon waste
    management technologies that are documented to address water and air
    quality concerns. This project is coordinated with the three principal
    areas being addressed by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
    at North Carolina State University. The first is development and
    performance verification and demonstration of alternative animal waste
    treatment technologies. The second is nutritional modification of swine
    diets such that lower concentrations of nutrients are excreted by the
    animal. The third is identification and quantification of the
    environmental risks associated with existing lagoon/sprayfield
    techonolgy. Based on the work of over 50 projects and nearly two dozen
    different categories of technology, several promising technologies have
    been identified. They include covered lagoons, upflow biofiltration
    system, sequencing batch reactor process, constructed wetlands, and
    high temperature anaerobic digestion. This project has produced
    significant progress on the constructed wetlands research.
        Efforts have been made to identify processes by which by-products
    of the alternative technology may be developed which have economic
    value. Examples of such work include: capturing biogas for energy; and
    use of nutrients in the processed waste effluent to grow plant,
    vegetable, and fish products. Diet related research has shown promise
    to reduce not only nutrients excreted but to also help control odor.
            technology development of renewable resources, missouri
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Technology Development of Renewable Resources,
    Missouri grant.
        Answer. This is a new project thus a precise description of the
    research to be conducted is not currently available. The general focus
    however is genetic manipulations of soybeans for engineering
    applications.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. At this writing, a proposal has not been received. The
    grantee is conducting a thorough literature review and will submit a
    proposal in conjunction with the outcomes of the literature review. The
    requested date for proposal submission is March 31, 2001.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date.
        Answer. The original goal is to determine if soybeans can be
    altered to produce oils for engineering applications. The project has
    not begun, thus we are unable to cite any accomplishments.
        Question. How long has the project been under way, and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Other than a literature review, which is ongoing, the
    project has not begun. The total fiscal award, and the fiscal year 2001
    award are identical $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. The source and amount of non-Federal funds has not been
    disclosed as the grantee is still working on the original proposal.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out.
        Answer. The project will be conducted in and around Rolla,
    Missouri.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion dates of additional or related projects?
        Answer. The work has not begun thus no objectives have been met.
    The grantee will likely structure their original investigative work
    over a two year time span.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project.
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency has not conducted an evaluation of this project
    as we are awaiting the original proposal.
             tillage, silviculture, and waste management, louisiana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Tillage, Silviculture, and Waste Management
    Research, Louisiana grant.
        Answer. This research has six components: Rice and Cotton Tillage,
    Bald Cypress and Water Tupelo Silviculture, and Dairy and Poultry Waste
    Management. More specifically, the Rice Scientists are looking for ways
    to improve stand establishment; the Cotton Scientists are focusing on
    the use of tillage systems to combat harmful insect populations; the
    Waste Management Scientists are quantifying the environmental and
    economic effectiveness of approved dairy and poultry waste disposal
    systems; and the Silviculturists are conducting a problem analysis on
    factors affecting Bald Cypress and Water
        Tupelo regeneration. The project is annually subjected to the
    university's merit review process.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researchers hypothesize that the crops,
    forests, and waste issues addressed by this project extend beyond the
    state borders; thus, this research has, at a minimum, multi-state to
    regional application.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals were to: improve conservation tillage in
    rice and cotton farming; determine the effectiveness of no-discharge
    dairy waste treatment facilities; determine acceptable land treatment
    levels for poultry waste disposal; and to evaluate wetland forest
    regeneration processes. All components of the project have established
    research studies and are monitoring progress. For fiscal year 1998, the
    silviculture component was placed on hold and a sweet potato project
    was added. This decision was prompted by a staffing change in the
    Department of Forestry and Wildlife. Prior to this decision, an
    annotated bibliography of Bald Cypress Silviculture was completed; and
    the responsible scientists had begun work on Water Tupelo regeneration.
        Question. How long has the project been underway, and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work began in fiscal year 1994. The appropriation for
    fiscal year 1994 was $235,000. For fiscal years 1995-2000, the
    appropriation was $212,000, and for fiscal year 2001 is $211,534. A
    total of $1,718,534 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. State funding in support of these areas of research exceeds
    $750,000 annually.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Investigations are being conducted on the main campus at
    Louisiana State University as well as the Experiment Stations at
    Calhoun, Crowley, Chase, Winnsboro, St. Joseph, and Washington
    Parishes, Louisiana.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related projects?
        Answer. The original work was scheduled for completion in 1999.
    Early term objectives have been met. The added experiments have closing
    dates ranging from 1999-2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted?
        Answer. The last field evaluation was completed on December 12,
    1995. The evaluation summary complimented the scientists on the
    interdisciplinary components associated with this project, along with
    their investigative procedures, report writing, and external
    networking.
                           tomato wilt virus, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Tomato Wilt Virus, Georgia grant.
        Answer. This project supports research to help in the reduction of
    major crop losses in the southeastern U.S. due to Tomato Spotted Wilt
    Disease. Research focuses on vector biology and the virus transmitted
    by the vector.
        Question. According to this research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Tomato Wilt Virus has become a major yield-limiting
    constraint in a number of very important food crops. This is a world-
    wide problem, but in the last ten years, has spread invasively
    throughout the southeastern states. Since this virus was first observed
    in Georgia in 1986, it has caused over $100 million in crop loss in
    Georgia alone. The wide host range of the virus and its vector makes
    this a disease that is difficult to manage. The new strategies to
    manage this virus in Georgia will be applicable to all states where it
    occurs.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The primary goal of this research is to reduce losses in
    the major crops grown in the southwest due to spotted wilt. This
    primary goal has sub-goals of identifying the sources of virus and
    vectors, determining the dynamics of the thrip species that transmits
    the virus, elucidating how the virus is acquired by thrips to identify
    possible genes to enhance virus resistance in plants, and adapting to
    crops in the southeast the Risk Assessment Index for spotted wilt that
    is currently in implementation and refinement at the University of
    Georgia for peanut.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This grant began in 1999 and has been supported at the
    level of $200,000 per year in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and $249,450
    in fiscal year 2001. A total of $649,450 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant are $84,736
    in fiscal year 1999.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being carried out at the University of Georgia
    and The Coastal Plain Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives have not been met since this is a
    complex research area. The anticipated completion date for the
    continuing research is the end of fiscal year 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project has undergone peer review at the University
    level and an agency merit review in January 2000. In summary, some
    progress has been made on all objectives of this research. Some
    progress has been made in understanding the relationship of cellular
    receptor proteins in the guts of the vector. This will aid in the
    identification, characterization, and eventually cloning of these genes
    that then could be modified against the virus. Progress was also made
    in investigating the source of inoculum and seasonal dynamics of the
    vector. This included identification of several weed species that are
    alternative virus hosts. The Risk Assessment Index for management of
    spotted wilt disease was used to evaluate peanut cultivars and
    determine how they fit better into management of the virus on peanut.
                         tropical aquaculture, florida
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Tropical Aquaculture, Florida grant.
        Answer. The research is focused on increasing the production
    efficiency of tropical ornamental fish culture, handling, and
    transportation techniques.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher indicates that the ornamental fish
    industry is unique and important to the local economy where 69 percent
    of the total U.S. production of ornamental fish occurs in Hillsborough
    County, and 95 percent of the total production of ornamental fish is in
    southern Florida. At a national level, the U.S. imports 60-70 percent
    of the ornamental fish sold that results in a significant trade deficit
    that can be reduced by increased domestic production.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research under this grant is to
    improve culture and transportation techniques for the commercial
    tropical aquaculture industry in Florida. Accomplishments to date
    include progress on fulfilling the original research study objectives
    and formation of multidisciplinary research teams that are leading the
    various research studies.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $170,000 and for fiscal year
    2001 is $197,564. The total appropriation for this project is $367,564.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2000, state appropriations supported the
    salaries of principal investigators and the use of state-owned
    facilities to conduct research. The university estimates that
    significant non-Federal funding will be provided in fiscal year 2001
    primarily from state sources to cover salaries of the principal
    investigators and operating expenses for the laboratory. As the program
    develops, additional non-Federal funding is expected.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is primarily conducted at the University of
    Florida's Tropical Aquaculture Laboratory located in Ruskin, Florida,
    in addition to some work at the main campus in Gainesville, Florida.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is fiscal year 2001. Work is ongoing to complete the original
    objectives in fiscal year 2001. The anticipated completion date of
    additional objectives is fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency has requested that the principal investigators
    submit an annual accomplishment report along with the fiscal year 2001
    grant proposal. This report will be evaluated in terms of progress and
    accomplishments related to the original objectives. The 2001 CSREES
    review will be completed within three weeks of submission of the fiscal
    year 2001 proposal. The researchers will be requested to develop the
    research proposal consistent with the National Science and Technology
    Council's Strategic Plan for Aquaculture Research and Development as in
    the past.
                       tropical and subtropical research
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Tropical and Subtropical Research program grant.
        Answer. Tropical and Subtropical Research program is operating in
    coordination with the Tropical and Subtropical Research Caribbean and
    the Tropical and Subtropical Research Pacific Administrative Groups.
    State Agricultural Experiment Stations that are members of the
    Caribbean group are Florida, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands;
    members of the Pacific group are Hawaii and Guam.
        Non-member institutional interests are represented by the Executive
    Director of the Southern Region Agricultural Experiment Station
    Directors, who is a member of the Caribbean group, and the Executive
    Director of the Western Region Agricultural Experiment Station
    Directors, who is a member of the Pacific group. The Agricultural
    Research Service--ARS--also has representation on the two groups, as
    does the CSREES scientist who manages the Tropical and Subtropical
    Research grant program.
        Funds for the program are divided equally between the two Basin
    Administrative Groups. The research objective of the program developed
    by the Administrative Group is to improve the agricultural productivity
    of many of the subtropical and tropical parts of the U.S. Special
    research grants have been awarded for research on controlling insect,
    disease and weed pests of crops; increasing the production and quality
    of tropical fruits, vegetables, and agronomic crops; promoting
    increased beef production through development of superior pastures;
    detection of heartwater disease of cattle and the influence of heat
    stress on dairy cattle reproduction; better use of land and water
    resources; developing computer models for efficient crop production
    systems and animal feeding systems; developing computer models for
    land-use decisions; using biotechnology methodologies for improving
    plant resistance to viral and bacterial diseases; using biotechnology
    to develop non-chemical, or biological, strategies for controlling
    insect pests; and potential for growing new speciality crops.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes there is a need for the
    Tropical and Subtropical Research program to provide research-generated
    knowledge that enables informed choices in the responsible use of
    natural resources, facilitates the health and well being of American
    citizens through improved food safety and nutrition, provides frontline
    protection for the rest of the nation's farms and ranches from serious
    plant and animal diseases and pests, and enhances the ability of U.S.
    farmers to produce crops efficiently and economically and/or to
    introduce new crops and agricultural products with export potential to
    gain market share abroad. On a regional basis, the Tropical and
    Subtropical Research program addresses the unique challenges of
    practicing tropical agriculture, that is presence of pests year-round,
    heat stress, post-harvest processing to meet regulatory requirements
    for export, etc. The local need of Americans living in tropical regions
    of the nation for Tropical and Subtropical Research knowledge-based
    products is to design and implement sustainable agricultural
    development within fragile tropical agroecosystems--particularly on
    tropical islands--and to develop new crops and niche markets.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to increase the
    production and quality of tropical crops; control pests and diseases of
    plants and animals; promote increased beef production; and conserve
    land and water resources. Grants have supported research on control
    strategies for Melon thrips; the biochemical nature of resistance to
    rust in nutsedge; development of bioherbicides for nutsedges;
    development of tomato cultivars with resistance to the spotted wilt
    virus; development of pheromones for monitoring and controlling the
    citrus root weevil; reducing the effects of heat stress in dairy
    cattle; development of a decision support system for vegetable
    production; finding cucurbits with resistance to silverleaf; developing
    a computer program for optimal supplementation strategies for beef and
    dairy cattle on tropical pastures; characterizing new strains of citrus
    tristeza virus in the Caribbean basin; determining the economic
    threshold for the citrus leaf miner on limes; using viral replicase
    genes to engineer rapid detection methods for geminiviruses; developing
    makers of bacterial spot resistance genes in tomato; breeding snap and
    kidney beans for resistance to golden mosaic, virus, and for heat
    tolerance; searching for resistance to papaya bunchy top disease;
    developing weed control for yam production; and bioengineering ringspot
    virus resistance in papaya.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The operation of the Tropical and Subtropical Research
    program was transferred from the Agricultural Research Service to the
    Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, with
    funding being first provided in fiscal year 1983. Funds were
    appropriated in the amount of $2,980,000 per year in fiscal years 1983
    and 1984; fiscal year 1985, $3,250,000; fiscal years 1986 through 1988,
    $3,091,000 each year; $3,341,000 in fiscal year 1989; fiscal year 1990,
    $3,299,000; fiscal years 1991-1993, $3,320,000 per year; $3,121,000 in
    fiscal year 1994; $2,809,000 per year in fiscal years 1995-1996;
    $2,724,000 per year in fiscal years 1997 through 2000; and $3,853,504
    in fiscal year 2001. A total of $58,571,504 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. For fiscal year 1997, more than $1.0 million of non-Federal
    were provided to the Tropical and Subtropical Research program from
    state appropriations; $856,000 for 1998; $595,000 for 1999; and
    $850,000 for 2000. These state funds were in the form of faculty salary
    time commitments and indirect costs covered by the institutions.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted in Florida, Puerto Rico,
    Virgin Islands, Hawaii, and Guam. Work is also being done in other
    Pacific and Caribbean countries through agreements between institutions
    but not using Tropical and Subtropical Research grant funds.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. Research on tropical crop and animal agriculture is to
    increase productivity net profits, decrease harmful environmental
    impacts, conserve water, and natural resources. Objectives for some
    projects have been completed, and new objectives addressing new issues
    are being developed in this ongoing project.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The projects that are funded by the Tropical and
    Subtropical Research Special Research Grant have been peer reviewed by
    panels of scientists in the U.S. to assure that good science is
    undertaken. Also, as part of the grant renewal process, progress
    reports are reviewed by the two Administrative Groups and by the grant
    manager at the national level. Workshops in which research results and
    their application for agricultural production are developed are
    conducted every two years. Research papers are published in the
    appropriate regional, national, and international forums available.
        The development in 1995 of the Strategic Plan for Tropical and
    Subtropical Research provided a mechanism to define priorities, examine
    program direction, and recommend operational changes. One of the
    principal points considered was to bring the Caribbean and Pacific
    Basin components closer and better coordinated. Each sub project is
    peer reviewed annually at the initiating institution, by the Tropical
    and Subtropical Research panel and by CSREES National Program Leaders.
                          turkey coronavirus, indiana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Turkey Coronavirus, Indiana grant.
        Answer. The objectives of the research are to: (1) develop enzyme-
    linked immunosorbent assays for detecting antibody to turkey
    coronavirus and turkey coronavirus antigen in turkey flocks; (2)
    elucidate immune responses in turkey poults infected with turkey
    coronavirus; and (3) determine which immunity, humoral, and/or
    cellular, will provide the most effective protection for turkey poults
    against turkey coronavirus infection.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This enteric disease of young turkey poults, called turkey
    poult enteritis or poult enteritis mortality syndrome, has contributed
    to significant economic losses by producers in Indiana, North Carolina,
    South Carolina, Virginia and other states. The cost to the industry is
    in the millions. Currently, no effective medication or vaccination is
    available for control and prevention of the disease. Although turkey
    poults that recover from the coronaviral enteritis may develop long-
    term immunity, little is known about the specific immunity. The
    proposed research will lead to further study on the understanding of
    immunological interaction between turkey poults and individual turkey
    coronaviral proteins and subsequent development of recombinant or a
    deoxyribonucleic acid vaccine for effective prevention of the disease.
    The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays that have been developed in this
    research will provide efficient tools for diagnosis and control of
    turkey poult enteritis.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research was to develop enzyme-linked
    immunosorbent assays for monitoring antibody to turkey coronavirus and
    turkey coronavirus antigen in turkey flocks during acute outbreaks or
    recovery and in routine health monitoring and to develop effective
    vaccines to protect turkey poults against turkey coronavirus infection.
        The investigators' laboratories have successfully propagated turkey
    coronavirus from intestines of infected turkey poults in 22-day-old
    turkey embryos, purified turkey coronavirus from the embryo intestines,
    and have demonstrated an acute enteritis with decreased body weight
    gain in 7 or 10-day-old turkey poults by oral inoculation of the
    purified turkey coronavirus. This establishes an infection model to
    study immunology, pathogenicity, and pathogenesis of turkey
    coronavirus.
        The research team has been successful in adapting a commercially-
    available ELISA test used for infectious bronchitis virus for use in
    detecting antibodies against the coronavirus causing the poult
    enteritis syndrome. They have also developed a second test system which
    allows for measurement of cellular immunity of turkeys exposed to this
    virus. The combination of these two tests will permit a much more
    informative study of the immune response of turkey poults exposed to
    the turkey coronavirus.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
    The appropriation for fiscal years 1999 and 2000 was $200,000 per year,
    and for fiscal year 2001 is $199,560. A total of $599,560 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds expended on this project in fiscal year
    1999 were $72,311.06, including $25,200 from state funds and $47,111.06
    from a private commodity group, and $245,483.67, in fiscal year 2000
    including both private and state funds.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at Purdue University in the
    Department of Veterinary Pathobiology and the Animal Disease Diagnostic
    Laboratory.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is spring 2002. At present the project is on target to meet its stated
    objectives in the designated time period.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was initially funded in July 1999, and no
    evaluation has been performed. A review is tentatively scheduled to be
    conducted during summer 2001.
      value-added product development from agricultural resources, montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Value-Added Product Development From Agricultural
    Resources, Montana grant.
        Answer. Carbohydrates, the most abundant and commercially-available
    renewable chemicals from agriculture resources, provide the starting
    point for the research to be carried out at the University of Montana.
    The goal of this research is to develop wide-range value-added
    biodegradable polymer materials with different properties, from
    abundant grain and potato starches, wood carbohydrates, and waste milk
    sugar from the cheese industry. Target applications for these polymers
    include biodegradable packaging materials, industrial use materials,
    consumer products, and medically-useful products. The validity of the
    basic technology to produce these polymers is established, but the
    long-range goals of the project require improvement of the technology
    to make it practical and commercially attractive. Additionally, at this
    stage of the research, it is very important to explore materials
    applications that coincide with process technology development.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project is centered around a growing national need to
    utilize renewable crop materials as resources for chemicals that are
    environmentally favorable and useful for consumer and industrial
    products. Biodegradable polymer materials are gaining favor globally
    because they address the need to start limiting the amounts of non-
    biodegradable solid materials that end up in landfills. These novel
    polymers have an added advantage in that the materials produced are
    both biodegradable and derived in significant part from renewable
    agriculture sources, thus adding value.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a new grant in fiscal year 2001. Previous studies
    have established the validity of chemically-modifying carbohydrates
    into resins that can be extruded or made into films for use in
    packaging and other consumer products.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $331,270.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, and a proposal has not yet been
    received, the source and amount of non-Federal funds for this research
    is unknown.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work will be carried out at the University of Montana.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, no evaluation has been
    conducted.
                         value-added products, illinois
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Value-Added Products, Illinois grant.
        Answer. The objective of this project is to develop a breeding and
    production research program aimed at introducing alternative crops,
    such as milkweed, to the midwest region. The first priority will be to
    develop protocols to generate sufficient supplies of milkweed floss and
    seed for the development of value-added products. Long-term objectives
    will be focused on improving yields, developing auto-fertile varieties,
    and developing machinery for milkweed harvest.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Alternative crops will allow growers to disrupt life cycles
    of corn rootworms and to minimize their risks associated with falling
    commodity prices. With the reduced profitability of corn and soybeans,
    growers are looking for ways to supplement their businesses and an
    attractive option is the introduction of new crops to their farming
    practices. Value-added products and technologies expand agricultural
    markets and create new job opportunities.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This grant is new in fiscal year 2001. Research to date has
    identified alternative crops that can produce materials with unique
    properties and high value-added industrial uses. The New Crops program
    at the National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research in Peoria,
    Illinois, has identified several crops with these characteristics that
    are suited for midwest production.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $94,791.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, and a proposal has not yet been
    received, the source and amount of non-Federal funds for this research
    is unknown.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work will be carried out at the Western Illinois
    University.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This project is expected to be completed in three years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Since this is a new grant, no evaluation has been
    conducted.
                            vidalia onions, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Vidalia Onion, Georgia grant.
        Answer. The original research emphasis had been focused on pungency
    which became secondary in importance with the appearance of a new
    disease known to producers as Center rot. This newly-recognized disease
    caused a rotting of affected onions around the center leaf deep into
    the bulb. The disease crisis necessitated a revision of the goals of
    this grant and focused on the identification of this new pathogen, the
    incidence of the disease in the production system, the mode of disease
    transmission, the affect of the disease on onions in storage, and
    management options available to producers to prevent the disease.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for the
    research?
        Answer. Vidalia onions are a specialty crop of great importance to
    the economy of certain areas of Georgia. This grant funds research to
    improve product quality and pest management in Vidalia Onion production
    thus maintaining the national and international economic
    competitiveness of this vital production system.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research has demonstrated that
    chemical tests can be used to accurately predict the pungency of onions
    prior to harvest, and perhaps flavor categorization, to consumers. The
    results have also indicated that several diseases affecting onions are
    the most serious problem in regard to quality and production. With the
    appearance of Center Rot in the Vidalia production system, this grant
    has focused entirely on understanding and managing this disease.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The project was funded for $84,000 for 1998; $100,000 per
    year in fiscal years 1999 and 2000; and $249,450 in fiscal year 2001. A
    total of $533,450 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. The non-Federal funding for this project was $193,137 from
    the state of Georgia, and $251,427 in private funding.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being conducted at the Coastal Plain Experiment
    Station in Tifton, Georgia and in test plots in several commercial
    field sites in the State of Georgia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objections of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated duration for the original project was five
    years. The initial objective of establishing procedures for pungency
    testing has proceeded ahead of schedule. The plant disease problems
    that have emerged will likely require several additional years,
    although the incidence and severity of these diseases are highly
    variable from year to year.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A site visit was made by the CSREES Liaison for the Vidalia
    Onion Special Grant on the University of Georgia campus at Athens,
    Georgia, on January 14, 2000. The purpose was to discuss the progress
    and direction of this special grant with the principal investigators
    and their University Administrators. The project history was reviewed.
    The emphasis and goals of this special grant changed in fiscal year
    1999 because of an emergency production problem caused by a new disease
    that threatened the product quality and consumer confidence of the
    entire Vidalia industry. The original research emphasis had been
    focused on pungency which became secondary in importance with the
    appearance of this new disease known to producers as Center rot. This
    newly recognized disease caused a rotting of affected onions around the
    center leaf into the bulb. The revised goals of this grant focused
    entirely on the identification of the pathogen, incidence of the
    disease in the production system, mode of transmission, the affect of
    the disease on onions in storage, and management options to prevent the
    disease.
        The project accomplishments were reviewed, and the research
    objectives and performance goals for fiscal year 2000 were presented,
    justified, and discussed. Future research needs and related production
    issues were also discussed. The principal investigator demonstrated
    good progress, strong leadership, and judicious use of project funds.
    The site visit also allowed the Federal partner to provide input to the
    direction of the project and for the state scientist to demonstrate the
    accomplishments, competency, and merit of their research activities.
                viticulture consortium, new york and california
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Viticulture Consortium, New York and California
    grant.
        Answer. The University of California and Cornell University in New
    York conducted research on varietal responses of grapes, modeling of
    water requirements, management of diseases including Phyloxera, and
    other cultural aspects of grape production. Funds were awarded by the
    lead institutions on a competitive basis to fund projects in various
    grape-producing states within their region. Grants were made based on
    peer reviewed proposals and selected competitively by regional groups
    based on priorities developed by researchers, extension, and industry
    personnel.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The research being carried out is designed to help the
    viticulture and wine industries remain competitive in the U.S. and in
    the global market. Further, disease and insect problems are a concern
    of the industry, especially in new strains of phyloxera while overall
    improvement in all cultural management approaches to grape production
    need to continue.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to maintain or
    enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. Viticulture and wine industry
    in the global market. Each year the project directors meet with
    stakeholder advisory boards to determine research priorities. These
    priorities are then used to guide the formulation of a request for
    proposals.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1996 and 1997, $500,000 per year; fiscal year
    1998, $800,000; fiscal years 1999 and 2000, $1,000,000 per year; and
    fiscal year 2001, $1,496,700. A total of $5,296,700 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Each year the viticulture industry provides matching
    contributions in excess of the appropriated Federal funds.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. These funds are distributed through a competitive grants
    process administered through Cornell University and the University of
    California. Each year a request for proposals is sent to all states in
    which there is a viable grape industry. This results in research being
    conducted in as many as 12 different states in any one year.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The research priorities set by the guidance group have not
    been met. The research is varied and complex and will take many years
    to complete. Current priorities include: optimize grape production
    efficiency while reducing costs; increase yield and grape quality;
    identify new grape varieties for different growing regions; develop
    effective pest management systems; and determine impact of viticultural
    practices and components of grapes and grape producs.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project underwent merit review in January 2000. The
    research proposals are peer-reviewed in both regions before selection.
    The review group is composed on industry, research, and extension
    personnel that are experts in viticulture.
                           water conservation, kansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Water Conservation, Kansas grant.
        Answer. This research program is designed to develop and
    disseminate technical and economic information on the efficient use of
    water for irrigated crop production in western Kansas. The program has
    the following five objectives:
      --Develop regression models to estimate the longevity of subsurface
            drip irrigation systems using calculations of annual system
            performance deterioration based on 13 years of operating
            pressures and flow rates;
      --Evaluate use of livestock effluent with subsurface drip irrigation
            and its effect on water redistribution and corn water use
            patterns;
      --Develop best management practices for nitrogen fertigation using
            subsurface drip irrigation systems for corn;
      --Estimate the long-run economic impacts of irrigation efficiency
            improvements for irrigated corn, wheat, and grain sorghum in
            the farm sector and affiliated sectors of the High Plains
            economy; and
      --Disseminate irrigation research information and best management
            practice recommendations to Kansas irrigators through a series
            of extension bulletins and updates based on research-based
            information.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need to conserve water has focused attention on more
    efficient alternatives such as subsurface drip irrigation. This
    research will be of particular significance within the state and
    region. However, it also has national and international applications as
    advanced irrigation systems, such as subsurface drip irrigation, which
    will be needed to improve irrigation water use efficiency in the next
    century. Economic research initiated in 1998 is examining the impact of
    adoption of improved water conservation techniques on the entire
    regional economy rather than just on the short term economics faced by
    the individual irrigator. This research will help determine whether
    society should have a role in providing incentives to increase adoption
    rates of water conservation technology.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The research goal is to determine the feasibility of
    subsurface drip irrigation and other alternative irrigation systems in
    western Kansas to sustain irrigated corn production to support the beef
    feedlot industry. The project also supports an educational effort
    through collection and dissemination of information on efficient
    irrigation methods. Subsurface drip irrigation acreage is increasing in
    Kansas, and farmers are obtaining results on their own farms.
        The computer program Irrigation Economics Evaluation Svstem--IEES--
    was distributed by the Kansas State University Cooperative Extension
    Service and is being used by Kansas irrigators. A report has been
    published that documents the data requirements and algorithms used in
    the model. A user's guide is also available.
        A report entitled, ``Economic Analysis of Alternative Irrigation
    Systems for Continuous Corn and Grain Sorghum in Western Kansas'' has
    been completed. The results of this study indicate that a low drift
    nozzle, center pivot system is the most profitable center pivot system
    to use for irrigation of corn and grain sorghum. Overall, a surge flood
    system was the most profitable because of its relatively low ownership
    costs. Although the subsurface drip system shows some potential, it is
    only economically feasible when above-average crop yield and price
    conditions exist.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1993
    with an appropriation of $94,000; $88,000 in fiscal year 1994; $79,000
    each fiscal year from 1995 to 2000; and $78,826 in fiscal year 2001.
    The total funds appropriated are $734,826.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The state of Kansas non-Federal funds provided to this
    project were as follows: fiscal year 1997, $119,659; fiscal year 1998,
    $135,993; and fiscal year 1999, $129,850. No funds were reported in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at Kansas State University.
    The field portion of the research is being conducted on Research
    Centers at Colby and Garden City, Kansas. Additional work is being
    carried out on campus at the Departments of Agronomy and Agricultural
    Economics in Manhattan, Kansas.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original anticipated completion date for the project
    was 1998. One of the most important objectives of the study is to
    evaluate longevity of the subsurface drip irrigation systems. These
    sites are unique to the region, and very little information is
    available on system longevity. Pressing water quality problems of a
    regional and national scope has necessitated a change in the objectives
    to developing nutrient management practices under subsurface drip
    irrigation and use of livestock wastewater with subsurface drip
    irrigation. Additionally, changes in the Federal farm program which
    allow greater planting flexibility has an effect on how irrigators make
    water/land allocation decisions. Field and economic studies related to
    allocation strategies, nutrient management, and wastewater usage should
    be completed in 3 years. The projected completion date is 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was peer reviewed in January 2000. The
    reviewers found the project concept to be valid and the timetable for
    accomplishments to be on target.
                           weed control, north dakota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Weed Control, North Dakota grant.
        Answer. A major focus has been developing and evaluating systems to
    reduce herbicide use in crop production. The experiments of longest
    duration are field evaluations of sustainable, reduced tillage and
    conventional crop rotation systems to ascertain changes in weed species
    and densities and in economic returns over time when weed management is
    reduced. Another emphasis has been weed biology, particularly
    understanding the unique physiological and genetic traits of herbicide-
    resistant kochia and wild oat in an effort to recommend the most cost-
    effective management alternatives. Another goal has been to improve the
    efficiency of postemergent herbicide use by utilizing additives that
    maximize weed control with reduced amounts of herbicide and by reducing
    spray volume and adapting new nozzle designs that improve application
    techniques.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The research address new methods to control weeds using
    systems control. The principles concerning effective use of additives
    with postemergent herbicides are being applied to improving the
    efficiency of postemergent herbicide use across the nation. Similarly,
    adaptation of herbicide application technology that allows reduced
    spray volumes while sustaining herbicide effectiveness is of nationwide
    benefit. The increased understanding of the inheritance and management
    of herbicide resistance in kochia and wild oat will be beneficial to
    management of these weeds in the central and northern regions of the
    U.S. where these weeds are abundant and cause major losses annually.
    The long-term field experiments should provide useful information on
    the positive and negative impacts of reduced weed management systems
    wherever spring-sown small grains are the primary crop.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The initial major activity was a long-term series of
    experiments to evaluate changes in weed species and populations and the
    economic returns in conventional, sustainable, and reduced tillage
    systems with rotations that are up to four years long. The research was
    initiated in 1993. At least two complete cycles of crop rotations of
    eight years will be necessary to accurately assess what farmers can
    expect from adopting new management systems. Resistance of wild oat to
    many of the major herbicides used for its control in the U.S. has been
    documented. This project has been the first to identify specific
    mutations that cause wild oat resistance. Also, resistance to a new
    herbicide for wild oat control has been confirmed, which had not been
    reported previously. Molecular biology and physiological studies were
    initiated to better understand the cause of this resistance in wild
    oat, so management strategies can be recommended.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through year 2001?
        Answer. The support by this grant began in fiscal year 1992 and
    appropriation for fiscal years 1992 and 1993 was $500,000 per year;
    $470,000 in fiscal year 1994; $423,000 per year in fiscal years 1995
    through 2000; and $435,041 in fiscal year 2001. A total $4,443,041 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $27,030 state appropriations in 1992; $48,472 state
    appropriations in 1993; $41,969 state appropriations in 1994; $71,847
    state appropriations in 1995; $62,134 state appropriations in 1996;
    $78,579 state appropriations in 1997; and an estimated $70,000 state
    appropriations in each year of 1998 through 2000. A total of $540,031
    in non-Federal funds has been provided from fiscal year 1991 through
    2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the North Dakota State
    University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original completion date for the long-term rotation
    experiment, utilizing the conventional, reduced tillage and sustainable
    management systems, was anticipated to be a minimum of five years, but
    the experience with atypical environmental conditions suggest that 8 to
    10 years will be necessary to attain a relatively steady state or
    logical end of the research. The current intent is to continue the
    research until at least 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A scientific peer review of the written proposal was
    conducted in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 by CSREES prior to
    awarding the grant. CSREES' senior scientific staff review the progress
    of the grant. Those reviews indicated progress in achieving the
    objectives.
                           wetland plants, louisiana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Wetland Plants, Louisiana grant.
        Answer. The agency approved a proposal entitled, ``Biological
    Approaches to Coastal Wetland Restoration'' from the Louisiana
    Agricultural Experiment Station. The research is a collaborative effort
    among scientists of the Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station Rice
    Research Station, the Department of Agronomy, and the USDA-Natural
    Resources Conservation Service's Plant Materials Program. The knowledge
    and technology resulting from this project should lead to an increased
    ability to economically propagate and maintain the genetic quality of
    Spartina alterniflora-smooth cordgrass--which is an important species
    used in coastal wetlands restoration. Plant biotechnology and genetic
    improved methods are proven and well established in crop production but
    have also been applied on a limited basis for bioremediation and
    coastal wetlands reclamation. This project will develop the knowledge
    base and strategies for genetic improvement needed for the economic and
    rapid establishment of Spartina alterniflora over large areas of
    established and reclaimed coastal wetlands areas. Collections from
    naturally existing populations will be characterized and superior
    plants will be intermated in a recurrent selection breeding program to
    develop improved populations that can be established from seed. Plant
    cloning artificial seed production and molecular biology will also be
    used as tools to facilitate genetic characterization, genetic
    improvement and establishment of a commercial seed industry. Production
    research will focus on aspects of seed processing and production,
    including evaluation of pest control and management strategies to
    maximize seed production.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. There is local, regional, and national need for this
    research. Coastal wetlands erosion is a serious environmental problem
    in many coastal locations around the United States. The program is
    particularly severe in Louisiana where an acre of coastal wetlands is
    lost to erosion every 20 minutes. Current technologies, even at great
    expense, can only slightly reduce these losses. The research this grant
    is funding has the potential to provide a significant improvement with
    respect to both the magnitude and expense of further coastal erosion
    control efforts.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop an
    economically-feasible approach to controlling coastal wetlands erosion
    that would use vegetation to retain areas threatened by erosion and to
    rebuild lost land. To accomplish this, a system that incorporates
    agricultural principles involved in crop production is required.
    Specifically, a seed-based system using appropriate planting material
    is required. While last year was the first year of funding from the
    agency for this project, progress has been rapid in developing this
    seed-based system. Field trials in the marsh were initiated in 1999.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999,
    and the appropriation for fiscal years 1999 through 2000 was $600,000
    per year and for fiscal year 2001 is $598,680. A total of $1,798,680
    has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $18,391 state appropriations, $5,319 industry grants,
    and $8,691 miscellaneous in 1999. In addition, the University had
    $110,081 in unrecovered indirect costs. State appropriations for 2000
    was $44,441.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the Louisiana Agricultural
    Experiment Station.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Since this is a new program, the original objectives have
    not yet been met.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project, and there has been no prior agency
    evaluation. An agency evaluation is planned for fiscal year 2001.
                             wheat genetics, kansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Wheat Genetics, Kansas grant.
        Answer. This project provides partial support for the Wheat
    Genetics Resource Center at the University of Kansas. The Center
    focuses on collection, evaluation, maintenance, and distribution of
    exotic wheat-related germplasm needed to develop new wheat cultivar
    resistant to disease, insects, and environmental stress.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes most cultivated varieties
    of wheat are derived from common sources. They lack the rich genetic
    diversity needed to develop resistance to diseases, insects, and
    environmental stress. The replacement of genetically-rich primitive
    cultivar and land races by modern, more uniform cultivars all over the
    world is causing erosion of wheat germplasm resources. New pests or
    those that have overcome varietal resistance pose a constant threat to
    U.S. wheat production. Genetic resistance often resides in wild
    relatives of wheat. The researchers believe this program, which was
    established in Kansas, is providing service to wheat breeders
    nationally and internationally.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished?
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to enhance the
    genetic diversity available to wheat breeders nationally and
    internationally by collecting, evaluating, maintaining, and
    distributing germplasm derived from wild relatives of wheat. To date,
    39 germplasm releases have been made containing new genes for
    resistance to such pests as Hessian fly, greenbug, leaf rust, soil-
    borne mosaic virus, and Russian wheat aphid. Germplasm stocks with
    resistance to leaf rust and powdery mildew are under development.
    Evaluation of germplasm for important resistance genes was carried out
    by Center scientists and cooperating institutions. Center scientists
    have introduced antifungal protein genes into the wheat plant which
    enhances its survival against pathogen attacks. One transgenic wheat
    line gave enhanced resistance to wheat scab, a devastating disease of
    wheat. In 1998, the center filled 20 requests from U.S. wheat breeders
    for seed from the germplasm collection and 10 requests for seed of
    germplasm releases, as well as 34 requests from international breeders.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1989.
    Appropriations were for fiscal year 1989, $100,000; fiscal year 1990,
    $99,000; fiscal year 1991, $149,000; fiscal years 1992-1993, $159,000
    per year; fiscal year 1994, $196,000; fiscal years 1995-1997, $176,000
    each year; $261,000 per year for fiscal years 1998 through 2000; and
    $260,426 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $2,433,426 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds provided for this grant were as
    follows: $609,309 in 1991; $531,167 in 1992; $730,082 in 1993; $468,960
    in 1994; $563,671 in 1995; $457,840 in 1996; $495,820 in 1997; $155,279
    in 1998; $452,600 in 1999; and $527,000 in 2000. Sources include state
    appropriations, product sales, and other organizations, such as state
    commodity associations.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at Kansas State University
    at the Wheat Genetics Resource Center. The principle investigator also
    reports collaborative projects with other departments at Kansas State
    University, as well as other institutions in the U.S.
        Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The collection, evaluation, and enhancement of wheat
    germplasm is continual process. Therefore, this project does not have a
    defined completion date. Some objectives related to germplasm
    evaluation have been completed in fiscal year 1999, and other
    objectives which are related to other genetic sources are still in the
    developmental stage.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project is peer reviewed annually by the institution,
    Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station, and was found to address
    important issues in the winter wheat industry in Kansas and other
    states. The research has been productive based on germplasm releases
    and peer-reviewed journal articles and other publications.
    Additionally, each annual proposal is reviewed by CSREES National
    Program Staff.
                         wheat sawfly research, montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Wheat Sawfly Research, Montana grant.
        Answer. This is a new grant, and CSREES has requested Montana State
    University to submit a grant proposal that has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The wheat stem sawfly is a long-standing pest of dryland
    cereal production in the northern Great Plains. Recently, this sawfly
    has adapted to become a pest of winter wheat. Historically, it was a
    pest of spring wheat only, but changes in its seasonal biology have now
    allowed it to expand its host range significantly. At a regional level,
    Montana, western and central North Dakota, north-central Wyoming,
    southeastern Idaho and the Nebraska panhandle are all impacted by the
    wheat stem sawfly. Its range also extends northward in to the Canadian
    prairie provinces, with losses estimated at over $100 million annually
    in this area. Losses due to this insect are focused in Montana with
    annual losses ranging from $20-$30 million. Montana is where the impact
    of the sawfly is centered, and infestation levels can be up to 100
    percent in areas with the heaviest damage. These localized heavy
    infestations can be particularly catastrophic to individual producers
    who may not be able to withstand heavy losses for several years in a
    row.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a new project with initial goals to expand upon
    exploratory work on five novel avenues aimed at two critical stages of
    the sawfly, for example, mating and overwintering. The first is to
    develop an understanding of the role of multiple components of a
    complicated grouping pheromone system involved in insect mating. A
    related thrust is to focus on host plant attractants, repellents, and
    induced signals in the plants defenses as new ways to manipulate the
    insect in its environment. Second, investigations toward expanding
    knowledge based on preliminary indications that two partially effective
    natural enemies are impacting the sawfly in wheat, and that induced
    plant signals may be critical in the effectiveness of these enemies.
    The investigators will also look at the pheromones, kairomones, and
    allomones used by these beneficial species as a potential monitoring
    tool to better understand the broad distribution of the species, and to
    target new release sites. Third, they will examine the chemical cues
    released by pathogen-infected wheat plants, to better understand the
    nature of facultative use of overwintering sawflies by these pathogens.
    This process kills sawfly larvae, although in an unknown fashion.
    Fourth, they will fully elucidate the chemistry of the resistance
    mechanisms expressed by several grass and weed species attacked by the
    sawfly. The resistance shown kills many sawfly larvae, but in a way
    that is not completely understood. Each of these target areas will
    allow us to identify and develop practical tools for sawfly management.
    Finally, they will use Russian wheat aphid-resistant isolines to
    examine sawfly and multiple pest resistance traits in wheat. This
    information will provide cereal breeders with a new arsenal to use in
    developing insect-resistant varieties.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
    2001, and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $331,270.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This is a new project which will begin during 2001; other
    potential funding sources have not yet been developed.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted throughout Montana, with the
    main laboratory focus being centered at the main Montana State
    University campus in Bozeman. Annually, there will be a need to field
    test new behaviorally active compounds, and this will be handled at the
    level of individual farm cooperators, with Montana State University
    Research Centers in wheat producing parts of the state aiding in the
    coordination of this effort. For the work on the natural enemies, a
    considerable effort will be concentrated on understanding the
    distribution in the eastern part of Montana, with the Research Centers
    at Sidney and Huntley assisting.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The work proposed is to conduct basic research to aid in
    applied goals. The timelines are somewhat lengthy because of this.
    However, all goals should be reached by 2005, except for the pathogen-
    based approaches, which will require approximately seven years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project and will be evaluated through
    accomplishment reports at the outset. An on-site review of another
    Montana special grant will enable a review of initial set-up and
    progress on this project at the beginning of the work.
                           wood utilization research
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Wood Utilization Research grant.
        Answer. The research includes: developing processes to upgrade wood
    products made from small-diameter or low quality trees to higher value
    structural applications; catalyzing the formation of new business
    enterprises; reducing environmental impact while improving systems for
    timber harvesting and forest products manufacturing; increasing the
    life of wood in use through preservation and good design; and assisting
    industry to be more innovative.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The forest products industry is very fragmented with many
    small firms which benefit from publicly-sponsored research. Research
    provides the woodworking machinery and tooling industry with the
    technology needed to be more competitive in the global economy. Most of
    the companies helped by this research are too small to afford in-house
    research groups. Shifts in resource availability and increased costs of
    the timber that is still available demand more complete usage in order
    for wood to remain competitive.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to generate new knowledge that will benefit the
    wood industry and the environment. New scientists are trained.
    Consumers benefit from better and more environmentally-sound products.
    Among the major accomplishments of the eight centers are (1) design of
    glue-laminated beams, reinforced with plastics, to save 25-40 percent
    of the wood fiber that would otherwise be needed; (2) technology to
    apply wood preservatives using super fluids to reduce environmental
    problems associated with present commercial treatments; (3) better
    harvesting systems that are efficient and environ-mentally acceptable;
    (4) increase of wood machining speeds and reduction of saw blade width
    to increase productivity and save raw material; (5) a patented system
    to apply pressure and vibration to prevent enzymatic sapstain which
    degrades hardwood lumber by $70 to $200 million per year; (6) reduction
    of quantity of wood bleaching chemicals needed by wood pulp producers;
    (7) design and strength of wood furniture frames to minimize wood
    requirements; (8) adoption of European frame saw technology to
    composite lumber to provide a new raw material source for industry; (9)
    improved technology to non-destructively scan standing trees for
    mechanical properties of the wood; (10) reduced warp in structural
    lumber produced from small-diameter trees; (11) characterization of the
    wood products industry; (12) heartwood formation; (13) recovery of
    preservatives from treated wood; (14) installation of a statistical
    process control system in one sawmill with impressive cost savings; and
    (15) development of cost effective and environmentally-friendly
    processes for removing high value chemicals from bark.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows:

            Fiscal year                                               Amount
    1985....................................................      $3,000,000
    1986....................................................       2,852,000
    1987....................................................       2,852,000
    1988....................................................       2,852,000
    1989....................................................       2,852,000
    1990....................................................       2,816,000
    1991....................................................       2,852,000
    1992....................................................       2,852,000
    1993....................................................       4,153,000
    1994....................................................       4,176,000
    1995....................................................       3,758,000
    1996....................................................       3,758,000
    1997....................................................       3,536,000
    1998....................................................       3,536,000
    1999....................................................   \1\ 5,136,000
    2000....................................................   \2\ 5,136,000
    2001....................................................       5,773,271
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................      61,890,271

    \1\ Provided a $500,000 increase for the six existing centers and
    $1,000,000 for the two new centers
    \2\ Provided $577,000 to establish a new center in Alaska.

        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The following are non-Federal funds provided by states:
      --Mississippi State University non-Federal funds were: State
            appropriations, $2,498,800, $2,178,725, $2,353,225, 2,331,691,
            $2,650,230, $2,778,535, $2,582,617, 2,543,017, $2,717,448, and
            $2,993,888 for 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998,
            1999, and 2000 respectively. In addition, industrial funds
            averaged $958,871 for the 5 years from 1995 to 2000 in support
            of Mississippi's research.
      --Oregon State University state appropriations were: $1,337,962,
            $1,394,304, $1,256,750, $1,252,750, $1,417,755, $1,117,000,
            $1,100,000, $1,352,000, $1,337,000, and $1,492,000 for 1991,
            1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000,
            respectively. Estimated non-public support was $802,000 this
            year.
      --Michigan State University non-Federal contributions were $605,000,
            $590,000, $700,000, and $600,000 for 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000
            respectively.
      --Three new locations were added in 1994: University of Minnesota-
            Duluth non-Federal match was $590,000, $550,000, $560,000,
            $371,930, $307,532, $510,939, and $1,506,000 for 1994, 1995,
            1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively.
      --North Carolina State University was $126,000, $165,000, $135,000,
            $163,216, $323,134, $518,258, and $556,486 for 1994, 1995,
            1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively.
      --University of Maine was $600,000, $445,723, $459,100, $477,464,
            $526,210, $148,032, and $619,898 for 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997,
            1998, 1999, and 2000, respectively.
      --Two new centers were added in 1999:
        --The University of Tennessee non-Federal funds for 1999 and 2000
                were $150,987 and $241,696 respectively.
        --The consortium of the Universities of Idaho and Montana and
                Washington State University non-Federal funds for 1999 and
                2000 were $305,000 and $406,000, respectively.
      --An additional new center was added in 2000: The University of
                Alaska non-Federal funds for 2000 were $257,872.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. There are nine locations. The initial three--Oregon State
    University, Mississippi State University, and Michigan State
    University--were joined by the University of Minnesota-Duluth, North
    Carolina State University, and the University of Maine in fiscal year
    1994. In 1999, they were joined by a center at the University of
    Tennessee and a second center at the University of Idaho, which
    includes a consortium of the University of Idaho, University of
    Montana, and Washington State University. In fiscal year 2000, funds
    for a wood utilization center in Alaska were appropriated. This Center
    is just getting organized now.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objective was to build and maintain three
    strong regional centers of wood utilization research. These centers
    have been established, and six additional centers have been
    established. Projects begun in 1999 will be completed by 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. On-site reviews of centers are conducted on a rotating
    basis. Each center's plans are reviewed yearly or more frequently.
    Progress reports are reviewed yearly. Center directors met together for
    joint planning in June 1996, February 1999, and December 2000. Centers
    all have advisory committees or research committees which meet
    periodically. The agency conducts informal on-site reviews
    periodically. The Minnesota and Oregon sites were visited in 1996; the
    North Carolina site was visited in 1997. Oregon State was visited in
    1998. A Departmental panel reviewed the original three centers in 1992
    and 1993. At that time, the original objectives were broadened to
    address environmental concerns. The centers are helping industry meet
    environmental objectives by conducting research leading to sustained
    timber production; extending the timber supply through improved
    processing; developing new structural applications for wood; and
    developing wood extractives to substitute for pesticides,
    preservatives, and adhesives.
                   wool research, texas, wyoming, and montana
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Wool Research, Texas, Wyoming, and Montana grant.
        Answer. The overall goals for this research are to develop
    objective measures of wool, mohair, cashmere, and other animal fibers
    to improve the quality of wool products while enhancing the
    profitability of the U.S. sheep and Angora goat industries. Specific
    objectives include: develop and evaluate measurement techniques for
    rapid objective evaluation of wool, mohair, cashmere, and other animal
    fibers; increase the use of objective measurements to increase fiber
    production, quality, and income to producers; and increase consumer
    acceptance of fabrics made from these fibers. The fiscal year 2000
    grants terminate between May and August 2001. The 2001 grant proposals
    have been requested by the agency. All grants are reviewed for
    relevance to industry needs and undergo scientific peer review.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Collaboration exists among researchers in Texas, Wyoming,
    and Montana associated with this grant and other Federal, university,
    and industry scientists to assure responsiveness to the needs of those
    involved in wool and mohair production, marketing, and processing. The
    sheep and goat industries and the principal researchers believe that
    this research is of national, regional, and local need. The research on
    wool, conducted by means of this grant, represents the only research
    efforts in the U.S. focused on improving the efficiency of measuring
    and assuring wool, mohair, and cashmere quality for garments made from
    these fibers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The overall goal for this research is to develop and
    evaluate objective measures of wool, mohair, cashmere, and other animal
    fibers with a focus on improving the efficiency of manufacturing and
    predicting the quality of products made from these fibers while
    enhancing the profitability of the sheep and Angora goat industries.
    Research accomplishments included the development of rapid and
    inexpensive measurements of average fiber diameter and distribution of
    animal fibers and other fiber properties such as fiber length and
    color. Each of these properties are very important for grading and
    processing to determine ultimate softness, durability, dye
    characteristics, comfort, and garment price. Within the past year,
    evaluation of laser and automatic image analysis techniques have been
    completed by the three cooperators in this project in collaboration
    with Yocom-McColl Testing Labs, the main animal fiber testing lab in
    the U.S. Two of the principal investigators authored American Society
    for Testing and Materials standard methods of test for these
    instruments that are now published by the Society and, therefore,
    accepted and in use by the U.S. textile industry. Due in large part to
    efforts expended under this grant, all animal fibers tested for fiber
    diameter distribution by this commercial laboratory are now tested
    using one or the other of these new instruments. This has resulted in
    labor savings that have produced a reduction in the price for some
    associated fiber tests. Producers, traders, and processors now receive
    more accurate fiber data at reduced cost and with shorter turnaround
    times. Because this form of testing is also recognized by the
    international textile community, U.S. animal fibers are now more
    readily accepted and accessible as international commodities.
    Additional instruments, primarily for measuring length and strength,
    have also been evaluated with the ultimate objective of better
    describing domestic wool that will eventually permit electronic trading
    of animal fibers. These measurements impact the efficiency of the sheep
    and Angora goat industries, the effectiveness of monitoring the quality
    and consistency of imported products, and the satisfaction of buyers of
    wool, mohair, and cashmere textiles. Other experiments, aimed at
    enhancing our ability to establish the value of specialty animal fibers
    were successfully completed and reported for mohair, cashmere, and
    other fibers. Experiments were also conducted to identify more
    productive rams and billie goats; to select for finer and more valuable
    mohair in Angora goats; to establish the genetic, nutrition, and
    management requirements for the concurrent production of lean lamb meat
    and high quality wool; and to demonstrate the economic advantages to
    producers of skirting and classing their raw wool prior to marketing.
    Research and education efforts have kept U.S. processors and producers
    current on the status of the wool markets world wide. A functional home
    page was built for the purpose of electronic marketing of wool, mohair,
    and cashmere with plans to have it in use by the private sector in late
    2000 or early 2001. It is important that the U.S. producers of wool,
    mohair, and cashmere are competitive in the world market and that
    consumers are assured high quality textiles.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from appropriated funds in the
    amount of $150,000 per year for fiscal years 1984-1985; $142,000 per
    year for fiscal years 1986-1989; $144,000 for fiscal year 1990;
    $198,000 for fiscal year 1991; $250,000 per year for fiscal years 1992-
    1993; $235,000 for fiscal year 1994; $212,000 per year for fiscal years
    1995-1997; $300,000 per year for fiscal years 1998-2000; and $299,340
    in fiscal year 2001. A total of $3,780,340 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $150,913 state appropriations, $11,800 product sales,
    $5,817 industry, and $3,556 miscellaneous in 1991; $111,394 state
    appropriations, $25,451 product sales, $41,442 industry contributions,
    and $3,068 miscellaneous in 1992; $152,699 state appropriations,
    $39,443 product sales, $40,804 industry contributions, and $3,556
    miscellaneous in 1993; $150,094 state appropriations, $35,284 product
    sales, $36,484 industry contributions, and $3,556 miscellaneous in
    1994; $67,345 state appropriations, $10,000 product sales, and $34,325
    industry contributions in 1995; $39,033 non-Federal support in 1996;
    $174,486 non-Federal support in 1997; $200,307 state appropriations and
    $13,000 industry contributions in 1998; $202,854 state appropriations,
    $14,385 industry contributions, and $34,000 miscellaneous in 1999; and
    $208,475 state appropriations, $13,000 industry contributions, and
    $30,500 miscellaneous in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is in progress at Texas A&M University, Texas
    Agricultural Experiment Station at San Angelo, the University of
    Wyoming at Laramie, and Montana State University at Bozeman.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives to improve the efficiency and
    profitability of wool, mohair, and cashmere production and marketing
    are still valid. Specific objectives for individual laboratories and
    experiments are continually revised to reflect the changing research
    priorities for the wool, mohair, and cashmere industries and to satisfy
    consumer demands for products from these fibers. It is anticipated that
    five years will be required to complete the current research.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An external review of the overall wool research program was
    conducted in 1998 in Las Cruces, New Mexico, by a team consisting of
    industry experts and peers from the scientific community. The review
    team concluded that the program was very productive and beneficial to
    the U.S. wool, mohair, and cashmere producers as well as the allied
    fiber industries. Research achievements, noted by the review team,
    included program input for testing methods and standards used to buy
    and sell wool for international trade. This has been very important in
    advancing issues important to domestic producers and maintaining
    competitiveness in the world market. World-wide acceptance of standards
    for the objective measurement of natural animal fibers due, in part, to
    this program, has set the stage for the electronic marketing of wool
    and other fibers to aid the U.S. fiber industries in remaining
    competitive in the world market. Viable sheep and goat industries will
    support jobs for people in rural areas, supply alternative foods for
    public consumption, use natural means of brush control to abate fire on
    rangeland and inhabited areas, and provide alternative uses of land
    unsuitable for cultivation and cattle grazing.
        In addition to the program review, grant proposals are annually
    reviewed and the research facilities are periodically visited. The
    principal investigators meet annually to evaluate progress and re-
    evaluate research priorities according to industry needs. Because the
    research encompassed in this grant is a component of a regional
    research project, accomplishments are reported annually to scientific
    peers and representatives from the sheep, goat, wool, mohair, and
    cashmere industries. In addition, the overall regional research project
    is peer reviewed every third year.

                   Federal Administration and Special Grants

                agricultural development in the american pacific
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agricultural Development in the American Pacific
    program.
        Answer. The Agricultural Development in the American Pacific--
    ADAP--is a primary means for Land Grant research, extension, and
    instruction programs of the five participating institutions of American
    Samoa Community College, College of Micronesia--including the College
    of the Federated States of Micronesia, College of the Marshall Islands,
    Palau Community College--, Northern Marianas College, University of
    Guam, and University of Hawaii, to collaborate and cooperate to enhance
    their impact on Pacific tropical agriculture and communities. ADAP is a
    mechanism to address common regional client-based issues while
    maintaining cultural, rural, economic, and environmental integrity.
    This research grant is awarded non-competitively to a program planned
    and approved by the five involved Land Grant institutions.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the five participating
    institutions are geographically dispersed yet facing many similar
    issues which can best be served through extensive networking and
    communication. ADAP facilitates communications and seeks to raise
    levels of academic achievement and faculty skills and improves the
    overall quality of education at the Pacific Land Grants. ADAP's most
    unique feature is that twice each year it brings together the five
    Deans/Directors to discuss agriculture and human resources issues
    facing isolated, tropical ecosystems in the Pacific, and to plan and
    implement activities to address those issues. Oftentimes, discussions
    go beyond ADAP funding and opportunities to areas of increased
    partnership such as that found with the 1890 Land Grants. ADAP
    priorities are categorized in three areas: sustainable systems,
    collaborations/partnerships, and communication systems. Activities
    include joint and collaborative efforts to improve animal waste
    management, animal health, and information distribution; to business
    development and human nutritional improvement; to improving leadership
    capabilities at the institutional level; building mutually beneficial
    relationships with the 1890 Land Grant institutions; and the seeking of
    recognition of Pacific tropical agriculture by the National Association
    of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. ADAP's goals are to develop human resources and information
    capacity within the institutions to manage more effectively
    agricultural programs within and among the institutions, and to focus
    available resources on critical agricultural issues of the Pacific.
    Ongoing projects include animal health surveys, livestock waste
    management, artificial insemination demonstration/education, market and
    production information tracking systems--co-developed with island
    ``state'' Departments of Agriculture-- and a website that contains
    relevant publications from around the world. ADAP is also continuing to
    work with the 22-nation Secretariat of the Pacific Community in
    developing a paraveterinary education program. This program will use
    distance learning and site visits to train students from the
    cooperating nations and territories in animal health. This is a
    critical need for the Pacific region. Both ADAP and the Secretariat of
    the Pacific Community contribute support as well as skilled personnel
    to assist in this project. In another regional cooperative effort, ADAP
    led a retreat for strategic planning among the ``state'' and national
    Departments of Agriculture in the Pacific region in July 1999. That
    retreat identified food insecurity as a major issue for Pacific Island
    nations, and ADAP is formulating a number of island forums, in
    collaboration with the Secretariat of the Pacific Community and the
    Food and Agriculture Organization--FAO, Pacific office-- to address the
    issue. In February 2000, the ADAP directors met with the University of
    the South Pacific and other international organizations in Apia, Samoa,
    to work on ways to communicate and collaborate better on issues of
    mutual interest.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This work was funded for seven years with an annual
    appropriation of $650,000 to the former Extension Service. In fiscal
    year 1994, an appropriation of $608,000 was made to CSREES to continue
    the ADAP program. In fiscal year 1995 the appropriation was $527,000.
    The fiscal years 1996 and through 2000 appropriations were $564,000
    each year and fiscal year 2001 is $562,759. The appropriation total to
    CSREES is $4,517,759.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds are not provided. Unspecified in-kind
    support, such as facilities, equipment, and administrative support is
    provided by each institution and, in some specific projects, by non-
    ADAP collaborating institutions.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. American Samoa Community College, College of Micronesia,
    College of the Federated States of Micronesia, College of the Marshall
    Islands, Palau Community College, Northern Marianas College, University
    of Guam, and the University of Hawaii are carrying out this work.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The ADAP program has been achieving original program
    objectives, particularly in the areas of improvement in institutional
    capacity and communications. It is anticipated that an additional 5 to
    10 years will be needed to fully achieve collaborative integration of
    the American Pacific land-grant programs.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A formal review of the ADAP program was conducted July 1-
    10, 1997, and included visits by review team members to American Samoa
    Community College, College of Micronesia, Northern Marianas College,
    University of Guam, and University of Hawaii. ADAP incorporated review
    recommendations in preparing and adapting a new five-year strategic
    plan. An agency specialist conducts a merit review of the proposals
    submitted in support of the appropriation annually. In a review of the
    April 1999 proposal, progress was judged to be satisfactory.
                 agricultural waste utilization, west virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agricultural Waste Management, West Virginia
    grant.
        Answer. The West Virginia Department of Agriculture is conducting a
    project to validate the applicability and effectiveness of anaerobic
    filtration for treating municipal and agricultural wastes. Anaerobic
    filtration is a leading-edge technology specifically developed to
    biologically recover nutrients and energy from organic waste streams
    and produce an effluent which meets discharge permit requirements. West
    Virginia State College has worked on three objectives. One is to
    conduct field trials to determine the effect of digested solids on
    vegetable crops and pasture grasses. Task two is to assess the
    feasibility of using various digested waste products as a base for fish
    feeds. Task three is to move the anaerobic digester from Moorefield,
    West Virginia, to West Virginia State College for research and
    training.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The current need for this technology is local, national,
    and international. The beneficiaries of this technology will be both
    the people and the environment anywhere in the world where problems of
    food, fertilizer, and energy shortages are currently in conflict with
    the preservation of environmental quality. The direct benefits include
    enhanced and expanded waste water capacity, creation of new jobs, and
    revenue from by-products and water quality improvement.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to determine the applicability of
    anaerobic digestion to convert organic waste materials to energy in the
    form of biogas, thereby reducing the amount of organic matter for
    disposal. The goal will go beyond the testing of waste materials in the
    digester and proceed with a program to compare the microbiological
    loading of rivers, where known environmental pollution is measurable,
    and where the total bacterial concentration in the rivers could be
    determined in real-time with a bioprobe. The subsequent goal is to
    manage the remaining solids from anaerobic digestion in an
    environmentally-sound manner.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $360,000; for fiscal
    year 1999, $250,000; fiscal year 2000, $500,000; and fiscal year 2001,
    $494,909. A total of $1,604,909 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funds are not being expended.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is conducted at West Virginia State College,
    Charleston, West Virginia. Prior to 2000, most of the anaerobic
    digestion work was at a private farm near Moorefield, West Virginia.
        Question. What was the anticipated date for the original objectives
    of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the anticipated
    completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
    is June 30, 2000. These objectives are being met within the original
    schedule. The additional objectives should be completed by June 30,
    2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The anaerobic digester sludge samples collected are
    analyzed at the laboratories of the West Virginia Department of
    Agriculture in Moorefield, West Virginia. The typical analyses consists
    of: total solids, volatile solids, volatile fatty acids, total kjeldahl
    nitrogen, phosphorus, pH, and fecal coliform. The separated solids are
    collected and sent to West Virginia State College for use in field
    studies to determine plant growth response to the nutrients. The
    perennial crops, blueberries and pasture grass, were planted in 1999 on
    the 2/3 acre field site. A fish production facility was built with
    approximately 40 fish tanks and associated aquaculture equipment. This
    facility will be used to assess the feasibility of using various
    digested waste products as a fish feed. The anaerobic digester at the
    Moorefield, West Virginia, site was dismantled to be moved to
    Charleston, West Virginia.
                       agriculture water policy, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Agriculture Water Policy, Georgia grant.
        Answer. The research will investigate policy implications of
    agricultural water use in Georgia and across the southeastern U.S. The
    agency has received the grant proposal describing the proposed research
    and expected outcomes of the research.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Agricultural water use in the southeast U.S. has increased
    dramatically over the last two decades. At the same time, population
    growth in this region has led to increased demands for municipal water
    sources. The proposed research will evaluate these conflicting needs
    and develop policies aimed at maximizing the utility of the water
    supply to meet municipal and agricultural demands.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goals of this research are to identify future water
    resource related problems, design alternative policies to correct these
    problems, estimate financial and non-monetary benefits of the
    alternative policies, and develop consensus among agricultural
    producers regarding preferred policies. This is a new grant; therefore,
    no work has been accomplished to date.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This is a new grant. The work supported by this grant
    begins in fiscal year 2001, and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001
    is $365,195.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds and outside sources were provided for
    this grant in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The majority of the work is being conducted at the Georgia
    Water Policy Center at Georgia State University. Additional work will
    be conducted through a collaborative arrangement established with
    Georgia Southern University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is a new grant. The anticipated completion date for
    this project is February 2004. No objectives have been completed at
    this time.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency is conducting a review of the proposal submitted
    by Georgia State University. Subsequently, an annual evaluation of the
    project is expected.
                       animal waste management, oklahoma
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Animal Waste Management, Oklahoma grant.
        Answer. This research project is designed to develop sustainable,
    environmentally safe, and ecologically-sound best management principles
    and practices for beneficial animal waste applications for High Plains
    Agriculture in support of rural economic development through a Federal-
    state-local partnership. Emphasis will be placed on the rapidly
    expanding swine industry in the semi-arid region, but information
    gained will also be applicable to the beef and dairy industries which
    play major roles in agriculture production in the region.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Oklahoma Panhandle region and contiguous counties in
    the states of Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Texas generates nearly
    $3 billion in sales of agricultural products annually. The Oklahoma
    Panhandle is the most productive agricultural region in the state with
    agricultural receipts in excess of $900 million, which represents 31
    percent of the receipts in the region. Texas County, in the Oklahoma
    Panhandle, ranks number one in the state with sales of $668 million in
    1997 and twentieth of all counties in the U.S. in agricultural sales.
    The majority of sales are related to livestock production and the rapid
    expansion of the swine industry in this semi-arid region has only
    strengthened that position. Oklahoma has moved to ninth in position in
    the U.S. for swine sales and Texas County, has risen to third
    nationally with nearly $200 million in swine sales from a position of
    645 in 1992. The rapidly expanding swine industry was projected to add
    $650 million in pork and value-added products in Oklahoma through the
    slaughter and processing of over 4 million hogs per year. Information
    gained from this study will provide the database to develop best
    management practices to maximize beneficial nutrient use and minimize
    nuisance odor in semi-arid cropping and rangeland production systems.
    Practices developed will have significant implications regionally,
    nationally, and internationally. The semi-arid agro-ecosystem is unique
    with climatic conditions consisting of low rainfall that promotes both
    dryland and irrigated agricultural practices; extremes in high and low
    temperatures; soils characterized with alkaline pH, low in organic
    matter, and high in calcium carbonate. This unique agro-ecosystem makes
    information gained from more humid environments inapplicable.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to develop best
    management practices that will protect ground water supplies from
    pollution of nutrients, salts, and pathogens; maintain air quality; and
    minimize odors derived from the entire swine-house, lagoon, land-
    application, soil-cropping and or rangeland production system, thus
    maintaining the quality of life in the rural sector. The work shows a
    positive response to animal waste applications particularly for the
    forage production systems. This will have an immediate impact for
    producers who have a diversified livestock production system that
    includes swine, beef, and/or dairy. Studies of ammonia loss from
    applications indicate there can be significant losses following land
    applications. This has several implications for producers and the
    environment due to ammonia loss and ammonia deposition. Ammonia is one
    of several factors associated with air quality in the region that
    contributes to the quality of life. This project has been able to
    accurately predict conditions that contribute to ammonia loss that will
    be included in the best management practices for the region. Developing
    this and other best management practices will allow producers to
    minimize ammonia losses and improve air quality in the region.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
    and the appropriation for the fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 at
    $250,000 per year and for 2001 is $274,395. A total of $1,024,395 has
    been appropriated for this project.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This project has been matched by $750,000 non-Federal
    funding. Sources for this funding have been State and agricultural
    industries.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work has been initiated at The Oklahoma Panhandle
    Research and Extension Center located in Goodwell, Oklahoma. Further
    work will continue to be done at this site. The Center will provide the
    land area and a portion of the facilities and equipment necessary to
    conduct the major portion of the study. Other study sites have been
    developed on private land in cooperation with swine operations in the
    panhandle region.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original completion date was February 29, 2000. Some of
    the original objectives have been answered in regard to air quality and
    ground water protection. However, work needs to continue on the
    implications of ammonia deposition and the effect on water quality in
    the region. Additional work needs to continue on the issues related to
    soil quality and cropping system management. Completion of these
    objectives and additional objectives related to these will be February
    28, 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was evaluated at the end of December 2000 when
    the summary report of the 1999-2000 accomplishments was submitted.
    Significant progress has been made toward accomplishing the specified
    goals.
        Results to date indicate significant amounts of ammonia will be
    volatilized, lost as a gas, almost immediately following effluent
    application to bare soils. Preliminary indications are that
    applications made to soil, which have significant quantities of plant
    residue or growing plants will reduce the quantity of ammonia lost by
    this pathway. An accurate predictive model has been developed to
    determine the amount of ammonia loss following application. This model
    will be included in development of best management practices for swine
    effluent application. Swine effluent applications to corn, sorghum, and
    forages have demonstrated that it is an acceptable method to supply
    nutrients for crop production. Of particular interest has been the
    response of the forage buffalo grass that is native to the Great Plains
    where work has been completed that indicates there is very limited
    potential for phosphorus from a swine lagoon reaching the aquifer in
    the region.
        Results of this project to date have been disseminated to the
    scientific community and general public via: one conference, four
    refereed publications one published proceeding, eleven proceedings
    papers, eight abstracts, one completed thesis, nineteen presentations
    at national or regional meetings and five publications in preparation.
                      biotechnology research, mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Biotechnology Research, Mississippi grant.
        Answer. This was a new special grant in fiscal year 2000. First
    year accomplishments include the hiring of two doctoral-level
    biotechnologists and the selection of two crops, sweet potato and hot
    pepper, as the initial target crops for improvement through genetic
    modification. CSREES has requested Alcorn State University to submit a
    grant proposal for fiscal year 2001 that has not yet been received.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The overall purpose of this project is to establish a
    Biotechnology Center at Alcorn State University that will focus on
    plant biotechnology research geared toward small farmers in
    Mississippi. Emphasis will be placed on improving the productivity and
    efficiency of crops and plants grown by small farmers in order to
    improve profitability and ensure long-term viability.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the research is to enhance Alcorn State
    University's research efforts in biotechnology through genetic
    improvement research utilizing biotechnology techniques and to improve
    the livelihood and viability of limited-resource producers in
    Mississippi and the southeast. First year accomplishments include the
    hiring of two doctoral-level biotechnologists and the selection of
    sweet potato and hot pepper as target crops for improvement through
    genetic modification.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This project began in fiscal year 2000 with an
    appropriation of $425,000 and $589,700 in fiscal year 2001. The total
    amount appropriated is $1,014,700.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. A $150,000 grant from the World Bank in fiscal year 1996
    and state funds have supported this work in previous years.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research is being conducted at Alcorn State University
    in Lorman, Mississippi, and at field locations in Preston and Mound
    Bayou, Mississippi.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigator anticipates completing the
    original objectives of the project by 2003. Additional or related
    objectives have not been specifically identified at this time.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The Alcorn State University project was evaluated by a
    merit review panel convened by the agency on April 17, 2000. The panel
    recommended approval of the project pending receipt of supplemental
    information on scientific and administrative aspects of the project.
    The supplemental information was received, and the agency is satisfied
    that the program is being administered in compliance with the purpose
    of the grant. A review panel will be convened to re-evaluate the
    project upon receipt of a proposal for fiscal year 2001.
                  center for agriculture and rural development
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Center for Agriculture and Rural Development
    program.
        Answer. The research monitors the final form and implementation of
    the Uruguay Round Agreement and evaluates its impacts on global trade
    and implications for U.S. Agriculture.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. As the Uruguay Round--UR--Agreement implementation
    proceeds, researchers will monitor the development of these policy
    changes and analyze the likely impacts of these decisions with emphasis
    on obtaining differential impacts for developing economies, developed
    economies, and those in transition. Researchers will also explore
    possible directions for the next Round or Mini-round of the World Trade
    Organization.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal is to assess and evaluate various
    proposals affecting agricultural trade, to provide analytical support
    to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and to provide
    information to farmers and agribusiness firms on the competitive
    implications of trade agreements. Theoretical studies and empirical and
    descriptive analyses of policy issues and technical problems pertaining
    to the Uruguay round of negotiations were completed and provided to
    negotiators and the agribusiness community. Knowledge developed in this
    phase is now being used to monitor the effects of the Uruguay Round
    Agricultural Agreement--URA.
        This grant supports six projects focusing on URA and the World
    Trade Organization--WTO--monitoring and implementation problems;
    implications of the URA and WTO for Eastern Europe, Baltic, and the
    Newly Independent States; development of a model to assess the North
    American Free Trade Agreement and its linkages with the General
    Agreement on Tariffs and Trade; trade implications of U.S. food and
    development aid in developing countries; integration of China into
    world agricultural markets; and special projects as requested for the
    United States Trade Representative's office. Major emphasis is placed
    on developing and improving international livestock and grain sector
    models.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This research program was initiated in fiscal year 1989.
    Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal
    year 1989, $750,000; fiscal years 1990 and 1991, $741,000 per year;
    fiscal years 1992-1993, $750,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $705,00;
    fiscal year 1995, $612,000; fiscal year 1996, $655,000; fiscal years
    1997 through 1999 $355,000; fiscal year 2000, $355,000; and fiscal year
    2001, $427,058. A total of $7,551,058 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $111,210 State appropriations and $175,616
    miscellaneous for a total of $286,826 in 1991; $113,779 State
    appropriations and $173,117 miscellaneous for a total of $286,896 in
    1992; $120,138 State appropriations and $164,707 miscellaneous for a
    total of $284,845 in 1993; $161,000 State and $30,000 miscellaneous for
    a total of $191,000 in 1995; $70,000 State appropriations and $44,000
    miscellaneous for a total of $114,000 in 1996; $60,325 in State
    appropriations and $61,500 in miscellaneous funds for a total of
    $121,825 in 1997; and $72,000 in State appropriations and $75,000 in
    miscellaneous funds for a total of $147,000 in 1998.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The research program is carried out by the Center for
    Agriculture and Rural Development at Iowa State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives of the project envisioned the
    development of models capable of providing guidance to policymakers,
    researchers, and farmers and others of the impact of agricultural trade
    proposals on the U.S. agricultural sector. As such the objectives are
    ongoing.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. We have conducted no formal evaluations; however, each
    annual proposal is peer reviewed for relevance and scientific merit.
    Also, an informal evaluation of this project takes place as a part of
    each annual project review and approval process.
                  center for innovative food technology, ohio
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Center for Innovative Food Technology, Ohio
    grant.
        Answer. Funds from the fiscal year 2000 grant are supporting
    research projects on the use of neural networks to classify food
    ingredients, on maximizing the concentration of ellagiac acid and
    lycopene in raspberries, developing protocols for producing swiss
    cheese starter cultures, developing improved methods for coating snack
    food and cereal products, and studying the use of ozonated water for
    washing packaged salads
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes the value-added food
    processing industry is the largest industry in the mid-western states,
    including Ohio where the industry contributes over $17 billion to the
    annual economy. From an economic development point of view, processing
    and adding value to crops grown within a region is the largest possible
    stimulus to that region's total economic product. This program aims to
    partner with and encourage small and medium-sized companies to
    undertake innovative research that might otherwise not be undertaken
    due to risk aversion and limited financial resources for research and
    development in these companies. The principal researcher believes that,
    although the initial impact of this research will be regional, the
    recipient organization of this grant is part of a technology transfer
    network and proactively seeks opportunities to deploy technologies
    developed through this research to the food industry on a national
    basis.
        Question. What was the original goal of the research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to develop innovative
    processing techniques to increase food safety and quality or reduce
    processing costs. The neural network project has developed a model for
    predicting the optimum processing parameters for meat product
    ingredients; the raspberry and tomato products have resulted in useful
    information to increase the positive health effects from consuming the
    fruits; the Swiss cheese project has developed a standardized method
    for producing starter cultures that lowers production costs; the
    coatings work has resulted in improved methods for adding flavorings to
    food products at lower cost; and the ozonation project, when complete,
    will very likely increase the shelf life and safety of packaged salad
    products.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1995.
    The project received appropriations of $181,000 per year in fiscal
    years 1995 through 1997; $281,000 in fiscal year 1998; $381,000 each in
    fiscal years 1999 and 2000; and $759,326 in fiscal year 2001. A total
    of $2,345,326 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In fiscal year 1995, non-Federal funds included $26,000
    from state funds and $70,000 from industry memberships. In fiscal year
    1996, non-Federal funds included $26,000 in state funds and $80,000 in
    industry funds. In fiscal year 1997, non-Federal funds included $35,000
    in state funds and $95,000 in industry memberships. In 1998, $35,000 in
    state funds and $105,000 in private industry memberships contributed to
    the support of the project. During 1999, industry funds increased to
    $125,000, and state of Ohio match increased to $50,000. Data on fiscal
    year 2000 are not currently available.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted in the laboratories of the Ohio
    State University and at various participating companies in Ohio,
    Illinois, and Missouri.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigator anticipates that all projects
    supported by the fiscal year 2000 grant will be completed by February
    28, 2001, and for funds awarded in fiscal year 2001, the principal
    investigator anticipates completing the objectives by July 31, 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An agency science specialist conducts a merit review of the
    proposal submitted in support of the appropriation on an annual basis.
    The last review of the proposal was conducted on June 22, 2000. At that
    time, the agency science specialist believed that the projects
    addressed issues relevant to food manufacturing, were scientifically
    sound, and that satisfactory progress was being demonstrated using
    previously awarded grant funds.
                    center for north american studies, texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Center for North American Studies, Texas program.
        Answer. The purpose of this grant is to develop linkages with
    educational and other institutions in Mexico and Canada in order to
    share data and faculty, conduct research identifying trade
    opportunities and marketing problems, conduct policy analyses, and
    develop a broad range of training programs preparing agricultural firms
    for international marketing opportunities. The research proposal was
    peer reviewed at the university prior to submission to CSREES.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Center for North American Studies--CNAS--program
    director believes that citizens of the United States, Mexico, and
    Canada have some similar concerns about the impact of the North
    American Free Trade Agreement--NAFTA-- and that new, innovative
    approaches involving international cooperation are needed to assess and
    evaluate these issues. Research and training are needed to provide
    information to evaluate alternatives for expanding U.S. exports and to
    resolve potential social, economic, and environmental conflicts.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to promote strong agricultural ties among the
    three North American countries, foster greater cooperation in resolving
    critical agricultural issues of common interest, and ensure the
    continued competitiveness of U.S. agriculture. Accomplishments over the
    last five years include: preparation of a briefing book on the
    millennial World Trade Organization--WTO--negotiations for agricultural
    leadership and Congressional staff; survey of 100 agribusiness firms to
    determine views on upcoming millennial WTO negotiations; research on
    ``strategic intent'' of southern Texas food marketing firms; continued
    investigation of technical trade barriers as a substitute for tariffs;
    a study of El Nino and La Nina on fruit and vegetable production;
    impacts of NAFTA on livestock, meat, feed, fruit, and vegetable trade;
    a range management watershed study along both sides of the Rio Grande
    River; and study of the competitive response of Texas food marketers to
    NAFTA. Since a new CNAS publication series was started in June 1998,
    seven applied research papers have been published. In 1999, the Center
    conducted 47 seminars/workshops for producers and agribusinesses to
    increase the international capacity of the U.S.; over 3,200 people
    attended. Collaborative work included a workshop on International
    Strategic Alliances workshop developed jointly with a Mexican and a
    Canadian university; an expanded database on Mexican agriculture; and a
    video conference for a Mexican agribusiness audience.
        Question. How long has this work been underway, and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Work supported by this grant began with an appropriation of
    $94,000 in fiscal year 1994; $81,000 in 1995; $87,000 per year for 1996
    through 2000; and $86,809 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $696,809 has
    been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: $39,000 State appropriations in fiscal year 1994;
    $54,000 in 1995; $60,000 in 1996 and 1997; $84,500 in 1998; and $80,000
    in 1999 and 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The program is being carried out at Texas A&M University
    through the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station in collaboration with
    other segments of the Texas A&M University System and Louisiana State
    University Agricultural Center.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1994 was for a period of 12
    months. The current phase of the program will be completed in the year
    2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in April
    2000, as it evaluated the 2000 project proposal, and concluded that:
    ``The project has sound objectives and procedures for helping U.S.
    firms to be successful in international markets and for helping policy
    makers understand the impacts of policies and trade agreement
    alternatives. Therefore, the project contributes to CSREES goals of a
    highly competitive agricultural production system and enhanced economic
    opportunity for Americans. The principal investigator is well
    recognized for his leadership in this area.''
                        climate change research, florida
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Climate Change Research, Florida grant.
        Answer. The research supported by this grant seeks to promote the
    effective use of climate information to improve decisionmaking within
    the agricultural sector in Florida. The primary objective is to reduce
    economic risk and improve the economic and social well being of
    Florida's rural population involved in agricultural production.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The need for this research emerges from the growing
    capacity to forecast climatic anomalies at seasonal lead times
    suggesting an unprecedented opportunity to tailor agricultural
    decisions to anticipated weather conditions. This could include
    decisionmaking to either mitigate the impact of unfavorable conditions,
    or to take advantage of favorable conditions.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goals of the research include: to characterize
    stakeholder needs; uses and perceptions of climate forecasts; evaluate
    the usefulness of and limitation of climate forecasts; and to adapt and
    enhance research tools, methodologies, and data products required for
    translating climate forecasts into information required to support
    agricultural decision/policy making.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $170,000 and for fiscal
    2001 is $169,626. A total of $339,626 has been appropriated to support
    this research.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Information on non-Federal funds and sources is not
    available.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This research is being conducted at the University of
    Florida, Gainesville.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. It is anticipated that work currently underway will be
    completed in September 2001.
        Question. When was the last evaluation of this project? Provide a
    summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The research proposed to be funded by this grant has been
    reviewed and approved by three qualified experts identified by the
    institution in April 2000. In addition, the proposal has been reviewed
    by qualified staff in CSREES prior to the release of funds. No
    additional evaluation is anticipated until the research is complete.
                             cotton research, texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Cotton Research, Texas grant.
        Answer. Texas Tech Universities has developed an integrated
    research effort to address cotton production issues using a
    comprehensive approach in order to strengthen the cotton industry in
    the high plains. Priority production and marketing issues will be
    studied.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The proposed project is expected to help support a broad-
    based program to address priority research needs of cotton grown on the
    Texas high plain. The specific issues will include production,
    processing, marketing and utilization.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this project is to improve the economics of
    cotton production in West Texas and expand the demand for cotton grown
    in the area.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
    The appropriation for fiscal years 1998-1999 was $200,000 per year;
    $170,000 for fiscal year 2000; and $498,900 in fiscal year 2001. A
    total of $1,068,900 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds are from the state of Texas and
    provide salaries and benefits for experiment station employees. Funds
    supporting the project were $156,000 in fiscal year 1998; $149,000 in
    1999; and $187,000 in 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work will be conducted at the Texas A&M University
    Research and Extension Center, Lubbock and Texas Technical University
    Campus, research facilities, and on area farms.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The principal investigators anticipate the project should
    be completed in fiscal year 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project received a comprehensive review and evaluation
    at its inspection by Texas A&M and Texas Tech Universities and CSREES
    National Program Staff. Each research project is peer reviewed
    annually, and the combined proposal is reviewed and approved by the
    institution.
           curriculum development/mississippi valley state university
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Curriculum Development and Strengthening-
    Mississippi Valley State University grant.
        Answer. Funds were used to strengthen academic programs, including
    accreditation and reaccreditation. Of the ten programs eligible for
    accreditation, nine have been accredited. Assessment of the criteria
    has begun for the one remaining eligible program. Academic programs
    have been broadened to include more agriculture-related courses
    consistent with the needs of students from the Mississippi Delta,
    students from other parts of the State, as well as out-of-state
    students. Curriculum additions have had a positive impact on student
    enrollment. Courses continue to be modified to reflect the needs of
    graduates as well as employers in the Mississippi Delta, with
    particular emphasis on those areas that employers have the greatest
    need. The funds continue to provide enhancements related to other
    program and administrative support areas that positively impact program
    delivery and administration at Mississippi Valley State University--
    MVSU.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional or local need for this
    proposal?
        Answer. The primary need for this project is to satisfy a local
    need. The need is for strengthening university capacity and curriculum
    development at MVSU. The Delta region is well known for its high level
    of poverty, high rates of unemployment, infant mortality, teen
    pregnancies and other chronic social problems. The MVSU Social Work
    Department is working diligently to improve the quality of life in the
    Delta counties and communities. In following the university's primary
    mission of teaching, the Social Work Department is offering an
    affordable quality education that is the key to overcoming many
    personal and social problems encountered by living in an impoverished
    agriculture environment. The Social Work Department offers an
    educational program that prepares professionals whose primary goal is
    to empower clients to overcome their personal and social problems.
        Question. What was the original goal of this project and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to provide funding to strengthen the
    academic programs of the university. This funding has strengthened the
    fiscal and academic areas of the university. The university's cash flow
    and cash availability have remained steady and sufficient all year
    long. Student recruitment has improved to show a positive ratio between
    applications received and students admitted. Approximately one-half of
    the applicants are enrolled. Increased quality of instruction and
    programs have benefitted students. This is reflected in the higher
    graduation rate, increased student enrollment, enriched faculty, and
    improved community relationship.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This program was initiated in fiscal year 1987. Grants have
    been awarded from funds appropriated as follows: fiscal year 1987,
    $750,000; fiscal years 1988 and 1989, $625,000 per year; fiscal year
    1990, $617,000; fiscal year 1991, $642,000; fiscal years 1992 and 1993,
    $668,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $593,000; fiscal year 1995,
    $544,000; fiscal years 1996-2000, $583,000 per year; and $645,577 in
    fiscal year 2001. A total of $9,292,577 was appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Mississippi Valley State University received State and
    private funding during the period of this grant. The State figures
    provided here are for enhancement funds gained above the university's
    standard formula generated funds. The sources and amounts are as
    listed:

                                                          SOUCE
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Fiscal Year                                 State          Private          Total
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1987............................................................              $0        $168,640        $168,640
    1988............................................................               0        1186,036         186,036
    1989............................................................          68,658         190,258         258,916
    1990............................................................         207,879         369,358         577,237
    1991............................................................         333,263         337,700         670,963
    1992............................................................         349,427         470,220         819,647
    1993............................................................          35,750         358,680         394,430
    1994............................................................         590,890         568,970       1,159,860
    1995............................................................         841,654         530,300       1,371,954
    1996............................................................       1,197,917         590,824       1,788,741
    1997............................................................         309,717         755,629       1,065,346
    1998............................................................         313,738         538,423         852,161
    1999............................................................         909,419         389,812       1,299,231
    2000............................................................       1,416,455         424,070       1,840,525
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. These funds are intended to strengthen programs at
    Mississippi Valley State University. The program has been carried out
    on the campus at Itta Bena and at off-campus sites in Anguilla and
    Greenville and the Greenwood Center since the Spring Semester of 1996.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives completion date was June 1992, and
    the primary objective of erasing the financial deficit was accomplished
    at that time. The university has been operating on a sound financial
    basis as of July 1993. Academic program strengthening has progressed
    very well. The objectives of the current grant will be completed by
    September 30, 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The program staff in the agency conducts an annual
    evaluation of reports submitted by the principal investigator. The
    evaluation reflects steady enhancement in curriculum development and
    improved support for strengthening administrative units. The academic
    and administrative organization is being expanded and initiatives are
    being designed to integrate in-service learning and undergraduate
    research into the academic curriculum. These initiatives are redefining
    the academic focus of the institution. Student life and services are
    being improved. Additionally, much attention is being devoted to teach
    education effectiveness. The Department of Natural Sciences and
    Environmental Health realizes that in an ever changing scientific
    technological environment, a labor force must be educated to meet the
    demands of the workplace and its employers. As such, the department
    hopes to foster an environment which meets the needs of students and
    faculty in the natural and environmental sciences by exposing them to
    different technologies and experiences that will make them competent
    and knowledgeable in their chosen fields. Of particular concern are
    those issues in the areas of aquaculture and agriculture.
        Presently, these areas are under studied and constantly changing.
    More and more, genetically-engineered crops are being used to avoid
    problems with drought and pesticides. This raises various concerns
    about its impact on the consumers and the exosphere. Many catfish
    farmers are concerned about their fish in regard to the pesticides and
    herbicides that are being used on crops in the Delta. The Department of
    Natural Sciences and Environmental Health aims to upgrade its
    facilities and the abilities of its researchers to address these issues
    and share the gained knowledge in a forum of fellow scientists.
                       data information system questions
        Question. Please provide a description of system development
    activities that have been funded.
        Answer. CSREES continues to fund activities under contract with a
    major information technology firm for the design and development of the
    Research, Education, and Economics Information System--REEIS.
    Previously funded tasks include the conduct of an inventory of
    databases targeted for inclusion in REEIS; a comprehensive assessment
    of information needs within the Research, Education, and Economics--
    REE--mission agencies and State partner institutions; design and
    development of a Web accessible catalog of databases identified in the
    inventory; a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art information
    technology systems available for use in developing the system; ongoing
    design and development of a REEIS proof-of-concept prototype; and
    conduct of a comprehensive interagency data modeling effort that
    identifies and describes data, data relationships, and sources of data
    from across the research, extension, education, and statistics domains
    of the REE mission agencies and State partner institutions. Also, a
    cooperative agreement with the University of Arkansas was established
    to provide national leadership in coordinating the efforts of a
    National Steering Committee charged with guiding the continuing
    development of the system. The Committee held its latest meeting in
    August 2000. Funding has also been provided under the REEIS initiative
    for the design and development of an Evaluation and Accountability
    System for Extension--EASE--which is targeted for linkage in REEIS.
        Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
    activity?
        Answer. At present, USDA's REE mission area agencies and their
    university partners lack a central, integrated, user-friendly
    electronic information system capable of providing access to thousands
    of programs and projects for which they are responsible and which focus
    on food, agriculture, natural resources, and rural development. Such an
    information system is increasingly needed to enable the Department and
    its partners to readily conduct baseline and ongoing assessments and
    evaluations of research, education, extension, and economic programs
    and projects. In recent years, this need has become more urgent for
    several reasons. First, the United States needs a visionary publicly-
    funded research and development program to produce essential knowledge
    and innovations for meeting growing competition in a global market--
    which is largely attributable to the expanding research and development
    efforts of foreign nations. Second, a comprehensive information system
    is needed to serve as a primary reference source for development of new
    research and education programs on such diverse issues as increasing
    productivity in agriculture, processing and improving the safety and
    quality of food, and enhancing the sustainability of the environment
    and rural communities. Third, Federal/State policy makers and
    administrators are requiring empirical analyses to account for
    historical, current, and future use of public funds to provide a basis
    for redirecting funds to higher priority issues. Fourth, the Government
    Performance and Results Act--GPRA--has imposed reporting demands which
    current databases and decentralized information systems are not
    prepared to adequately satisfy. It is also envisioned that REEIS will
    play a key role in implementation of the Agricultural Research,
    Extension, and Education Reform Act--AREERA--of 1998. In this regard,
    REEIS would be well-positioned to:
      --Provide linkages for decisionmaking among REE agencies;
      --Enable consistent reporting on identical or similar issues;
      --Provide the public with understanding of the role and mission of
            REE agencies;
      --Expand REE's outreach to a broader base of constituencies;
      --Provide a better vehicle to facilitate interaction among REE
            agencies and their university partners;--Link commonalities of
            research, extension, and teaching projects and programs through
            a single interface; and
      --Foster global interactions.
        The REEIS customer base includes not only the REE mission agencies
    and their state partners institutions but other Federal agencies that
    partner with the research, extension, and education components of the
    Department. The Department of Education, the Department of Health and
    Human Services, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense,
    the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Science
    Foundation are among the Federal agencies that share and exchange data
    with the REE mission agencies and fund programs that address problems
    of mutual concern. Web-enabled access to data and information in the
    REEIS data store and state-of-the-art capabilities for manipulating and
    organizing the data will permit a greater knowledge base of information
    to be more easily shared among stakeholders pursuing common areas of
    interest. It is expected that Federal agencies with programs in food
    safety, natural resources and the environment, rural economics and
    community development, human nutrition, and science education, for
    example, will be key players in assisting the REEIS development team in
    refining many of the system requirements for REEIS. As full
    implementation of the system is realized, greater inter-agency
    communication and collaboration resulting from use of REEIS will lead
    to a strengthening of alliances across the Federal sector.
        Question. What was the original goal of this initiative and what
    has been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this initiative was to develop an
    information system that provides real-time tracking of research,
    extension, and education projects and programs; has the capability to
    communicate vertically between field, State, and Federal locations;
    enables the REE agencies and their partners to conduct rapid and
    comprehensive policy assessments and program evaluation analysis;
    facilitates assessment of technologies and practices employed in
    extension, education, economics, and research activities at the field
    and/or regional levels; provides clear and transparent public access to
    relevant parts of the information; and provides information management
    tools to enhance the timeliness and accuracy of REE-wide responses to
    inquiries about program objectives and expenditures.
        Since launching of the REEIS initiative, substantial system
    planning and development work has been completed. Work accomplished
    under a series of multi-task contracts with a private sector
    information technology firm was instrumental in meeting major
    milestones considered to be critical components and a prerequisite to
    the design, development, and implementation of REEIS. Major tasks
    included the conduct of a comprehensive strategic information audit of
    information needs within the REE agencies and partner institutions; the
    identification and inventory of major research, extension, education,
    and economics/statistics databases maintained or supported by the REE
    mission agencies; the design, development, and preparation of the REEIS
    database catalog prototype that affords Web access to the inventory of
    38 databases initially identified as candidates for inclusion in REEIS;
    the design and evaluation of the Web interface to the REEIS database
    catalog; a comprehensive review of state-of-the-art information
    technology systems available for use in developing REEIS; the design
    and development of several iterations of a Web accessible REEIS proof-
    of-concept prototype; and the completion of a comprehensive REEIS
    interagency data modeling effort.
        Activities completed in fiscal year 2000 included the development
    and assessment of alternative system architectures and the development
    and testing of a REEIS prototype populated with actual data from
    selected core databases.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Congress first appropriated $400,000 for REEIS in fiscal
    year 1997 to begin planning its design and development. The fiscal year
    1998 appropriation was $800,000. This was followed by appropriations of
    $1,000,000 in fiscal year 1999, $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2000, and
    $2,120,325 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $6,320,325 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Non-Federal funding does not apply at this time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Leadership responsibility for REEIS resides within the
    CSREES Science and Education Resources Development unit in Washington,
    D.C. This provides for effective linkage within the REEIS platform of
    the Current Research Information System, the Food and Agricultural
    Education Information System, and other appropriate research,
    extension, education, and statistics databases. The REEIS leadership
    works closely with the four REE mission agencies and the university
    system to ensure that primary users as well as key stakeholders are
    involved in the REEIS development process. A sizeable effort continues
    under contract with a major private sector information technology firm
    for the design, development, testing, and implementation of REEIS.
    Three staff persons, including a newly recruited REEIS director, are
    assigned full time to direct, manage, and coordinate agency and
    contracting activities. Plans are to recruit several full time computer
    specialists to operate and maintain the system.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. Initial implementation of REEIS was targeted for fiscal
    year 2000. However, the need to satisfy Department requirements for
    justification of the information technology investment for REEIS has
    delayed the use of fiscal year 2000 funds for implementation. These
    requirements include the preparation of several preliminary reports
    that include a cost/benefit analysis, a security plan,
    telecommunications plan, risk analysis, and a system architecture.
    Preparation of these reports is currently in progress. A cooperative
    agreement with the University of Arkansas has been extended in order to
    conduct a series of joint application design sessions and preparation
    of detailed system requirement documents needed for initial
    implementation. Pending the release of fiscal year 2000 funds, initial
    implementation is to begin in fiscal year 2001 with completion targeted
    for the first half of fiscal year 2002. Finalization of complete system
    requirements is to follow. Required to achieve broad implementation is
    the need to conduct ongoing needs assessments within the mission area
    and with its partners to align information system products and services
    with strategic information requirements necessary for meeting agency
    mission and goals and satisfying GPRA reporting requirements. Updating
    and maintenance of technical system assessments, conducting ongoing
    information technology evaluations, and enhancements of REEIS user
    interfaces will be essential to ensure currency and responsiveness over
    the life of the system. Additional activities include enlistment,
    training, and retention of essential personnel and staff, and the
    enhancement of several legacy systems and databases to permit effective
    inclusion in REEIS.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Progress and accomplishments of the REEIS initiative
    continue to undergo review and evaluation by the REE mission agencies,
    the REEIS National Steering Committee, our State partner institutions,
    and outside sources. The most recent in-depth evaluation of the project
    was conducted in June 2000 by a Department-wide information technology
    review board. Factors considered in the evaluation included REEIS
    system objectives, cost control measures, project scheduling,
    performance considerations, security policy, system architecture
    recommendations, and level of support for the Secretary's priorities. A
    user evaluation of this project was conducted at the August 2000
    meeting of the REEIS National Steering Committee comprised of
    representatives of the REE mission agencies, university partners, and
    key stakeholders. Committee members were presented the opportunity to
    critique the latest iteration of the REEIS proof-of-concept prototype
    in terms of its potential for responding to primary users, satisfying
    primary uses, and meeting priority system requirements. An independent
    verification and validation study is planned for fiscal year 2001. The
    study seeks to verify that results of development activities fulfill
    their requirements and validate that development products satisfy user
    needs under defined operating conditions.
                         geographic information system
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Geographic Information System program.
        Answer. The purpose of this program is to promote collaborative and
    innovative transfer of systems technologies to state and local
    governments and others in the public and private sectors. The current
    program is being carried out by the non-profit National Consortium for
    Rural Geospatial Innovations in America--RGIS. The directors and
    participants of the Consortium are the sub-contractors who are carrying
    out the program by working on agro-environmental problems at the
    national, regional, state and neighborhood levels. They represent a
    wide spectrum of site-based expertise including six academic
    institutions, one regional development authority, and the Southwest
    Indian Polytechnic Institute site added by Congress in 1997. This
    institutional arrangement has helped fill a role in linking some of the
    otherwise disparate efforts of agencies and academic institutions to
    apply them now in seven regions of the country.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher believes that local officials are
    facing increasingly complex land management issues that require rapid
    access to resource knowledge and databases for decision making. This
    project is needed to transfer relevant technology to state and local
    governments, including Native American communities whose limited
    training budgets and sometimes-isolated location make it difficult to
    use the latest technology. The technology developed by the Consortium
    is useful in improving the management of natural resources. While
    concentrating on issues related to agriculture, the independent, non-
    profit nature of the National Consortium for Rural Geospatial
    Innovations in America facilitates linkages across disciplinary and
    institutional barriers and makes it possible to use analyses at the
    state and local levels which were initiated at the Federal level. While
    the early phases of the geographic information system concentrated on
    building information systems related to rural, physical, and natural
    resources, the current challenge is to integrate human economic,
    social, and demographic information in order to better understand the
    relationship of human communities to the landscape. At the other end of
    the spatial scale, the role of the public sector in geographic
    information system-based precision farming technologies, data capture,
    and information synthesis is the subject of a current study group.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this work was to serve as a pilot
    project for the transfer of geographic information systems technology
    related to natural resources to local governments. The Consortium has
    carried out this function. Economic and biological data are being
    presented in various formats to state and local governments and
    individuals. Through its seven regionally-distributed sites, including
    the new Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute site in New Mexico, the
    Consortium has implemented a variety of geographic systems technologies
    to local governments--both rural and urban. These include the recent
    expansion of transfer of geographic information technology through
    various distance education and Internet technologies. It is anticipated
    that the fiscal year 2001 grant will support work under this program
    through March 2002. The proposal for this work in 2000 has been
    received and reviewed.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1990, $494,000; fiscal year 1991, $747,000; fiscal
    years 1992 and 1993, $1,000,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $1,011,000;
    fiscal year 1995, $877,000; fiscal year 1996, $939,000; fiscal years
    1997 through 1999, $844,000 per year; fiscal year 2000, $850,000; and
    fiscal year 2001, $1,022,745. A total of $10,472,745 has been
    appropriated since the beginning of the program.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. For fiscal year 1990 through fiscal year 1997, to date, the
    work in this program had $5,009,834 in non-Federal support. In fiscal
    year 1990, non-Federal support was $714,940 consisting of equipment,
    databases, and other miscellaneous contributions from foundations,
    city, and state governments. In fiscal year 1991, non-Federal support
    was $25,000 from county government. In fiscal year 1992, non-Federal
    support was $366,016 from county government, computer companies, and
    state governments consisting of equipment, software, facilities, and
    miscellaneous support. In fiscal year 1993, non-Federal support was
    $713,900 consisting of financial and miscellaneous support from
    foundations, county, and state governments. In fiscal year 1994, the
    non-Federal support was $713,643; in fiscal year 1995, the non-Federal
    support was $987,000; in fiscal year 1996, it was $567,173; and in
    fiscal year 1997, it was $456,582. In 1998-2000, non-Federal dollars
    exceeded $1,000,000, and it is anticipated that they will again in
    2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations in
    America is administratively centered at the University of Wisconsin-
    Madison. The University of Wisconsin-Madison, functioning as the Great
    Lakes and Administrative center, continues a long history of
    involvement in the application of this technology at the local level
    with strong focus on soils/land-use and the institutional aspects of
    the integration of a new technology.
        The southeastern center in Valdosta, Georgia, in affiliation with
    the South Georgia Regional Development Center, has developed a
    comprehensive plan of the City of Adel as a model for other urban
    centers in the 10-county region.
        The southwestern center, in Fayetteville, Arkansas, serves several
    local governments through its training facilities at the University of
    Arkansas, basing its technical approach on expertise and past
    experiences with the Federally-developed system known as GRASS. They
    have developed pilot projects for some local jurisdictions and state
    level databases, which they have provided online.
        Central Washington University focuses on training for state
    planning and on three local governments and the Yakima Nation in the
    Yakima watershed.
        The north central center in Grand Forks, North Dakota, in
    affiliation with the University of North Dakota, focuses on relating
    real time weather data to other spatial attributes.
        Native American communities are being reached through the newly-
    developed Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute facilities in
    Albuquerque, New Mexico.
        Two new sites were added in fiscal year 1999. They are Pennsylvania
    State University and the Geographic Information Systems Consortium at
    Wilkes University and Kings College in Pennsylvania. These two sites
    have replaced the NCRI-Chesapeake site and will be involved in
    providing Geographic Information Systems solutions to environmental
    problems that local government and regional planning commissions are
    dealing with in the Upper Susquehanna/Lackawanna Watershed.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objectives to build institutional frameworks
    for developing and disseminating geographic and related information to
    local decision makers is constantly evolving. Each site has developed
    approaches to addressing regional needs for modern technologies, and
    many innovative applications have been implemented. Technologies,
    including Internet-based educational and information exchange, have
    been developed to respond to the Consortium's customers. The Consortium
    has been asked to include these new technologies in order to bring its
    primarily rural users into new eras of public education and information
    management.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Proposals have been internally reviewed by Departmental
    personnel in different agencies. Beginning in 1995, the program has
    also been externally reviewed by local advisory committees and
    qualified professionals inside and outside of government. Their various
    comments and suggestions are sent to the agency and have helped with
    the favorable merit reviews. A 3-day review of the program was
    conducted in November 2000 by Departmental personnel in conjunction
    with a satellite training broadcast of Geographical Information Systems
    technologies to tribal colleges. The program was found to be making
    good progress towards objectives and producing useful documents for
    their clientele.
                 germplasm development in forage grasses, ohio
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Germplasm Development in Forage Grasses, Ohio
    grant.
        Answer. This project was initiated in fiscal year 2000 as a
    subcontract under the Hydroponic Tomato Production grant funded at
    $100,000 and was funded as a stand alone grant for 2001. The goals of
    the program are to identify and clone genes responsible for apomixis
    and to use them to develop apomictic germplasm in commercially-
    important grasses such as corn, wheat, and rice. Apomixis is the
    development of seed embryos without fertilization which produces
    offsprings identical to the parent plant and greatly speed up
    development of new plant cultivars.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. These three grain crops are grown world wide and are the
    principle food source for much of the world's population. The apomictic
    character which can freeze the genetic make up of the first generation
    following cross breeding, equatorial to negative reproduction, greatly
    speeds up the development of new cultivars. This could be a major
    contribution toward feeding the world's growing population. This work
    has national and international impact.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to identify and clone
    the genes responsible for apomixis in grass plants and to use them to
    develop improved germplasm for important grain crops such as corn,
    wheat, and rice. To date five RNA clones from an apomictic forage grass
    have been sequenced, and their gene expression is being evaluated.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $99,780.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal finds and sources provided for this grant
    were as follows: $68,400 state appropriations in fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the University of Toledo and
    Miami University of Ohio.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is estimated by the principal investigator to be 2005.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last agency evaluation was in a fiscal year 2000 review
    and evaluation of the subcontract of the Hydroponic Tomato production
    Special Research Grant Proposal which was performed by CSREES National
    Program Staff. DNA sequences for gene segments from Tripsaum
    dactyloides have been isolated and sequenced. This will be used to map
    and identify value-added genes.
                         gulf coast shrimp aquaculture
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Gulf Coast Shrimp Aquaculture grant.
        Answer. The Oceanic Institute and the Gulf Coast Research
    Laboratory have submitted a grant proposal that is currently under
    review. The research has addressed three major areas of research
    including broodstock development, aquatic animal health, and the
    development of economically viable biosecure culture systems.
    Researchers are developing improved high health stocks of marine shrimp
    with enhanced production traits and resistance to specific viral
    pathogens. The program continues to respond rapidly to the viral
    diseases and emerging pathogens that have significantly impacted the
    U.S. shrimp farming industry. Efforts to identify important viral
    pathogens and develop enhanced detection methods for these pathogens
    continues. Studies aimed at preventing new introductions of exotic
    viral pathogens in commercial and wild shrimp stocks have intensified.
    Technologies to enhance biosecure broodstock, hatchery, and production
    facilities are being developed and refined.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal researcher indicates that there is potential
    to enhance domestic production of marine shrimp through aquaculture in
    order to reduce the approximately $3 billion annual trade deficit in
    marine shrimp. Research is directed at the critical needs of the
    industry including improved supply of high quality seed, improved
    shrimp health management, improved biosecurity and environmental
    protection, and enhanced production efficiency in shrimp culture
    systems. The U.S. has the opportunity to become a major exporter of
    shrimp seed and improved broodstock, disease control and biosecurity
    technologies, products, and services.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to increase domestic production of
    marine shrimp through aquaculture. High-health, genetically-improved,
    and specific pathogen-resistant stocks have been developed and
    evaluated under commercial production conditions. These improved stocks
    serve as the genetic base for most of the commercial shrimp production
    in the U.S. Researchers have responded to severe disease outbreaks
    caused by the introduction of exotic viral pathogens into U.S. Studies
    have focused on the prevention and detection of shrimp viral diseases
    which have decimated domestic commercial production. Biosecure and
    environmentally-compatible production systems have been developed that
    have enhanced U.S. production technology. Diagnostic and disinfection
    techniques for a number of important viral pathogens have been
    developed.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Grants have been awarded from funds appropriated as
    follows: fiscal year 1985, $1,050,000; fiscal year 1986, $1,236,000;
    fiscal year 1987, $2,026,000; fiscal year 1988, $2,236,000; fiscal year
    1989, $2,736,000; fiscal year 1990, $3,195,000; fiscal year 1991,
    $3,365,000; and fiscal years 1992-1993, $3,500,000 per year; fiscal
    year 1994, $3,290,000; fiscal year 1995, $2,852,000; fiscal year 1996,
    $3,054,000; fiscal years 1997 through 2000, $3,354,000, per year; and
    $4,167,811 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $49,623,811 has been
    appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium estimates that
    non-Federal funding for this program approaches 50 percent of the
    Federal funding for fiscal years 1991-2001. The source of non-Federal
    funding is primarily from state and miscellaneous sources. There is
    also substantial in-kind contributions from commercial cooperators.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out through grants awarded to the
    Oceanic Institute in Hawaii and the Gulf Coast Research Laboratory in
    Mississippi. Research is also conducted through subcontracts with Tufts
    University, the Waddell Mariculture Center in South Carolina, the Texas
    Agricultural Experiment Station, and the University of Arizona.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original specific
    research objectives was 1987. The original specific objectives have
    been met, however new challenges to the U.S. farm-raised shrimp
    industry continue the need for shrimp culture research. Researchers
    anticipate that the specific research outlined in the current proposal
    will be completed in fiscal year 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project proposal is reviewed annually by the agency's
    Program Managers and the Program Specialist. The fiscal year 2000
    agency evaluation concluded that the research objectives were clearly
    stated and the proposed research was consistent with the National
    Science and Technology Councils--NSTC--Strategic Plan for Aquaculture
    Research and Development. Facilities and expertise were very good, and
    the research activities were closely linked to the U.S. shrimp farming
    industry with the industry cooperating in many components of the
    research. The agency conducted an on-site review of this program in
    October 1999. The external review team indicated that the quality of
    the science was high, that researchers continue to provide information
    critical to the development of the shrimp farming industry in the U.S.,
    and that the overall Consortium management was excellent.
                livestock marketing information center, colorado
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the Livestock Marketing Information Center, Colorado
    program.
        Answer. The Livestock Marketing Information Center--LMIC--is a
    well-respected source of market-related data and analyses for the
    livestock sector. Direct participants in the Center include 23
    universities, 3 USDA agencies, and 8 private sector organizations.
    Livestock producers, livestock firms, and State and Federal agencies,
    and other institutions also access its data and information. The grant
    has significantly enhanced the ability of the Center to provide
    objective analyses of livestock markets and make recommendations to
    livestock producers.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Recent changes in the structure of the livestock industry
    and in farm legislation have forced producers to pay more attention to
    market signals. Market prices have become more volatile because of
    changing domestic and international markets, thereby increasing
    producers' need for high quality market information and interpretation.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal is to increase the ability of livestock producers
    to make economically-sound business decisions in a changing global
    economy.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by the grant began in fiscal year 2000
    with an appropriation of $170,000, and $184,593 in fiscal year 2001.
    The total amount appropriated is $354,593.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The Center includes a consortium of faculty from 23
    universities; participating universities contribute about $170,000 of
    non-Federal funds a year.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work will be carried at the Livestock Marketing
    Information Center, Denver, Colorado, in cooperation with Colorado
    State University and 22 other universities.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original project was a period of 12 months, ending in
    May 2001. However, there are ongoing needs for timely analysis to
    support decisionmaking processes of livestock producers and others in
    the livestock industry.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in March
    2000, as it evaluated the 2000 project proposal, and concluded that:
    ``LMIC is a excellent home for this project. It has been recognized in
    a number of awards and is a leading institution in the adoption of
    electronic technology since the early 1980s, making its data and
    information readily available on the Internet for easy access and
    customized output. The principal investigator and staff have the
    attitudes, skills, and abilities to do an outstanding job. The project
    is consistent with CSREES' goals of a globally-competitive agricultural
    system and enhanced economic opportunity.''
                          mariculture, north carolina
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Mariculture, North Carolina grant.
        Answer. The agency requested that the university submit a grant
    proposal that has yet to be received. The long-term goal of the project
    is to develop methods for mass propagation of marine finfish for
    commercial cultivation and possible stock enhancement. Specific
    objectives address improved control of reproduction, broodstock
    husbandry practices, growout technologies, larval rearing, and analysis
    of intensive production systems in selected marine finfish species
    including the southern flounder and the black sea bass.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal investigators forecast an increasing need for
    the development of aquacultural production systems and methodologies
    for a variety of marine finfish. Results from this research will have
    broad application in the identification and development of marine
    species with commercial potential in the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research program was to develop
    sustainable aquaculture production systems for marine finfish. Captive
    mutton snapper were successfully matured and spawned, and the resulting
    larvae reared through the juvenile stages. Juveniles were supplied to
    commercial and governmental organizations for commercial grow-out
    trials. Initial results appear promising with good survival rates and
    excellent feed conversion ratios. Current research involves southern
    flounder and black sea bass and focuses on controlling reproduction,
    developing broodstock husbandry practices, evaluating stocking
    densities, optimization of environmental factors and feeding regimes
    for larval rearing, and evaluating production economics in intensive
    systems.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 1998 was $150,000; for fiscal years
    1999 and 2000, $250,000 per year; and for fiscal year 2001, $324,285
    was made available. A total of $974,285 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The university estimates that approximately $115,000 of
    non-Federal funds were provided for this project in fiscal year 1998;
    $61,941 were provided for fiscal year 1999; and $125,000 for fiscal
    year 2000. These funds came primarily from state and private sources.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The research will be conducted at the Center for Marine
    Science Research at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The project was initiated in fiscal year 1998. The original
    goals that were to be completed in fiscal year 2000 have been met. The
    anticipated completion date for the current proposal is fiscal year
    2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2000 agency evaluation concluded that the
    proposal was well-written and the objectives were clearly stated. The
    methodology and experimental design were sound, and the research was
    relevant and addressed a potential opportunity for the aquaculture
    industry. Facilities were excellent and have been enhanced through this
    program. The research team was well qualified and had the appropriate
    expertise. The proposed research is consistent with national goals and
    needs outlined in the National Science and Technology Councils--NSTC--
    Aquaculture Research and Development Strategic Plan.
              national alternative fuels laboratory, north dakota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the National Alternative Fuels Laboratory, North
    Dakota grant.
        Answer. Through a nationally-marketed collaboration program in
    which the National Alternative Fuels Laboratory matches about half of
    its Federal funding with non-Federal money to work on industry-relevant
    research, the National Alternative Fuels Laboratory staffs have
    developed a Federal Aviation Administration-certified lead-free
    ethanol- and biodiesel-containing alternative to leaded aviation
    gasoline that is now commercially available in South Dakota, and will
    be introduced at airports throughout the U.S. in a year or two in
    response to increasing pilot demand. They have resolved ethanol-in-
    gasoline performance and environmental issues to accelerate the use of
    ethanol, and they have initiated new biomass fuel developments,
    including processes, to produce Environmental Protection Agency-
    approved, high-octane, emissions-cleaning gasoline additives from
    agricultural resources. In addition, they have initiated and
    coordinated the 27-member Red River Valley Clean Cities Coalition to
    increase the number of alternative fuel vehicles in regional public and
    private fleets and have built E85 refueling sites in North Dakota.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Our nation needs to develop commercially-viable
    alternatives to fossil fuels to ensure energy security, improve air
    quality, and provide employment and economic development opportunities.
    It is crucial to national security and economic development that these
    new fuels are accurately represented in the marketplace and given an
    opportunity to compete fairly with traditional fossil fuels. The
    National Alternative Fuels Laboratory provides unbiased scientific data
    on fuel performance and environmental effects. Regional need for the
    research derives from the need to support regional agriculture and
    associated industries through development of new biomass fuel
    industries based on new crops and conventional crop residues, and
    development of economic uses for agricultural co-products.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The primary original goal was to develop a database of at-
    the-pump-sampled conventional, reformulated, and alternative
    transportation fuels sold in the upper midwest and throughout the U.S.
    to enable comparison of current and historical fuels on the basis of
    chemical and physical properties. This fuels database is being expanded
    to include how gasoline chemistry affects air quality and fuel
    performance. Another original goal was to provide information on
    conversion of crop residues, agriculture processing wastes, high-
    cellulose-content municipal wastes, and other biomass materials to
    alternative fuels. The National Alternative Fuels Laboratory program
    supported North Dakota's first two public E85 refueling sites,
    initiated an ongoing industry-supported effort to develop and build a
    new agricultural co-product-to-carboxylic acid plant in the Grand Forks
    region--carboxylic acids are building blocks for bio-based polymers and
    fuels--helped resolve ethanol blend evaporative emissions issues and
    E85 engine cold-start problems, and initiated an ongoing industry
    collaboration to demonstrate the viability of producing and utilizing
    biomass-based clean-burning gasoline and diesel fuel additives.
        Question. How long has this work been under way, and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The National Alternative Fuels Laboratory work began in
    fiscal year 1991 and was, in part, sponsored by this grant. Federal
    appropriations in fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1993 were
    $250,000 per year. Later awards were $235,000 in fiscal year 1994;
    $204,000 in fiscal year 1995; $218,000 per year in fiscal years 1996
    through 2000; and $258,430 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $2,537,430
    has been appropriated over 11 years.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. To date in fiscal year 2000, $80,000 in non-Federal
    collaborative funding has been secured from Kraus Group Inc., an
    alternative fuels infrastructure developer, and the American Lung
    Association of Minnesota. A total of $1,240,000 in non-Federal funds
    has been secured for performance of the National Alternative Fuels
    Laboratory program objectives over the duration of this grant. During
    fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1993, non-Federal funding from the
    state of Illinois totaled $630,000. For fiscal year 1994, non-Federal
    funding of $105,000 was secured from the American Corn Growers'
    Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, and others. For fiscal
    years 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999, non-Federal funding totals of
    $50,000, $60,000, $140,000, $90,000, and $95,000, respectively, were
    secured from corn grower organizations, state agriculture departments,
    alternative fuels technology companies, and regional economic
    development agencies.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is performed at the University of North Dakota
    Energy and Environmental Research Center in Grand Forks. The Center is
    a research, development, demonstration, and commercialization facility
    that employs about 200 scientists, engineers, and support personnel.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The completion date for the original objectives was April
    30, 1992. The objectives were met. The work was then expanded to
    include partnerships with industry and agriculture. The National
    Alternative Fuels Laboratory has been established as a center of
    expertise for development and demonstration of bio-based fuels,
    investigating fuel chemistry effects on engine performance and air
    quality, dissemination of accurate and objective information regarding
    ethanol in gasoline, and ethanol feedstock assessment and process
    development. Additional tasks include commercializing an ethanol-based
    aviation gasoline, implementing industry collaborations to produce
    carboxylic acids and fuel additives from regional agricultural
    resources, and administering the Red River Valley Clean Cities
    Coalition. These tasks should be completed by 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of this project is conducted annually based on
    the annual progress report and discussions with the principal
    investigator, as appropriate. The review is conducted by the cognizant
    staff scientist who has determined that this research is in accordance
    with the mission of the agency.
              national center for peanut competitiveness, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been done under the National Center for Peanut Competitiveness, Georgia
    grant.
        Answer. The grant supports an interdisciplinary research and
    education program to enhance the competitiveness of the U.S. peanut
    industry by examining alternative production systems, developing new
    products and new markets, and improving product safety.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Peanuts are a very important crop in several southern
    states. In many counties, peanuts provide more than 50 percent of all
    crop income. Peanut producers have been major beneficiaries of
    government income protection programs, but Federal farm and trade
    policies are changing and producers must become more competitive and
    market oriented.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The project helps peanut producers be more competitive in
    the global market. Recent accomplishments follow. An expert management
    system adapted to hand-held computers enables county agents to meet
    farmers in the field and recommend least-cost weed control practices,
    thereby saving farmers several dollars in chemical costs and placing
    less burden on the environment. An interdisciplinary team developed a
    disease-risk index model that successfully predicts the likelihood of
    disease and economic result. Ongoing research is helping to develop
    expert decision support systems to enable producers to improve their
    competitiveness. New production practices such as twin-row planting
    patterns and strip-till production practices are being evaluated in
    several locations.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998.
    Appropriations have been as follows: $150,000 in fiscal year 1998;
    $300,000 in fiscal years 1999 and 2000; $399,120 in fiscal year 2001.
    Total appropriations to date total $1,149,120.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: in fiscal year 1998, the state of Georgia contributed
    $141,181 and the state of Alabama, $15,000; in 1999, the state of
    Georgia contributed $504,354 and the state of Alabama, $67,553.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The Center is located at the University of Georgia at
    Griffen and involves university cooperators from nearby peanut
    producing states, such as Auburn University in Alabama and the
    University of Florida.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1998 was for a period of 36
    months, however, the need to improve the competitiveness of U.S. peanut
    growers continues to grow. The current phase of the program will be
    completed in 2003.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed a merit review of the project in July
    2000, when it evaluated the current year's project proposal, and
    concluded that: ``The project has sound objectives and procedures for
    helping the U.S. peanut industry become competitive, thereby
    contributing to the CSREES goals of a highly competitive agricultural
    production system and enhanced economic opportunity for Americans. The
    principal investigator and other faculty named in the proposal are
    recognized for their leadership in the industry. The subcontracts with
    Auburn University and University of Florida are appropriate and help to
    create a true regional effort.''
                            pm-10 study, washington
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the PM-10 Study, Washington research grant.
        Answer. The PM-10 Study in Washington addresses the effects of
    emissions of PM-10 and PM-2.5 sized particulates, or dust, from
    agricultural land on air quality and development of control strategies.
    These studies are being conducted by scientists at the University of
    California-Davis and the Washington State University, in cooperation
    with Federal, state, and local agricultural, environmental, and health
    agencies and farmers and growers in both states. The California program
    had focused on developing and refining methods to accurately measure
    and detect the sources of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions from various
    agricultural-susceptible California crops and soils. In addition, the
    California research had been expanded to include dust and gaseous
    emissions from cattle feedlots, dairies, and the poultry industry. The
    Washington State University scientists are using refined instruments on
    field sites to measure and predict the effects of wind erosion and
    agricultural practices in the Columbia River Basin region on PM-10 and
    PM-2.5 emissions, under both natural wind erosion and with portable
    wind tunnel studies. Alternative cropping and tillage practices,
    residue management, and weed control practices are being developed and
    compared for control of PM-10 and PM-2.5 emission pollution under
    Columbia River Basin conditions. Models using regional weather data
    have also been developed in Washington to predict potential air quality
    degradation by PM.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. There has been growing national concern over the potential
    health and safety aspects of air pollution from dusts and suspended
    particulate matter resulting in passage of the 1990 Clean Air Act, as
    well as state air quality laws in both California and Washington.
    Because of particular problems from PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions in the
    arid regions of the Western U.S., research on the role of agricultural
    operations in intensively cultivated soils--such as in California and
    the Columbia River Basin--as sources of PM-10 and PM-2.5 pollution will
    assist growers to develop alternative agricultural management practices
    to control PM-10 and PM-2.5 emissions is critical.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goals of this research were to measure the PM-
    10 emission rates from significant crop and tillage practices, to
    determine the source of PM-10 emissions on soils in agricultural
    regions of central and southern California and the Columbia River Basin
    in the Pacific Northwest, and to explore cost-effective alternative
    agricultural practices to control these emissions. More recently,
    studies of finer PM-2.5 particulates have been included because of
    their recognized potential health risks. In California, field
    measurements were continued on both PM-2.5 and PM-10 emissions on
    production practices on almonds, figs, walnuts, cotton, wheat, and on
    ammonia emissions from dairy farms and feedlots. Similar studies in the
    Columbia River Basin are being conducted in Washington on a number of
    agricultural practices in the rain-fed and dryland croplands.
    Susceptible climatic and soil conditions and tillage and cropping
    practices have been identified and are being used to develop prediction
    tools to assist growers to adopt alternative practices to reduce
    potential air pollution by PM-10 and PM-2.5 particulate emissions.
    During 1998, an intensive study was undertaken to evaluate emission
    differences in almond harvesters. Data have been taken in California to
    assess land preparation techniques.
        A Light Detection and Ranging system has been developed at the
    University of California-Davis that makes it possible to take a
    snapshot of the shape of an emission plume from a source such as a
    harvester and make estimates on the amount of particulate material
    emitted into the atmosphere and its subsequent transport. Efforts
    continue to calibrate the Light Detection and Ranging System. New
    predictive tools are being developed by Washington to predict dust
    storms from extreme weather events.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in March 1994. The
    appropriation for fiscal year 1994 was $940,000; fiscal year 1995,
    $815,000; for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $873,000 per year; and
    for fiscal year 2001, $435,041 for Washington State University only.
    California was not funded under this grant for fiscal year 2001. A
    total of $6,555,041 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. In California, the program is matched by State funds in the
    form of salaries, benefits, and operating costs. In Washington, there
    were no state or non-Federal funds in support of the PM-10 project in
    1994 and 1995. In 1996, state support was $22,566, and in 1997, state
    support was $102,364. Similar funding was continued in 1998 to 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Previous work was being directed by participating
    scientists at the University of California-Davis and currently by
    scientists at Washington State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives
    of this project is 2001. The first four objectives of the project on
    soil particle characterization were anticipated to be completed in
    1999. The objectives on field control will continue. In 1998, a manual
    for practices was developed and circulated for use by growers in
    Washington State to reduce wind erosion on agricultural land.
    Implementation and development of these management practices will be a
    major role of this project in the future. Quarterly and annual reports
    on the Washington State project to date are available.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency's Program Manager annually reviews the research
    progress reports and proposed new research and attended the last annual
    meeting of the program to assess progress in December 2000. The program
    is also evaluated each year by technical, administrative, and agency
    personnel. Progress is reported at research review meetings three times
    a year, with the November 1998 advisory committee members. A formal on-
    site review by a panel of experts was conducted of the Washington
    program in November 1997.
      precision agriculture, alabama geospatial training and application
                                     center
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Precision Agriculture, Alabama Geospatial
    Training and Application Center grant.
        Answer. This grant will develop training programs for farmers in
    the use of Global Positioning Systems, Geographical Information
    Systems, Remote Sensing and Variable Rate Technology for precision
    farming application.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project will focus on the southeastern area of the
    U.S. However results will apply to any location where precision farming
    is applied.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project is to provide training
    for farmers and agricultural service representatives in the use of
    precision farming technology.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and was funded at $425,000, and in fiscal year 2001 is funded at
    $585,709. The total appropriation is $1,010,709.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The estimate for non-Federal funds from state appropriation
    and other sources was $300,000 for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The project will be conducted at the U.S. Space and Rocket
    Center Huntsville, Alabama, and the Tennessee Valley Research and
    Extension Center at Belle Minci, Alabama.
        Mr. Skeen. When was the anticipated completion date for the
    original objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
    What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
    objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is 2004.
        Mr. Skeen. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project was peer reviewed and subjected to the project
    review and approval process by the submitting organization. In
    addition, each proposal is reviewed by CSREES National Program Staff.
     precision agriculture/tennessee valley research and extension center,
                                    alabama
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Precision Agriculture/Tennessee Valley Research
    and Extension Center, Alabama grant.
        Answer. The Precision Agriculture Tennessee Valley Research and
    Extension Center Project will focus on evaluating and demonstrating the
    utility of geospatial applications to crop production in the area. The
    work will cover issues such as: Global Position Sensor, variable rate
    applicators, yield monitor, computer software and soil moisture
    monitoring equipment. This is a cooperative effort with the Geospatial
    Training and Application Center Project and will provide field
    laboratory for hands-on training of participants in that training
    program.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The activities of this program will be carried out in the
    Tennessee Valley of Alabama, however, the training supported in part by
    this project will have boarder application and therefore could have
    regional and national significance.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this research is to evaluate precision
    technologies at the Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center for
    applications to site-specific farming and to support training in the
    use of those technologies.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This work started in 2000 as part of the Precision
    Agriculture, Geospatial Training Center Project and was funded in 2001
    as a separate stand alone project. The appropriate for fiscal year 2001
    is $146,677.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were estimated at $97,000 for fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Tennessee Valley Research
    and Extension Center and area farmers fields.
        Question. When was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is 2004.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project was peer reviewed at the institution and was
    subjected to the project review and approval process. In addition it
    was reviewed by CSREES National Program Staff.
                   sustainable agriculture development, ohio
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Sustainable Agriculture Development, Ohio grant.
        Answer. A proposal has been requested from the University of
    Toledo. The principal researcher has indicated that the proposal will
    address the building of capacity and international linkages between
    universities in the U.S. and in Lebanon.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The principal research has indicated that the globalization
    of agriculture has led to a need to increase international interactions
    in research and education.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. According to the project leader, the general goal will be
    to build research capacity among universities in the U.S. and Lebanon
    in biotechnology. This goal will be accomplished through support for
    research and training of Master's degree students at the American
    University of Lebanon and through the training of students from Lebanon
    for Ph.D. degrees at the University of Toledo and the Ohio State
    University. Research and training under this project will include the
    identification and analysis of plants native to Lebanon with potential
    medicinal, bioactive, or ornamental value. Since the proposal has not
    yet been funded, there are no accomplishments to report to date.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $473,955.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Since the project has not yet been funded, there are no
    non-Federal funds to report at this time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is expected to be carried out in the U.S. and
    Lebanon by the University of Toledo, the Ohio State University, and the
    American University of Beirut.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The objectives and completion date have not yet been
    determined.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last agency evaluation conducted.
        Answer. No evaluation has yet taken place since the project has not
    yet begun.
                          urban silviculture, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Urban Silviculture, New York grant.
        Answer. This is a new project thus a precise description of the
    research to be conducted is not currently available. The general focus
    however is ``types of greenery most conducive to solving air quality
    problems in the Mott Haven and Hunts Point neighborhoods of New York
    City.''
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. At this writing, a proposal has not been received. The
    grantee is conducting a thorough literature review and will submit a
    proposal in conjunction with the outcomes of the literature review. The
    requested date for proposal submission is April 30, 2001.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date.
        Answer. The original goal is to determine the types of vegetation
    and planting design(s) most conducive to ameliorating air quality
    conditions in the Mott Haven and Hunts Point neighborhoods in greater
    New York City.
        Question. How long has the project been under way, and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Other than a literature review, which is ongoing, the
    project has not begun. The total fiscal award, and the fiscal year 2001
    award are identical $237,476.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. The source and amount of non-Federal funds has not been
    disclosed as the grantee is still working on the original proposal.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out.
        Answer. The project has not yet begun, but research sites are
    targeted for the Mott Haven and Hunts Point areas of greater New York
    City.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion dates of additional or related projects?
        Answer. The work has not begun thus no objectives have been met.
    The grantee will likely structure their original investigative work
    over a two-year time span and reflect in their proposal that this time
    span will only allow for the establishment of multiple research
    designs, not quantitative air quality amelioration results.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency has not conducted an evaluation of this project.
    CSREES' project administrator traveled to New York City on January 18,
    2001 to meet with Congressman Serrano's office and the grantee
    regarding the nuances of grant proposals originating under the Federal
    Administration sector of CSREES' budget.
                            water quality, illinois
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Water Quality, Illinois grant.
        Answer. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium grew out of a fiscal
    year 1990 appropriation of $500,000 to Southern Illinois University at
    Carbondale to focus on the short- and long-term effects of agricultural
    chemical contamination on the state's environment, on groundwater
    quality and quantity, and ultimately, on human health and welfare. As a
    result of this appropriation, the university joined forces with the
    Illinois State Geological Survey, the Illinois State Water Survey, the
    University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service, the University of
    Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, and shortly thereafter, the
    Edwardsville Campus of Southern Illinois University, to create the
    Illinois Groundwater Consortium. The Consortium's primary mission, then
    and now, is to work effectively toward providing a solid scientific
    basis for agricultural chemical management and regulatory decision
    affecting Illinois groundwater. The consortium has worked to address
    the concerns of the agricultural and agrochemical industries, as well
    as the valid concerns of the agencies charged with protection of
    environmental quality. Projects supported with consortium funding are
    peer-reviewed by researchers at 30 different universities and agencies
    from across the Nation, and results are presented, critiqued, and
    published annually at the Consortium's Research and Planning
    Conference.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. According to some estimates, Illinois depends on
    groundwater for nearly half of its water usage, with the downstate
    region being most heavily dependent on groundwater sources. The quality
    and quantity of groundwater resources in Illinois are of critical
    concern for the entire estate, from safe drinking water supplies to the
    rapidly growing urban northeastern region to reliable irrigation waters
    in the agriculturally-oriented south.
        Between 1996 and 1999, research funded by the Illinois Groundwater
    Consortium was targeted to studies of the impacts, recovery, and
    remediation of groundwater supplies following the Midwestern region
    after flooding. The extensive 1993-1994 flooding of the Mississippi,
    Missouri, and Illinois Rivers and their tributaries had devastating
    effects on the farmlands, communities, and natural resources of the
    area. These effects have major implications for agricultural practices,
    water quality, and public policy decisions. This natural catastrophe
    resulted in a need for further research into the impact of the flooding
    on surface/groundwater, soils, and their rehabilitation, biodiversity,
    and economic and public policy in the region.
        The more recent focus of the Consortium is on the impacts on
    groundwater of land use practices and changes in such practices
    resulting from urbanization as well as agricultural activities such as
    the growth of large animal feedlots. While the impact of land use
    practices is most immediately seen in surface waters and river systems
    through pollution, changes in biodiversity and habitat, and silting,
    the impact of agricultural contamination on groundwater resources is of
    equal, and perhaps more compelling, concern.
        In addition, there is a continuing need to disseminate results of
    groundwater studies to the public to enable Consortium findings to be
    expeditiously beneficial to those needing the information. To
    facilitate this objective, the Consortium expanded its participant
    institutions to include Southern Illinois University-Edwardsville. The
    strategic location of the Edwardsville campus in the heart of the flood
    damage area, as well as its qualified research scientists who work in
    the Consortium's high priority research areas, add strength to the
    Consortium's capabilities.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium was established to
    coordinate and support research on the effects of agricultural
    chemicals and other phenomena or events, anthropogenic or natural, on
    Illinois' groundwater. In working toward these goals, it is important
    to achieve a balance between the need to maintain the productivity and
    cost-effectiveness of the Nation's agricultural systems and the need to
    maintain the integrity of the natural environment. In this context, the
    Consortium has worked to address the concerns of the agricultural and
    agrochemical industries as well as those of the agencies charged with
    protection of environmental quality.
        The highest priorities of the Consortium are: (1) the funding of
    research upon which public policymaker working on land-use or
    groundwater-protection issues can base decisions, and (2) the broad
    dissemination of this information. Projects funded by the Consortium
    that are completed, under way, or proposed include the following:
        Short-term projects, largely flood-based and mostly completed:
      --Effect of extended inundation on soil productivity;
      --Effectiveness of methods of remediation for flooded soils;
      --Movement of chemicals--pesticides, herbicides, heavy metal
            elements, etc.--from flooded soils into surface and ground
            waters, including rural wells;
      --Impacts on soil fertility and nutrient balance caused by flooding;
      --Impacts of flooding on plant and aquatic life, including endangered
            and dangerous species, and microbial communities;
      ----Effectiveness of riparian buffer strips under flooded conditions;
            and
      --Groundwater quality changes resulting from flood-related land-use
            developments in both the bottomlands where farming practices
            change, and in the uplands where new communities are being
            developed.
        Long-term projects, largely current and future, are focusing on the
    effects of land-use practices and changes in practices:
      --Changes in soil chemistry and productivity over time;
      --Long-term effects on and recovery of microbic activity;
      --Long-term assessments and consideration of cultural--social,
            political--contexts of decision making;
      --Impacts of urbanization on groundwater quality and quantity;
      --The roles of nitrogen and nitrate: Changes in nitrogen-fixing
            bacteria, isotopic analyses to identify sources of nitrate, and
            nitrate management for water quality protection;
      --Recommendations for long-term, systems-based planning and
            management for watershed and bottomland management;
      --Examination of public policy decisions with implications for
            agriculture and water quality; and
      --Educational outreach to management agencies, educational
            institutions, and farmers.
        Information on the occurrence, transport, and fate of agriculture
    chemicals in varied hydrogeological settings in Illinois, and the
    effects of regulatory and inventive policies and strategies, has been
    acquired through joint efforts of experts in the state of Illinois who
    are members of the . Illinois Groundwater Consortium.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Research grants have been awarded from funds appropriated
    as follows:

            Fiscal year                                       Funding Amount
    1990....................................................        $500,000
    1991....................................................         590,000
    1992....................................................         750,000
    1993....................................................         750,000
    1994....................................................         690,000
    1995....................................................         500,000
    1996....................................................         500,000
    1997....................................................         500,000
    1998....................................................         500,000
    1999....................................................               0
    2000....................................................         297,500
    2001....................................................         348,232
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................       5,925,732

        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    were: $255,891 state appropriations in 1991; $447,237 state
    appropriations in 1992; $644,054 state appropriations in 1993; and
    $623,124 state appropriations in 1994. Non-Federal and State funds for
    1995-1997 have exceeded the Federal funds. In 1998, state
    appropriations totaled $151,650; in 1999, $156,198; and in 2000,
    $181,881.
        Question. Where will the research be carried out?
        Answer. The active research programs sponsored by the Illinois
    Groundwater consortium are being carried out throughout the state of
    Illinois, including, but not limited to, the heavily populated
    northeastern part of the state, the Karst watershed in southwestern
    Illinois, the drainages of the Sangamon and Illinois Rivers, and in
    natural conservation areas such as Horseshoe Lake. Researchers
    undertaking these programs are staff at the member institutions of the
    Consortium, including the University of Illinois, the Carbondale and
    Edwardsville campuses of Southern Illinois University, the Illinois
    State Geological Survey, and the Illinois State Water Survey. The
    Consortium is coordinated in the Office of Research Development and
    Administration in the Graduate School of Southern Illinois University-
    Carbondale.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Illinois Groundwater Consortium was established to
    support research on Illinois' groundwater. In the first and subsequent
    proposals, we identified both short-term objectives, which are project
    goals that could be accomplished within 1-2 years, and long-term
    objectives that could be accomplished within 2-5 years. The
    Consortium's highest priorities are: (1) to fund research that has
    practical implications for the people of Illinois and will contribute
    to sound policy and management decisions, and (2) to achieve broad
    dissemination of this information.
        With respect to the first priority, the Consortium's first major
    focus--what we might think of as a first phase of a coordinated
    research program--was a 5-year study of the impacts and recovery of the
    1993-1994 flooding in the Midwest. By the end of calendar year 2000, we
    had completed six years of studies involving 24 projects, primarily
    directed to the flooding event. That phase is completed now; and in
    1999, the Consortium Board of Directors met and decided on the scope
    and direction of a second phase of groundwater study. Six projects are
    currently funded by the Illinois Groundwater Consortium as part of the
    next phase of projects for fiscal years 2000 through 2003. Projects in
    this phase will address two major issues. One concerns the effects of
    land-use practices and changes in such practices on groundwater quality
    and quantity, emphasizing long-term assessments and consideration of
    cultural--social and political--contexts of decision making. The second
    issue consists of intensified educational outreach efforts to
    management agencies, educational institutions, and farmers in the form
    of ``user friendly'' publications.
        In terms of the second priority of the Consortium--dissemination of
    research findings--results of projects completed in previous years and
    progress reports on projects underway are published each year as part
    of the ``Proceedings of the Annual Research and Planning Conference''
    of the Consortium and in the Consortium's ``Groundwater Bulletin.''
    Distribution of both these publications is broad, by way of mailing
    lists to public and private institutions and individuals, as well as
    through related conferences and workshops. Illinois Groundwater
    Consortium-funded research has been the basis for publications and
    educational materials used in classrooms, by management agencies and by
    farmers. These include ``50 Ways Farmers Can Protect Their
    Groundwater--the 1950 Ways' series'' which serves as a textbook and
    informational resources in all 50 states and internationally. A new
    series of these books, entitled ``Secret Agent Worms'' and funded by
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, is being developed for
    educational use at the grade-school level.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This project has not been subject to formal agency review.
    The USDA regularly reviews the Consortium's proposals for funding,
    along with the titles, principal investigators' names and affiliations,
    and budgets. In addition, individual project proposals are peer-
    reviewed by at least three faculty/researchers drawn from 36 different
    universities, state, and Federal labs and surveys, the Department's
    research laboratories, and other research centers. The reviewers rate
    proposals on criteria pertaining to scientific merit, quality of the
    research team, likelihood of the work resulting in publications and
    grant support from other sources, and related ness of the project to
    the key objectives of the Consortium.
                          water quality, north dakota
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Water Quality, North Dakota program grant.
        Answer. The original goal of this research was to develop an
    understanding of the occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural
    chemicals found in representative field settings in the northern Great
    Plains region of the U.S. In 1996, the scope of the program was
    expanded to include additional water management issues in the Red River
    of the North drainage basin. The Red River Water Management Consortium,
    a partnership between public and private sectors was established to
    address critical water quality and quantity issues in an area where
    agriculture is the predominant industry. A major objective of the Red
    River Water Management Consortium is to use results from the initial
    phases of this research program to find economical, practical, and
    timely technological solutions to water-related issues facing the
    region. By providing co-funding for the program, the Consortium members
    become active stakeholders in the research and ensure the practicality
    of the work performed.
        Since the Consortium was established, the Energy and Environmental
    Research Center has advocated a better understanding of the critical
    nature of the climatic cyclicity as the primary factor affecting the
    economy of this region. In order to live successfully in a setting that
    is highly influenced by cyclic climatic phenomena, the Energy and
    Environmental Research Center advocates developing technically-based
    tools as a means of protecting the region from the harmful effects of
    both flooding and drought and the evaluation and implementation of
    creative water management concepts through basinwide partnerships
    between basin stakeholders. The Center believes that the effective
    Federal, state, and local agency, municipality, and industry
    partnership established by the Consortium can become a model for
    agricultural watersheds throughout the Nation.
        The focus of current work is on (1) the assessment, development,
    and implementation of new technologies for addressing water-related
    concerns within the basin; (2) water resource assessment and analysis,
    including the development of mechanisms for providing easy access to
    water-related information so proper water management decisions can be
    made; (3) the determination of agricultural, industrial, municipal, and
    recreational impacts on water resources, both current and potential,
    and the identification of potential solutions to water quality and
    quantity problems and needs; (4) water quality monitoring and
    coordination of monitoring activities; (5) education and information
    dissemination on water issues facing this region of the U.S.; and (6)
    development of watershed management strategies for the Red River of the
    North Basin focusing on water quality and quantity to ensure continued
    economic development and growth of the area.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. The Red River Water Management Consortium provides a
    mechanism for transferring results of the initial research to vested
    stakeholders of the region and for addressing water quality and
    quantity issues resulting from agricultural practices and development.
    The overall goal of the Consortium is the development of long-term
    watershed management strategies focusing on water quality and quantity
    which can be used as a model for watershed management in other
    agricultural regions in the United States.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the research was to understand the
    occurrence, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals and their
    impact on groundwater resources in representative field settings in the
    northern Great Plains region so scientifically valid decisions could be
    made for their management and regulation. All fieldwork under this
    portion of the program has been completed, and a final comprehensive
    report of research findings will be completed by July 2001.
        Results from this program have been reported in journals,
    conference proceedings, and through presentations at national, state,
    and local meetings. To date, more than 40 presentations or publications
    have resulted. In addition, two doctoral dissertations and one master's
    thesis have resulted from this research.
        Finally, the researchers have established the Red River Water
    Management Consortium as a mechanism for transferring the results of
    the initial and other ongoing research to vested stakeholders in the
    region and to the general public in order to address water quality and
    quantity problems resulting from agricultural practices and
    agricultural development.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. In 1989, $1.0 million was appropriated under the
    groundwater research program. Beginning in 1990, funds have been
    earmarked under the direct Federal Administration program. Work
    supported by this grant was initiated in fiscal year 1990, with an
    appropriation of $987,000. Subsequent appropriations have been $750,000
    in fiscal year 1991; $500,000 per year in fiscal years 1992-1993;
    $470,000 in fiscal year 1994; $407,000 in fiscal year 1995; $436,000
    per year in fiscal years 1996-1998; $340,000 in fiscal year 2000; and
    $394,131 in fiscal year 2001. A total of $6,656,131 has been
    appropriated for this water quality research program.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Consortium members provide co-funding to support their
    participation in the program. Co-funding provided by the Consortium for
    fiscal year 1996 totaled $59,700 and fiscal year 1997 totaled $80,000.
    In fiscal year 1998, members provided $90,000 in complementary funding
    through membership fees, of which $86,000 came from non-Federal sources
    and $4,000 came from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency--EPA--319
    funds. In fiscal year 1999, complementary funding consisted of $90,000
    in membership fees, of which $86,000 came from non-Federal funding and
    $4,000 came from EPA 319 funds. An additional $102,000 in non-Federal
    funds came from other sources, including the North Dakota Industrial
    Commission, the City of Grand Forks, the Minnesota Department of
    Natural Resources, the Bremer Foundation, the Red River Basin Board,
    and internal Energy and Environmental Research Center funds. In
    addition in fiscal year 1999, other Federal sources provided $52,825 in
    complementary funding, which include the EPA's Riparian Project--319
    funds--and the U.S. Department of Energy-Energy and Environmental
    Research Center Jointly Sponsored Research Program. In fiscal year
    2000, $90,000 was provided by membership fees as complementary funding,
    and $33,600 in other Federal complementary funding was provided through
    the EPA's Riparian Project.
        Field activities to determine the long-term trends of nitrate and
    sulfate and to determine the source of sulfate were conducted in
    cooperation with the North Dakota State Water Commission, which
    provided $41,000 in cash equivalent funding for sample analysis and
    field instrumentation. Instrumentation of sites occurred in fiscal year
    1997, and sampling and analysis continued through fiscal year 2000.
        In fiscal year 1998, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contracted
    through the Consortium a $100,000, 6-month effort to improve the
    decisionmaking capability regarding ongoing flooding within the Devils
    Lake Basin, a subbasin of the Red River of the North Basin. This work
    produced decision support tools, forecasts, data, and forums that
    continue to be used by the Corps' St. Paul district, the states of
    North Dakota and Minnesota, the International Joint Commission, and the
    people of the Devils Lake region.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Research is being conducted at the University of North
    Dakota through its Energy and Environmental Research Center and at
    field sites and agricultural product-processing facilities in North
    Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana as well as in major municipalities along
    the Red River Valley. In addition, a portion of the pesticide research
    was conducted at North Dakota State University. Cooperative efforts
    have resulted in work also being performed at cooperative institution
    locations such as the University of Waterloo, Victoria University, the
    University of Montana, the Resource Conservation and Development
    Council offices in the Red River Basin, and the North Dakota State
    Water Commission.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    of the project, specifically the field-related research, was fall 1995.
    This research his been completed; and the sites have been
    decommissioned, with the exception of those relating to long-term
    nitrate and sulfate monitoring and analysis. Work on nitrate and
    sulfate trends and occurrence was scheduled for completion in 1999. All
    field work related to the impacts of agricultural chemicals on
    groundwater has also been completed. A final report detailing that
    research is slated for July 2001. The Consortium was established in
    1996 as a mechanism for transferring the information derived from this
    research program to the technical community and to the public for use
    in addressing water quality and quantity issues relating to agriculture
    and agricultural development. Wise water management is the key to the
    economic viability of agriculture in our region. It is anticipated that
    the Red River Water Management Consortium activities will continue for
    several years in order to meet the objectives as defined by the non-
    Federal sponsors and the agency.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The last formal agency evaluation of this project was
    conducted in September 1996. The agency Technical Project Officer
    attended a meeting of the Consortium to evaluate and determine the
    status of this effort. Since that time. The agency Project Officer has
    been kept apprised of project activities. Significant progress has been
    made by the Consortium during its nearly 5 years, and the program is an
    excellent example of how Federal and State agencies, research and
    academic institutions, private industry, and the general public can
    work together to solve problems in an economical manner to benefit
    people, communities, and the Nation. To date, all project objectives
    have been met.
                         wetland plants, west virginia
        Question. Please provide a description of the research that has
    been funded under the Wetland Plants, West Virginia grant.
        Answer. The research involves an interdisciplinary investigation of
    the vegetation--plant composition, species richness, species diversity,
    and dominance-- disturbance history, soils, geology, and hydrology of
    six wetland sites in West Virginia. Geographical Information Systems'
    maps of the six cities will be developed using black and white aerial
    photographs of the sites from 1940, 1950, 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990.
    Results will be used to develop models for studying, managing, and even
    creating wetland habitats.
        Question. According to the research proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Wetlands in West Virginia have declined at least 24 percent
    between the 1780's and 1980's. To compensate for the loss of these
    systems and their functions, mitigation is required. To do this
    effectively, a better understanding and more information of the wetland
    as an ecosystem must be obtained specifically; i.e., at specific sites
    and locale.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is a new proposal, and the realization of its goals
    are underway.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $141,688.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been identified to support this
    project.
        Question. Where will the research be carried out?
        Answer. Research will be conducted at the Canaan Valley Institute
    in Charleston, West Virginia.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The requested grant proposal has not yet been received.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project. No prior evaluation has been
    conducted.

                   Extension Federal Administration Projects

                       after-school programs, california
        Question. Please provide a description of the extension program
    that has been funded under the After-School Program, California grant.
        Answer. This program will improve the quality, accessibility, and
    sustainability of 4-H After-School Programs in Los Angeles public
    housing communities, public schools, and other locations in the
    community. In addition, Los Angeles County Extension Staff will provide
    leadership to improve after-school programs administered by other
    agencies and organizations by offering model after-school program
    sites, staff development and training, and quality experiential
    curricula. CSREES has requested the University of California to submit
    a grant proposal that has not yet been received. The proposal will
    include specific program objectives.
        Question. According to the proposal, or the principal researcher,
    what is the national, regional or local need for this program?
        Answer. The need for this extension program is great. Los Angeles
    County has a population of more than 2.5 million children and youth
    under age 18, more than 26 percent of the total youth population of
    California. The county's youth population is one of the most diverse in
    the United States, with 58 percent Latino, 21 percent Caucasian, 10
    percent African American, and 10 percent Asian American. Of
    California's minority youth population, 45 percent resides in Los
    Angeles County. Thirty-six percent have limited proficiency in English,
    and 37 percent live in low-income households. Low rates of academic
    attainment threaten a future competent and productive workforce. In
    response to these challenging statistics, research has shown that
    engagement in quality after-school programs is one predictor of school
    success. In addition, quality after-school programs have been shown to
    improve social, emotional, and physical competencies. Therefore, this
    program aims to improve educational, economic, employment, and
    environmental factors in the live of Los Angeles families and
    communities.
        Question. What was the original goal of this extension program and
    what has been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The planned goals of this extension program are to first,
    develop and improve model 4-H After-School Programs in Los Angeles;
    second, infuse research-based, age-appropriate curricula into programs;
    third, provide staff development and training; and fourth, conduct
    applied research on youth and family development issues. Because this
    is a new project, a report on accomplishments is not available.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $398,122.
        Question. What are the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are estimated to be as follows: $128,900 state appropriations and
    $360,700 miscellaneous in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This extension program will be conducted in public housing
    communities, public schools, and other locations within the city of Los
    Angeles.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is projected to be 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. University of California will conduct a merit review prior
    to submitting the proposal for fiscal year 2001.
                          agriculture in the classroom
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Ag in the Classroom grant.
        Answer. Agriculture in the Classroom is an academic program to
    develop agricultural literacy in kindergarten through 12th grade
    students. Funds appropriated are used to leverage agricultural literacy
    activities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.
    territories by providing national leadership and guidance to State
    Agriculture in the Classroom Coordinators. This supports the education
    of more than five million students through over 130,000 teachers
    annually. Activities during the past year include cooperative
    agreements to develop and distribute instructional materials that meet
    State standards of learning, and to document the effectiveness of Ag in
    the Classroom teaching programs, maintenance of a national web site to
    provide fast, cost effective dissemination of information and
    materials, a national newsletter, collaboration with the Smithsonian
    Institution and Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education to
    educate about prairie agriculture, cooperation with the White House
    Office of Science and Technology Policy to promote Global Science and
    Technology Week, and planning and conducting an annual national
    conference.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. In the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of
    1996, Congress noted the importance of increasing the number of young
    Americans pursuing baccalaureate or higher degrees in the food and
    agricultural sciences. Agricultural literacy is a critical first step
    in creating interest and awareness of career opportunities in the food
    and agricultural sciences. Education studies cite that students learn
    best by example. Agriculture provides hands-on learning experiences in
    academic disciplines including the physical and biological sciences,
    social sciences, language arts, and mathematics. Developing
    agricultural literacy among America's youth is key to ensuring a high-
    quality, globally-competitive food and agricultural workforce.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The Secretary of Agriculture established the Ag in the
    Classroom Program in 1981 to help future generations become
    agriculturally literate. The program encourages teachers to integrate
    food and agricultural topics into their curricula. The original purpose
    of the program was to promote agricultural literacy in the primary and
    secondary education system.
        Each state develops or distributes education materials compatible
    with state teaching and learning standards and conducts in-service and,
    in some cases, pre-service, teacher education. Results show that
    Agriculture in the Classroom helps teachers and students understand the
    complexity of the food and fiber system and better appreciate its
    impact on the economy and society. Teachers integrate food and
    agricultural topics into their broad curricula.
        A national web site coordinates and facilitates ideas exchange
    among the Ag in the Classroom State Coordinators; most states also have
    web sites. Outstanding teachers are presented with National Teaching
    Awards yearly at the national conference; they share their award-
    winning materials and techniques with other teachers nationwide.
        USDA annually sponsors a national conference to bring the Ag in the
    Classroom community together to expand experiences, ideas, materials,
    information, and techniques among state programs, educators, government
    agencies, agribusiness, and agricultural organizations. A quarterly
    newsletter provides updates and teaching materials on agricultural
    topics. A National Resource Guide and outreach to educational
    associations are being funded to enhance and extend Ag in the Classroom
    efforts, especially in modestly funded states, and to increase
    collaboration with 4-H and FFA programs.
        States have received acknowledgments from thousands of teachers and
    administrators who report strong links between agriculture and State
    required competencies, increased use of instructional technology,
    meaningful experiential learning for students and teachers, and the
    objectivity and educational appropriateness of Ag in the Classroom
    teaching support materials. Thousands of teachers receive continuing
    education credit or graduate credit.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. A total of $2,912,886 has been appropriated for this
    program by fiscal year as follows: fiscal year 1986, $76,000; fiscal
    years 1987 and 1988, $74,000 per year; fiscal year 1989, $87,000;
    fiscal year 1990, $135,000; fiscal year 1991, $170,000; fiscal years
    1992 and 1993, $208,000 per year; fiscal year 1994, $185,000; fiscal
    year 1995, $208,000; fiscal year 1996, $204,880; fiscal years 1997
    through 2000, $208,000 per year; and $451,006 in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This is not a grants program and does not require matching
    funds. Ag in the Classroom is highly leveraged through a variety of
    public and private funding that supports State programs. The USDA
    cooperative agreements that are in place have non-Federal matching
    funds.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. National leadership for Agriculture in the Classroom is
    provided by the Higher Education Programs unit in CSREES. Each state
    manages its own unique program. Nationally, the program impacts an
    estimated 130,000 teachers and over five million kindergarten through
    grade 12 students annually. States depend heavily on many volunteers--
    teachers, farmers, agribusiness, farm organization spokespersons, and
    others--to reach the large numbers of teachers and students served by
    their programs.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related activities?
        Answer. Beginning in 1981, under the direction of the Secretary of
    Agriculture, an Agriculture in the Classroom program was initiated in
    every State, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. territories.
    Developing agricultural literacy among America's youth is a continuing
    effort to serve each new generation of students, and to ensure a high
    quality food and agricultural workforce for the future.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. State Directors report that evaluations have been conducted
    over the past several years. Findings are positive: Ag in the Classroom
    is an effective teaching tool. A committee of western educators
    researching agricultural literacy is focusing on the Ag in the
    Classroom program, and two studies on the teaching effectiveness of the
    program began this year.
        During each national conference formal evaluations are conducted
    and results are considered in defining future goals for the program.
    Yearly state summaries are prepared and distributed at the national
    conference. The summaries include accomplishments, impacts, and
    evaluations by states. Recent impacts identified are the introduction
    of food and agricultural topics into the curricula in urban and
    suburban schools, the inclusion of agriculture in the social studies
    core curriculum in several states, and the use of food and agricultural
    topics to meet mandated teaching and learning standards. Teachers
    without agricultural backgrounds have been quick to use Ag in the
    Classroom materials in their lesson plans.
                           beef improvement, arkansas
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded as the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program.
        Answer. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program uses verification
    methods with producer input to demonstrate cost effective management
    practices for beef cattle and forage production. These demonstrations
    are conducted on family-owned beef cattle operations throughout
    Arkansas. Although the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program continues to
    have whole farm demonstrations, special projects or problem areas have
    been identified and are under examination. This allowed the program to
    expand to help answer additional beef cattle and forage production
    issues. Information learned throughout the Beef Improvement Program is
    transferred to the public via field days, monthly articles, fact
    sheets, quarterly newsletters, press articles, and a special Beef
    Improvement Workshop program.
        Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. Two major areas demonstrate a national, regional and local
    need for the Beef Improvement program. Arkansas is a very unique state
    in which the northern area resembles much of the mid-south region of
    the U.S. and the southern area of Arkansas represents the southern U.S.
    region. Many of the beef cattle production, forage production, and
    environmental problems that are in Arkansas are also in these two
    areas. Therefore, answers to production problems in Arkansas may apply
    to many states of the southern region. In addition, the Beef
    Improvement Program demonstrates the need for planning, implementing,
    and monitoring a business plan. These decisionmaking skills, or
    processes, are utilized throughout the ranching industry.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The overall goal of the Arkansas Beef Improvement Program
    was to enhance the efficiency and profitability of the Arkansas beef
    cattle producer. This program uses demonstration farms to implement and
    evaluate management practices. To date there have been 14 farms
    committed to the five-year whole farm demonstration. Currently, three
    farms are in the fourth year of the program, and one farm is in its
    second year. Ten farms have completed their five-year commitment. There
    have been 26 farms involved with the Beef Improvement Special Projects.
    The commitment with these projects is usually two to three years but is
    dependent upon the farm and project. Currently, there are 18 active
    projects.
        Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. $200,000 has been appropriated to this project from fiscal
    years 1993 through 1995; in fiscal years 1996 through 2000, $197,000
    per year; and in fiscal year 2001, $196,567 for a total of $1,781,567.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The State of Arkansas provided $118,154 for fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Currently there are 22 active whole farm demonstrations and
    special project demonstrations. These are being conducted on family
    farms located throughout Arkansas and represent the structure of the
    beef cattle industry of Arkansas. The forage base is bermudagrass,
    fescue, and native grass, and some of the beef cattle producers also
    operate poultry or swine operations. In addition to the demonstration
    farms, a workshop was developed to teach the lessons learned from the
    Beef Improvement effort. Twenty-nine workshops have been conducted with
    more scheduled for the spring of 2001. These workshops have been very
    well received and are usually scheduled a year in advance. In addition
    to these educational methods, an Arkansas Beef Improvement Newsletter
    is published and mailed to county extension agents and extension
    personnel in surrounding states. Monthly articles are published in
    Arkansas Cattle Business, which reaches over 13,000 beef cattle
    producers in Arkansas.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The Arkansas Beef Improvement Program currently has four
    whole farm demonstrations and 18 special projects. Three of the whole
    farm projects will finish in 2001, and the fourth whole farm project
    will finish in 2003. The special projects include cow herd performance,
    pasture renovation, cull cow management, replacement heifer
    development, establishing breeding and calving seasons, backgrounding
    farm raised calves, hay quality and supplemental feeding, and
    stockpiled forages. These projects range from two to five years in
    length. As farms complete special projects, additional farms are
    selected for special projects. This allows the program to investigate
    different management systems under different environmental conditions.
    Eight farms started special projects in fiscal year 2000, and these
    will be completed in two to five years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A CSREES review of this project is conducted annually. The
    2000 review was positive, with continued encouragement for
    dissemination of results and materials developed in this project
    through public and industry publications to producers in other states.
                      botanic garden initiative, illinois
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Botanic Garden Initiative, Illinois grant.
        Answer. The Chicago Botanic Garden grant proposal for fiscal year
    2000 funded their Garden in Every School Initiative which is intended
    to increase student interest and understanding of science and other
    related subjects using gardening as the focus.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. The Chicago Botanic Garden expects the grant to result in
    educational curricula, lesson plans, garden design and construction
    recommendations, and garden activities that will serve as a model for
    other cities throughout the U.S.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal is to develop an innovative program that
    increases green spaces at Chicago's public schools and teaches
    elementary school students the value of plant science, math, nutrition,
    business, and literature. Students and teachers, in collaboration with
    the Chicago Botanic Garden, will build and maintain gardens by using
    the Life Lab curriculum, a nationally-acclaimed and widely-used science
    curriculum.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $106,263 and for fiscal
    year 2001 the appropriation is $237,476 for a total of $343,739.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds sources provided for this grant have
    not been determined at this time.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is conducted at the Chicago Botanical Garden.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objective of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related-objectives?
        Answer. Current progress indicates the anticipated completion date
    for the original objectives is five years.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provided summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. In June 2000, the project manager for this grant conducted
    an on-site review of the program. Based on this evaluation, a number of
    revisions were recommended, and these changes have been incorporated in
    the Chicago Botanic Garden's grant proposal.
                  conservation technology transfer, wisconsin
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Conservation Technology Transfer, Wisconsin grant.
        Answer. The project integrates Land Grant outreach programs with
    technical assistance dimensions of the Federal Farm Bill. It leverages
    funding at the University of Wisconsin with Federal, State, and Local
    sources to provide education and technical support to livestock
    producers regarding animal waste.
        Question. According to the extension proposal or the principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. This project is necessary to meet Federal regulations on
    nonpoint source pollution, especially those pertaining to animal waste.
    It has already served as a regional model for cooperation with the
    Cooperative Extension Service, the Agricultural Research Service, and
    the Natural Resources Conservation Service. At least six other states
    have requested information and/or direct assistance from Wisconsin to
    copy specific partnership elements that integrate Land Grant activities
    with the Natural Resources Conservation Service and help streamline
    assistance to local landowners.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project was to coordinate
    conservation education on soil and water issues including nutrient
    management. To date, one of our greatest successes integrates
    university research and extension outreach with the USDA's Natural
    Resources Conservation Service technical assistance mission. This
    effort has resulted in cooperative programs that educate farmers about
    nutrient management planning.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much as been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 2000.
    The appropriation for fiscal year 2000 was $170,022 and for fiscal year
    2001 is $473,955. The total amount appropriated is $643,077.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are expected to be $1,200,000 from state and local funds for fiscal
    year 2001. Commitments are still being secured.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This project is being conducted with individual producers
    and land managers throughout Wisconsin, in coordination with the USDA's
    Agricultural Research Service Station in Madison and the Natural
    Resources Conservation Service.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is June 30, 2001. The university has proposed expansion of this effort,
    which would require identification of continual non-Federal funding
    sources to meet the needs of conservation technology education in
    Wisconsin.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The most recent agency evaluation was spring 2000. Several
    changes were made as a result of written comments from fiscal year
    2000. An onsite evaluation of the project is planned for fiscal year
    2001.
                             dairy education, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Dairy Education, Iowa grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested the college to submit a grant proposal
    that has not yet been received.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. There are tremendous financial pressures on dairy
    producers. Farm families are in need of better education, applied
    research, and technical advocacy so that they can continue to compete.
    It is important to remember that the average cow size of dairy farms in
    Iowa is 66 cows and that most farm operations are conducted by families
    who do the work themselves. Many have already left the farm industry
    because of the lack of educational support. Seventy-two percent of
    Iowa's dairy cows are owned by nearly 3,000 family-based businesses
    located in a 17-county region in northeast Iowa near this Dairy Center
    at Calmar. The Center will be a direct service to all these families.
    In addition, within the remainder of Iowa and the states of Minnesota,
    Illinois, and Wisconsin there are two million dairy cows and nearly
    32,000 producers who will be served by this Center. If the family dairy
    farm is to survive in these difficult economic times, new methods of
    production will need to be developed, tested in a production facility
    and promoted. This Center will serve as an advocate for the family
    dairy farm, combining farmer ownership with Iowa State University
    Extension, and Northeast Iowa Community College leadership. Federal
    funds provided by this grant are expected to strengthen the educational
    effort and explore solutions to the needs of dairy producers and the
    dairy infrastructure of northeast Iowa.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the Dairy Initiative is to enhance the economic
    viability of current dairy businesses and to increase the number of
    entries into the dairy industry. The Dairy Education, Demonstration,
    and Applied Research Center opened October 14, 2000. Seven-hundred
    dairy farm families came together to make this Center happen. The
    facility will train tomorrow's dairy professionals, demonstrate best
    practices to current producers, and apply the latest innovations in a
    field trial situation. Already, the number of students who have
    enrolled in the dairy program of education has almost doubled. We
    expect an additional doubling by 2001.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $237,476.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources to be provided for this
    grant are as follows: $554,000 state appropriations; $2.1 million paid
    or committed from Northeast Iowa Community College; $500,000 from Iowa
    State University; $550,000 from Dairy Foundation members and
    contributors; and additional unidentified miscellaneous funds in fiscal
    year 2001.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Research and education will be conducted at the Dairy
    Center located at Calmar, Iowa. There is a 150 cow, three-row freestall
    barn that features two manure handling systems; the double eight subway
    milking parlor has parallel stalls on one side and herringbone on the
    other; and a methane digester will be used to capture energy and odor
    from the manure. This is truly a unique facility in the world and was
    designed by the farmer members of the Foundation to best respond to
    their needs for education and training.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    was met when the facility opened October 14, 2000. The methane digestor
    should be operational by May 1, 2001. Education and research projects
    have been conducted at the Center since October 16, 2000. This will be
    a continual process, however, as the facility upgrades technologies to
    demonstrate and apply innovations. The quarterly newsletters of the
    Foundation report on dairy related activity.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A visit to this project has been scheduled, however no
    evaluation has yet been done.
                             delta teachers academy
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Delta Teachers Academy project.
        Answer. The National Academy proposes to continue its Delta
    Teachers Academy in the Lower Mississippi Delta Region--219 counties
    and parishes near the Mississippi River including portions of Arkansas,
    Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee--
    focusing on educational improvement in core subject areas. The program
    was launched in 1992 with a pilot grant of $500,000 from the U.S.
    Department of Education. USDA funding began in 1994. The program
    provides long-term academic enrichment annually to approximately 500
    elementary and secondary school teachers by teaming them with
    university scholars for in-service training during the school year and
    with summer institutes at 11 Academy field offices throughout the seven
    Delta states. Through its Fellows Program, the Delta Teachers Academy
    sustains the professional development of more than 1,100 Academy
    graduates throughout the region. This grant is not awarded
    competitively; however, we require annual applications reporting the
    previous year's accomplishments and describing planned activities and
    expenditures for the coming year. These applications undergo merit
    review before the awards are made.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    project?
        Answer. The 219-county Lower Mississippi Delta region has been
    cited by the Educational Testing Service and the National Center for
    Education Statistics as notably lagging in student performance in core
    academic areas. According to the grant recipient, 33 percent of the
    children in the region live below the poverty line compared to 20.5
    percent nationally. In 1996, 60 percent of Louisiana's public school
    sample ranked ``below basic'' on the National Assessment of Education
    Progress test for eighth-graders. The USDA's Economic Research Service
    correlated poor educational performance, rural poverty, and limited
    economic development. The Delta Development Commission cited serious
    educational problems including poor student performance in core content
    areas, demoralized teachers with little opportunity for academic
    development, and region-wide difficulty in recruiting and retaining
    qualified teachers. The Commission noted that 75 percent of the
    region's workforce lacks the basic reading skills necessary for
    technical training, and specifically cited improved teacher training as
    one means for breaking the cycle of poverty and economic
    noncompetitiveness.
        Question. What was the original goal of the program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original and continuing goal of the project is to
    address the problem of insufficient professional development
    opportunities for the elementary and secondary teachers of the seven-
    state region. The Delta Teachers Academy focuses on core subjects of
    English, geography, history, mathematics, and science. Some sites also
    focus on humanities, language arts, social studies, reading, civics,
    and interdisciplinary subjects. The Delta Teachers Academy began by
    offering educational development activities for 100 teachers from 50
    rural districts at 10 sites. Training has expanded to 600 teachers at
    40 sites across the entire seven-state region. More than 1,100
    graduates whose professional development is sustained through the
    Academy's Fellows Program lead teacher in-service training at their
    home schools. The project has improved student performance and teacher
    training, morale, recruitment, and retention in the region.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. A total of $27,653,300 million has been appropriated to the
    Department of Agriculture for this project, including $2,000,000 in
    fiscal year 1994; $3,935,000 in fiscal year 1995; $3,876,000 in fiscal
    year 1996; $3,850,000 in fiscal year 1997; $3,500,000 each year in
    fiscal years 1998 through 2000; and $3,492,300 in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. There are no non-Federal funds identified for this project.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The Delta Teachers Academy project is coordinated out of
    The National Faculty's office in Atlanta, Georgia and at 11 Academy
    field offices located throughout the seven Delta states. The project is
    conducted currently at 23 sites in the seven-state Lower Mississippi
    Delta region including Arkansas, Kentucky, Illinois, Louisiana,
    Mississippi, Missouri, and Tennessee.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original objective was to provide three full years of
    training to each faculty team established by the Delta Teachers
    Academy. Training consists of four two-day academic sessions and one
    two-week summer institute for each team. This objective was met for the
    24 faculty teams funded under the original fiscal year 1994 USDA grant.
    Since that time, 15 additional teams funded in 1995, one team funded in
    fiscal year 1996, 20 new teams funded in fiscal year 1997, and 14 teams
    funded in fiscal year 1998 have all completed three-year training
    cycles. Training for 440 new scholars in 18 teams established in fiscal
    year 1999 continued into fiscal year 2000. Nine new teacher cohorts
    established in fiscal year 2000 will continue their training in fiscal
    year 2001 along with 14 new teams to be established in fiscal year 2001
    for three years of training for 500 scholars.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. An assessment of the Delta Teachers Academy performance was
    conducted by the independent research and evaluation firm of Westat,
    Inc. of Rockville, Maryland, during fiscal year 2000. That work will
    continue into fiscal year 2001, and a report will be available by
    September 2001.
        In a previous evaluation completed in August 1997, Westat found the
    majority of participants reported that the Academy met their personal
    and professional needs by renewing their enthusiasm for teaching,
    improving self-confidence, increasing their sense of professionalism,
    improving their knowledge of specific content areas, enhancing teaching
    methods, and interacting with peers. Teachers are applying what they
    have learned from the Academy in their classrooms. For example:
      --88 percent said the Academy prepared them to assume leadership
            roles in their schools;
      --89 percent noted changes in student work habits, attitudes,
            aspirations, and achievements;
      --90 percent applied academic content from the program in their
            classrooms;
      --78 percent used skills and strategies learned at the Academy in
            their classroom teaching;
      --83 percent said their teaching approaches became more effective in
            improving student learning.
        A site visit of the Delta Teachers Academy in New Orleans,
    Louisiana, and the National Faculty's Summer Institute at Tulane
    University was conducted by CSREES' National Program Leader for Higher
    Education and Evaluation in 1996. The visit confirmed that Delta
    Teachers Academy strengthened participating teachers' abilities by
    improving their knowledge base, helped them become leaders of other
    teachers by requiring them to conduct staff development at their home
    schools, and had a positive impact on student learning. School
    superintendents reported greater student enthusiasm, more homework, and
    higher test scores for students whose teachers were participants in the
    Delta Teachers Academy program.
        A U.S. General Accounting Office review of the Academy's programs
    was conducted in 1995. Report GAO/RCED-95-208 included summary
    statistics on more than 1,000 teacher evaluations of Academy sessions
    as well as the General Accounting Office's survey of participants. On
    average, participants reported that the Academy was more effective than
    any other teacher development program they had participated in, was
    very effective in renewing or enhancing knowledge in one or more
    academic subjects, and was generally effective in enhancing the
    teaching skills and strategies required for teaching challenging
    academic content.
            diabetes detection and prevention, washington and hawaii
        Question. Please provide a description of the extension activity
    that has been funded under the Diabetes Detection and Prevention,
    Washington and Hawaii grant.
        Answer. This grant supports a pilot project and collaborative
    effort, The Partnership for Diabetes Awareness, Education and
    Screening. This unique collaboration has as its centerpiece a
    partnership between the Cooperative Extension programs at two Western
    Region Land-Grant Institutions, Washington State University and the
    University of Hawaii-Hilo, and the century-old Joslin Diabetes Center,
    an affiliate of the Harvard Medical School and located in Boston,
    Massachusetts. The program is designed to provide (1) diabetes
    awareness, prevention education, screening, and management services to
    selected minority under-served rural and urban populations in
    Washington and Hawaii using innovative non-invasive ocular fluorescence
    detection technology and blood glucose measures; (2) culturally-
    sensitive and science-based diabetes prevention and care education
    materials; and (3) case management support and follow-up services for
    patient referrals.
        Question. According to the proposal, or the project director, what
    is the national, regional, or local need for this extension program?
        Answer. This program grows out of a need to reach more of the
    millions of Americans who have undiagnosed diabetes, to reduce the
    racial disparities associated with the disease in the U.S., and to
    ensure a healthy and productive workforce. Diabetes is currently one of
    the leading causes of death and disability in the U.S. adult
    population, and is highest among certain racial and ethnic populations,
    especially Native Americans, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and
    Asians and Pacific Islanders.
        Question. What was the original goal of this project and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this integrated extension outreach project
    continues to be to provide (1) screening for diabetes among selected
    rural and urban minority patient populations in Washington and Hawaii,
    using an innovative non-invasive ocular fluorescence detection
    technology and blood glucose measures; (2) culturally-sensitive and
    science-based diabetes education prevention and care materials; and (3)
    case management support and follow-up services for patient referrals.
        Accomplishments to date include the following: (1) establishment of
    a memorandum of understanding between the USDA-CSREES and the Joslin
    Diabetes Center to identify the parties involved, the purpose, the
    background of the parties and authority, the roles and responsibilities
    of the parties, and the duration of the partnership; (2) development,
    review, field-test, and publication of a culturally-sensitive and
    science-based instructional flip-chart for use by extension faculty
    with the targeted audience; (3) partnerships with eight community-based
    agencies/institutions with development and testing of the ocular
    fluorescence detection instrument; (4) cooking demonstrations for
    managing diabetes through diet; (5) a presentation on the Joslin/
    Extension partner model at a national diabetes education conference
    sponsored by the West Virginia Extension Service; (6) partnership with
    the National Diabetes Education Program sponsored by the Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute for Diabetes
    and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; (7) partnerships with state Diabetes
    Control Program offices and the Hawaii and Washington State Cooperative
    Extension programs; (8) site visits by staff of the Joslin Diabetes
    Center to Hawaii and Washington programs, and a site visit by USDA
    staff to Hawaii program; (9) a face-to-face planning meeting held in
    Seattle Washington, and five telephone conference calls to review and
    examine progress toward objectives; (10) dissemination of information
    about the pilot project to the human sciences land-grant community; and
    (11) participation by county extension faculty in diabetes education
    training programs to enhance their knowledge.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1999.
    The funds appropriated to date are:

            Fiscal year                                               Amount
    1999..........................................................  $550,000
    2000..........................................................   550,000
    2001..........................................................   923,963
                        --------------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________

          Total................................................... 2,023,963

        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. This grant is supported with additional funds and in-kind
    services provided by the Joslin Diabetes Center and state support from
    the Cooperative Extension Programs in Hawaii and Washington.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The program is being conducted in a diabetes screening and
    health center in a shopping center in Hilo, Hawaii, and in community
    facilities in Washington. In addition, the Cooperative Extension
    offices in Hawaii and Washington, and local partnering groups, are
    intimately involved in program implementation.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the original objectives
    is September 30, 2002. The project is on-target to reach the original
    objectives.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A formal agency evaluation has not yet occurred. Oversight
    and monitoring activities are regularly conducted through telephone
    calls, annual reports, e-mail, and face-to-face visits where these are
    tied to other agency travel. A mid-course evaluation of program outputs
    and the delivery process to date is anticipated in April 2001.
                   efficient irrigation, new mexico and texas
        Question. Please provide a description of the extension program
    that has been funded under the Efficient Irrigation, New Mexico and
    Texas grant.
        Answer. The waters of the Rio Grande are a critical resource for
    the region as 98 percent of the water use in the Rio Grande Basin comes
    from the river. This project will provide extension education to
    increase the efficiency of agriculture and urban landscape irrigation
    and encourage the development of efficient water markets in the Rio
    Grande Basin.
        Question. According to the extension proposal, or the project
    director, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
    program?
        Answer. Growing demand and drought have created critical water
    supply issues for much of the southwest. This project is designed to
    improve irrigation efficiency and water conservation in the Rio Grande
    basin in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. The crux of the problem is that
    a total water management system, which would assist agriculture and
    urban interests, does not exist. As a result, water is released on
    demand often resulting in inefficient management. Water problems will
    only increase as the population in this region grows and more industry
    is located to this region.
        Question. What was the original goal of this extension project and
    what has been accomplished to date?
        Answer. According to the project proposal, subject areas addressed
    will include irrigation district studies; irrigation education and
    training; institutional incentives for efficient water use; on-farm
    irrigation system management; urban landscape and in-home water
    conservation; environment, ecology and water quality protection; saline
    waste water management and water use; basin-wide hydrology, salinity
    modeling and technology; and communications/oversight/biometric
    support/accountability.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $1,895,820.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. Sources of any non-Federal funds will be identified in the
    grant proposal.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. This extension program will be carried out by Texas A&M
    University and New Mexico State University. Coordination will be
    provided through Texas A&M University Extension.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have the objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives.
        Answer. The anticipated completion date for the first phase is
    March 31, 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project. An agency review will be conducted
    prior to awarding the grant.
                       extension specialist, mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded as the Basic Weather Service for Research and Extension
    Project--Extension Specialist, Mississippi.
        Answer. The Basic Weather Service and Extension project is designed
    to fill a void in weather data due to closure of the Ag Weather Service
    facility in Stoneville, Mississippi. The funding is being used to
    gather and disseminate critical agricultural weather data for producers
    and researchers in Mississippi and surrounding states.
        Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. The closure of the Ag Weather Service facility created a
    void in the availability of and access to critical weather data that
    producers and researchers use to make management decisions and to
    formulate work plans within the state and region. The agricultural
    weather data collected by this project serves a national need to
    provide data for the Weekly Weather and Crop Bulletin and the Soil
    Climate Analysis Network.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of the project is to collect, maintain, and
    disseminate weather information for producers and researchers in
    Mississippi and surrounding states. Electronic weather stations and
    links with other web sites to deliver weather data have been installed
    and developed. The project is providing timely data to producers in the
    Delta.
        Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through 2001?
        Answer. The funding for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 was $50,000 each
    year; for fiscal years 1999-2000, $100,000 each year; and for fiscal
    year 2001, $99,780. A total of $399,780 has been appropriated.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The state of Mississippi through the Mississippi
    Cooperative Extension Service and Delta Research and Extension Center
    provided $41,350 in state appropriated funds to support this project in
    1997, 1998, and 1999. Although a 2000 contribution was not formally
    matched, state personnel services were provided.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The project is conducted at the Delta Research and
    Extension Center in Stoneville, Mississippi.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of the additional or related objectives?
        Answer. One of the original objectives--installation of equipment
    to collect weather data and establishment of a web site--has been
    completed. The agriculture community--producers, markets, suppliers of
    goods and services, and financial institutions--depend upon weather
    information as a guide for business planning and decision making. As
    agriculture implements new programs in pest management, crop
    production, and site-specific farming, additional and nearer to real-
    time weather data and products are needed for their success. A denser
    weather station network with additional specific weather parameters is
    a new objective. Its completion is dependent upon the best use of
    scarce current funding and new funding opportunities and existing and
    new interagency cooperative efforts. At least one weather station per
    county is desired in the 19-county area of the Mississippi Delta.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. Evaluation of the project and Internet web site is being
    conducted with an on-line statistics instrument and through e-mail
    responses about the site. An advisory group has been identified and is
    functioning to provide feedback on the weather center's current status
    as well as assessing needs for future plans for the project's continued
    mission. The Internet site rose rapidly to the top ten on the Extension
    server and receives over 100,000 hits annually.
                    family farm beef industry network, ohio
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded under the Family Farm Beef Industry Network, Ohio grant.
        Answer. This is a new project. CSREES has requested the university
    to submit a grant proposal that has not yet been received.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. The decline of the ``family farm'' as the functional,
    sustainable backbone of rural society is a problem receiving increased
    national attention. The declining rural population in many states has
    drastically altered the tax base, which has affected the quality of
    primary education, medical care, and other tax-supported services. In
    Ohio, the continuing integration of the pork industry, with the
    resulting recent over-supply of pork and decreased revenue achieved
    from marketing grain through hogs, has forced many northwest Ohio
    farmers to look at other avenues to increase farm income in order to
    survive. Marketing grain through cattle is currently an economically-
    viable option due to the structure of the cattle feeding industry.
    However, this will require training a new generation of cattle feeders
    in Ohio, developing relationships with Ohio cow-calf producers looking
    for opportunities to increase their profitability, and developing
    marketing channels for beef that is produced to meet the requirements
    of targeted processors and consumer groups.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The goal of this project is to develop producer education
    and beef production marketing channels to allow closely aligned family
    farms, both cow-calf and feedlot, the opportunity to survive in a
    changing social and economic climate.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year
    2001. The appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $1,317,096.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The non-Federal funding provided for fiscal year 2001 is
    approximately $30,000 from Ohio State University.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This work is being conducted at Ohio State University and
    at cooperating feedlot operations, cow-calf operations, and beef
    processors in northwest Ohio.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. It is anticipated that this project will continue to grow
    and develop and will require approximately five years to be fully
    developed.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project. The proposal will be peer-reviewed
    at Ohio State University prior to submission. The agency will conduct a
    merit review prior to funding.
                     food animal residue avoidance database
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Database, or FARAD,
    grant.
        Answer. The research is aimed at preventing and mitigating the
    occurrence of illegal chemical residues in foods of animal origin. This
    is done by assembling standardized databases of technical information
    from widespread sources. The data from these sources is used in
    sophisticated algorithms to calculate appropriate withholding times for
    producers, veterinarians, and USDA regulators. The goal is both residue
    prevention or avoidance and residue mitigation of chemical
    contamination incidents, such as dioxins in milk.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. There is a continuing need for residue avoidance research
    and also residue mitigation research. This is of national and local
    importance to the economic welfare of food producers and all consumers
    of food products of animal origin.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal was to prevent and mitigate the
    occurrence of illegal chemical residues in foods of animal origin.
    FARAD has been successful in accomplishing its goals, but this is an
    on-going process that continues to be an issue for producers of food
    animals.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated, by fiscal year, through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. FARAD began in 1982 and has been supported by a variety of
    funding sources. However the specific work supported by this grant
    begins in fiscal year 2001. The appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is
    $284,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The non-Federal funds and sources provided for this grant
    are as follows: Non-Federal support is for the salaries of all the
    principal investigators and other ``in-kind'' contributions by the
    three universities involved. In addition, North Carolina State
    University has provided approximately $50,000 to support FARAD.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Work is carried out at three cooperating universities: the
    University of California-Davis, the University of Florida, and North
    Carolina State University. At the University of California, a
    bibliographic citation management program and a pharmakokinetic data
    management program will be developed and maintained. FARAD Access
    Centers at the University of California and North Carolina State
    University respond to database inquiries requiring literature research
    and evaluation. At the University of Florida, an approved drug database
    will be maintained and a publication of electronic and hard-copy drug
    compendia will be developed.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The specific work support by this grant begins in fiscal
    year 2001. This work is on-going, and progress will be reported
    annually in a progress report requested from the principal
    investigators.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The specific work supported by this grant begins in fiscal
    year 2001. As with other projects, the results will be reported in an
    annual report submitted by the principal investigators.
     food electronically and effectively distributed (feed) demonstration
                                project, oregon
        Question. Please provide a description of the project that has been
    funded under the Food Electronically and Effectively Distributed (FEED)
    Demonstration Project, Oregon grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested the university to submit a grant
    proposal that has not yet been received. The brief description
    available now is that the project is to better coordinate through
    electronic technology, companies wishing to donate food with
    transportation companies and independent truckers wishing to help get
    that food to the food bank's storage locations in order to ultimately
    feed hungry people.
        Question. According to the proposal, or the principal researcher,
    what is the need for this project?
        Answer. Oregon was found to have a very high prevalence of hunger.
    This finding is as a result of a publication by the USDA-Economic
    Research Service entitled, ``Hunger Across the U.S.''
        Question. What was the original goal of this project and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this project is to coordinate
    transportation to fight hunger. The food bank will be able to take
    advantage of new interactive on-line information systems that will
    allow donors to enter donation information, which will link with
    transportation companies and independent truckers who have the
    transportation capacity to get donations transported. This program
    starts in 2001 so there are no data to report on progress.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated for fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year is $166,633. This work will just
    be beginning in 2001.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. At this time, there are no non-Federal funds to report.
        Question. Where will this work be carried out?
        Answer. The work will be carried out across the State of Oregon.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The proposal, which has not been received, will outline the
    objectives of this project.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The project will begin in 2001, so there are no evaluation
    data yet on this project.
                     income enhancement demonstration, ohio
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Income Enhancement Demonstration, Ohio project.
        Answer. The Federal funds support the Agricultural Business
    Enhancement Center which plays a major role in the development of the
    agricultural sector of Northwest Ohio. The Center provides a variety of
    management training programs, helps farmers and other agribusinesses
    develop comprehensive business plans, and facilitates business
    networking.
        Question. According to the research proposal, or principal
    researcher, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. The Center seeks to enhance the competitiveness of
    agricultural firms in Northwest Ohio and create greater economic
    opportunity for local residents. To be successful in business, farmers
    and other agribusiness firms must be able to adapt to a large number of
    major changes affecting the entire food system, from the farmer to the
    consumer. These include changes in farm programs, globalization of
    markets, new technologies, information systems, consumers' concerns for
    food safety and nutrition, and society's concern for protecting the
    environment. Individuals, families, firms, and communities in Northwest
    Ohio need to understand the changes, and develop and implement
    effective strategies for dealing with change.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of the project was to help people develop
    new businesses and restructure and expand existing businesses in order
    to enhance incomes in Northwest Ohio. The Agricultural Business
    Enhancement Center conducts economic research on market opportunities,
    provides a variety of management training programs, helps individual
    farms and other agribusinesses develop comprehensive business plans,
    and facilitates networking with businesses in other regions of the U.S.
    and around the world.
        Recent accomplishments include: A group of growers formed a
    cooperative that was successful in bidding for market locations at two
    travel centers on the Ohio Turnpike; additional centers will be
    requested. Perrysburg Farmers Market was organized in 1999. Northwest
    Ohio Pork Task Force is exploring alternatives to revitalize the area's
    pork industry. The Center is helping the Ohio Farm Bureau and Ohio
    Wheat Growers Association examine the feasibility of producing
    strawboard from wheat straw.
        The Center is participating in a USDA/CSREES grant to provide
    growers with production and business planning assistance for developing
    hydroponic vegetable production operations. Participants in the first
    ``How to Get Started in Green House Production'' gave the seminar very
    high ratings. A study tour to Ontario, Canada, also was well received.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The project began in 1991. Appropriations have been as
    follows: $145,000 in fiscal year 1991; $250,000 in fiscal years 1992
    through 1995; $246,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2000; and $245,459
    in fiscal year 2001. Appropriations to date total $2,620,459.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The State of Ohio has appropriated the following funds:
    $35,100 in fiscal year 1991; $72,368 in fiscal year 1992; $56,930 in
    fiscal year 1993; $30,547 in fiscal year 1994; $49,935 in fiscal year
    1995; $51,432 in fiscal year 1996; $48,664 in fiscal year 1997; $53,736
    in fiscal year 1998; $56,186 in fiscal year 1999; and $128,200 in
    fiscal year 2000.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The Agricultural Business Enhancement Center is located in
    Bowling Green, Ohio and serves eight counties in the Toledo
    Metropolitan Area. Project leadership is being provided by the
    Department of Agricultural Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus,
    Ohio.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have these objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1991 was for a period of 12
    months, however, the ongoing needs of producers and agribusinesses to
    adjust to major changes in the agricultural sector continues to provide
    the Center with many challenges. The current phase of the program will
    be completed in 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. CSREES performed the last annual merit review of the
    project in June 2000. The project is continuing to meet its goal of
    finding new economic opportunities for people in northwest Ohio. In the
    last CSREES review it was noted that: ``The project director and staff
    are well qualified to carry out the project and have proved their
    ability to do so. The project supports CSREES' goals of a highly-
    competitive production system and enhanced economic opportunity. The
    proposal was merit reviewed, according to CSREES guidelines, by three
    Ohio State University faculty members representing the state, district,
    and local extension.''
             integrated cow-calf resources management (chips), iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded as ``CHIPS: Cow-Calf Integrated Resource Management, Iowa
    Program.''
        Answer. CHIPS is an integrated cow-calf resource management--IRM--
    program developed to assist Iowa beef producers in maximizing the
    profit potential of their individual livestock operations. CHIPS
    technicians provide technical services to participating cooperators
    that assist in the decisionmaking process as long-term plans are
    developed and finalized. The intent of the program is to strengthen the
    area's economy and at the same time, enhance the competitiveness of the
    individual's beef operation. CHIPS technicians work one-on-one with
    participants, offering support and services intended to improve the
    level of productivity, reduce production costs, and/or incorporate
    technology systems that are designed to improve the ``bottom line''.
    The program has systematically grown to extend services to over 210
    beef producers in over 60 Iowa counties.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. Today's beef industry is both volatile and challenging.
    Factors and variables that the producer has little or no control over,
    constantly challenge this rapidly changing industry. To address this
    volatile and rapidly changing agricultural infrastructure, the CHIPS
    program has adjusted its direction and focus to meet the ever-changing
    management and technical needs of Iowa beef producers. CHIPS
    technicians and support staff work closely with program participants to
    collect and analyze individual operation data. This information is used
    to develop management recommendations that enhance the performance and
    economic stability of the operation. This approach supports individual
    economic survival as well as strengthening the local and regional
    economic community.
        The CHIPS program also serves the industry by providing leadership
    and support to industry educational efforts. Working closely with the
    Iowa State University Extension Service, educational programs and
    demonstration projects have been developed and delivered, enhancing the
    educational opportunities provided to Iowa beef producers.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The overall goal of CHIPS is to have a positive effect on
    the area's economy by improving the long-term profit potential of the
    local cattle industry. To address this broad project goal, CHIPS has
    set forth the following objectives: Improve profit potential of
    cooperator farms; Identify issues and trends in the area of beef
    management; Provide CHIPS cooperators with intensive technical
    assistance to develop goals and individualized farm recommendations,
    including management areas such as pasture and forage production,
    rations, utilization of resources, record systems, and government farm
    program compliance; Help producers develop management skills to improve
    efficiency and reduce costs of production as CHIPS recommendations are
    implemented.
        During fiscal year 2000, CHIPS technicians conducted over 1,317
    farm and office visits. Numerous management areas were addressed during
    these one-on-one contacts. Over 32,000 head of calves and beef cows
    were weighed and over 6,000 breeding animals were permanently
    identified. Data collected are used in a variety of record programs,
    including CowSense and breed association records. Over the past 12
    months, CHIPS cooperators completed 139 reproduction-related programs
    and 26 Standardized Performance Analysis records--incorporating
    financial and performance information--were individually analyzed. More
    than 510 forage and soil samples were collected and approximately 325
    ration projections were developed for cooperators. As this activity
    summary indicates, the number of participating cooperators utilizing
    the record keeping programs and other program services continue to grow
    and expand.
        Networking projects continue to be emphasized by the CHIPS program.
    Examples include: Direct working relationship with the Chariton Valley
    Beef organization, CHIPS Heifer Development Program, educational
    efforts in conjunction with the Iowa Beef Center, and Iowa State
    University Extension, support a number of existing beef projects, and
    direct cooperation with the Iowa Quality Beef Program.
        Question. How long has the program been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. $138,000 per year was approved for fiscal years 1992 and
    1993; $276,000 for fiscal year 1994; $350,000 for fiscal year 1995;
    $345,000 per year for fiscal years 1996 and 1997; $300,000 per year in
    fiscal years 1998 and 1999; $250,000 in fiscal year 2000; and $284,373
    in fiscal year 2001. Federal funding through fiscal year 2001 totals
    $2,726,373.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. CHIPS cooperators pay client fees of approximately $3.00
    per beef cow. The fee structure is on a sliding scale that adjusts for
    cow herd size. In fiscal year 2000, approximately $50,000 in client's
    fees was collected.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The CHIPS program is being operated in six designated
    technician areas in Iowa. CHIPS services and technical support are
    currently being offered to beef producers in approximately 60 counties
    in the following Iowa areas: southeast--16 counties, south central--8
    counties, southwest--8 counties, northwest--8 counties, east central--8
    counties, and central--12 counties.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met?
        What is the anticipated completion date of additional or related
    objectives?
        Answer. Over the past several years, the CHIPS program has made
    considerable progress in achieving the project's goals. Cooperators are
    utilizing more of the data collection and record keeping programs that
    are currently offered. This data collection process has been important
    as producers make long-term decisions. CHIPS continues to adapt and
    modify program offerings and services.
        The Iowa beef industry now faces a challenging and exciting time
    period. CHIPS is positioned to be a prominent player in both the
    development of the Iowa beef industry and the providing of technical
    support to beef producers throughout the state. In fiscal year 2000, a
    marketing educational segment was incorporated in the service offerings
    of CHIPS to assist producers as marketing decisions are finalized.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A CSREES review of the project is conducted annually. The
    2000 review was positive, with suggestions made for more widespread
    dissemination of the results and materials developed, as well as
    increased emphasis on environmental management with the beef producers.
            national education center for agricultural safety, iowa
        Question. Please provide a description of the extension project
    that has been funded under the National Education Center for
    Agricultural Safety, Iowa grant.
        Answer. The mission of the National Education Center for
    Agricultural Safety--NECAS--is to reduce the level of preventable
    illnesses, injuries, and fatalities among agricultural populations. The
    NECAS serves farmers, ranchers, members of their families and their
    employees, and the people who supply goods and services to agriculture.
    The center is one of few centers in the world that provides actual
    hands-on, real life training opportunities. The center also works with
    rural fire departments, emergency planning agencies, and emergency
    medical technicians in a multi-state area to provide training for those
    who respond to rural emergencies.
        The NECAS is located in Peosta, Iowa. The facility is located at
    the Northeast Iowa Community College. Phase Two of construction has
    just been completed. The facility has a tractor over-turn demonstration
    area, hog confinement building complete with a manure pit, two silos,
    and a grain bin that allow the center to provide examples of situations
    commonly encountered on farms and ranches and teach actual rescue
    techniques. Additional classes on First Aid, Cardiopulmonary
    Resuscitation, and First Responder courses are provided for members of
    farm families.
        The Center has assisted local farmers and small corporations to
    screen workers for employment health risks and conducts programs on
    hearing loss prevention, use of personal protective equipment, skin
    cancer prevention, and the identification and mitigation of risks of
    animal handlers and confinement workers.
        The Center operates an 11,000 square foot facility that was funded
    by the state of Iowa with matching private donations. The USDA grant
    provides funds for salaries and operating expenses. Donations from
    individuals and agri-business provide donations of equipment,
    curriculum, and program development funds. The National Safety Council
    and Northeast Iowa Community College underwrite additional operating
    costs not covered by the USDA grant or donations.
        Question. According to the extension proposal, or the project
    director, what is the national, regional, and local need for this
    program?
        Answer. According to information compiled annually by the National
    Safety Council, there were 770 work-related fatalities among
    agricultural workers in 1999. The Council also estimates that there
    were more than 150,000 disabling injuries among agricultural workers in
    1999. While deaths have declined by 30 nationwide, disabling injuries
    have increased by 7 percent since 1998. Approximately 23 out of every
    100,000 agricultural workers died from injuries received in workplace
    incidents. Farm accidents kill the young and the old. Between 100 and
    125 children and youth are killed on farms each year.
        Fatal injury incidents are preventable, and the number of disabling
    injuries which occur annually can be reduced. The NECAS has developed
    interactive training for at-risk audiences, including senior farmers,
    children and youth, and couples who work off the farm to earn enough
    income to remain in the farming business. The Center provides extensive
    training for those who are first on the scene at farm emergencies. It
    is often a member of the farmer's family who discovers an accident
    victim. NECAS trains family members to stabilize this victim until
    emergency medical help arrives. NECAS also trains rural emergency
    responders on how to protect themselves when responding to an
    emergency. These many volunteers respond from their place of business
    or home and arrive on the scene without protective gear or tools.
        An extensive array of programs for youth are offered in a Tri-State
    Area. NECAS holds safety day camps, fall harvest safety day, chain saw
    safety, tractor safety, and hunter safety programs.
        Question. What was the original goal of this training center and
    what has been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original and continuing goal of this Project is to
    develop, implement, and evaluate diverse training methods for met
    training needs of at-risk agricultural audiences. The Center has
    recently completed a program in conjunction with the Iowa Fire
    Marshall's Office to deliver a program on Farm Chemical Awareness
    through the Iowa Communications Network. This fiber optic network has
    the capacity of linking more than 100 training sites across the state.
    More than 700 rural firefighters, from 33 different locations,
    participated in this six-hour course. The Center recently trained an
    emergency medical crew from Kansas at the center and has implemented a
    number of out-reach causes to small businesses and rural fire
    departments.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant began in fiscal year 1998
    with an allocation of $195,000 per year for fiscals year 1998-2000 and
    for fiscal year 2001 is $194,571. The total appropriation to date has
    been $779,571.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year.
        Answer. The sources of non-Federal funds are as follows: $450,000
    in 1998 from the state of Iowa for construction of the second phase of
    the facility. Donations from individuals and agri-business companies
    totaled $75,000. In 1999, contributions of $135,200 were received from
    individuals, the state of Iowa, and agri-business. In 2000,
    contributions of $103,875 were received from the State Fire Marshall of
    Iowa, individuals, and agribusiness sources.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. Training and educational programs under the grant are being
    conducted at the NECAS located on the Northeast Iowa Community College
    Campus in Peosta, Iowa. NECAS also presents programs at a variety of
    meetings and participates in agricultural trade shows and events and
    presents programs upon request to agricultural groups, local fire
    departments, and agri-businesses at off-site locations.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of this project? Have the objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The anticipated completion date of the original objectives,
    was March 31, 2001. Many of the objectives have been met. Anticipated
    completion of additional objectives is March 31, 2002.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A CSREES merit review of the project application and site
    review were conducted in the spring of 1999. Another site visit is
    scheduled for June of 2001. The project will be completing its fiscal
    year on March 31, 2001. The National Education Center for Agricultural
    Safety evaluates all its programs and has supplied USDA with copies of
    all programs conducted and the evaluations received on each event. The
    NECAS utilizes external farm safety and health evaluators and has two
    Advisory Committees to maintain its focus on the most pressing issues
    affecting the safety and health of our nation's agricultural
    populations.
                      pilot technology project, wisconsin
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Pilot Technology Project, Wisconsin grant.
        Answer. The primary industrial extension activity of the
    Manufacturing Technology Transfer program is the delivery of technical
    assistance to manufacturing companies. Executive direction in
    determining the assistance required is provided by the University of
    Wisconsin-Stout's Northwest Wisconsin Manufacturing Outreach Center.
    Direct consultation and long-term in-plant assistance is delivered
    primarily through the efforts of university project managers. Direct
    assistance may be delivered through co-op students, staff of the
    University of Wisconsin System, both two- and four-year institutions,
    and Extension services; the Wisconsin Technical College System;
    secondary schools; the private sector, professional societies, and
    private consultants, or attendance at state or national seminars. The
    project also draws on many other state resources to add expertise and
    capacity to network facilitation and in-plant extension activities.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. America's manufacturers continue to face tremendous global
    competition. There are enormous pressures to improve the quality of
    products and reduce the time consumed to bring new products to market,
    and there remains an ever-increasing demand to reduce the costs of
    products. Currently there is a strong movement in manufacturing to use
    speed-to-market combined with new product introduction as a tool to
    obtain a competitive advantage. Large companies are not the only ones
    influenced by these trends. Small and medium-size manufacturers often
    supply directly to the market or are vital elements of a supply chain.
    Hence, they must be able to respond quickly to changing market
    conditions while continuously improving productivity and product
    quality.
        Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The Manufacturing Technology Transfer program's principal
    objective is the development of a competitive, secure manufacturing
    base through the mechanism of industrial extension. The program
    principally targets small and medium-size manufacturers in rural
    Wisconsin. This funding will: continue to provide valuable industrial
    extension service to the target audience; support the continued
    empirical development of an industrial extension model; and investigate
    the use of new manufacturing technologies to support global
    competitiveness of manufacturers. Productivity improvements were
    reported by the companies showing impressive economic impact to the
    region through client operations assessments and plant evaluations,
    strategy development for continuous improvement, implementation of new
    organizational and operational methods, implementation of new
    manufacturing technologies, establishment of quality assurance/total
    quality systems, establishment of ongoing training programs, and on-
    site instruction in new technologies, improved methods, and processes.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This project has been underway since fiscal year 1992 and
    was funded for $165,000 per year in fiscal years 1992 through 1995;
    $163,000 in fiscal years 1996 through 2001; and $162,641 in fiscal year
    2001 for a total of $1,637,641.
        Question. What is the source of and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. University of Wisconsin-Stout provides $24,367 as in-kind
    match. Funds from other state, University, and partner resources are
    pooled with USDA funds to carry out the described efforts.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin,
    carries out the work. From this location, companies are served
    throughout Wisconsin, but primarily in the northwest counties.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original proposal in 1992 was for a period of 12
    months. However, the Manufacturing Technology Transfer program was
    developed as a continuously evolving industrial extension strategy for
    serving the needs of the manufacturing community. Success is measured
    by meeting the objectives of each year's proposal, including the
    delivery of modernization assistance and development of an industrial
    extension model. The current phase of the program will be completed in
    2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. To measure the success of the project, a client evaluation
    process has been developed which includes an evaluation questionnaire.
    Evaluations are performed both by program staff and by an objective,
    third party survey house. Evaluations indicate significant forward
    strides in job creation, new businesses, expanded productivity, and
    enhanced international competitiveness. In 2000, the U.S. Department of
    Commerce performed an agency evaluation of this project. Evaluation
    highlights showed that the program: provided 191 technical assistance
    projects for 107 companies; sponsored 35 educational events attended by
    436 individuals and 252 companies; helped create or retain 140 jobs;
    and achieved $13.4 million in economic impacts. Clients indicated that
    assistance from the project helped reduce labor costs, reduce material
    costs, reduce inventory costs, and increase sales. Clients said the
    program provided affordable, objective assistance and local access to
    the resources they need to help them prosper.
                       potato pest management, wisconsin
        Question. Please provide a description of the work that has been
    funded by the Potato Pest Management, Wisconsin grant.
        Answer. The goal of work supported by this funding is to advance
    the use of bio-intensive integrated pest management and reduce reliance
    on high-risk pesticides. The project is a collaborative effort
    involving the University of Wisconsin, the World Wildlife Fund, and the
    Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable Growers Association. Market-based
    incentives to accomplish these goals will be developed and tested. An
    environmental, performance-based label standard for Wisconsin fresh
    market potatoes will be developed. Market research will be conducted to
    develop a marketing plan, certification, and testing mechanisms to move
    certified product from Wisconsin fields through the value chain to
    selected retailers. Environmental indicators and measurement methods
    will be developed. A pilot project will begin research with selected
    potato growers to identify key ecosystem conservation opportunities on
    their lands including crane damage mitigation. A collaboration advisory
    committee will be formed to help develop a plan for targeted outreach
    to project growers.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. In 1996 this grower-university-environmental group
    partnership in Wisconsin established concrete targets for reducing use
    of high-risk pesticides in potato production. This innovative,
    voluntary, multi-stakeholder project can provide the USDA with valuable
    insights into Food Quality Protection Act--FQPA--transition issues.
    This project will help develop marketplace incentives that reward
    farming practices that reduce the impact of agricultural pesticides on
    health and the environment. This is in response to the growing consumer
    demand for products that are produced with sustainable methods. The
    activity benefits Wisconsin by putting its growers in a leading
    position to capture this expanding market. It offers value-added
    options to the vegetable industry facing over-production, low prices,
    and new FQPA regulatory demands.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program, and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. This is the first year that the pesticide risk reduction
    goals and the integrated pest management measurement system will be
    combined with developing a marketing strategy for eco-labeled potatoes.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Fiscal year 2001 is the first year of this Special Grant
    and $189,582 was appropriated. The project's foundation of applied
    field research, measurement, and extension has been funded from
    numerous sources over the past five years. The potato growers, the
    University of Wisconsin, foundations, the World Wildlife Fund, the USDA
    grants, and the Environmental Protection Agency support through
    American Farmland Trust have contributed to the groundwork.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The Wisconsin potato growers contribute more than $150,000
    annually to support University of Wisconsin research and technology
    transfer that is critical to the project. The Wisconsin Department of
    Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection has provided $25,000 for
    value-added marketing.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being done with fresh market potato growers in
    the following Wisconsin counties: Adams, Columbia, Barron, Green Lake,
    Langlade, Marquette, Portage, Sauk, Waupaca, and Waushara.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The initial phase of developing the eco-label standard and
    marketing strategy will be completed this year. Additional research
    will be needed to improve the environmental indicators incorporated in
    the standard, to test and improve the marketing strategy, to assist
    more growers in meeting the standard, and to extend the initiative to
    processing potatoes and to other vegetable crops grown in rotation with
    potatoes.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is a new project, and a proposal has been requested
    from the University of Wisconsin. The proposal will be peer reviewed
    prior to submission to the Agency. The proposal will undergo merit
    review by Agency staff prior to release of funds.
                      range policy development, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the extension program
    that has been funded under the Range Policy Development, New Mexico
    grant.
        Answer. The Range Policy Development project has collected local
    economic data throughout the State. Local data have been used to
    develop an economic model to help explain the relationships between
    local economies and primary industries. The model enables policymakers
    to better understand how local and State economies are tied to primary
    industries, especially those industries that use public lands. The
    focus of the project is on the livestock grazing industry.
        Question. According to the extension proposal, or the principal
    project investigator, what is the national, regional, or local need for
    this project?
        Answer. In New Mexico and throughout western states, many local
    economies are dependent on the use and management of public range and
    forest lands. However, there exists a great deal of disagreement about
    the true level of dependence of individual communities on these public
    land-based industries and, consequently, disagreement about the local,
    statewide, and regional impacts of public policies that alter the use
    and management of these lands. Through better understanding of how
    public lands impact local and regional economies, we now can predict
    the outcomes of potential legislation or amended land use policies,
    resulting in policies that enhance, rather than detract from, local
    economies. The model was used to analyze the economic impacts of
    rangeland reform. The Bureau of Land Management and the Governor's
    State team chose to use the tool to analyze county alternatives for the
    State Environmental Impact Statement.
        Question. What is the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The model has been requested by the U.S. Forest Service to
    help improve Region 3 Land Use Plan Amendments in response to newly
    listed Threatened and Endangered Species. New Mexico is in the process
    of developing detailed input-out models for each county from local and
    state tax revenue data. Economists are following up with workshops
    across the state to present information from economic forecasts to
    local decision makers. Further, the project calls for increasing the
    utility of the models by expanding the scope of the database to include
    oil, gas, cheese processing, dairy, and food livestock industries in
    addition to the grazing enterprises.
        Question. How long has this work been under way and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This project was initiated in December 1994. In fiscal year
    1995, $200,000 was appropriated, in fiscal years 1996-2000, $197,000
    per year; and in fiscal year 2001, $196,567. The total appropriation
    for the project is $1,381,567.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds to
    support this project?
        Answer. The project budget does not indicate any non-Federal
    support. However, Agricultural Research Stations in five other States
    have economists currently working to expand upon the New Mexico
    project, ultimately to build a regional model.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. This extension project is being carried out at New Mexico
    State University. Broad regional interest in the project has led to
    efforts to expand applications to fit other regional sites.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. According to the project director, most of the original
    objectives of the first phase have been accomplished. The second phase
    of the project was initiated September 15, 1999. This phase will
    investigate the hypothesis that recreation--in particular, Federal
    land-based dispersed recreation--generates sufficient revenue to offset
    the significant and now documented economic contributions of the
    consumptive industries, such as range, forestry and mining, and crop
    and livestock agriculture. Recreation expenditure patterns and economic
    cycles will be investigated. Production agriculture and range livestock
    are vital segments of rural economies. These sectors produce
    sustainable long-term income and wealth and are the basis of the
    customs and culture of rural economies. The anticipated completion date
    is September 30, 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The proposals for continued funding are subject to merit
    review each year. The most recent merit review of the proposal for this
    project was conducted in late spring of 2000. The review focused upon
    the relevance of the project goals, the suitability of the proposed
    research methods, and the progress to date of the project. The review
    determined that adequate progress had been made toward fulfilling the
    objectives of the second phase of this project.
                           rural development, alaska
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Rural Development, Alaska project.
        Answer. This program provides technical assistance to small
    business to create and retain jobs in rural, under-served areas of
    Alaska and to stimulate local economies. The Southeast Alaska component
    will focus on forest-oriented, home-based and cottage businesses. The
    Western Alaska component is focusing on youth entrepreneurship,
    workforce development, e-commerce, and tourism.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    research?
        Answer. Remote areas in Alaska and other parts of the U.S. are
    struggling to survive in today's very competitive international
    marketplace and with the many management and policy changes being
    deployed on public lands. Alaska's indigenous population needs
    technical assistance to help them define new economic opportunities.
    Strategies and development tools designed in this region can be
    utilized in other areas of the United States and territories.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished?
        Answer. The original goal of the program was to create new economic
    opportunities in remote areas of Alaska. The project has been underway
    only a few months and project goals have not been accomplished to date.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This project was begun in fiscal year 2000. Appropriations
    include $276,285 for fiscal year 2000 and $616,640 for fiscal year
    2001. The total amount appropriated is $892,925.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. No non-Federal funds have been provided for this project.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out by the University of Alaska
    Fairbanks Cooperative Extension Service.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The initial project proposal has a completion date of
    September 30, 2002. The proposal for fiscal year 2001 funding has not
    been submitted to date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The initial project proposal underwent a merit review
    within the agency. Since the project is recently initiated, no reviews
    have been conducted to date.
                 rural development through tourism, new mexico
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Rural Economic Development Through Tourism, New Mexico
    project.
        Answer. The Rural Economic Development Through Tourism Project--
    REDTT--involves applied research and outreach focused on locally-based
    tourism development strategies to enhance economic opportunity in small
    and rural communities in New Mexico. Components of the agenda support
    training of local leadership and tourism professionals, strategic
    planning and market development, and technical assistance to
    communities.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. This is an ongoing pilot to demonstrate the effective
    development and implementation of applied research, training,
    education, and technical assistance related to rural tourism as a
    development strategy. The grant has demonstrated that a long-term
    commitment of resources and activity can lead to effective development
    of tourism resources and build new market opportunities and tourism
    products for small communities. As rural America and farmers and
    ranchers seek out new economic opportunities, this proposal has strong
    potential for contribution to a national strategy in rural tourism
    development.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The applied research and outreach project was designed by
    the State Cooperative Extension Organization to increase the ability of
    the public sector to enhance economic opportunity for rural communities
    through tourism development. A regional task force composed of
    Extension professionals and community leaders from business, industry,
    education, and government--local, state, and Federal--was developed to
    guide and advise the development and implementation of locally-based
    programming and research. The results include video training materials,
    a public relations package, image studies and profiles, regional
    tourism guides, development of tourism bus packages, festival planning
    workshops, development of regional tours, and a mini-grants program for
    tourism development.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated through fiscal year 2001?
        Response . In fiscal years 1992 through 1995 the amount of $230,000
    was appropriated. The appropriation for fiscal years 1996-1997 was
    $227,000 per year; for fiscal year 1998 was $247,000; for fiscal years
    1999-2000, $280,000 per year; and fiscal year 2001, $279,384. Total
    appropriated funds to date is $2,460,384.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Fiscal year 1992 included $38,764 in state matching funds.
    Fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 included $39,360 of state
    matching funds. Fiscal years 1997 and 1998 included $39,040 state
    matching funds and fiscal year 2000 included $50,804 in state matching
    funds. The proposal for fiscal year 2001 has not been submitted to
    date.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. Applied research and outreach is being carried out through
    New Mexico State University.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original completion date was September 30, 1993. The
    original objectives of this research have been met. The additional
    objectives presented for the 2000 year will be completed by March 31,
    2001. The fiscal year 2001 proposal has not been submitted to date.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency evaluates the merit of research proposals as
    they are submitted. No formal evaluation of this project has been
    conducted. The principal investigators and project managers submit
    annual reports to the agency to document impact of the project. Each
    year, the project has demonstrated accomplishments in the reports
    submitted. Impacts include increases in attendance of local festivals,
    increase in the number of tour bus visits to New Mexico, training to
    over 700 tourism employees in the region, and establishment of a number
    of new businesses. Agency evaluation of the project includes peer
    review of accomplishments and proposal objectives and targeted
    outcomes.
                         rural rehabilitation, georgia
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Rural Rehabilitation, Georgia project.
        Answer. The program has tested the feasibility of providing
    satellite-based adult literacy education, in association with
    vocational rehabilitation services, to handicapped adults in rural
    Georgia. The program has developed curriculum, tested and adapted
    technology, established student recruitment and retention strategies,
    expanded to statewide coverage, and provided successful adult literacy
    education. Current proposal is addressing technology based literacy
    education.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. A state task force has estimated that 25 percent of
    Georgia's adult population is functionally illiterate. Functional
    illiteracy is regarded in Georgia as a form of disability. This project
    and other interests in Georgia have determined functional literacy to
    be a major issue. While this project proposal is based on state needs,
    similar problems exist throughout the country with various targeted
    populations.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this program was to prove that
    distance learning can be an effective tool for reaching and teaching
    functionally illiterate adults in rural areas. This program has
    demonstrated that satellite-based literacy training, in cooperation
    with vocational rehabilitation services, can successfully provide adult
    literacy education designed to improve critical reading, writing, and
    thinking skills for handicapped rural adults. Over the past nine years,
    test scores and attendance and completion rates of students in the
    satellite-based program have shown that distance learning is an
    effective delivery system for instructing low-level readers and non-
    readers. Test scores and attendance rates of students in this program
    have been comparable to those of students in traditional urban classes.
    The project is currently working to perfect a process for Internet-
    based instruction and student assessment.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Funding for this program was initially appropriated in
    fiscal year 1989, and the program has been in operation since March
    1989. Through fiscal year 1998, appropriations for this program have
    been as follows: $129,000 in fiscal year 1989; $256,000 per year in
    fiscal years 1990 through 1992; $250,000 per year in fiscal years 1993
    through 1995; $246,000 per year in fiscal years 1996 through 1998;
    $236,160 for fiscal year 1999; $246,000 in fiscal year 2000; and
    $245,469 in fiscal year 2001, for a total of $3,112,619.
        Question. What is the source of and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The fiscal year 1998 source of non-Federal funds provided
    for this program are state appropriated funds from the Georgia
    Department of Adult Education. Prior years sources also included
    private contributions from the Woodruff Foundation and other local
    foundations. Through fiscal year 1998, the total amount of non-Federal
    funds provided for the project has been $8,006,901. The breakdown by
    fiscal year is: $164,000 in fiscal year 1988; $270,500 in fiscal year
    1989; $809,675 in fiscal year 1990; $656,765 in fiscal year 1991;
    $65,000 in fiscal year 1992; $1,019,821 in fiscal year 1993; $20,000 in
    fiscal year 1994; $872,500 in fiscal year 1995; $1,500,000 in fiscal
    year 1996; $1,319,320 in fiscal year 1997; and $1,309,320 in fiscal
    year 1998. $236,160 in non-Federal funds was provided for the 2000
    budget year by project partners. The proposal for 2001 funding has not
    been submitted to date.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The Georgia Tech Satellite Literacy Project is sponsored
    and operated by four organizations: Georgia Institute of Technology's
    Center for Rehabilitation Technology, the Center for Rehabilitation
    Technology, Inc., Literacy Action, Inc., and the Georgia Department of
    Technical and Adult Education. The program grantee is CRT, Inc., a
    private, not-for-profit business advisory board to the Center for
    Rehabilitation Technology, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute
    of Technology, from which the literacy instruction has been provided.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. It was anticipated that it would take 3 years to
    demonstrate that distance learning can be an effective tool for
    reaching and teaching functionally illiterate adults in rural areas.
    That original objective was met in fiscal year 1991. Additional
    objectives since fiscal year 1991 have been to expand the outreach of
    the satellite based adult literacy program to enough additional sites
    throughout the State of Georgia so that all potential participants have
    reasonable access to the program, and to continually upgrade the
    quality of class programming and the technical capacities of the
    system. The fiscal year 1997 technological upgrades expanded the
    capacity of the program more than twenty-five-fold, from seventy-seven
    to over 2,000 downlink sites, and a six-fold increase in broadcast
    hours, and made materials available as supplemental tools to all
    Georgia literacy classes. As of December 1997, the Georgia Tech
    Satellite Literacy Program was in a period of transition from that of
    providing literacy instruction via direct television broadcasts to
    classrooms to that of development and dissemination of technology-based
    instructional aids. The project has been renamed the Lifelong Learning
    Network, or LNN. This change was made based upon the request of the
    major sponsor, the Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education,
    Office of Adult Literacy. The LNN will develop and produce video-based
    instructional supplements, technology-based curriculum and training for
    adult literacy practitioners, and multi-media projects for literacy
    students. The completion date for fiscal year 2000 funding proposal is
    March 1, 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. The agency receives annual reports on the project that are
    used, together with agency merit review, to assess its progress. Based
    on these reports, the agency has found that the project has made steady
    progress in demonstrating the feasibility of utilizing distance
    learning technology and teaching methods to provide adult literacy
    education programs to handicapped adults throughout the State of
    Georgia. The project has been successful in applying the latest
    distance education technology to both control the program cost per
    participant and, most recently, to expand the availability of the
    program. The proposal is peer reviewed within the agency for compliance
    with program guidelines and project merit each year.
             technology transfer projects, oklahoma and mississippi
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under Technology Transfer Projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi.
        Answer. The original work involved the transfer of uncommercialized
    technologies from Federal laboratories and universities to rural
    businesses and communities. The objectives have evolved to providing
    more one-on-one assistance to small manufacturers. This type of
    assistance responds to the stated needs of a small manufacturing
    community and meets a recognized gap in the existing service provider
    community. In turn, this innovative and unique program has opened an
    entirely new clientele base for the Cooperative Extension Service.
        Question. What is the national, regional, or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. While every community, state, region, and even nation has a
    vital need for exploring, understanding, and developing technology,
    many do not have the necessary resources to meet this need. As an
    example, the Internet has many potential possibilities for education
    and business to entertain, but without investigation, these potential
    users will probably not utilize these technologies until they have been
    demonstrated to be worthwhile and effective. This puts those groups at
    a disadvantage with the potential for them to fall farther and farther
    behind. Projects such as the Technology Transfer Project provide a way
    for these groups to take advantage of these technologies in the
    adoption process and integrate them into their operations, thus
    enhancing their position. Mississippi is in particular need in this
    respect because of the very low economic resources and rural nature of
    the state. The Oklahoma Manufacturing Extension Partnership has
    received national acclaim for its noteworthy and highly effective
    partnership with the land-grant universities.
        Question. What is the original goal for this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal for the project was the exploration,
    evaluation, development, and education-transfer of innovative
    technologies to rural businesses, communities, and governments.
        Within the activities of this project, numerous technologies have
    been explored and evaluated for potential use by various groups.
    Technologies such as microcomputers, satellite dishes, Geographic
    Information System--GIS--technology, remote sensing technology, the
    Internet, computer networking, cellular telephones, specialized
    software and wireless communications have all been evaluated and
    educational programs developed. Rural communities and governments have
    been primary targets of the educational activities associated with the
    project since its inception. With the educational objective of this
    project being a primary factor, numerous workshops have been provided
    to teach clientele how to best utilize these technologies.
    Demonstrations, either as pilot projects or as exhibits and
    presentations, have been utilized in many areas to extend dissemination
    of information and skills.
        Question. How long has the work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. Funding appropriated to date is as follows: $350,000 per
    year in fiscal years 1984 and 1985; $335,000 in fiscal year 1986;
    $333,000 per year in fiscal years 1987 through 1990; $331,000 per year
    in fiscal years 1991 through 1995; $326,000 per year in fiscal years
    1996 though 2000; and $325,283 in fiscal year 2001. Total
    appropriations are $5,977,283.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds?
        Answer. Oklahoma State University and Mississippi State
    University--MSU--have provided considerable amounts of matching support
    from state funds over the life of the project. Over the past five
    years, support has included a significant portion of engineering
    faculty salaries as well as the administrative support of county and
    district extension staff. Matching funds have been at least equal to
    the amount of the project funds in the last 10 years. Matching funds
    have included faculty salaries, technology equipment costs, travel,
    supplies, and administrative support. If all monies required to develop
    and implement technologies associated with this project were counted,
    the total would be far greater than the Federal funds provided. For
    example, equipment expenditures in MSU Extension to support technology
    activities in the past year alone were $500,000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. The work is being carried out by Mississippi State
    University and Oklahoma State University and, more importantly, on the
    shop floors of the small rural manufacturers. In Mississippi, work
    related to this project is also being carried out in some community
    colleges, on the Internet, and in every county. Demonstrations,
    educational workshops, Internet access, video-conferencing sessions,
    satellite conferences, and one-on-one sessions have been conducted in
    businesses, local government offices, Extension offices, schools,
    farms, and even homes, where appropriate. In Oklahoma, the program is
    being delivered in the Southeastern quadrant of the state where the
    counties are in the lower tier of per-capita income and have higher
    than average unemployment.
        Question. What is the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The original project objectives were to be completed in 12
    months and have been met. However, the technology transfer process is
    continuous because the pace of introduction of new technologies is ever
    increasing and the gap between the technological competence and
    utilization by rural and urban manufacturers is ever widening. New
    specific and measurable objectives have been developed each year. The
    achievement of those objectives has been documented in annual reports.
    The objectives of both programs have been the delivery of high-quality
    engineering assistance and technology transfer services to small
    manufacturers, conducting joint workshops, client referral, joint
    research and application projects, and demonstration of value of
    service to clients. The current phase of the program will be completed
    in fiscal year 2001.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. In Mississippi, site visits and merit reviews have been
    conducted by university evaluators annually as well as client surveys
    by project staff themselves. Survey results have documented job
    creation, productivity enhancement, and local community economic
    activity. The Technology Transfer Program has impacted the integration
    of emerging technologies that are benefitting the citizens, ranging
    from assisting small businesses and industries in integrating new
    computer hardware and software for conducting electronic commerce, to
    providing extensive on-line information resources. The Technology
    Transfer Funds have served as a catalyst for the development of a long-
    range telecommunications network plan for the total extension service
    to link all county extension offices and research centers directly to
    the Mississippi data/video backbone and provide access to the Internet.
    Evaluations are conducted on every educational workshop and activity.
        In Oklahoma, appraisal of program performance was conducted by the
    Oklahoma Alliance for Manufacturing Excellence in the year 2000. The
    impact for the companies served was valued at $13.7 million and the
    economic value of the number of new jobs created and saved was $8.9
    million. During fiscal year 2000, client satisfaction surveys were
    conducted and the program and its staff were rated very high. A U.S.
    Department of Commerce review during fiscal year 2000 indicated that
    the Oklahoma program should serve as a national model.
                        vocational agriculture, oklahoma
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Vocational Agriculture, Oklahoma grant.
        Answer. CSREES has requested that the Retired Educators for
    Agricultural Programs--REAP--a 501(c)3 organization, submit a grant
    proposal that has not yet been received.
        Question. What is the national, regional or local need for this
    program?
        Answer. The need for this outreach effort is due to the diminishing
    numbers of African American agriculture education teachers in Oklahoma
    and the scarcity of the African American youth enrolled in vocational
    agriculture and participating in 4-H and FFA programs.
        Question. What was the original goal of this research and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. The original goal of this program was to build a foundation
    to promote personal and economic opportunities in agriculture for
    African American youth in Oklahoma through project development and
    partnerships with educational and other community resources.
        Question. How long has this work been underway and how much has
    been appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. The work supported by this grant begins in fiscal year 2001
    and the appropriation for fiscal year 2001 is $275,393.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture has provided funding
    to the project over the past three years as follows: $52,500 per year
    in fiscal years 1999 and 2000 and $49,500 in fiscal year 2001. The
    Oklahoma Conservation Commission, in cooperation with the Oklahoma
    Natural Resources Conservation Service, has provided to REAP $25,000 in
    fiscal year 1998, $50,000 in fiscal year 1999, and $95,630 in fiscal
    year 2000.
        Question. Where is this work being carried out?
        Answer. A pilot program has been conducted in Creek, Muskogee,
    Okfuskee, Okmulgee, and Tulsa counties in Oklahoma. The pilot also
    reached Logan, Oklahoma, and Seminole counties. Non-Federal funding
    listed above helped to carry out these pilot projects.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    anticipated completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. This is an ongoing project with the objective of involving
    more African American youth in agriculture education programs. Since
    the program inception in 1994, more than 100 young students have become
    involved and pursued additional education in the field of agriculture.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of this project?
    Provide a summary of the evaluation conducted.
        Answer. This is the first year the Retired Educators for
    Agricultural Programs has received funding from the agency. An
    evaluation will be conducted upon completion of the project.
                             wood biomass, new york
        Question. Please provide a description of the program that has been
    funded under the Wood Biomass, New York grant.
        Answer. The goal of the project is to facilitate the
    commercialization of willow biomass crops as a locally grown, renewable
    feedstock for bioproducts and bioenergy in the Northeastern and Midwest
    regions of the U.S. The goal will be reached by simultaneously applying
    research results to optimize the production system to produce the
    highest yields at the lowest possible cost, educating potential
    producers so that they can make informed decisions about producing the
    crop, educating other key target audiences, and by expanding markets
    for bioenergy and bioproducts. The scenario is challenging because
    there is currently not enough willow biomass established to fulfill
    market needs, while at the same time there are currently no long-term
    commitments that will assure producers of a stable market in the
    future.
        Question. According to the extension proposal, or the principal
    researchers, what is the national, regional, or local need for this
    project?
        Answer. The researchers hypothesize that the project is of national
    interest. This project will serve as a model for bringing other closed
    loop biomass feedstocks through the research, development, and
    deployment phases to commercialization. Research on biomass crops spans
    more than 20 years at USDA and the Department of Energy during which
    time-significant progress has been made. Several of these crops,
    including willow biomass crops, are now poised to make the next step
    towards commercialization. However, as is the case with any new crop,
    ongoing research will be necessary to optimize crop production and
    improve returns to local producers. The near-term energy market
    strategy for willow biomass is co-firing at pulverized coal power
    plants. Longer-term conversion uses include gasification and combined
    heat and power systems. Increased effort by other outside groups is
    focused on the fabrication of new biobased materials and chemicals from
    willow biomass as an alternative to products currently derived from
    non-renewable fossil fuels. A major benefit of the willow biomass
    cropping system is the production of environmental and social benefits
    simultaneously with renewable energy and bioproducts. Benefits include
    offsetting carbon emissions from fossil fuels, reduced power plant
    emissions when the biomass is co-fired with coal, rural economic
    development, reduction in soil erosion and non-point source pollution
    associated with conventional agriculture, and the creation of wildlife
    habitat. These efforts can play a major role in bolstering America's
    farm and forestry sectors, increasing energy independence,
    strengthening the protection of the environment, mitigating waste
    problems, and enhancing recycling policies and practices. The
    production, quantification, and valuation of these benefits is
    essential in order to make the system economically viable under the
    current electric energy industry structure.
        Question. What was the original goal of this program and what has
    been accomplished to date?
        Answer. Overall program goals are: (1) Promote willow biomass crops
    as an alternative farm crop for domestically produced, renewable
    bioproducts and bioenergy. (2) Provide verification of scale-up
    estimates of yields and production costs from small research plots to
    commercial size fields. (3) Test and refine the production system for
    willow biomass crops, which will provide a base of experience and
    knowledge to launch commercial production. (4) Facilitate information
    exchange among the diverse groups of participants in the project (e.g.
    farmers, agricultural specialists, natural resources professionals,
    scientists, business interests, economists, engineers, policy makers).
    (5) Cooperate with the Salix Consortium to advance prospects for the
    commercialization of willow biomass systems.
        Significant progress towards these goals has been made. Focused
    outreach and education efforts by the State University of New York--
    Environmental Science and Forestry--the South Central Resources
    Conservation and Development, and Cornell Cooperative Extension Service
    have produced a positive change among many target audiences. The focus
    of inquiries has changed from knowledge level questions to how they can
    participate in the program either as potential producers of willow
    biomass crops or as contractors involved in the establishment and
    management of the crop. Over 100 landowners, representing over 4,000
    acres of land in central and western New York State, have expressed
    interest in participating in the large-scale demonstration project. New
    planters, which have been modified by staff in the Department of
    Agricultural and Biological Engineering at Cornell University, have
    increased planting efficiency for willow crops from 0.5 acres per hour
    to 2.5 acres per hour. The first 120 acres of willow biomass crops,
    including 20 acres planted specifically under this project, grown at a
    commercial scale are due to be harvested in the winter of 2001.
        Question. How long has work been underway and how much has been
    appropriated by fiscal year through fiscal year 2001?
        Answer. This aspect of the program began with an appropriation of
    $200,000 in fiscal year 1995. An additional $197,000 was appropriated
    by the Congress for fiscal years 1996 through 2000, and $196,567 in
    fiscal year 2001. The total amount appropriated is $1,381,567.
        Question. What is the source and amount of non-Federal funds
    provided by fiscal year?
        Answer. Four state partners and approximately 18 private partners
    contribute resources at a ratio of nearly 1.5 to 1 for this project.
        Question. Where is the work being carried out?
        Answer. The fieldwork is being conducted on private and state land
    near Syracuse, New York. Tours of the demonstration farms in the last
    year alone have been conducted for numerous groups including high
    school and university students, two national conferences, and visitors
    from four different countries. Presentations have been given at
    numerous local, regional and national events including the National
    Farm Bureau meeting, the Chautauqua Institution, the International
    Poplar Council meeting, International Energy Agency meetings. Outreach
    and educational activities have been conducted at research locations in
    several other states including Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey,
    Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
        Question. What was the anticipated completion date for the original
    objectives of the project? Have those objectives been met? What is the
    completion date of additional or related objectives?
        Answer. The completion date for the original award was September
    30, 1996. Due to some delays in crop establishment related to weather
    and landowner agreements and the need to monitor and harvest the
    original plantings at the end of the first rotation of 4 years, the
    completion date is now 2003. Several new dimensions have been added to
    the project as well.
        Question. When was the last agency evaluation of the project?
    Provide a summary of the last evaluation conducted.
        Answer. A field review of the project was conducted on August 20-
    21, 1997. Excerpts from the review report include (1) positive
    accolades for their regular reporting; (2) positive accolades for the
    outreach effort being conducted by Cornell University; (3) praise for
    the scientific outreach by the principal investigators; (4) praise for
    connecting the willow program to poultry waste and riparian issues in
    New York state; and (5) praise for gaining the acceptance of willow
    biomass as an agricultural crop for state property tax purposes. On the
    concern side, the agency's project administrator flagged the delay in
    establishing the demonstration farm and requested diligence in bringing
    this aspect of the project to fruition. Subsequent reports from the
    project reveal that this aspect has been satisfactorily addressed.

    AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2002

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [The following testimonies were received by the
    Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related
    Agencies for inclusion in the record. The submitted materials
    relate to the fiscal year 2002 budget request for programs
    within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

                   Prepared Statement of the Ad Hoc Coalition

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is
    respectfully submitted for the hearing record on behalf of the ad hoc
    coalition \1\ composed of the organizations listed below. The coalition
    supports sustained funding for Title I of Public Law 480 at a baseline
    program level which is not less than last year's level and which will
    preserve the program as a long-term food aid and market development
    initiative for American agriculture.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The ad hoc coalition is composed of USA Rice Federation,
    National Association of Wheat Growers, Wheat Export Trade Education
    Committee, US Wheat Associates, National Council of Farmer
    Cooperatives, American Soybean Association, American Maritime Congress,
    Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development,
    Transportation Institute, TECO Transport Corporation, National Barley
    Growers Association, US Canola Association, National Sunflower
    Association, National Corn Growers Association, and Liberty Maritime
    Corporation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The principal focus of this testimony is to request that Title I
    funding for fiscal year 2002 be restored to a sustainable level for
    needed humanitarian assistance abroad and market development for
    American agricultural products. For fiscal year 2001, the program level
    was $159.7 million. Unfortunately, the President's budget for fiscal
    year 2002 requests an appropriation which would support a program level
    of only $139 million. At the very least, Congress should sustain the
    program level established for fiscal year 2001, and should further
    evaluate carefully the need to increase the Title I program level in
    each succeeding year.
        Although the coalition favors a higher Title I program level than
    the Administration proposes, the coalition does support the
    Administration's request for $835,159,000 for Title II donations. Under
    the Food for Progress program, the Administration estimates that $94
    million in Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) funds will be used to
    support Food for Progress donations in fiscal year 2002, including $64
    million for the purchase of approximately 229,000 metric tons of
    commodities and $30 million for transportation and other non-commodity
    costs. The coalition welcomes this continued commitment of CCC funding
    for Food for Progress. The Administration, moreover, pledges to
    maintain significant levels of shipments under the regular Section
    416(b) program when CCC inventory stocks are available. Commodities
    will be shipped over the next year to complete the Section 416(b)
    programming approved during 2000 and to provide for new programming,
    including programming for the President's Global Food for Education
    Initiative, which currently consists of 632,533 metric tons of
    commodities to 38 countries valued at more than $130 million, as
    discussed more fully below. The coalition strongly applauds this
    initiative, and believes that it will become a pillar of U.S.
    humanitarian assistance for many years to come.
                  an overview of u.s. food assistance programs
        Mr. Chairman, the scope and magnitude of U.S. food aid in recent
    years has been remarkable. As shown in the attached charts prepared by
    Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS), the fiscal year 2000 food aid
    program reached a total of 95 countries, more than half the countries
    in all the world. The destinations for U.S. food aid last year included
    45 countries in Africa, 17 in Asia and the Middle East, seven in
    Europe, 14 in Latin America and the Caribbean, two in the Near East,
    and 10 in the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union. (See
    Attachment I.) These 95 recipient countries received donations or
    concessional sales of 35 different commodities. (See Attachment II.) In
    fiscal year 2000, USDA-administered programs were responsible for 4.6
    million metric tons of shipments, and US AID administered Title II
    shipments totaled 2.1 million metric tons, for a combined food
    assistance program of 6.7 million metric tons, valued at more than $1.4
    billion.
        The President's Global Food for Education Initiative, on a pilot
    program basis this year, is expected to provide up to 9 million needy
    children with nutritious school lunches. Ultimately, this innovative
    program is expected to provide food donations worth $300 million per
    year. Other major initiatives in recent years have included the Russia
    Food Aid Package and the Ethiopia/Horn of Africa program. The latter
    distributed about 800,000 metric tons of food in Ethiopia to avert
    famine in 2000.
        While our bounty continues to meet many emergency food assistance
    requirements around the globe, Congress should keep in mind that long-
    term market development for American agriculture is an important goal.
    That goal is one of the purposes of Title I.
           the title i program promotes long-term market development
        Mr. Chairman, the 1996 Farm Bill directs the Secretary of
    Agriculture to give priority in negotiating agreements under Title I to
    developing countries that have the demonstrated potential to become
    commercial markets for competitively priced U.S. agricultural
    commodities. The concessional sales market of today will become the
    commercial market of tomorrow. In an intensely competitive world
    agricultural marketplace, the United States must use its concessional
    sales program to gain access, establish a foothold and build
    relationships upon which future commercial trade in agricultural
    commodities can depend.
        Under the Public Law 480 Title I program, the United States has
    made concessional sales of commodities with a total value of about
    $31.2 billion since 1955. Along with other export enhancement programs,
    Title I has proved to be a catalyst for strong, long-term growth in
    U.S. agricultural exports. With the benefit of sustained market-
    development initiatives, the value of U.S. farm exports rose to an all-
    time high of nearly $60 billion in 1996. After declining to $49 billion
    in 1999, the value of total U.S. farm exports has recently regained
    some ground, reaching a level of $53 billion in 2000.
        The United States must intensify its efforts to develop new
    overseas markets for U.S. farm commodities. With deeply depressed farm
    prices and strong competition from a host of producing countries, the
    need for enhanced market development funding has seldom been greater.
    Congress should increase its market development program and certainly
    should not cut the program level for Title I as recommended by the
    Administration. Title I has proved its worth over decades of
    experience.
                      the sharp decline in title i funding
        Throughout the 1980s, Congress maintained high funding levels for
    the Title I program. Unfortunately, Title I program levels experienced
    a sharp drop at the beginning of the last decade--from $725.3 million
    in 1990 to $395.3 million in 1991. The value of commodities shipped
    dropped below $200 million in 1995, and (except for extraordinary CCC-
    funded Russian shipments) has remained near this historical low since
    then. For fiscal year 2000, concessional sales and donations of about
    1.2 million metric tons of commodities valued at $233 million were
    programmed to 12 countries under Title I and the Food for Progress
    program using Title I funds, including carryover funds from prior
    years.
        Mr. Chairman, the carryover in the Title I program account at the
    beginning of fiscal year 2000 had been significantly higher than the
    historical average, and Congress cut back the level of new budget
    authority for that fiscal year in order to permit the FAS to draw down
    on the unobligated reserves in the program account. This has been done.
    At the beginning of fiscal year 2000, the carryover was approximately
    $170 million; at the beginning of fiscal year 2001, this had been
    reduced to about $50 million, an amount which is considered a prudent
    reserve level by program managers. Unfortunately, the Title I program
    level requested by the administration for fiscal year 2002 represents a
    $20 million reduction from the fiscal year 2001 program and is a little
    more than 10.7 percent of the peak 1965 Title I program level, ($1.3
    billion in commodity value). In inflation-adjusted dollars, the Title I
    program has lost about 97 percent of its value to American farmers
    since the record-setting year of 1965. The coalition believes that it
    is important now to stabilize funding, stop the persistent downward
    trend, and begin to increase resources devoted to this critical and
    proven program.
      a renewed commitment to market development for american agriculture
        Mr. Chairman, Congress has maintained since World War II a strong
    bipartisan commitment to market development for U.S. agricultural
    commodities. Until the mid-1960s, Title I shipments accounted for about
    20 percent of the annual value of all U.S. agricultural exports. The
    concessional sales program was a principal catalyst for market
    development through the 1970s, when the total value of U.S.
    agricultural exports increased nearly six-fold--from about $7 billion
    in 1970 to $40.5 billion in 1980. The program was funded at high levels
    during periods of war and peace, even during periods of large Federal
    budget deficits.
        The time has come, Mr. Chairman, to reemphasize the importance of
    concessional sales and to revitalize the program. The time has come for
    a renewed commitment to this historic initiative, a program that has
    blazed a trail for billions of dollars in commercial shipments of
    American agricultural products. However, in making this renewed
    commitment, both Congress and the Administration should seek to improve
    the program's effectiveness in the economy of the twenty-first century.
        Under current criteria, a developing country is considered eligible
    for Public Law 480 Title I if it has a shortage of foreign exchange
    earnings and has difficulty meeting all of its food needs through
    commercial channels. The program managers at FAS should review country
    eligibility standards, ensuring that all eligible countries are
    actively considered. There must surely be a substantial market for
    Title I concessional sales--during 1999 and 2000, donations of food
    under USDA-administered programs totaled 12.3 million metric tons. Many
    countries currently receiving Section 416(b) and Food for Progress
    donations can be expected to graduate to Title I concessional sales
    arrangements. The shift from Section 416(b) donations to Title I
    participation could be rapid, and both FAS and Congress should prepare
    for this eventuality.
        There has been legitimate concern that many eligible countries are
    reluctant to sign agreements following allocations at the beginning of
    a fiscal year. Perhaps FAS should establish a reasonable deadline for
    participation under concessional sales terms. The allocations for
    countries choosing not to participate could be shifted to other
    countries, well in advance of the close of the fiscal year. This reform
    could reduce the occasionally excessive carryover of unobligated
    balances, and help to ensure that program benefits are extended to all
    eligible countries. As Congress turns to new farm legislation this
    year, the need for more program flexibility should be addressed. The
    current cap of 500,000 metric tons of shipments under Food for Progress
    seems to make little sense. If this cap were lifted, Title I funding in
    greater amounts could be allocated to Food for Progress. This and other
    reforms could strengthen the concessional sales program, along with its
    companion program, Food for Progress.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, the United States has shipped food assistance in
    record amounts over the past two and one-half years and large shipments
    are expected to continue throughout the remainder of this year.
    Congress and the Administration deserve great credit for this
    humanitarian effort. But extraordinary food aid shipments will not last
    forever. American farmers require strong commercial markets to maintain
    their share of world trade in agricultural commodities.
        In 1996, U.S. agricultural exports accounted for nearly 23 percent
    of total world agricultural trade by commodity value. As noted above,
    the value of U.S. agricultural exports has declined by nearly 12
    percent since the record was set in 1996. Farm prices are depressed.
    Overseas competitors have enjoyed record crops. Traditional markets
    have been destabilized by economic upheavals. The response must include
    a renewed commitment to proven market development strategies, such as
    Title I of Public Law 480, by restoring the program to at least the
    fiscal year 2001 level.

       Prepared Statement of the Advanced Medical Technology Association
                                   (AdvaMed)

        AdvaMed, the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed)
    (formerly the Health Industry Manufacturers Association) and its
    members appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony on funding for
    FDA in fiscal year 2002. AdvaMed represents more than 800 innovators
    and manufacturers of medical devices, diagnostic products and medical
    information systems. Our members produce nearly 90 percent of the $68
    billion health care technology products consumed annually in the United
    States and nearly 50 percent of $159 billion purchased around the world
    annually.
                                    summary
        AdvaMed believes that four key points must be considered when
    setting FDA funding levels for fiscal year 2002.
      --The coming revolution in medical technology poses significant
            premarket review challenges for FDA
      --Device premarket review times have improved, but delays remain in
            FDA approval of breakthrough technologies
      --FDA should be given the full resources it needs to meet the coming
            revolution in medical technology. Added funding for device
            premarket review should be coupled with further policy changes
            to prepare FDA for the future.
      --AdvaMed looks forward to working closely with FDA and Congress to
            determine the extent of the agency's resource needs and ensure
            that it is ready to meet the premarket review challenges that
            lie ahead.
     significant premarket review challenges on the horizon for the agency
        Last year, AdvaMed testified as to the critical importance of
    preparing FDA for the coming revolution in medical technology. Patients
    will be denied access to important new tests and treatments if the
    agency does not have the resources and procedures in place to review in
    a timely manner the breakthroughs that result from this revolution.
        The agency has made significant gains in reviewing incrementally
    improved 510(k) medical technologies within statutory review times as a
    result of its actions to expand the 3rd Party review program--as
    directed by this Subcommittee. Nevertheless, FDA Acting Principal
    Deputy Commissioner Bernard Schwetz recently testified before your
    Subcommittee on the challenges the agency faces, noting ``the United
    States is leading the world into an era of extraordinary scientific
    achievements that can yield unprecedented gains for human health and
    nourishment.''
        Some of the breakthrough technologies approved by FDA over the past
    year underscore the dramatic potential of emerging science not only to
    save and improve lives but also to lower health care costs. They also
    illustrate why FDA faces a considerable challenge in maintaining timely
    reviews for the increasing number of major breakthroughs it will face.
    The vast majority of those breakthroughs will be premarket applications
    (PMAs).
        FDA for example, recently approved digital mammography--after at
    least 5 years--for breast cancer. This is in addition to the ten year's
    the product spent in development. This breakthrough in early detection
    of breast cancer will help save many women's lives in the coming years.
    The effectiveness and efficiency of this technology will only improve
    in the coming years as it is coupled with additional breakthroughs like
    and computer-aided diagnosis and tomosynthesis. FDA's review of digital
    mammography underscores the challenges the agency faces in reviewing
    breakthrough technologies in a timely manner. Unfortunately, such
    premarket review delays are not uncommon for breakthrough medical
    technologies.
        Similarly, combination products--products that are both a device
    and a drug or biologic have faced significant premarket review delays.
    Such combination products are reviewed by at least two FDA centers.
    Unfortunately, combination device drug/biologic products reviewed by
    the Drug and Biologic centers have faced significant review delays.
    Nevertheless, a significant number of the breakthrough products in the
    current R&D pipeline will be combination products never before seen by
    the Agency.
        Medical technology companies also are becoming increasingly
    concerned about increases in the overall development time for new
    technology. Delays in any area of the technology development process--
    design, pre-clinical, clinical testing, and FDA review--prevent
    patients from gaining access to new technologies and discourages
    further innovation.
        For these reasons, the premarket review challenges posed by
    innovative medical technologies will only increase in the coming years
    as FDA faces an ever-increasing number of breakthroughs products.
        This fact was highlighted in a report by the Lewin Group on the
    ``Outlook for Medical Technology Innovation'' that was released last
    year. A key finding from the report was that medical device and
    diagnostic manufacturers have doubled their R&D over the past decade to
    bring these breakthroughs to fruition. Additionally, a report scheduled
    for release later this year by the Lewin Group is expected to quantify
    the significant increases in R&D spending that medical technology
    companies have made over the last five years.
        In making these heavy R&D investments, AdvaMed members are acutely
    aware of the challenges FDA faces in making these innovations available
    to patients in a timely manner.
        AdvaMed believes that FDA should be given the resources and
    expertise needed to streamline the entire medical technology
    development and review process in order to begin the process of
    preparing FDA for a new age of rapid biomedical and pharmaceutical
    innovation. This new age is rapidly approaching, and the time to start
    preparing is now.
    fda needs additional premarket resources to prepare for the new age in
                         medical technology innovation
        This new era of biomedical breakthroughs is arriving at a time when
    the agency lacks the resources to meet even its current premarket
    review duties. In 1998, FDA Senior Associate Commissioner Linda Suydam
    estimated the agency was $165 million short of what it actually needs
    to do its job. In the intervening period, we have learned that medical
    technology manufacturers have doubled their R&D--the Lewin Report found
    companies are investing $9 billion a year or approximately 12.9 percent
    of revenue. Additionally, while the agency has received important
    appropriations increases including $7 million in fiscal year 2000 and
    $7.7 million in fiscal year 2001 for device premarket review, premarket
    review times for premarket applications (PMA) have nevertheless
    remained flat for the last 3 years. AdvaMed believes FDA's device
    review program will continue to warrant significant increases as the
    agency prepares for the coming explosion in medical technology
    innovation.
        AdvaMed believes FDA should have the resources it needs to meet its
    statutory time frames, both now and in the future. This means
    completing final actions for premarket approval applications for
    breakthrough products within 180 days and 510(k)s for incremental
    advances within 90 days. The fiscal year 2000 Annual Report released by
    the Center for Devices and Radiological Health's Office of Device
    Evaluation reported that PMA reviews continue to be double the
    statutory review times. It also shows that despite budget increases,
    little improvement has been made in PMA review times.
                 dialogue needed to understand resources needed
        AdvaMed believes strongly that it is essential to understand the
    total resources needed in order for the agency to meet its statutory
    device review timeframes and has worked for many years to try and
    determine what is needed. This requires a dialogue with the agency.
    Toward this end, we applaud the Committee's effort last year to include
    report language requesting the agency to provide this information to
    the Committee with respect to the fiscal year 2002 budget. To our
    knowledge, the agency has not yet provided this information to the
    Committee.
        AdvaMed strongly recommends a dialogue on this issue between
    appropriators and the FDA so that appropriators may begin to understand
    and work toward appropriate resources for the agency. Such a dialogue
    must also include the resources needed at the Drug and Biologics
    Centers to review combination device drug/biologic products. AdvaMed
    would be happy to participate in any such discussions if the Committee
    believes this would facilitate such a dialogue.
        Similarly, we understand the Agency may not have used its
    contracting out authority as it was encouraged to by this Committee
    last year due to lack of resources. As the pace of medical technology
    innovation quickens, it will become increasingly important for FDA to
    look to outside expertise to make sure the agency does not become an
    ever-tighter regulatory bottleneck.
        AdvaMed strongly believes FDA must remain on the cutting edge of
    science and that one useful way to achieve this goal is for FDA to make
    greater use of the expertise of the researchers who are advancing this
    science and applying it to medical technology breakthroughs. However,
    unless it is known how much the Agency believes it needs to contract
    out for premarket activities, the Committee will not be able to plan
    for the needed resources.
    regulatory changes are needed to prepare fda for the new age of medical
                             technology innovation
        Increased FDA funding for premarket reviews is only part of the
    answer to timely patient access to medical innovations. In order to
    meet the coming biomedical revolution, the agency must be as innovative
    in its regulation of new technologies as researchers are in developing
    them. FDA has shown a commitment to finding new approaches to getting
    its job done, and this commitment should be encouraged and expanded on.
        FDA has demonstrated this commitment through successfully
    implementing some key provisions of the FDA Modernization Act. Recently
    the agency fully implemented and expanded the types of products
    eligible for the third-party review program. Additionally, the agency
    also worked cooperatively with stakeholders on FDAMA's least burdensome
    concept.
                     concern about import user fee proposal
        While we do not yet fully understand the Administration's proposed
    import user fee proposal, we are concerned about its potential impact
    on medical technology manufacturers. As you may know, in this global
    economy, medical technology manufacturers rely on component parts and
    bulk supplies or biomaterials from around the world. The biomaterials
    shortage of the early 90's forced many technology manufacturers to have
    to find biomaterials from around the globe in order to manufacture
    implantable technologies. Additionally, many technology manufacturers
    import pre-manufactured parts into the U.S. from their internationally-
    located facilities for final assembly in the U.S. We also believe the
    proposal would require significant authorizing language.
                                   conclusion
        AdvaMed urges this Subcommittee to help prepare the FDA for the
    coming era of biomedical innovation. To ready FDA for this era and
    ensure that patients enjoy timely access to the coming dramatic
    breakthroughs in medicine, a dialogue must be opened on the resources
    needed to adequately fund FDA's device and drug/biologics premarket
    review programs and ensure that statutory review times are met. AdvaMed
    stands ready to assist in such a dialogue if requested.
        AdvaMed thanks the committee for this opportunity to present our
    views and we look forward to working with you to help prepare FDA for
    the coming revolution in biomedical innovation.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Alachua County Board of County Commissioners

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing the Alachua County Board of
    County Commissioners to submit this written testimony before your
    Subcommittee regarding two significant projects. They are the Partners
    for a Productive Community Enhancement Initiative, and the Critical
    Services to Underserved Areas Initiative.
       partners for a productive community enhancement initiative ($2.3
                         million in funding requested)
        In response to a spiraling crime rate in southwest Alachua County,
    the Alachua County Sheriff's Office requested help from the Board of
    County Commissioners in 1993. Specifically, the Sheriff reported that
    57 percent of its 911 calls came from an area that had only 3.2 percent
    of the County's population.
        The County Commission responded by providing $38,000 in funding for
    a Program Manager to staff the Partners for a Productive Community
    (PPC) Program in fiscal year 1994. The PPC was launched as a strategic
    planning effort with three goals: the establishment of neighborhood-
    based services, the development of public/private partnerships and a
    focus on crime prevention. This Program has enjoyed great success due
    to the coordinated efforts of the Sheriff's Office, the Courts and the
    Alachua County Department of Community Support Services. Furthermore,
    since the inception of this Program, the County has budgeted over $1.6
    million to support the Program through the Community Support Services
    Department and Sheriff's Office. Additionally, over $2.4 million has
    been leverage from other county departments, local social service
    providers and the Sheriff's Office through a local law enforcement
    grant.
        The goal of the Sheriff's Office was to reduce the number of calls
    from the area, and to develop a relationship of trust with the area's
    residents. The goal of the Courts was to help with the swift
    prosecution of cases, and to increase personnel in key areas. Finally,
    the goal of the County's Department of Community Support Services was
    to develop and implement a neighborhood needs assessment, and to
    determine the social service needs in accordance with the results of
    the assessment. The Community Support Services Department was also
    responsible for developing public/private community partnerships, and
    community based organizations comprised of tenants, property owners and
    managers. Thus, this project represents a multi-agency strategy to
    stabilize, revitalize and sustain five specific neighborhoods of
    Alachua County.
        In addition to improving the area's basic infrastructure, Federal
    funding is also being requested to provide community recreational
    programs for the area's youth. These activities will provide positive
    alternatives to crime, and allow youth to participate first hand in
    community improvement programs. In doing so, these programs will build
    and encourage positive self-esteem, leadership skills and academic
    achievement. To complement these programs, additional improvements will
    be made in the community Safe Havens. Finally, the requested funding
    will also allow the PPC to expand this successful demonstration program
    into other at risk Alachua County communities such as Archer, Florida.
    Specifically, the PPC will develop a partnership strategy to address
    the unmet needs of health care, education, training, employment, youth
    recreation and transportation for the residents of Archer.
        This request for Federal funding is justified by the tremendous
    improvements and accomplishments that have been made in these
    neighborhoods since 1995. These achievements include: free community
    day care for 75 children, 30 community day care slots, 24 in-home day
    care slots, the creation of 30 new jobs by the Early Progress Center,
    the reduction in 911 calls from 57 percent to 14 percent of total calls
    in the area, and substantial increases in the property values for four
    of the five neighborhoods.
        Furthermore, the implementation of seasonal recreation programs in
    the targeted communities by the Y.M.C.A. has been instrumental in
    providing positive, character building activities for children,
    teenagers and adults. Day camps are provided during the summer months,
    and back-yard sports are provided at the end of the school day during
    the school year. In addition, two 4-H Clubs serving 60 neighborhood
    children were established along with after school and community teen
    programs. Adult literacy and GED classes were made available at a
    nearby school campus. Finally, other programs have been established for
    the purpose of creating a sustainable neighborhood. These programs
    include quarterly informational forums concerning small business
    development, educational opportunities, self-help seminars, budget
    management and landlord/tenant issues.
        With respect to community-wide improvement programs, a total of
    nine neighborhood cleanups were completed this year. With the active
    involvement of the residents of the neighborhoods, the Alachua County
    Office of Codes Enforcement has been able to reduce from twenty to two
    the number of abandoned and vandalized buildings. Furthermore, a new
    Waste Collection Ordinance which was supported by the PPC permits the
    efficient and timely citation of violators.
        The sustaining factor within this Program is the formally organized
    Partners for a Productive Community Council. The Council is the guiding
    force that deals with issues and determines unmet needs. For example, a
    block captain organization was started this year with the assistance of
    the PPC Council, and the Alachua County Sheriff's Office. This group
    monitors and manages crime prevention programs block by block. In
    recognition of the numerous accomplishments described above, the PPC
    received the National Association of Counties' Achievement Award in
    1996 for distinguished and innovative contributions to improving county
    government. Additionally, the League of Women Voters presented the
    County with a similar award for outstanding community service.
        Furthermore, in December 1999 Alachua County received Official
    Recognition from the Executive Office of Weed and Seed for two of the
    neighborhoods being served by the Partners for a Productive Community
    Program. Pursuant to this recognition, these communities have been
    awarded a $175,000 Weed and Seed Grant for prevention and intervention
    strategies focusing on Cedar Ridge and Linton Oaks neighborhoods. This
    grant will further strengthen the long-term efforts to improve the
    quality of life in these neighborhoods.
        As noted above, the Federal funding requested will also be used to
    expand the successful Partners Initiative into the rural community of
    Archer, which is located in the southwestern portion of Alachua County.
    Archer and the rural areas surrounding it have a population of 6,348,
    of which 16 percent fall below the poverty level. While the City of
    Archer has one elementary school, emergency rescue, fire and police
    services are contracted from Gainesville/Alachua County. There are also
    two public housing communities, and a small obsolete community center
    which is used as a congregate meal site for senior citizens.
    Consequently, many of Archer's residents travel to Gainesville for
    employment, social services, recreational activities, adult and
    continuing education and health care.
        Recently, the University of Florida, School of Nursing received
    $200,000 from the Florida Legislature to provide primary health care
    through a clinic based in Archer. Presently, this clinic is on the
    State Department of Health's list to be eliminated due to the limited
    area that it serves. Should this occur, there will be a need for
    additional funds to meet the health care needs in this area. Thus, a
    portion of the Federal funding in this request could be channeled
    through the Alachua County Health Department in our continuing effort
    to develop partnerships, maximize resources and expand services to the
    citizens of Alachua County through our rural service initiative.
        Employment opportunities, recreation for teens and outreach social
    services continue to be a challenge for the community of Archer.
    According to the Alachua County Sheriff's Office, Archer's crime rate
    is disproportionately high for a community its size. In 2000, the
    Alachua County Sheriff's Office received 2,657 calls for service. Of
    the dispatched calls, 30 were assaults and batteries, and 5 were for
    sexual battery. The largest number of dispatched calls (869) concerned
    burglary and theft.
        In conclusion, Alachua County is requesting $2.3 million in Federal
    funding to continue its highly successful and award winning
    neighborhood revitalization programs; and to expand these successful
    model programs to other neighborhoods, including the City of Archer,
    Florida.
       critical services to underserved areas ($1.81 million in funding
                                   requested)
        Without a safe and reliable source of public utilities, the
    residents who live in the southeastern portion of the City of
    Gainesville and Alachua County must rely upon the use of obsolete
    private water systems, septic tanks and propane gas for their utility
    services. In addition to the health and safety concerns, this lack of a
    public utility infrastructure serves as a deterrent to the area's
    economic revitalization.
        While several subdivisions in the target area are in immediate need
    of a public utility infrastructure, it is the County's intent to
    approach this model program by focusing on the Kincaid Road subdivision
    as Phase I of the Initiative. This subdivision currently has over 150
    homes on septic tanks, with many of them also using propane gas for
    heating. Historically, there are numerous health risks associated with
    malfunctioning septic tanks, including the possible contamination of
    ground water which could lead to the development of diseases within the
    area.
        Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) indicates that the
    infrastructure needed to provide wastewater service to this area
    includes: the wastewater collection system lift stations, grinder pumps
    and on-site plumbing to connect to a new gravity sewer system. GRU
    estimates that the construction and extension of a central wastewater
    system to the Kincaid Road subdivision will cost approximately
    $1,585,000, while the extension of the natural gas lines is estimated
    at about $225,000. Thus, the total cost of Phase I of this model
    program is $1.81 million. Finally, it's important to note that GRU is
    currently planning wastewater facilities to serve the Kincaid Road
    subdivision, and may perform additional engineering work as in-kind
    services. The additional engineering work is estimated to cost
    approximately $121,000.
        While Alachua County is requesting assistance from the Federal
    government in funding this portion of the model program for the area's
    revitalization, the County has already begun numerous other programs
    and projects that have had an positive, significant impact on the
    area's redevelopment. For example, in July of 1996, the County began a
    series of neighborhood meetings in Greentree Village, which is a
    subdivision of about 60 households in the target area. Residents were
    encouraged to express their concerns about the area's problems and
    establish priorities. As a result of these meetings, the County
    assisted Greentree Village in the establishment of a crime watch
    program and the creation of a backyard recreation program through the
    Y.M.C.A.
        Several new public buildings and facilities have also been located
    within the target area to encourage its redevelopment. During 1998/99,
    Alachua County expended about $5.5 million to purchase and renovate the
    Eastgate Shopping Center for the Alachua County Sheriff's Office. This
    new facility is 56,200 square feet in area, and it serves as the base
    of operations for the County's 239 sworn deputies, and 260 non-sworn
    administrative and support personnel. Completing this law enforcement
    complex is the new Alachua County Communications and Emergency
    Operations Center which recently opened adjacent to the new Sheriff's
    Office. This facility cost about $5.3 million and operates as a joint
    center for both Alachua County and the City of Gainesville.
        Finally, with a contribution of approximately $430,000 from Alachua
    County, the City of Gainesville has completed a new Technology
    Enterprise Center (TEC) within the target area. This $3.0 million
    business incubator consists of a new, two-story 30,000 square foot
    facility located in the City of Gainesville Enterprise Zone. Over 60
    percent of the construction funds for the TEC were provided by a grant
    from the U.S. Economic Development Administration. The purpose of
    business incubators is to promote the growth and development of new
    enterprises by providing flexible space at affordable rates, a variety
    of support services, access to management, technical and financial
    assistance, and opportunities to interact with other entrepreneurs and
    business experts. Even though this facility has just recently opened,
    about 13,000 square feet of the TEC has already been leased to a
    leading technology accelerator company specializing in speeding
    pioneering technology entrepreneurs to the market. It is expected that
    when fully operating, the TEC will foster the creation of higher wage
    jobs, the expansion of the tax base and the augmentation of new
    business development within the target area.
        In conclusion, Alachua County is undertaking the redevelopment of
    an existing urbanized area, which includes the modernization of its
    utility infrastructure. These improvements will build upon numerous
    previous programs and projects that have already had a positive impact
    upon the area. Phase I of this model program includes the extension of
    a central wastewater system to the Kincaid Road subdivision, as well as
    the extension of natural gas lines. The support of this Phase of the
    project through Federal funding will serve as an impetus for the
    continued revitalization of these residential areas.
                   concluding comments for written testimony
        The two initiatives described above represent well-conceived
    programs that address the social, physical and economic needs of the
    citizens of Alachua County. Furthermore, they demonstrate the County's
    continuing commitment to programs that emphasize a balance between
    environmental protection, economic development and social equity for
    all of the residents of the County. Therefore, we hope that the
    Subcommittee will find these two critically important projects worthy
    of your support. Thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Dietetic Association

        Mr. Chairman, the American Dietetic Association and its 70,000 food
    and nutrition professionals respectfully urge your subcommittee to
    support adequate funding for USDA's Continuing Survey of Food Intakes
    by Individuals (CSFII). A minimum of $8 million is needed annually for
    this purpose. Congress, USDA, other government entities and the public
    all rely on the information provided by CSFII for developing sound
    agriculture and food policy. We kindly request that this letter be
    entered into the official record of written statements and testimony.
        CSFII data are used to identify and target Americans in need of
    food assistance, track consumption of agricultural commodities and
    assess risks in the food supply. By providing information on individual
    and household consumption, CSFII data identify trends in food patterns
    and connections between diet and health.
        Despite the importance of this survey, the USDA discontinued the
    CSFII in Fiscal Year 2001 due to lack of adequate funding. In the
    absence of CSFII, USDA plans to rely on dietary data collected by the
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). However, the
    information collected by DHHS is insufficient for formulating
    agriculture, food and nutrition policy. Congress, USDA, and the public
    will be severely disadvantaged by the loss of the USDA data they have
    relied upon over the years.
        Together, USDA's CSFII and the DHHS survey, known as the National
    Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), comprise the core of
    America's national nutrition monitoring system. Though USDA and DHHS
    have been working diligently for several years to coordinate data
    collection and to integrate survey methodologies, the plan did not
    include a merger of the two surveys or the discontinuation of one of
    the system's two core components.
        In January 2001, USDA submitted a report to this Committee
    outlining its plan to merge its survey activities with those of the
    DHHS. This report did not address many of the issues and concerns of
    Congress, as identified in Conference Report No. 106-948 accompanying
    the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
    Related Agency Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2001. In fact, the
    DHHS survey is inadequate to support USDA's agriculture and food policy
    decision-making. Without its own survey, USDA can no longer be assured
    it will receive the types of data needed in a timely fashion to support
    the multi-faceted functions of the Department.
        The USDA should continue data collection as it works with DHHS to
    lay out a clear plan to use complementary research, collection, and
    analysis for both CSFII and NHANES, without loosing the vital and rich
    data collected by each survey. However, it is critical that USDA has an
    in-house mechanism to collect the data it needs on a timely basis. For
    this reason, the American Dietetic Association respectfully requests
    that Congress provides a minimum of $8 million annually to the
    Agricultural Research Service specifically for the CSFII survey.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

    integration of the national health and nutrition examination survey and
              the continuing survey of food intakes by individuals
                                  introduction
        Conference Report No. 106-948 accompanying the Agriculture, Rural
    Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency
    Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001, contained the following
    directive: ``The conferees direct the USDA, in consultation with the
    Department of Health and Human Services, to prepare and submit a report
    to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, by December 31,
    2000 that describes the process for integrating the National Health and
    Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) and the Continuing Survey of Food
    Intakes by Individuals (CSFII). The report should: (1) include a
    timeline and steps to accomplish the goals set forth in the National
    Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990; (2) be prepared
    in consultation with representatives of user groups (i.e., anti-hunger
    groups, consumer advocates, commodity organizations, food producers,
    nutrition professionals, and public and voluntary health
    organizations); (3) address the strengths and potential weaknesses of
    merging the two surveys and identify how problems will be addressed and
    by whom; (4) identify funding needs and sources; and (5) include
    recommendations for inclusion in reauthorization of the National
    Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act.''
                                   background
        The Department of Agriculture, through its Agricultural Research
    Service (ARS), conducts the Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by
    Individuals (CSFII) and the Department of Health and Human Services,
    through its National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) (part of the
    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), conducts the National
    Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The CSFII which has
    been conducted on a periodic basis is designed to assess food
    consumption and related behavior in the U.S-population using personal
    interviews. The most recent CSFII survey was conducted in 1998. NHANES
    is designed to assess the health and nutritional status of the U.S.
    population using personal interviews and a direct physical examination.
    NHANES, previously periodic, has been conducted on a continuous basis
    since 1999.
                                   discussion
        The backdrop for discussions on integrating the CSFII and NHANES is
    the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act (NNMRRA) of
    1990 which set goals and mechanisms to bring about greator coordination
    of nutrition monitoring activities across agencies. More recently,
    leadership of HHS and USDA have identified a more comprehensive
    integration of these two surveys as a major priority. USDA/HHS staff
    have been engaged in intensive discussions of alternative models and
    approaches for the last three years and have arrived at a basic
    approach. This process of integration has involved input by users of
    the data from both surveys. In addition, both agencies have regularly
    met with and solicited the feedback of stakeholders from inside and
    outside government on the advantages and disadvantages of integrating
    the surveys.
        Extensive planning efforts between both agencies assures that the
    quality of the data collected in the future will be improved. Proven
    and now fully automated methods of data collection will be used, the
    needs of customers and stakeholders will continue to be met, and data
    will be released in a timely manner. However, some issues still remain
    to be addressed.
    Objectives for Integrating the Survey
        The goals of USDA and HHS in conducting and integrating nutrition
    surveys is fully consistent with those stated in the Conference Report
    and the general thrust of the NNMRRA. USDA's and HHS' particular focus
    has been to:
      --Continue to meet priority agency and outside user needs for
            nutrition and dietary data.
      --Reduce the complexity of using multiple surveys conducted with
            different methods.
      --Improve analytic comparability between previously parallel efforts
            of the two Departments.
      --Accelerate efforts to implement initiatives anticipated by the I0-
            year plan and the nutrition monitoring act.
      --Achieve cost efficiencies in the face of uncertain and constrained
            resources.
        Discussions between USDA and HHS on alternative strategies for
    integrating nutrition monitoring efforts have addressed the following
    questions/issues. What is the potential impact on users of diet and
    nutrition data? How can existing data resources be maintained and
    improved? What is the projected availability of funding and what are
    the alternative methodological approaches (e.g., sample sizes,
    telephone and in-person interview modes) to achieve the survey goals?
    What is the advisability and feasibility of using either multiple data
    collection mechanisms or a single, consolidated mechanism?
    USDA/HHS Approach to Integrating the NHANES and the CSFII
        Discussions between USDA and HHS have led to an approach to
    integrating the two surveys into a single mechanism. While many details
    remain to be addressed the elements of this approach include:
      --Collection of data from a nationally representative sample of 5,000
            persons each year as part of the continuous NHANES data
            collection mechanism. The contents of this diet and nutrition
            component of the survey will include 24-hour recall, a dietary
            supplement interview, body measures, and nutritional
            biochemistries from blood and urine specimens.
      --Use of a new USDA computerized dietary recall data collection
            system.
      --Processing of dietary recall data through the USDA SurveyNet
            program.
      --Augmentation of dietary supplement interview data with information
            collected from supplement manufacturers.
      --Addition of a second day 24-hour recall to NHANES in order to
            obtain more representative data on an individual's dietary
            intake.
      --Release of data from this integrated survey database as a timely
            joint USDA/HHS effort.
      --Conduct of an ongoing research program on methods to improve
            collection and analysis of dietary data.
    Advantages/Disadvantages of Integrating the Surveys
        The major advantages of integrating the two surveys include:
        (1) A single survey will be less costly than maintaining two
    separate field operations.
        (2) Dietary recall data will be available from two days on each
    individual rather than a single day.
        (3) Using the combined assets of USDA and HHS the data will be
    released in a more timely manner.
        (4) Through the extensive concomitant research of the NHANES
    program more comprehensive diet and nutrition data will be linked
    directly to health status data.
        (5) Data collection will proceed on a continuous basis through the
    ongoing NHANES mechanism rather than periodically.
        The potential disadvantages of integrating the two surveys include:
        (1) It was rare for the NHANES and CSFII to be in the field
    simultaneously. For those years in which both surveys would have been
    conducted, the overall sample size would have been 10,000 (i.e., 5,000
    in each survey). With a single integrated effort, the maximum sample in
    any year will be 5,000 under the proposed approach.
        (2) NHANES operational constraints raise the possibility that the
    proposed survey approach will not adequately address seasonal
    differences in food consumption.
        (3) A plan for obtaining information previously collected through
    the Diet and Health Knowledge Survey (DHKS), a telephone follow-up to a
    subsample of the CSFII, is not yet a component of the integrated
    approach.
        (4) An integrated approach involves tradeoffs and compromises on
    design and content and it may not be possible to include as much detail
    on population sub-groups and program participation of special interest
    to the USDA community as was possible in separate survey undertakings.
    Similarly, tradeoffs may be necessary between the interests of users of
    health status data and users of diet and nutrition data in the context
    of a single mechanisms meeting multiple objectives.
        (5) An advantage of two indepedent surveys is the assurance that if
    something happened to the one survey the remaining survey would
    independently continue. With the integrated survey, its success will
    depend on the ability of both agencies to have adequate funding and
    resources to carry out the integrated survey.
        USDA and HHS have concluded that the advantages significantly
    outweigh the potential disadvantages and are committed to working to
    minimize the impact of any of the potential negative impacts. The
    agencies feel that stakeholders and users of the data will be convinced
    that the integration plan has considerable merit and can help advance
    the goals of nutrition monitoring.
    Timeline
        While survey integration discussions between ARS and NCHS have been
    taking place a new method of fully computerized dietary data collection
    based on a common set of dietary intake questions, developed in
    consultation with users of the data, has been developed. Further, NCHS
    has modified NHANIES so that a sample of the U.S. population is
    collected each year to enable annual updating of estimates. Field pilot
    testing of the dietary intake system has taken place and an additional
    operational test is being planned. The full implementation of the new
    system is scheduled to take place in 2002. It will be used for an in-
    person interview with participants in the ongoing NHANES and a follow-
    up interview by telephone for a second, nonconsecutive day of data
    collection on all 5,000 respondents yearly. This will be a nationwide
    sample collected over a 12 month period.
    Outstanding Issue
        There are several significant remaining issues which need to be
    addressed prior to implementation. First, ARS and NCHS are examining
    the funding implications of an integrated approach, both in terms of
    total funding required and the extent to which USDA and HHS would
    support the various elements of an integrated plan. At the same time,
    there are other tradeoffs and constraints on the NHANES mechanism, both
    in terms of funding, burden on individual respondents, and tradeoffs
    with other potential subjects that might be addressed.
        Secondly, details of the roles of USDA and HHS components need to
    be refined, including the logistics of operations, the development of
    ongoing mechanisms for user and stakeholder input from both the USDA
    and HHS communities, and the relationship of integration efforts to
    other NHANES partners and operations.
        USDA and HHS have agreed to take the following steps to refine
    their integrated approach and move toward implementation:
      --Submit this report to House and Senate Appropriations Committees
            and actively solicit comment on the report from users and
            stakeholders, including those listed in the Appendix.
      --Resolve the outstanding issues addressed above, including funding
            and operational issues, and make necessary revisions to the
            approach based on user and stakeholder feedback.
      --Conduct an operational test in 2001 of the newly developed USDA
            computerized dietary recall data collection system to assure
            compatibility with the NHANES automated systems.
      --Develop more detailed operational implementation plans and
            protocols and obtain necessary clearances in 2001 from
            Institutional Review Boards for the protection of human
            subjects in research, and the Office of Management and Budget
            under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
      --Implement an integrated approach reflecting comments from users and
            stakeholders in 2002.
    Funding, Needs and Sources
        Funding for the joint integrated survey will be provided by both
    ARS and NCHS. ARS funds will primarily be used for dietary collection
    and continued improvement of the dietary intake system. This will
    include processing of the dietary data. Funds for the selection of the
    sample to be interviewed, contacting and screening the respondents, the
    facilities to carry out the interviews, and other costs associated with
    the NHANES will be provided by NCHS and its collaborators.
        It is highly desirable to consider expanding the sample size of
    participants for the dietary intakes to 10,000 or more as expressed by
    many stakeholders. This can be done as a freestanding but linked intake
    outside of the current NHANES data collection model but would require
    additional funding. Funding for the DHKS is essential and will require
    additional funds. If the full value of any dietary assessment is to be
    realized, it will require continuous research on dietary intake
    methodology so that methods can be continuously refined and developed.
                                    summary
        The USDA and HHS believe a combined, continuous, ongoing effort
    resulting in an integrated survey, which brings together the
    complementary expertise of ARS and NCHS, is preferable to two surveys.
    It is important that this monitoring effort be viewed as a critical
    research tool. It is also important that this national monitoring
    program be buttressed by research sufficient to enable the program to
    keep pace with changing foods, diet and eating behaviors, and with
    evolving survey mechanisms. With guidance from the several communities
    who need diet and nutrition information, USDA/HHIS is confident that
    the Nation's needs can be met.
     user groups consulted to discuss the integration of the usda and hhs
                           diet and nutrition surveys
        For the development of this report, several mechanisms were used to
    solicit input from user groups on the issues associated with the
    integration of the USDA and HHS surveys. Organizations that
    participated in recent meetings or provided written input include:
      --American Heart Association
      --Nancy Chapman and Associates
      --Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service
      --National Food Processors Association
      --Institute of Food Technologists
      --Society for Nutrition Education
      --American Society for Nutritional Sciences
      --American Dietetic Association
        The agencies also received multiple comments from individuals
    following these meetings.
        USDA and HHS staff have had a continuing dialogue with stakeholders
    as the approach to integrating these surveys has been developed. These
    include:
      --The ARS ``What We Eat in America'' conferences
      --The ARS ``CSFII Survey Users Group'' meetings
      --The NCHS ``Data Users Conferences''
      --ARS/NCHS ``Workshop on the Integrated CSFII-NHANES National Food
            and Nutrition Survey''
      --ARS expert working group on the ``New USDA Automated Dietary Recall
            Method''
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
        The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified four USDA
    program areas for which priority fiscal year 2002 funding is essential.
    They are:
      --programs key to the proper implementation of the Food Quality
            Protection Act (FQPA);
      --programs to expand foreign markets for agriculture;
      --programs to ensure the development and use of biotechnology
            products; and
      --programs to guarantee proper implementation of CAFO and TMDL
            regulations.
        These priorities are highlighted in the first portion of this
    statement. The second portion contains a list of additional programs
    supported by Farm Bureau.
         programs key to the proper implementation of the food quality
                             protection act (fqpa)
        Passed in 1996, the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) is our
    nation's new food safety law, establishing revised health standards and
    a new risk assessment process for measuring the safety of crop
    protection products. Farm Bureau supports increased funding for USDA's
    Food Quality Protection Act implementation activities. Proper
    implementation of this law based on sound science is critical to ensure
    the availability of vital crop protection products.
        The following offices and programs are critical to proper
    implementation of FQPA and must be funded as increased levels:
        Agriculture Research Service (ARS).--Integrated Pest Management
    (IPM) research, minor use tolerance research (IR-4), and research on
    alternatives to methyl bromide. The Office of Pest Management Policy,
    should also be funded at increased levels with funding being designated
    under the Secretary of Agriculture's office, not ARS.
        Cooperative State Research and Extension Service (CSREES).--IPM
    research grant, IPM application work, pest management alternatives
    program, expert IPM decision support system, minor crop pest management
    project (IR-4), crops at risk from FQPA implementation, FQPA risk
    avoidance and mitigation program for major food crop systems, methyl
    bromide transition program, regional crop information and policy
    centers, Pesticide Impact Assessment Program (PIAP), and the pesticide
    applicator training program.
        Economic Research Service (ERS).--IPM research, pesticide use
    analysis program, and the National Agriculture Pesticide Impact
    Assessment Program (NAPIAP). Additional funding for FQPA implementation
    activities is needed in the following programs: National Agriculture
    Statistics Service (NASS) pesticide use surveys, Food Safety Inspection
    Service (FSIS) increased residue sampling and analysis, Agriculture
    Marketing Service (AMS) and the Pesticide Data Program (PDP).
            programs to expand foreign markets for u.s. agriculture
        Creating new overseas markets and expanding those that we have is
    essential for a healthy agricultural economy. Continued funding of
    export development programs is fundamental to improving farm income in
    the short and long term. We recommend maximum funding of all export
    development programs consistent with our commitments under the World
    Trade Organization (WTO) trade rules.
        Public Law 480.--We support increased funding for Public Law 480
    programs, the primary means by which the United States provides foreign
    food assistance. The Public Law 480 programs provide humanitarian and
    public relations benefits, positively impact market prices, and help
    develop long term commercial export markets.
        GSM Credits.--AFBF supports the full funding of the GSM credit
    guarantee programs. These important export credit guarantee programs
    can help make commercial financing available for imports of U.S. food
    and agricultural products on deferred payment terms.
        Market Access Program (MAP) and Foreign Market Development Program
    (FMD).--Congress should fully fund the MAP and FMD programs. These
    programs need the expertise of a fully supported Foreign Agricultural
    Service (FAS) that is expanded to cover all existing and potential
    market posts.
        Export Enhancement Program (EEP).--The 1996 FAIR Act authorizes
    direct export subsidies of U.S. agricultural products through the EEP
    program through fiscal year 2002 to counter the unfair trading
    practices of foreign countries. AFBF supports the full funding and use
    of this program in all countries, and for all commodities where the
    U.S. faces unfair competition.
        Dairy Export Programs.--Farm Bureau supports full funding and use
    of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP) to allow U.S. dairy
    producers to compete with foreign nations that subsidize their
    commodity exports. Farm Bureau supports using savings from the
    elimination of the Commodity Credit Corporation purchase program for
    WTO-legal export development programs.
        Sanitary and Phytosanitary Management.--To address the need for
    additional inspections created by increased volumes of imports and
    exports, Farm Bureau supports increased funding for USDA's Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS).
        Foreign Agriculture Service.--Farm Bureau recommends increased
    support for the Foreign Agriculture Service.
      programs to insure the development and use of biotechnology products
        USDA must take the lead in biotechnology coordination efforts. It
    is essential that the Department act in a timely manner to evaluate and
    move approved products and technologies to the marketplace. USDA should
    develop a positive national strategy for biotechnology research,
    development and consumer education. Agriculture's competitive advantage
    in world markets will be maintained only with the continued support and
    encouragement of these technological advancements.
        Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA).--
    Farm Bureau supports sufficient funding for the establishment of a
    GIPSA biotechnology test certification laboratory. The creation of such
    a laboratory is a key element to the acceptance of biotechnology. The
    ability to accurately test and identify products of biotechnology for
    identity preserved and segregation purposes is essential.
        Codex Alimentarius Commission.--Farm Bureau supports increased
    funding for the U.S. CODEX office so that it can adequately represent
    American interests in this important body which develops the
    international food safety standards used as guidance by the World Trade
    Organization. Increasingly, biotechnology is the focus of CODEX
    discussions where an ongoing international effort is being led by the
    EU to place limits on our ability to export products of biotechnology
    by incorporating the precautionary principle into the CODEX general
    principles or biotechnology labeling discussions.
        Agriculture Research Service (ARS).--Farm Bureau supports
    sufficient funding for plant-breeding research programs because they
    are important for maintaining a broad-based research and assuring
    advancement of the technology.
                  proper implementation of cafo and tmdl rules
        Final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and EPA proposed Concentrated
    Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) regulation would impose billion of
    dollars in costs on agriculture across the country. These attempts at
    regulatory expansion over agriculture are not necessary to achieve
    improvement to nonpoint source water quality. Voluntary, incentive-
    based programs have proven effective by directly assisting farmers to
    obtain results while maintaining the farm business.
        Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).--EQIP is an
    important program for assisting producers in dealing with increased
    water quality regulation. We support a substantial increase in EQIP
    funding over previous years.
        Conservation Technical Assistance (Natural Resources Conservation
    Service).--Conservation program delivery and technical assistance must
    be a priority for NRCS funding. Emphasis should be placed on
    traditional technical assistance and the development of reliable
    resource data for assisting producers dealing with nutrient management.
    Estimates show that $550 million is necessary for this effort to help
    farmers improve farming practices and protect water quality.
                                  other issues
        Agricultural Research.--Farm Bureau believes that agriculture
    research and the distribution of that research to producers is critical
    to the future of our industry. One of the areas of agreement when the
    1996 farm bill was enacted was that funding for agricultural research
    would be increased to allow U.S. producers to maintain their
    competitive position in world markets. Farm Bureau recommends a
    significant increase in agriculture research funding over the next five
    years.
        Emerging Diseases and Exotic Pests Research.--Disease has a direct
    impact on food safety and is fundamental to international trade.
    Funding is urgently needed to develop rapid diagnostics, vaccines, and
    products necessary to protect U.S. plants and animals from disease
    outbreaks that occur naturally as well as those that could be
    intentionally introduced. Farm Bureau supports full funding for ARS
    emerging diseases and exotic pests research including ways to prevent
    the importation of exotic species in the ballast thanks of cargo ships.
        Animal Pest Research.--Farm Bureau believes the control of plant
    and animal pests is an important factor in reducing farm costs. Farm
    Bureau supports research funding for scrapie, Johne's, PRRS (porcine
    reproductive and respiratory syndrome), cryptosporidosis, FMD (foot-
    and-mouth disease), VS (vesicular stomatitis), BSE (bovine spongiform
    encephalopathy), hog cholera, salmonella and E.coli.
        Plant Pest Research.--Farm Bureau recommends continued research and
    implementation of detection, exclusion, control and eradication
    measures for plant pests including research for:
      --methods to halt the spread of the Asian Longhorned Beetle, a deadly
            threat to maple trees.
      --an effective control of fire ants and ways to provide safer,
            effective and practical treatments of multiyear certification
            of field and container-grown nursery stock.
      --ways to manage domestic European honeybees in the area where
            Africanized honeybees exist.
      --the magnitude of the threat of the root-lesion nematode,
            Pratylenchus neglectus.
      --smut and bunt diseases of cereals, including karnal bunt.
        Food Quality and Safety Research--Farm Bureau supports funding for
    research to insure the safety of food. Specifically we support funding
    for research:
      --to insure the safety of food additives;
      --on the irradiation (sold pasteurization) of food;
      --on inspection methods to eliminate the risk from pathogens;
      --food safety technology advances;
      --voluntary food safety guidelines to help prevent microbial
            contamination of fresh produce.
        Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund--Farm Bureau
    supports increased funding for BARD and other similar programs that
    maximize cooperative research efforts.
        Genome Research--Access to diverse genetic resource materials is
    crucial for the development of new plant varieties that are more
    resistant to insect infestation and disease and more tolerant to other
    adverse environmental conditions. Genomic research is also important to
    improving the economical traits of importance in livestock and poultry
    that affect animal health and reproductive efficiency. Farm Bureau
    supports increased funding for the food Genome Project currently
    administered by the National Science Foundation as well as additional
    money for plant, animal and microbial genome research at USDA.
        Natural Resources Research--Farm Bureau supports funding to study
    carbon credits and carbon sequestration. We favor continued research on
    reuse of water; conversion of saline waters; air and water pollution;
    water and soil conservation; recharging of groundwater basins;
    drainage; forestry management and utilization; restoration of strip-
    mined areas; weather forecasting and modification; treatment of
    domestic, industrial and animal waters; coal desulfurization and other
    natural resource problems.
        Research for new Products for Ag Commodities--Farm Bureau supports
    increased funding for research and development for new commodities and
    for new uses of commodities currently under production.
        Health and Nutrition Research--Farm Bureau supports funding of
    nutrition research on relationships between agricultural products and
    coronary heart disease and cancer.
        National Animal Health Emergency Management System--Farm Bureau
    supports full funding for the National Animal Health Emergency
    Management System that was developed in cooperation with the states,
    industry and the veterinary profession. These monies will enhance
    APHIS's emergency preparedness and response capabilities to address
    emergency animal disease issues that threaten the U.S. food supply.
        ARS and APHIS Laboratory Facilities--Farm Bureau supports full
    funding for a joint APHIS and ARS facility at Ames, Iowa, to meet
    national needs for research, diagnosis and product testing for animal
    health. The existing facilities are antiquated and inefficient and
    without this new laboratory facility, the U.S. will fail to meet
    international standards and to provide the level of animal disease
    protection necessary to achieve a world-class National Animal Health
    Emergency Management System. We support adequate funding for ARS
    biocontainment facilities that are critical to maintaining world-class
    research on both foreign and domestic diseases.
        Plant Pest Control.--Farm Bureau supports funding for control and/
    or eradication programs for plant and animal pests including:
    grasshoppers; multiflora rose; autumn olive; Johnsongrass and other
    designated noxious weeds; eradication of fruit flies; Russian Wheat
    Aphid; gypsy moth, southern pine bark beetles; and Plumpox virus.
        Boll Weevil Eradication.--Farm Bureau recommends full funding for
    Boll Weevil eradication to provide a 30 percent match with producer
    funding to facilitate the orderly eradication and/or containment of the
    pest across the balance of the cotton-growing area.
        Pseudorabies.--Farm Bureau supports adequate funding of the
    pseudorabies eradication plan developed by the swine industry.
        Bruecellosis.--Farm Bureau supports funding for a brucellosis
    control program leading to eradication of this disease in swine. The
    Federal government should continue full funding of brucellosis control
    activities in all infected states. Because brucellosis is transmittable
    from wildlife to domestic livestock and humans, we support funding to
    compensate livestock owners for losses brought about by contact with
    wildlife.
        Johne's Disease.--Farm Bureau supports funding to develop an
    accurate blood test for Johne's Disease; to reduce producers' cost to
    test for Johne's Disease; and for a multi-year program to identify
    Johne's disease infected animals and to provide an indemnity payment
    for the disposal of these infected animals.
        Inspection and Grading of Meat and Poultry.--Farm Bureau recommends
    that funding for any new federally mandated seafood inspection program
    should be consistent with existing funding for other food commodities.
        Conservation Operations.--We continue to be concerned about
    adequate Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) conservation
    operation funding. Conservation program delivery and technical
    assistance should be a priority for NRCS funding. Emphasis should be
    placed on traditional technical assistance and the development of
    reliable resource data for assisting producers to deal with nutrient
    management and other conservation concerns.
        Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative (GLCI).--We support funding
    for technical assistance under the GLCI as authorized in the 1996 farm
    bill.
        Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP).--With regard to
    conservation programs under the Commodity Credit Corporation Program
    (CCC), we believe that emphasis should be placed on EQIP. EQIP is an
    important program for assisting producers dealing with increased water
    quality regulation and other conservation concerns. We support a
    substantial increase in EQIP funding over previous years.
        Forestry Incentive Program (FIP).--Farm Bureau supports funding for
    the Forestry Incentive Program and suggest funding at $6 million.
        Farmland Protection Program.--Farm Bureau supports $65 million in
    funding for the Farmland Protection Program.
        Wildlife Services.--Wildlife Services should receive increased
    funding for both operational and research programs.
        Ag in the Classroom.--Most students no longer have firsthand farm
    experience and, therefore, lack a basic understanding of our food and
    fiber system. The Agriculture in the Classroom program provides real
    world examples that teach about agriculture production food safety,
    nutrition and healthy lifestyles, and career opportunities. Farm Bureau
    supports an increase to $750,000 for Ag in the Classroom under CSREES.
        Risk Management Agency.--Farm Bureau supports long term funding for
    the Risk Management Agency.
        Ag Marketing Equity Capital Fund.--Farm Bureau supports funding for
    the Agricultural Marketing Equity Capital Fund to help producers
    develop value-added enterprises.
        WIC Market Coupon Program--Farm Bureau supports increased funding
    for WIC market coupon program.
        Rural Development Issues.--Farm Bureau supports the community and
    business programs of the office of Rural Economic and Community
    Development. We support funding for rural development and recommend
    targeting a greater portion of all funds towards stimulating commerce
    in rural areas.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Farmland Trust

        Last summer, the U.S. Department of Agriculture hosted five
    listening sessions around the country on ``Maintaining Farm and Forest
    Land in Rapidly Growing Areas.'' Hundreds of producers, community
    members and elected officials testified on how rapid growth in
    traditionally agricultural areas impacts their operation and their
    community. Although this was the first forum on urban edge agriculture
    held by USDA, the same concerns and calls for assistance are being
    heard at conferences hosted by the National Governor's Association and
    the U.S. Conference of Mayors. During a recent NGA conference on
    ``Private Lands, Public Benefits,'' U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency Administrator Whitman highlighted the needs of farmers faced
    with sprawling development and the need to build programs that address
    them.
        Why are farmers and ranchers in urban edge areas gaining so much
    attention? Because they have become an integral part of the U.S. farm
    economy and their numbers are growing. According to the USDA Economic
    Research Service, there are now over 1,800 counties where agriculture
    is threatened by rapid growth. Within those 1,800 counties, agriculture
    in the nation's Metropolitan Statistical Area (or MSA) counties
    accounts for over a third of total agriculture production and land
    value. That is equivalent to the farm economy of Ohio, Indiana,
    Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska and the Dakotas combined.
    Or, to look at it another way, it's equivalent to the total value of
    all agricultural exports.
        Throw in Texas, Mississippi and the rest of the South and the total
    output still would not equal the production of a larger group of urban
    edge agriculture that includes those counties adjacent to MSAs that are
    the next targets of sprawl. Today, more than half the nation's
    agricultural production occurs within commuting distance of our rapidly
    expanding cities.
        Agriculture in these counties faces the same price and supply
    challenges of traditional agriculture, but farmers and ranchers in
    these areas also must contend with nuisance suits, trespassing and
    escalating land values. With ninety-percent of the U.S. population
    living downstream from urban edge farms, they also have the greatest
    impact on our environment and quality of life. Farm and ranchlands in
    urban areas reduce runoff, provide wildlife habitat and scenic
    landscapes. Once the land is paved over, it becomes much more difficult
    to improve environmental quality. Yet, these producers receive little
    to no Federal assistance from USDA. We cannot afford to let this
    growing sector of U.S. agriculture continue to struggle without Federal
    assistance.
        We urge you to use the fiscal year 2002 agriculture appropriations
    bill to recognize the value and needs of urban edge farmers and
    ranchers by funding key programs that protect the land by giving
    producers an alternative to development, build public support for
    agriculture by improving environmental stewardship and make urban edge
    agriculture profitable long term.
    Protect the Land and Create An Alternative to Development
        Urban edge farms are disappearing. The 1997 National Resources
    Inventory (NRI) showed a loss of 1.2 million acres of cropland, pasture
    and rangeland a year--a rate 50 percent higher than in 1992. The amount
    of topsoil we are paving over each year is roughly equivalent to what
    we are saving with all Federal soil conservation programs, CRP
    included. And what the NRI doesn't show is that the land is also being
    fragmented, broken up like a checkerboard. For every acre paved, an AFT
    study estimated an additional 2 to 3 acres become harder to farm
    because of conflicts with neighbors over noise, odors, dust and
    chemical drift. The USDA Economic Research Service estimates 164
    million acres of farmland are now threatened by sprawling development.
    Selling conservation easements under the Farmland Protection Programs
    locks in a land base for agriculture and gives farmers and ranchers a
    way retain their way of life instead of selling to developers.
    Protecting this land through the Farmland Protection Program requires a
    much stronger commitment from Congress. If we want to ensure
    agriculture remains viable in the 1,800 counties faced with rapid
    growth, Congress needs to ramp up the Farmland Protection Program
    significantly. In the next ten years, at least $1 billion a year is
    needed to slow the loss of farmland to development. States and local
    governments are doing their part, committing over $200 million a year
    to purchase development rights. We must acknowledge that the benefits
    generated by protecting well-managed farmland flow to the entire
    nation, and we must make the Federal government a full partner in
    achieving them. In fiscal year 2002, we urge Congress to allocate $200
    million to the Farmland Protection Program.
        The demand is there from farmers and ranchers and the
    infrastructure is there to use it effectively. This January, when USDA
    announced the availability of $30 million in FPP funds, applications to
    protect over 780 farms and ranches were submitted. Unfortunately,
    recent cuts to the program will allow USDA to help less than 10 percent
    of those landowners. Around the country, there are another 4,000
    farmers and ranchers waiting to sell their development rights if
    funding were available. With more states and counties starting their
    own farmland protection programs, the expertise and manpower to carry
    out an expanded Federal program is ready to go. By partnering with
    state and local programs, Federal dollars were leveraged six times.
    Build Public Support for Agriculture By Improving Environmental
            Stewardship
        Eighty percent of all Americans, more than 190 million people, live
    in urban areas, yet less than one-tenth of one percent of the budget
    for forestry and conservation programs is dedicated to these areas.
    Continued support for large agriculture programs will require
    increasing the connection between voters and agriculture. Demonstrating
    the public benefits improved water quality, wildlife habitat and open
    space--agriculture producers will build this connection to urban and
    suburban residents. Essentially, we have to recognize that farmers and
    ranchers produce more than food and fiber. They are our nation's most
    important environmental managers as well. We can help stabilize the
    farm economy by assigning value to the environmental commodities
    produced by farmers and ranchers and start paying for them. We already
    have most of the programs in place to do this; we just have not funded
    them adequately. It was very disappointing to see the Administration's
    budget request cut key conservations programs. These cuts send the
    entirely wrong message to farmers and ranchers who have been
    oversubscribing to these programs by a 5 to 1 margin.
        The Wetlands Reserve Program, Environmental Quality Incentives
    Program and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program all return benefits
    to the public that we know voters are demanding. A recent Gallup poll
    ranked water quality and open space as top concern of voters. Last
    year, voters approved more than $7 billion to protect open space.
    Unfortunately, Congress has not met that demand. Instead, we continue
    to spend billions of dollars on income support for a small segment of
    farmers and ranchers. In fiscal year 2002, we need to put conservation
    programs on equal footing with commodity programs. Funding for WRP
    needs to be increased to allow USDA to enroll 170,000 acres next year.
    To reduce the backlog of farmers waiting to enroll in EQIP, we urge you
    to increase its funding to $350 million. Finally, to make up for the
    recent cut to WHIP funding and to meet the critical habitat
    improvements needed along our nation's rivers and streams, we urge you
    to increase WHIP to $70 million in fiscal year 2002. Only at these
    levels, can USDA serve the current needs of farmers and ranchers and
    look at new ways to expand them in urban edge areas.
    Make Farming Profitable Long Term
        Since selling development rights or adopting conservation practices
    is an economic as well as environmental choice, we need to address
    economic viability of farming and ranching in urban edge areas. Farmers
    can survive, even thrive, in urban edge areas if they are given
    technical and financial assistance to adapt their operation to the
    consumers and markets around them. In the last ten years, farmers
    markets have exploded into our cities and suburbs. These consumers are
    looking for fresh, locally-grown food and farm products. In fiscal year
    2002, Congress should increase funding for Resource, Conservation and
    Development to at least $45 million to hire on the ground experts to
    help urban edge producers take advantage of their local markets by
    diversifying their production, developing new products and implementing
    direct marketing. At the same time, Congress should increase funding
    for the Sustainable Agriculture, Research and Extension to $30 million
    this year to help communities improve their agriculture infrastructure,
    develop new marketing programs and apply new research results to help
    producers reduce their operating costs.
        For farming to prosper in rapidly growing areas, we need to protect
    the land base; we need farmers making profits; and, we need to have a
    general public that wants agriculture to be a visible part of their
    community. USDA has the tools and programs to make all of these steps
    happen, but without adequate funding not enough resources will reach
    farmers and ranchers in the urban edge. It is time to recognize the
    importance of this sector of U.S. agriculture to our farm economy and
    our farm communities. Voters are demanding these changes and state and
    local governments have started listening. We hope the fiscal year 2002
    agriculture appropriations bill will launch the Federal commitment to
    urban edge agriculture.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the American Federation of Government Employees,
    Local 3354 and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal
                             Employees, Local 3870

                      rural america needs more compassion
        Family farmers, the ill-housed rural poor, and small rural
    communities must receive a share of the budget surplus! We urge you to
    do whatever you can to make sure the budget allocations for agriculture
    and rural development are sufficient to enable the appropriations
    requested below.
      --The debate on Capitol Hill over what to do with the historic
            opportunity presented by the budget surpluses has focused on
            the relative merits of tax cuts for the wealthy and elimination
            of the debt. Too little attention has been paid to what this
            issue is really about--making it impossible for the government
            to invest in any of the long list of priorities that would
            truly make America better off.
      --Our nation has an enormous backlog of much-needed public
            investment--especially in supporting family farms over factory
            farms, in rural housing, and in rural community and economic
            development. AFGE and AFSCME believe that public investments
            are by far a more prudent and responsible use of current and
            future surpluses than meager tax cuts for working families and
            windfalls for the rich.
      --We ask the Members of this Subcommittee to increase investments in
            family farmers, the ill-housed rural poor, small rural
            communities, and the USDA employees who deliver these programs.
            The fiscal year 2001 Federal budget amounted to only 18 percent
            of Gross Domestic Product, the smallest percentage since 1966.
            The tax cuts that have been proposed for the top 1 percent of
            wealthy Americans, if withheld, would provide over $500 billion
            for these, and other, investments over the next ten years. We
            need to increase government investments for the common good,
            not give away the budget surpluses to private greed!
                   the bush blue print for usda--our concerns
        The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) baseline to simply maintain
    2001 levels of discretionary spending for Agriculture is $19.6 billion.
    According to the Administration, funding of ``core operations'', as
    distinct from emergency assistance, was $18.6 billion. The proposed
    discretionary budget authority level for fiscal year 2002 is $17.9
    billion. That's going in the wrong direction, no matter which baseline
    number is used.
        In human terms, the Blue Print states the President's fiscal year
    2002 Budget will:
      --Finance the acquisition of decent, safe, and affordable housing by
            57,000 low-to-moderate income families in rural America,
            compared to 80,000 housing units claimed in the fiscal year
            2001 budget;
      --Create 40,000 jobs in rural areas, compared to 55,000 the fiscal
            year 2001 budget was estimated to create;
      --Give access to 1.4 million poor, rural residents to clean, safe
            drinking water, compared to 1.7 million for whom new or
            improved water systems were provided in the fiscal year 2001
            budget.
        With respect to the USDA employees who provide these services
    throughout rural America, the Blue Print states as follows: ``In the
    early 1990s, under the previous Bush Administration, an effort was
    begun to streamline USDA's county office structure to improve service
    and reduce costs. Nearly one-third of USDA's field offices have been
    closed since that time. However, there are still about 5,600 USDA
    county-level offices serving one million farmers (not counting 1,300
    USDA rural development offices that serve farmers and other rural
    residents). The Department will review the efficiency of USDA's
    remaining field office structure, recognizing that many farmers and
    other rural customers want to use computers and fax machines to
    transact business with USDA. To meet those needs, the budget includes
    funds to continue efforts to streamline and modernize USDA's county
    office structure through completion of a common computing environment
    and reengineering the way USDA conducts business. In 2002, customers
    will be able to conduct business with the county-based agencies
    electronically. The Administration expects long-term savings and
    improved service from merging the information technology services of
    the three county-based agencies . . . ''
        We have major differences with this analysis, and its implications
    for rural America, as follows.
       afge and afscme funding priorities for agriculture appropriations
        Increased Salaries & Expenses funding for the Department of
    Agriculture's Rural Development mission area is our No. 1 funding
    priority for the Subcommittee's Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural
    Development, and Related Agencies! Congress should appropriate at least
    $654.5 million for Rural Development salaries and expenses in 2002, for
    the reasons outlined below.
        Since 1995, the Congress has increased Rural Development programs
    by 69 percent overall; yet, our staffing levels have been cut by 28
    percent. Our servicing areas in the Field, and our workload in the
    National and Finance Offices, has doubled or tripled. With decreased
    staffing, customer service suffers. Almost no funds have been allocated
    to training for the past six years! The situation has deteriorated to
    the point where State Directors have had to stop most overtime work.
    Use of privately owned vehicles for official travel has been
    prohibited, and use of government-owned vehicles has been limited.
    These restrictions on travel and overtime make it next to impossible
    for our employees to do our jobs! Timely inspections are not completed.
    Interviews of potential borrowers have to be conducted by phone. Night
    meetings of community leaders and organizations, county commissions,
    city councils, real estate interests, and potential customers cannot be
    attended.
        It is laborers and white and blue-collar workers that are the
    infrastructure of our rural communities, in addition to our farmers. If
    we can't provide housing, utilities, and jobs to enable them to be
    productive taxpaying citizens, how can we say the cost outweighs the
    benefits? Low-income rural Americans need public servants, with
    sufficient expense funds to support travel, overtime, training and
    information technology, to deliver these housing, community, and
    business development programs.
        The Rural Development (RD) loan and grant programs are just as
    important, even more so in terms of number of people reached, as the
    various programs delivered by FSA. RD needs staff to deliver these
    programs, just like FSA needs staff to deliver its programs! It is even
    more imperative that Congress increase the appropriated S&E funding for
    Rural Development because RD does not have access to CCC funds,
    university grants, user fees, or any other outside source of funds to
    help support its employees. ``If we're going to have meaningful
    programs supporting family farmers and rural communities, we need to
    maintain USDA's infrastructure of county offices, with sufficient
    staff, that is responsible and accountable to deliver these programs.''
    Bill Christison, President, Family Farm Coalition
        The House Budget resolution included a provision, supported by our
    unions, to ensure parity in pay increases between the military and
    civilian employees. This will require an increase of 4.6 percent above
    the fiscal year 2001 levels. Salaries & Benefits has been running
    approximately 75 percent of RD's total S&E account. Therefore,
    additional appropriations of approximately $20 million will be required
    to maintain current staffing levels. We also urge the Subcommittee to
    provide at least $15 million for employee training, an increase of
    approximately $13.5 million over fiscal year 2001 levels.
        In addition, we believe the nature of many of the programs
    administered by Rural Development warrants some additional offices, not
    reduction. The communities and families we serve range from very low
    income to moderate income. Many are elderly, handicapped, very poorly
    educated, have no telephone, and definitely no computer or fax machine.
    To become successful homeowners, they need home buyer education and
    credit counseling, provided in person, preferably by a USDA employee
    who is a resident of their own community. To meet this need, we propose
    adding 700 more staff for RD.
        Approximately 600 of these staff years would go to local offices to
    provide one person per office whose main duty is to provide home buyer
    education and credit counseling to our Rural Housing borrowers, also
    assisting in other program areas as needed. The remaining 100 staff
    years would be used to increase IT staff in St. Louis, Washington, and
    in the States. We estimate the fully loaded cost of these staff years
    to average $57,000, requiring an additional human capital investment of
    $40 million.
        Funds to increase Rural Development staff, and direct loan
    programs, should be obtained in the following ways, and by reducing the
    tax cut proposed by the Bush Administration for wealthy Americans:
        We can support the Administration's proposal to eliminate the $25
    million in rural housing funding from HUD because rural housing is best
    provided through USDA's field delivery structure throughout rural
    America. Those funds should be added to the budget of Rural
    Development, and not just eliminated.
        We also believe that Members of Congress should find a way to reuse
    the subsidy recapture funds from the 502 program to further invest in
    successful homeownership for low-income rural Americans. During fiscal
    year 2000, RHS recaptured $30,656,000 in Principal Reductions According
    to Subsidy (PRAS), and $88,332,000 in Interest Subsidy. These funds are
    collected and returned to Treasury when borrowers pay off their loans.
    When compared to the costs to the government of foreclosing on low-
    income rural homeowners, we would all benefit by reinvesting some of
    these funds in our proposed homebuyer education and credit counseling
    initiative because foreclosure losses would be significantly reduced.
    If just one percent more rural homeowners are successful as a result of
    this education and counseling, losses to the government would be
    reduced by $75 million.
    Public investments in Rural Housing are both compassionate and
            conservative.
        Since its inception in 1950, the Section 502 direct program has
    produced over 1.9 million units of safe, decent, sanitary housing and
    supported a variety of innovative housing development opportunities
    such as the mutual self-help housing program (sweat equity). Over the
    past ten years, however, the program's production capacity has declined
    41 percent, from 26,203 units in 1988 to only 15,561 in 1998. It is
    even more startling to compare the paltry 1998 production to the over
    132,000 units produced in 1976.
        As of February 7, 2001, RHS had 30,778 qualified applications
    pending for Section 502 loans totaling $2,180,340,430. As of that time,
    however, we only had approximately $784,781,000 available in
    unobligated funds. An additional investment of at least $1.4 billion is
    needed in the Sec. 502 direct loan program.
        We are glad to hear that Senators Kit Bond (R-MO) and John Kerry
    (D-MA) are planning to introduce new housing production bills. We ask
    them, and the Members of this Subcommittee, to both authorize, and
    appropriate, significant new investment in rural housing production.
    The National Rural Housing Coalition's October 2000 report documents
    the following needs:
      --Rural homeowners are more likely than homeowners as a whole to live
            in substandard housing.
      --Rural homeowners, particularly minority households, face excessive
            housing related costs.
      --The limited availability of credit on reasonable, affordable terms
            and conditions makes it harder to get a loan and limits the
            utility of the secondary market for rural housing loans.
      --The rate of federal assistance to non-metro households is only
            about half that for metro households.
        Greater investments in the Section 502 (Single Family Direct
    Loans), Section 504 (Housing Repair Loans), Section 514 (Farm Labor
    Housing), Section 523 (Self-help Housing Loans & Grants), and Section
    525 (Technical Assistance Grants). We also need to increase investment
    in Rural Rental Housing, to meet the housing needs of the poorest of
    the poor who cannot pay back a mortgage loan to at least $250 million,
    plus increased Rental Assistance. It costs money to house the poorest
    of the poor, both construction and rental assistance. We subsidize
    homeownership some $98 billion per year in the form of interest
    deductions. Rebuilding the 515 rural rental program costs less than
    homelessness or nursing homes.
       public investments in limited resource and beginning farmers are
                       compassionate and conservative too
        Investment in the Farm Ownership Direct Loan program needs to be
    increased, at least back to fiscal year 2000 levels. In Oklahoma, all
    available funds for fiscal year 2001 have already been used up. In many
    states, as much as 70 percent of the farm land will change ownership
    over the next fifteen years. Unless the direct farm ownership loan
    program is significantly enhanced, most of that farm land will go to
    the existing large farms, and the benefits and productivity of family
    farming will continue to be wiped out.
        We also ask the Subcommittee to provide the authorized amount of
    $10 million for Outreach and Technical Assistance Program for Minority
    Farmers. The Outreach and Technical Assistance program is the most
    effective tool developed to carry out the mission of USDA as the
    technical provider for small farmers. For a very small investment, the
    program has significant multiplier effects in poor communities where
    there exist few other possibilities for sustainable economic
    development.
        AFGE and AFSCME also suppors the need to increase Salaries &
    Expense funding for Farm Service Agency to incorporate the temporary
    employees funded through emergency appropriations during each of the
    last several years into the baseline S&E appropriation, as requested by
    the National Association of County Office Employees (NASCOE).
        FSA should be required to allocate more staff resources to the Farm
    Loan Programs. The program management standard for excellence in our
    direct farm loan programs is that each responsible loan officer should
    never have a caseload of more than 56 borrowers. Today, our farm loan
    officers in many states have an average caseload of 150 to 200
    borrowers. This makes it impossible to adequately perform the
    supervised credit functions, which ensure the success of the program.
    We have also not had sufficient staff, or contracting funds, to perform
    real estate appraisals, chattel appraisals, and year-end farm analysis.
    For several years, these functions have been contracted out due to the
    arbitrary employee downsizing targets of the Clinton Administration.
    Now, we're not even getting enough money to contract for these
    services.
        As NASCOE has urged, staffing levels and patterns should be based
    on real strategic planning and performance measures/goals. The USDA
    County-Based Agency Study conducted at the request of your Subcommittee
    indicated that approximately 30 percent of FSA's workload is support
    for the Farm Loan Program. The Appropriations Subcommittees should
    allocate 30 percent of FSA's Salaries & Expenses to support of the Farm
    Loan Program. The Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund could be used for
    this purpose by changing the legal language and increasing the
    appropriation for S&E from this account.
                  funding for the common computing environment
        The Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is requesting
    $100 million in additional funding for IT modernization in fiscal year
    2002. While AFGE Local 3354 and AFSCME Local 3870 support the need for
    a common computing environment and modernization of the IT capabilities
    in our Field Offices, we can only support appropriating these funds
    AFTER Congress has FIRST found the money to support increased
    investments in staff and direct loan programs, as outlined above.
        We agree with much of what Senate Government Affairs Chairman
    Thompson (R-TN) said in his March 16 letter to Senate Budget Committee
    Chairman Domenici (R-NM) and ranking member Conrad (D-ND). While
    Senator Thompson lauded the administration's plans to promote e-
    government projects and tighten federal computer security, he also
    emphasized that any workforce cuts should be guided by strategic
    planning. He did not call for increased funding to support the
    administration's proposed e-government fund, as Senator Lieberman (D-
    CT), the ranking Democrat on the Government Affairs Committee, had done
    the previous week. Senator Thompson added that ``workforce
    restructuring should be done pursuant to a strategic plan and that
    there are areas where increases in human resources are necessary.''
        The Bush Administration Blue Print for USDA suggests that these
    funds to ``streamline and modernize USDA's county office structure
    through completion of a common computing environment'' will be combined
    with a ``review of the efficiency of USDA's remaining field office
    structure, recognizing that many farmers and other rural customers want
    to use computers and fax machines to transact business with USDA''. We
    believe this perspective continues the type of arbitrary assumptions
    for which Senator Thompson correctly criticizes the Clinton
    Administration. ``E-government'' is apparently seen as a means to
    downsize the Federal workforce while also increasing customer service.
    As stated above, such an approach would exclude the low-income rural
    citizens served by Rural Development from access to homeownership and
    other economic opportunities. Guaranteed lenders demand, and should
    have, appropriate electronic access to USDA. But small, isolated, poor
    rural communities cannot be served by ``e-government'' alone. Like
    Senator Thompson, we believe there are some areas where real strategic
    planning, as distinct from pie-in-the-sky silver bullets, means Federal
    hiring should be stepped up.
                                contracting out
        AFGE and AFSCME believe the No. 1 management improvement needed to
    achieve a Common Computing Environment, or otherwise more effectively
    deliver USDA programs to the people we serve, is to reduce the waste of
    funds for poor quality work that results from current USDA contracting
    out practices. Until this problem is addressed, we cannot support the
    Administration's assumption that ``merging the information technology
    services of the three county-based agencies'' will lead to ``long-term
    savings and improved service.''
        During 1998, an Information Technology Functional Team, consisting
    of labor and management from the IT organizations of Rural Development,
    NRCS, and FSA, developed ``Information Technology Contracting
    Recommendations''. This official agency document recommends that
    Federal staffing for IT support be increased, through reductions in
    more expensive contractor personnel, as the least costly and best
    service solution. The reason for this conclusion was simple: It costs
    $50,000 per FTE less, on average, to utilize Federal employees, rather
    than contractors, to provide Information Technology support to the USDA
    county-based agencies!
        Despite this fact, and these recommendations, the OCIO has
    continued to increase reliance on contractors, and our IT organizations
    in St. Louis and Washington have not even been allowed to back-fill
    Information Technology positions as they become vacant due to
    retirement and attrition. Since 1993, the Rural Development IT
    workforce has been cut by over 30 percent, while our workload has
    increased from 4 million to 11 million lines of code. We do not support
    continued pouring of funds into a SWAMP (Stop Wasting America's Money
    on Privatization) of waste, fraud, and abuse through contracting out.
    Therefore, we also do not support continued massive funding of the
    OCIO's requests until, and unless, the reforms advocated below have
    been enacted by Congress, and implemented by USDA.
        The House Report on the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations
    Act attempted to address this issue:
        The Committee directs the Department to make cost comparisons of
    the use of private contractors with Federal employee performance and to
    employ the most efficient organization process as described in OMB
    Circular A-76. The Committee also directs the Department to report on
    its contracting out policies, including the agency budgets for
    contracting out, with its annual budget submission for fiscal year
    2002.
        I can assure the Members of the Subcommittee that USDA ignored this
    directive. No cost comparisons of the use of private contractors with
    Federal employee performance were conducted during fiscal year 2001 by
    either Rural Development or the Farm Service Agency. Therefore, we will
    submit language to be added to the Agriculture Appropriations bill for
    fiscal year 2002 to ensure that cost comparisons are conducted.
        Finally, USDA has listed thousands of Rural Development and Farm
    Service Agency jobs as commercial, subject to contracting out, under
    the FAIR Act, totally ignoring employee input that many of our
    functions should be classified as inherently governmental. No less an
    authority than Comptroller General, David Walker, recently stated:
    ``Government can never privatize the duty of loyalty to the greater
    good, namely, the need to look out for the collective best interests of
    all rather than the narrow interests of a few.'' The loan and grant
    programs of Rural Development and Farm Service Agency provide subsidies
    to enable very low to moderate-income rural Americans become successful
    homeowners, small family farmers, and to provide economic development
    of small rural communities. These are inherently governmental
    functions, and we will also submit bill language designed to address
    this further concern regarding threatened privatization of Department
    functions.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association

        The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) submits this
    written testimony for the record in support of USDA research programs
    that contribute pragmatic solutions to our nation's sustainable
    forestry needs. Both USDA Forest Service Research and USDA Cooperative
    State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) have the
    obligation to support research to benefit all forest landowners, public
    and private. These organizations are uniquely qualified to support
    collaborative, long-term research and deserve well-targeted funding
    increases to focus resources where they are critically needed: on
    forest productivity, utilization, and inventory issues.
                       af&pa interest in forest research
        AF&PA has a substantial interest in promoting research to improve
    and document forest productivity. As the national trade association of
    the pulp, paper, and forest products industry, we represent
    approximately 84 percent of paper production, 50 percent of solid wood
    production, and 90 percent of industrial forestland in the United
    States. Forests provide a renewable raw material source for our
    industry, which attempts to meet consumer demand while providing rural
    communities with stable, living-wage job opportunities. We face a
    significant global competitiveness challenge, as companies throughout
    the southern hemisphere grow trees three to four time faster at a
    fraction of the cost, often without environmental compliance standards
    similar to those in the United States. We also face a significant
    domestic challenge as the entire forestry community needs timely access
    to more consistent, comprehensive, and accurate forest measurement
    data.
        AF&PA is a member of the National Coalition for Sustaining
    America's Nonfederal Forests and supports the overall objective of
    well-targeted increases in federal investments to support forestland
    stewardship. Research contributes cutting edge, science based solutions
    to ensure that our nation's forests can be managed sustainably for all
    values.
                             related af&pa programs
        Two AF&PA programs recognize the critical contribution of forest
    research to sustainable forestry: the Sustainable Forestry Initiative
    (SFI)SM Standard and Agenda 2020. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative
    (SFI)SM Standard is a condition of AF&PA membership and requires that
    participants support ``forest research to improve the health,
    productivity, and management of all forests.'' The AF&PA Agenda 2020
    program is a collaborative effort initiated with the U.S. Department of
    Energy to promote research that enhances energy efficiency in areas
    such as forest raw material supply. Competitive grants are awarded to
    universities and agency labs based on matching funding, scientific
    peer-review, and collaboration.
        Agenda 2020 provides an outstanding model of a public/private
    partnership that efficiently allocates Federal funding to support
    research that benefits the nation. AF&PA would like to expand this
    partnership and add USDA agencies as formal Agenda 2020 partners.
                        general research recommendations
        AF&PA supports funding increases within existing authorizations for
    USDA agencies best qualified to conduct long-term forest productivity
    research to benefit all landowners. The need for pragmatic research
    designed to produce and measure healthier, faster growing forests far
    exceeds supply. Well-targeted increases in Federal funding support are
    needed to re-build research capacity and focus resources in areas where
    the nation will receive the best return on investment: biotechnology/
    genetics, soil productivity, tree physiology, forest measurements and
    forest products utilization.
        A portion of this funding should be allocated through competitive
    grants that support collaborative Agenda 2020 research. Greater use of
    tools such as matching funding, competitive grants, and scientific
    peer-review will leverage scarce resources, ensure quality research,
    and help measure success. To the greatest extent possible, agency
    research priorities should be established in collaboration with
    university, state, and private sector forest researchers and managers.
    This will ensure that research objectives remain relevant to all
    forestland owners.
        AF&PA concurs with the recommendations contained in the 1998
    National Research Council report: ``Forested Landscapes in Perspective:
    Prospects and Opportunities for Sustainable Management of America's
    Nonfederal Forests.'' The report, commissioned by the Secretary of
    Agriculture, calls for greater funding in forest science, technology
    and research programs. In ``Report to the Secretary of Agriculture''
    dated November 1, 1999, the Forest Research Advisory Council (FRAC)
    urged USDA to ``foster competitive grant or other programs'' to address
    ``sustainable intensive timber production'' and ``forest assessment
    (inventory).'' This represented the views of 20 forest research experts
    from Federal and State government, industry, academia, and the
    conservation community.
        AF&PA forest research recommendations are also consistent with the
    Congressional findings of the 1998 Farm Bill. It is important to review
    some of those findings since it gets to the heart of the forest
    community's ability to compete in the global marketplace. Congressional
    findings included:
      --``Uncertainty over the availability of the United States timber
            supply, increasing regulatory burdens, and the lack of Federal
            Government support for research is causing domestic wood and
            paper producers to move outside the United States to find
            reliable sources of wood supplies, which in turn, results in a
            worsening of the United States trade balance, the loss of
            employment and infrastructure investments, and an increased
            risk of infestations of exotic pests and diseases from imported
            wood products'' and
      --``Wood and paper producers in the United States are being
            challenged not only by shifts in Federal Government policy, but
            also by international competition from tropical countries where
            growth rates of trees far exceed those in the United States.
            Wood production per acre will need to quadruple from 1996
            levels for the United States forestry sector to remain
            internationally competitive on an ever decreasing forest land
            base.''
       fiscal year 2002 usda recommendations--agriculture appropriations
     cooperative state research, education, and extension service (csrees)
        Four programs administered by the USDA Cooperative Research,
    Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) make a significant
    contribution to supporting university research, forestry education, and
    vital partnerships. These are McIntire-Stennis, The Renewable Resources
    Extension Act (RREA), the National Research Initiative (NRI), and the
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAS).
        AF&PA strongly supports these programs and specifically recommends
    a total $39.9 million increase (4.0 percent) for the USDA Cooperative
    State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) targeted at
    three (3) priorities, summarized and discussed below.

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                               Budget Item                              2001 Total     2002 Targeted    2002 Total
                                                                          Funding        Increase         Funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    McIntire-Stennis................................................           $21.9            $8.1           $30.0
    RREA............................................................             3.2            11.8            15.0
    NRI.............................................................           106.0            20.0           126.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
        Total--Priority Programs....................................           131.1            39.9           171.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Total CSREES fiscal year 2001 Budget--Enacted...................           988.6
    Percent Increase................................................  ..............               4  ..............
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    $8.1 million increase for the Cooperative Forestry Research Program
            (McIntire Stennis Act).
        This program provides critical core funding for forestry research
    and scientist training efforts at universities. It is authorized at
    $105 million, was funded at $21.932 million in fiscal year 2001 and
    matched more than three times by universities with state and nonfederal
    funds. AF&PA suggests that a total $8.1 million increase be targeted as
    follows:
      --$3 million--forest productivity research as defined by Agenda 2020
      --$2.1 million--forest information technology
      --$1.1 million--wood utilization and processing technology
      --$1.9 million--assessing economic impacts of policy decisions
    $11.8 million increase for the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA)
            program.
        This program provides the foundation for extension and outreach
    efforts delivered to private landowners through universities. It is
    authorized at $15 million and was funded at $3.192 million in fiscal
    year 2001. Cutting-edge sustainable forestry solutions developed
    through research are of limited benefit unless they can be effectively
    delivered to the nation's forest landowners. AF&PA suggests a total
    $11.8 million increase to fully fund this important program, with new
    funding targeted at developing databases, communications materials, and
    effective delivery mechanisms to ensure that landowners have easy
    access to forest management advice and professional services.
    $20.0 million increase for the National Research Initiative Competitive
            Grants Program (NRICGP) targeted at forestry research in the
            areas of forest biotechnology, forest soil productivity, tree
            physiology, and forest information technology.
        This program is a significant source of funding ($106 million in
    fiscal year 2001) for basic and applied research in several categories
    related to agricultural crops, sustainable forestry, and related
    market/trade issues. It has great potential to contribute to the
    nation's sustainable forestry research needs, though only ten percent
    (10 percent) of the available funding has been allocated to forestry
    research. AF&PA supports a total $40 million increase targeted at
    Agenda 2020 priorities, equally divided between fiscal year 2002 and
    fiscal year 2003, as a reasonable means to increase the emphasis on
    critical forestry research needs.
     fiscal year 2002 usda recommendations--interior appropriations forest
                         service research & development
        AF&PA supports increased funding for Forest Service research in
    three areas of critical importance:
      --Forest Productivity Research with a Competitive Grants funding
            component,
      --Forest Inventory & Analysis (FIA) program,
      --Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin. Improved science
            in these areas transcends ownership categories and will result
            in enhanced tree growth, improved knowledge for sustainably
            managing all forest values, and increased wood utilization
            efficiency. As authorized by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable
            Resources Act of 1978, Section 2 (a)(1), Forest Service
            research should ``support the protection, management, and
            utilization of the Nation's renewable resources.'' This Act
            refers not just to public lands, but to private lands as well.
        AF&PA recommends a total $31.5 million increase (13.7 percent) for
    Forest Service Research & Development targeted at three (3) priorities,
    summarized and discussed below.
    $11 million increase for Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA).
        This is consistent with recommendations in the Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) between the Forest Service and the National
    Association of State Foresters. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA)
    provides data needed to measure forest growth, health, and other
    essential information needed to make resource allocation and forest
    policy decisions.
    $16 million increase to build forest productivity research capacity,
            with $10 million dedicated to Competitive Grants to support
            Agenda 2020 priority research in biotechnology, forest soil
            productivity, tree physiology, and forest information
            technology.
        The number of scientists and projects focused on producing more
    wood products from fewer acres has dramatically declined as the agency
    has moved away from commodity production. Forest Service regional
    experiment stations have both an obligation and the unique ability to
    address the nation's sustainable forestry needs through long-term
    research. Section 1672 of the Agricultural, Research, Extension, and
    Education Act of 1998 (Research Title of the Farm Bill) specifically
    identified improving long-term forest productivity as a priority
    research need and allows the Secretary of Agriculture to award
    competitive grants for such research.
        We recommend that the Forest Service implement a formal competitive
    grants program at fully authorized levels to support collaborative
    forest productivity research through Agenda 2020 in the areas of
    biotechnology, soil productivity, tree physiology, and forest
    information technology. This will help build stronger partnerships
    between the agency and our nation's university-based forestry schools.
    $5.5 million increase for Forest Products and Utilization Research at
            the Forest Products Laboratory in Madison, Wisconsin and other
            labs, with $2 million to support core functions and $3.5
            million dedicated to the housing research initiative.
        A $2 million funding increase for core functions will ensure
    continued technological innovation in using renewable wood products.
    Forest products and utilization research contributes to improved forest
    productivity and sustainability by focusing on efficient and effective
    use of wood fiber. AF&PA also endorses the housing research initiative
    and suggests that $7 million equally divided between fiscal year 2002
    and fiscal year 2003 is a reasonable and responsible means to provide
    technological innovation needed to respond to increased housing demand.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, AF&PA recognizes a critical need for increased
    investment in forest research and respectfully recommends well-targeted
    increased appropriations within USDA. At least two USDA agencies are
    uniquely qualified to support collaborative, long-term research in
    priority areas: forest productivity, utilization, and inventory.
    Increased appropriations for these forest research priorities are a
    needed investment that will pay substantial dividends for our nations'
    future.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association, Inc.

        My name is Richard Adee. I am President of the American Honey
    Producers Association, Inc., and I am submitting this statement in its
    behalf. The American Honey Producers Association, Inc. is a national
    organization of commercial beekeepers with activities in most of the
    States in this country.
        First, the Association wishes to thank the Subcommittee for the
    support it has provided in the past for agricultural research
    activities in behalf of the beekeeping industry. It has enabled the
    Agricultural Research Service to staff its bee laboratories at the
    minimum level necessary to meet with critical needs of the industry. To
    continue this research, the Association supports funding for bee
    research at the ARS facility at Weslaco, Texas, at not less than the
    level appropriated for fiscal year 2001. The Association also
    recommends an increase of $500,000 in the level of funding for the ARS
    honey bee breeding, genetics, and physiology laboratory at Baton Rouge,
    Louisiana.
                                   background
        Honey bees pollinate over 90 cultivated crops and are an essential
    element in the productivity achieved by American agriculture. It is
    estimated in a Cornell University study published in 2000, that the
    annual value of agricultural production attributable to honey bee
    pollination amounts to $14.6 billion. These include the production of
    such diverse crops as almonds, apples, oranges, melons, vegetables,
    alfalfa, soybeans, sunflower, and cotton, among others. Their increased
    value comes in the form of both increased yields and improved quality.
    In addition, honey bees are responsible for the production of an
    average of 200 million pounds of honey annually, the sales of which
    helps sustain this nation's beekeepers.
        Since 1984, the survival of the honey bee has been threatened by
    continuing infestations of mites and pests for which appropriate
    controls are being developed by USDA scientists. Unfortunately, there
    is no simple solution to these problems. The honey bee industry is too
    small to support the cost of the needed research, particularly with the
    current depressed state of the industry. Further, there are no funds,
    facilities, or personnel elsewhere available in the private sector for
    this purpose. Accordingly, the beekeeping industry is dependent on
    research from public sources for the scientific answers. The key to the
    survival of the honey industry lies with the honey bee research program
    conducted by the Agricultural Research Service.
                 research at the ars weslaco, texas, laboratory
        The Association recommends that the appropriation for the Weslaco
    laboratory be approved at not less than current levels. This will
    enable the laboratory to continue its work in finding a chemical
    solution to parasitic mites that are causing a crisis for the U.S.
    beekeeping and pollination industries.
        Varroa mites are causing the loss of hundreds of thousands of
    domestic honey bee colonies annually as well as devastating wild bee
    colonies The only chemical which has received a general registration
    for varroa mite control, fluvalinate, is being rendered ineffective by
    the development of resistant mite populations. The USDA honey bee lab
    at Weslaco, Texas, has been working hard trying to find alternative
    chemicals to control the varroa mite. It appears that the laboratory
    has found a chemical, coumaphos, with the potential of being equally
    effective as fluvalinate. This is a real break through for the bee
    industry, but as of today we have only been able to obtain section 18
    emergency registrations. Much work still remains to be done before a
    section 3 general registration is granted by EPA.
        A new pest, the small hive beetle, found in Florida has caused
    severe bee colony losses. Apparently, it originated in South Africa.
    Estimates put the losses in just one season at over 30,000 colonies.
    There is evidence that the beetles are spreading to other areas in the
    East coast. As the beetles spread, they will just devastate the bee
    industry. In order to contain the beetle, several states have
    quarantined bees from Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and
    Georgia or are actively considering such quarantines. Despite these
    precautions, the beetle has recently spread to California. There is a
    fear that its spread in California will be difficult to control because
    of similarity of soil conditions with those in Florida. It seems that
    coumaphos may help control this insect as well as the varroa mite, but
    as previously stated it has not received a section 3 registration and
    it is unclear when such a registration will be granted by EPA.
        The USDA-ARS honey bee research scientists at the Weslaco
    laboratory have been working overtime to find chemicals, techniques,
    pheromones, or other methods of controlling the beetle. Time is of the
    essence, as a control must be found immediately as all the bee colonies
    in the Western Hemisphere are at risk.
        Additionally, the requested appropriation will enable the Weslaco
    lab to continue its work in finding new and improved methods for
    control of other parasitic mites, such as the tracheal mite, as well as
    solving beekeeping problems that interfere with honey production and
    effective crop pollination, and determining the impact and spread of
    Africanized honey bees.
             research at the ars baton rouge, louisiana, laboratory
        The Association also recommends an increase of $500,000 in the
    appropriation for the ARS laboratory at Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The
    Baton Rouge lab is the only laboratory world-wide focusing on the
    development of long-term, genetic-based solutions to the varroa mite.
    Existing stocks of U.S. honey bees have several desirable traits but
    are not genetically resistant to the parasitic mites. Research
    scientists with the Baton Rouge laboratory have been to the far corners
    of the world looking for mite resistant bees. In eastern Russia, they
    found bees that have co-existed for decades with the mites and
    survived. The bees were brought to the United States and are in the
    process of being evaluated to assure that the resistance holds up under
    a wide range of environmental and beekeeping conditions. Attributes
    such as vigor, pollination, and honey production are being tested.
        There is an immediate need to propagate the resistant queen bees in
    large numbers for wide scale distribution to beekeepers so that this
    evaluation can be accomplished. The work is slow and tedious. It is
    also costly. The requested appropriation will accelerate the research,
    development, and transfer of queen bee stock resistant to varroa mites
    by providing for the employment of an additional research scientist and
    supporting staff whose salaries are not included in the USDA budget.
                                    summary
        In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your support of honey
    bee research in the past. We also would appreciate your continued
    support by approving an appropriation at not less than current levels
    for the Weslaco, Texas, lab, by adding an additional amount of $500,000
    to the appropriation for the Baton Rouge bee facility, and by otherwise
    supporting the Administration's request for bee research. Only through
    research can we achieve and maintain profitability in the U.S.
    beekeeping industry and continue to provide stable and affordable
    supplies of bee pollinated crops which make up fully one-third of the
    U.S. diet.
        I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Horse Protection Association, Inc.

        Dear Chairman Cochran and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of
    the American Horse Protection Association, Inc., I am writing to offer
    its views concerning the fiscal year 2002 appropriation for the Horse
    Protection Act program administered by the Animal Plant and Health
    Inspection Service (APHIS). AHPA is a national nonprofit humane
    organization devoted exclusively to equine welfare. Since the
    Association's incorporation in 1966, the prevention of abuse to show
    horses, and in particular Tennessee Walking Horses and similar gaited
    breeds, has been one of its principal areas of interest and concern.
        The authorized appropriation for the Horse Protection Act program
    is a maximum of $500,000 annually, which is exceedingly low in absolute
    terms for a program which is responsible for enforcing the Act at
    approximately 500 horse shows and sales per year. As a practical
    matter, since Fiscal Year 1994 the effective level of Horse Protection
    Act program enforcement expenditures has not exceeded $400,000. At this
    level, APHIS is severely limited in its efforts to effectively enforce
    the Horse Protection Act.
        AHPA recommends that the fiscal year 2002 appropriation be
    increased to the full $500,000 for the reasons set forth below.
        In 1970, Congress enacted the Horse Protection Act (Pub. L. No. 91-
    570, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1821 et seq) in response to concern for show horse
    abuse--particularly among Tennessee Walking Horses. ``Soring'', as the
    abuse is commonly known, involved the infliction of pain to the horse's
    feet and legs to accentuate its naturally animated gait and to hasten
    the training process. The Act was substantially amended in 1976 to
    expand the kinds of conduct that were prohibited and to strengthen the
    Agriculture Department's enforcement capabilities (Pub. L. 94-360)
    directing it to detect and punish violators, either civilly or
    criminally.
        The legislative history of the Act is clear: Congress regarded
    soring to be an inhumane practice which gave those trainers and owners
    who sore horses an unfair competitive advantage over those who
    safeguarded the welfare of their animals. Congress intended to
    eliminate soring, and believed that the competitive and financial
    interest of those who sore horses should not receive any recognition.
    Most importantly, Congress clearly mandated enforcement responsibility
    to the Department of Agriculture.
        Historically, Congress and the Agriculture Department have
    recognized that there is a close relationship between soring and the
    kinds of ``action devices'' and shoes and pads that a horse wears,
    especially if the effects of the devices and shoes and pads are
    accentuated by making the animal's feet and legs painful through the
    application of chemical irritants or blistering agents. As a result,
    enforcement under the Act has focused in part on prohibiting the use of
    equipment and techniques that reasonably can be expected to sore a
    horse. APHIS field enforcement at horse shows is intended to detect
    horses that show evidence of being in pain prior to or after showing.
    In addition, APHIS personnel attend shows to monitor the performance of
    Designated Qualified Persons (DQPs), employees of Horse Industry
    Organizations (HIOs) appointed by horse show management to inspect
    horses for soring violations.
        Last year marked the 30th anniversary of the passage of the Horse
    Protection Act. Yet, soring of horses remains a serious problem today.
    At an equine welfare forum in 1999 hosted by the American Association
    of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medical
    Association, Ron DeHaven, Deputy Administrator for APHIS, pointed out
    that nine of the last 10 presidents of the Walking Horse Trainers
    Association as well as nine of the last 16 ``Trainers of the Year''
    have either Federal cases pending or convictions of soring. Moreover,
    although the Walking Horse industry often cites a 98 percent compliance
    rate, APHIS Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) write alleged violations
    for only the clearest, most egregious cases of soring. As a result, a
    very small percentage of documented cases of soring actually become the
    subject of USDA enforcement action. Furthermore, the informed judgment
    of APHIS VMOs suggests that an even larger number of horses are sored,
    but escape detection. Finally, at present, the number of cases being
    pursued by the Department of Agriculture's Office of General Counsel
    has dramatically dropped--without explanation.
        In recent years, due to funding restrictions APHIS attendance at
    Walking and Racking horse shows has been at an all time low.
    Nevertheless, the presence of APHIS VMOs at horse shows and sales makes
    a big difference in detecting and deterring soring abuses. Enforcement
    data from at least the last five show seasons, for example,
    demonstrates consistently that when VMOs are present, DQPs do a better
    job. Disqualification rates at shows attended by VMOs are regularly two
    to three times as high as the rates at shows inspected by DQPs alone.
    This indicates clearly that DQPs are more thorough and accurate, and
    adhere more closely to the inspection standards required by Horse
    Protection Act regulations when VMOs are present. Furthermore, the
    presence of VMOs is a powerful deterrent: On many reported occasions,
    exhibitors have withdrawn their horses from shows when VMOs appear on
    the show grounds unannounced.
        During the past few years, certain factions of the Walking Horse
    industry have promoted the concept of ``self-regulation'' under the
    Act, with the intent of restricting USDA's enforcement role in general.
    In this regard, AHPA would like to call the Subcommittee's attention to
    a Strategic Plan published in 1997 by USDA which, in fact, does call
    for a cooperative effort between the Department and horse industry
    organizations to improve enforcement of the Act and eliminate soring.
    However, it also confirms USDA's legal mandate to enforce the Act, and
    calls for a number of reforms, including more consistent inspection
    procedures, uniform rules and penalties among the HIOs, tighter
    conflict-of-interest prohibitions, and more funding for APHIS
    inspections at horse shows. It does not, in any way, call for industry
    self-regulation which, in and of itself, is contrary to the Act.
        In addition, at least one of the HIOs, the National Horse Show
    Commission, has historically been antagonistic to USDA's enforcement
    efforts. For example, during the 1990s the Commission collected a
    mandatory fee of $1 per show per exhibitor per day to help support the
    industry's Show Horse Support Fund, a lobbying and legal defense fund.
    In our view, it is highly unusual and a conflict of interest for an
    organization--that exists to administer a DQP program so that show
    management can fulfill its responsibilities under the Act--to be the
    instrument by which money is collected to fund industry efforts to
    oppose USDA enforcement. This same HIO continues a misleading effort to
    convince members of Congress to include language in the appropriations
    bill to direct APHIS to abandon its longstanding, established, and
    judicially affirmed practice of finding a horse to be sore if it shows
    a repeated, consistent pain reaction in response to digital palpation.
    Contrary to information that the Subcommittee may have received, an
    evaluation of a horse's movement and general appearance are always part
    of a soring examination (see 9 C.F.R. Sec. 11.21). However, gait
    impairments or general signs of discomfort are not necessary elements
    of a finding that a horse is sore. Furthermore, despite repeated
    assertions by the Commission, the American Association of Equine
    Practitioners has never adopted or endorsed the concept that a horse
    may be found sore only if it exhibits signs or symptoms in addition to
    a repeated, consistent pain reaction in response to digital palpation.
        Enforcement experience under the Act has shown that USDA presence
    at horse shows and sales is the best and most effective way to fight
    soring horses. In order for APHIS personnel to do the best job possible
    enforcing the Horse Protection Act, as mandated by Congress, their
    presence at horse shows must be expanded. For these reasons, AHPA
    requests that the Subcommittee recommend a $500,000 Horse Protection
    Act program appropriation for fiscal year 2002, and resist any attempt
    to insert language which would limit APHIS's enforcement role,
    including but not limited to a prohibition of relying on digital
    palpations as the primary diagnostic test to determine whether a horse
    is sore.
        Thank you for considering the Associations' views. We would be
    pleased to answer any questions you or your staff may have.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the 30 Tribal
    Colleges that comprise the 1994 Land grant Institutions, we thank you
    for this opportunity to share our funding requests for fiscal year
    2002.
        This statement covers two areas: a) it provides a brief background
    on the Tribal Colleges, and b) it outlines the 1994 Tribal College Land
    Grant Institutions' ambitious plan through our authorized land grant
    programs and the RCAP program to fulfill the agricultural potential of
    American Indian communities and to ensure that American Indians have
    the skills needed to maximize the economic development potential of our
    resources. Before providing this information, immediately following is
    a summary of our fiscal year 2002 requests.
                              summary of requests
        We respectfully recommend the following funding levels for fiscal
    year 2002 for our on-going land grant programs. Specifically, we
    request: $5 million for the 1994 institutions' extension grants
    program; $12 million for the Native American endowment fund; $3 million
    for the higher education equity grants; and $3 million for the 1994
    institutions' research program.
        In addition, we request $5 million be set aside out of the Native
    American--Rural Community Advancement Program, for the 1994 Tribal
    College Land Grant Institutions to address the critical facilities and
    infrastructure needs at the colleges that impede our ability to
    participate fully as land grant partners.
                         background on tribal colleges
        Today, almost 140 years after enactment of the first land grant
    legislation, Tribal Colleges, more than any other institutions, truly
    exemplify the original intent of the land grant legislation. The first
    Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring education to the
    people and to serve their fundamental needs. The Tribal Colleges fit
    this definition well, as they are community-based institutions.
        The Tribal College Movement was launched in 1968 with the
    establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College, in Tsaile,
    Arizona. A succession of Tribal Colleges soon followed, primarily in
    the Northern Plains region. In 1972, the first six tribally controlled
    colleges established the American Indian Higher Education Consortium to
    provide a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC
    represents 32 Tribal Colleges and Universities located in 12 states,
    begun specifically to serve the higher education needs of American
    Indian students. Collectively, they serve American Indian students from
    over 250 federally recognized tribes.
        Tribal Colleges offer primarily two-year degrees, although in
    recent years some institutions have begun to offer baccalaureate and
    graduate-level degrees. The vast majority of the Tribal Colleges are
    fully accredited by independent, regional accreditation agencies.\1\
    Tribal Colleges serve as community centers, providing libraries, tribal
    archives, career centers, economic development and business centers,
    public meeting places, and child care centers. Despite our many
    obligations, functions, and notable achievements, Tribal Colleges
    remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in this
    country. Most of the 1994 Institutions are located on Federal trust
    territory; states have no obligation and in most cases, do not fund the
    Tribal Colleges. In fact, most states do not even fund our institutions
    for the non-Indian state resident students who attend our colleges
    despite the fact that non-Indian enrollment at the Tribal Colleges
    averages 20 percent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited by regional
    accreditation agencies and must undergo stringent performance review on
    a periodic basis. The higher education division of the respective
    regional accreditation agency accredits twenty-seven of the TCUs. Two
    new TCUs are at the Pre-candidate stage as they complete work to attain
    Candidate status; one TCU is at Candidate status. Two TCUs are
    accredited as ``Vocational/Adult Schools by the ``schools'' division of
    the respective regional accreditation agency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, one in five American Indians live on reservations. As a
    result of two hundred years of Federal Indian policy--including
    policies of termination, assimilation and relocation--many reservation
    residents live in abject poverty comparable to poverty found in Third
    World nations. Through the efforts of Tribal Colleges, American Indian
    communities receiving services they need to reestablish themselves as
    responsible, productive, and self-reliant citizens. It would be tragic
    not to expand the modest investment in, and capitalize on, the human
    resources that will help open new avenues of economic development,
    specifically through enhancing the Tribal Colleges land grant programs,
    and adequate access to information technology.
         1994 land grant programs-ambitious efforts to reach economic
                             development potential
        Tragically, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
    acres on our reservations lie fallow, under-used, or have been
    developed through methods that render the resources non-renewable. The
    Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994 is our hope for
    turning this situation around. Our current land grant programs are
    modest, yet vitally important to us. It is essential that American
    Indians learn more about new and evolving technologies for managing our
    lands. We are committed to becoming, as we were when your forefathers
    came to this land centuries ago, productive contributors to the
    agricultural base of the nation and the world.
        Extension Program.--As 1994 Land Grant Institutions enter into
    partnerships with 1862 Institutions through extension projects, recent
    years show impressive efforts to address economic development through
    land use. Our extension program illustrates an ideal combination of
    Federal resources and Tribal college-state institution expertise, with
    the overall impact being far greater than the sum of its parts. These
    programs have grown substantially in idea and scope since they were
    initially implemented in fiscal year 1996. The current single year
    competitive grants for what have developed into flourishing multiyear
    projects is no longer an effective or efficient way to administer these
    vital programs. A mechanism for multiyear funding needs to be explored
    to give these programs financial stability. Some examples of the
    innovative programs that are funded through annual competitively
    awarded grants include:
      --United Tribes Technical College and North Dakota State University
            Extension Service are collaborating to provide diabetes
            prevention education to Native Americans through nutrition
            education. Diabetes and its complications have spread
            epidemically throughout Indian Country. Through nutrition,
            health, and wellness education programs, which are culturally
            appropriate and community supported, program participants will
            have a greater understanding of their role in how to control
            and even prevent this disease.
      --Northwest Indian College in conjunction with Washington State
            University has launched a tribal grants program aimed at
            increasing the capacity to address issues such as natural
            resources restoration and utilization, tribal agricultural
            projects, air and water quality, food and nutrition, and
            projects focused on gaining tribal youth participation. The
            program works with individuals and leaders of Washington and
            Idaho tribes and will serve the American Indian families,
            tribal economics, and whole communities. It will also expand to
            develop ties with the University of Idaho, University of
            Alaska, and the Oregon State University extension programs.
        In fiscal year 2001, the 1994 institutions were awarded $3,280,000
    for extension grants. Additional funding is needed to supplement these
    programs designed to address the inadequate extension services provided
    on reservations by the states. It is important to note that this
    program is specifically designed to complement and build upon the
    Indian Reservation Extension Agent program and is not duplicative of
    ongoing extension activities.
        For the reasons outlined above, we request Congress support this
    vital program by appropriating funding at the authorized level of $5
    million and include report language that would open the door to
    multiyear funding to encourage the growth and further success of these
    essential programs.
        Native American Endowment Fund.--The endowment installments paid
    into the 1994 Tribal College Land Grants Institutions account remain
    with the U.S. Treasury only the interest is distributed to our
    colleges. It is important to note that these funds are not scored as
    current budget outlay or authority. The latest annual interest payment
    distributed among all 30 of the 1994 Land Grant Institutions totaled
    $1,141,821.
        Just as other land grant institutions historically received large
    grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this sum assists 1994
    Land Grant Institutions in establishing and strengthening our academic
    programs in such areas as curricula development, faculty preparation,
    instruction delivery, and to address critical infrastructure issues. As
    earlier stated, Tribal Colleges often serve as primary community
    centers. Although conditions at some have improved substantially, many
    of the colleges still operate under deplorable conditions. In order for
    the 1994 Institutions to become full partners in this nation's great
    land grant system, we need and deserve the facilities and
    infrastructure necessary to engage in education and research programs
    vital to the future health and well-being of our reservation
    communities. We respectfully request Congress build upon this much-
    needed base fund by increasing the fiscal year 2002 endowment fund
    payment to $12 million.
        1994 Institutions' Educational Equity Grant Program.--Closely
    linked with the endowment fund, this program has provided almost
    $52,000 per 1994 Institution to assist in academic programs. Through
    the modest appropriations made available since fiscal year 1996, the
    Tribal Colleges have been able to begin to support vital courses and
    planning activities specifically targeted to meet the unique needs of
    our respective reservations. Some examples include:
      --Sisseton Wahpeton Community College in Sisseton, South Dakota, has
            leveraged the equity grant funds with funding from the 1994
            Institutions' endowment program to remodel the college kitchen
            for the development of a food service operation/food safety
            laboratory and curriculum. The goal of the program is to
            prepare students to run a modern food service operation
            including receiving, storing, preparing, cooking, holding, and
            serving foods. Attention to food safety, including prevention
            of food borne illness, is a top priority of the program. This
            project is designed to work in cooperation with the Sisseton
            Wahpeton Sioux Tribe Indian Health Hospital.
      --Fort Peck Community College in Poplar, Montana, is building on its
            delivery system for instructional programs in food and
            agricultural sciences designed to meet the technological and
            social demands of modern living in rural Montana. Through
            collaboration with current USDA programs and agencies, Fort
            Peck Community College is focusing on the production,
            marketing, and distribution of locally produced agricultural
            commodities; enhanced rural development using distance
            education technology; and family and consumer sciences through
            Native customs, values, and traditions.
        Other Tribal Colleges have started courses and programs in natural
    resource management, environmental sciences, horticulture, forestry,
    nutrition, and buffalo production and management. We respectfully
    request the Subcommittee expand this program by increasing the funding
    to $3 million, to allow the colleges to build upon the courses and
    activities that the initial funding launched.
         1994 Research Program.--We are requesting increased funding for
    our research program, which was authorized in the Agriculture Research,
    Extension, and Education Reform Act of 1998, at ``such sums as
    necessary.'' We recognize the budget constraints that Congress is
    working under. However, we feel the current $1 million is simply not
    adequate, with 30 institutions competing for these research dollars.
    This research program is vital to ensuring that Tribal Colleges finally
    become full partners in the nation's land grant system. Many of our
    institutions are currently conducting agriculture based applied
    research, yet finding the resources to conduct this research to meet
    their communities' needs is a constant challenge. This research
    authority opens the door to new funding opportunities to maintain and
    expand the research projects begun at the 1994 Institutions. The
    following is a prime example of the first projects to be funded under
    this new program.
      --Turtle Mountain Community College in Belcourt, ND, in partnership
            with North Dakota State University, has launched a project to
            assess the risk of mosquito-borne Western equine
            encephalomyelitis (WEE) infection to horses and humans on the
            Turtle Mountain Chippewa Reservation (TMCR). Through collection
            and examination of both adult and larvae vector mosquitoes from
            throughout the reservation, this research will determine the
            spatial distribution and the proportion of WEE vector species
            on the TMCR that is infected with the virus. The results will
            be published in the Journal of Medical Entomology.
        Other projects include soil and water quality projects, amphibian
    propagation, pesticide and wildlife research, range cattle species
    enhancement, and native plant preservation for medicinal and economic
    purposes. We urge the subcommittee to fund this program at $3 million
    to enable our institutions to develop and strengthen their research
    potential.
        Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP).--In fiscal year 2001,
    $24 million of the RCAP funds were appropriated for loans and grants to
    benefit Federally recognized Native American Tribes. Report language
    declared that the conference committee expected $4 million be made
    available for community facility grants for Tribal College
    improvements. As stated earlier, the facilities at many the 1994 Land
    Grant Institutions are in desperate need of repair and in many cases
    replacement. We urge the Subcommittee to designate $5 million of the
    Native American RCAP funds to address the critical need for improving
    the facilities at the 30 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions.
    Additionally, we respectfully request report language directing the
    Department of Agriculture to set aside $5 million of this RCAP program
    funds for each of the next five fiscal years to allow our institutions
    the means to solidly address our facilities needs.
                                   conclusion
        The 1994 Land Grant Institutions have proven to be efficient and
    effective tools for bringing education opportunities to American
    Indians and hope for self-sufficiency to some of this nation's poorest
    regions. The modest Federal investment in the Tribal Colleges has
    already paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and
    economic development, and continuation of this investment makes sound
    moral and fiscal sense. American Indian reservation communities are
    second to none in their need for land grant programs and no
    institutions better exemplify the original intent of the land grant
    concept than the Tribal College Land Grant Institutions.
        We appreciate your long-standing support of the Tribal Colleges and
    Universities and are grateful for your commitment to making our
    communities self-sufficient. We look forward to continuing our
    partnership with you, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the other
    members of the nation's land grant system-a partnership that will bring
    equal educational, agricultural, and economic opportunities to Indian
    Country.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present our funding requests
    before this Subcommittee. We respectfully request your continued
    support and full consideration of our fiscal year 2002 appropriations
    requests.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Phytopathological Society

        The American Phytopathological Society (APS) appreciates the
    opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our recommendations for
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations for essential research programs
    administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The APS
    represents more than 5,000 scientists and practitioners of plant
    pathology. The APS promotes the health of plants and their products in
    sustainable agricultural, landscape, and forest ecosystems through
    environmentally sound and cost-effective approaches to assure a safe,
    abundant, and reliable supply of food, feed, and fiber.
        For the fiscal year 2002 agricultural appropriations bill, our top
    priorities are to increase funding for the USDA National Research
    Initiative (NRI) by 15 percent and, more specifically, to increase
    funding by $5 million for microbial genomics, especially genomics of
    microbial pathogens, within the NRI and within the Agricultural
    Research Service (ARS). The NRI provides critical support to individual
    investigators for basic, fundamental research. In addition to our top
    priorities, we urge the Subcommittee to maintain the $120 million in
    funding for the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
    (IFAFS) as the IFAFS program provides support for microbial genomics as
    well. The IFAFS focuses on providing support to multi-institutional,
    multidisciplinary research. The NRI and the USDA microbial genomics
    programs are essential to plant disease management in the future.
        The NRI has been the primary source of Federal funds awarded
    competitively for research on plant diseases and their management since
    its formation in 1991 as the flagship competitive grants program of the
    USDA. Within the USDA, the NRI is particularly valuable and unique as
    it supports research focused on the fundamental understanding of plant
    diseases that serves as the foundation for applied research for plant
    disease management. The ability of the NRI to support this fundamental
    work is in jeopardy as the costs of modern-day research in the
    biological sciences has skyrocketed in recent years and funding for the
    NRI has not kept pace with these costs. While funding for research has
    increased significantly over the past 10 years and in some cases has
    doubled during that period, funding for the NRI has remained
    essentially flat and, for fiscal year 2001, funding was reduced by $14
    million, with much of this decrease occurring in the plant sciences. A
    report released by the National Academy of Sciences in 2000 again
    recommends that funding for the NRI be increased to the level
    authorized in 1991, which is five times its current level of $106
    million. Because of the reduced funding for plant sciences, the NRI was
    unable to support critical genomics research.
        The NRI has supported many significant scientific and technical
    breakthroughs. Some of the accomplishments funded by the NRI include:
      --The first cloning of a plant gene responsible for recognition and
            rejection of a microbial plant pathogen by the pant and now
            known to be one of a family of genes with counterparts
            responsible for recognition and rejection of infectious
            microbial agents by certain human and animal tissues;
      --Identification of the harpin protein responsible for a generic
            resistance response in plants and approved in 2001 by the EPA
            as a natural plant-pathogen product now being sold under the
            trade name ``Messenger''; and
      --Discovery of a gene expressed uniquely in roots and responsible for
            the widespread susceptibility of plants to root knot nematodes
            that is now providing us with an entirely new method of
            developing crop plants with genetic resistance to these pests.
        In spite of these and other accomplishments, we are deeply
    concerned that because of flat funding, our discipline, so critical to
    assuring a safe and secure food supply, is being left behind both by
    the fast-pace of change in agriculture and the revolution in the
    biological sciences. New plant disease problems continue to emerge
    while the older problems continue to threaten the efficiency and
    productivity of American farms or keep our farmers locked into the use
    of pesticides.
        Genomics has opened entirely new vistas for improvements in human,
    animal, and plant health. Plant pathology is poised along with our
    contemporaries in the medical and veterinary fields to take advantage
    of the new information on sequences of genomes. However, still missing
    in this explosion of information on genome sequences is information on
    the sequences of genomes of our most important plant pathogens. Of some
    100 microbial genomes (other than viruses) that have been sequenced
    now, only one plant pathogen, a bacterial pathogen of citrus, has been
    completely sequenced, and this work was done in Brazil. Because of the
    small size of most microbial genomes, sequencing can be done
    inexpensively and quickly. With $5 million devoted to the sequencing of
    microbial genomes and, particularly, to plant pathogens, we could begin
    to revolutionize plant pathology. Once we have the sequences of the
    most important plant pathogens, it will advance significantly our
    efforts to discern the function of the genes (i.e., functional
    genomics).
        The availability of information on both genome sequences and the
    function of genes for a select and representative list of plant
    pathogens would open entirely new approaches to understanding,
    managing, and even predicting plant disease outbreaks and epidemics
    just as is now happening for medicine. Such information can also
    improve diagnostics in cases where phytosanitary laws are used as trade
    barriers and help authorities track down any bioterrorist release of a
    notorious plant pathogen. The APS is in the process now of prioritizing
    the plant pathogens for which sequences are needed. Our goal is to
    select those pathogens that would be representative of all plant
    pathogens from a practical and scientific standpoint.
        We recognize that the National Science Foundation, the Department
    of Energy, and the National Institutes of Health are investing in
    microbial genomics. We appreciate, greatly, the support from these
    agencies. However, the focus of the microbial programs in the other
    agencies is not on agriculturally important plant pathogens. We believe
    that the USDA can and should play a leading role in microbial genomics,
    especially as it relates to plant pathogens.
        We, strongly, urge you to include $5 million for microbial genomics
    and a 15 percent increase for the NRI in the fiscal year 2002
    agricultural appropriations bill. These programs will assist in our
    effort to maintain healthy plants so that we have a safe and secure
    food supply.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present our views.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the American Rivers

        American Rivers is joined by over 500 local, regional and national
    conservation organizations \1\ from all 50 states in calling for $325
    million in funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and
    in supporting an expansion two important conservation programs
    administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Specifically, we
    support increasing the acreage limits of the Conservation Reserve
    Program to 40 million acres, and eliminating the acreage limit in the
    Wetlands Reserve Program and enrolling 250,000 acres yearly, beginning
    in fiscal year 2002.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ These groups have endorsed ``The River Budget 2002'', a report
    of national funding priorities for local river conservation. A list of
    groups endorsing the River Budget can be viewed at
    www.americanrivers.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary
    program that helps farmers and ranchers facing threats to soil, water,
    and other natural resources develop and implement successful
    conservation practices. The Conservation Reserve Program is a voluntary
    program that partners the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) with
    farmers and ranchers, helps protect millions of acres of the nation's
    agricultural lands from erosion while increasing wildlife habitat and
    protecting ground and surface waters. The Wetlands Reserve Program is a
    voluntary program that protects and restores the nation's wetlands,
    bring tangible economic and environmental benefits to rural
    communities.
                    environmental quality incentives program
        The health of America's agricultural lands is fundamental to the
    nation's well being. These lands support an industry of great value,
    provide important habitat for a large portion of the nation's birds,
    fish, and wildlife, and significantly affect river health. The
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is voluntary program
    that helps farmers and ranchers facing threats to soil, water, and
    other natural resources develop and implement successful conservation
    practices.
        EQIP focuses largely on lands that face significant natural
    resource problems or are particularly environmentally sensitive. As
    these priority areas are identified locally, conservation districts
    convene working groups of key Federal, State, and local agency
    representatives to propose conservation plans for these areas.
    Communities play a significant role in the planning process, ensuring
    that the plans fully reflect local needs and priorities. Once Natural
    Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) representatives select
    conservation plans, EQIP staff provide technical, educational, and
    financial assistance to farmers or ranchers to help them implement
    management plans for nutrients, manure, pests, irrigation, water, and
    wildlife habitat practices. Farmers may also apply for 5- to 10-year
    EQIP contracts that provide financial incentives and cost-sharing
    assistance to implement conservation practices outlined in the
    conservation plan required for use of most agricultural lands.
                          conservation reserve program
        With the dust bowl of the 1930's, the United States learned the
    hard way about the destructiveness of agricultural erosion. In the
    years since, the nation has also come to recognize the damage caused by
    runoff that carries pollutants into river, lakes, and other bodies of
    water.
        One of the Federal government's largest and most effective
    environmental improvement programs grew out of concern about the
    impacts of agricultural soil erosion and polluted runoff. The
    Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), a voluntary program that partners
    the USDA with farmers and ranchers, helps protect millions of acres of
    the nation's agricultural lands from erosion while increasing wildlife
    habitat and protecting ground and surface waters. The program provides
    incentives for farmers and ranchers to voluntarily implement long-term
    conservation practices on erodible and environmentally sensitive lands
    in return for annual rental payments and cost-share assistance.
        The benefits of CRP are clear. The total acreage of new wildlife
    habitat created by the program is twice that of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System and all state-owned wildlife areas in the contiguous 48
    states combined. According to NRCS, each acre enrolled in CRP reduced
    topsoil erosion by an average of 19 tons per year, improving water
    quality in lakes, rivers and other water bodies. USDA estimates show
    that, over the life of the initial 36.4 million-acre enrollment, CRP
    will have resulted in a $2.1-$6.3 bilion increase in net farm income,
    $3.3 billion in future timber resources, and up to $4.2 billion in
    surface water quality improvements. The Fish and Wildlife Service
    estimates that the wildlife benefits will total $1.4 billion for water
    fowl hunting and $4.1 billion for non-consumptive wildlife benefits
    such as photography and wildlife watching.
                            wetlands reserve program
        Wetlands are a critical component of many ecosystems, providing
    myriad of benefits for people and wildlife. They filter sediments and
    pollutants from runoff water, protect water quality, provide critical
    habitat for millions of birds and other wildlife, absorb water to
    reduce floods, and improve soil moisture for vegetation. The economic
    benefits of healthy wetlands are many, including improving wildlife
    watching and photography. In 1991, almost 109 million people spent $59
    billion on fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching and photography.
        The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a volunteer program aimed at
    protecting and restoring the nation's wetlands, bringing tangible
    economic and environmental benefits to rural communities,
    recreationists, landowners and family farmers nationwide. Participating
    landowners receive technical and financial assistance from the NRCS to
    restore wetlands, including marginal agricultural land. In exchange for
    selling a conservation easement or entering into a cost-share
    restoration agreement, landowners receive all or a percentage of
    restoration costs and/or an annual payment. The program currently has
    more than 5,230 contracts in 48 states. Participating landowners retain
    control over access to their lands and may lease them for undeveloped
    recreational activities and other uses that are fully consistent with
    wetland protection and enhancement. Wetlands restored by WRP also help
    reduce the ``dead zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico by intercepting polluted
    runoff from farms and city streets along the Mississippi River.
         farm conservation programs: protecting america's water quality
        Water quality is an issue that touches many lives. Each year,
    sediment and nutrients are inadvertently washed off the landscape, into
    feeder streams, and ultimately into our nation's rivers--reducing farm
    income, increasing channel maintenance costs, threatening drinking
    water supplies and filling side channels used by river wildlife. The
    costs associated with sediment and nutrient loss are enormous. On the
    Mississippi River, for example, farmers annually lose more than $300
    million in applied nitrogen, dredging costs annually top $100 million,
    and habitat preservation efforts on the Upper Mississippi River will
    soon reach $33 million a year.
        Fertilizers, animal waste, and inadequately treated human waste
    have contributed to high levels of nutrients--nitrogen and phosphorus.
    Once they are released into the Mississippi, these nutrients ignite a
    chemical chain reaction that reduces the amount of oxygen dissolved in
    the water, limiting the types of river species that can survive. They
    also contribute to a ``dead zone'' in the Gulf of Mexico--a 7,000
    square-mile zone where dissolved oxygen is simply too low to support
    marine life. In rare cases, nutrients like nitrogen and bacteria from
    human and animal waste can contaminate well-water and other drinking
    water supplies, affecting human health.
        Like nitrogen and phosphorous, sediment continues to enter the
    Upper Mississippi River at unsustainable levels--that is, sediment
    enters the Mississippi a rate that exceeds the river's ability to move
    sediment downstream. In addition to filling side channels, burying
    mussel beds and blocking the sunlight needed by aquatic plants, this
    imbalance increases the cost of removing sediment from the navigation
    channel--a Federal responsibility which now costs more than $100
    million annually.
        Much of this sediment is the result of historic farm practices that
    have left large sediment deposits in small feeder streams. While great
    strides have been made in improving agriculture practices to reduce
    erosion and run-off, limited resources for these efforts limits the
    scope and effectiveness of conservation efforts by farmers.
        Although many landowners--both in the Upper Mississippi River basin
    and across the country--are anxious to enroll their land into easement
    programs, create buffers of trees and grasses along streams, or adopt
    soil-conserving tillage practices, demand for Federal technical
    assistance far exceeds supply. Funding for conservation programs,
    outreach and education, and research and monitoring must be increased
    to meet the demand for programs like EQIP and CRP.
        American Rivers is strongly supportive of these successful programs
    and the tremendous efforts of the American farmer to protect water
    quality. We strongly urge you to appropriate $325 million to the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture for the Environmental Quality Incentives
    Program and to provide sufficient funding to supporting an expansion of
    the Conservation Reserve Program acreage limits to 40 million acres and
    the Wetlands Reserve Program to 250,000 acres in fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the American Seed Trade Association, Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to provide you with our views on the fiscal year 2002
    agricultural appropriations bill. The American Seed Trade Association
    (ASTA) appreciates greatly your leadership in supporting the USDA
    National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). We, strongly, urge you to
    include a $10 million increase for the NPGS in the fiscal year 2002
    agricultural appropriations bill.
        The ASTA, founded in 1883, is one of the oldest trade associations
    in the United States. With over 900 members, the ASTA is the premiere
    advocate for the seed industry and related interests. Our diverse
    membership consists of the leading companies that are developing,
    providing, supporting, and promoting new varieties that hold tremendous
    promise and opportunity for farmers and consumers everywhere.
        Our request for a $10 million increase for the NPGS is the number
    one appropriations issue and the number one legislative issue for ASTA.
    This increase will allow seed companies to meet the diverse challenges
    facing our customers. Support for significant increases to the NPGS
    goes well beyond industry; we, also, have the support of our customers
    and the scientific community. Earlier this month, the following
    organizations joined in our request for a $10 million increase for the
    NPGS, the: Alaska Division of Agriculture; American Association of
    Botanical Gardens and Arboreta; American Malting Barley Association;
    American Nursery & Landscape Association; American Society for
    Horticultural Science; American Society of Agronomy; American Society
    of Plant Physiologists; American Soybean Association; American Sugar
    Cane League of the USA; Association of Official Seed Certifying
    Agencies; Beet Sugar Development Foundation; Busch Agricultural
    Resources, Inc.; Crop Science Society of America; Florida, Texas, and
    Hawaii Sugar Cane Growers National Association of State Universities &
    Land-Grant Colleges; National Association of Wheat Growers; National
    Barley Growers Association; National Barley Improvement Committee;
    National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture; National Corn Growers
    Association; National Cotton Council; National Council for Science and
    the Environment; National Farmers Union; National Grain Sorghum
    Producers; National Sunflower Association Pickle Packers International,
    Inc.; Society of American Florists; Soil Science Society of America;
    Sonoma County Grape Growers Association; Southwest Peanut Growers
    Association; Turfgrass Breeders Association; USA Rice Federation; U.S.
    Beet Sugar Association, and The U.S. Rice Producers Association.
        The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) has recognized the need for
    significant increases in funding for the NPGS, as well. The ARS
    requested an increase of $20 million for fiscal year 2001 and again for
    fiscal year 2002. We are disappointed that the Administration's
    proposed budget failed to provide an increase for the NPGS and reduced
    funding for the Arctic germplasm collection in Palmer, Alaska.
        As you know, narrow genetic bases can result in widespread crop
    losses. In 1970, Southern corn leaf blight cost farmers 15 percent of
    the corn crop; in the 1950s and early 1960s, about 70 percent of the
    wheat crop in the Pacific Northwest was wiped out by stripe rust; and
    the Irish potato famine of the 1840s was the result of the reliance on
    only a single variety of the potato. To prevent catastrophic losses,
    breeders must have open access to extensive, well-maintained, and well-
    documented genetic resources.
        The NPGS germplasm collections underpin crop-breeding efforts
    throughout the U.S. Preservation of and filling gaps in the base
    collections is a unique Federal responsibility. The NPGS acquires
    germplasm; develops and documents information on the germplasm;
    preserves and distributes germplasm; and maintains quarantine
    facilities for testing imported germplasm for pests and pathogens
    before introduction in the U.S. The NPGS ensures that scientists and
    plant breeders have access to diverse germplasm to develop varieties
    that meet new and changing circumstances.
        Preserving the genetic diversity of plants is essential to the
    future of agriculture as the genes to add new traits, such as tolerance
    to diseases and resistance to insects, are often present in wild
    relatives of the major crops. Most of the U.S. crops raised and used
    for food, fiber, ornamentals, and industrial feedstocks originated from
    outside of the U.S. Consequently, the plant breeding community is
    highly dependent upon germplasm from other countries, some of which is
    endangered. Once lost, the germplasm cannot be fully reconstructed.
        Unless we have a wide diversity of genetic resources, there will be
    nothing available to improve plants or to prevent plants from becoming
    genetically susceptible to pests, pathogens, and abiotic stress. With
    sufficient genetic resources, we will have an abundant, safe,
    nutritious, and affordable supply of food and fiber that is produced in
    an environmentally friendly manner and that ensures a reasonable return
    for our farmers and livestock producers. American agriculture can
    provide as well renewable resources for a wide range of everyday
    consumer products if diverse genetic resources are available and
    accessible to U.S. scientists and plant breeders.
        To ensure that these genetic resources are accessible and that they
    remain available, the NPGS must obtain a significant increase in
    funding. In 1991, the NPGS reported that an annual budget of $40
    million would be required to remedy shortfalls in secure storage,
    backup, evaluation, and development of core germplasm collections.
    Today, funding for the NPGS remains below $30 million. We recognize the
    tight budget constraints under which the Subcommittee must operate;
    however, the following outlines the precarious situation of the NPGS:
      --Funding for the NPGS has declined significantly, in constant
            dollars, since 1992, jeopardizing vital germplasm;
      --Lack of funding has resulted in decreased supplies of germplasm
            that limits distribution and impedes the progress of research
            and breeding programs;
      --93 percent of all clonally-propagated samples and 19 percent of all
            seed samples are not duplicated and are at high risk of
            catastrophic loss;
      --No backup has been made for citrus and nearly all tropical fruit
            crops in the NPGS due to the lack of funds to develop effective
            storage methods;
      --Without a significant infusion of funds, many of the clonally-
            propagated crops in the collection will remain at risk of
            catastrophic loss as long-term backup methods for these crops
            have not been developed;
      --Internationally, destruction of natural habitats, limited gene bank
            capacity, inadequate management, and lack of consistent funding
            has left much of the world's germplasm at high risk of loss;
      --Acquisition of endangered germplasm has slowed and may stop
            completely without an increase in funding;
      --Due to funding constraints, the Plant Germplasm Quarantine Office
            established quotas for importing germplasm thereby restricting
            the amount of materials available to U.S. scientists and plant
            breeders;
      --Funding is insufficient for the Quarantine Office to take full
            advantage of molecular diagnostic techniques;
      --99 percent of the germplasm accessions at Griffin, GA, and 68
            percent of the accessions at Pullman, WA, have not been tested
            for viability within the past 10 years due to lack of funding;
      --At least 30 percent of all NPGS accessions need to be regenerated
            during the next couple of years and with current funding it
            will take at least 9 years;
      --18 percent of NPGS accessions are unavailable for distribution
            primarily due to lack of funding; and
      --Without an increase in funding, many NPGS sites will be unable to
            pay for utilities, general operations, and facility repairs.
        To fulfill its mission to provide access to diverse genetic
    resources, the NPGS must have a balanced program that includes (1)
    acquisition of germplasm to fill gaps in the collections and to
    preserve endangered germplasm; (2) maintenance and preservation of
    germplasm with secure backups to prevent loss; (3) adequate
    documentation and characterization of the germplasm; (4) sufficient
    supplies of viable seeds to allow for distribution; and (5) quarantine
    facilities that make germplasm available in a timely manner. The steady
    decline in available funding has had an extremely negative impact on
    the ability of the NPGS to have a balanced program.
        Inadequate funding is jeopardizing the security of the U.S. food
    and fiber system. Genetic diversity is the engine that drives plant
    breeding. Without new sources of genetic variation, plant breeders
    cannot make improvements. Without improvements, we will be unable to
    ensure the continued economic viability and security of our food and
    fiber system.
        The NPGS is a fundamental, strategic resource that we cannot afford
    to jeopardize. Without a significant infusion of funds, the NPGS will
    not be able to ensure the preservation of important germplasm that is
    vital to our existence and prosperity. Our ability to provide breeders
    with the blueprints and genetic codes is necessary to ensure new,
    plentiful foods, fibers, consumer products, and drugs. If the NPGS is
    not funded at a sufficient level, biodiversity will be reduced and we
    could lose the very germplasm needed for a possible wonder drug or the
    cure for some dreaded disease. The NPGS is a good investment for
    taxpayers and for the American consumer.
        We, strongly, urge you to provide an increase of $10 million for
    the NPGS for fiscal year 2002. We recognize that this will be difficult
    and that there are many competing priorities for limited resources;
    however, we cannot afford to be complacent about the fundamental
    resources that underpin our future for food and fiber.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on the
    importance of the USDA National Plant Germplasm System. We look forward
    to working with you to ensure that the NPGS is able to provide the
    germplasm necessary for U.S. agriculture to meet the demands and
    challenges of the 21st Century.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Sheep Industry Association

        The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) is a federation of
    state member associations representing the nearly 67,000 sheep
    producers in the United States. The sheep industry views numerous
    agencies and programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as
    important to lamb and wool production. Sheep industry priorities
    include rebuilding and strengthening our infrastructure, critical
    predator control activities, maintaining and expanding research
    capabilities and animal health efforts.
        The rapid changes that have occurred in the domestic sheep industry
    and continue to take place put further emphasis on the importance of
    adequately funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture programs
    important to lamb and wool producers.
        We appreciate this opportunity to comment on those portions of the
    USDA fiscal year 2002 budget.
               animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
        The mission of APHIS, ``to protect U.S. animal and plant resources
    from diseases and pests,'' is very important to the sheep industry of
    the nation.
    Wildlife Services Wildlife Services
        With well over one-quarter million sheep and lambs lost to
    predators each year, the Wildlife Services (WS) program of USDA-APHIS
    is vital to the economic survival of the sheep industry. The value of
    sheep and lambs lost to predators and predator control expenses are
    second only to feed costs for sheep production. Costs associated with
    depredation currently exceed our industry's veterinary, labor and
    transportation costs.
        The American Sheep Industry Association strongly supports the
    President's salary increase recommendations of $1.26 million for WS
    operations and $454,000 for methods development. For a number of years,
    salary cost increases have been mandated without offsetting
    appropriations. In Fiscal Year 2000 for example, Congress mandated
    $849,000 for pay cost increases. These funds had to come out of the
    operations budget, meaning less available money for the field work.
        Method development has also been overlooked for a number of years.
    Since fiscal year 1989, the NWRC operations budget increased from $2.02
    million to $2.89 million in fisca year 2000. During the same period of
    time, method development has been given a number of new Congressional
    directives including aquaculture research, wildlife disease research,
    ungulate research and the reopening of three field offices in Hawaii,
    Washington and Mississippi. To add to the budget strain of NWRC
    operations is a new multi-million dollar research facility with no
    monies to staff and maintain the building. Maintenance cost for this
    facility now approach $1.5 million annually. ASI requests that the
    current method development budget be increased an additional $6.0
    million to $17.46 million. We also request that of this $6.0 million,
    $2.5 million go to staffing, operating and maintaining existing
    facilities, $1.0 million for bird, rodent and ungulate research, and
    $2.5 million for alternative capture systems and canine research.
        Aerial hunting is one of Wildlife Service's most efficient and
    cost-effective core programs. It is used not only to protect livestock,
    wildlife and endangered species, but is a critical component of the
    Wildlife Services rabies control program. A lack of adequate finding
    for safety purposes was found to have contributed to a number of
    accidents experienced within the WS program in recent years. Following
    an independent review of the WS aerial program, recommendations were
    provided the Department to improve aerial safety. A December 2002
    deadline was set by the Department to implement these recommendations.
    ASI requests $2.9 million in additional finding be provided WS so the
    agency can complete the implementation of the safety recommendation.
        Expanding wolf populations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Minnesota,
    Wisconsin and Michigan continue to create increased demand for
    assistance in managing wolf depredation. While resources have been
    provided Montana, Idaho and Wyoming, $750,000 in additional funding is
    still needed in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan to manage a wolf
    population approaching 3,000 animals.
        Wildlife Service's cooperative nature has made it the most cost
    effective and efficient program within federal government in the areas
    of wildlife management and public health and safety. Wildlife Services
    has over 2,000 cooperative agreements with agriculture, forestry
    groups, private industry, state game and fish departments, departments
    of health, schools, county and local governments and others to mitigate
    the damage and danger that the public's wildlife can inflict on private
    property and public health and safety. WS is one of the few federal
    programs that has been consistently at or above the 50:50 federal to
    cooperative funding ratios. In fiscal year 2000, $36,434,699 in
    cooperator dollars went to Wildlife Services. The agency, however, only
    had $21,275,873 in finding available at the field level in Fiscal Year
    2000 to match the funding provided by WS cooperators. Another $2.2
    million is needed to meet increasing customer demand for the agency's
    services.
        Wildlife Services must document its operations in order to conduct
    program analysis and comply with Federal reporting requirements. The
    agency's current information technology support system has become
    antiquated which could result in incomplete data collection and
    analysis. To update and maintain the information system, an additional
    $700,000 is needed.
    Scrapie
        Adequate funding for scrapie eradication and other supportive
    efforts, such as the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program and
    the National Scrapie Slaughter Surveillance Study are of critical
    importance to the sheep industry, as well as all segments of the
    livestock industries. The national regulation for scrapie eradication
    to be issued by USDA in 2001 is supported with the Administration's
    budget request of $18 million for fiscal year 2002 which is strongly
    supported by ASI. ASI appreciates this Subcommittee's efforts in
    recognizing the seriousness of this devastating disease and the real
    need for control and eradication. ASI and others have urged APHIS to
    step up its efforts in scrapie control/eradication through a more
    aggressive regulatory approach. APHIS has received published and
    received comments on both an ANPR and a Proposed Rule over the past
    three years; we expect the publication of a Final rule to begin
    eradicating scrapie through interstate movement restrictions soon.
    According to APHIS, an aggressively funded scrapie eradication effort
    will take seven to ten years and cost approximately $100 million over
    the life of the program. As it has been with all disease eradication
    programs, scrapie eradication will take adequate funding in order to be
    successfull. Through the successful section 201 trade action this past
    year, USDA/APHIS has received sufficient CCC funding to begin the
    eradication program and the surveillance study. At this critical point
    in time, it is important that funds be APPROPRIATED to conduct the
    ``base program'' activities such as hiring Veterinary field personnel
    so that the federal program will be implemented uniformly State to
    State and enforced properly. We therefore urge the subcommittee to
    support the Administration's request for an $18 million increase for
    Scrapie eradication in appropriated funds.
                         agricultural marketing service
    Lamb Market Information and Price Discovery Systems
        The sheep industry strongly supports the fiscal year 2002 budget
    for Market News of USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service. Furthermore ASI
    supports necessary increases in appropriations for the full
    implementation of the mandatory price reporting system for livestock.
                       foreign agricultural service (fas)
        The sheep industry participates in FAS programs such as the Market
    Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development Program. ASI
    strongly supports continued appropriations at the current level for
    these critical Foreign Agricultural Service programs. ASI is the
    cooperator for American wool and sheep pelts and has achieved solid
    success in increasing exports of domestic product. Exports of American
    wool have been increased dramatically with approximately 30 percent of
    U.S. production competing overseas.
                 natural resources conservation service (nrcs)
        ASI urges increased appropriations for the range programs of the
    Soil Conservation Service to benefit the private range and pasture
    lands of the United States with conservation assistance. We support the
    budget item and recommend an increased level for the Grazing Lands
    Conservation Initiative, which ASI has worked with, along with other
    livestock and range management organizations, to address this important
    effort for rangelands in the U.S.
                       research, education and economics
        As a result of the successful section 201 trade action, the sheep
    industry must become more competitive. We are also striving to be
    profitable and sustainable as a user of and contributor to our natural
    resource base. Research, both basic and applied, and modern educational
    programming are essential if we are to succeed. We have been
    disappointed in the decline in resources USDA has been targeting toward
    sheep research and out-reach programs. With net increases in the animal
    systems category of the agriculture research budget, for example, sheep
    and wool research has either declined or remained static for the past
    several years. In order for the sheep industry to be more globally
    competitive in the future, we must invest in the discovery and adoption
    of new technologies for producing, processing and marketing lamb and
    wool. We urge the subcommittee to send a strong message to USDA
    supporting sheep research and education funding increases.
    Agricultural Research Service
        Emerging and Exotic Diseases and Pests of Plants and Animals--we
    request the subcommittee's support for the administration's allocation
    of $6.782 million in this area. The animal disease portion should be
    substantial and is urgently needed to protect the U.S. livestock
    industry. ARS has planned for $5 million of these funds to be directed
    toward BSE research. We agree that BSE is an extremely important
    disease issue globally and believe that research is needed to help keep
    the U.S. free of this devastating disease. With this in mind, we remind
    the subcommittee that scrapie is a TSE that is endemic in the U.S. and
    we recommend that a new or expanded research effort directed toward BSE
    be designed in such a manner that the research will assist with scrapie
    eradication needs. We also respectively remind the subcommittee that
    scientists in the animal disease research unit (ADRU), ARS, Pullman
    Washington, have made significant progress in the early diagnosis of
    TSEs, which is important in early recognition and eradication of TSEs.
    The programs of these scientists at ADRU should be enhanced and
    expanded to include, for instance, the development of rapid and
    accurate methods for strain typing of TSEs within the United States and
    world and to understand the basis of genetic resistance and
    susceptibility to these devastating diseases.
        We urge your support to restore the $300,000 used for collaborative
    research between ARS animal disease research unit in Pullman,
    Washington and the U.S. sheep experiment station in Dubois, Idaho
    concerning malignant catarrhal fever (MCF) research. These monies were
    established by congressional action in last year and have been
    successfully utilized to initiate research leading to control methods
    for this important disease of sheep and cattle. Health and disease
    management was one of the four focus areas included in the President's
    Section 201 relief decision. This additional funding will be key in
    helping us address two very important diseases.
        Research into Johne's disease has received additional funding
    through ARS over the past several years, focusing on cattle. Johne's
    disease is also endemic in the U.S. sheep population and is not well
    understood as a sheep disease. The same food safety concerns exist in
    both sheep and cattle; other countries are also very concerned about
    Johne's in sheep.
        We urge the subcommittee to send a strong message to ARS that
    Johne's disease in sheep should receive more attention at the National
    Animal Disease Research Center (NADC) with an emphasis on diagnostics.
        Genetic resources are the underpinning for all livestock production
    systems and therefore have a great influence upon economic returns. To
    effectively address changing consumer demands, natural resource
    utilization and protection of animal biodiversity from economic changes
    as well as catastrophic events such as disease epidemics requires
    utilization and protection of the full breadth of animal genetic
    resources. To accomplish this a national system for the maintenance,
    characterization and utilization of animal genetic resources is
    important. We recommend that the subcommittee fund the national animal
    germplasm, program (NAGP) so that the NAGP can become fully functional
    and effective in collecting, storing and assessing animal genetic
    resources.
    Economic Research Service
        The mandatory price reporting line item in the Administration's
    budget includes retail price reporting which needs to include lamb as
    lamb is covered under mandatory reporting provisions.
                               rural development
        The National Sheep Industry Improvement Center is critical to the
    industry and we fully support an appropriation of $5 million for fiscal
    year 2002. The Center is providing $14 mi1lion funds for loans in the
    sheep industry to rebuild and strengthen the infrastructure of the
    industry with loans made for wool, lamb and goat programs in 2000.
    Nearly one dozen loan applications are now in the review process for
    approval. The Center also provided $5 million for 23 grants for
    American Lamb product development, marketing, and promotion in 2000 and
    2001 with projects beginning in every region of the United States to
    strengthen efforts with American Lamb. The Center is a premier vehicle
    of the U.S. sheep industry's adjustment plan therefore adequate funding
    is critical to the industry.
      cooperative state research education and extension service (csrees)
        Minor Use Animal Drugs is a ``Special Research Grant'' that has had
    great benefit to the U.S. sheep industry. The research under this
    category and the companion ``NRSP-7'' program through FDA/CVM has
    provided research information on therapeutic drugs that are needed for
    the approval process. Without this program--American sheep producers
    would not have effective products to keep their sheep healthy. We
    appreciate the Administration's request of $549,000 for this program
    and we urge the subcommittee to recommend that it be funded at $750,000
    to more fully meet the needs of our rapidly changing industries.
        Ongoing research in wool is critically important to the sheep
    industry. ASI supports continued funding of $300,000 for fiscal year
    2002 through the special grants program of the CSREES.
        The industry greatly appreciates this opportunity to discuss these
    programs and appropriations important to the sheep industry.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM), the largest single
    life science organization in the world, comprised of more than 42,000
    members, appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on
    the fiscal year 2002 budget for the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) research and education programs.
        The ASM represents scientists who work in academic, medical,
    governmental and industrial institutions worldwide and are involved in
    research to improve human health and the environment. Microbiological
    research is directly related to agriculture involving foodborne
    diseases, bioterrorism, new and emerging plant and animal diseases,
    soil erosion and soil biology, agricultural biotechnology, and the
    development of new agricultural products and processes. The ASM is a
    member of the Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions
    (CoFARM), which represents scientific societies and organizations
    involved in formulating research directions and needs for agricultural
    research.
        The U.S. agricultural system is one of the most productive and
    efficient in the world, due in part to past investments in science.
    Agricultural research has lead to many advances including
    biotechnology, which contribute to a more abundant, nutritious,
    efficient and environmentally friendly food supply, while at the same
    time reducing agriculture's reliance on chemical fertilizers,
    pesticides, and fungicides. USDA's research budget, however, has not
    grown commensurate with its record of achievement and broad and unique
    responsibilities to support science and technology in agriculture.
    According to the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of
    Science Resources Studies, agricultural research made up only 4 percent
    of all public funds devoted to basic research and only 2 percent of
    total R&D expenditures for fiscal year 2000. If the lowest cost food
    for the nation's consumers and agricultural exports are to continue to
    be successful policy for the United States, then it must be understood
    that continued, sustained Federal investment in agricultural research
    is necessary.
          cooperative state research, education and extension service
        In 1989 the Board on Agriculture of the National Research Council
    (NRC) recommended that public investment through competitive research
    grants in agriculture, food, and the environment be made a national
    priority. To address this monumental task, Congress (1991) created the
    National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI) in the
    hope of generating new knowledge and reinvigorating research in
    agriculture, food, and environmental science (National Research
    Initiative: a Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and
    Natural-Resources Research, NRC, 2000). The ASM strongly supports
    competitive peer reviewed research that is open to all the nation's
    scientists. However, the ASM is disappointed with the continued decline
    in merit-based research programs at the USDA, such as the NRI, whose
    budget was decreased by 11 percent for fiscal year 2001. ASM recommends
    that NRI be funded at the fiscal year 2000 level of $119 million.
        This funding will improve important research in agriculture
    including food safety and nutrition, plant, animal and microbial
    genomics, and emerging pest and disease management. In conjunction with
    other coalition groups like CoFARM, the ASM believes Federal support
    for agricultural research is essential to building the broad knowledge
    base needed to commercialize new and improved agricultural products and
    tools.
        The ASM is pleased to see continued support for the Initiative for
    Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). This competitive grants
    program differs from the NRI in that it provides mandatory funding for
    research and extension projects that is multi-disciplinary and applied
    in scope and targets critical agriculture issues.
                         agricultural research service
        U.S. agriculture is experiencing severe problems caused by new and
    reemerging infectious diseases in plants and animals, a threat that
    requires immediate attention. The imminent threats of Bovine Spongiform
    Encephalopathy (BSE) and foot-and-mouth disease in animals and plum pox
    in plants are examples requiring new and extensive research. Cost
    effective and real-time monitoring may now be feasible, allowing for
    more immediate diagnosis. Funding and enhancing agricultural research
    is the surest way to prevent and control infectious and zoonotic
    diseases afflicting livestock and aquaculture today and mitigating the
    threats of tomorrow.
                   animal and plant health inspection service
        The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has the
    critical role of policing the U.S. infrastructure that is in place to
    prevent, diagnose and respond to a disease introduction. The U.S. needs
    a comprehensive biosafety system to prevent foreign animal and plant
    diseases from entering the domestic agriculture system. This sentinel
    network requires new, accurate and cost effective diagnostic tools and
    updated information technology.
                   infectious diseases in plants and animals
        It is important to recognize a growing threat to the U.S.
    agricultural system that requires immediate attention--the threat of
    new and emerging infectious diseases. Like the human population, U.S.
    agriculture is also experiencing severe problems caused by new and
    emerging infectious diseases in plants and animals. Changes in
    agricultural practices, population growth, climate, microbial
    evolution, animal migration, and international trade and travel are all
    factors in introducing new plant and animal diseases into the U.S.
    agriculture system. The lack of knowledge to manage effectively and
    control new and reemerging infectious diseases often leads to very
    serious consequences from lost productivity from quarantines to
    embargoes, and the destruction of plants and animals to control the
    spread of diseases. For example, citrus canker has cost millions in
    tree destruction in Florida. Research, monitoring, surveillance, and
    new sources of resistant genetic material, including the use of
    biotechnology, may enable continued growth of citrus trees commercially
    and by homeowners. New technologies, e.g. the polymerase chain
    reaction, now enables us to detect minute quantities of etiological
    agents, including those previously ascribed to physiological problems
    in plants, such as the class of viruses known as luteoviruses.
                                  food safety
        Foodborne illness continues to pose a major public health problem
    in the U.S. The ASM recommends that Congress provide additional funding
    to USDA to expand food safety research. In a recent report it was
    estimated foodborne diseases cost the U.S. $8 billion in medical costs
    and lost productivity and an estimated 76 million illnesses a year
    (CDC). Further reducing foodborne illness requires not only preventing
    contamination through improved processing and inspection, but also
    educating consumers to avoid unsafe consumption choices and to prepare
    food safely to avoid cross-contamination. The 1997 Food Safety
    Initiative recognizes this with funding for a national media campaign
    to encourage safe food handling.
        Microorganisms continue to adapt to their changing environments and
    begin to ``out smart'' current techniques to control their presence.
    Many foodborne microbes have developed resistance to conventional food
    preservation and disinfection techniques and continue to proliferate.
    It is also important to note that the diversity of microorganisms
    affecting food safety changes with time, processing techniques,
    location and other factors. To illustrate the growing problem, one need
    only examine the number of USDA and FDA regulated food product recalls
    because of harmful bacteria. In 1995 the USDA and FDA recalled 265
    products due to microbial hazards; in 1999, the number of recalls rose
    to 337.
                               microbial genomics
        Microbes are involved in all aspects of agriculture-from beneficial
    uses of microbes in food (i.e., yogurt, cheese, and bread) to pest
    controls to the spread of disease in plants and animals and the
    contamination of the food supply. Studying the genomes of agricultural
    microbes could lead to the development of new technologies to provide
    improved foods and better pest control to protect the nation's crops,
    to reduce the incidence of plant and animal disease, and to ensure a
    safer food supply. Thus, ASM is highly supportive of microbial genomics
    through the NRI and IFAFS programs. Coordination and cooperation with
    the National Science Foundation in this area is particularly promising.
                               biobased products
        The ASM continues to support the promising research to accelerate
    the conversion of agricultural materials and byproducts into biofuels,
    such as soybean oil conversion into (bio)diesel fuel. Such scientific
    advancements in biobased product research have the added benefit of
    enhancing farm income, strengthening U.S. energy security, rural
    revitalization, and environmental stewardship. Current scientific
    estimates suggest that energy production from biofuels could generate
    up to 10 percent to 15 percent of the nation's energy needs. ASM
    believes agriculture can play a positive role in achieving U.S. energy
    security and encourages Congress to consider the benefit biofuels
    represents to the entire agriculture and consumer community.
                             global competitiveness
        Recent adoption of the Uruguay Round, which confines the use of
    import restrictions on agriculture products of the General Agreement on
    Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the North American Free Trade Agreement
    (NAFTA) pose great challenges to American agriculture. While domestic
    advances in agricultural technology, including biotechnology, have
    achieved great strides in food production, safety, and nutrition, they
    will also provide similar advances to other nations. Agricultural
    competitiveness in the global economy depends upon the ability of
    producers and processors to make measurable production and quality
    gains while providing desirable products that are reliable and safe.
    Agricultural research in food safety, production systems, and
    biotechnology will be key instruments in maintaining America's
    agricultural competitiveness, while providing food security.
        The ASM encourages Congress give high priority to agricultural
    research for fiscal year 2002. Many of today's scientific achievements
    leading to the development of biotechnology, genetically modified
    foods, improved crops and plant-based products and an improved
    environment have their roots in the basic research conducted by the
    USDA. The future holds several challenges from the monitoring of the
    ecological impact of transgenic plants to research in plant and animal
    diseases that is requisite to combating agricultural bioterrorism. We
    urge the Administration and Congress to assist the USDA to address
    these issues.
        The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
    and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as the Department of
    Agriculture bill is considered throughout the congressional process.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers

        Chairman Cochran and Members of the Subcommittee: The American
    Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is pleased to offer this testimony on
    the President's proposed budget for the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service (NRCS) for fiscal year 2002.
        ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
    engineering organization. It represents more than 125,000 civil
    engineers in private practice, government, industry and academia who
    are dedicated to the advancement of the science and profession of civil
    engineering. ASCE is a 501(c)(3) non-profit educational and
    professional society.
             nrcs & the small watershed dam rehabilitation program
         ASCE is concerned that no funds have been requested in the
    President's budget to fund the Small Watershed Dam Rehabilitation
    Program that was authorized on November 9, 2000, in PL-106-472, Section
    313. We hope the outcome of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process
    will enable this vital work to begin and expand as we seek to preserve,
    protect and better manage our nation's water and land resources. Every
    state in the United States has benefited from the Small Watershed
    Program.
        Of the 75,000 dams in the United States, 95 percent are regulated
    by the states. Approximately 10,400 of these dams are small watershed
    structures built under the United States Department of Agriculture
    programs authorized by Congress beginning in the 1940s (primarily the
    Flood Control Act of 1944, PL-534 and the Watershed Protection and
    Flood Control Act of 1953, PL-566). By the year 2020, more than 85
    percent of all dams in the United States will be more than 50 years
    old, the typical useful life span.
                       the urgent need for federal action
        The benefits from the 10,400 improved watershed dams are enormous.
    The dams provide downstream flood protection, water quality,
    irrigation, local water supplies and needed recreation. Yet these
    benefits to lives and property are threatened. The small watershed dams
    are approaching the end of their useful lives as critical components
    deteriorate. The reservoirs become completely filled with sediment,
    downstream development increases the potential hazards and
    significantly changes the design standards, and many dams do not meet
    state dam safety standards.
        Although these dams were constructed with technical and financial
    assistance from the Department of Agriculture, local sponsors were then
    responsible for operation and maintenance of the structures. Now these
    dams are approaching the end of their useful lives, yet the resource
    need is still great. The flood control benefits, the irrigation needs,
    the water supply, the recreation and the conservation demands do not
    end. In fact, they are more necessary than ever as downstream
    development has dramatically increased the number of people, properties
    and infrastructure that are protected by the flood control functions of
    these dams. The Federal government has a critical leadership role in
    assuring that these dams continue to provide critical safety and
    resource needs.
        The NRCS in the Department of Agriculture has estimated the cost of
    rehabilitating the small watershed dams at $542 million. While the
    average rehabilitation cost per dam is approximately $242,000, the
    local sponsors typically do not have sufficient financial resources to
    complete these necessary repairs to assure the safety and critical
    functions of these dams. The Federal government must recognize the
    urgent need to provide assistance to maintain these dams. Congress
    should reinforce its earlier commitment to the goals of the Flood
    Control Acts of 1944 and 1953.
                             extent of the problem
        ASCE views funding of dam safety repairs as a critical need. In the
    recently released Report Card for America's Infrastructure dams
    received a grade of D. Nearly 2,000 unsafe dams have been identified in
    this country and many of the owners do not have sufficient funding
    sources. Last year Congress proposed funding $60 million a year for 10
    years, but the legislation enacted only authorizes $90 million spread
    over five years. However, this is an important first step in
    recognizing and resolving the enormous problem with deteriorating and
    aging dams. Many of these urgent repairs and modifications are needed
    because of the following: downstream development within the dam failure
    flood zone, replacement of critical dam components, inadequate spillway
    capacity due to significant watershed development and increased design
    criteria due to downstream development.
        Many of the small watershed dams do not meet minimum state dam
    safety standards and many that are being counted on for flood
    protection can no longer provide flood protection due to excessive
    sedimentation and significant increases in runoff from development
    within the watershed. The dams suffer from cracked concrete spillways,
    failing spillways, inoperable lake drains and other problems that
    require major repairs that are beyond the capability of the local
    sponsors.
                             the cost of no action
        These small watershed dams have been a silent and beneficial part
    of the landscape; but failure to make the necessary upgrades, repairs
    and modifications will increase the likelihood of dam failures.
    Continued neglect of these structures may easily result in reduced
    flood control capacity causing increased downstream flooding. Failure
    of a dam providing water supply would result in a lack of drinking
    water or important irrigation water.
        The floods in Georgia in 1993 and in the Midwest in 1994 are recent
    reminders of natural events that can cause enormous disasters,
    including dam failures. The failure to act quickly will clearly result
    in continued deterioration and a greater number of unsafe dams until a
    dam failure disaster occurs. The failure of a 38-foot tall dam in New
    Hampshire in 1996, which caused $5.5 million in damage and one death,
    should be a constant reminder that dam failures happen and can have
    tragic consequences.
        Completion of the needed repairs will result in safer dams, as well
    as continued benefits. Failure to establish a mechanism to reinvest in
    these structures will greatly increase the chances of dam failures and
    loss of benefits, both having significant economic and human
    consequences. Costs resulting from flood damage and dam failure damage
    are high and unnecessarily tap the Federal government through disaster
    relief funds or the National Flood Insurance Program.
                                 recommendation
        ASCE urges the committee to approve full funding at the authorized
    level of $10 million, and an additional $5 million to make up for
    funding not received in fiscal year 2001 for the Small Watershed Dams
    Rehabilitation Program (PL-106-472, Section 313). Additionally, we
    would like to see these rehabilitation funds be a separate line item in
    the NRCS budget in an effort to better track the rehabilitation funding
    approved by Congress. While, this is well short of the demonstrated
    need of $60 million a year for 10 years, it would be a step in the
    right direction.
        The condition of our nation's dams, and the need for watershed
    structure rehabilitation, should be a national priority before we have
    to clean up after dam failures that we know are likely to happen if
    nothing is done.
        ASCE also supports a research and development (R&D) program as we
    get the structural rehabilitation process underway. In the USDA, the
    Agricultural Research Service (ARS) undertakes that work. We
    respectfully request that $1.5 million be included in the ARS budget
    for small watershed research. These funds would be used for evaluation
    of upstream and downstream changes to the stream channel systems in
    cases of decommissioning, evaluation of the water quality impact of
    stored sediment releases, and the evaluation of impacts of the loss of
    flood protection, among other things.
    NRCS & the Snow Telemetary Program
        In the West, water--much of which flows from mountain snows--is one
    of our most precious natural resources. This year the West is faced
    simultaneously with potential drought, wildfires, and an energy crisis
    in part due to reduced hydropower generation. To effectively manage
    this important resource, it is essential to have accurate water-supply
    data.
        Therefore, we respectfully request that you include $8,515,000 (a
    $2,525,000 increase) in the Natural Resources Conservation Service's
    Conservations Operations Account (CO-01) and Snow Survey and Water
    Supply Forecasting Subaccount (CO-45) in the Agriculture appropriations
    bill. This service is administered by the National Water and Climate
    Center (NWCC), and operates in each western state. The base budget
    amount of $5,990,000 is not adequate to operate and maintain the
    existing system of 656 SNOTEL (SNOw-TELemetry) sites and 1,110 snow
    courses measured manually.
        The vital information obtained through this water-supply data is
    used by various government agencies and other public and private
    entities and individuals to project spring and summer water supplies
    for agriculture, municipal, and industrial uses, hydropower production,
    recreation, fish and wildlife management, endangered species needs,
    flood control, and other purposes. Non-Federal cooperators contribute
    money and in-kind services in support of the system.
        Over the past five years, level Federal appropriations in the face
    of increasing costs has left the Snow Survey and Water Supply
    Forecasting program in serious circumstances. Given past and present
    funding requests from the Executive Branch, and the subsequent erosion
    in program resources, the NWCC has prepared a protocol for
    discontinuing 10 to 15 percent of the SNOTEL sites. In order to protect
    the nation's $30 million investment in this vital network, a $2,525,000
    increase is needed over and above the $5,990,000 base amount, for a
    total of $8,515,000.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Physiologists

        Mr. Chairman, the American Society of Plant Physiologists
    representing 6,000 plant scientists, appreciates this opportunity to
    submit comments to the Subcommittee for its consideration of fiscal
    year 2002 appropriations for research sponsored by the Department of
    Agriculture.
        Support by the Subcommittee for the National Research Initiative
    Competitive Grants Program (NRI) provides the agricultural research
    community and America's farmers with a highly acclaimed program that
    determines awards through a rigorous peer review process.
        The National Research Council Board on Agriculture and Natural
    Resources committee report on the NRI last year strongly endorsed
    support for this competitive grants program. The NRC committee ``found
    the NRI to have financed high-quality scientific work within
    congressional guidelines. . . . The committee reiterates the
    extraordinary importance of public merit-based peer-reviewed research
    in food, fiber and natural resources. In the committee's opinion, past
    public research and current private activities cannot meet the needs
    that are being created by population growth, climate change and natural
    resource deterioration or the challenges related to food safety and
    nutrition and to the growing convergence of foods and medical
    research.''
        The NRC committee recommended that a major emphasis of the NRI
    continue to be the support of high-risk research with potential long-
    term payoffs. Much of this research would be classified as fundamental
    in the traditional use of this term.
        A major conclusion of the NRC committee was that, ``Without a
    dramatically enhanced commitment to merit-based peer-reviewed, food,
    fiber and natural resources research, the nation places itself at
    risk.''
        In addition to the direct benefits to farmers and consumers that
    result from the leading research discoveries sponsored by the NRI,
    increased support for the program would help maintain the strength and
    vigor of the nation's agricultural research community. We urge the
    Subcommittee to increase support for the NRI, including NRI-sponsored
    plant research to help meet the important long-term research needs of
    America's farmers.
        The Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) has
    provided grants at levels that enable scientists of different
    institutions and disciplines to work together in addressing important
    research questions. ASPP urges the Subcommittee to continue support for
    IFAFS in the fiscal year 2002 appropriation at the level authorized by
    statute.
        The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) continues to address
    effectively many important research questions for American agriculture.
    American farmers and consumers are well-served by the large number of
    successful research efforts of ARS scientists. Continued support for a
    balanced research portfolio in the Department including intramural and
    extramural research is needed to address the many and sometimes
    devastating problems farmers face in growing crops.
        ASPP supports the request of the National Coalition for Food and
    Agricultural Research (National C-FAR) to double support for
    agricultural research over five years--a rate of increase averaging
    more than 14 percent a year. We encourage the Subcommittee to increase
    support for all agricultural research programs supported by the
    Department of Agriculture by more than 14 percent this year.
        What could be done with this requested increase in funding? In the
    plant science area alone, we know that extraordinary advances can be
    achievable with sufficient support and time. Increased funding can be
    expected to accelerate the time in which advances could be made.
        The age of genomics and biotechnology has brought revolutionary new
    tools to plant scientists to better serve the needs of agriculture.
    Following this paragraph is a look back to what has happened in
    agriculture in the past century to offer some guideposts for a look
    ahead to the new century before us. The look ahead includes projections
    of what may be expected to be achieved earlier or later in this new
    century depending upon levels of support for research. We appreciate
    the assistance of ASPP Education Foundation Chairman Bob Goldberg,
    Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and founding
    editor-in-chief of the widely cited science journal, THE PLANT CELL,
    for his contributions to this following look back and ahead for plant
    science and agriculture.
        Starting with the year 1900, we find that Mendel's laws of genetics
    were not widely understood. The tools and knowledge base of those
    studying plants at the time are now seen as quite primitive. The study
    of Botany focused more on the classification of species of plants. The
    study of plant physiology within Botany to learn more of the structure
    and functions of plants would not emerge as a strong separate
    discipline until the end of the first quarter of the century.
        Despite the modest state of plant science and agriculture in 1900,
    the ensuing 100 years reaped increases in crop yields in the range of
    300 percent. In addition, the number of Americans needed to work on
    farms to produce food for the rest of us dwindled from one in two
    people to nearly one in 100.
        Along the way, developments in the area of plant breeding, genetic
    engineering, genomics, irrigation, use of fertilizers, computers, and
    other advances helped transform plant science, American agriculture and
    the nation itself.
        For the 21st Century, plant scientists predict even more impressive
    gains--gains for which there are a definite need. In the next 50 years
    , we will have to produce more food than has ever been produced in the
    collective history of people on earth. On a world scale, agriculture on
    a per capita basis is on a decline as we begin the 21st Century. Today
    we have hunger even in parts of prosperous nations like the U.S.
        At the same time, the world is near the limits of available land
    and other resources for agriculture. More environmentally benign
    agricultural practices and more productive plants will be needed. In
    addition to demands on cropland for food, there will be increased
    demands on farmers to grow energy feedstocks. Some plant scientists
    predict that plants will rival petroleum for the production of
    industrial chemical products such as polymers, polyurethane, nylon and
    other materials. New high value energy crops will provide new
    profitable markets for American farmers who will become less dependent
    on government subsidies.
        Major crops will be genetically modified to fix nitrogen as is now
    found in legumes, leading to less use of applied fertilizers and to a
    cleaner environment. Dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and other cases
    of contaminated waterways reportedly linked to agricultural runoff
    would be addressed through use of engineered crop plants that can fix
    nitrogen.
        The lines between agricultural research and medical research will
    blur as advances in plant science will address nutritionally related
    human health diseases on a mass public health scale. Calcium deficiency
    is common in the diets of American adolescents, particularly girls,
    leaving many with less dense bones more susceptible to fracture and
    osteoporosis later in life. Foods commonly eaten by children will be
    engineered by plant scientists to contain higher levels of calcium. A
    number of common mineral and vitamin deficiencies in diets causing
    various maladies for people here and abroad will be addressed by
    enhanced foods engineered by plant scientists. Anemia, the most
    widespread ailment related to nutritional deficiency in the developing
    world, will be addressed by a new ``Golden Rice'' with higher levels of
    usable iron. This rice will also contain higher levels of beta
    carotene, which converts to Vitamin A after human consumption. This
    enhanced rice could prevent 500,000 cases of child blindness annually.
        Millions of Americans and many more people overseas have allergies
    to proteins in widely consumed existing foods such as wheat and milk.
    We have already seen success in laboratory experiments supported by the
    NRI that are eliminating allergens in wheat and milk. Researchers have
    identified a number of other foods that could be made safer for
    consumption through this research using biotechnology. Millions of
    cases of allergic reactions to foods will be averted through these
    genetically enhanced foods. High value, allergen-free wheat and other
    commodity products will be grown by American farmers who will find new
    premium markets for their products.
        Plants have long been a major source of pharmaceutical products. As
    plant scientists combine use of modern transformation technologies with
    increased knowledge of plant genomes, many more life saving medicines
    will be developed. Some of these plant-based pharmaceutical products
    will take the form of edible vaccines--such as bananas genetically
    engineered to produce a vaccine for hepatitis B or deadly infant
    diarrhea.
        Genomics will help in understanding hybrid vigor to produce
    enhanced, higher yielding crops. Plant scientists will learn how to
    change the size and number of plant seeds and organs. The earliest
    events controlling plant reproduction will be understood.
        Scientists may learn how to engineer plants that will better
    capture higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for use with
    the sun's energy in photosynthesis, leading to faster growing plants
    and possibly an additional harvest season for some crops.
        Plants engineered to tolerate higher levels of salinity will help
    farmers salvage more of their crops in dry seasons. Increased tolerance
    of future engineered plants to environmental stresses of cold and
    freezing will be a boon to the horticultural industry and other
    growers. The Federal government will experience savings in emergency
    spending for crop disasters--some disasters that will be avoided
    through use of new, enhanced plants.
        Just as we found in the century past, the advances in the 21st
    Century will transform plant science, American agriculture, the nation
    and world our grandchildren will inhabit. Indeed, this transformation
    will have to occur because the well-being and even survival of many in
    future generations will require it.
        Again, thank you for this opportunity to submit comments to the
    Subcommittee. We appreciate the Subcommittee's leadership in support of
    agricultural research.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Association of Research Directors

        Chairman Cochran, and other distinguished members of the Committee,
    I am Carolyn Brooks, Dean of the School of Agricultural and Natural
    Sciences and Research Director at the University of Maryland Eastern
    Shore and Chair of the Association of Research Directors (ARD) of the
    eighteen Historically Black Land-Grant Colleges and Universities,
    including Tuskegee University (hereafter referred to as the 1890s). Mr.
    Chairman, I submit, on behalf of the ARD, this written testimony in
    support of the fiscal year 2002 Federal Budget recommendations,
    primarily those submitted by the National Association of State
    Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC).
                              general information
        The role of the 1890 Land-Grant institutions, relative to research
    in the food, fiber, and agricultural sciences, partnering and
    collaborating with USDA, NASULGC and other entities, is to conduct
    basic and applied research to ensure a safe, economical and adequate
    food supply, promote a sustainable environment, conserve the natural
    resource base, and contribute to the improvement of the socio-economic
    well-being and overall quality of life of diverse rural and urban
    populations. Research at our institutions is increasingly multi-
    institutional, multi-state and stakeholder driven and is focused on:
      --Economically competitive and sustainable small-scale agricultural
            systems;
      --Crop diversity/alternative crops and marketing strategies for
            farmers;
      --Food safety and quality;
      --Family and community development;
      --Protection and improvement of water quality and quantity;
      --Waste management and prevention of environmental pollution;
      --Value-added plant and animal products; and
      --Improved nutrition and health of urban and rural populations.
        The 1890 Land-Grant mission of providing access to higher education
    and opportunities for betterment of life for all Americans constantly
    guides the plans and initiatives in research, outreach and academic
    programs of these institutions. The general philosophy of the 1890s is
    that ``men and women of talent and ability, regardless of their
    economic and social condition, can contribute to the common good, with
    hard work and the opportunity to develop and prosper.'' Although the
    1890s proudly keep pace with mainstream education and cutting-edge
    advancement, these campuses hold true to focusing on viable research
    programs that focus on societal needs and increasing diversity within
    the human resource capital.
                             budget recommendations
        The 1890s/ARD request continuing support of these research efforts,
    which will result in having positive impacts and valuable benefits for
    the people served and will involve students, giving them valuable
    training and experience in research methodology and practices. Research
    initiatives the 1890s/ARD request congressional support for in the
    fiscal year 2002 Federal Budget are:
    To Strengthen The Evans-Allen Base Program
        The Evans-Allen formula funding provides the 1890s with their
    primary financial support to conduct research in the food, fiber, and
    agricultural sciences. The research conducted by these institutions
    provides both proactive and reactive responses to public concern about
    environmental, social, economic, and health issues, small-scale
    agriculture, and small business enterprises. The NASULGC/ARD budget
    request for this research program is $36,197,000.
    To Enhance Research and Teaching Initiatives
        The 1890s are the major producers of African-American minority
    human capital resources in food, fiber, and agricultural sciences. The
    human capital resources produced by these institutions meet a
    significant employment need of their land-grant partners, which include
    USDA agencies, private industry, and 1862 Land-Grant Universities.
    Initiatives to be supported are:
        The Capacity Building Grants Program.--This highly competitive
    program is needed to continue to build and enhance the capacity of the
    1890s in research and teaching endeavors. Because of a history of
    neglect and underfunding, it is amazing how the 1890s have been able to
    do so much with so little. At least 80 percent of all African Americans
    who receive baccalaureate degrees in the agricultural sciences have
    received their education from 1890 institutions. These students deserve
    the same quality of education provided at higher funded institutions.
    Capacity Building grants assist the 1890s to raise the quality of
    research and teaching programs at our institutions. We have a unique
    and vital mission as intellectual, educational, service centers and
    funding that recognizes this is crucial to our vitality and quality.
    The NASULGC/ARD budget request for this grant program is $15,000,000.
        The Facilities Grants Program.--Funds may be used by the recipient
    institutions to purchase land, acquire state-of-the-art equipment, and
    renovate or construct facilities to enhance their teaching, research
    and extension land-grant programs. The NASULGC/ARD budget request for
    this grant program is $15,000,000.
                                closing comments
        Mr. Chairman, based on past accomplishments of which we are
    extremely proud, and a visionary approach, the 1890s/ARD are
    positioning themselves to enter the 21st Century with a renewed
    commitment and capacity to implement their land-grant research mission.
    Full appropriations of the fiscal year 2002 budget recommendations as
    stated above will facilitate this and is vital to the ARD member
    institutions. I thank you very much for allowing me to address this
    honorable body and if there is a need for additional information, you
    may contact me as indicated below.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
                                      Inc.

        Chairman Cochran and Members of the Subcommittee: The Association
    of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO) is pleased to offer this
    testimony on the President's proposed budget for the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS) for fiscal year 2002.
        The Association of State Dam Safety Officials is a national
    organization of more than 2,000 state, Federal and local dam safety
    officials and private sector individuals dedicated to improving dam
    safety through research, education and communications. Our goal is to
    save lives, prevent damage to property and maintain the benefits of
    dams by preventing dam failures. Several devastating dam failures
    occurring in the 1970s focused attention on the potential catastrophic
    results of dam failures. These dramatic failures demonstrate that dams
    should always be properly constructed, operated and maintained to
    continue to provide important benefits and prevent failures.
        ASDSO is concerned that no funds have been requested in the
    President's budget to fund the Small Watershed Dam Rehabilitation
    Program that was authorized on November 9, 2000, in Public Law 106-472,
    Section 313. We hope the outcome of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations
    process will enable this vital work to begin and expand as we seek to
    preserve, protect and better manage our nation's water and land
    resources. Every state in the United States has benefited from the
    Small Watershed Program.
        Dams are an important part of the nation's infrastructure. They
    provide flood control, water supply, irrigation, hydropower and water
    quality benefits. Of the 75,000 dams in the United States, 95 percent
    are regulated by the states. Approximately 10,400 of these dams are
    small watershed structures built under the United States Department of
    Agriculture programs authorized by Congress beginning in the 1940s
    (primarily the Flood Control Act of 1944, Public Law 534 and the
    Watershed Protection and Flood Control Act of 1953, Public Law 566). By
    the year 2020, more than 85 percent of all dams in the United States
    will be more than 50 years old, the typical useful life span.
                       the urgent need for federal action
        The benefits from the 10,400 improved watershed dams are enormous.
    The dams provide downstream flood protection, water quality,
    irrigation, local water supplies and needed recreation. Yet these
    benefits to lives and property are threatened. The small watershed dams
    are approaching the end of their useful lives as critical components
    deteriorate. The reservoirs become completely filled with sediment,
    downstream development increases the potential hazards and
    significantly changes the design standards, and many dams do not meet
    state dam safety standards.
        Although these dams were constructed with technical and financial
    assistance from the Department of Agriculture, local sponsors were then
    responsible for operation and maintenance of the structures. Now these
    dams are approaching the end of their useful lives, yet the resource
    need is still great. The flood control benefits, the irrigation needs,
    the water supply, the recreation and the conservation demands do not
    end. In fact, they are more necessary than ever as downstream
    development has dramatically increased the number of people, properties
    and infrastructure that are protected by the flood control functions of
    these dams. The Federal government has a critical leadership role in
    assuring that these dams continue to provide critical safety and
    resource needs.
        The NRCS in the Department of Agriculture has estimated the cost of
    rehabilitating the small watershed dams at $542 million. While the
    average rehabilitation cost per dam is approximately $242,000, the
    local sponsors typically do not have sufficient financial resources to
    complete these necessary repairs to assure the safety and critical
    functions of these dams. The Federal government must recognize the
    urgent need to provide assistance to maintain these dams. Congress
    should reinforce its earlier commitment to the goals of the Flood
    Control Acts of 1944 and 1953.
                             extent of the problem
        ASDSO views funding of dam safety repairs as a critical need.
    Nearly 2,000 unsafe dams have been identified in this country and many
    of the owners do not have sufficient funding sources. Last year
    Congress proposed funding $60 million a year for 10 years, but the
    legislation enacted only authorizes $90 million spread over five years.
    However, this is an important first step in recognizing and resolving
    the enormous problem with deteriorating and aging dams. Many of these
    urgent repairs and modifications are needed because of the following:
    downstream development within the dam failure flood zone, replacement
    of critical dam components, inadequate spillway capacity due to
    significant watershed development and increased design criteria due to
    downstream development.
        Many of the small watershed dams do not meet minimum state dam
    safety standards and many that are being counted on for flood
    protection can no longer provide flood protection due to excessive
    sedimentation and significant increases in runoff from development
    within the watershed. The dams suffer from cracked concrete spillways,
    failing spillways, inoperable lake drains and other problems that
    require major repairs that are beyond the capability of the local
    sponsors.
                             the cost of no action
        These small watershed dams have been a silent and beneficial part
    of the landscape; but failure to make the necessary upgrades, repairs
    and modifications will increase the likelihood of dam failures.
    Continued neglect of these structures may easily result in reduced
    flood control capacity causing increased downstream flooding. Failure
    of a dam providing water supply would result in a lack of drinking
    water or important irrigation water.
        The floods in Georgia in 1993 and in the Midwest in 1994 are recent
    reminders of natural events that can cause enormous disasters,
    including dam failures. The failure to act quickly will clearly result
    in continued deterioration and a greater number of unsafe dams until a
    dam failure disaster occurs. The failure of a 38-foot tall dam in New
    Hampshire in 1996, which caused $5.5 million in damage and one death,
    should be a constant reminder that dam failures happen and can have
    tragic consequences.
        Completion of the needed repairs will result in safer dams, as well
    as continued benefits. Failure to establish a mechanism to reinvest in
    these structures will greatly increase the chances of dam failures and
    loss of benefits, both having significant economic and human
    consequences. Costs resulting from flood damage and dam failure damage
    are high and unnecessarily tap the Federal government through disaster
    relief funds or the National Flood Insurance Program.
                                 recommendation
        ASDSO urges the committee to approve full funding at the authorized
    level of $10 million, and an additional $5 million to make up for
    funding not received in fiscal year 2001 for the Small Watershed Dams
    Rehabilitation Program (Public Law 106-472, Section 313). Additionally,
    we would like to see these rehabilitation funds be a separate line item
    in the NRCS budget in an effort to better track the rehabilitation
    funding approved by Congress. While, this is well short of the
    demonstrated need of $60 million a year for 10 years, it would be a
    step in the right direction.
        The condition of our nation's dams, and the need for watershed
    structure rehabilitation, should be a national priority before we have
    to clean up after dam failures that we know are likely to happen if
    nothing is done.
        ASDSO also supports a research and development (R&D) program as we
    get the structural rehabilitation process underway. In the USDA, the
    Agricultural Research Service (ARS) undertakes that work. We
    respectfully request that $1.5 million be included in the ARS budget
    for small watershed research. These funds would be used for evaluation
    of upstream and downstream changes to the stream channel systems in
    cases of decommissioning, evaluation of the water quality impact of
    stored sediment releases, and the evaluation of impacts of the loss of
    flood protection, among other things.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Bernard H. Berne, M.D., Ph.D.

        I am a resident of Arlington, Virginia. I serve the Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA) as a Medical Officer and as a reviewer medical
    device approval applications. I am testifying as a private individual.
        I ask your Subcommittee to deny the Administration's request to
    provide $6,000,000 for costs related to occupancy of new FDA facilities
    at White Oak, Maryland. This request appears in the President's Budget
    for fiscal year 2002 on p. 435 under the heading ``Department of Health
    and Human Services'', ``Food and Drug Administration'', ``Salaries and
    Expenses''. The Budget states on p. 436 that these funds would support
    the first phase of FDA's consolidation into the White Oak, Maryland,
    site.
        The General Services Administration (GSA) is now starting to design
    and construct this facility. These would be the first funds that
    Congress would appropriate to the Department of Health and Human
    Services (HHS) and FDA to support the White Oak project. Please deny
    these funds for the following reasons:
                            economic considerations
        FDA will need to pay rent to GSA if it occupies this facility.
    FDA's future budgets, which your Subcommittee would fund, would pay
    these rents. The rents would likely be higher than rents that GSA and
    FDA pay to private property owners, since GSA would not need to enter
    into competitive bidding processes.
        Congressional authorizing committees need to evaluate the current
    costs of the consolidation and compare them to the costs of maintaining
    FDA's current facilities. No Congressional committee has done this
    during the past ten years.
        All or nearly all of FDA's offices that would move to White Oak are
    presently located in satisfactory leased facilities. Some, such as my
    own, are in excellent buildings. There is no urgent need or economic
    reason to relocate these offices to White Oak.
        Despite this, the requested $6,000,000 would support the relocation
    of the Office of Compliance of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
    Research (CDER) to White Oak. There is no clear need for this
    relocation, since it would put 20 miles between this office and all
    other CDER offices. The relocation would clearly decrease FDA's
    efficiency by decreasing interactions between this office and related
    ones.
        GSA has recently encountered delays in its design and construction
    efforts. It appears that FDA will not be able to utilize any of the
    appropriated funds in fiscal year 2002. FDA apparently can not occupy
    the facility until fiscal year 2003.
        The Budget request is therefore premature. There is no need need to
    provide the requested $6,000,000 at this time.
                                    location
        White Oak is an unsatisfactory location for FDA's headquarters
    consolidation. The project would promote urban sprawl.
        FDA's White Oak facility would occupy 125 acres next to a golf
    course in a suburban residential neighborhood in Montgomery County,
    Maryland. The FDA site is outside of the Capital Beltway on a largely
    forested 750-acre property surrounded by heavily congested roads and
    highways. The site is three miles from the nearest Metro station, and
    has only infrequent bus service.
        An FDA consolidation at White Oak would bring 6000 FDA employees to
    this Washington area suburb. Most would need to commute for much longer
    times and distances than they presently do. White Oak is more than 20
    miles from most present FDA facilities.
        I and thousands of other FDA employees presently commute to work by
    Metro, as our workplaces are near Metro stations. This will be
    impossible at White Oak.
        FDA employees driving to White Oak will add traffic congestion and
    air pollution to the Washington Metropolitan Area. This is especially
    unfortunate because the Washington Metropolitan Area already has the
    second worst traffic congestion of all urban areas in the United
    States.
        FDA employee surveys have revealed widespread opposition to this
    relocation. Last July, a survey of those employees who would relocate
    first to White Oak showed that 70 percent opposed the move. Many stated
    that the relocation would impair FDA's ability to regulate drugs and
    medical devices.
        A number of the employees noted that the first White Oak building
    will have few window offices. Many of the employees who would relocate
    to White Oak in the first phase presently have windows in their
    offices. The design of this building and the location of the facility
    will have long-lasting adverse effects on FDA's ability to recruit and
    retain qualified employees. The Washington Metropolitan area has a
    number of better sites at which FDA can consolidate. Among these is the
    Southeast Federal Center in downtown Washington, D.C. This
    underutilized 50-acre federally-owned property is adjacent to the Navy
    Yard Metro Station. It is only one mile from the U.S. Capitol and the
    headquarters of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
                                  legal issues
        On February 23, 2001, I and a number of other FDA employees joined
    the Sierra Club and the Forest Conservation Council in a law suit that
    is intended to stop the White Oak project. For a number of reasons,
    FDA's occupancy of any buildings at White Oak would be illegal. The
    U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is presently
    considering this suit.
        The White Oak facility would house the Office of the Commissioner
    of Food and Drugs, as well as most other FDA headquarters offices. This
    would violate 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72, which states: ``All offices attached to
    the seat of government shall be exercised in the District of Columbia,
    and not elsewhere, except as otherwise expressly provided in law.'' 4
    U.S.C. Sec. 72 is derived from the 1790 Act that established the
    District of Columbia as the Nation's capital. The first Congress
    enacted this law, which President George Washington signed.
        There is no law that expressly provides that FDA's headquarters
    offices shall be exercised outside of the District of Columbia.
        The FDA Revitalization Act (Public Law 101-635; 21 U.S.C.
    Sec. 369b), authorizes the Secretary of HHS to award contracts to
    acquire property and to construct and operate a consolidated FDA
    headquarters facility. This Act does not provide the location of the
    consolidated facility.
        I ask Congress not to appropriate funds to support an illegal
    activity. The 1790 Act had the worthy purpose of ensuring that all
    central offices of the Federal government would consolidate in the
    Federal capital District, and not elsewhere. The consolidated FDA
    facility would be one such office that is ``attached to the seat of
    government''.
        Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress exclusive
    jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. Your Committee should take
    no action to support the location of FDA's headquarters at a location
    that is outside of the District. Any such action would tend to vitiate
    this section of the Constitution, which 4 U.S.C. Sec. 72 is intended to
    support.
        Executive Order 12072, Aug. 16, 1978, states in Section 1-1,
    Subsection 101: ``Federal facilities and Federal use of space in urban
    areas shall serve to strengthen the nation's cities and to make them
    attractive places to live and work. Such Federal space shall conserve
    existing urban resources and encourage the development and
    redevelopment of cities.''
        White Oak is not in or near any city. An FDA consolidation at White
    Oak (which is in an ``urban area'', the Washington Metropolitan Area)
    would not strengthen any cities. The FDA facility would not encourage
    the development or redevelopment of any cities.
        Executive Order 12072, Section 1-1, Subsection 101, contains the
    word ``shall'' in several locations. FDA therefore can not legally
    locate its headquarters in suburban White Oak.
        Executive Order 12072 and several Federal statutes require that
    heads of Federal agencies consult with local city officials to obtain
    their recommendations for and objections to all proposed new Federal
    facilities. Neither GSA nor FDA officials ever consulted with officials
    of the District of Columbia or of the City of Rockville in Montgomery
    County, Maryland, concerning the White Oak facility.
        This lack of consultation violated Executive Order 12072 and
    several laws. It prevented District and Rockville officials from
    recommending alternative sites for the consolidated facility within
    their own jurisdictions and from objecting to the selection of the
    White Oak site.
        The Public Buildings Act of 1959 requires that the Committee on
    Environment and Public Works of the U.S. Senate approve prospectuses
    that describe the location and maximum costs of any large buildings
    that GSA may wish to construct before Congress can appropriate funds to
    design and construct such buildings. That Committee has never approved
    a prospectus that describes FDA's White Oak facility.
        The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2000
    (Public Law 101-58) appropriated funds to GSA that could support the
    first phase of FDA's consolidation in Montgomery County, Maryland.
    However, Public Law 101-58 contains a provision at 113 Stat. 451 that
    states: ``Provided further, That funds available to the General
    Services Administration shall not be available for expenses in
    connection with any construction, repair, alteration, or acquisition
    project for which a prospectus, if required by the Public Buildings Act
    of 1959, as amended, has not been approved, except that necessary funds
    may be expended for each project for required expenses in connection
    with the development of a proposed prospectus.''
        The Public Buildings Act of 1959 requires a prospectus that
    describes FDA's White Oak facility. No prospectus that described this
    facility had been approved before Public Law 101-58 was enacted into
    law. Therefore, GSA may only legally use the funds appropriated in this
    act for ``required expenses in connection with the development of a
    proposed prospectus''. GSA cannot legally use the funds to design and
    construct any buildings.
        Despite this prohibition, GSA is presently designing and starting
    to construct the first phase of the consolidation without an approved
    prospectus. This is illegal.
        The Budget asks Congress to appropriate funds in the Agriculture,
    Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration Appropriations Act,
    2002, that would enable FDA to occupy new facilities at White Oak that
    GSA would construct illegally. Your Committee should not initiate the
    appropriation of any such funds.
        The prospectus approval process is designed to assure that Congress
    evaluates the need, location, and maximum cost for all GSA building
    projects. Congress has never done this for the facilities that FDA
    would occupy at White Oak.
        The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires that
    Federal agencies compare in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
    alternative locations for any large new Federal facility. However, the
    EIS for the White Oak FDA facility did not make any such comparisons.
        The EIS only compared the environmental impacts of an FDA
    consolidation at White Oak with the ``no action'' alternative.
    Following this legally inadequate comparison, GSA and FDA officials
    selected White Oak as the location for the facility.
        GSA and FDA officials therefore violated NEPA when they selected
    the White Oak site. Congress should not appropriate funds to support
    this illegal selection.
        A Federal court may prevent FDA from consolidating its facilities
    at White Oak for one or more of the above reasons. Congress should not
    provide funds for FDA to occupy the White Oak facility until the
    Federal courts decide whether the project can proceed.
        I therefore ask that your Committee not provide the requested
    $6,000,000 to FDA in this legislation. Thank you.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the California Industry and Government Central
                        California Ozone Study Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
    Coalition we are pleased to submit this statement for the record in
    support of our fiscal year 2002 funding request of $500,000 from CSREES
    for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS).
        Ozone and particulate matter standards in most of central
    California are frequently exceeded. In 2003, the U.S. Environmental
    Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) will require that California submit SIPs
    to for the recently promulgated, national, 8-hour ozone standard. It is
    expected that such SIPs will be required for the San Francisco Bay
    Area, the Sacramento Valley, the San Joaquin Valley, and the Mountain
    Counties Air Basins. Photochemical air quality modeling will be
    necessary to prepare SIPs that are acceptable to the U.S. EPA.
        Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) is designed to enable central
    California to meet Clean Air Act requirements for ozone State
    Implementation Plans (SIPs) as well as advance fundamental science for
    use nationwide. The CCOS field measurement program was conducted during
    the summer of 2000 in conjunction with the California Regional PM10/
    PM2.5 Air Quality Study (CRPAQS), a major study of the origin, nature
    and extent of excessive levels of fine particles in central California.
    CCOS includes an ozone field study, a deposition study, data analysis,
    modeling performance evaluations, and a retrospective look at previous
    SIP modeling. The CCOS study area extends over central and most of
    northern California. The goal of the CCOS is to better understand the
    nature of the ozone problem across the region, providing a strong
    scientific foundation for preparing the next round of State and Federal
    attainment plans. The study includes six main components:
      --Developed the design of the field study
      --Conducted an intensive field monitoring study from June 1 to
            September 30, 2000
      --Developing an emission inventory to support modeling
      --Developing and evaluating a photochemical model for the region
      --Designing and conducting a deposition field study
      --Evaluating emission control strategies for the next ozone
            attainment plans
        CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
    representatives from Federal, State and local governments, as well as
    private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
    Valley Ozone Study and currently managing the California Regional
    Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
    environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
    provide a solid foundation for CCOS. The sponsors of CCOS, representing
    state, local government and industry, have contributed approximately
    $8.7 million for the field study. The Federal government contributed
    $500,000 for some data analysis. In addition, CCOS sponsors are
    providing $2 million of in-kind support. The Policy Committee is
    seeking Federal co-funding of additional $8.5 million to complete the
    data analysis and modeling portions of the study and for a future
    deposition study. California is an ideal natural laboratory for studies
    that address federal, agriculture-related issues, given the scale and
    diversity of the various ground surfaces in the region (crops,
    woodlands, forests, urban and suburban areas).
        For fiscal year 2002, our Coalition is seeking funding of $500,000
    through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Cooperative State
    Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Domestic
    agriculture is facing increasing international competition. Costs of
    production and processing are becoming increasingly more critical. The
    identification of cost-effective options for addressing environmental
    options affecting agricultural costs will contribute significantly to
    the long-term health and economic stability of local agriculture. A
    CSREES grant is needed to address the issue of biomass burning and
    alternatives to open burning. Biomass burning is managed in order to
    minimize smoke impacts and avoid violations of ambient air quality
    standards. The air quality impacts of using biomass as a fuel source
    and as an alternative to open burning need to be addressed. CCOS will
    improve the ability to assess the impacts of biomass power plants.
        There is a national need to address national data gaps and
    California should not bear the entire cost of the addressing these
    gaps. National data gaps include issues relating to the integration of
    particulate matter and ozone control strategies. The CCOS field study
    took place concurrently with the California Regional Particulate Matter
    Study--previously jointly funded through Federal, State, local and
    private sector funds. Thus, CCOS was timed to enable leveraging of the
    efforts for the particulate matter study. Some equipment and personnel
    served dual functions to reduce the net cost. From a technical
    standpoint, carrying out both studies concurrently was a unique
    opportunity to address the integration of particulate matter and ozone
    control efforts. CCOS was also cost-effective since it builds on other
    successful efforts including the 1990 San Joaquin Valley Ozone Study.
    Federal assistance is needed to effectively address these issues and
    CCOS provides a mechanism by which California pays half the cost of
    work that the Federal government should pursue.
        Scientists at the University of Nevada, Desert Research Institute
    (DRI) are involved with the CCOS. To expedite research studies related
    to biomass burning and smoke management for CCOS, it is requested that
    funds provided by CSREES be allocated directly to DRI.
        We appreciate the Subcommittee's consideration of our request.
    Thank you very much.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Coalition for APHIS/Animal Care
                                 Appropriations

        The Coalition for APHIS/Animal Care Appropriations first wishes to
    express its appreciation to the subcommittee and to the full committee
    for helping to improve Animal Welfare Act (AWA) enforcement in fiscal
    years 2000 and 2001 through the first funding increases the program has
    experienced in a decade. As you know, the Animal Welfare Act sets
    minimum standards of humane care for millions of animals in research
    institutions; in zoos, circuses, roadside menageries, and other
    exhibits; at the facilities of breeders and dealers; and during
    transportation by common carriers, such as airlines. After such a long
    period of budget stagnation and program retrenchment, the Animal Care
    (AC) division of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has put
    the new funds to good use by, among other things, increasing the number
    of compliance inspections, which are crucial to protecting human and
    animal health and safety as the law requires, from a low of 8,772 to a
    projected 10,086 this fiscal year. Moreover, Animal Care has initiated
    a more vigorous effort directed at unlicensed facilities, and has more
    frequently been able to confiscate and place animals immediately when
    necessary to relieve suffering.
        Our testimony today urges the subcommittee to continue to support
    this steady and much needed improvement in AWA enforcement, which would
    entail a modest total increase of $3.8 million in fiscal year 2002 in
    three critical AWA-related programs. We have attached materials
    providing details on each component of this request and have summarized
    as follows:
      --Ideally, Animal Care should be conducting 17,000 AWA compliance
            inspections per year (AC also carries out over 1,000
            prelicensing and preregistration inspections annually),
            conducting internal audits and inspector quality reviews, and
            expanding its programs for regulated industries. To sustain the
            progress it has achieved in the last two years, Animal Welfare
            will need a modest increase of $2.4 million in fiscal year
            2002, for a total appropriation of $14.5 million.
      --Ironically, Animal Care's enhanced AWA activities have now brought
            to the fore problems elsewhere, specifically in Investigative
            and Enforcement Services. This division supports AC's
            inspectors through timely and complete investigations of
            alleged Animal Welfare Act violations. Like AC, IES has
            experienced severe erosion in its purchasing power; unlike AC,
            however, it has not begun a recovery from the resulting erosion
            in its programs. In 2000, it had only 56 investigators, down
            from 73 in 1992. AWA investigations have dropped from
            approximately 800 in the early 1990s to 329 in 2000. A
            relatively small increase in fiscal year 2002 of $1 million,
            for a total appropriation of $7.263 million, would enable IES
            to add much-needed field investigators, especially in areas
            with high concentrations of animal welfare licensees and
            registrants. More investigations could be completed in less
            time and better tracking of unlicensed facilities would be
            possible. Because IES has other responsibilities unrelated to
            its role in AWA enforcement, we respectfully request that the
            following report language also be included so as to avoid
            confusion within the division:

        ``The Committee directs that the $1 million of additional funds for
    Investigative and Enforcement Services be used for enhanced enforcement
    of the Animal Welfare Act.''

      --An important resource for assisting research institutions in
            complying with the AWA is the Animal Welfare Information
            Center, which serves as a clearinghouse and education resource
            for all individuals involved in the care and use of animals for
            experimentation. However, its $750,000 appropriation is
            unchanged since AWIC's creation in 1985. With an additional
            $400,000 in fiscal year 2002, for total spending of $1.150
            million, the Center could, among other things, conduct more
            user workshops, develop web-based training, and expand its
            website content and improve the search engine to maximize
            access to the data available.
        We thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to express our
    support for this modest re-quest, one that is very small in the context
    of the department's budget but large in its ability to sustain and
    advance the progress in AWA enforcement that Congress has made possible
    in the past two years.
    coalition for aphis animal care appropriations fiscal year 2002 budget
                   request for animal welfare act enforcement
    Animal Care (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)
        Fiscal year 2002--$14.500 million (Needed increase of $2.4 million)
        Between fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1999, the appropriation
    for the Animal Welfare program under Animal Care remained stagnant,
    which meant a decrease in spending power. The number of inspectors
    responsible for nearly 10,000 sites fell from 88 to 64. Inspections
    dropped precipitously, from nearly 18,000 to 9,000. With respect to
    commercial dog breeders alone--some of the most problematic of
    licensees and the area where many unlicensed facilities operate--the
    average rate of inspection fell from three per year to one, which
    includes the average of four to eight visits required by noncompliant
    facilities. Audits by the Office of Inspector General found that
    ``APHIS did not ensure all sites are periodically inspected'' and ``did
    not perform all required reinspections.'' A 1998 audit found that ``of
    221 sites used by 3 airlines in one APHIS region, only 32 percent had
    been inspected since January 1995.'' In the meantime, problems during
    air travel continue to result in the death, injury, and loss of
    animals.
        In Fiscal Year 2000 and 2001, the Animal Welfare portion of Animal
    Care's budget rose by a cumulative $3 million, to $12.167 million. This
    increase has allowed a strengthening in the number of inspectors to 80
    and a slow recovery in the number of annual inspections (although in
    fiscal year 2000 the number still went down, it slowed considerably and
    actually went up in the last half of the year as the new staff went out
    into the field; just over 10,000 inspections are projected for fiscal
    year 2001). Animal Care has initiated a more vigorous enforcement
    effort directed at ``puppy mills'' that are in chronic violation of the
    law, as well as at those not licensed at all.
        These improvements are long overdue and most welcome and
    demonstrate the effective use to which Animal Care is putting its
    increased funding. They also show the tremendous need that remains. In
    order to ensure that all sites are visited at least once annually and
    all noncompliant facilities receive the needed follow up, AC should be
    conducting at least 17,000 compliance inspections per year. (AC also
    carries out over 1,000 prelicensing and preregistration inspections
    annually.) APHIS also expects--and indeed, is already seeing--a rise in
    the number of airline-related incidents it must investigate as a result
    of new reporting requirements mandated in the FAA Reauthorization Act
    (Public Law 106- 181, Section 710).
        A $2.4 million increase in fiscal year 2002, for a total
    appropriation of $14.5 million, would enable AC to maintain all current
    AWA activities; strengthen its field staff by hiring, training, and
    equipping an additional 12 inspectors; increase AWA inspections to
    approximately 11,600 and improve follow-up inspections to verify
    correction of violations; increase searches for unlicensed and
    unregistered operations and other illegal activities; handle Animal
    Welfare Act complaints more quickly; expand programs for regulated
    industries; and implement internal audits and inspector quality
    reviews.
    Investigative and Enforcement Services (Animal and Plant Health
            Inspection Service)
        Fiscal year 2002--$7.263 million (Needed increase of $1 million)
        APHIS's Investigative and Enforcement Services provides crucial
    support to Animal Care's inspectors (in addition to three other APHIS
    divisions) through timely and complete investigations of alleged Animal
    Welfare Act violations. IES staff perform a variety of critical
    functions, such as conducting investigations; tracking unresolved
    cases; coordinating investigative efforts within APHIS and with other
    Federal and State agencies; and training APHIS inspectors in
    documenting violations and gathering evidence.
        As with AC, ten years of static budgets have eroded IES's
    purchasing power, resulting in a substantial reduction in force, from
    73 investigators in 1992 to 56 in 2000. Only 329 AWA investigations
    occurred in 2000, a 58 percent drop from a yearly high of 800 in the
    early 1990s. The average time needed to complete an investigation in
    2000 was about 140 days; in the early 1990s, it was 60 days. Clearly
    the budget shortfalls during the last decade have had a serious
    detrimental impact on IES's operations, which in turn adversely affects
    the health Coalition for APHIS ANIMAL CARE Appropriations Page 4 and
    well-being of regulated animals, who may not receive relief until a
    case is resolved. Moreover, the deterrent effect of a sanction is
    severely diminished when action is not taken soon after the violation.
        IES's fiscal year 2001 budget is insufficient to keep up with the
    projected growth in demand for its investigative and enforcement
    services in the next few years as a result of the addition of 250
    inspectors to Plant Protection and Quarantine, and the addition of a
    total of 35 inspectors to Animal Care between Fiscal Year 2000 and
    2002.
        Because IES has fallen so far behind, the modest increase of
    $400,000 in the IES budget for fiscal year 2001 was insufficient to
    cover current program activities; most of it was immediately absorbed
    by cost of living increases. The APHIS Administrator made a one-time
    transfer to allow IES to fill critical vacancies in the central part of
    the country.
        An increase of $1 million in fiscal year 2002, for a total
    appropriation of $7.26 million, will enable IES to fill a critical
    vacancy for an enforcement specialist and continue to support the four
    field investigator positions now temporarily funded through the APHIS
    Administrator, as well as add four new field positions strategically
    placed in areas with high concentrations of animal welfare licensees
    and registrants. With these additional funds, other improvements in IES
    functions would occur, including:
      --Reducing time to complete investigations;
      --Allowing investigators to accompany Animal Care staff to
            noncompliant facilities;
      --Deploying ``quick-response'' teams to respond to high-priority
            violations;
      --Implementing electronic case report format to accelerate case
            routing and processing;
      --Increasing tracking of unlicensed operators.
        With this additional funding, IES would be able to respond more
    quickly to the growing number of new animal care violation cases and to
    enhance enforcement efforts directed toward protecting the welfare of
    animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
    The Animal Welfare Information Center (Office of Research, Education
            and Economics/National Agricultural Library)
        Fiscal year 2001--$750,000
        Fiscal year 2002--$1.150 million (Needed increase of $400,000)
        The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) was created by
    legislative mandate in the 1985 amendment to the Animal Welfare Act,
    the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act. The AWIC's purpose
    is to serve as a clearinghouse and educational resource for all
    individuals involved in the care and use of animals for
    experimentation. The Center provides information on appropriate care
    for animals including minimization of pain and distress, preventing
    unintended duplication of experiments, training for laboratory
    employees, legal requirements regarding the use of animals in research,
    and reduction and/or Coalition for APHIS ANIMAL CARE Appropriations
    Page 5 replacement of the use of animals in research, where possible.
    The website address for AWIC is http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic and users
    have accessed this site nearly half a million times in one year alone.
    It is an invaluable resource for the research community, yet its
    funding has remained stagnant at $750,000 since its creation more than
    fifteen years ago.
        We are seeking a $400,000 increase in appropriations to enable the
    AWIC to provide much needed services. These additional monies would
    permit the Center to sponsor workshops in different regions of the
    country and to develop web-based training to educate the regulated
    community and thereby ensure increased compliance with the Federal law.
    The website would be expanded with additional material and an updated
    search engine to maximize access to the data available and the
    efficiency of obtaining the data.
        Submitted on behalf of the Coalition for APHIS ANIMAL CARE
    Appropriations, representing regulated industry, the scientific
    community, humane organizations, and their members across the U.S.: The
    American Humane Association; The American Society for the Prevention of
    Cruelty to Animals; The American Veterinary Medical Association; The
    American Zoo and Aquarium Association; The Humane Society of the United
    States; National Association of Federal Veterinarians; Society for
    Animal Protective Legislative; Working for Animals used in Research,
    Drugs, and Surgery (WARDS)
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Coalition of ESPCoR States

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Coalition of
    EPSCoR States\1\ regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (USDA EPSCoR).
    USDA EPSCoR is extremely important to agricultural research in the
    state of Mississippi and in our nation. I appreciate the opportunity to
    submit this testimony.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
    Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma,
    Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and
    Wyoming.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I would also like to extend my appreciation to you, Mr. Chairman,
    for your strong support of USDA EPSCoR. This important program is
    having a significant impact in Mississippi and in the other USDA EPSCoR
    states. Your support and the support of this Subcommittee have been
    absolutely crucial in establishing and maintaining this important
    program. Mr. Chairman, those of us committed to improving Mississippi's
    research and development capability deeply appreciate your support and
    your effort. Thank you for your fine work representing Mississippi in
    the United States Senate.
        Seven Federal agencies have EPSCoR or EPSCoR-like programs,
    including USDA. EPSCoR works to improve our country's science and
    technology capability by funding activities of talented researchers in
    states that have historically not received significant Federal R&D
    funding. USDA EPSCoR was established in fiscal year 1992 with the goal
    of increasing the amount of agricultural research at academic
    institutions within states that have received limited competitive
    funding from USDA.
        The Mississippi EPSCoR program began in 1988 with the naming of the
    state EPSCoR Committee by the Governor. Mississippi EPSCoR obtained its
    first funding in 1989 from USDA EPSCoR's sister program in the National
    Science Foundation. Since that time, EPSCoR has had an enormously
    positive impact within the state and at the four research institutions
    and their affiliates.
        Because of the multi-institutional framework of EPSCoR and of the
    commitment of the state EPSCoR Committee to creating a critical mass of
    scientists and engineers around specific issues as well as a more fully
    developed statewide infrastructure, Mississippi EPSCoR has produced a
    stronger, more competitive research community and closer working
    relationships among the institutions that participate in the federal
    EPSCoR programs: Jackson State University, Mississippi State
    University, the University of Mississippi, the University of Southern
    Mississippi, and the University of Mississippi Medical Center.
        Mr. Chairman, USDA EPSCoR is helping to improve the quality and
    competitiveness of agriculture research in Mississippi. Since the
    program was established in 1992, a number of Mississippi researchers
    have received USDA EPSCoR Strengthening Awards. These investigators
    have been located at Mississippi State University, the University of
    Mississippi Medical Center, and the University of Southern Mississippi.
    The amount of USDA research funds received by Mississippi increased by
    more than 500 percent between 1990 and 1996, a clear indication that
    Mississippi researchers are becoming more effective.
        Important examples of Mississippi's research include studies in
    such areas as: kenaf processing, which is a potential economic
    opportunity for rural states; rapid detection of E coli, an important
    factor in food safety; and disease mechanisms in channel catfish, which
    impacts a significant cash crop across the southern part of the
    country. These projects and many, many others address issues important
    to rural states and to the rest of the nation. USDA EPSCoR allows
    researchers across our country to contribute to our economy and our
    agricultural research knowledge base.
        USDA EPSCoR states are those whose funding ranks no higher than the
    40th percentile of all states, based on a three year rolling average.
    The following states are eligible: Alaska, Arkansas, Connecticut,
    Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada,
    New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Carolina,
    South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and the
    Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Let me stress that EPSCoR relies on
    rigorous merit review in order to ensure that it funds only high-
    quality research.
        USDA makes four types of competitive awards through USDA EPSCoR:
    Research Career Enhancement Awards, Equipment Grants, Seed Grants, and
    Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards. Proposals must be
    related to the program priorities of the National Research Initiative
    Competitive Grants Program, which address critical issues facing
    agriculture today.
      --Research Career Enhancement Awards help faculty enhance their
            research capabilities by funding sabbatical leaves. Applicants
            may not have received a NRICGP competitive research grant
            within the past five years.
      --Equipment Grants strengthen the research capacity of institutions
            in USDA EPSCoR states. Each request shall be limited to one
            major piece of equipment within the cost range of $10,000-
            $250,000. The grant cannot exceed 50 percent of this cost or
            $50,000, whichever is less. The principal investigator for this
            grant is responsible for securing non-Federal matching funds.
      --Seed Grants enable researchers to collect preliminary data in
            preparation for applying for a standard research grant. Seed
            Grant awards are limited to a total cost of $75,000, including
            indirect costs, for two years and are non-renewable. Applicants
            must indicate how the research will enhance future
            competitiveness in applying for standard research grants.
      --Strengthening Standard Research Project Awards fund standard
            research projects of investigators who have not received a
            NRICGP grant within the past five years.
        Through USDA EPSCoR, Mississippi and the other USDA EPSCoR States
    contribute more effectively to our nation's science and technology
    capability, and help provide our country with needed, high-quality,
    peer-reviewed research. This program allows all regions of our country
    to contribute to our nation's science and technology capability while
    allowing flexibility to meet regional research needs. USDA EPSCoR is a
    sound investment of taxpayer dollars.
        Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee has for several years directed USDA
    to set aside 10 percent of USDA NRICGP funds for USDA EPSCoR. Those
    funds have provided significant opportunity and significant success in
    Mississippi and the other EPSCoR states. I request that the
    Subcommittee once again include report language directing USDA to set
    aside 10 percent of its NRI competitive grant funds in fiscal year 2002
    for an EPSCoR program. These funds will allow the EPSCoR states to
    continue providing for the agricultural research needs of rural America
    and of our nation.
        I thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to submit this
    testimony.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Coalition for Food Aid

        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the members of the Coalition for Food
    Aid, I respectfully submit for the record this statement supporting a
    total fiscal year 2002 program level of $1.1 billion for the Public Law
    480 (``Food for Peace'') program. Although this will only make up
    $83,000,000 of the $673,000,000 cut in Public Law 480 that has occurred
    since fiscal year 1993, it will at least bring the program closer to
    its program level of fiscal year 1997 and 1998. Within the Public Law
    480 budget, we urge that the title II program be appropriated
    $887,000,000, a $50,000,000 increase over the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations, but $40,000,000 less than the actual fiscal year 2001
    title II allocation. We are also seeking Committee Report language to
    encourage improved U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
    and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) administration of food aid
    programs.
        The members of the Coalition are private voluntary organizations
    and cooperatives (jointly referred to as ``PVOs'') that develop and
    implement food aid programs overseas, including title II programs. We
    are very concerned about the decline in Public Law 480. In fiscal year
    1993, Public Law 480 provided 6 MMT; in fiscal year 2001 it will only
    provide 2.9 MMT.
        For PVOs, it is not just a matter of how much food aid is
    provided--it is how this food is used. Food aid is more than a hand out
    of U.S. grain, oilseed and dairy products, dry peas, beans and lentils,
    and other agricultural products. When linked with human and economic
    development activities that are developed and implemented by PVOs, food
    aid can have a lasting benefit. This makes title II a very effective
    program.
                               food aid is needed
        For developing countries that are strapped with debt and cannot
    afford to import adequate amounts of food to meet the nutritional needs
    of their populations, food aid is very important. According to the
    United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization report, ``The State
    of Food and Agriculture 1998,'' approximately 828,000,000 people are
    chronically undernourished in the world. While no region is immune to
    hunger, the vast majority of these people live in 87 low-income, food-
    deficit countries. The USDA Economic Research Service reports that
    about 15 MMT of food aid is needed a year to meet the ``food gap'' in
    the 60 countries that are considered to be least developed and reliant
    on food imports.
        Hunger has many causes and manifestations, but is most often
    associated with poverty and lack of empowerment. In developing
    countries, where poverty is endemic, employment opportunities are
    lacking, governments are unable to provide basic health and education
    services or sanitation and clean water due to low revenues and high
    debt burdens, agricultural productivity and marketing systems are
    usually weak and under-performing, and many people struggle just to
    meet their basic needs.
        During the Uruguay Round Trade Agreement negotiations, it was
    acknowledged that low-income, net food-importing countries often have
    hard currency limitations and cannot afford to meet their food needs
    through commercial imports. Their need for food aid was expected to
    increase as the availability of subsidized commercial commodities
    decreased. Because of this, the Ministers declared that donor countries
    would seek to increase food and agricultural aid to these low-income
    countries.
         Emergencies abroad also require food aid interventions. Recent
    events dramatically show the need--severe human and property losses due
    to hurricanes in and earthquakes in Ecuador and India, and ongoing
    emergencies in Africa caused by drought and war. These disasters
    compound the suffering of the poor, erase the economic progress made by
    struggling, developing countries and thrust millions of low-income, and
    even middle-income, families into poverty.
                        responsible use of us resources
        The essence of US food aid programs is the expression of American
    good will through ``people-to-people'' programs. American farmers
    produce the food, American businesses process, package and transport
    the food, and American PVOs make sure it is used properly and
    effectively. PVOs target areas of need, establish programs in
    cooperation with local communities and institutions, and provide
    efficient management.
        PVOs are supported by the American public through contributions and
    are accountable to their donors. When they receive food and cash
    assistance from the U.S. Government, they must account for the use of
    the resources and are audited and evaluated according to U.S.
    Government procedures. They have established mechanisms for food
    monitoring and reporting from point of departure from the U.S. to the
    ultimate recipient. In the case of monetization (commodity sales and
    the use of funds for pre-approved program activities) or if funds have
    been provided for program support, itemized records of the use of such
    funds are maintained. They also keep records to assess the ultimate
    impact of the program on the intended beneficiaries.
                    effective programs for lasting benefits
        Food aid can tackle the root causes of hunger in many ways. It is
    not accomplished just by distributing U.S. commodities--it takes
    thoughtful planning and outreach to make sure these programs help
    people to help themselves. There are many examples. Nutritious foods
    along with immunization and health care are provided during critical
    growth periods for mothers and children. Infrastructure and sanitation
    in poor communities are improved by giving food as payment for work on
    sewage and water systems. Land use and conservation are enhanced when
    food is provided as an incentive for community participation in
    reforestation and land conservation projects. Agricultural productivity
    and incomes are improved by selling donated food and then using the
    sales proceeds to finance agricultural, small business and credit
    programs.
        One innovative approach to food aid programming is monetization--
    the sale of donated commodities in poor, food deficit countries and the
    use of the sales proceeds for such things as (1) the distribution of
    food to pregnant women, mothers, children and others; (2) purchasing
    equipment, services and supplies to enhance the impact of food-for-
    work, school feeding or child and maternal health care programs; and
    (3) supporting programs that help improve agriculture productivity,
    marketing, post-harvest storage and processing or provide employment
    and business opportunities to increase incomes of the poor. The process
    of monetization itself can stimulate wider participation of traders in
    the market of the recipient country, thereby strengthening the free
    market system. The sales transactions are carefully planned to avoid
    interference in commercial trade or local production and marketing.
                   linkages to u.s. agriculture: aid to trade
        In contrast to developing countries the U.S. agricultural sector is
    the most productive in the world. A great part of the American
    tradition is to lend a helping hand to those less fortunate. The United
    States has used its agricultural bounty to help others through food aid
    programs. The donations have a positive impact on the U.S. economy,
    creating business for farmers, food processors, packaging companies,
    railroads, ports and shipping companies.
        Food aid is one intervention in a range of programs that can lead
    from aid to trade. Many of the countries where PVOs operate have not
    been analyzed or targeted by U.S. agricultural organizations since they
    are low income and are not current targets for commercial sales. Yet,
    there is growing interest among agricultural organizations to explore
    how food aid can be integrated into their long-term planning.
        In the short term food aid provides an additional market for U.S.
    goods. There is a long term benefit, as well. If properly planned, food
    aid programs promote ``food security''--the ability of people to
    produce, to buy or otherwise to access enough food to meet their
    nutritional needs. As a family improves economically, it can afford to
    buy more and as a developing country improves its economic situation,
    the demand for food and higher-valued food increases. Thus, there are
    linkages between food aid programming and future market development.
        History has shown that U.S. food aid can be the foundation for
    trade. Today, 40 percent of our commercial agricultural exports are
    sold to countries that were food aid recipients.
        Agricultural organizations cooperate in different ways with PVOs.
    Some provide information about their products and respond to questions
    by PVOs about the efficacy of using a particular commodity. Others
    directly assist or work with a PVO to conduct market analyses and to
    develop monetization plans in a target country.
        As an example, the U.S. soybean producers, through their
    contributions to the United Soybean Board (USB) and state soybean
    boards, initiated a collaborative effort with PVOs to identify the best
    uses for donated soybean products in developing countries. The purposes
    are (1) to provide soybeans, soybean meal and soybean oil to countries
    that need these products, (2) to have a long-term benefit by
    integrating the proceeds from the sales of these products into economic
    and social development programs implemented by PVOs, and (3) to
    identify opportunities to use soy protein products to improve the
    nutritional quality of foods available in a target country. PVOs and
    USB have been working together to plan effective programs that use food
    aid in ways that can have a benefit on the recipient country's economy
    and a nutritional benefit to targeted populations.
                        title ii funding increase needed
        The fiscal year 2001 expenditures for title II will exceed
    appropriations by $90,000,000. These extra funds are carryovers and
    transfers from other accounts. USDA's budget submission states that in
    fiscal year 2002 such carryovers and transfers can not be assumed.
        In fiscal year 2001, USAID asked PVOs to reduce commodity levels
    for several ongoing programs because of budget shortages. Thus, even
    with the transferred funds that increased the total program level for
    title II, cuts were made in ongoing programs. Since developing a title
    II proposal is a very lengthy, costly and in-depth process, when USAID
    states that it has limited resources or wants to limit the number of
    programs it approves, PVOs are hesitant to draft proposals to start new
    programs. USAID also places constraints on PVOs by making it difficult
    to develop and to gain approval of certain types of programs, such as
    food for education and HIV/AIDS programs.
        Thus, without increased appropriations, title II actual
    expenditures are very likely to drop in fiscal year 2002 and valuable
    programs that reduce malnutrition and improve the availability of food
    in poor households will be cut. We therefore ask you to appropriate
    $887,000,000 for title II, which will provide $50,000,000 more than the
    fiscal year 2001 appropriations, and about 125,000 MT in additional
    food aid.
                   reforming food aid program administration
        USAID's administration of title II programs is through an unwieldy
    and constantly changing set of regulations, guidelines, policy
    announcements, handbooks and individual program officer decision-
    making. At USDA, the process is murky and unpredictable for Food for
    Progress and surplus disposal programs. There are some disturbing
    trends in USDA policy governing surplus disposal under section 5(d) of
    the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) Charter Act and the Section 416
    program, including the way the fiscal year 2001 Global Food for
    Education Initiative (``GFE'') is being managed. There is little or no
    consultation between USDA and PVOs about the program approval criteria
    or elements for a successful project, even though many PVOs can offer a
    great deal of help due to years of hands-on, field experience. The
    review process used by USDA is not transparent and changes are made in
    program rules midstream, after proposals have been developed to meet
    the program rules that were originally published.
        PVOs try to navigate this administrative maze, but it is exhausting
    and takes away from their ability to target programs to meet local
    needs.
        U.S. PVOs should be considered partners in U.S. food aid. Reforms
    are needed that will enhance the positive impacts of food aid by
    streamlining administration and giving PVOs greater flexibility to pick
    the right commodity for the right use, supporting monetization as a
    valuable method for food distribution and strengthening economies,
    providing flexibility for a PVO to develop the type of project that
    would be most appropriate for the local setting and circumstances, and
    focusing on the use of food as a resource for growth and development.
    User-friendly program guidance and flexibility for PVOs to adapt a
    program to meet the changes encountered during the implementation phase
    are necessary.
        If a PVO has demonstrated the capability to conduct programs, the
    administrative agency should give the PVO flexibility to develop a
    program that responds to local needs without trying to micromanage PVO
    decisions. This would give PVOs greater flexibility to make
    programmatic changes as they work to achieve program objectives. PVO
    programs are audited according to U.S. Government-proscribed
    procedures, are subject to U.S. government audit and are independently
    evaluated. Besides a high level of accountability, the value added by a
    PVO is its ability to develop a program that meets local needs and to
    work directly with communities, institutions and people in poor
    countries to make lasting changes.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on
    Public Law 480 and other food aid programs. We appreciate your support
    for food aid over the years and seek your continued help to maintain
    funding for this program.
                                     ______

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

        As members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports,
    we commend the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for their
    interest and support of U.S. agriculture and express our appreciation
    for this opportunity to share our views.
        The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports is an ad hoc
    coalition of over 80 organizations, representing farmers and ranchers,
    cooperatives, small businesses, regional trade organizations, and the
    State Departments of Agriculture (see attached). We believe the U.S.
    must continue to have in place policies and programs that help maintain
    the ability of American agriculture to compete effectively in a global
    marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign competition.
        Farm income and agriculture's economic well-being depend heavily on
    exports, which account for one-third or more of domestic production,
    provide jobs for millions of Americans, and make a positive
    contribution to our nation's overall trade balance. In 2001, U.S.
    agriculture exports are projected to be around $53 billion, down $7
    billion from 1996. This is caused by a combination of factors,
    including continued subsidized foreign competition and related
    artificial trade barriers. U.S. agriculture's trade surplus is also
    expected to be about $13 billion, down over 50 percent from 1996, with
    continued low commodity prices also forecast.
        According to recent USDA information, the EU and other foreign
    competitors are outspending the U.S. by a factor of 20 to 1 with regard
    to the use of export subsidies and other expenditures for export
    promotion. In 1998 (the most recent year for which data is available),
    in addition to spending $6 billion in export subsidies, our leading
    foreign competitors spent a combined $1 billion on various activities
    to promote their exports of agricultural, forestry, and fishery
    products, including some $379 million by the EU.
        According to USDA, spending by these competitor countries on market
    promotion increased by 50 percent over the 1995-98 time period, while
    U.S. spending remained flat. We have no reason to believe that this
    trend has changed since then. Furthermore, almost all of this increase
    has been directed to the high-value and consumer-ready product trade.
        Information compiled by USDA also shows that such countries are
    spending over $100 million just to promote sales of their products in
    the United States. In other words, they are spending more to promote
    their agricultural exports to the United States, than the U.S.
    currently spends ($90 million) through MAP to promote American-grown
    and produced commodities worldwide! In fiscal year 1999, the U.S.
    recorded its first agricultural trade deficit with the EU. In fiscal
    year 2000, that trade deficit nearly doubled to $2 billion.
        Because market promotion is a permitted ``green box'' activity
    under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, with no limit on public or
    producer funding, it is increasingly seen as a centerpiece of a winning
    strategy in the future trade battleground. Many competitor countries
    have announced ambitious trade goals and are shaping export programs to
    target promising growth markets and bring new companies into the export
    arena. European countries are expanding their promotional activities in
    Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. Canada, Australia and New
    Zealand have also sharply bolstered their export promotion expenditures
    in recent years.
        As the EU and our other foreign competitors have made clear, they
    intend to continue to be aggressive in their export efforts. For this
    reason, we believe the Administration and Congress should immediately
    strengthen funding for MAP and other export programs, and ensure that
    such programs are fully and aggressively utilized. Since MAP was
    originally authorized, funding has been gradually reduced from a high
    of $200 million to its current level of $90 million-a reduction of more
    than 50 percent. Again, given what our foreign trade competitors are
    doing, we believe it's time to restore funding for this vitally
    important program up to its original level. American agriculture is the
    most competitive industry in the world, but it can not and should not
    be expected to compete alone against the treasuries of foreign
    governments.
        In order to reverse the decline in funding over the past decade for
    a number of our agricultural export programs, the Coalition is strongly
    supporting legislation (S. 366) introduced by Senators Murray (D-WA)
    and Craig (R-ID), et al. that would authorize no less than $90 million
    and up to $200 million per year for MAP. The bill would also provide a
    minimum of $35 million for the Foreign Market Development (FMD)
    Cooperator Program for cost-share assistance to help boost U.S.
    agriculture exports. Further, it would allow up to 50 percent of
    available funds under the Export Enhancement Program (EEP) to be used
    for related market development and promotion activities.
        Both MAP and FMD are administered on a cost-share basis with
    farmers and other participants required to contribute up to 50 percent
    of their own resources. These programs are one of the few tools
    specifically allowed under the Uruguay Round Agreement to help American
    agriculture and American workers remain competitive in a global
    marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign competition. By
    any measure, they have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-
    effective in helping maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports,
    protect American jobs, and strengthen farm income. In addition to
    helping achieve these objectives, enactment of S. 366 would provide
    needed flexibility to respond to changing market conditions and
    capitalize on potential new market opportunities. It would also send a
    powerful message to our foreign competitors and strengthen the U.S.
    negotiating position in future trade talks.
        For all these reasons, we want to emphasize again the need to help
    strengthen the ability of U.S. agriculture to compete effectively in
    the global marketplace. As a nation, we can work to export our
    products, or we can export our jobs. USDA's export programs, such as
    MAP and FMD, are a key part of an overall trade strategy that is pro-
    growth, pro-trade and pro-job.
        Again, as members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural
    Exports, we appreciate very much this opportunity to share our views
    and we ask that this statement be included in the official hearing
    record.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum

        The Congress concluded that the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Program should be implemented in the most cost-effective way
    and realizing that agricultural on-farm strategies were some of the
    most cost-effective strategies authorized a program for the Department
    of Agriculture. With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
    Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the Congress concluded that
    the Salinity Control Program could be most effectively implemented as
    one of the components of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
    Since the enactment of FAIRA, the Salinity Control Program has not been
    funded at a level adequate to ensure that salinity damages from the use
    of Colorado River water in the United States will not increase.
        The Salinity Control Program has been subsumed into the EQIP
    program without the Secretary of Agriculture giving adequate
    recognition to the requirement in Section 202(c) in the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Act to carry out salinity control measures.
    Water users hundreds of miles downstream are the beneficiaries of this
    water quality improvement program. Agriculturalists in the Upper Basin,
    however, see local benefits as well as downstream benefits and have
    submitted cost-effective proposals to the State Conservationists in
    Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. Priority Area proposals for EQIP funding
    are ranked in each state under the direction of the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS) State Conservationist. Existing ranking
    criteria, however, does not consider downstream benefits (particularly
    out of state benefits) when proposals are being evaluated.
        After longstanding urgings from the states and directives from the
    Congress, the Department has concluded that this program is different
    than small watershed enhancement efforts common to the EQIP program. In
    this case, the watershed to be considered stretches more than 1,200
    miles from the river's headwater in the Rocky Mountains to the river's
    terminus in the Gulf of California in Mexico. The Department has now
    determined that this effort should receive a special fund designation
    and has appointed a coordinator for this multi-state effort.
        The NRCS has earmarked funds to be used for the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Program and has designated this an area of
    special interest. This was done at the urging of this Senate
    subcommittee. The Forum appreciates the efforts of the subcommittee in
    this regard. Since the designation, there has been earmarked about $4.5
    million annually. The states added about $1.5 million in up-front cost-
    sharing and local farms, we estimate, contributed about another $2.0
    million. The plan for water quality control of the river prepared by
    the Forum, adopted by the states, and approved by the EPA requires that
    the USDA portion of the effort to be funded at $12 million. Hence,
    there is a shortfall from the Federal designated funds of about $7.5
    million. State and local cost-sharing is triggered by the Federal
    appropriation. The entire effort is only at about 40 percent of what is
    needed. The USDA indicated that a more adequately funded the total
    national EQIP program would result in more funds being allocated to the
    salinity control program. The Basin states have cost sharing dollars
    available to participate in on-farm salinity control efforts. The
    agricultural producers in the Upper Basin are waiting for their
    applications to be considered so that they might also cost share in the
    program.
        The Forum urges that this subcommittee support the funding of more
    than $200 million from the CCC in fiscal year 2002 for EQIP. The Forum
    also requests that this subcommittee advise the Administration that $12
    million of these funds be designated for the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program.
                                    overview
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program was authorized by
    Congress in 1974. The Title I portion of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act responded to commitments that the United States
    made, through a minute of the International Boundary and Water
    Commission, to Mexico with respect to the quality of water being
    delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II of the Act established
    a program to respond to salinity control needs of Colorado River water
    users in the United States and to comply with the mandates of the then
    newly legislated Clean Water Act. Initially, the Secretary of the
    Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation were given the lead Federal role
    by the Congress. This testimony is in support of funding for the Title
    II program.
        After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
    Basin states concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
    amended. Congress agreed and revised the Act in 1984. That revision,
    while keeping the Department of the Interior as lead coordinator for
    Colorado River Basin salinity control efforts, also gave new salinity
    control responsibilities to the Department of Agriculture. Congress has
    charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-effective
    program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt removed). It
    has been determined that the agricultural efforts are some of the most
    cost-effective opportunities.
        Since Congressional mandates of nearly three decades ago, much has
    been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system.
    The Bureau of Reclamation has conducted studies on the economic impact
    of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the damages to United
    States' water users alone are hundreds of millions of dollars per year.
        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum has become the seven-state
    coordinating body for interfacing with Federal agencies and Congress to
    support the implementation of a program necessary to control the
    salinity of the river system. In close cooperation with the Federal
    agencies and under requirements of the Clean Water Act, every three
    years the Forum prepares a formal report analyzing the salinity of the
    Colorado River, anticipated future salinity, and the program necessary
    to keep the salinities at or below the levels measured in the river
    system in 1972.
        In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
    the salinity concentrations measured at Imperial, and below Parker, and
    Hoover Dams in 1972 have been identified as the numeric criteria. The
    plan necessary for controlling salinity has been captioned the ``plan
    of implementation.'' The 1999 Review, Water Quality Standards for
    Salinity, Colorado River System, includes an updated plan of
    implementation. In order to eliminate the shortfall in salinity control
    resulting from inadequate Federal funding for the last several years
    for USDA, the Forum has determined that implementation of the salinity
    control program needs to be accelerated. The level of appropriation
    requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed to plan. If
    adequate funds are not appropriated, State and Federal agencies
    involved are in agreement that damage from the high salt levels in the
    water will be widespread and very significant in the United States and
    Mexico.
                  state cost-sharing and technical assistance
        The authorized cost sharing by the Basin states, as provided by
    FAIRA, was at first difficult to implement as attorneys for USDA
    concluded that the Basin states were authorized by FAIRA to cost share
    in the effort, but the Congress had not given USDA authority to receive
    the Basin states' funds. After almost a year of exploring every
    possible solution as to how the cost sharing was to occur, the states,
    in agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation, with state officials in
    Utah, Colorado and Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in
    Utah, Colorado and Wyoming, agreed upon a ``parallel'' program wherein
    the states' cost sharing funds will be used. We are now several years
    into that program and, at this moment in time, this solution to how
    cost sharing can be implemented appears to be satisfactory.
        With respect to the states' cost sharing funds, the Basin states
    felt that it was most essential that a portion of the program be
    associated with technical assistance and education activities in the
    field. Without this necessary support, there is no advanced planning,
    proposals are not well prepared, assertions in the proposals cannot be
    verified, implementation of contracts cannot be observed, and valuable
    partnering and education efforts cannot occur. Recognizing these
    values, the ``parallel'' state cost sharing program expends 40 percent
    of the funds available on these needed support activities. Initially,
    it was acknowledged that the Federal portion of the salinity control
    program funded through EQIP was starved with respect to needed
    technical assistance and education support. The Forum is encouraged
    with the Administration's determination that 19 percent of the EQIP
    funds will be used for technical assistance but observes that this is
    still not adequate funding for the technical assistance needed. The
    Forum urges this subcommittee to appropriate adequate funds for these
    support activities rather than to direct NRCS to borrow these needed
    funds from the CCC.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Board of California

        Your support and leadership are needed in securing adequate funding
    for the U.S. Department of Agriculture with respect to it's on-farm
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2002.
    This program has been carried out through the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act, since it was enacted by Congress in 1974. With
    the enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
    (FAIRA) in 1996, specific funding for salinity control projects in the
    Colorado River Basin were eliminated from the Federal budget, and
    aggregated into the newly created Department of Agriculture
    Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) as one of its program
    components. With that action, Congress concluded that the salinity
    control program could be more effectively implemented as one of the
    components of the EQIP. Prior to FAIRA, the Department of Agriculture
    had specific line item funding for salinity control projects as high as
    $14.7 million, but in recent years the level of appropriations have
    been reduced to between $3.4 and $5.1 million which is inadequate to
    ensure that water quality standards in the Colorado River, with regards
    to salinity can be met. California's Colorado River water users are
    presently suffering economic damages in the hundreds of million of
    dollars per year due to the river's salinity.
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River System.
    In this capacity, California along with the other six Basin States
    through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the
    interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States'
    salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria, in June 1975,
    for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
    established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin States of
    Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as assist the United States in
    delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in accordance with
    Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The goal
    of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is to offset the
    effects of water resource development in the Colorado River basin after
    1972 rather than to reduce the salinity of the River below levels that
    were caused by natural variations in river flows or human activities
    prior to 1972. To maintain these levels, the salinity control program
    must remove 1,480,000 tons of salt loading from the River by year 2015.
    In the Forum's last report entitled 1999 Review, Water Quality
    Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System released in June 1999,
    the Forum found that additional salinity control measures were
    necessary to meet the implementation plan that had been adopted by the
    seven Colorado River Basin States and approved by the Environmental
    Protection Agency. Since implementation of the EQIP, Federal
    allocations by the Department of Agriculture have not equaled the
    Forum's identified funding needs for the Department of Agriculture's
    portion of the program. The Forum identified a ``backlog'' of salinity
    control measures which stands at 384,000 tons. This is in addition to
    future controls designed to lower the River's salt loading by 372,000
    tons by 2015 in order to meet the established salinity standards. The
    Forum has presented testimony to Congress in which it has states that
    the rate of implementation of the program beyond that requested by the
    past President is necessary.
        The President's request for funding the Department of Agriculture
    in fiscal year 2002 is unknown at this time, however, the Colorado
    River Board urges that the subcommittee support funding of more than
    $200 million from the Commodity Credit Corporation in fiscal year 2002
    for EQIP. Of the amount to be appropriated for EQIP, the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Forum, at its meeting in Henderson, Nevada, in
    October 2001, recommended a funding level of $12.0 million for on-farm
    salinity control in the Colorado River Basin for fiscal year 2002 to
    maintain water quality consistent with the established standards. This
    subcommittee should advise the Administration that $12 million of these
    funds be designated for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program. These Federal dollars, if earmarked, would be augmented by
    state cost sharing of 30 percent with an additional 30 percent provided
    by the agricultural producer with whom the Department of Agriculture
    contracts for implementation of salinity control measures. The Colorado
    River Board supports the recommendation of the Forum. The salinity
    control program has proven to be a very cost effective approach to help
    mitigate the impacts of higher salinity. Continued Federal funding of
    the program is essential.
        In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the Federal
    government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
    and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the
    delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
    be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2002 and in future
    fiscal years, the Congress provide funds to the Department of
    Agriculture to allow it to continue providing needed technical support
    to the producers for addressing salinity control in the Basin.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the 17 million residents of southern California as
    well as throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin. As stated earlier,
    preservation of its quality through an effective salinity control
    program will avoid the additional economic damages to users of Colorado
    River water in California, Arizona, and Nevada.
        The Colorado River Board greatly appreciates your support of the
    Federal/State Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program and again
    asks for your assistance and leadership in securing adequate funding
    for this program.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Colorado State University

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Anthony
    Frank. I am Vice President for Research and Information Technology at
    Colorado State University, located in Fort Collins, Colorado. I
    appreciate this opportunity to submit my testimony for the record of
    proceedings on the fiscal year 2002 Department of Agriculture Budget. I
    am happy for this opportunity to thank you for your previous support of
    the Russian Wheat Aphid research program and the Center for
    Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases. I would like to
    update you on these two programs.
        As you know, this Committee has provided federal funds to support
    Russian Wheat Aphid (RWA) research at Colorado State University. The
    Russian Wheat Aphid research program is a five-year $1.25 million
    ($250,000 per year) initiative to develop methodologies that will
    control the aphid and diminish the significant costs of lost wheat
    production and insecticide applications in western wheat producing
    areas. We are entering our final year of research activities for which
    we require federal financial support.
        In 1997, Colorado experienced its worst RWA infestation in 10
    years, costing about $10 million in insecticide application alone. In
    2000, RWA damage was widespread and especially threatening throughout
    the wheat growing region. This pest costs wheat producers in Colorado
    alone, where the RWA is especially troublesome, over $11 million per
    year in direct economic loss.
        Through Federal, State government, and private assistance, CSU
    researchers have made significant progress in combating the RWA. About
    $1 million per year is invested in RWA research and outreach from
    state, university and industry sources. The most notable achievement is
    the creation and production of the first commercial variety of RWA
    resistant wheat, called ``Halt.'' After seven years of extensive
    development and testing, it became available to growers for planting in
    the fall of 1996. Early results indicate that farmers who plant
    ``Halt'' and experience RWA infestations can save a minimum of $12 to
    $13 per acre. In the worst year of RWA infestation, the elimination of
    insecticide treatments alone would have saved Colorado farmers at least
    $13.8-$15 million. Since the introduction of ``Halt,''four other wheat
    cultivars have been released: ``Prairie Red,'' ``Prowers,'' ``Prowers
    99,'' and ``Yuma''.
        A long-term solution to the Russian wheat aphid problem requires
    the development of additional cultivars with multiple sources of
    resistance. The process of identifying, developing and testing takes
    several years. The accomplishments of this five-year program will lay a
    foundation for an on-going, but much less costly effort, which will
    continue, without federal funds, to provide growers with cost-
    effective, environmentally sound management of RWA into the future.
        Your committee has also acknowledged the importance of research in
    animal infectious diseases and has supported our Center for
    Economically Important Animal Infectious Diseases for the past three
    years.
        The Center for Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases is
    working to prevent or control those infectious diseases that are the
    most economically devastating to the animal industry. Chief among these
    are vesicular stomatitis, bovine tuberculosis, transmissible spongiform
    encephalopathy (chronic wasting Importantly, the Center, working
    closely with local USDA and CDC laboratories, represents a significant
    component of our nation's ability to respond to other emerging threats
    to animal agriculture.
        Despite the fact that vesicular stornatitis has been present since
    1995, very little is known about it. The virus emerges and then
    disappears. It appears to be concentrated in the Southwest, Rocky
    Mountains and Great Plains and to affect primarily cattle, horses and
    swine. Scientists haven't been able to identify how the virus is
    transmitted, nor identify its host. And, equally important, scientists
    don't know if the disease can be spread to other species.
        Bovine tuberculosis infects approximately 50 million cattle. It is
    a recognized cause of tuberculosis in humans. Tuberculosis in cattle
    impacts milk production, weight and reproduction. This disease costs
    cattlemen approximately $378 million annually. Although much progress
    has been made in controlling this disease in the U.S., there is still
    considerable threat to beef herds primarily due to the inadequate
    testing and quarantine of steers entering from Mexico and the lack of
    an effective diagnostic tool that can be used on the farm.
        Chronic wasting disease is a strain of transmissible spongiform
    encephalopathies. ``Mad cow disease'' falls into this category. Chronic
    wasting disease has been showing up in deer and elk along the northern
    Front Range of Colorado. Very little is known about how this disease is
    transmitted or its potential for transmission to related species.
        During the past three years, the Center has been involved in many
    research projects and is recognized nationally and internationally as
    the leading entity in the field of infectious animal diseases and food
    safety pathogens. During this time, it has made major contributions
    related to the following animal diseases:
    Vesicular Stomatitis
      --Development of a laboratory test that is better and faster for
            detecting VS virus in infected animals and insects.
      --Use of Geographical Information Systems software to understand how
            the disease spreads and why some animals get the disease.
      --Collection of data to determine how the virus is maintained in the
            environment when it is not causing disease outbreaks.
    Mycobacterium bovis and Mycobacterium tuberculosis
      --Development of a laboratory test that can identify a greater
            percentage of animals shedding the bacterium, and development
            of a similar laboratory test for captive elephants and other
            non-domestic species.
    Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis (Johne's disease)
      --Development of more sensitive laboratory tests for use in young
            cattle so that infected animals can be removed as early as
            possible to decrease spread and reduce costs.
    Food safety
      --Determination of the optimal type and number of diagnostic tests
            for identifying Toxoplasma gondii in pigs in order to increase
            cost-effectiveness while maintaining sensitivity.
    Clostridium perfringens
      --Development and optimization of tests to detect C. perfringens in
            equine fecal samples and environmental samples.
      --Identify some of potential risk factors for future development of a
            plan to prevent this disease in foals.
    Brucella abortus
      --Development and testing of new oral formulations of vaccine for use
            in bison and wild ungulates in Yellowstone National Park and
            elsewhere, as conventional intra-muscular injections are not
            easy to use in wild species.
        Continued appropriations will enable the Center to advance its work
    in the following areas: (1) detection of economically critical diseases
    early, including the development of diagnostic tests that may be
    performed on the farm; (2) evaluation of prevention strategies,
    including vaccination programs for efficiency and cost effectiveness;
    (3) analysis of the impact of animal movement and trade on the spread
    of infectious diseases; and (4) using analytical tools, including risk
    assessment and geographic information systems, determination of risk of
    the spread of economically critical infectious diseases.
        Once again, I thank you for the financial investment you have made
    to the Russian Wheat Aphid research program and to the Center for
    Economically Important Animal Infectious Diseases and look forward to
    your continued support.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Columbia University

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
    for the Outside Witness Hearing Record. This statement provides a
    recommendation to improve and refine one of USDA's primary missions and
    goals relating to U.S. agriculture, the development of world supply and
    demand estimates for agricultural production and products.
        The supply and demand analysis that USDA conducts requires the most
    accurate tools and mechanisms available. Columbia University's
    International Research Institute for Climate Prediction is recognized
    as the leader in climate modeling and interannual to seasonal
    forecasting. The IRI's partnership with USDA in would result in
    improved supply and demand estimates, and therefore be of immense
    benefit to the U.S. agricultural economy. The details of this proposed
    linkage are discussed below.
                                   objectives
        (1) $1 million for the involvement of IRI analysis and expertise to
    utilize improved and available tools and mechanisms for foreign
    agricultural supply and demand estimates. (2) $1 million for support of
    the IRI's Center for Health and Food Security for the development of an
    independent institution that will focus on Africa and work
    cooperatively with the Federal Government in the accomplishment of USDA
    missions and goals.
                                   background
        USDA's World Supply and Demand estimates for agricultural products
    could utilize, but currently do not, the most sophisticated and
    accurate analytical tools available. The importance of advanced
    planning in crop production and reserve stocks in times of fluctuating
    foreign demand can assist the agricultural economy in maintaining
    financial stabilization and provide warnings to mitigate foreign
    famine. Foreign draught and famine, in addition to the tolls of human
    life and suffering, cause social and political unrest in third world
    countries, contributing to instability and economic hardships on third
    world national economies. Improved supply and demand estimates assist
    domestic producers and the entire agricultural economy, as well as
    provide the advance planning necessary to avoid or minimize damage in
    third world economies.
        Columbia University's International Research Institute for Climate
    Prediction has developed the world's most accurate and long-range
    climate models and forecasting techniques in the areas of temperature
    and precipitation variability from average conditions. These two
    factors determine the surplus or deficit in foreign agricultural
    production. USDA does not currently utilize IRI analysis or input.
    Improvement of the accuracy of USDA's long-range supply and demand
    estimates could be achieved with the involvement of IRI analysis and
    expertise in the an effort to obtain the necessary and available tools
    and mechanisms for foreign agricultural supply and demand estimates.
        Africa represents the most vulnerable continent to temperature and
    precipitation variations caused by climate forcing agents such as El
    Nino and La Nina. The IRI is establishing a Center for Health and Food
    Security that will integrate global interannual to seasonal forecasts
    with regional climate modeling to provide the most accurate climate
    forecasting and predictive analysis for private and governmental
    decision makers. The agricultural component of this effort is crucial
    to the production of USDA's supply and demand estimates, and also to
    key planting decisions both within the U.S. and abroad. The IRI's
    Center for Health and Food Security will focus on Africa and function
    as an independent institution that will work cooperatively with the
    Federal Government in the accomplishment of USDA missions and goals.
        Thank you for this opportunity to submit this proposed linkage for
    the Subcommittee's consideration in deliberations on the fiscal year
    2002 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Community Medical Centers

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Dr. Philip
    Hinton and I am the Chief Executive Officer of Community Medical
    Centers in Fresno, California. Community Medical Centers is a not-for-
    profit, locally owned healthcare corporation that is committed to
    improving the health of the community. I am pleased to provide the
    subcommittee with a request for assistance in securing Federal monies
    for a critical project in the Central San Joaquin Valley that would
    improve healthcare delivery to the growing Hispanic and minority
    populations by creating a network of clinics accessible to the rural
    areas. These populations in the five county area of Fresno, Madera,
    Tulare, Kings and Mariposa face some of the most devastating and worst
    health outcomes in the state of California and in the nation:
      --the third highest asthma mortality rate in the nation;
      --the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the state;
      --the highest incidence of diabetes among the Hispanic population
      --late or no prenatal care for pregnant women
      --greater likelihood for newborns to be of low birth weight than the
            rest of the state
      --some of the lowest immunization rates in the nation (62 percent at
            age 2 versus 79 percent nationally)
      --the highest rates of syphilis in the state.
        These health outcomes are not acceptable and yet they exist because
    of the following reasons:
      --Limited access to care
        --Low ratio of primary care providers to population. Fresno County
                has 178 physicians/100,000 population vs. 235/100,000 in
                the state.
      --Virtually no specialist care located in rural areas
        --Isolation of rural communities from urban areas and poor public
                transportation.
      --Financial constraints
        --Many people are without health insurance
        --Accessing healthcare in the urban areas results in a day's lost
                wages
        --Lack of childcare providers means that patients must bring their
                entire family with them when they visit the clinic.
      --Educational issues concerning health
        --Lack of understanding of preventive care
        --Cultural barriers to addressing health issues before they become
                acute crisis
      --Language barriers
        --Over 100 languages are spoken in the area
        Coupled with high unemployment rates that are twice the state and
    three times the national average, and adults and children living below
    the poverty line hovering at 25 percent and 32 percent respectively,
    the statistics and indicators point to the need for aggressive action
    to address the tremendous health care needs of the population in this
    five county area.
        Community Medical Centers proposes to address this health situation
    with a pilot project to improve the health of farm workers and
    residents of the rural communities who make up 41 percent of the
    population of the region.
        Community Medical Centers has proposed developing a collaborative
    network that will include local healthcare providers, Federally
    Qualified Health Centers, county health and human services agencies,
    local hospitals, dentists, schools, churches and local communities. The
    network will work to aggressively deliver both preventive and primary
    health care to the people of the five county region. The new Regional
    Health Center on the campus of the Regional Medical Center in downtown
    Fresno will be the center for coordinating these activities. The new
    Regional Health Center is just one component of a more comprehensive,
    $210 million medical complex that will also include a new facility to
    house Level I burn and trauma services, emergency services, in-patient
    surgery, cardiac services and intensive care beds as well as a
    University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Medical Education and
    Research Center to house the teaching program. The Regional Health
    Center will deliver primary and specialty care, offer easy access to
    higher level care in an inpatient and outpatient setting, and access
    the faculty and residents of the UCSF-Fresno Medical Education Program.
        This $35 million project will:
      --Improve access to the rural areas by partnering with existing
            centers and local healthcare providers to provide access for
            all patients and utilize and coordinate mobile health care
            units to go into the areas that are under-served. In addition,
            provide trained bilingual personnel to qualify people for
            health care programs and educate them about preventive care.
      --Focus on preventive care and high prevalence diseases by offering
            asthma education and management programs; early diagnosis,
            dietary and medical management of diabetes; teen pregnancy
            prevention programs; prenatal care; screenings for cancer,
            diabetes and high blood pressure; and dental and mental health
            services.
      --Result in a healthier community by providing primary care to a
            significant portion of the population and reducing their
            dependency on hospital emergency rooms for these services;
            improve people's quality of life and health thereby reducing
            hospital admissions for asthma, diabetes, hypertension and
            complications associated with these diseases; reduce the number
            of premature births.
      --Realize significant savings in medical costs by focusing on the
            health needs of the population and emphasizing prevention and
            disease management as opposed to depending on hospitalization
            for primary care. We predict a 20 percent decrease in emergency
            room visits and hospitalization that would result in a
            significant savings of $18 million per year.
        The human statistics point to the need to address this situation
    now before it progresses to a crisis. Community Medical Centers is
    working with the County of Fresno to contribute $17.5 million of state
    and local monies toward this pilot project. These monies, coupled with
    an additional $17.5 million from the Federal government, would provide
    key funding support and ensure completion of this critical health care
    initiative facing our community.
        We have identified the USDA Rural Community Facilities Loans and
    Grants program funded by the appropriation bill for Agriculture, Rural
    Development and Related Agencies as a source of funds. Because our
    pilot program would serve a vastly under-served rural population with
    significant health care needs in a five county area, we request your
    assistance in including a $17.5 million ``soft'' earmark of these funds
    to establish a comprehensive primary care and disease prevention
    program for the residents of these areas. Language in the bill's
    accompanying report acknowledging the Committee's understanding of our
    need may prompt the USDA's reviewing authorities to look more favorably
    on our application for program funding, an application process that we
    are committed to undertake.
        Enclosed is a recent article in the Fresno Bee that highlights the
    crisis in healthcare that we are facing in the area. The emergency
    departments in area hospitals are overcrowded and inundated by people
    who could best be served in a primary care setting that we are
    proposing. Unless, this critical situation is addressed soon, the
    conditions will only worsen.
        We appreciate your attention to this matter and we hope that you
    will favorably consider our request to improve healthcare delivery in
    the Central San Joaquin Valley in California.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Council for Agricultural Research, Extension,
                                  and Teaching

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to provide
    testimony again this year in support of the highly successful research,
    education, and extension partnership between the United States
    Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Land-Grant University System.
        My name is Daniel M. Dooley, Chairman of the Council for
    Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching, commonly called CARET.
    CARET is a national group of lay support persons working on behalf of
    the Land-Grant University System. The CARET group, a collaboration of
    farmers, ranchers and others interested in maintaining America's
    competitive edge, was formed a number of years ago for the expressed
    purpose of enhancing national support and understanding of the
    important role played by the land-grant colleges in the food and
    agriculture systems, as well as the role of this system in enhancing
    the quality of life for all citizens of the nation.
        Each of the CARET members from across the land can share from
    personal experience the importance of maintaining a competitive
    technological edge. In my particular case, I have benefited from
    university research that has substantially improved production and
    reduced costs by limiting chemical usage.
        I will not burden you with a recitation of all of the contributions
    that the Land-Grant University System partnership with USDA has made to
    America's food, fiber, and agricultural production system. I do want
    you to know, however, that this unique partnership has been an
    essential ingredient to the success of American agriculture and the
    health of the American public--in essence, the foundation of this
    nation's way and quality of life.
        Suffice it to say, the Land-Grant University System is very unique
    and has been a critical component to the long-term success of the
    nation's agricultural community. It has provided technology and
    education enabling farmers, ranchers, and other stewards of natural
    resources in this country to manage their productive resources in a way
    that is efficient, yields the greatest and most nutritious quality and
    quantity of food in the world, and protects the natural environment.
    The contributions of the Land-Grant University System to American
    agriculture has had an enormous impact on the nation's economy, our
    balance of trade, the quality of our workforce, and the health and
    quality of life for every American citizen. Indeed, the greatest single
    investment you can make in the long-term health of the American people
    is to ensure that appropriate investments are made in future technology
    for the food and fiber system. Unfortunately, this research and
    education system that has given so much to the country sometimes is
    taken for granted.
        The purpose of my testimony today is to request support for the
    fiscal year 2002 budget recommendations of the National Association of
    State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Board on
    Agriculture. CARET joins NASULGC in calling for a doubling of the
    nation's agricultural research and education funding over the next five
    years--$200 million in fiscal year 2002. CARET believes that this new
    funding will help the Land-Grant University System meet the challenges
    it will be called upon to address in maintaining a highly nutritious
    and healthy food supply, revitalizing our nation's communities (both
    rural and urban), cultivating an educated workforce, and protecting our
    natural environment. CARET also supports continued funding for the
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS).
        Although the United States has the safest food supply in the world,
    millions of Americans are afflicted by food-borne illnesses each year.
    The young, elderly, and people with compromised immune systems are the
    most susceptible. Estimates of the annual health care costs for these
    illnesses range from $2.9 billion to $7 billion. Greater investment in
    the agricultural research and education system could help reduce the
    number of food-related illnesses and costs. Additionally, great
    opportunities exist to utilize technology to tailor food for specific
    health and nutrition benefits if proper investments are made.
        Conservation and economic growth require a delicate balancing act.
    While agriculture presents challenges to the environment, it also knows
    that the environment must be respected and protected. Science and
    education are helping the agricultural industry to protect fragile
    ecosystems and deal with urban expansion by developing sustainable
    production systems that protect the long-term productivity of essential
    resources. Funding of agricultural science and education programs will
    continue to ensure an adequate and safe food supply and the protection
    of our precious natural resources.
        For four decades, agricultural production in the United States has
    enabled an unyielding string of successes in our trade balance. Today,
    experts project that at least $60 billion in food and raw materials--
    one-third of the nation's production will be sold overseas. Agriculture
    is one area in the nation's economy without a trade deficit. This
    competitive advantage should not be lost because of insufficient
    investments in our agricultural research and education system.
        All of the technology and knowledge in the world are useless
    without the well-trained mind of someone to learn from it, apply it,
    and expand it. Undergraduate education in colleges of agriculture and
    life sciences is largely neglected in Federal funding. All of the
    nation's students need to be equipped to become leaders in our nation's
    workforce. Their future and the nation's future are one in the same,
    and the nation can ill afford to poorly invest in this critical area.
        Tomorrow's science comes with a high price tag, with great advances
    in biotechnology, genetics, satellite imagery, and other highly
    technical fields looming on the horizon. Only if funding sources are
    adequate will new scientific investigation:
      --build agricultural production efficiency and profitability
      --protect the nation's environment
      --revitalize and sustain our nation's communities
      --bring diverse student populations into the food and agricultural
            sciences
        The budget recommendations that are being advanced by CARET on
    behalf of the Land-Grant University System are the result of a broad
    number of stakeholder meetings and receipt of substantial input from
    those that benefit from the research and education activities.
        It is the belief of the CARET membership that doubling of the
    nation's agricultural research and education funding over the next five
    years--$200 million in fiscal year 2002--is the only way to equip
    American agriculture for the 21st Century. This amount of funding will
    facilitate the maintenance of America's competitive edge throughout the
    broad range of the production, processing, distribution, and retail
    system that moves commodities around the world. CARET also firmly
    believes that this funding level for agricultural science and education
    will enhance the health and welfare for our own citizenry as well as
    the people of the world. Certainly, we do not want the recent headlines
    about the food supply in the European community and other places in the
    world to be the future headlines in American newspapers.
        So, when you go home tonight and sit down at your dinner table,
    just remember that you do not have to think or worry about: Will there
    be enough food for me and my family to eat? Will this food harm or make
    my family and me sick if we eat it?
        However, if adequate funding for agricultural research and
    education is not provided now and in the future, your children and
    grandchildren may have to worry about these and many other questions in
    relation to the food and fiber that the nation produces and consumes.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide this testimony in support
    of the appropriations for continuing the fine work being done and the
    work that must be done at America's Land-Grant University System--a
    true national treasure!
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife

        On behalf of our 435,000 members and supporters nationwide,
    Defenders of Wildlife thanks you for the opportunity to submit
    testimony on the fiscal year 2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill.
    Defenders is a national, non-profit organization dedicated to the
    protection of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. We
    focus our efforts on the accelerating rate of extinction of species and
    the associated loss of biological diversity, and on habitat alteration
    and destruction. Consequently, we have a special interest in the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's natural resource protection programs. These
    programs include the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP), the
    Wetland Reserve Program (WRP), the Farmland Protection Program (FPP),
    the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), the Conservation
    Reserve Program (CRP), and the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
    (CREP). We also strongly support the proposed Conservation Security Act
    (CSA) because of its potential beneficial impacts on wildlife habitat
    and ecosystem quality.
        Most farmers who volunteer to participate in the USDA's natural
    resource protection programs are turned away due to lack of funding.
    Defenders of Wildlife therefore strongly supports the fiscal year 2002
    appropriation of $150 million for WHIP, $300 million for WRP, $200
    million for FPP, and $550 million for EQIP, and adequate funding for
    other natural resource protection programs offered through the USDA. We
    oppose any efforts to zero-fund WHIP, WRP, and FPP in fiscal year 2002.
        Effective implementation of USDA conservation programs requires
    increased technical assistance at the field level. Nominal funding
    levels for resource conservation technical assistance and research have
    remained practically unchanged over the last few years, despite a USDA
    mandate to implement more conservation programs over a broader
    geographical area. In real terms, Federal funding for technical
    assistance to deliver conservation programs, and for the research and
    development of new conservation technologies, has actually declined
    over the last ten years. This situation has resulted in the inability
    of reduced staffs to provide effective and efficient service to the
    growing numbers of producers waiting to participate in conservation
    programs. Defenders of Wildlife therefore encourages the fiscal year
    2002 appropriation of $1,710,000 for Conservation Technical Assistance
    in support of USDA conservation programs.
        A major constraint to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
    existing USDA conservation programs is the lack of adequate monitoring
    and evaluation of field level projects and their impacts on natural
    resource quality, especially native wildlife and their habitats.
    Defenders of Wildlife believes that $5 million should be allocated to
    defining and implementing a pilot monitoring program(s) over the next
    two years to evaluate conservation program impacts toward achieving
    improved native wildlife habitat, water and air quality, and soil
    health. Defining and implementing a pilot monitoring program(s) would
    be a cooperative effort involving the United States Department of
    Agriculture, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries
    Service, and the United States Geological Survey. The experience from
    this pilot effort would be used in designing a permanent monitoring and
    evaluation program.
        Applied research is lagging behind increased regulatory
    requirements that mandate producers to improve the environmental and
    ecological performance of their operations. Defenders of Wildlife
    proposes that producers receive incentives for research, development,
    and testing of new conservation management practices. Such a program
    would require an fiscal year 2002 appropriation of $10 million.
        The Land Grant Universities and the USDA Agricultural Research
    Service also require increased financial support for research and
    development of production practices that, to the extent possible,
    simultaneously meet profit and production goals and reduce adverse
    environmental impacts on wildlife habitat, water, air, and soil
    resources. Defenders of Wildlife supports funding of this program at
    $20 million for fiscal year 2002.
         In fiscal year 2002, the USDA has a tremendous opportunity to
    assist agricultural producers to be effective stewards of natural
    resources on their lands. The appropriations amounts recommended this
    testimony would make realization of that opportunity possible.
        On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you again for this
    opportunity to submit testimony.
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of Easter Seals

        Easter Seals appreciates the opportunity to report on the notable
    accomplishments of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
    Extension Service (CSREES) AgrAbility Program and request that funding
    for the AgrAbility Program be increased to $4.6 million in fiscal year
    2002.
        The AgrAbility Program is an essential, unduplicated, hands-on
    resource for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and
    their families. AgrAbility is the only USDA program dedicated
    exclusively to helping agricultural producers with disabilities. The
    Secretary of Agriculture hailed the importance of the program at an
    event held at USDA in July 2000 to celebrate the tenth anniversary of
    the Americans with Disabilities Act. This event was held to celebrate
    AgrAbility as USDA's contribution to fulfilling the promise of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act. It demonstrates the value of public-
    private partnership by securing donations of funds, talent, and
    materials to magnify the impact of a modest Federal investment. The
    fiscal year 2001 appropriation of $2.8 million funds 18 state programs.
                            disability & agriculture
        Agricultural production is one of the nation's most hazardous
    occupations. Each year, approximately 200,000 people working in
    agriculture experience injuries that limit their ability to perform
    essential farm tasks. Tens of thousands more become disabled as a
    result of non-farm injuries, illnesses, other health conditions, and
    the aging process. Approximately 500,000 agricultural workers
    nationwide have physical disabilities that prevent them from performing
    one or more essential farm tasks.
        The presence of a disability jeopardizes rural and agricultural
    futures for many of these individuals. Rural isolation, a tradition of
    self-reliance, and gaps in rural service delivery systems frequently
    prevent agricultural workers with disabilities from taking advantage of
    growing expertise in modifying farm operations, adapting equipment,
    promoting farmstead accessibility, and using assistive technologies to
    safely accommodate disability in agricultural and rural settings. Yet,
    with some assistance, the majority of disabled agricultural workers can
    continue to earn their livelihoods in agriculture and participate fully
    in rural community life.
                     agrability's role and accomplishments
        The AgrAbility Program was established under the 1990 Farm Bill in
    response to the needs of farmers with disabilities. The Farm Bill
    authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to Extension
    Services for conducting collaborative education and assistance programs
    for farmers with disabilities through state demonstration projects and
    related national training, technical assistance, and information
    dissemination. Easter Seals is proud to be a partner with the
    University of Wisconsin Extension Service to provide the national
    training and technical assistance portion of AgrAbility. Thousands of
    people in states with and without state AgrAbility projects are aided
    through this initiative.
        AgrAbility combines the know-how of the Extension Service and
    disability organizations to provide people with disabilities working in
    agriculture the specialized services that they need to safely
    accommodate their disabilities in everyday farm operations. AgrAbility
    received strong bipartisan support during the 1998 reauthorization of
    the USDA research and education programs, and was extended through
    fiscal year 2004. The $6 million authorization level for AgrAbility was
    continued.
        Under the statute, state and multi-state AgrAbility projects engage
    Extension Service agents, disability experts, rural professionals, and
    volunteers to offer an array of services, including: identifying and
    referring farmers with disabilities; providing on-the-farm technical
    assistance for agricultural workers on adapting and using farm
    equipment, buildings, and tools; restructuring farm operations;
    providing agriculture -based education to prevent further injury and
    disability; and, upgrading the skills of Extension Service agents and
    other rural professionals to better promote success in agricultural
    production for people with disabilities.
        In 2001, USDA received an allocation from Congress of $2.8 million.
    These funds support eighteen state projects in Colorado, Delaware,
    Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri,
    Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota,
    Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin.
        AgrAbility provides customized assistance to farmers, ranchers, and
    farmworkers with disabilities and their families. The nature and degree
    of assistance depends on the individual's disability, needs and
    agricultural operation. For Example:
      --Grover Greer, of Anguilla, Mississippi, has farmed in the
            Mississippi Delta for 26 years. Thanks to the work of
            AgrAbility and other state agencies, his son is now doing the
            same. Born with cerebral palsy, Jonathan, 17, operates a 25-
            acre turfgrass business. A hoist and hand controls allow
            Jonathan to independently operate his tractor to irrigate and
            maintain the grass. While they anticipate the business growing
            and providing Jonathan with employment, Grover says, ``The more
            important point is that he is happy and self-sufficient.''
            Jonathan is putting to good use his abilities and motivation to
            be a successful turfgrass farmer.
      --Max Rodemeyer from Latimer, Iowa was diagnosed with Multiple
            Sclerosis in his twenties. Now in his forties, he has
            difficulty climbing, crouching and walking long distances. With
            these limitations, he was unsure whether or not he could
            continue to operate his 900-acre family farm. Through
            modifications recommended by Iowa AgrAbility, a joint effort
            between Iowa State University Extension and Easter Seals Iowa,
            Mr. Rodemeyer has been able to remain gainfully engaged in
            farming. Mr. Rodemeyer uses a Kawasaki Mule, All Terrain
            Vehicle to get from building to building and to check his
            crops. All of his tractors have lower and wider steps to make
            it easier for him to mount and dismount. Mr. Rodemeyer uses a
            special seed vacuum to load seeds into his planter, as he is
            not able to lift 50-pound bags. Through these modifications,
            and the assistance of Iowa AgrAbility, Max is doing what he
            always has done and what he wants to continue to do, farm.
      --Richard Mauer, of Newport, Pennsylvania, has operated his 450-acre
            dairy farm since he purchased it from his father in 1966.
            Thirty years later, a stroke that left Mr. Mauer partially
            paralyzed threatened his ability to remain in farming. After
            reading about AgrAbility in a magazine, Mr. Mauer contacted
            AgrAbility for Pennsylvanians to seek assistance. AgrAbility
            staff helped Mr. Mauer make modifications to his farm including
            extra steps on tractors, a new more automated milking system
            with computerized monitors and automatic shut-off mechanisms,
            and a automatic wagon hitch that minimizes the number of times
            Mr. Mauer must climb on and off a tractor. These modifications
            have helped Mr. Mauer remain in farming, and his farm currently
            produces approximately 550 gallons of milk a day. He also
            serves as a mentor for other farmers with disabilities
            throughout Pennsylvania. Overall, AgrAbility Projects in 24
            states along with the national project accomplished the
            following since 1991:
      --provided assistance, including nearly 5,000 on-site visits, to over
            8,760 farmers, ranchers and farmworkers or their families
            affected by disability;
      --educated over 137,000 agricultural, rehabilitation, and health
            professionals on safely accommodating disability in
            agriculture;
      --recruited and trained more that 5,300 volunteers and peer
            supporters to assist farmers, ranchers and farmworkers with
            disabilities; and,
      --reached 9,500,000 people through more that 6, 100 exhibits,
            displays, and demonstrations to increase awareness of the
            challenges affecting and resources available to farmers,
            ranchers and farmworkers with disabilities.
        Nationally, the AgrAbility technical assistance and education grant
    was awarded to Easter Seals national headquarters and the University of
    Wisconsin Extension Service in 2000. This new partnership is generating
    innovative and effective activities at the national level that will
    have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the state AgrAbility
    projects and the lives of farmers with disabilities. Some of the
    initiatives underway or planned at the national level include:
      --a national needs assessment conducted with state AgrAbility project
            staff that will identify priorities for designing new tools and
            training;
      --organizing a consensus conference with the Farm Foundation to
            engage leading agricultural interests in identifying and
            addressing concerns of farmers with disabilities;
      --refining the AgrAbility website, including offering AgrAbility
            technical information and tools electronically that were
            previously only available in paper format;
      --developing a comprehensive training package on rural case
            management with the Marshfield Clinic and National Farm
            Medicine Center; and,
      --developing distance education programs for State AgrAbility Project
            staff to increase access to training.
                        impact of current funding levels
        A funding floor of $150,000 per state was set in the 1990 Farm Bill
    to assure that the state programs were appropriately resourced to meet
    diverse, statewide agricultural accommodation needs. However, because
    funding has not approached the $6 million authorized level, state
    projects have only received slightly over $100,000 per state. In the
    1998 reauthorization of the USDA research and education programs, the
    Committee reaffirmed a commitment to that funding floor of $150,000 per
    state. Easter Seals strongly supports full funding of state programs to
    4 assure that they continue to be effective for farmers with
    disabilities. The fiscal year 2002 request of $4.6 million would bring
    all current states up to the $150,000 level and would allow eight
    currently unserved states to implement AgrAbility programs.
        AgrAbility projects are underfunded relative to need and objective.
    At the current funding level, only a few staff can be hired to provide
    statewide education and assistance to farmers with disabilities,
    educate rural professionals, recruit volunteers, and work with rural
    businesses on disability-related issues. Rising demand for services and
    the great distances that must be traveled to reach farmers and ranchers
    severely strains even the most dedicated of AgrAbility's outstanding
    staff. Easter Seals fears that failure to invest adequately in this
    worthwhile program will ultimately cause it to falter.
        One of the consequences of limited funding is that, in every grant
    cycle, some states with existing AgrAbility programs and a demonstrated
    need for services, are not renewed and are forced to discontinue
    services to farmers with disabilities in that state. These states often
    have difficulty obtaining the access to the limited public and private
    funding sources that the Federal seed money granted them. More than a
    dozen states have sought AgrAbility funding without success. Other
    states, including Louisiana, Michigan, Montana/Idaho, New Hampshire,
    New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Ohio, and Vermont, had USDA-
    funded AgrAbility projects in the past. Each of these states can
    demonstrate significant unmet needs among farm and ranch families
    affected by disability that AgrAbility could potentially address. Any
    loss of programs will greatly affect farmers with disabilities in
    states for whom AgrAbility is the primary resource through which they
    seek information and assistance on farming with a disability.
                                funding request
        The need for AgrAbility services has never been greater, and its
    accomplishments to date are remarkable by any standard. Easter Seals is
    proud to contribute to the ongoing success of the USDA-CSREES
    AgrAbility Program. Please support the allocation of at least $4.6
    million for AgrAbility in fiscal year 2002 to ensure that this valuable
    public-private partnership continues to serve rural Americans with
    disabilities and their families. Thank you for this opportunity to
    share the successes and needs of the USDA AgrAbility Program.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Florida State University

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony before this
    Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
    Florida State University (FSU).
        Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
    Research I university with a rapidly growing research base. The
    University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
    studies, exemplary research and top quality undergraduate programs.
    Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
    teaching, to performance of research and creative activities and have a
    strong commitment to public service. Among the faculty are numerous
    recipients of national and international honors, including Nobel
    laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners as well as several members of the
    National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do excellent
    research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often work
    closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
    results of their research. Having been designated as a Carnegie
    Research I University several years ago, Florida State University
    currently is approaching $125 million per year in research awards.
        FSU will soon initiate a new medical school, the first in the U.S.
    in over two decades. Our emphasis will be on training students to
    become primary care physicians, with a particular focus on geriatric
    medicine-consistent with the demographics of our state.
        Florida State attracts students from every county in Florida, every
    state in the nation, and more than 100 foreign countries. The
    University is committed to high admission standards that ensure quality
    in its student body, which currently includes some 192 National Merit
    and National Achievement scholars, as well as students with superior
    creative talent. We consistently rank in the top 25 among U.S. colleges
    and universities in attracting National Merit Scholars to our campus.
        At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
    well as our emerging reputation as one of the nation's top public
    universities.
        Mr. Chairman, let me tell you about a project we are pursuing this
    year through the U.S. Department of Agriculture/Agricultural Research
    Service Account. Florida State University (FSU), Harbor Branch
    Oceanographic Institution (HBOI), and USDA's Agriculture Research
    Service (ARS) are collaborating on a five-year research and development
    program to design low-cost, energy efficient recirculating aquaculture
    production systems for marine species in new environments. These
    efforts will expand the aquaculture opportunities for subtropical
    marine species to inland sites throughout the southern United States.
        There is an increasing global awareness of the need for sustainable
    aquaculture development. By the year 2025 global population is
    projected to reach 8.5 billion, with a projected demand for seafood of
    120 million metric tons (MMT). Capture fisheries reached the carrying
    capacity more than ten years ago, but the demand for seafood has shown
    no signs of abating. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
    reported that in 1995 aquaculture only accounted for 26 percent of the
    total world harvest of food fish. In 1997, U.S. seafood imports
    increased both in volume and value with shrimp topping the list at
    278,600 metric tons valued at $2.7 billion dollars. Shrimp imports
    continue to be the second largest contributor to the U.S. trade deficit
    and it is expected that finfish imports will follow the same scenario.
    There remains a great need for U.S. aquaculture production to fill this
    void and relieve some of the harvest pressure on wild fish stocks.
        Competition for access to the limited U.S. coastal land resources
    requires innovative approaches to develop and expand marine aquaculture
    into new environments. HBOI has work underway demonstrating that many
    saltwater species thrive in freshwater systems with the appropriate
    chemical makeup. Experimental and demonstration trials have shown that
    some species of marine fish and shrimp can be successfully acclimated
    and grown to market size in hard freshwater systems, thus, expanding
    the sites where marine species can be cultured.
        In response to public concern about environmental protection of
    coastal waters and producer concern about biosecurity to protect farmed
    aquatic resources from disease and poor water quality, farmers are
    turning to recirculating aquaculture production systems. In many
    locations around the U.S., regulatory constraints already require the
    use recirculating aquaculture systems. In order to use these systems to
    produce marine finfish, we need to improve the filtration efficiency
    and develop cost effective recirculating production systems.
        The objectives of the five-year research program are to: develop
    the culture technology to produce marine or brackish water species in
    new environments (i.e., fresh water); improve the energy efficiency
    (i.e., solar) and reduce the production costs for enclosed aquaculture
    production systems; and design low-cost recirculating systems for
    intensive aquaculture production. The goal of our work is to design a
    cost effective and energy efficient solar aquaculture system capable of
    sustained production of warm-water species throughout the year in
    colder climates. The research team will design and test low-cost
    recirculating nursery and growout production systems for marine
    finfish. Our design will also include a computer control system for all
    solar components, water and interior temperatures, recirculating
    systems, and other mechanical components. Findings will expand U.S.
    aquaculture production of saltwater species into new locals, result in
    better utilization of land resources and reduce the demand for imported
    aquaculture products.
        The collaborating institutions are seeking an appropriation of $1.7
    million in fiscal year 2002 to support the development of sustainable
    marine aquaculture systems through the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
    Agricultural Research Service (ARS) account.
        Mr. Chairman this is an excellent project that will yield great
    rewards for our nation and is just one of the many ways that Florida
    State University is making important contributions to solving some key
    problems and concerns our nation faces today. Your support would be
    appreciated, and, again, thank you for an opportunity to present these
    views for your consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville

        Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to present our statement supporting funding for the
    Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and
    especially for the Agency flagship research facility, the Henry A.
    Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), in Maryland.
    Our organization--Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville--is
    dedicated to supporting and promoting the Center's agricultural
    research, outreach, and educational mission.
        Now without preliminaries, Mr. Chairman, we will go directly to the
    heart our recommendations, which are based on expressed industry needs
    and our consultations with the Department of Agriculture.
        We first will list three high priorities where we recommend
    establishing new research positions. Second, we will suggest relatively
    new or ongoing research areas that need additional funding. Last, we
    will allude to other fundamental research topics and needs.
                       recommendations for new positions
        Biochemist or Molecular Biologist Position for Dry Bean Research.--
    American farmers annually plant two million acres to dry beans,
    generating a farm-gate cash value of approximately $280 million.
    Farmers plant another 300, 000 acres to snap beans for fresh markets
    and processing, generating approximately $280 million annually. The
    United States is one the world's largest exporter of dry beans. Much of
    the export goes to Africa and Latin American, where dry beans provide
    excellent sources of protein, vitamins, minerals, and calories for the
    diets of hungry, low-income people. Beans are important to the American
    diet as well.
        U.S. dry bean and snap bean production is constrained by persistent
    low yields and plant diseases. Production restraints are complex and
    poorly understood. Though traditional investigative approaches have
    produced several improved bean cultivars, further progress requires a
    more comprehensive, multidisplinary approach. Thus, we are pleased to
    join the National Dry Bean Council in recommending a new scientific
    position within the Vegetable Laboratory for developing molecular
    markers to identify genes for improving yields and resistance to
    diseases. The new position will contribute to dry bean improvement
    throughout the United States and beyond.
        Soil and Water/Hydrologist Position for Irrigation and Water
    Management Research in the Mid-Atlantic States.--Just in the past ten
    years, irrigation agriculture from New Jersey to Florida has grown by
    20 percent. Irrigation agriculture in the region now totals almost five
    million acres. Yet irrigation expertise and research are lacking.
    Growers need better information to manage irrigation timing and
    drainage to improve profitability and protect the environment from
    associated crop production risks. They need information about
    efficient, safe use of waste (recycled) water, especially for
    irrigating turfgrass and ornamental landscapes, and protecting local
    and regional water quality. They need strategies to deal with sporadic
    drought conditions and competition among alternative demands for local
    and regional water supplies. We concur in recommending a new science
    position to address these expanding issues.
        Research Position for Organic Farming Systems.--Certified organic
    cropland doubled from 1992 to 1997. Organic livestock sectors--eggs and
    dairy--grew even faster. Forty-nine states committed 1.3 million acres
    to organic production, two-thirds of them to crops in 1997. Almost half
    the states were raising certified organic livestock. Organic farming
    systems rely on cultural and biological pest management, virtually
    prohibiting synthetic chemicals in crop production and antibiotics or
    hormones in livestock production. Organic farming provides habitat for
    predators and parasites of crop pests. Organic farmers use planting,
    and harvesting dates and crop rotation to maintain soil fertility, and
    cycle animal and green manures as fertilizer. Approximately 2 percent
    of our best fruit and vegetable crop acreage--apples, carrots, lettuce,
    and grapes--was managed organically in 1997. Certified organic
    livestock production was less than one percent of total production but
    growing.
        Several USDA agencies are active in the expanding the organic
    farming industry. Since the early 1990s BARC has been in at the
    forefront of research on organic and sustainable farming systems. The
    Center needs this new position to enhance and expand its support of
    this rapidly growing sector of American agriculture.
                        recommendations for ongoing work
        Bio-mineral Soil Amendments for Nematode Control.--Losses to soil
    nematodes cost farmers billions every year. The soybean cyst nematode
    alone can cut soybean yields by 10 percent, often more. Citrus and
    vegetable crops also are vulnerable to intensive nematode damage.
    Growers are squeezed by expanding nematode infestations, developing
    nematicide resistance, and de-registration of traditional nematicides
    because of environmental concerns. BARC in cooperation with industry
    and others is pursuing new, more effective approaches to nematode
    control, including promising research lines using such re-cyclable soil
    amendments as animal wastes, composts, and mineral by-products. We
    recommend a substantial increase in funds supporting these promising
    approaches.
        Animal Improvement Programs.--For many years America's dairy cows
    have steadily increased milk production at the rate of about 45 gallons
    per year. Approximately two-thirds of those increase trace to genetic
    progress. Much of the credit for that success stems from the
    cooperative national and international genetic evaluation programs of
    BARC's award winning Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory. Now under
    funded, the laboratory needs additional support to continue its
    historical support for the nation's dairy farmers, livestock and food
    industries, and American consumers.
                         other research or initiatives
        Mr. Chairman, the foregoing includes only our most prominent
    recommendations. They are neither comprehensive nor exclusive. For
    instance, we recommend support for BARC's work on value-added products,
    co-utilization, and cooperation with industry to use foundry sand in
    soil amendments. Finally, we will note the exponential growth of a
    relative new field called ``agricultural bioinformatics,'' which
    generally refers to using advanced computer expertise to support such
    studies as genomics, molecular biology, gene and chromosomal mapping,
    and database mining for genetic improvement.
        Since our last statement before this Subcommittee, BARC has
    celebrated several milestone events marking the Center's long,
    distinguished record of leadership and accomplishment. In closing, we
    briefly will note selected BARC milestones and will allude to another
    milestone event planned for later this year.
        Last June BARC celebrated its 90th anniversary year. The event--in
    conjunction with BARC's annual public field day--featured priceless
    period photos and great research accomplishments through the decades.
    Also in June, the Center was officially named the Henry A. Wallace
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in honor of former Secretary
    Henry Wallace. During Secretary Wallace's tenure, BARC grew and
    expanded, shifted its emphasis from applied research to ``research into
    the laws and principles underlying agriculture in its broadest
    aspects.''
        In September, FAR--B was pleased to co-sponsor another in BARC's
    outstanding series of international symposia. This one, appropriately
    entitled Healthy Animals 2000, was markedly successful. Then just last
    month the American Society for Horticultural Science designated BARC a
    ``Horticultural Landmark.'' The Society has declared only two other
    Historical Landmarks: Monticello, honoring our third President, and the
    Como Park Conservatory in St. Paul, Minnesota. Last, we note that BARC
    is planning a groundbreaking ceremony later this year to modernize the
    Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center
        Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. We are grateful for
    your past support of the BARC mission. And, we again thank you for the
    opportunity to present our testimony.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Friends of the National Arboretum

        Chairman Cochran and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony in support of the U.S. National
    Arboretum (USNA) on behalf of Friends of U.S. National Arboretum (FONA)
        In 1997 the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) commissioned
    development of a new Master Plan for the USNA. The new Master Plan was
    developed under contract with the ARS by a noted outside consultant and
    was essentially completed by mid-1999. Since fiscal year 2000, FONA and
    key Members of Congress have been urging implementation of the new
    Master Plan, which should start with the capital funding for the design
    and implementation of such long lead-time items as the new entrance
    from Bladensburg Road and the new visitor's center. FONA respectfully
    requests $3,000,000 for planning, design and construction of the new
    entrance off Bladensburg Road and $110,000 for planning and design of
    the new Education and Visitors Center.
        FONA is advised that starting in fiscal year 2002, the Gardens Unit
    as well as the Education and Visitor Services Unit will have to
    decrease staff because of budgetary constraints at the very time that
    the success of the facility and interest in horticulture is bringing
    increased number of visitors to the site. These units have not had a
    program increase since fiscal year 1996 and are further threatened by
    having funds diverted to meet increased utility and service costs. FONA
    strongly urges an increase in the USNA's operating budget equivalent to
    7 FTE's for these key functions in fiscal year 2002.
        The Congressionally mandated purposes of the USNA are research and
    education. As part of the ARS, the USNA has a strong research program.
    Yet an independent consultant recently found that is was not very
    visitor friendly. Its Gardens Unit as well as its Education and Visitor
    Services Unit are chronically underfunded, and these components of the
    education function cannot compete favorably against research projects
    for program funding within the ARS. It has been the urgent
    recommendation of FONA that funding of the facilities component of the
    USNA, including specifically the Gardens and Education and Visitors
    Services Units, should be removed from within the Plant, Microbial, and
    Insect Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement (301)
    program area and established as a stand-alone program area. FONA urges
    implementation of this recommendation in the appropriation for fiscal
    year 2002.
        Thank you for your continued support of the national treasure that
    is our U.S. National Arboretum.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Coachella Valley Water District; Imperial
       Irrigation District; the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                California; and San Diego County Water Authority

        This is a fiscal year 2002 budget request to provide $2 million
    from the Department of Agriculture's wildlife habitat program for
    habitat conservation and enhancement in and around the Salton Sea area
    related to agricultural activities in Riverside and Imperial Counties
    in California. The requested funds would be used to conserve and
    enhance habitat that could be affected by agricultural water use
    efficiency improvements needed in order to provide water to meet urban
    water needs in southern California, and do so without adversely
    impacting the region's farm economy. More effective water use is a
    critical part of California's Colorado River Water Use Plan.
        California's Colorado River Water Use Plan is a major undertaking
    by the State and its agencies that will enable California to reduce its
    reliance on Colorado River water by up to 800,000 acre-feet per year.
    In the past, California has taken up to 5.2 million acre-feet per year
    from the river; but due to increased use by other states, California
    must now find the means to live within its normal year apportionment of
    4.4 million acre-feet. Key components of California's Colorado River
    Water Use Plan include core voluntary cooperative water conservation/
    transfers from agricultural use to urban use which are needed to meet
    California's water needs and maintain its urban and agricultural
    economies. At the same time, we must conserve and enhance critical
    wildlife habitats that could be affected by water conservation.
    California and its Colorado River water users will be making
    expenditures in the billions of dollars to implement California's
    Colorado River Water Use Plan.
        The requested funds would be used to create lower salinity habitat
    in the Salton Sea deltas and surrounding areas, provide for wetland/
    upland restoration projects, and enhance piscivorous bird habitat. The
    local program implementing agency would be the Imperial Irrigation
    District.
        Our collective agencies thank you for your consideration of this
    important funding request, and respectively request that the funding be
    part of the Department of Agriculture's fiscal year 2002 budget.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Humane Society of the United States

        We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    Agriculture and Rural Development Subcommittee on funding items of
    great importance to the Humane Society of the United States and its 7.7
    million supporters nationwide. As the largest animal protection
    organization in the country, we urge the Committee to provide these
    priority funding items in the fiscal year 2002 budget:
      --$3.8 million increase for Animal Welfare Act Enforcement, broken
            down as follows:
        --$2.4 million increase for APHIS/Animal Welfare inspections
        --$1 million increase for APHIS/Investigative and Enforcement
                Services
        --$400,000 increase for ARS/Animal Welfare Information Center
      --$325,000 for Iowa's Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture to
            promote use of hoop barns, under the Cooperative State
            Research, Education, and Extension Service
      --$1,988,673 for Wildlife Services Methods Development to conduct 1st
            year of study evaluating relative effectiveness of non-lethal
            and lethal predator control management for livestock protection
      --$102,000 increase for APHIS enforcement of Horse Protection Act
                         animal welfare act enforcement
        We are grateful that the Committee has begun to address the severe
    budget shortfall in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and
    Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)/Animal Welfare budget, by
    providing a $1 million increase in fiscal year 2000 and a $2 million
    increase in fiscal year 2001. Before that, as you know, funding for
    enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act had been stagnant since 1991. The
    Animal Care (AC) unit received $12.14 million in fiscal year 2001 to
    cover, among other things, inspections of approximately 10,000 separate
    locations at regulated entities--research facilities; exhibitors such
    as zoos and circuses; animal dealers and breeders; and animal carriers
    such as airlines and ground freight handlers.
        While the increases of the past two years are making a real
    difference, more is needed to ensure that regulated facilities and the
    public can depend upon having a high quality inspection program and
    consistent enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act's requirements. This
    is vital to protect the health and safety of millions of animals. It is
    also important for people, as strong enforcement protects them against
    (1) the sale of unhealthy pets by commercial breeding facilities
    commonly referred to as ``puppy mills''; (2) laboratory conditions that
    may impair the scientific integrity of animal-based research; (3) risks
    of disease transmission from, and dangerous encounters with, wild
    animals in or during public exhibition; and (4) injuries and deaths of
    pets on commercial airline flights due to mishandling and exposure to
    adverse environmental conditions. To help meet these needs, we
    respectfully request that the Committee provide an additional $3.8
    million in fiscal year 2002, allocated to the following three key
    components. The Humane Society of the United States is pleased to join
    forces on this request with a broad coalition of organizations
    representing regulated facilities and animal protection interests.
    Animal Welfare Inspections--$2.4 million increase
        In 2000, USDA was able to conduct fewer than 9,000 Animal Welfare
    Act compliance inspections, down from 18,000 in 1992. Thanks to the
    modest increases of the past two years, the AC division has begun to
    reverse this decline, and expects to complete just over 10,000
    inspections this year. While this is an encouraging sign that attention
    will be paid to long-neglected facilities, it highlights the need for
    further progress. At these still-low levels, many facilities continue
    to escape oversight for long periods of time, giving rise to situations
    that threaten both human and animal health and safety. Forty-five
    percent of the sites that are inspected are found to have apparent
    violations of the minimum standards under the Act. Facilities with
    serious deficiencies require between four and eight reinspections per
    year until compliance is achieved. To ensure that every site is visited
    at least once a year and all noncompliant facilities receive the
    necessary follow-up, AC should conduct a minimum of 17,000 compliance
    inspections per year. A $2.4 million increase in fiscal year 2002 would
    bring the Animal Welfare budget to $14.5 million, enabling AC to hire,
    train, and equip an additional 14 inspectors; conduct approximately
    11,600 inspections and improve follow-up inspections to verify
    correction of violations; increase searches for unlicensed and
    unregistered operations and other illegal activities; handle animal
    care complaints more quickly; expand outreach to regulated industries
    and the public; develop industry-specific training courses; and
    implement internal audits and inspector quality reviews to ensure
    consistent quality in inspections.
    Investigative and Enforcement Services--$1 million increase and
            Committee Report language
        As AC inspectors improve their identification of problems at
    facilities, the workload at Investigative and Enforcement Services
    (IES) grows. However, ten years of static IES budgets have resulted in
    a substantial reduction in the number of investigators, from 73 in 1992
    to 56 in 2000, creating a bottleneck in the overall enforcement system.
    Only 329 Animal Welfare Act investigations were undertaken in 2000,
    down from 800 in the early 1990s. In the early 1990s, cases took an
    average of 60 days to complete; in 2000, it was 140 days. A $1 million
    increase in fiscal year 2002 directed at enhanced enforcement of the
    Animal Welfare Act would bring IES' budget to $7.26 million, enabling
    it to fill a critical vacancy for an enforcement specialist; continue
    to support four field positions now temporarily funded through the
    APHIS Administrator; add four new field staff strategically placed in
    areas with high concentrations of animal welfare licensees and
    registrants; reduce time to complete investigations; deploy ``quick-
    response'' teams to address high-priority violations; and improve
    tracking of unlicensed operators. We also respectfully request
    inclusion of the following language in the Committee Report: ``The
    Committee directs that $1 million of additional funds for Investigative
    and Enforcement Services be used for enhanced enforcement of the Animal
    Welfare Act.''
    Animal Welfare Information Center--$400,000 increase
        Created by Congress in 1985, the Animal Welfare Information Center
    (AWIC) serves as a clearinghouse and education resource for all
    individuals involved in the care and use of animals for
    experimentation. AWIC provides information on training for laboratory
    employees, and legal requirements and appropriate care for animals in
    research, including minimizing pain and distress, preventing
    duplication of experiments, and reducing or replacing animals in
    research when possible. It is an invaluable resource for the research
    community, and users have accessed its website, http://
    www.nal.usda.gov/awic, nearly half a million times in one year alone.
    However, the AWIC budget has remained stagnant at $750,000 since its
    creation more than 15 years ago. A $400,000 increase in fiscal year
    2002 would bring AWIC's budget to $1.15 million, enabling it to develop
    web-based training to enhance compliance with the Federal law; expand
    its website with additional material and update the search engine to
    improve access to the data available; and sponsor workshops in
    different regions of the country.
             hoop barns/leopold center for sustainable agriculture
        The hoop barn is an emerging alternative for livestock production
    that offers many advantages to the factory farm system of animal
    housing. A typical hoop barn is shaped like a Quonset hut (a half
    cylinder lying on its flat side) and contains a deep bedding of straw
    or corn stalks. No individual cages confine the animals, and open ends,
    which can be closed if weather requires, allow access to pasture.
    Animals in hoop barns enjoy greater freedom of movement and have the
    opportunity to interact socially.
        Because they are not tightly confined in an overcrowded, high-
    stress environment, animals in hoop barns tend to be healthier than
    their counterparts in factory farms. That means farmers using hoop
    barns do not need to rely on antibiotics to prevent disease and promote
    growth, a common practice on factory farms that is contributing to the
    development of antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria that threaten
    public health. Products from hoop producers are being sought out by
    meat suppliers and restaurants based on the enhanced flavor and texture
    characteristics of the meat. In addition, hoop barns are better for the
    environment, because they use solid manure composting rather than the
    liquid waste disposal system used by factory farms, which jeopardizes
    groundwater and produces noxious odors. Furthermore, they offer an
    affordable alternative for farmers. Hoop barns are approximately one-
    third the cost of conventional factory farm structures. They are easy
    to install and versatile (they can be used for different species or for
    storage of hay or equipment). This flexibility helps family farmers
    withstand fluctuations in market demand and avoid corporate buyouts.
        The Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture at Iowa State
    University has been in the forefront of research and development on
    hoop barns. We request funding of $325,000 under the Cooperative State
    Research, Education, and Extension Service account to enable the Center
    to make the benefits of hoop barns available on a wider scale. These
    funds would be used by the Center to:
      --Evaluate several production, marketing, and systems questions where
            current hoop knowledge is in the early stages, including but
            not limited to: disease/pest vector control, gestation
            applications, and social, community, and environmental effects.
      --Develop a ``Best Management Practices'' manual for raising pigs in
            hoops. This will provide guidance to farmers on how to install
            and operate hoops for optimal results in a range of different
            climates and other factors, so that use of these structures can
            be effectively and readily adapted to suit individual farming
            needs. It will include information on animal behavior, animal
            husbandry and nutrition, health strategies, environmental
            impacts, marketing strategies, and economic costs and returns
            for pigs raised in hoop structures.
      --Establish a network of hoop demonstration sites and producers with
            multiple locations in Iowa and other states, including Florida
            (a major pork consumption state). This objective would include
            dissemination of information through field days, tours,
            producer exchanges, etc.
      --Address potential use of hoop barns for production of other animal
            species.
      --Work with industry producer groups, processors, retailers, and
            community groups to promote awareness of use of hoop barns in
            pork production. This would include factors such as quality of
            pork, community issues, targeted marketing, and market linkages
            of producers, processors, retailers, and consumers.
    Wildlife Services Non-Lethal Predator Control Demonstration Program
        We appreciate the Committee's inclusion of a provision in the
    fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriation Act for the Wildlife
    Services Methods Development division to ``conduct pilot projects in up
    to four States representative of wildlife predation of livestock in
    connection with farming operations for direct assistance in the
    application of non-lethal predation control methods . . .,'' in order
    to evaluate the effectiveness of non-lethal measures. We believe this
    investigation can help advance what has often been a contentious debate
    in Congress surrounding USDA's use of lethal predator control for
    livestock protection.
        We have worked closely with Wildlife Services personnel during the
    past few months, as they identified three states (Idaho, California,
    and West Virginia) to investigate and developed a study protocol
    designed to produce statistically meaningful results. To accomplish
    this objective, experts at the National Wildlife Research Center and at
    USDA headquarters suggest that a four-year study be undertaken
    involving eight to twelve sheep ranches in each of the three states.
    Participating ranches would be provided the current regime of
    assistance (blending lethal and non-lethal techniques) for half of the
    study period, and would be provided only non-lethal assistance for the
    other half of the study period. Participants would be divided into two
    groups, with one group receiving the non-lethal assistance for the
    first two years and the current regime for the last two years, while
    the other group would receive help in the reverse order (current regime
    first, then non-lethal only). Again, according to the Wildlife Services
    experts, this ``switchback'' study design will minimize bias and
    variables that would distort evaluation of the relative effectiveness
    of lethal vs. non-lethal measures. Participants would be offered
    compensation for verified livestock losses due to canid predators
    (except wolves) during the non-lethal only phase of the study, in order
    to assure their continued participation in the study. Because the
    lambing season was already underway in two of the three states by the
    time the protocol was developed, and because the necessary funding was
    not in hand, we and the sponsors of the original provision, Senators
    Bob Smith and Barbara Boxer, agreed with Wildlife Services personnel
    that it would be preferable to defer the first year of the study until
    fiscal year 2002.
        The detailed study protocol should be available from Wildlife
    Services for the Committee's consideration. Attached is a one-page
    budget break-out prepared by Wildlife Services that shows projected
    study needs for each of the four years. Accordingly, we request that
    the Committee provide $1,988,673 in fiscal year 2002 to initiate this
    study, along with report language referencing the objective and key
    elements of the study.
                        horse protection act enforcement
        Enacted by Congress in 1970, the Horse Protection Act was passed to
    end the obvious cruelty of physically soring the feet and legs of
    horses. In an effort to exaggerate the high-stepping gate of Tennessee
    Walking Horses, unscrupulous trainers use a variety of methods to
    inflict pain on sensitive areas of the feet and legs for the effect of
    the leg-jerk reaction that is popular among many in the show-horse
    industry. Just as in 1970 the practice of soring was rampant, in 2001
    the practice continues unabated by the well-intentioned but seriously
    underfunded and understaffed APHIS inspection program.
        The authorization limit for enforcement of the Act has remained at
    $500,000 since the enactment of the law 30 years ago, and annual
    appropriations continue to fall short of even that low funding level.
    We appreciate that the Committee began to address this shortfall last
    year, with an increase of $37,000 that brought the funding level up to
    $398,000 in fiscal year 2001. We respectfully urge that the Committee
    provide funding at the full authorization level of $500,000 for fiscal
    year 2002 (a $102,000 increase), to improve enforcement of the Horse
    Protection Act. We also urge the Committee to resist any effort to
    include report language that might restrict the USDA from enforcing
    this law to the maximum extent possible.
        Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
    priorities for the Agriculture and Related Development Appropriation
    Act of fiscal year 2002. We hope the Committee will be able to
    accommodate these modest funding requests to address some very pressing
    problems affecting millions of animals in the United States. Thank you
    for your consideration.

                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Illinois Soybean Association and the
                             University of Illinois

        We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of the
    Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center, an important initiative for
    soybean producers in Illinois and the United States.
        Request.--The Illinois Soybean Association, an organization of
    approximately 4,000 leading soybean producers, and the University of
    Illinois, a major land-grant institution, propose to establish a
    Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center within the National Soybean
    Research Laboratory (NSRL) at the University of Illinois. We request a
    Federal appropriation of $3.5 million to match a $500,000 contribution
    from the Illinois Soybean Checkoff Board to establish the Center.
        The Illinois Soybean Checkoff Board will entertain proposals from
    Center scientists for future program support, and the University of
    Illinois will contribute core staff, space, general support services,
    greenhouse facilities, and utilities. This will greatly leverage
    Federal support of soybean disease biotechnology research.
        Rationale.--The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will be the
    first line of defense against major soybean diseases that threaten the
    U.S. soybean industry, especially the soybean cyst nematode (SCN). The
    Center will bring the power of new sciences of structural, comparative,
    and functional genomics and genetic transformation to bear on SCN and
    other current and potential disease threats, including major diseases
    not yet in the U.S., such as soybean rust.
        Center researchers will identify and create new and improved
    mechanisms of disease tolerance and resistance, so as to protect the
    soybean crop and increase its profitability throughout the industry.
    Genetic stocks of the National Soybean Germplasm Collection, located at
    the University of Illinois, will be a unique, readily accessible
    resource for the Center, as will wild species that are related to
    soybean and have novel sources of disease resistance.
        Location Advantages.--The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will
    be synergistic with two campus resources: the Keck Center for
    Comparative and Functional Genomics and the National Center for
    Supercomputing Applications. They offer high throughput genetic
    sequencing, unequaled bioinformatics capabilities, and unique, one-of-
    a-kind genetic analysis tools, including micro-arrays. Center
    researchers will also have ready access to the University of Illinois
    Biotechnology Center, which provides recombinant DNA and protein
    services, immunological resources, flow cytometry, high capacity
    transgenic plant production, and cell and tissue culture facilities.
        Outstanding USDA-ARS programs in soybean pathology will interface
    directly with the Center, and there will be direct access to superb
    conventional greenhouse and controlled environment facilities in
    adjacent, connected structures. As part of this project, a bio-
    containment greenhouse will be constructed specifically to provide the
    levels of isolation and protection required for sophisticated disease
    biotechnology research. An elaborate system of research farms will be
    available for testing new developments in a wide range of soil and
    climatic conditions that are representative of the Midwest. Space is
    available in the NSRL to create specialized, state-of-the-art
    laboratories for the Center.
        The Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center will interface with the
    new St. Louis-headquartered Danforth Plant Science Center and
    participate in the Illinois Missouri Biotechnology Alliance. Its
    association with the NSRL will assure that research in the Soybean
    Disease Biotechnology Center will fully complement and benefit from
    other soy research programs across the nation. This will assure that
    the results of fundamental soybean disease biotechnology research are
    quickly translated into practical technology, useful information, and
    sustainable competitive advantage for the industry.
        This is an excellent time to establish the proposed Center because
    the University of Illinois is ramping up its post-genomics
    biotechnology program. A multi-million investment of state funds is
    providing new biotechnology faculty positions in functional genomics,
    bioinformatics, developmental biology, microanalytic systems, and
    cellular and molecular bioengineering, and is creating elaborate new
    facilities for basic biotechnology and bioinformatics research. Some
    new positions in plant disease biotechnology have been filled with
    outstanding scientist/educators who already have established impressive
    track records. The new state-funded Post Genomics Institute (to be
    completed in 2002) will enable a much-expanded basic biotechnology
    research program that will support and complement activities of the
    Center. The Center will also benefit from the investment of Illinois in
    an expanded University of Illinois business incubator and two new
    University research parks to assure rapid commercialization of
    promising new technologies from the University's research program.
        Summary.--We request that $3.5 million be appropriated to establish
    a Soybean Disease Biotechnology Center within the National Soybean
    Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois. These funds,
    complemented by state funds and industry contributions, will be used to
    staff, equip, house, and operate the center, and launch and sustain its
    programs. We greatly appreciate the legislative initiative that created
    the National Soybean Research Laboratory and look forward to this
    opportunity to extend its world-renowned capabilities with the Soybean
    Disease Biotechnology Center.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the University of Illinois, the University of
                   Missouri, and Southern Illinois University

        Our testimony is on behalf of the federally funded project entitled
    the Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology (IMBA). We much
    appreciate the strong, continuing support of the committee for this
    effort, which began in fiscal year 1995. The project continues to
    produce valuable results and open new options for the corn and soybean
    industries in the Midwest and for the nation as a whole.
        Request.--In order to enhance this productive and strategically
    essential program, we request that $3.0 million be appropriated for
    IMBA for fiscal year 2002. It is particularly important to push this
    initiative forward at this time because of the race among nations to
    capitalize on dramatic findings in the field of genomics. Powerful
    tools are now available to determine the function of genes in
    microorganisms, plants, animals, and humans. Knowledge of gene function
    will allow much better targeting of projects on genes of major
    economic, health, and social promise. The increased appropriation will
    allow us to fund a larger proportion of worthy proposals, expand use of
    the powerful tools of genomics, and include more socioeconomic research
    that addresses stakeholder concerns about product quality and safety as
    well as economic and social impacts of biotechnology. An increased
    appropriation will provide significant economies of scale and scope,
    thus disproportionately increasing funds directly available for
    research and increasing annual leveraged contributions to about $9
    million.
        Needs and Opportunities.--IMBA is focused on the world's most
    important agricultural challenge, meeting the nutritional needs of a
    growing population. Rapidly growing population, urbanization, and
    affluence, especially in Asia, are causing a dramatic increase in the
    consumption of animal protein. These changes are leading to
    unprecedented growth in large animal production facilities and in
    global markets for animal products. Corn and soybeans are economically
    and nutritionally superior to other grain crops for feeding swine,
    beef, dairy, poultry, and confined fish. These classes of livestock are
    increasingly being produced in large-scale, confinement facilities
    around the world. With superior technology, Illinois, Missouri, and
    surrounding Midwestern states can be principal global suppliers, not
    only of corn and soybeans, but also of value-added livestock and other
    food products produced from these crops. To capture these emerging
    markets, however, the U.S. will have to compete vigorously against
    sophisticated foreign producers and will have to address consumer
    concerns about quality, safety, and efficacy of products containing
    genetically modified corn and soybeans.
        Mission, Objectives, and Strategy.--IMBA seeks to maximize the
    benefits of biotechnology for the American agriculture and food sector
    and the American consumer by improving the quality, safety,
    affordability, and acceptance of agricultural and food products. It
    accomplishes this mission by supporting competitively funded, cutting-
    edge biotechnology research conducted as part of research programs
    organized around clearly defined, practical objectives. IMBA scientists
    are strongly encouraged to work closely with the private sector to
    assure that promising new discoveries move rapidly to practical
    application in Midwest agriculture.
        After approval by Congress, program funds are transferred by USDA-
    CSREES to the Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station, which serves as
    repository until the funds are dispersed within the program. To avoid
    spreading the IMBA research investment too thinly, the scope of the
    program is limited to the corn and soybean industries; geographical
    scope to Illinois, Missouri, and other Midwestern states; and
    disciplinary scope to biotechnology, including technical, economic, and
    social dimensions of that subject.
        IMBA-funded biotechnology research grants are awarded
    competitively, based on relevance to IMBA objectives, soundness of
    proposed research strategy, and scientific merit. Proposals are
    evaluated by scientific peers to assure that the best strategies are
    brought to bear on agricultural problems and opportunities that are
    important to the region. A Program Manager located at the University of
    Missouri works with an Executive Management Committee to design and
    develop a biotechnology research investment portfolio that addresses
    the following objectives: 1) develop new and improved uses for corn and
    soybeans and increase the value of these crops as raw material for
    manufacturing various products, 2) lower the cost of producing,
    processing, and utilizing these products, 3) maximize positive and
    minimize negative impacts of the corn and soybean industries on the
    environment and conserve nonrenewable resources that are consumed by
    the corn and soybean industries, 4) anticipate and understand the
    economic and social impacts of agricultural biotechnology and capture
    as many benefits as possible for the American agriculture and food
    sector, 5) define the roles of experts and knowledge systems in
    resolving social conflicts over agricultural biotechnology so as to
    understand and manage agricultural biotechnology risks as perceived by
    consumers, and 6) understand and improve economic, organizational, and
    institutional approaches to value-enhancement and identity
    preservation.
        In designing the IMBA research portfolio, the Executive Management
    Committee defines and seeks an appropriate balance among the above
    objectives, among projects with varying degrees of uncertainty and
    risk, and among goals that can be achieved in relatively short and long
    periods of time. Provision is made for some high risk funding of
    promising but unproven scientists with good ideas. Overall program
    evaluation is performance-based, in accordance with the principals of
    the Government Performance and Results Act.
        Recent Achievements of IMBA Research.--IMBA-supported projects
    continue to progress on several broad fronts. To foster rational
    discourse on biotechnology, IMBA supported the initial development of
    AgBioForum, a unique, web-based, peer-reviewed journal designed to
    reach and educate a broad audience on issues of central importance.
    AgBioForum articles are widely reproduced in the classroom, by the
    media, and as references in academic journals. Total readership has
    surpassed 175,000 and include people from universities, industry,
    government, international organizations, and commercial sites, among
    others. Major themes in 1999 and 2000 issues of AgBioForum include:
    public acceptance of agrobiotechnology, industry consolidation,
    private-public interactions in agricultural biotechnology, farm level
    economics, agrobiotechnology in less developed countries, biotechnology
    and functional foods, regulatory approval of biotech products and
    functional foods, and economics of animal biotechnology.
        IMBA scientists produced genetically transformed soybeans that are
    20 to 60 percent higher in oil. Linkage maps and fast oil analysis
    procedures developed by this group will simplify selection of soybean
    lines for oil and protein content. Nucleotide sequence information they
    have collected is revealing the specific genes involved in protein and
    oil synthesis in soybeans and how these genes differ among lines with
    different oil quantity and quality. Progress is being made toward
    project goals of producing lines with increased total oil content and
    better fatty acid composition than major competing oils.
        Drawing on support from IMBA, a scientist is making excellent
    progress on several fronts toward greater soybean resistance to sudden
    death syndrome (SDS) and soybean cyst nematode (SCN). He identified new
    markers for the most important SDS resistance genes, thus facilitating
    selection for these genes. One hundred thousand cultivars from 10
    public and private breeding programs were screened in one season with
    these markers, yielding 10 with potential for superior resistance to
    both SDS and SCN. Two patents were generated by this project. The rapid
    selection tools are being commercialized. Private firms are developing
    varieties using this method. These varieties will be identified with a
    SDS-Guard trademark.
        IMBA scientists pioneered nitrogen-related genetic changes that
    increase corn yield by 10 percent and reduce leaching of nitrogen into
    ground water. Seeds of six promising transgenic lines were provided to
    ICI Garst, Inc. to plant three field trials. Monsanto is also planting
    transgenic lines in four environments. Both companies are already
    developing second generation transgenics with enhanced performance.
    This project also generated two patents.
        With support from IMBA, scientists are assessing the efficacy of
    adding isoflavones to corn foods as a way to reduce the incidence of
    breast tumors in animal models. The ultimate goal is to create
    transgenic corn that produces one or more of these unique compounds so
    that corn products are healthier for humans. Wild-type mice and mice
    lacking estrogen receptor alpha have been fed diets containing two
    isoflavones, namely, genistein and daidzein. In both cases, a link
    between activity of the gene and availability of the isoflavone has
    been established. The study was extended to include colon tumors. The
    research reveals an extremely complex relationship in which isoflavones
    may reduce or increase tumors depending on the genetic makeup of the
    animal. Knowledge gained in this research will allow scientists to
    predict negative and positive effects depending on an animal's or
    person's genetic makeup.
        IMBA-supported scientists identified more than 8,000 diet-regulated
    genes, 33 of which map to locations associated with diabetes.
    Ultimately, it should be possible to identify each individual's unique
    food-related genetic profile, anticipate certain responses to food, and
    adjust eating habits accordingly. These tests will also facilitate
    treatment of various chronic and acute food-related disorders,
    including obesity, some forms of cancer, and heart disease. Results of
    this work are being commercialized by Electropharmacology, Inc., in
    partnership with major pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
        IMBA-funded scientists are studying the process of apomyxis, which
    allows seed to be produced in the absence of sexual reproduction. If
    hybrid corn plants could be produced that produce seed through
    apomyxis, that seed would produce plants genetically identical to the
    hybrid parents, unlike seed produced on current hybrid plants. This
    would enable farmers to save seed from hybrid parents for use as seed
    the next year. The goal is to reduce seed production costs while
    enhancing hybrid purity.
        Phytic acid contains much of a plant's phosphorus. It is relatively
    undigestable to non-ruminant animals, including humans. Thus, much of
    the phosphorus is passed into ground and surface waters, creating
    pollution. IMBA scientists working to produce soybeans with low levels
    of phytic acid identified a bacterial gene that produces an enzyme,
    phytase, that breaks down phytic acid, making it digestible. They
    introduced this gene into a model plant, Arabidopsis, producing plants
    that store phytase in their seeds. Seeds are being ground and processed
    with corn meal to see if the soybean phytase will break down the phytic
    acid in corn meal. Phytase genes are also being introduced directly
    into soybeans. This opens up two possibilities: (1) a method to produce
    phytase as a feed supplement or for use in grain processing, and (2) to
    incorporate the phytase directly into feed crops, thus reducing their
    phytic acid content.
        Several IMBA scientists are cooperating to develop high oil, high
    oleic acid oil, corn hybrids. Grain produced with these hybrids will
    command a premium based on higher digestible energy level, added value
    in manufacturing certain kinds of food products, and potential human
    health benefits. These scientists have identified molecular markers
    that will make it much easier to select for oil concentration and for
    specific fatty acid profiles. They also have developed new genetic
    constructs that, when introduced into elite germplasm, should enhance
    oil concentration and oleic acid concentration.
        Cooperators.--Current cooperators in IMBA projects include the
    Universities of Illinois and Missouri, Southern Illinois University,
    Iowa State University, and the USDA-Agricultural Research Service group
    at Woodward, Oklahoma. Private, non-profit cooperators include
    Sapient's Institute and Northwestern University. Commercial firms
    cooperating or involved in negotiations include Monsanto Company, ICI
    Garst, Inc., DuPont/Pioneer, ADM-Growmark, Clarkson Grain, Cargill,
    Biosys, Zeneca Agrochemicals, Novartis, DowElanco, Genentech,
    Healthtech, Electropharmacology, and others. Each project is generating
    potential new and improved products, and private firms are evaluating
    the commercial potential of each product of IMBA research.
        Summary.--We believe IMBA projects constitute an outstanding
    portfolio of promising research investments focused on the major
    problems and opportunities associated with the U.S. corn and soybean
    industries. Because of the economically important subject matter being
    addressed by IMBA, unique opportunities afforded by advances in
    genomics, outstanding capabilities of participating institutions, and
    the innovative research management approach being employed, we believe
    that IMBA will continue to be highly productive and will generate an
    unusually high return on the Federal investment. This will more than
    justify the appropriations to date and the $3.0 million requested to
    continue the project in fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the University of Illinois

        Our testimony is on behalf of the Livestock Genome Sequencing
    Initiative (LGSI), an extremely important scientific initiative with
    profound implications for the future of U.S. agriculture. We request
    that $1.6 million be appropriated through USDA, coordinator of the
    international LGSI consortium, to complete the funding of Stage I for
    cattle ($800,000) and Stage I of the pig ($800,000).
        These funds would be provided to the University of Illinois, as a
    member of international consortium, to lead the completion of the
    whole-genome physical map for cattle and for the pig. Specifically, the
    funding will be used to sequence the ends of 100,000 bacterial
    artificial chromosomes (BACs) that contain large inserts of cattle and
    pig DNA. This will enable scientists to build and enhance the quality
    of a whole-genome, high-quality physical map for each species, the
    critical first step in sequencing the genomes.
        Concept.--International participants in a Livestock Genome
    Sequencing Initiative will create a map of the entire genomes of cattle
    and pigs and will sequence all the DNA in those genomes, so that every
    gene in each of the two species is identified by its unique sequence
    and location on specific chromosomes. The resulting map and sequence
    information will be placed in databases that can be accessed by
    scientists using bioinformatics to help establish the function of each
    of tens of thousands of genes, thus leading to valuable practical
    applications. Similarities to the human genome will be extremely useful
    in the mapping and sequencing effort and subsequent research.
        Justification.--Mapping and sequencing genes are the essential
    first steps to learning the function of each gene. Knowledge of gene
    location and sequence, as is amply demonstrated by the human genome-
    sequencing project, opens a whole new vista of approaches to health,
    welfare, and quality of life issues and serves as the basis for future
    biological research. Diagnostics and cures for some of the major
    scourges of mankind, including cardiovascular disease, cancer,
    diabetes, and obesity are among the potentials of this initiative. In
    livestock, the initiative will enable powerful, environmentally safe
    approaches to disease prevention, resistance, and treatment; stress
    alleviation; increased productivity and profitability; improved food
    quality, safety, functionality, and diversity; improved odor and waste
    management; improved environmental quality; and enhanced quality of
    life for food animals. Most important, the initiative will address the
    growing aspirations of the world's population for nutritious, healthy,
    safe, and affordable livestock products.
        Even though it is an international undertaking, there is a very
    important global competitiveness dimension to this initiative as well.
    To illustrate, China, the world's largest pork producer, and Denmark,
    the largest pork producer per capita and a major world exporter of pork
    and pork products, are launching an aggressive swine genome sequencing
    initiative. If the U.S. is to remain technologically competitive in
    global food markets, it is absolutely essential for the U.S. to be
    among the first to map and sequence food animal genomes. This
    fundamental biological information is the foundation for sustainable
    competitive advantage.
        Economic Development Impact.--Rapid population growth,
    urbanization, and growing affluence in the most populous parts of the
    world are resulting in rapidly expanding world markets for livestock
    products. Enormous future growth is very likely, as developing
    countries improve both political and economic systems. To compete
    effectively for those markets, Illinois and the nation must be among
    the first to implement new livestock technology derived from genomics.
    Livestock production adds great value to the feedgrains produced in
    Illinois and the Midwest, and technological leadership will allow that
    value to be captured in the areas where the new technology is
    implemented.
        The current $7.5 billion in cash value of agricultural products at
    the farm gate in Illinois alone would be multiplied at least 10-fold if
    feed grains were exported as livestock and other processed products
    instead of as grain or feed, with proportionate increases in other
    major livestock states. This increased value would accrue to Illinois
    and the nation as increased profits throughout the swine and cattle
    industries, reduced costs of government farm programs, increased
    employment and economic development, and improved consumer products.
        University Capabilities.--The University of Illinois is uniquely
    positioned to lead in the mapping of the pig and cattle genomes. The
    University's Biotechnology Center, which includes the W. M. Keck Center
    for Comparative and Functional Genomics, provides one of the highest-
    throughput public gene mapping and sequencing capabilities in the
    nation, as well as a number of state-of-the-art genetic analysis
    capabilities, such as micro-array analysis. Cutting edge bioinformatics
    capabilities are provided by the National Center for Supercomputing
    Applications.
        These superb research support capabilities enabled University of
    Illinois scientists to be the largest recipients of any institution of
    competitive Federal funding for cattle, pig, and soybean genome
    research. The infrastructure is further enhanced by sizeable public
    investments in facilities, including the Edward R. Madigan Laboratory
    and Post-Genomics Institute ($75 million of state funds, to be
    completed in 2002).
        Additional state appropriations are enabling many distinguished
    scientists of demonstrated excellence to join a distinguished faculty
    that is already internationally preeminent in the genomics area. Also,
    the University has a long history of productive alliances and
    cooperation with other public and private institutions, both here and
    abroad, in biotechnology research. For example, the University was the
    first in the Western Hemisphere to import Chinese swine and exploit
    their advantages in prolificacy, disease resistance, and superiority
    for genetic research.
        Sponsor and Funding Status.--Under the leadership of USDA-ARS, an
    international consortium for cattle and pig genome mapping and
    sequencing is being formed. The consortium, which will initially
    undertake the mapping of the cattle genome, is presently comprised of
    the USDA-ARS, University of Illinois, Shirakowa Institute of Animal
    Genetics (Japan), AgResearch (New Zealand), and the Alberta Livestock
    Genomics Initiative (Canada). Expectations are that by summer, 2001,
    the consortium will look to begin sequencing the pig genome.
        The consortium will operate in two stages for each species. First
    they will create physical maps of the genomes, at a cost of $2.5
    million per species. Then they will sequence the genomes, so that the
    tens of thousands of genes can be identified. This second stage will
    cost about $97.5 million per species. The current consortium members
    have $1.7 million of the $2.5 million for the Physical Map (Stage I)
    for cattle. They expect to make available $1.7 million of the $2.5
    million for the Physical Map (Stage I) for the pig. This leaves an
    immediate need for $800,000 dollars per species (total $1.6 million) to
    complete Stage I. Funds to invest in Stage II, the genome sequencing of
    cattle and of the pig, will be recruited from public and private
    sources by the international consortium.
        Request and Summary.--For fiscal year 2002, $1.6 million is
    requested to be appropriated through the USDA to complete the funding
    of Stage I for cattle ($800,000) and of Stage I of the pig ($800,000).
    If appropriated, these funds will be provided to the University of
    Illinois, as a member of the international consortium, to lead the
    completion of the whole-genome physical map for cattle and for the pig.
    Specifically, the funding will be used to sequence the ends of 100,000
    bacterial artificial chromosomes (BACs) that contain large inserts of
    cattle and pig DNA. This will greatly speed and facilitate building a
    whole-genome, high-quality, physical map of each species, the critical
    first step in sequencing the genomes.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the University of Illinois

        Our testimony is in support of a proposal to launch an innovative
    research program in a Renewables Bioprocessing Research and Development
    Laboratory under development at the University of Illinois. The mission
    of the Laboratory is to develop, test, and refine multistage processes
    by which major grains, especially soybeans and corn, are produced and
    converted to new and improved foods, feeds, pharmaceuticals, fibers and
    plastic materials, energy sources, and industrial feedstocks. We
    request $1.5 million to conduct integrated, multi-stage, ``sample-
    linked'' process research on specific soy- and corn-based products as a
    proof of concept and demonstration of approach.
        Vision.--In the post-genomics age, it is possible for plants,
    animals, and microbes to be genetically altered in specific,
    controlled, and safe ways. This will lead to enhanced grains and other
    raw materials for manufacturing new and improved food and non-food
    products. The new foods will not only be safer, more nutritious, of
    higher quality, more convenient, and more affordable, but will also
    perform important medicinal and preventive health-related functions.
    They will prevent and mitigate important food-related diseases and
    maladies, such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and obesity; improve
    physical and mental performance; extend longevity; and, in general,
    increase quality of life.
        Enhanced soy and corn foods will be prominent in these new
    developments. In many cases, specific pharmaceuticals designed to
    address major health problems will be produced in corn and soybeans.
    These crops have the advantage of not harboring potential contaminants,
    such as viruses and other pathogens that endanger humans and animals.
    Genomics will also open the door to a new vista of environmentally
    friendly, renewable resources, including animal feeds, bio-based
    textiles and other materials, fuels and other energy sources, and
    industrial feedstocks. Genetically altered microorganisms herald the
    day when corn and soybean constituents can be converted to virtually
    any desired end product in an efficient, industrial fermentation
    process. Illinois can capture great economic benefits by leading the
    way into this bio-based economy of the future.
        Concept.--We plan to create a Renewables Bioprocessing R&D
    Laboratory, a unique facility and program in which soybeans, corn, and
    other grains can be initially separated into useful raw fractions, via
    wet or dry grain milling or other means, and further processed at pilot
    scale into various food, feed, and non-food finished products. The
    facility will be designed, equipped, and operated to conduct, on a
    pilot scale, all stages of multistage industrial processes in a
    coordinated, integrated manner, such that samples of raw grains that
    enter the facilities are identity preserved, monitored, and evaluated
    through entire processes leading to finished products and minimal,
    recycled waste streams. These unique capabilities and so-called
    ``sample-linked'' research approach will greatly expedite the
    development of new products and process technology based on genetic
    enhancement and will facilitate the design, engineering, and refinement
    of related equipment.
        Need.--To assure that value added by genetic enhancement is
    realized by the end user, it is essential that enhancements are
    preserved from primary production, harvest, storage, and transportation
    operations through every step in complex, multistage processing and
    manufacturing processes to end-product packaging, distribution, and
    preparation. Thus, research on these new products must track quality
    changes in specific samples or lots all the way from genetic
    enhancement of germplasm and breeding lines to customer satisfaction
    with the use of the final prototype product. Examples of such value
    chains would be those connecting genetically enhanced corn to
    cholesterol-lowering margarines containing appropriate levels of stanol
    esters; genetically enhanced soybeans to phytoestrogen-containing
    pharmaceuticals for post-menopausal women; and genetically enhanced soy
    that imparts to feed and hence to animal products a heart-healthy, high
    proportion of omega-3 fatty acids.
        If the promise of genomics is to be realized in a timely and
    efficient manner, research and development leading to these new
    products and outcomes must be fully coordinated and integrated over
    several disciplines, functions, and stages in complex value chains. To
    reduce development time, research on the various stages must be
    concurrent rather than sequential, with research on each stage fully
    coordinated with other stages. Such research will require an
    extraordinary degree of cooperation and communication among diverse
    participants, especially among private and public participants. To be
    productive and cost effective, such research will require innovative
    and unique expertise, policies, protocols, procedures, facilities, and
    equipment. The Renewables Bioprocessing R&D Laboratory will meet these
    needs.
        Location Advantages.--The Renewables Bioprocessing R&D Laboratory
    will be headquartered at the University of Illinois in facilities
    constructed as part of the renewal of the University's South Farms.
    This will put it in close proximity to field-scale grain production
    research facilities and feedlot scale animal production research
    facilities. It will also be conveniently located for participation by
    tenants in the University's new incubator and research park (south
    site). This will provide great advantages for small firms and startups
    that otherwise could not gain access to state-of-the-art facilities.
    While it will be most convenient for participation by regional
    institutions, agencies, and firms, other groups will be invited to
    participate in this unique program. Until the new facilities are in
    place, the program will utilize some space in existing pilot plants.
        Related Facilities and Programs.--The Renewables Bioprocessing R&D
    Laboratory will complement various Federal facilities available at the
    National Center for Agricultural Utilization Research at Peoria. It
    will be differentiated from other facilities and programs in Illinois
    and other states by its special emphasis on feeds and foods, especially
    soy- and corn-based functional feeds, foods, and pharmaceuticals; its
    close coordination with and proximity to world-class plant, animal, and
    microbial genomics research and educational programs at the University
    of Illinois; and its support of research on waste stream management and
    recycling. Ready access to outstanding University of Illinois
    engineering and biomedical research capabilities will be valuable to
    public and private individuals, institutions, and firms using the
    facility.
        Operation.--Each section of the Renewables Bioprocessing R&D
    Laboratory will be supervised by a professional trained and experienced
    in the category of activities carried out in that section and will be
    operated by experienced technicians. A director and staff will provide
    broad oversight, personnel management, financial management, and
    coordination. It is anticipated that when the Laboratory is complete
    and the concept fully refined and demonstrated, the Laboratory will
    operate on a fee-for-service basis, providing services at the marginal
    cost to both public sector and private sector clients.
        Anticipated Questions.--The following questions might appropriately
    be asked concerning this proposal.
        Question: Why not submit this request to various competitive grant
    programs, such as CSREES, NIH, or NSF competitive grants?
        Answer: The proposed projects are not single investigator efforts,
    but extremely complex undertakings involving several disciplines,
    functions, and stages in complex value chains. Therefore they do not
    lend themselves to the typical single investigator competitive grant
    program. The purpose of such research is defeated if only one or a few
    stages of a multistage process can be investigated.
        Question: If the goal of the proposed program is to develop food
    and non-food products, why shouldn't this reach be carried out by the
    private sector.
        Answer. The private sector should be involved in this research, but
    only a very few, large private firms have the facilities and
    organizational capabilities required to carryout the research
    described. In fact, no private firms have the pilot-scale capabilities
    envisioned for the Laboratory. The advantage of the proposed facility
    and program is that university researchers, small and medium-sized
    private firms, and startups will have access to unique facilities,
    equipment, capabilities, and research protocols at a marginal cost.
    Through unique public/private cooperation, they will gain otherwise
    unattainable economies of scale and scope. Among other advantages,
    participants can address the needs of specialized niche markets that
    may not be addressed by larger firms. The vast majority of potential
    products fall into that category.
        Budget.--We request an appropriation of $1.5 million to conduct the
    initial projects in the Renewables Bioprocessing R&D Laboratory and to
    refine and demonstrate the concept of fully-integrated, multi-stage,
    ``sample-linked'' research. These funds will be used to offset the
    costs of specific experiments conducted under the unique protocols of
    the Laboratory, including the design and installation of prototype
    processing equipment unique to specific projects. We believe this
    effort will clearly demonstrate the advantages of the integrated,
    sample-linked research approach and will create a large demand for
    services such as those provided by the proposed program.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the State of Illinois

        As you begin to formulate your appropriations and funding
    priorities for fiscal year 2002, I respectfully urge you to consider
    the following items for inclusion in the upcoming agriculture
    appropriations bill. Each request is followed by a brief description of
    the project. These projects and funding requests are of particular
    importance to the State of Illinois and I hope that you will be able to
    include them in this legislation. In addition, I am grateful for all
    assistance that you have been able to provide to the State of
    Illinois--your efforts are greatly appreciated and provide numerous
    benefits throughout the state.
                       natural resources and environment
    Illinois River Basin Restoration Program, ``Illinois River 2020''--Farm
            Bill Components
        The Illinois River Basin Restoration Program is a comprehensive
    proposal of authorizations and appropriations that will address the
    serious threats to the Illinois River and its tributaries and implement
    Illinois' goals for the restoration, enhancement, and conservation for
    the Illinois River and its 55 county watershed. The Illinois River
    Basin Restoration Program is a two-tiered approach to provide a
    voluntary, incentives-based program that restores and protects the
    Illinois river hydrology and water quality, addresses urban non-point
    source issues, farmland protection and open space, land treatment for
    stormwater, and best management practices for upland areas that drain
    into the river and its tributaries.
        The following natural resources and environment requests relate
    directly to the Illinois River Preservation Initiative:
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
        Request. Fully fund the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
    (EQIP) at its authorized level and increase Illinois' share by $4
    million.
        The EQIP provides financial, technical, and educational assistance
    to farmers and ranchers who wish to implement conservation on land
    currently in production. Half of the program funds must be used to
    address livestock-related concerns. Illinois only received $2.5 million
    in EQIP dollars in 1998, 1999, and 2000 respectively. There were
    shortfalls of $2.5 million in fiscal year 1999, and $4.7 million in
    fiscal year 2000. In 1999, over 160 landowners could not participate in
    the program because there was a shortfall of $1.8 million for projects.
    Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP)
        Request. Dedicate $100,000 in fiscal year 2002 to the Wildlife
    Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) for the Illinois River Basin.
        WHIP offers cost-share assistance for up to 75 percent of the
    habitat restoration expenses and technical assistance for farmers,
    ranchers and other landowners who wish to implement wildlife habitat
    practices. Eligible practices include native grass restoration,
    riparian area restoration, and aquatic habitat establishment.
    Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)
        Request. Designate 200,000 acres of Conservation Reserve Program
    acres to the Illinois River Basin for fiscal year 2002.
        The CRP provides farmers with technical and financial assistance,
    including annual rental payments, in exchange for removing
    environmentally sensitive land from production and implementing
    conservation practices such as wildlife habitat restoration and field
    windbreaks. This expansion of acreage would bring an estimated $909
    million in new Federal funding to Illinois for restoration over 15
    years of the CRP contract lifetime.
    Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP)
        Request. Dedicate 1,000 acres of Wetland Reserve Program to the
    Illinois River Basin for permanent easements.
        The WRP offers technical and financial assistance to farmers who
    wish to restore and protect agricultural wetlands. The USDA provides up
    to 100 percent of the wetland restoration costs and up to 100 percent
    of' the fair market agricultural value of the land in return for
    permanent or 30-year easements or wetlands restoration cost-share
    agreements. The allotment of this acreage would bring an estimated $1.5
    million in new Federal funding to Illinois for wetland restorations.
    Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
        Request. Expand the CREP in Illinois from 100,000 acres to 232,000
    acres.
        Currently, the State of Illinois has in place a 4-year CREP
    agreement, which began in State fiscal year 99 to enroll 100,000 acres.
    The State of Illinois has dedicated $18 million to fulfill the last two
    years of the agreement, which expires in fiscal year 2002.
        To date, Illinois leads the nation in the number of acres that have
    been enrolled with 66,000 (9,000 acres pending approval), which is
    three-quarters of the state's goal. This enrollment of acres outpaces
    the other states by 3 to 1. Expansion of the number of acres allotted
    to Illinois from 100,000 to 232,000 will enable the state and its
    partners to enroll the most crucial areas of land in the floodplains
    within the Illinois River Basin. These additional 132,000 acres will
    have the greatest impact to the full restoration of the basin.
        Technical assistance for Farm Bill Program implementation is a $345
    M nationwide deficit. In Illinois specifically, that deficit is over $9
    M. Increases in technical assistance funding is needed to properly,
    implement the Farm Bill programs associated with the Illinois River
    Restoration Program.
    Mahomet Aquifer Consortium
        Request. A total of $10 million for an extensive study of the
    Mahomet Aquifer in Central Illinois over ten years.
        The Mahomet Aquifer Consortium is proposing a study of the Mahomet
    Aquifer in Central Illinois. Tile Study will identify and resolve water
    quality and quantity issues, help ensure a water supply for the future,
    optimize future water costs, and promote planned economic development
    for the communities affected by the aquifer. The project is broken down
    into 2 phases with phase one taking 3 years and an estimated cost of $4
    million. Phase two will cost $6 million and take 6 years to complete.
    Illinois Groundwater Initiative at Southern Illinois University
            Carbondale
        Request. $1 million to establish a small outreach center in
    southern Illinois, plus $600,000 annually for three years to continue
    research funding for publications and data to be used by farmers,
    educational institutions, and management agencies. Funding is sought
    from the Agriculture Appropriations bill through USDA's Cooperative
    State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
        The Illinois Groundwater Consortium (IGC), established in 1990, has
    been funded by Congressional appropriations to investigate short- and
    long-term effects of agricultural chemical contamination on
    groundwater, the environment, and ultimately, human health and welfare.
    Consortium members--the Illinois State Geological Survey (ISGS), the
    Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS), Southern Illinois University
    Carbondale (SIUC), Southern Illinois University Edwardsville (SIUE),
    the University of Illinois (UIUC) Agricultural Experiment Station, and
    the University of Illinois Cooperative Extension Service--have been
    working together to provide a scientifically valid bases for
    agricultural chemical management and regulatory decisions affecting
    groundwater.
        During its first years, the IGC focused on issues of agricultural
    contamination of groundwater resources. Between 1996 and 1999, IGC-
    funded research was directed to the effects of and recovery from the
    extensive flooding that occurred in 1993-94 along the Mississippi,
    Missouri, and Illinois Rivers and their tributaries. In the fiscal year
    2000-2001 funding interval, research is focusing on the effects of
    land-use practices and changes in land-use practices on groundwater
    quality and quantity, with an emphasis on long-term (past and future)
    assessments and consideration of cultural (social, political) contexts
    of decision-making. During the fiscal year 2001-2003 funding period,
    research will continue to focus on the above but with greater emphasis
    on water quantity issues and educational outreach to management
    agencies, education institutions, and farmers in the form of ``user
    friendly'' publications.
                      agricultural research and economics
    Economic Assistance for Agriculture
        Request. Plan for the possible need of farm income assistance in
    fiscal year 2002, including the doubling of the AMTA payment to farmers
    and producers.
        Unless market conditions improve for the 2001 crop year, support
    for farmers and ranchers will be needed. In the fiscal year that ended
    September 30, 2000, USDA made a record $28 billion in direct payments
    to farmers and ranchers to help them weather these low commodity
    prices. In the coming months USDA will be distributing more that $4
    billion in additional emergency funds. Similar funds will be needed in
    fiscal year 2002.
        Farmers and ranchers continue to experience very difficult market
    conditions, with many commodities at or near their price lows. Under
    the 1996 Farm Bill's formula, marketing assistance loan rates could
    fall from the current levels if directed by the USDA Secretary. Based
    on current projections, for example, the corn loan rate would fall from
    $1.89 per bushel to $1.76; the wheat loan rate would fall from $2.58
    per bushel to $2.43; and the soybean loan rate would fall from $5.26
    per bushel to $4.92. A change in loan rates or a decrease in farm and
    ranch income will be detrimental to the rural economy.
    Federal-State Cooperation in Warehouse Examination Agreements
        Request. $400,000 Federal reimbursement for state examinations used
    by the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). This would be a new program
    requirement for USDA.
        In 1997, USDA terminated its cooperative agreement with states to
    reimburse them for grain elevator examinations performed by state
    inspectors. Illinois' inspectors continue to inspect and share this
    same information with CCC, but receive no Federal reimbursements for
    their efforts. Given the fact that today's corn and soybean crop prices
    are near their record lows and participation in CCC's programs are at
    record highs either in LDP's or CCC loans, the Department is asking
    USDA to again cost share the additional expense of time spent on
    warehouse examinations by Department staff.
        Prior to 1985, Federal policies dictated that commodities would be
    isolated from market prices and forces until prices rose to specified
    levels. As a result, large inventories and U.S. government owned
    commodities and commodities pledged as collateral for price support
    loans accumulated and the facilities in which these commodities were
    stored had to be examined to adequately protect the Commodity Credit
    Corporation's (CCC) interests.
        This led to CCC relying heavily on cooperative agreement with the
    Department because the volume of workload associated with these high
    stock levels did not make it feasible for CCC to hire and train a
    workforce that would be adequate to conduct all the necessary
    examinations. USDA terminated this program in 1997 after the enactment
    of the farm bill and the low amount of commodities under loan and CCC
    control. Illinois' storage share and Federal reimbursements were: In
    1993/4, 7.78 million bushels of grain stored--$364,920 reimbursed; in
    1994/5, 7.87 million bushels--$364,820 reimbursed, in 1995/6, 8.04
    million bushels of grain--$379,487 reimbursed.
    Agricultural Research Funding
        Request. Increase USDA ARS Research funding by $1 billion a year,
    which would provide approximately $60 million to Illinois.
        Food and fiber are fundamental to life and health. Federal spending
    on health research has more than doubled. Today, Federal spending for
    the National Institutes of Health is nearly $18 billion, 10 times that
    of food and agricultural research, extension and education at USDA. By
    any comparison, whether in terms of payback, future potential, or
    importance to the average family, Federal investment in food and
    agricultural research is woefully inadequate.
        Publicly supported food and agricultural research and education
    were major contributors to the ascension of the U.S. during the
    ``American Century.'' U.S. food and agriculture researchers and
    educators contributed to the Green Revolution that saved a billion
    people from starvation. Promising research breakthroughs in genetics,
    nutrition, information technology, food production and safety and
    ecosystern management hold great potential for even greater strides in
    the 21st century.
        Despite being the best-fed nation with the lowest share of income
    spent on food, many critical national food, agricultural and natural
    resource challenges remain. Some $100 billion of annual health costs
    are linked to poor diets and food-borne pathogens. Agriculture's
    continued viability and competitiveness in the global food system
    depends on technological, management and policy advancements based on
    the most sophisticated cutting-edge research and education. The public
    has rising expectations for a clean and healthy environment and a safe,
    nutritious and health enhancing food supply.
        Scientific studies document that each taxpayer dollar spent on
    agricultural research, extension and education pays back $8 in public
    benefits. These benefits are proportionately greater for low income and
    disadvantaged, who spend a much larger proportion of their incomes on
    food. Yet, after adjusting for inflation, federal investment in food
    and agricultural research has been flat for two decades.
    Create a Joint USDA-IllinoIs DNR Invasive Species Program
        Request. Direct $5 million per year through USDA-ARS to Illinois to
    create, on the campus of the University of Illinois, a unified,
    collaborative USDA-IDNR Invasive Species Laboratory and program on
    research, implementation and outreach against invasive species
    affecting Illinois.
        Invasive species cost Illinois citizens millions of dollars
    annually for control and loss of value of crop and natural lands. While
    some control efforts are well coordinated among State, local and
    Federal partners it is not true for control of many exotic species.
    Creating a collaborative program to develop and implement solutions to
    invasive plant and animal species in agricultural, forest, waterway and
    natural areas will benefit all the State's citizens and businesses.
    Research and outreach efforts require surveying for new invasives,
    developing novel management strategies, preventing new invasions, and
    educating Illinois', citizens about invasive threats and the potential
    benefits from these solutions.
        Invasive species affect every Congressional district in Illinois.
    Species affecting Illinois include kudzu, Chinese soybean aphid, Asian
    longhorned beetle, gypsy moth and zebra mussel. Illinois is fighting
    invasive species, but efforts to find solutions are limited by lack of
    funds for research and implementation. The Illinois Natural History
    Survey in Champaign has a research and outreach program addressing
    Illinois' invasives. USDA-ARS has an Invasive Weed Management Research
    Unit on the UI campus. Creating and funding a joint program on the UI
    campus reduces redundancy, builds on strengths of each program, and
    unifies efforts by USDA, IDNR, and IDA, making Illinois a leader in the
    fight against invasive species. Funding to assess new and current
    invasives, develop and implement novel long-term solutions, and produce
    high-quality materials for the public and schools throughout Illinois
    will benefit the entire State.
    Value-Added Agriculture
        Request. Increase overall funding to USDA programs like Rural
    Business Cooperative Services Agency, Rural Business Programs,
    Cooperative Development Grant Programs, Value Added Grant Programs,
    Rural Business Enterprise Grant Programs, and Rural Business
    Cooperative Services Programs/Rural Development Mission statement areas
    and in the areas of biotechnology, biofuels, and biomass research and
    developments.
        Each part of the U.S. is unique in terms of agronomic conditions,
    on-farm resources, access to markets, the price basis, transportation
    systems, and other factors. These factors all affect the types of
    specialty crop and livestock that can be profitably produced as well as
    the potential for value-add processing in each eco-region.
        To maintain the diversity of U.S. agriculture, agribusinesses and
    food processing and manufacturing industry, to create a unique
    opportunity for farm families and rural communities in the global food
    economy, and to create an agriculture and food system that uses natural
    resources wisely, a major commitment is needed now to develop policies
    and make critical investments that will advantage the U.S. economically
    in the high tech competition of the 21st century global food and
    agriculture system.
        There is significant potential for collaboration in innovations to
    create the new economy food and agriculture sector with major private
    sector partners such as DuPont, Monsanto, Rennessen, Syngenta, Protein
    Technologies International, ADM, Kraft Foods and others, as well as new
    era producer cooperatives and producer alliances.
        The ``first wave'' of agribiotechnology has been dominated by
    designer input traits that improved yields and lowered costs by
    incorporating herbicide, disease and insect resistance into corn and
    soybeans. Bt corn and Roundup Ready soybeans are examples. Rootworm
    resistant corn is on the horizon. First wave advancements will continue
    and will accelerate.
        The ``second wave'' of agribiotechnology is rapidly approaching. It
    focuses on value-enhanced traits, bioproducts and functional food and
    pharming. Examples include: unique traits in corn, soybeans, and wheat
    that create value for livestock feeders and food companies; in improved
    processing efficiency and for energy, industrial, and human health
    applications.
        Bioengineering plants and animals to produce nutraceuticals and
    farmaceuticals, such as cancer preventing agents, will change the
    health care industry and bring integration with agriculture. Edible
    vaccines delivered through fresh foods like apples or potatoes will
    change the landscape of drug production and delivery. Corn modified to
    fight osteoporosis; and soybeans, with unique human disease resistance
    qualities and health improvement attributes, will turn commodities into
    functional food products.
        On ``Pharms,'' herds of novel transgenic animals will serve as
    ``bio-pharmaceutical factories'' to produce drugs, medicines and even
    organ donors for human transplants. A genetically engineered dairy cow,
    goat and/or sheep herd will produce medicines deposited in milk at a
    fraction of the cost of traditional methods of production.
        Bioproducts and biochemicals bioengineered from plants will support
    biobased value-added products and fuels for domestic use and export
    replacing petrochemical feedstocks with biomass materials. Biobased
    fuels, such as ethanol, produced from customized plant biomass
    technologies using cost competitive bioprocesses will dramatically
    reduce dependence on imported oil.
        Federal policies must be responsible, support these new ventures,
    and regulate with sound science principles.
    Environmental Research and Outreach Programs at the University of
            Illinois (At Urbana/Champaign)
        Request. $130,000 for the Illinois Water Resources Center; $1.1
    million for the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College Program; and
    $700,000 for the Midwest Technology Assistance Center.
        The concept of this proposal is to build on existing Federal/State
    partnerships to help Illinois communities and agencies address issues
    of natural resource development and protection. The proposed program
    draws on three statutory programs for research and outreach on natural
    resources and the environment: (1.) In partnership with the U.S.
    Geological Survey, the Illinois Water Resources Center receives federal
    matching funds to conduct university-based research and outreach on
    water resources issues. (2.) In partnership with the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, the University of Illinois and Purdue
    University jointly conduct the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant College
    Program. Sea Grant conducts research and outreach to help citizens and
    communities understand and manage coastal resources. (3.) In
    partnership with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, in 1998, the
    Midwest Technology Assistance Center (MTAC) was formed at the
    University of Illinois to help small communities solve problems of safe
    drinking water supply. By strengthening these partnership programs, the
    proposed research and outreach will improve knowledge of Illinois'
    natural resources and their wise use in economic development.
    Illinois-Missouri Biotechnnology Alliance
        Request. $3 million in funding for the Illinois-Missouri
    Biotechnology Alliance.
        The State of Illinois supports funding for the Illinois-Missouri
    Biotechnology Alliance to continue research at the Universities of
    Illinois and Missouri on biotechnology. Congress appropriated $1.184
    million in funds for this project in fiscal year 2000. The Illinois-
    Missouri Biotechnology Alliance is a competitive grants program focused
    on biotechnology issues related to the production and utilization of
    corn and soybeans as they are produced in the mid-western U.S.
    Soybean Disease Biotechnology Research Center
        Request. Request $3.5 million for fiscal year 2002
        It would be established within the National Soybean Research
    Laboratory (NSRL) at the University of Illinois, the Center will be the
    first line of defense against major soybean diseases that threaten the
    most important ``biofactory'' of new foods and uses in the future,
    namely, the soybean crop. Scientists in the Center will employ cutting
    edge biotechnology research to provide soybeans with new and improved
    mechanisms of escape from, tolerance of, and resistance to major
    pathogens, including soybean cyst nematode (SCN) and other soy diseases
    that threaten the profitability of the soybean industry. The Center
    will draw on the 17,000 lines in the National Soybean Germplasm
    Collection at the NSRL and apply the power of structural, comparative,
    and functional genomics and genetic transformation. The Illinois
    soybean industry will provide funds to help establish the Center and
    support its research program.
    Center for Alternative Agriculture Crops and Products
        Request. $1.95 million for the Center for Alternative Agriculture
    Crops and Products at SIU-Carbondale.
        This center synergizes various corporations, agencies, and regional
    universities of the heartland and midsouth to explore alternative
    income crops and products for Southern Illinois, Illinois, and the
    region. Emphasis would be on increased farm income and increased rural
    development through added production, processing, and employment. The
    plan calls for $1.95 million for renovation and expansion of a
    13,000sq. ft. building on SIU-Carbondale campus.
    SIU Soybean Genomics Lab
        Request. Seek 189,000 for the Soybeans Genomics Lab at SIU.
        Expand the current laboratory to accommodate four added faculty
    researchers in soybean genomics and transformation.
    Renewables Bioprocessing Research Program
        Request. Seek $20 million for the Renewables Bioprocessing Research
    Program at the University of Illinois.
        The Renewables Bioprocessing Research Program (RBRP) is an effort
    by the University in collaboration with other agencies and institutions
    to provide ``plant to product'' research information for the production
    and processing of corn, soybeans, and wheat. Objectives of the RBRP
    program are: (1.) Establish an interdisciplinary collaborative research
    effort in the production and development of new food and industrial
    products from corn, soybeans, and wheat coproducts; (2.) Establish an
    interdisciplinary collaborative research effort to improve the overall
    efficiency of converting renewable corn, soybean and wheat coproducts
    into saleable products; (3.) Enhance the development of small-scale
    laboratory procedures to accurately predict the genetic capabilities of
    different genotypes, phonetypes, and varieties to make desired end use
    products; and, (4.) Provide commercial companies with a single
    integrated program of contract research.
                             education and training
    SIU/U of I Outreach Center
        Request. Seek $1.8 million for a joint SIU/U of I outreach center.
    Located on the Carbondale, IL Campus, University of Illinois Extension
    Service and SIU College of Agriculture Agribusiness Economics
    Department will partner to serve Southern Illinois constituents via on-
    site classroom instruction, digital television delivery, and web-based
    access. Building 103 on the Carbondale campus would be renovated,
    expanded, and rewired. Estimated cost is $1.8 million.
    SIU Plant and Alternative Crop Training Center--Belleville, IL
        Request. Seek $2.5 million for a Plant and Alternative Crop
    Training Center at Southern Illinois University Belleville Research
    Station.
        Add a 10,000-sq. ft. facility for university and industrial
    training on the SIU Belleville Research Station site near the Mid-
    America airport. The facility would allow agricultural industries of
    the Metro-East (St. Louis) area to have access to an indoor multimedia
    training/meeting facility. This plan allows for synergy with Donald
    Danforth Plant Science Center shared use of land and 1,200-sq. ft. of
    wet-laboratory space. Construction cost is estimated to be $2.5
    million.
                       food safety and inspection service
    Wholesome Meat Inspection Program Cost Share
        Request. Increase USDA support of Illinois' Wholesome Meat
    Inspection Program to cover 50 percent of the total program cost as
    required in the joint State/Federal cooperative agreement. The Federal
    allocation required in fiscal year 2002 is $5,224,155 (an additional
    $638,155 over the fiscal year 2000 allotment).
        The State of Illinois maintains a Wholesome Meat Inspection program
    as part of a cooperative agreement with the Federal government's
    Cooperative Inspection Program of the United States Department of
    Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service. The cost of the state
    Wholesome Meat Inspection program is designed to be shared evenly (50/
    50) with the Federal government. However, the Federal government is not
    meeting its commitment to fund 50 percent of the state program costs.
    Federal program officials indicate that meeting 50 percent of program
    costs is a goal that they have been unable to reach as the Federal
    appropriations have been relatively flat over the last several years
    and new states have joined the program (most recently Minnesota).
        Federal officials appear to have considerable leeway in determining
    the distribution of funds among the states, considering each state's
    budget request to determine the most equitable distribution of limited
    available resources. The Federal government should increase the total
    Federal appropriation so that all states can be funded at 50 percent of
    program costs.
    National Center for Food Safety & Technology at IIT
        Request. $3 million through Agriculture Appropriations bill for the
    National Center for Food Safety & Technology at the Illinois Institute
    of Technology.
        IIT seeks continuation of the $3 million received annually by its
    National Center for Food Safety & Technology. Through the leadership of
    Senator Durbin and Congressman Lipinski, the Center received $3 million
    in both the fiscal year 2000 and 2001 Agriculture Appropriations bills.
    The Center needs the funding to continue its progress in fighting the
    growing incidence of food borne illness. The Center will continue
    developing its pilot plant into a state of the art food processing-
    pathogen laboratory. The Center's goal is to be able to stage multiple
    full-size trials and then transfer the technology to food production
    facilities. Another goal is expanding the Center's collaboration with
    the food industry. The Federal funding has improved the Center's
    programs so that more food companies want to join the Center for help
    In protecting their processes. Over the last two years, food company
    membership has grown from 43 to 75.
    Quality Assurance Pilot Certification Program for Small Meat Processors
        Request. Seek $250,000 a year for three years to establish a
    Quality Assurance Certification Program under the IL Dept. of
    Agriculture for small meat processors.
        This Pilot Program is an effort by the Department to establish a
    Quality Assurance Certification Program for small meat and poultry
    slaughter and processing plants. Under this certification program, the
    Department will contract with food safety experts to provide education
    and HACCP compliance training to plant management and employees. After
    completion of the project, material can be used by other states.
    National Food Testing Center at the University of Illinois
        Request. Seek $25 million to create a state of the art National
    Food Testing Center at the University of Illinois.
        To create a state-of-the-art facility for conducting safety and
    efficacy research on new, improved, and functional foods, including
    health-related, genetically enhanced foods. The National Food Testing
    Center will support and expedite the most important experiments on
    foods, that is, tests to assure that they are safe and effective.
    Through these experiments, hundreds of new and improved foods and
    related products will be tested and approved for human use, resulting
    in greatly improved human health, quality of life, and longevity. This
    will enable the U.S. to capture proprietary benefits from its
    investment in agricultural and biomedical research. In addition,
    consumers of these products will be fully confident that these products
    will be safe and effective.
                                animal research
    Transgenic Animal Research Center at Southern Illinois University
            Carbondale
        Request. $370,000 for the Transgenic Animal Research Center at
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale (SIUC).
        Both the SIUC College of Agriculture and the SIU School of Medicine
    are in an excellent position to move forward with new and intensive
    technology research and education initiatives in transgenic livestock
    research, including cloning, gene, and disease research. It is
    necessary, however, in order to renovate and expand existing facilities
    at the SIUC livestock production units and to create two laboratories
    at the School of Medicine in order to meet NIH guidelines for
    containment and confinement of transgenic animal, provide laboratory
    and surgical space, and veterinarian office space.
        At the School of Medicine, SIU proposes to develop a core facility
    in the animal laboratories at SIU School of Medicine. This core
    facility will enhance ongoing and proposed genetics research and allow
    faculty of the SIU School of Medicine to study the gene/disease
    relationships. This facility will permit the genetic construction of
    mice that either express or do not express the genes that have been
    identified as important in the development of a particular disease.
    Livestock Genome Sequencing Initiative at University of Illinois
            (Urbana/Champaign)
        Request. $1.6 million in Federal funding is requested through the
    USDA-ARS to the University of Illinois for this initiative.
        International participants in a Livestock Genome Sequencing
    Initiative (LGSI) will create an ordered map of large insert DNA clones
    covering the entire DNA in major species of food animals (i.e. cattle
    and pigs) and will sequence all the DNA in those clones, so that every
    gene in each of those species is identified. The resulting map and
    sequence information will be placed in databases that can be accessed
    by scientists using bioinformatics to help establish the function of
    genes, thus leading to valuable practical applications. In order to
    obtain timely access to the resulting information, it is especially
    important for the University of Illinois to be involved in leading the
    effort to map and sequence the cattle and swine genomes.
    National Food Animal Institute
        Request. $1 million a year for three years.
        The Institute would be established by the Department of Agriculture
    in Illinois to review research through peer review and to publish and
    disseminate unbiased information about all the aspects of the food
    animal industry. It would maintain comprehensive information systems
    for the improvement and enhancement of the food animal industry for use
    by the public, government agencies, other interested parties. The
    Institute must fulfill its purpose with unbiased integrity.
    Johne's Disease Pilot Program
        Request. Seek $1 million over a three year period to start a pilot
    program in IL under the IL Dept. of Agriculture.
        Johne's disease is a wasting disease of cattle, sheep, goats and
    cervidae. This disease is contracted through direct contact with
    infected animals, which are generally infected at a young age, but may
    not exhibit signs of the disease until they are four or five years of
    age. There is no cure for Johne's disease. It has been estimated that
    economic losses can amount to $227 per cow. A recent National Animal
    Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) sampling of Illinois dairy cows,
    indicated a prevalence of at least 10 percent in the cull cows from the
    dairy herds tested. Illinois would like to start a pilot program that
    could be used as a model for the U.S.
                 animal plant health inspection service (aphis)
    National Coolwater Broodfish Center at Southern Illinois University
            Carbondale
        Request. $1.25 million for the National Coolwater Broodfish Center
    at SIUC.
        A crucial need exists for selectively bred coolwater broodfish
    (sexually mature fish that are used to produce offspring for stocking)
    such as hybrid striped bass, largemouth bass, sunfish, walleye, yellow
    perch, as well as coolwater strains of trout and catfish. Domestication
    and selectively breeding are necessarily long-term activities that
    cannot be expected to be supported by traditional granting programs
    that are almost universally limited to time horizons of just a few
    years.
        The objectives will be to domesticate suitable strains of coolwater
    species for commercial foodfish production, selectively breed coolwater
    fishes for desirable traits (rapid growth, disease resistance, better
    dress-out, etc.), maintain genetic histories of coolwater broodfishes,
    and provide selectively bred coolwater broodfishes to the aquaculture
    industry. The National Coolwater Broodfish Center, in conjunction SIU's
    other programs, will serve as a powerful catalyst for aquaculture
    development in the U.S.
        Should you need additional information, please do not hesitate to
    contact Derek Persico in my Washington, DC office at (202) 624-7762.
    Thank you for your consideration of these requests and for your
    leadership on this most important legislation.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the International Association of Fish and
                               Wildlife Agencies

                 natural resources conservation service (nrcs)
        The Natural Resources Conservation Service has immense
    responsibilities for implementing the conservation provisions of the
    1985 Food Security Act (FSA), the 1990 Food, Agriculture, Conservation
    and Trade (FACT) Act, and the Federal Agricultural Improvement and
    Reform (FAIR) Act of 1996.
        WRP, WHIP, FPP and EQIP.--The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),
    Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and Farmland Protection
    Program (FPP) have reached their authorized acreage or appropriation
    caps and USDA characterizes them as ``completed''. This is particularly
    perplexing since these are all voluntary, incentive based programs that
    are currently well over-subscribed. These programs not only provide
    income support for agricultural landowners, but they also help
    landowners meet their natural resources conservation objectives in ways
    that are alternative to regulatory controls.
        Wetland conversions continue and wetland resources cannot be
    sustained without a proactive program like WRP that compensates
    landowners for voluntary restoration of wetlands. WRP is currently
    over-subscribed by a factor of 5, with many eligible landowners already
    qualified but unable to enter the program since it has bumped up
    against its statutory acreage enrollment cap.
        Similarly, many wildlife species reside on agricultural landscapes
    and have nowhere else to go--they must survive on those landscapes if
    they are to survive at all. WHIP has helped many landowners make
    meaningful contributions to conservation of imperiled species of
    wildlife and landowner interest in this program has far exceeded
    available funding.
        In a like manner, the FPP has been important in places where urban
    encroachment diminishes the long-term viability of the local farming
    economy and interest in the program far exceeds acreage availability.
        While the program caps for WRP, WHIP and FPP have been reached,
    these caps are arbitrary in the sense of natural resource
    sustainability and should not be viewed as reasons for ending the
    programs. To the contrary, none of these programs (WRP, WHIP or FPP)
    have outlived their critical and key role in conservation.
        In addition, funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives
    Program (EQIP) has been insufficient to meet landowner interest and
    needs. The EQIP program can help agricultural landowners achieve
    remediation of non-point source runoff via a voluntary, incentives-
    based program, as opposed to the strict imposition of regulatory
    controls on a farm-by-farm basis.
        All four of these programs have all been tremendously popular and
    successful. Due to the overwhelming success, customer acceptance and
    public benefits of these programs, the Association strongly encourages
    Congress to reauthorize and fund WHIP at $100 million, FPP at $65
    million, EQIP at $300 million and WRP at $286 million, which will
    support an increase in the enrollment cap for WRP by 250,000 acres in
    fiscal year 2002.
        Technical Assistance.--The NRCS Strategic Plan for 2000-2005
    establishes natural resource priorities in support of agriculture and
    identifies staffing levels needed to achieve success. The Strategic
    Plan projects a steadily increasing need for technical assistance
    through 2005. Adequate technical assistance will be essential to ensure
    private landowners can deliver the conservation of natural resources
    while also providing affordable food for our citizens. However, despite
    increased workloads and increased societal demands on land and natural
    resources, NRCS staffing levels have been flat in recent years and the
    fiscal year 2002 budget proposal actually reflects a decrease of 301
    staff years. The rationale for the 301 staff year reduction is tied to
    loss of emergency funding to support the Emergency Watershed Protection
    Program and, thereby, reduces the ability of NRCS to respond to
    emergencies. This reduction is inconsistent within the overall USDA
    budget proposal in that the FSA budget proposal reflects an increase of
    $120 million for increased staffing to better respond to agricultural
    emergencies even though emergency funding has been eliminated there as
    well.
        It seems prudent for both NRCS and FSA to be adequately staffed to
    ensure quick response to emergency situations. In addition, the
    Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), WRP, WHIP and EQIP all reflect
    long-term contracts that necessitate continuous technical support to
    participants, whether or not there is new sign-up. Notably, $44 million
    of the $58.4 million CTA increase shown in the fiscal year 2002 budget
    proposal is actually a budgetary shift from CCC funds (for CRP
    technical assistance) that allows NRCS to stay even in regard to
    supporting CRP, rather than an actual increase in CTA. The Association
    strongly encourages Congress to restore the 301 staff year reduction
    reflected in the fiscal year 2002 budget proposal as well as providing
    the addition of sufficient staff years to begin to address the nearly
    24,000 staff years (compared with 11,200 staff years in the fiscal year
    2002 budget proposal) identified for 2002 in the NRCS Strategic Plan
    for 2000-2005.
        Increasingly, State fish and wildlife agencies are contributing
    staff time to help NRCS field offices service fish and wildlife aspects
    of USDA assistance to private landowners. Such partnerships can help
    NRCS deliver specialized technical expertise to private landowners at
    less cost than adding staff with this expertise. The Association
    strongly encourages the Administration and Congress to emphasize
    partnering arrangements, between NRCS and State fish and wildlife
    agencies and others, that result in cost-efficiencies through a
    challenge-grant program initially funded at $5 million in the fiscal
    year 2002 budget.
        Wetland Determination.--We believe the need for wetland
    determination, certification, and mapping is great and urge NRCS to
    proceed as soon as possible, under the guidance of the FAIR Act of
    1996. The Association urges expeditious completion of the wetland
    determinations required to implement the Swampbuster provisions of the
    1985 FSA, 1990 FACT Act, and the 1996 FAIR Act as well as the FAIR Act
    directed interagency cooperation, whereby NRCS assumed responsibility
    for wetland designation for Section 404 (Clean Water Act) purposes on
    farmland, including tree farms, rangelands, native pasture, and other
    private lands used to produce or support the production of livestock.
    The Association and individual State fish and wildlife agencies will
    continue to work with NRCS to help achieve these goals.
        Public Law 566.--The Association generally supports small watershed
    (Public Law 566) projects. Support is based upon continued emphasis on
    updated watershed planning and management. Such efforts could utilize
    and expand upon existing Public Law 566 plans in light of present day
    issues of wetland protection, water quality enhancement and fish and
    wildlife habitat. The greatest potential for these programs is for land
    treatment measures that retain the water on the land in concert with
    stream flow that is adequate to sustain diverse aquatic life, improve
    infiltration, improve water quantity and quality, and provide fish and
    wildlife habitat. Structural and non-structural land treatments require
    state and local matching funds to leverage greater conservation
    benefits for each Federal dollar spent while promoting valuable
    partnerships among states, local agencies, and other organizations. The
    Association supports the level of funding for Public Law 566 that is
    reflected in the fiscal year 2002 Budget.
        National Buffer Initiative.--NRCS has implemented this initiative
    in cooperation with industry and other partners. The National Academy
    of Sciences has found that buffer strips can reduce off-field pollution
    by 70 percent, thus also contributing to meeting non-point source
    remediation goals under the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, the level
    of sign-up by producers remains very low. NRCS has committed special
    emphasis and a major effort to use the buffer strip practices covered
    by the continuous CRP sign-up in a more targeted fashion. However,
    there is no mention of the National Buffer Initiative in the fiscal
    year 2002 budget narrative. Unlike the large or whole field CRP
    retirements, buffer strips will require extensive outreach and
    specialized incentives that fairly compensate landowners. The
    Association encourages NRCS to continue the National Buffer Initiative
    as a high priority effort.
        Forestry Incentives Program (FIP).--The Forestry Incentives
    Programs (FIP) has multiple resource values for fish, forests,
    wildlife, clean water and erosion control. Many farms contain forest
    resources that are as in need of conservation treatment as cropland and
    grassland. The Association opposes the NRCS proposed intention to zero
    out FIP funding and strongly recommends that the fiscal year 1999 level
    of $16.325 million be restored in the fiscal year 2002 budget.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Joslin Diabetes Center

                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to submit a statement
    for the public witness hearing record. The subject of this short
    statement is the continued funding in fiscal year 2002 for the Diabetes
    Project in the Extension Service of CREES. We have developed a plan for
    fiscal year 2002 that will require continued funding at the current
    year's level of $926,000. This includes costs of Federal
    Administration, participation expenses of the states of Washington, New
    Mexico and Hawaii, and the personnel, equipment and associated costs of
    Joslin Diabetes Center within the total cost of the program.
                          fiscal year 2001 background
        I would like to express Joslin Diabetes Center's sincere
    appreciation to Representative Nethercutt and the Subcommittee for
    actions in the fiscal year 2001 process in providing $926,000 for the
    third year of the Diabetes Project. We know you faced difficult
    decisions concerning funding priorities. We feel that the allocation of
    these funds indicates support for the growing community role and
    organizational flexibility of the Extension Service.
        Recently Joslin, Washington State, Hawaii, and Federal Extension
    personnel attended an all day planning session for the current year and
    reviewed accomplishments to date on this project. A summary of each of
    these segments will be forwarded to the committee staff when available.
        Through fiscal year 2001 funding retinal imaging equipment will be
    installed in all three states, with image acquisition and training, and
    image reading procedure in place. At a rate of 30 patients per day per
    site, the three units will have the capacity to screen 18000 patients
    annually. This actually involves the examination of 36,000 eyes,
    because a patient can develop diabetes retinopathy in only one eye.
        All participants remain committed to goals and objectives of the
    original project and are planning cooperatively for this and the coming
    fiscal year.
                             fiscal year 2002 plan
        For fiscal year 2002, the mission and objectives for the three
    state pilot programs will be implemented on two levels:
      --Continuation of distribution of educational materials for diabetes
            awareness and dieting/health guidelines;
      --Retinal screening for diabetes mellitus in all three states.
      --Assessment of progress and revision of materials and internal
            processes within each state will be conducted for refinement
            for each state's target population.
        Joslin Diabetes Center would welcome additional participation
    within the three states of the pilot project to better educate
    consumers about diabetes and the most effective methods to address
    diabetes and its complications.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my brief statement. We are submitting
    a detailed budget for the fiscal year 2002 funds of $926,000 to the
    Committee for continuation of this project with the Extension Service.
    If you or the Committee staff have any questions we may answer
    concerning this project, we would be pleased to meet and discuss the
    details in more detail.
        The Extension Service and Joslin Diabetes Center appreciate your
    confidence in our capabilities and your focus on the improvement of
    quality of life in rural America. We respectfully request continued
    funding of $926,000 in fiscal year 2002 to fully demonstrate the
    benefits and potential national returns that can be derived from this
    pilot effort.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
                                   California

        Chairman Cochran and Members of the Subcommittee: The Metropolitan
    Water District of Southern California (MWD) appreciates the opportunity
    to submit testimony regarding the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
    (USDA) fiscal year 2002 budget, for the Hearing on Agriculture, Rural
    Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
    Appropriations. MWD is a public agency created in 1928 to meet
    supplemental water demands of those people living in what is now
    portions of a six-county region of southern California. Today, the
    region served by MWD includes 17 million people living on the coastal
    plain between Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico. It is
    an area larger than the State of Connecticut and, if it were a separate
    nation, would rank in the top ten economies of the world.
        Included in our region are more than 225 cities and unincorporated
    areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
    Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide nearly 60 percent of the water used
    in our 5,200-square-mile service area. MWD's water supplies come from
    the Colorado River via the district's Colorado River Aqueduct and from
    northern California via the State Water Project's California Aqueduct.
                                  introduction
        MWD continues to favor USDA implementation of conservation
    programs. MWD firmly believes that interagency coordination along with
    cooperative conservation programs, that are incentive-based and
    facilitate the development of partnerships are critical to addressing
    natural resources concerns, such as water quality degradation, wetlands
    loss and wildlife habitat destruction. It is vital that Congress
    provide USDA with the funding necessary to successfully carry out its
    commitment to natural resources conservation.
        Our testimony focuses on USDA's conservation programs that are of
    major importance to MWD. In particular, MWD urges your full support for
    funding for USDA's Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).
    Funding for this program is essential for achieving Colorado River
    Basin salinity control objectives through the implementation of
    salinity control measures as part of EQIP. Sufficient Federal funding
    for USDA programs is necessary to achieve source water quality
    protection objectives in the Colorado River Basin.
                    environmental quality incentives program
        EQIP provides cost-sharing and incentive payments, technical
    assistance and educational assistance to farmers and ranchers for the
    implementation of structural practices (e.g., animal waste management
    facilities, filterstrips) and land management practices (e.g., nutrient
    management, grazing management) that address the most serious threats
    to soil, water and related natural resources. EQIP is to be carried out
    in a manner that maximizes environmental benefits per dollar expended.
    This assistance has been focused in conservation priority areas
    identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) State
    Conservationists, in conjunction with state technical committees and
    Farm Service Agency personnel.
        In Public Law 104-127, Congress amended the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to carry
    out salinity control measures in the Colorado River Basin as part of
    EQIP. Beginning with the first full year of EQIP funding in 1997,
    USDA's participation in the Colorado River Salinity Control Program
    (Salinity Control Program) has significantly diminished. The mechanism
    by which funding had been allocated by USDA inherently masked projects
    for which benefits are interstate and international in nature. After
    requests had been made by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating
    the Basin states' salinity control efforts, and others, and directives
    from the Congress, USDA has concluded that the Salinity Control Program
    warranted a multi-state river basin approach. The Forum is composed of
    Gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Clearly, Colorado River salinity control
    has benefits that are not merely local or intrastate in nature, but
    continue downstream. Federal funding in an amount greater than $200
    million through financing provided by the Commodity Credit Corporation
    is critical for implementation of EQlP in order to achieve nationwide
    EQIP objectives. This would allow acceptance and funding of additional
    EQIP proposals nationwide. USDA staff have indicated that a more
    adequately funded EQIP would result in the availability of more funding
    for the Salinity Control Program.
        The Colorado River is a large component of Southern California's
    regional water supply and its relatively high salinity causes
    significant economic impacts on water customers in MWD's service area,
    as well as throughout the Lower Colorado River Basin (Lower Basin). MWD
    and the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) completed a Salinity
    Management Study for Southern California in June 1999. The first phase
    of the study (completed in February 1997) updated the findings of
    previous studies and concluded that the high salinity from the Colorado
    River continues to cause significant impacts to residential, industrial
    and agricultural water users. Furthermore, high salinity adversely
    affects the region's progressive water recycling programs, and is
    contributing to an adverse salt buildup through infiltration into
    Southern California's irreplaceable groundwater basins. In April 1999,
    MWD's Board of Directors authorized implementation of a comprehensive
    Action Plan to carry out MWD's policy for management of salinity. The
    Action Plan focuses on reducing salinity concentrations in Southern
    California's water supplies through collaborative actions with
    pertinent agencies, recognizing that an effective solution requires a
    regional commitment. MWD, the Association of Groundwater Agencies, the
    Southern California Association of Publicly Owned Treatment Works, and
    the WateReuse Association of California have formed a Salinity
    Management Coalition which will be holding a Salinity Summit next
    month.
        Reclamation estimates that water users in the Lower Basin are
    experiencing hundreds of millions of dollars in annual impacts from
    salinity levels in the river, and that impacts would progressively
    increase with continued agricultural and urban development upstream of
    California's points of diversion. Droughts will cause spikes in
    salinity levels that will be highly disruptive to Southern California
    water management and commerce. The Salinity Control Program has proven
    to be a very cost-effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of
    higher salinity. Adequate Federal funding of the Salinity Control
    Program is essential.
        The Forum issued its 1999 Review, Water Quality Standards for
    Salinity, Colorado River System (1999 Review) in June 1999. The 1999
    Review found that additional salinity control was necessary with normal
    water supply conditions beginning in 1994 to meet the numeric criteria
    in the water quality standards adopted by the seven Colorado River
    Basin states and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
    (USEPA). For the last eight fiscal years (1994-2001), funding for
    USDA's salinity control program has not equaled the Forum-identified
    funding need for the portion of the program the Federal Government has
    the responsibility to implement. While NRCS has designated Colorado
    River Basin salinity control as an area of special interest and
    allocated about $4.5 million in fiscal year 2001, with states and local
    cost-sharing adding about $3.5 million, it is essential that
    implementation of salinity control efforts through EQIP be accelerated
    to reduce economic impacts. The Basin states and farmers continue to
    stand ready to pay their share of the implementation costs of EQIP.
        The Forum has determined that allocation of $12 million in EQIP
    funds in fiscal year 2002 is needed for on-farm measures to control
    Colorado River salinity. This level of funding is necessary to meet the
    salinity control activities' schedule to maintain the state adopted and
    USEPA approved water quality standards. With this level of Federal
    funding, an additional $9.3 million in states and local cost-sharing
    could be committed.
                       conservation technical assistance
        MWD also supports adequate funding for Conservation Technical
    Assistance (CTA) within the NRCS Conservation Operations Program.
    Conservation technical assistance provides the foundation for
    implementation of EQIP and other conservation programs. While USDA has
    determined that 19 percent of the EQIP funds will be available for
    technical assistance, adequate funding for technical assistance and
    educational activities should be provided through the Conservation
    Operations Program, permitting these EQIP funds to be utilized for
    contracts with agricultural producers. USDA staff has indicated that
    the percentage of EQIP funds available for technical assistance is
    inadequate. Consequently, the Basin states have agreed that 40 percent
    of the states' cost sharing funds be utilized for technical assistance
    and educational activities. However, only through adequate Federal
    funding as well for technical assistance and educational activities can
    advance planning, proposal preparation assistance, comprehensive
    proposal review, and periodic verification of contract implementation
    occur.
                                   conclusion
        MWD urges you and your Subcommittee to support funding of greater
    than $200 million for EQIP and adequate funding for NRCS CTA, and
    advise USDA that $12 million in EQIP funds be designated for the
    Salinity Control Program. Thank you for your consideration of our
    testimony. USDA's conservation programs are critical for achieving
    Colorado River Basin salinity control objectives, as well as broader
    source water quality protection objectives in the Colorado River Basin.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group

        Mr. Chairman: This is to transmit the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working
    Group's request for fiscal year 2002 increased funding for aflatoxin
    research under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
    Rural Development, and Related Agencies. The Multi-Crop Aflatoxin
    Working Group appreciates your assistance in making this part of the
    hearing records related to the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill.
        The Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group, with representatives from
    corn, cotton, peanuts and tree nuts, was formed in 1989 to pursue the
    goal of eliminating or preventing the formation of aflatoxin in field
    crops and serves as a liaison committee to assist the USDA on aflatoxin
    research. Aflatoxin, a by-product of several naturally occurring fungi,
    is recognized internationally as a serious food safety hazard. It
    causes millions of dollars of crop losses to American agriculture each
    year. A new factor causing reduction in U.S. exports is that
    international food safety organizations have lowered acceptable
    aflatoxin levels in foods and feeds to near zero levels. Development of
    procedures to produce food free of aflatoxin requires a coordinated
    national effort by both government and industry. The elimination of
    aflatoxin would greatly improve the competitiveness of U.S.
    agricultural products.
        Since the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group was formed it has
    strongly supported increasing the budget of the USDA Agricultural
    Research Service for aflatoxin research to help maintain this food
    safety research at an appropriate and productive level and worked with
    USDA to keep a focused and integrated aflatoxin research program. About
    $800,000 of the total USDA research budget for aflatoxin of about $9.1
    million goes for these grants given on a competitive basis. A blue-
    ribbon panel of industry representatives assists in reviewing the
    projects that are funded and works with USDA to assure that they
    represent an integrated approach to the problem. Since the beginning of
    this program, over 200 important projects have been initiated. These
    include projects that address the major research objectives thought
    useful in reaching the goal of eliminating aflatoxin problems in the
    U.S. There are projects on (1) breeding and genetically engineered crop
    varieties with enhanced resistance to contamination, (2) development of
    bio-competitive agents to remove aflatoxin-producing fungi from crops,
    and (3) improving our understanding of the genetics and chemistry of
    how the fungi produce aflatoxin. These projects are being conducted
    through grants to ARS laboratories and state universities in about 20
    states.
        The combination of ARS projects, grants and the significant
    research efforts underway by U.S. producer and processor groups
    demonstrate the commitment of Congress, the Department of Agriculture,
    and the nation's food and fiber producers and processors to eliminate
    aflatoxin from the food supply, improve food safety, and increase the
    competitiveness of U.S. producers.
        Much has been learned from the research conducted since 1990. But
    much more needs to be learned about managing and eliminating the
    serious aflatoxin problems. This is evidenced by the devastating
    occurrence of aflatoxin in crops in some of the south, mid-south and
    southwest in 1998 and 1999.
                                funding request
        For fiscal year 2002, the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group is
    requesting that the funds added by the Congress in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations that are proposed to be terminated be restored. The
    Working Group also requests that the USDA, ARS base budget for
    aflatoxin research in fiscal year 2002 be increased by $2.5 million for
    grants to translate our base of knowledge into practical systems to
    help farmers regain and increase export markets lost due to new more
    restrictive international standards. The funds are specifically
    earmarked for:
      --research and development of the biology and ecology of Aspergillus
            flavus and the use of non-aflatoxin producing strains to
            prevent aflatoxin contamination;
      --research and development to extend and commercialize this and other
            control technology in other affected crops; and
      --research for the four affected crops that was outlined earlier.
        Thank you for consideration of our recommendations. If there are
    questions please contact Sherri Lehman (Corn Refiners Assoc., 202-331-
    1634) or Phil Wakelyn (National Cotton Council, 202-745-7805).
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of FSA County Office
                                   Employees

        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony concerning the
    agricultural appropriations for the Farm Service Agency. The Farm
    Service Agency (FSA) improves the economic stability of agriculture,
    rural America, and the environment through commodity programs; farm
    ownership, operating, and emergency loans; conservation programs;
    domestic and overseas food assistance programs; and disaster programs.
    These programs provide a safety net to help farmers produce an adequate
    food supply, maintain viable operations, compete for export sales of
    commodities in the world marketplace, and contribute to the year-round
    availability of low-cost, safe, and nutritious foods. FSA considers
    environmental impacts in the development and implementation of program
    operations to ensure adequate protection of natural, cultural, and
    historical resources.
        Currently, FSA's programs are delivered in nearly 2,250 USDA
    Service Centers and 51 State Offices, including Puerto Rico. This
    network enables FSA to maintain close relationships with Agency
    customers and successfully address customer needs in an effort to
    continually improve the delivery of FSA programs. For the past seven
    years, FSA has been addressing historic shifts in the Federal
    Government's role in production agriculture. Rural communities and
    agriculture producers still rely heavily on the programs administered
    by the FSA field employees during periods of economic decline. Per the
    conferees report of the 2001 Ag Appropriations, ``. . .  the economic
    crisis and FSA workload are not expected to decline in the near future;
    the conferees expect that future funding requests by USDA to fully
    support the workload needs of the employees.''
        During the past four years Congress has recognized the need for
    additional salary and expenses for FSA, approving eight supplemental
    appropriations. In as much as FSA employees appreciate the supplemental
    process, they also recognize that the supplemental process is not a
    fundamentally sound method of budgeting for the agency. It has resulted
    in fluctuating staffing levels in the county office and inability to
    retain staff when critically needed. It causes turmoil with delayed
    payments and disrupted service to producers.
        According to the ``Government Performance and Results Act of 1993''
    FSA Administrator must prepare and submit an annual Performance Plan
    for the agency identifying staffing and funding necessary to carry out
    program goals. OMB utilizes this plan for budget. NASCOE believes the
    2001 Performance Plan, prepared by the previous administration, does
    not adequately address FSA county office employee FTE positions and
    funding. This is indicated in the referenced 1999 and 2000 staffing
    reports. This is also evident in the fact there has been a funded
    supplemental appropriation request for temporary employees for the Farm
    Service Agency in 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001.
        In Section 7 of the ``Government Performance and Results Act of
    1993 it is stated, ``Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting
    the ability of the Congress to establish, amend, suspend, or revise an
    annul performance goal. Any such action shall have the effect of
    superseding that goal in the plan.'' NASCOE believes USDA must amend
    the performance goals of the previous administration for FSA to assure
    adequate PERMANENT staffing and fiinding for FSA county office
    employees. NASCOE stresses we can, and must, achieve a turn-around in
    the abuses and stresses affecting FSA county office employees.
        The previous budget shortfalls illustrate the need for salary and
    expense finding to be commensurate with program delivery requirements.
    In 2001 and 2000, program outlays for Farm Service Agency salary and
    expenses accounted for only 2.8 percent of the total program level
    budget. When analyzing past historical budgets from the period of 1996
    through 2001, as well as analyzing the workload system performed by the
    Farm Service Agency, a 4.5 percent program level for salary and
    expenses is supported. In other words, for every dollar of program
    funds appropriated by Congress, it is demonstrated that approximately
    4\1/2\ cents needs to be appropriated for related salaries and
    operating expenses of the agency.
        In order to retain the security and accountability of the farm
    programs, investments and improvements in the infrastructure is
    mandatory. Wherever possible, USDA has streamlined its administrative
    structure to ensure that maximum resources are devoted to programs.
    Agencies have been consolidated, offices closed, and staffing levels
    reduced. More than one-third of the county field offices that existed
    in 1994 have been closed, and Farm Service Agency CO staffing levels
    have declined by nearly 40 percent between 1993 and 2001. At this same
    time, Farm Service Agency has been expected to complete significantly
    more work. We have seen greater than 250 percent increase in program
    outlays, and the percent of farm program participation is at its
    highest level in USDA history. The Farm Service Agency performs an
    actual count of work completed in each field office, and can determine
    based on this workload the total number of employees needed. In 1999,
    the most recent year for which data is available, FSA report 14
    indicates the total number of employees required to adequately staff
    the field FSA offices were 11,424.3 employees. The current staffing in
    county offices is 9160 permanent employees, taken from information
    provided by the Department. County offices are under-staffed by 2,284
    employees, and this disparity currently continues for 2001. We need
    USDA to recognize this crisis and correct the disproportionate staffing
    of employees. It is important to realize that permanent staffing at the
    Field Office level has decreased by 5,793 employees since 1993. This is
    nearly a 40 percent cut in permanent CO staffing and indicates a cut of
    2.5 employees per county office (there are approximately 2250 field
    offices nationwide).
        A major workload component facing FSA in the 2001 fiscal year is
    implementation of the Agriculture Risk Protection Act (ARPA). In this
    bill FSA was assigned the task of providing compliance oversight on
    Crop Insurance. Per a report released by the crop insurance industry in
    January 2001, ``Because FSA has an extensive field office structure and
    RMA does not, the act authorizes RMA to utilize FSA in its compliance
    efforts. Fraud and abuse are best addressed immediately in the area
    where it is suspected. FSA's presence in the local area should help RMA
    attain information regarding a suspect situation in a timely manner.''
    In addition, in the same law, the Non-Insured Crop Disaster Assistance
    Program was dramatically changed to provide coverage to producers on a
    fee basis. Therefore the program will mirror crop insurance in many
    aspects and will require considerable staff time for County Offices.
    The time involved is unknown since this is new approach to a program
    FSA has delivered on a limited basis over the past 5 years. The Farm
    Service Agency indicates in their fiscal year 2000 and 2001 Annual
    Performance Plan that NAP is a very labor-intensive process and the NAP
    participation is expected to increase in the coming years. It is
    estimated these two new requirements will add staffing workload of 1 to
    1\1/2\ persons per office depending on the size of the Counties. NASCOE
    is concerned that a projection for this increased workload be included
    in the budget request.
        If USDA is to leverage the power of technology to deliver a range
    of services, its employees must be highly skilled. Unfortunately, USDA
    is facing an aging workforce, which has one of the highest retirement
    eligibility rates in the Federal Government. As FSA jobs become
    increasingly technical, skill gaps are emerging in key areas, such as
    information technology. Adequate funds for program and computer
    training are essential. As current workers retire and new workers are
    hired, FSA must ensure that it maintains and builds a talented,
    flexible and diverse workforce.
        USDA's budget request for 2002 increases FSA's salary and expense
    baseline by $120 million. This is the first time the Department has
    requested an increase in several years for FSA. The proposed budget
    reflects a net increase after inflation of approximately $70 million.
    NASCOE believes it is critical FSA considers allocating this increase
    to permanent staffing to take care of the increased workload generated
    by the current economic situation, the Agriculture Risk Protection Act,
    and the Freedom to E-File Act. Additional concern, as supported by
    recent GAO reports, is recognizing the crisis in human capital
    affecting USDA and the Farm Service Agency. With a majority of the
    workforce eligible to retire in the next six years, recruitment and
    adequate training of employees must occur. Considering a net cost per
    employee of $55,000, FSA could hire 1,273 permanent employees. Although
    the immense use of temporary employees by FSA has continued for the
    past three years, the skill and program expertise of these employees is
    minimal, and is no substitute for institutional knowledge. Due to past
    intermittent hiring and reductions of temporary employees, retention of
    these employees is often non-existent and leads to loss of real dollars
    in training of these employees only to have them exit the FSA workforce
    for more secure employment, and benefits.
        It is imperative that Farm Service Agency future budgets allow for
    the hiring and recruitment of permanent employees. The current workload
    and historic trends in agricultural policy and rural economics support
    a need for increased permanent staffing in the short-term. Responsible
    planning and awareness of the crisis in human capital being faced by
    USDA and the Farm Service Agency support the need for permanent hiring
    for long-term stability. The ability to meet the needs of rural America
    and our nation's farmers and ranchers is dependent upon the recognition
    that infrastructure needs are becoming more pronounced, and must be
    addressed with adequate funding and effective leadership.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of Conservation
                                   Districts

        The National Association of Conservation Districts is the
    nonprofit, nongovernment organization that represents the nation's
    3,000 conservation districts and more than 16,000 men and women who
    serve on their governing boards. Established under state law,
    conservation districts are local units of state government charged with
    carrying out programs for the protection and management of natural
    resources at the local level. They work with nearly two-and-half
    million cooperating landowners and operators--many of them farmers and
    ranchers--to provide technical and other assistance to help them manage
    and protect nearly 70 percent of the private land in the contiguous
    United States. In carrying their mission to coordinate and carry out
    all levels of conservation programs, districts work closely with USDA's
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) through its Conservation
    Technical Assistance (CTA) program to provide the technical and other
    help farmers and ranchers need to plan and apply complex conservation
    treatments.
        On behalf of America's conservation districts, I am pleased to
    provide our recommendations on selected conservation programs carried
    out through the US Department of Agriculture, especially those of the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service. Our request includes an
    additional $60 million for the NRCS Conservation Technical Assistance
    account, and another $190 million for specific conservation needs if
    the available funds permit. We are requesting an additional $350
    million for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. We also
    request an additional $150 million for the Watershed Protection and
    Flood Prevention Program. And lastly, we request $60 million to provide
    NRCS technical and financial assistance to address watershed
    infrastructure issues, in concert with local sponsors, identified in
    the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000.
        Farmers and ranchers can and do provide more than just food and
    fiber. They protect and improve the quantity and quality of our soil
    resources. They provide clean water and air, as well as wildlife
    habitat and open space. Many of the conservation practices producers
    apply on their land also take carbon out of the atmosphere and store it
    in the soil, providing a hedge against global climate change. As
    stewards of the nation's working lands, farmers and ranchers manage the
    vast majority of America's private lands and provide tremendous
    environmental benefits to the country.
        In 1985, Congress recognized the important role that farmers and
    ranchers play in environmental protection. It enacted the first Farm
    Bill conservation title, requiring producers to incorporate
    conservation into their operations if they wanted to continue receiving
    USDA farm program benefits. The title also included an incentives
    program--the CRP--to give farmers financial incentives to protect
    sensitive lands. In subsequent Farm Bills, lawmakers added more
    incentives programs--WRP, EQIP, Farmland Protection Program, WHIP--to
    encourage good stewardship behavior.
        The number and complexity of Federal conservation programs has
    grown considerably over the past one-and-a-half decades, but the
    Federal component of the infrastructure needed to implement them
    hasn't. In fact, it has gone down. In the meantime, the workload
    continues to grow.
        Two years ago, NACD and several of its partners collected extensive
    data on the challenges facing private lands conservation through its
    National Field Workload Analysis (WLA). The purpose of that analysis
    was to examine the staff years of technical support needed at the field
    level to carry out 29 core work elements each year. Some of these core
    work elements encompass Farm Bill program objectives, but many do not.
        The national data collected through the WLA painted a stunning
    picture of the workload needs across the countryside. To effectively
    address the total resource needs on America's private lands would
    require 359,734 staff years of technical assistance from all sources.
    If stretched over a 10-year period, this would equate to 35,974 staff
    years per year, at a cost of nearly $2.4 billion per year for technical
    assistance alone. We are just now completing a 2001 WLA and early
    indications are that the need has not gone down but has increased by 15
    percent.
        Earlier this month, the Senate Budget Committee indicated
    recognition of the shortfall in funding and staffing needed to address
    agriculture's environmental needs by adding $1.65 billion to USDA's
    budget for conservation in fiscal year 1902. America's conservation
    districts applaud this action and, if realized, urge you to provide a
    substantial increase in NRCS's CTA and other important conservation
    programs as part of that package. Our specific recommendations for how
    additional funds should be appropriated follow.
                             discretionary programs
        It is critical that the basic CTA account at least remains intact
    at its current level to address as many of the nation's resource
    conservation needs as possible. In order to cover inflation, increased
    pay costs and the loss of reimbursements from mandatory programs like
    the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), we estimate that it will take
    an additional $60 million in fiscal year 1902 to keep NRCS field staff
    at its current level and not lose ground. This is the basis for our CTA
    request.
        Our request is consistent with the President's budget request,
    which proposes an overall $59 million boost in CTA funding for fiscal
    year 1902. While we welcome and applaud this requested increase, we are
    concerned that his budget directs up to $44 million in the CTA program
    to pay for any technical assistance costs associated with enrolling
    2.24 million acres into the CRP in 2002, as is optimistically projected
    in the President's budget request. We strongly urge Congress to ensure
    that conservation programs such as the CRP that are funded by the
    mandatory spending of the Commodity Credit Corporation pay their own
    technical assistance costs from mandatory funds.
        The bottom line is that whether CRP enrollments in 2002 are 2.24
    million acres or less, the CRP should pay for its own technical
    assistance costs, and that CTA should be funded at a level necessary to
    maintain current field staffing levels.
        When considering funding for NRCS fiscal year 1902, it is important
    to keep in mind that CTA is a program, and it was not created by
    Congress to serve as a salary and expense account to support a limited
    number of Federal tools. It was intended as a program in and of itself
    the purpose of which was to help the nation's farmers and ranchers and
    other landowners address their resource conservation needs by providing
    technical support at the local level, including non-HEL lands that are
    nonetheless eroding at unacceptable levels. It is critical that the
    basic CTA account at least remains intact at its current level to
    address this and myriad other resource needs.
        Waste from animal feeding operations (AFOs) has become a
    significant issue over the past several years. USDA's most recent
    estimate indicates that more than roughly 275,000 comprehensive
    nutrient management plans will be needed over the next several years to
    control runoff from AFOs. The President's proposal would re-direct $70
    million of CTA to begin to address those AFO plans. Conservation
    districts strongly support providing resources to help farmers and
    ranchers address AFO problems, but re-directing an already seriously
    oversubscribed CTA account for this purpose would be a mistake. If we
    seriously want to address AFO issues, Congress needs to provide an
    additional $70 million for technical assistance in fiscal year 2002 to
    do so.
        Another important national priority is the growing problem in many
    areas of the deteriorating condition of our nation's grazing and
    pasturelands. Resource problems such as brush, weeds and accelerated
    water or wind erosion threaten the capacity of nearly 300 million
    acres--more than 50 percent--of these lands to satisfy production needs
    and meet natural resource values. Working with partners such as the
    National Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative, conservation districts
    and their partners have determined that at least $60 million is needed
    to fund the Farm Bill's Conservation of Private Grazing Land (CPGL)
    Program to begin reversing the negative trends that affect both
    production and environmental concerns on these lands. Conservation
    districts urge Congress to appropriate $60 million to begin funding the
    CPGL in fiscal year 2002.
        Since 1985 significant advances have been made in reducing soil
    erosion and increasing productivity. Much of the gain in controlling
    soil erosion is a result of conservation compliance, the adoption of
    conservation tillage and the enrollment of land in the CRP. Since 1996,
    however, rates of erosion reduction have leveled off, as there were
    fewer incentives to reduce erosion on non-highly erodible land that is
    nonetheless eroding at unacceptable levels: There is still excessive
    soil erosion on 112 million acres of cropland, with a total of 1.3
    billion tons eroding per year. Leaching and runoff of soil and chemical
    components continue to be concerns. Conservation districts support
    appropriating an additional $60 million to address erosion control on
    non-HEL in fiscal year 2002.
        Through its Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Program NRCS
    and local sponsors address numerous water-related and other natural
    resource issues, conduct studies, develop watershed plans and implement
    resource management systems. Projects are carried out primarily under
    the authority of Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534. More than 500
    active watershed projects primarily target land treatment measures for
    water supply management and flood prevention. The most recent program
    evaluation by NRCS showed a 2.2:1 benefits to cost ratio for this
    program. Conservation districts support funding the Watershed
    Protection and Flood Prevention program at $250 million to complete
    ongoing projects and to address the backlog of project requests.
        A related priority facing private lands conservation is the
    rehabilitation needs of the nation's aging watershed infrastructure--
    many of them built under the authority of the above programs. NRCS
    estimates that approximately 2,200 watershed structures, including
    dams, are in immediate need of rehabilitation and that more than 650 of
    these dams pose potential threats to public health and safety. Unless
    these issues are addressed, the magnitude of the problems will only
    increase as the infrastructure continues to age.
        The Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments (SWRA) of 2000,
    enacted last year, authorizes $90 million over the next five years to
    provide NRCS technical and financial assistance to address these
    watershed infrastructure issues in concert with local sponsors. Project
    sponsors in the 500 active watersheds need technical and financial
    assistance to implement rehabilitation plans to meet current
    environmental, economic and safety needs. Conservation districts urge
    you to begin addressing these needs through that statute by
    appropriating $60 million for watershed infrastructure rehabilitation
    projects in fiscal year 1902. Resource Conservation and Development
    Councils play an important role in rural development and natural
    resource conservation. USDA has indicated that it takes $161,000 to
    fully support an RC&D council. There are 348 existing councils and 27
    pending applications. Conservation districts recommend that Congress
    appropriate $60 million to fully support all existing councils and
    additional applicant areas.
                               mandatory programs
        The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is an ideal
    vehicle through which to address livestock water quality and other
    resource issues. However, this program, too, is tremendously
    oversubscribed and unavailable to fund three out of four producers who
    would otherwise qualify. And, many of those turned away are livestock
    producers not currently subject to NPDES regulation. The Senate's
    resolution acknowledges EQIP's potential and its lack of adequate
    funding by adding an additional $350 million annually for assistance
    through the program. Conservation districts support funding EQIP at
    $550 million in fiscal year 2002.
        If additional funds become available, the nation's conservation
    districts also support expanding and funding the Conservation Reserve
    Program, the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Wildlife Habitat Incentives
    Program and the Farmland Protection Program in fiscal year 2002.
        As you continue your work on providing funding for critical NRCS
    programs, we again urge you to keep in mind that NRCS is the only
    Federal agency whose primary role is to provide conservation assistance
    on the nation's private lands. There are a few other agencies with
    narrowly targeted purposes, but no other agency even comes close to
    touching 70 percent of America's private lands as do NRCS and
    conservation districts. It is critical, therefore, that we strengthen
    the nation's commitment to providing adequate resources to help these
    land managers conserve and protect natural resources on America's
    private lands.
        On behalf of the nation's 3,000 conservation districts, we
    appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on fiscal year 2002
    funding recommendations for select USDA conservation programs. We look
    forward to working with you over the next few months in finalizing your
    proposals.

                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Association of Professional Forestry
                              Schools and Colleges

        The National Association of Professional Forestry Schools and
    Colleges (NAPFSC) is comprised of the 67 universities that conduct the
    Nation's research, teaching, and extension programs in forestry and
    related areas of environmental and natural resource management. NAPFSC
    strongly supports increased funding for Federal forestry research
    programs, including those operated by the USDA's Cooperative State
    Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES).
        The management of nonfederal forestlands has become a critical
    economic and environmental issue. Owners and managers of nonfederal
    forestlands are simply not equipped to deal with the tremendous changes
    in forest land use and management that have occurred in the last decade
    nor the pressures of the 21st century. The programs outlined below are
    key to addressing the stewardship of these lands. These programs are:
    the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program (McIntire-
    Stennis), the Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA), the National
    Research Initiative (NRI), and the Initiative for Future Agriculture
    and Food Systems (IFAFS). The first three of these programs have
    stimulated the development of vital partnerships involving
    universities, Federal agencies, non-governmental organizations and
    private industry, and the newest program--IFAFS--a competitive grants
    program, offers great potential for developing new uses for forest
    products, improving natural resource management, and building multi-
    state and multi-university partnerships for research and outreach
    activities.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                        Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year      2002 Bush      2002 NAPFSC
                                                       2000 Enacted    2001 Enacted       Budget      Recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    McIntire-Stennis................................     $21,932,000     $21,932,000     $21,884,000     $30,000,000
    RREA............................................       3,192,000       3,192,000       3,185,000      15,000,000
    NRI.............................................     119,300,000     106,000,000     105,767,000     150,000,000
    IFAFS...........................................     120,000,000     113,400,000     120,000,000     120,000,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                the case for enhanced forestry research funding
        The past, present, and future success of forestry research and
    extension activities arising from the NAPFSC member institutions
    results from a unique partnership involving Federal, State, and private
    cooperators. Federal agencies have concentrated on large-scale national
    issues while state funding has emphasized applied problems and state-
    specific opportunities. University research in contrast, with the
    assistance of Federal, State and private support, has been able to
    address a broad array of applied problems related to technology
    development and fundamental biophysical and socioeconomic issues and
    problems that cross ownership, state, region, and national boundaries.
        The 1998 Farm Bill and various subsequent reports and conference
    proceedings have identified the need for greater attention on the
    emerging issues confronting non-Federal forest landowners. NAPFSC is
    pleased to be one of the cofounders of the National Coalition for
    Sustaining America's Nonfederal Forests. The founding of the Coalition
    and its subsequent report emerged from a Forestry Summit held in 1999
    that brought together key forestry leaders and landowners from across
    the nation. The outcome of the Summit confirmed the need for increases
    in forestry research funding focused on non-Federal lands and for an
    increase in collaborative efforts between university-based research and
    the Federal agencies.
        The forests and other renewable natural resources of this country
    are primary contributors to the economic health of the nation; are
    reservoirs of biodiversity important to the well-being of our citizens;
    are significant to the maintenance of environmental quality of our
    atmosphere, water, and soil resources and provide diverse recreational
    and spiritual renewal opportunities for a growing population.
    Tremendous strains are being placed upon the nation's private forest
    lands by the combination of increasing demands for forest products
    coupled with dramatic changes in timber policies concerning our
    National Forests. Because of the changes in Federal forest policy,
    private forest lands in the United States are now being harvested at
    rates not seen since the beginning of the 20th century.
        For example, in the East, NIPFs are projected to increase their
    timber harvests almost 30 percent from the 1986 levels until 2010.
    Hardwood timber harvests on NIPF lands in the South are actually
    projected to increase more than 60 percent from 1986 to 2010. These
    spectacular increases will require larger investments and enhanced
    public educational programs--and hopefully much more regeneration and
    intensive timber management--at a scale never before realized on NIPF
    lands in the U.S.
        To meet this challenge, research priorities must be adjusted to
    better address the needs of private landowners, and to specifically
    enhance the productivity of such lands through economically efficient
    and environmentally sound means. These challenges can be substantially
    addressed by the university community through the building of
    integrated research and extension programs assisted by McIntire-
    Stennis, RREA, and NRI.
        There are currently approximately 10 million private forestland
    owners in the U.S. These landowners control nearly 60 percent of all
    forestland in the country. And it has been to the universities, with
    strong support from CSREES, that landowners traditionally look for new
    information about managing their lands. The overwhelming majority of
    the 10 million private landowners are not currently equipped to
    practice the sustained forest management that is critical to the health
    of our environment and economy. The combination of research conducted
    by the forestry schools, combined with the dissemination of that
    research through the cooperative extension network, has never been more
    essential.
                 mcintire-stennis cooperative forestry research
        The Cooperative Forestry Research Program (McIntire-Stennis Act),
    is the lead forestry effort administered by the USDA Cooperative State
    Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This program is
    the foundation of forestry research and scientist training efforts at
    universities. Funding this program provides for cutting-edge research
    on productivity, technologies for monitoring and extending the resource
    base, and environmental quality. The program is critically important
    today since universities provide a large share of the nation's
    research. Additionally, universities train nearly all of the nation's
    scientists in forestry. The main categories of need are:
      --Significantly enhance sustainability and productivity of nonfederal
            forests;
      --Increase the financial contributions of nonfederal forests to
            benefit landowners, the rural community, state and national
            economies, and environmental values; and
      --Conserve and sustain the nonfederal forests and other natural
            resources for future generations.
        The Cooperative Forestry Research Program is currently funded at
    $21.932 million and matched more than three times by universities with
    state and nonfederal funds. The program is currently funded at little
    more than one-fifth its authorized level. We recommended funding
    McIntire-Stennis at a level of $30,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. The
    requested additional funding would be targeted at:
      --sustainable and productive forest management on private lands to
            address issues of competitiveness and economic growth ($3.0
            million);
      --forest inventory, monitoring, and assessment with emphasis on new
            technologies ($2.1 million);
      --new products, improved processing technologies, and utilization of
            small trees to extend the forest resource and improve
            environmental quality ($1.1 million); and
      --assessing social values and tradeoffs to facilitate the
            understanding of policy options, economic impacts, and informed
            decisions at all levels of government ($1.9 million).
        The NAPFSC schools further recommend that CSREES provide this
    support to universities with direction to focus on new or existing
    approved projects for the explicit purpose of near term progress in
    addressing one or more of these research targets in each school's state
    or region. It is recognized that progress will be dependent on a
    critical mass of scientific effort, and collaboration among schools is
    thus encouraged. Additionally stakeholder advisory mechanisms should be
    a part of the funding allocation process. In the process of funding
    these projects, NAPFSC would also recommend that portions of this
    funding be used to build research capacity, including a provision
    calling for training of much needed new forestry scientists.
                       renewable resources extension act
        The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) is the lead forestry
    extension effort administered by the USDA Cooperative State Research,
    Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). This program is the
    foundation of outreach and extension efforts at universities. Funding
    for this program addresses critical forestry and related natural
    resources extension and stewardship needs in states, and would address
    the critical issues of forest management for productivity and
    environmental quality on non-Federal lands brought about by diminished
    harvest levels on Federal lands.
        Audiences for the products of outreach and extension are as diverse
    as are the stakeholders. Of highest priority are the owners of
    nonfederal forestlands and those involved in implementing forest
    management. These groups would be best served by outreach programs that
    (1) solve immediate problems; (2) transfer research technologies and
    new knowledge; and (3) increase their awareness of the benefits of
    active management.
        It is vital that Congress increase funding for this important
    program for distributing the knowledge gained through our research
    institutions to the private landowners. NAPFSC recommends funding RREA
    at a level of $15 million for fiscal year 2002. This increase would
    take RREA to its full authorization level.
        With nearly ten million nonfederal forest landowners, the most
    compelling priority areas for extension and outreach are:
      --Develop databases of landowner information to customize educational
            efforts and their delivery to address owner values and goals
            ($2.5 million);
      --Increase landowner awareness through new communication
            technologies, volunteer leadership, and localized programming
            ($2.5 million);
      --Identify management alternatives with readily accessible new
            information on programs, services, and benefits of management
            and planning to integrate water, fish, wildlife, timber and
            other products and services ($3.0 million);
      --Address local issues and needs within the framework of landowner's
            objectives using special forums, experts, and case study
            approaches to sustainable forestry ($2.0 million); and
      --Identify and follow up on organizational opportunities including
            the establishment of landowner organizations linked to
            professional services, price reporting systems, and cooperative
            marketing ($1.8 million).
        The NAPFSC schools further recommend that CSREES provide this
    support to universities with direction to focus on new or existing
    approved projects for the explicit purpose of near term progress in
    addressing one or more of these outreach/extension targets in each
    school's state, region, or nationally. It is recognized that progress
    will be dependent on a critical mass of extension educator effort, and
    cooperation among schools is thus encouraged. Additionally stakeholder
    advisory mechanisms should be a part of the funding allocation process.
    In the process of funding these projects, NAPFSC would also recommend
    that portions of this funding be used to build outreach/extension
    capacity, including a provision calling for training of much needed new
    extension educators and associated technical support staff.
                national research initiative competitive grants
        The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants program
    (NRICGP) is a significant source of funding for basic cutting-edge and
    applied research in categories important to sustainable forest
    management. Among these categories are (1) natural resources and the
    environment, (2) plants, (3) markets, trade and rural development, and
    (4) processing for value added/new products. This program is
    administered by the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
    Extension Service (CSREES).
        This program is currently funded at $106 million of which
    approximately ten percent goes to successful forestry research
    proposals. Building to address the full set of research needs of
    nonfederal forests will take several years and steps as described in
    the Coalition's planning document. However, we urge a significant step
    in the first part of this new century. NAPFSC recommends this program
    be funded at $150 million for fiscal year 2002 with at least $20
    million directed to forestry and forest products research priorities in
    categories (1)-(4) above under existing and/or new research opportunity
    areas. We further urge the targeting of funding of research on the most
    compelling needs.
               initiative for future agriculture and food systems
        The Initiative for future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS) is a
    new research, extension, and education competitive grants program
    designed to address a number of critical emerging issues in the broad
    area of agricultural. These issues encompass future food production,
    food safety, environmental quality, natural resource management, and
    farm income. Priority program areas include (1) the agriculture genome;
    (2) new and alternative uses and production of commodities and
    products; (3) biotechnology; and (4) and natural resource management,
    including precision agriculture. Priority for funding is for those
    proposals that were multi-state, multi-institutional, or multi-
    disciplinary, or that integrated research, extension, and/or education.
    This program, administered by CSREES, was funded at $113.4 million in
    fiscal year 2001. NAPFSC strongly supports this new competitive grants
    program and urges your Subcommittee to provide the full $120 million
    for fiscal year 2002.
                                   conclusion
        The needed investment for these programs is substantial, but the
    potential returns are enormous and crucial to our society's future.
    Disciplined and rigorous implementation of research on forestry issues
    will contribute greatly to attaining our vision for America's
    nonfederal forests for the future. NAPFSC urges cooperation at Federal,
    State, and University's levels to make this research and the vision it
    will support a reality.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
                            and Land-Grant Colleges

        Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my thanks to you and the
    Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony regarding funding for
    USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service in
    fiscal year 2002. I am Gale Buchanan, Dean of the College of
    Agricultural and Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia. I
    serve as Chair of the Board on Agriculture Budget Committee of the
    National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges
    (NASULGC). Founded in 1887, NASULGC is the nation's oldest higher
    education association. A voluntary association of public universities,
    land-grant institutions and many of the nation's public university
    systems, NASULGC campuses are located in all 50 states, the U.S.
    territories and the District of Columbia. As of October 2000, the
    association's membership stood at 212 institutions. This includes 75
    land-grant universities (of which 18 are the historically black public
    institutions created by the Second Morrill Act of 1890) and 28 public
    higher education systems. In addition, tribal colleges became land-
    grant institutions in 1994 and 30 are represented in NASULGC through
    the membership of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC).
                                the bottom-line
        The Land Grant Colleges and State Universities support doubling the
    investment in agricultural research, extension and teaching over the
    next five years. To accomplish this goal,
        We recommend increasing funding for USDA/CSREES by $200 million in
    fiscal year 2002.
        We recommend that these increases be accomplished through a
    balanced portfolio of investments, which are listed in the attached
    table. We recommend that these increases be targeted to investments in
    five priority areas: An Educated Workforce, Dependable Food Supply,
    Revitalizing Communities, Environmental Balance, and Capacity Building.
    The Capacity Building category allows for critically needed investments
    in our minority-serving institutions, which will enable them to more
    effectively address the other priority areas and the unique needs of
    the communities that they serve.
                        invest in an educated workforce
        The entire traditional education system is due for an overhaul and
    expansion. It must be transformed through technology, electronic-based
    learning and globalization of the curriculum. And there's no time to
    spare. In a very few years, today's students will run a food and
    agricultural system with assets exceeding a trillion dollars. Almost 20
    percent of the workforce in this country is involved in the production,
    processing, packing and distribution of nutritious and safe food and
    fiber. All the new technology and knowledge in the world are useless
    without the well-trained mind of someone to learn from it, apply it and
    expand it. Yet undergraduate and graduate education in colleges of
    agriculture and life sciences is largely neglected in Federal funding.
    More investment is needed to make the higher education system a more
    global one through electronic-based learning. We need to equip our
    college students, especially minorities, with skills and opportunities
    to become leaders in our nation's workforce. And we need to ensure that
    the state and land-grant university system continues to provide
    unbiased information, continuing education and workforce preparation to
    help people prosper in today's ever-changing world. Our state and land-
    grant institutions educate future scientists and employees who serve
    one of the largest sectors of the American economy. Their future is key
    to our nation's future.
        We are proposing that an investment of $19.7 million be targeted
    towards workforce education.--The specific funding mechanisms that we
    think can best address this issue are listed in the Table. We recommend
    increased funding for Graduate Fellowship Grants, Institution Challenge
    Grants, Multicultural Scholars, and Secondary/2-year Post Secondary
    grants. As part of this mix of funding mechanisms, we propose that $3
    million be identified for workforce preparation within the integrated
    Sec. 406 accounts. This new program would integrate research, teaching,
    and extension elements into workforce preparation, fostering innovation
    in our agricultural teaching and extension outreach programs.
                       invest in a dependable food supply
        As agricultural markets rapidly move into the world arena, American
    farmers go head to head with farmers from other countries who rely on
    high government supports, work under less stringent environmental
    protection rules and safety standards, or pay far less for labor and
    other expenses. Yet American farmers must compete internationally to
    stay in business. Their best hope is science, conducted through state
    and land-grant universities. New biotechnology tools and the science of
    genomics will open new horizons and challenges for food production,
    processing and international trade. Advancements in health and
    agricultural sciences will help us better understand the interactions
    between diet and health. It can learn how foods may contribute to
    allergies or stave off chronic diseases. It can fight insects, weeds
    and diseases in the field; create new crops and economic opportunities;
    develop new foods and processing techniques, and keep pathogens and
    other dangers out of the food supply.
        When it comes to food, everyone--consumers, growers, processors and
    authorities--all demand safety, and for good reason. The Centers for
    Disease Control and Prevention says 76 million illnesses can be
    attributed in this country to food-borne diseases. Economic losses
    attributed to meat and poultry risks alone may top $28 billion
    annually. Many of the causes of greatest concern were not even
    recognized 20 years ago. Recent news about ``Mad Cow'' and ``hoof-and-
    mouth'' diseases are immediate examples of the need to invest in
    assessment and treatment research, as well as producer training and
    public education programs. Biotechnology, genomics and other yet-
    undiscovered sciences must undergo rigorous reviews to keep a close eye
    on these promising advancements. They may offer the key to developing
    foods to combat diseases and chronic health problems, and improving
    nutrition.
        To address the production needs of farmers and ranchers and the
    safety and health concerns of consumers, we request a total budget
    increase in this category of $35.404 million.--The mix of funding
    mechanisms that can best target these issues are shown in the Table. We
    have proposed increasing Hatch research funds by $7.587 million, to be
    targeted to these issues. We've targeted all of our proposed increases
    in Animal Health to these issues. We urge enhancing the Expanded Food
    and Nutrition Education Program (EFNEP). We recommend a doubling of the
    Ag in the Classroom program. We recommend creating two new categories
    in Sec. 406. We recommend creating an category addressing biobased
    products, both to develop alternative renewable energy sources and to
    develop new and value added products. We recommend a second category to
    address biotechnology and health issues, which should be targeted
    towards addressing research and education efforts to address public
    concerns regarding emerging new technologies, such as genetically
    modified organisms. We also recommend funding a Small Farms Initiative
    to meet the special challenges facing smaller producers.
                          invest to renew communities
        Community leadership, sound public policy, portfolio diversity for
    the tax base, well-managed and envisioned community services, active
    public involvement, strong schools and medical facilities, a healthy
    population: these are the characteristics of a healthy, growing
    community. Both rural and urban communities will face special
    challenges in the next decade. Local communities will be required to
    make complex decisions about health care, education,
    telecommunications, economic development, and the delivery of social
    services. The land-grant system is the only dependable source of
    information for many struggling communities. It can arm them with the
    necessary tools to succeed. Researchers and educators can help them
    develop participatory citizens, involve youth through 4-H in life-long
    learning, promote economic vitality, and strengthen the agricultural
    and agribusiness sector. They can tackle community health issues,
    enhance private forestland production while sustaining environmental
    quality and train potential community leaders. The Extension Service
    educates community leaders, coordinates projects across states and
    regions to help communities learn from each other, and develops local
    solutions to local challenges. The land-grant system can help bridge
    the widening gap in acquiring and applying technology in communities in
    danger of being left behind in the technology revolution.
        We request a total budget increase of $30.646 million to help our
    communities.--All of the proposed increase of $23.178 million for
    Extension formula funds (Smith-Lever) is targeted to developing
    community opportunities. We recommend strengthening the Extension
    investment in our Rural Development Centers and we recommend
    reestablishing the research component of these Centers. We recommend
    increased funding for our Children, Youth and Families at Risk
    programs. We also propose developing a new designation within the Sec.
    406 account to be targeted to rural economic development.
                        invest in environmental balance
        Production of food and fiber also means conserving scarce natural
    resources, private forests and open spaces. Research, extension and
    education efforts at state universities and land-grant colleges are
    providing farmers and ranchers with the tools and technologies that
    they must have to conserve their natural resource base and protect the
    environment, while staying economically healthy and competitive. Our
    programs provide science-based management alternatives that help
    prevent the need for regulatory solutions. Environmental research at
    schools of agriculture is playing a part in devising new technologies
    to reduce or reuse animal wastes and crop byproducts. Novel studies in
    animal diets, air quality and animal production systems will help keep
    agricultural odors away from the non-farmers. The use of global
    positioning system precision farming sensors can reduce runoff of farm
    chemicals and land-applied animal waste. Scientists are looking at
    crops that could trap carbon to slow climate change. Complex
    biochemistry could change plant oils into petroleum-like materials.
    With increased investment, scientists can increase their discoveries of
    new ways to control pests naturally, maintain biodiversity, and tackle
    environmental problems
        Research and education efforts at the land-grant universities
    created Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a well-known system that
    melds management and technology to reduce the use of expensive and
    potentially harmful pesticides in and around farms, businesses and
    public buildings. The next generation of integration, called
    Environmental Management Systems looks at the entire system of
    agricultural production and how strategies and methods can improve
    conditions for farm workers, children, consumers, wildlife and the
    environment as a whole.
        We recommend increased funding of $46.404 million to address
    natural resource and environmental issues.--We propose an increase of
    $7.587 million in research formula funds (Hatch) to be targeted to
    helping farmers and ranchers address environmental issues. All of our
    proposed increase in forestry research (McIntire-Stennis) is targeted
    to addressing these issues. We propose a mix of additional funding
    mechanisms, as shown in the table, ranging from Integrated Pest
    Management through Water Quality and Pesticide Applicator Training. We
    propose substantial increases in the Renewable Resources Extension Act.
    We recommend establishing a new, integrated program to manage animal
    waste through Sec. 406.
                               capacity building
        Land-grant colleges serving minority communities, including the
    1890s and Tribal Colleges, have historically struggled with inadequate
    funding resources to meet the especially challenging needs of under-
    served communities. Their challenge is two-fold. Limited resources have
    taken their toll on the quality of facilities that enable these
    institutions to effectively compete for other funding sources. In turn,
    they slip behind in their ability to connect university research,
    teaching, and extension services with the minority communities that so
    vitally need their services. Capacity building at these institutions is
    the foundation for not only providing better research and teaching
    facilities, but also leveraging additional dollars for community based
    programs working in some of our nation's poorest communities. Land-
    grant institutions serving minority communities have dramatically
    increased the economic viability of small and limited resource farmers.
    In spite of years of neglect and under funding, the 1890s have been
    able to make contributions of high quality and relevance to the
    agricultural sciences and their stakeholders; their continued success
    and future growth (and that of the 1994s) depends on solid investments
    in capacity building programs.
        NASULGC proposes a budget increase of $35.846 million to build
    capacity at minority serving institutions.--The Capacity Building
    portfolio provides for facilities rehabilitation, research grants,
    teaching programs, minority recruitment, and extension activities. The
    mix of mechanisms we recommend for investment is provided in the Table.
    These funding lines target the specific needs of our historically black
    1890 institutions, the Tribal Colleges and Hispanic Serving
    Institutions. Included in this mix is our proposed increase of $3.521
    million for 1890 research formula funds (Evans-Allen) and $4.757
    million for 1890 extension formula funds.
                             cross cutting funding
        The proposed increases in capacity building for minority serving
    intuitions will enable them to more effectively address the priority
    issue areas addressed previously. In addition, there are two funding
    mechanisms that can be used to effectively address each of these
    priority issues: the NRI and the International Sc9ience and Education
    Grant Program. We strongly recommend restoring the National Research
    Initiative and increasing its funding to a minimum level of $130
    million. We recommend that the earmarking of funds to address food
    safety concerns be lifted, or far better, that the funding targeted to
    food safety be added to the total amount of funding available through
    the NRI. We also recommend establishing the International Science and
    Education Grant Program at $8 million. This program was established as
    Sec. 1458 in the 1998 Agricultural Research, Extension and Education
    Reform Act. This program is designed to internationalize the curriculum
    of our agricultural courses and to better prepare students and faculty
    to compete and prosper in today's increasingly global industries and
    markets. This program address each of the priority areas addressed
    previously, but from an international perspective.
    Why should food and agricultural science and education receive new
            funding in the 2002 USDA/CSREES budget?
        The decades of investment in both base programming and competitive
    grant funding for state and land-grant institutions have revolutionized
    agricultural production, ensuring a safe, affordable food supply. But
    agriculture does not live on bread alone. It takes a strong network of
    agribusinesses to supply equipment and other inputs, process
    agricultural products and connect the producer to the market. It takes
    communities with trained and visionary leaders who can anticipate
    development. It takes respect and understanding for the environment,
    and the ramifications of agricultural production within that realm. And
    it takes the education of students of all ages-whether through 4-H for
    youngsters, degree work in the agricultural and life sciences or
    continuing education for producers and consumers alike.
    What are the new investments needed now?
        Tomorrow's science comes with a high price tag as scientists delve
    into biotechnology, genetics, satellite imagery and many other highly
    technical fields. Tomorrow's scientists must be educated today, even as
    the fields of science advance each day. A balanced portfolio of funding
    mechanisms must be used to address these critical issue areas, drawing
    on base funding to sustain programs and competitive grants to target
    specific projects.
    What scientific progress has resulted from this work?
        Integrated pest management to cut production costs and protect the
    environment, constant vigilance in testing for and detecting food
    safety problems, genetic improvements among livestock species to breed
    leaner animals for healthier products, advances in crop breeding
    through biotechnology that assures more affordable food throughout the
    world, variety testing and field work to take the guesswork out of
    farming . . . the list is endless. And beyond production agriculture,
    the community development work and educational advances happen every
    day in communities and classrooms throughout the country. The state and
    land-grant institutions stretch out their research, extension and
    education arms with one mission in mind: to support the nation's
    prosperity and our quality of life.
    Will progress continue?
        Even with a generous infusion of funds to support food and
    agricultural sciences and education, it's only a beginning. New
    scientific investigation can build production efficiency and
    profitability through biotechnology without harming the environment,
    attract minority and other students into the exciting fields of science
    and design marketing strategies and economic alternatives for
    struggling communities. But one year's work can only be the beginning.
    The science and education community in the food and agricultural
    sciences welcomes this challenge and responsibility. The future belongs
    to those with the vision to see it.

        Prepared Statement of the National Association of WIC Directors

        On behalf of the National Association of WIC Directors, NAWD, we
    appreciate the opportunity to submit this written statement to the
    Committee on the President's Fiscal year 2002 Budget Request for the
    Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children,
    known as WIC.
        WIC has an extraordinary 27 year record of preventing children's
    health problems and improving their long-term health, growth and
    development. WIC children enter school Ready To Learn and demonstrate
    better cognitive performance. Research shows:
      --four and five-year-olds whose mothers participated in WIC during
            pregnancy had better vocabulary test scores than children whose
            mothers had not received WIC benefits.
      --children participating in WIC after their first birthday had better
            digit memory test scores than children not participating in
            WIC.
        WIC gives children a solid foundation for learning. Quality
    nutrition services is the centerpiece of WIC: nutrition and
    breastfeeding education, nutritious foods, and improved healthcare
    access for low and moderate income women and children with, or at risk
    of developing, nutrition related health problems. Committed, results
    oriented, entrepreneurial staff stretch resources to serve all eligible
    women and children and ensure program effectiveness and integrity.
        As the nation's premier public health nutrition program, WIC is a
    cost-effective, sound investment--laying the foundation for America's
    children to learn.
        The WIC Program's well-documented successes have earned WIC strong
    bipartisan support. Successive Congresses have demonstrated their
    commitment to moving the WIC Program toward full funding. The level of
    funding included in the fiscal year 2002 budget proposal, threatens the
    states' ability to maintain services to participants served in fiscal
    year 2001.
        The Administration has proposed a $94 million increase in the WIC
    appropriation for fiscal year 2002 bringing WIC funding to a level of
    $4.137 billion over last year's appropriation level (minus the
    recission amount included in Section 1 (a)(4) of Public Law 106-554) of
    4.043 billion. NAWD applauds the Administration for identifying WIC as
    a Child Nutrition priority. NAWD urges the Committee to consider the
    following:
                               wic participation
        January data sets WIC caseload at 7.259 million participants. This
    means that WIC has exceeded the Administration's caseload projections
    for fiscal year 2002 of 7.25 million participants;
        Should the economy continue to decline and workers experience more
    layoffs as industry attempts to cut costs to improve profits, it is
    reasonable to expect that WIC caseload will grow;
        The Administration projects an unemployment rate of 4.6 percent for
    the fiscal year 2002. In 1998, the last time the US experienced such an
    unemployment rate, WIC caseload averaged 7.37 million participants;
        Some financial experts are projecting unemployment to reach as much
    as 5 percent;
        This leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the level
    identified in the Administration's WIC funding request will be
    inadequate to meet a caseload which could well exceed 7.35 million
    participants.
                        wic carryover or recovered funds
        The Administration estimates 2001 recoveries at a level of $180
    million. Based upon state reallocation draws, a more reasonable
    estimate would be $170-$175 million;
        The Administration estimates 2002 recoveries at a level of $136
    million. If states continue to draw down recoveries at their current
    rate, this level too can be expected to decline to between $125-$130
    million.
        The existence of recovered food funds leads to the erroneous
    perception that WIC is over-funded. Financial estimates require
    resource margins that will protect states should food costs exceed
    available WIC funds. Voucher and rebate transactions occurring late in
    a fiscal year do not accrue to a state until early in the next fiscal
    year thereby contributing to the situation. On average, states will
    expend roughly 97 percent of their grant to ensure a sufficient margin
    of management safety and prevent caseload disruptions. It is neither
    possible nor prudent for WIC Directors to expend all of their grant
    resources in a fiscal year.
        State Fiscal Managers would penalize Directors who overspend their
    grant as options are generally not available to provide state support.
        States have moved to reduce the Program's level of carryover
    funds--advising USDA of available recoveries, and rendering resources
    available for reallocation to those states most in need of resources.
                  nutrition services and administrative grant
        While the Program's funding formula directs the percentage share of
    the overall grant which accrues to each component of the WIC grant--(1)
    Food and (2) Nutrition Services and Administrative--the percentage
    increase provided in the Administration's request for Food is 2.53
    percent while the increase for NSA is 0.7 percent.
        The NSA request is inadequate to support funded participation
    levels, cover cost of living raises for WIC staff, or inflation on
    equipment, supplies, materials, rents and utilities.
                             infrastructure grants
        The Administration provides no increase for infrastructure needs
    and directs that 43 percent of the requested $14 million be dedicated
    to electronic benefit transfer (EBT) development.
        The joint NAWD/USDA Management Information Systems (MIS) Strategic
    Plan has identified a crisis in the status of WIC MIS systems. Fully
    \1/3\ of the states' MIS systems are at least 7 years old. These
    systems are incapable of providing the data services that the nation's
    public health system needs to track client participation, health and
    nutrition records, avoid fraud and abuse, process vendor claims and
    track rebates.
        The remaining $7 million in the Administration's request cannot
    possibly address the crisis WIC is facing with obsolete MIS systems.
    The joint NAWD/USDA MIS Task Force observed that it would require a
    commitment of $110 million--$150 million over three years to implement
    core functions, upgrade WIC technology, and maintain MIS and electronic
    services.
      wic farmers' market nutrition program & wic senior farmers' market
                                    program
        While WIC has partnered with the Farmers' Market Nutrition Program
    (FNINP) since its inception, NAWD continues to believe that the FMNP
    should not be funded at the risk of turning away eligible individuals
    who seek WIC benefits.
        Similarly, NAWD believes that WIC Senior Farmers' Market Program
    (SFMP) funding must not adversely impact WIC caseload. While NAWD
    regrets that the SFMP was not included in the Administration's budget,
    NAWD is pleased that the Administration recognizes the importance of
    protecting caseload.
                     what should the wic budget number be?
        To meet projected participation levels, given the Administration's
    unemployment projections and other factors, NAWD believes that the WIC
    funding level should provide for an increase to the Program of $214
    million setting the Budget proposal at $4.248 billion. This represents
    an increase of $110 million above the Administration's request.

        WIC is a short-term intervention program designed to influence
    lifetime nutrition and health behaviors in a targeted, high-risk
    population. WIC is the ``Gateway to Good Health,'' providing quality
    nutrition education and services, breast-feeding promotion and
    education, access to prenatal and pediatric health care services, drug,
    alcohol and tobacco abuse information, and other services in 10,000
    clinics administered by 2000 Local Agencies in 87 State WIC Programs.
        WIC's monthly food prescription (package), tailored to meet the
    specific nutritional needs of clients, was provided to over 7.259
    million participants last January, including 1.8 million pregnant,
    breast-feeding and postpartum women, over 1.9 million infants, and over
    3.5 million children. To participate WIC requires that clients have one
    or more documented nutritional risks and incomes less than or equal to
    185 percent of the poverty level. In fact, 92 percent of all WIC
    participants are at income levels below 150 percent of the poverty
    level.
        Approximately 37 percent of all pregnant women in the United States
    are enrolled in WIC. Of these, roughly 46 percent enroll in WIC during
    their first trimester of pregnancy. At certification, 50 percent of
    pregnant women have three or more nutrition risk factors. Numerous
    studies have shown that pregnant women who participate in WIC have
    longer pregnancies leading to fewer premature births; have less low and
    very low birth-weight babies; experience fewer fetal and infant deaths;
    seek prenatal care earlier in pregnancy and consume more of such key
    nutrients as iron, protein, calcium and Vitamin C.
        It costs $601 a year for a pregnant woman to participate in WIC. By
    contrast, it costs $28,000 per pound to raise a low (less than 5.5
    pounds) and very low (less than 3.25 pounds) birth-weight baby to
    normal weight (7 pounds). WIC prenatal care benefits reduce the rate of
    very low birth-weight babies by 44 percent. Medicaid costs are reduced
    by WIC on average between $12,000 and $15,000 per infant for every very
    low birth-weight prevented.
        WIC promotes breast-feeding as the preferred method of infant
    feeding. Breastfeeding helps mothers feel close to their baby. Breast
    milk contains all the nutrients infants need to grow and develop.
    Breastfed infants tend to be healthier since they receive antibodies
    from the breast milk, which protects them against infection. In spite
    of an environment that generally does not support a woman's choice to
    breastfeed, WIC mothers have continued to increase their breast-feeding
    initiation rates. Better than 40 percent of WIC infants between the
    ages of 7-11 months are breastfed.
        WIC helps to assure children's normal growth, reducing levels of
    anemia, increasing immunization rates, improving access to regular
    health care and improving diets. Fortyseven percent of all infants born
    in the United States are on WIC. Nearly twenty percent of all children
    in the United States are on WIC. Children are eligible for WIC up until
    they reach their fifth birthday. At certification, 48 percent of all
    children have more than one nutrition risk factor.
        Four and Five-year-olds whose mothers participated in WIC during
    pregnancy had better vocabulary test scores than children whose
    eligible mothers had not received WIC benefits. Children who
    participated in WIC after their first birthday had better digit memory
    test scores than children who did not participate in WIC.
        Of the Federal appropriation, only 9 percent of the WIC grant to
    states is allocated for program administration; 16 percent is allocated
    for direct care activities needed to assess eligibility, provide
    nutrition education, breast-feeding support and promotion, screen
    immunization status, issue food benefits, register voters and provide
    other mandated or necessary client services. The remaining 75 percent
    of the WIC grant is allocated for food benefits.
        States continue to stretch available WIC funds through rebates on
    foods and other cost saving initiatives--including adjustments in food
    benefits. In 1986, State WIC agencies began using their infant formula
    buying power (40 percent of national infant formula sales) to achieve
    bulk purchaser savings, in the form of monthly rebates paid by infant
    formula manufacturers. These state-initiated and operated rebate
    programs currently function in all state and most Indian Nation WIC
    Programs.
        Rebates save over $1.4 billion for Federal tax payers--34 percent
    of the program's total appropriation--and fund services for 1.8 million
    women and children. WIC's cost 4 containment measures are among the
    most effective cost containment measures to be found.
        States need to be allowed to use cost-saving revenues in the same
    way as grant funds or other program income. Identifiable and
    predictable food cost savings could be considered as funds returned to
    the entire WIC grant and not just the food grant; each state would then
    be able to direct a portion of these funds to NSA services, capping at
    a preset rate such as the current NSA grant ratio.
        Again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we thank you for
    this opportunity to present this statement on behalf of the National
    Association of WIC Directors, NAWD. Should you have any questions,
    please feel free to contact Douglas A. Greenaway at 202/232-5492.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium

        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this testimony is for
    the record of proceedings on the fiscal year 2002 Department of
    Agriculture Budget. The testimony is presented on behalf of the
    National Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium, which consists of four
    universities, Colorado State University, Cornell University, Iowa State
    University, and The University of Georgia. This consortium was created
    in response to requests from beef industry leadership groups to create
    a sustainable research and development program in genetics for that
    industry. We are happy for this opportunity to thank you for your
    support during last year's budget proceedings. We would like to take
    this opportunity to update you on this program as well as issues we are
    currently addressing and those we are planning to address.
        As you know, this Committee provided Federal funds ($265,000) last
    year to support the creation of the consortium. The reason for creating
    this consortium was to address the lack of organization in research
    programs for genetic evaluation of beef cattle for improvement of the
    national cow herd resource through selection. This consortium will
    serve in a capacity much like the USDA Animal Improvement Production
    Lab, Beltsville, MD does for the dairy industry, a model that has
    positioned the U.S. dairy cow among the elite production animals in the
    world. Through these Federal dollars, with support from the four
    universities and various segments of the beef industry, we have
    established the infrastructure of the consortium and have begun
    research in several important areas.
        The mission of the consortium is to develop and implement improved
    methodologies and technologies for genetic evaluation of beef cattle
    for the purpose of maximizing the impact genetic programs have on the
    economic viability, international competitiveness, and sustainability
    of U.S. beef cattle producers and to provide consumers with affordable
    and healthy beef products. To achieve the goal intrinsic to this
    mission statement, we have created the following objectives:
      --Establish and coordinate priorities for genetic evaluation of U.S.
            beef cattle with the goal of positioning the U.S. as a leader
            in this area thereby increasing the global competitiveness of
            the U.S. beef industry.
      --Consolidate efforts among the four land-grant institutions to
            conduct research to meet these priorities with the goals of
            reducing duplication of effort and maximizing the return of
            useable information to the beef industry.
      --Streamline the process between the development and adoption of new
            genetic evaluation methodologies by the industry with the goal
            of ensuring the economic viability and sustainability of
            producers in the U.S. beef industry.
      --Identify new traits and technologies for inclusion in genetic
            programs with the goals of reducing the costs of beef
            production and providing consumers with a high value, healthy,
            affordable protein source.
      --Create decision-making tools that incorporate the increasing number
            of traits being evaluated and the increasing amount of
            information from DNA biotechnology into genetic improvement
            programs with the goal of optimizing the overall efficiency,
            product quality/safety, and health of the national cattle herd
            resource.
        The U.S. cattle industry is comprised of more than one million
    individual farms and ranches operating in all 50 states. Total sales of
    cattle and calves have exceeded 30 billion dollars per year in recent
    years. Beef is the most popular meat in America. In 1997, U.S. cattle
    ranchers produced beef with a total retail value of $50.6 billion, and
    American consumers spent an average of $186.03 per person on beef.
    Nearly 8 percent of U.S. beef is produced for export, with a total
    value greater than $4.5 billion.
        The continued production of high-quality, healthy and affordable
    beef is dependent on the availability of information upon which to make
    prudent selection decisions. The most important tool for selective
    breeding is expected progeny differences (EPD). An EPD is a prediction
    of the genetic merit of an animal and as such the potential impact of
    that animal as a parent. The investment in EPD production and research
    made by the U.S. beef industry since 1990 is approximately $350,000 per
    year, with no direct Federal support.
        The ability to influence the genetics of U.S. beef cattle has
    greatly enhanced U.S. competitiveness in the world marketplace.
    However, current research and outreach efforts are fragmented and rely
    on the expertise of just a few scientists. Other countries, most
    notably Brazil and Australia, have made large public investments in
    beef breeding stock genetic evaluation and are threatening to diminish
    America's edge in the export market.
        With the appropriation received thus far, we have established the
    infrastructure of the consortium to include creating a board of
    directors and industry advisory committee. We have met with allied
    industries and producer groups to prioritize our programs and to
    establish channels of communications between the industry and the
    consortium. We have also begun research efforts in the following focus
    areas:
      --Developing predictions for new traits such as reproductive
            efficiency, carcass composition and quality that are important
            to the efficiency and profitability of beef production. A high
            priority is the identification of economically relevant traits
            (ERT) and systems to evaluate potential breeding stock for
            these ERT's.
      --Including DNA information in genetic evaluation programs to enhance
            the accuracy of predictions of genetic merit. We are in the
            midst of a genetic revolution fueled by discoveries in
            molecular genetics that is overwhelming science and field
            applications of technology with data. Research into the
            inclusion of data from DNA technology into systems that assess
            genetic merit is necessary to convert that data into useable
            information.
      --Creating selection decision tools to improve production efficiency,
            product quality/safety and herd health. Selection for species
            with diverse and dynamic production criteria is a challenging
            task. Animals in a production system must be reproductively
            sound, efficient, and produce healthy products. Selection
            decision tools will be necessary to afford producers the
            opportunity to identify individuals that bring the best balance
            of all these required characteristics and do so in a cost
            effective manner.
      --Developing new methodologies to enhance the accuracy, reliability
            and productivity of the EPD production systems.
        Future appropriations will enable the consortium to continue
    research efforts in the initial focus areas, draw in researchers from
    other institutions to broaden the areas of expertise within the
    consortium, and, in doing so, allow us to establish new focus areas of
    research. One important area of research that needs to be established
    with new funding and moved forward quickly is the area of the genetics
    of animal health. There are currently no genetic programs in place that
    allow producers to address selection for improved animal health and
    disease resistance. The emphasis on disease in cattle and how those
    diseases impact the beef products is receiving considerable attention
    in the public today. Establishing best breeding practices for animals
    going into the food production system is becoming an increasingly
    important requirement to reduce the reliance of animal industries on
    antibiotics and to increase consumer confidence in the products from
    those industries.
        Once again, we thank you for the financial investment you have made
    in the consortium. We feel the foundation has been laid for an
    effective program in beef cattle evaluation and the industry is already
    working with the consortium leadership to establish mechanisms for
    technology transfer as discovery occurs. We are confident that the
    creation of the consortium will revolutionize the selection programs
    for this industry and, in doing so, keep that industry positioned to
    provide a quality source of protein to U.S. consumers and to compete in
    the global market. Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
                                    Research

                                  introduction
        The National Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research (National
    C-FAR) appreciates very much this opportunity to submit its views
    regarding the fiscal year 2002 agriculture appropriations bill and
    respectfully requests that this statement be included as part of the
    official hearing record.
                                 national c-far
        National C-FAR, is a newly organized broad-based stakeholder
    coalition of food, agriculture, nutrition, conservation and natural
    resource organizations. It is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, stakeholder-
    driven, and consensus-based coalition focused on food and agricultural
    research funding and priority setting. It is dedicated to fostering
    public confidence in food, agricultural, nutritional and natural
    resource research through public participation in planning and
    evaluating the process and impact of research activities. Membership is
    open to those who support the objectives of (1) enhancing Federal
    investments in U.S. food and agricultural research and extension and
    (2) expanding stakeholder participation in identifying funding needs
    and opportunities.
        The mission of National C-FAR is to double Federal funding of food,
    nutrition, agriculture, natural resource, and fiber research, extension
    and education programs during the next five years. This is to be net
    additional funding on a continuing basis that will complement, not
    compete with or displace the existing portfolio of Federal programs of
    research and education.
                                    overview
        There are many challenges facing agriculture both near and long
    term. These include dealing with continued low commodity prices and
    reduced farm income, safeguarding our borders against the introduction
    of the devastating BSE (``mad cow'' disease) and foot-and-mouth
    diseases, addressing concerns over biotechnology, as well as a number
    of other challenges. While Congress has been very supportive of a
    number of near term actions, it is equally important to focus on
    policies and programs needed to promote the long term economic well
    being and profitability of agriculture for the benefit of producers and
    consumers alike. To help achieve this objective, we believe, a key
    component of any long-term strategy should include increased support
    for food and agricultural research and education.
        To paraphrase the old adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a
    pound of cure. We believe one dollar of funds invested in research now
    will pay back eight or more dollars of public benefits in the future.
    Investments in U.S. food and agricultural research and education have
    already paid huge dividends to the United States and the world,
    especially in the latter part of the 20th century. Research based
    technological advances, such as the ability to produce higher yielding
    crops and animals with improved human nutritional qualities, have
    allowed for a more abundant, safe, efficient and environmentally
    friendly food supply, improved human health and well-being, and yes,
    longer lives and lower health costs. New discoveries are advancing our
    understanding of the relationship between food and health--another
    rationale for investment in research. Only research can provide the
    answers and identify the types of changes that need to be made to
    effectively provide the food supply with optimal nutrition for the
    future.
        We want to thank the leadership and members of this committee for
    supporting programs and funding that have helped make these
    accomplishments possible. Yet, despite the best efforts of this
    committee and the world-renowned success of U.S. food and agricultural
    research, Federal funding has not kept pace with inflation.
        In real terms, we now spend less on food and agricultural research
    than we did in 1978. We believe this statistic suggests that Federal
    support could be as much as a quarter century behind. Today we spend
    only $1 of Federal food and agricultural research in the USDA for each
    $500 consumers spend on food and fiber. There is a very real concern
    this less than optimal investment in food and agricultural research
    will unintentionally restrict our nation's competitiveness, living
    standard and general economic growth and development.
        While our coalition is initially directing our collective efforts
    on securing a doubling of Federal food and agricultural research
    funding, our ultimate goal is not budgetary, but the many benefits that
    will accrue to each American that a doubling of funding will bring
    about. We believe increased funding of food and agricultural research
    will result in:
      --Safer, more nutritious, convenient and affordable foods
      --More efficient and environmentally friendly food, fiber and forest
            production
      --Improved water quality, land conservation and environment
      --Less dependence on non-renewable sources of energy
      --Expanded global markets and improved balance of trade
      --More jobs and sustainable rural economic development
        At National C-FAR's inaugural meeting less than two months ago on
    January 31, 2001, in Washington, DC, 100 leaders in the food,
    agriculture, natural resource organizations and key Federal officials
    heard a speech by Dr. Norman Borlaug, the Nobel Peace Prize award
    winner, who started the ``Green Revolution.'' The Green Revolution
    expanded food and agricultural production and saved one billion people
    from starvation. Dr. Borlaug noted: ``Few industries have been as
    productive and innovative as agriculture during the 20th century.'' Yet
    he cautioned, ``Despite the successes of the Green Revolution, the
    battle to ensure food security for hundreds of millions of miserably
    poor people is far from won. . . . Continuing research breakthroughs
    will be needed.'' Borlaug also noted ``Agricultural productivity
    increases, made possible through research and new technology
    development, spared an area slightly greater than all the land in 25
    states east of the Mississippi River for other uses.''
        Dr. Johanna Dwyer, Director of Frances Stern Nutrition Center and
    New England Medical Center and Tufts University School of Nutrition
    Science and Policy, also spoke during the inaugural meeting. Dr. Dwyer
    emphasized the connections between the entire system of agriculture,
    food and nutrition for our nation and the importance of food and
    agricultural research as it contributes to the nation's health by
    discovering ways to improve the nation's nutritional status. Strong
    connections were illustrated between nutrition and agricultural yield,
    efficiency, sustainability and safety and quality. Dr. Dwyer
    highlighted the need for research that will improve the nation's
    dietary diversity, nutrition profiles, decrease malnutrition, and
    ensure sound nutrition over the long term through improved efficiency
    of plants and animals.
                   how should the additional funds be spent?
        While National C-FAR does not have a list of research project
    recommendations, through our members and their association with other
    related coalitions, we are well aware of urgent research needs to
    address and opportunities to explore. Several coalitions, committees
    and scientific societies, including those listed below, have identified
    these needs and opportunities:
      --Coalition for Research on Plant Systems--CROPS 1999
      --Food Animal Integrated Research for 2002--FAIR 2002
      --Institute of Food Technologists--Food for Health Research Needs
      --Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics--Economics
            and Research Priorities for an Efficient and Sustainable Food
            System
      --American Society for Nutritional Sciences
      --National Agricultural Research, Extension, Education, and Economics
            Advisory Board
      --American Dietetic Association
        Members of our Research Committee have presented to our Board a
    compilation of these studies. While several emerging needs and
    opportunities have been identified, we also want to stress the
    continuing need to build the capacity to do quality research and
    education, including human resources, infrastructure support, formula
    funds, and core programs. It is important to maintain a balanced
    portfolio of Federal research and education programs, including
    competitive grants, formula funds and intramural programs. Agriculture
    is a biologically based industry and many of the problems are site
    specific. Hence, we need to maintain a diversified research and
    education system. Major areas of research that have been commonly
    identified by most, if not all, of the related coalitions that are in
    need of additional funding include:
      --Food security, safety, fortification, enrichment and allergens
      --Nutrition and public health
      --Production quantity and quality; nutrient adequacy; global
            competitiveness; and new market opportunities
      --Environmental stewardship and resource conservation and the
            scientific basis for public policies relating to the
            environment, plants and animals
      --Increasing knowledge, skills, and expertise
      --Emergency preparedness for emerging plant and animal diseases and
            bio-terrorism
      --Product pioneering for food, nutrition, biobased materials and
            biofuels
      --Genetic resources, genetic knowledge, and biotechnology
      --Jobs and rural community economic vitality
      --Education and outreach to producers, processors and consumers
            including food safety, sound nutrition, conservation,
            management, and new technology
        Our coalition arose from a shared mutual concern about the capacity
    of our agricultural research system as a whole to meet the future
    demands and capitalize on emerging opportunities. We will need a
    research system that simultaneously satisfies needs for food quality
    and quantity, resource preservation, producer profitability and social
    acceptability. This coalition will be working on ways to help assure
    that these needs are met.
                                   conclusion
        For all these reasons, the National Coalition for Food and
    Agricultural Research recommends that Federal investments in food and
    agricultural research be doubled over the next 5 years. This objective
    translates into roughly an increase of 15 percent per year of the
    research, extension and education in USDA and other Federal agencies or
    about $500 million increase per year for 5 years.
        This is a small investment compared to the $1 trillion dollar size
    of our food and agricultural sector. However, we believe it is a
    strategic and wise investment that would: (1) benefit producers and
    consumers of all commodities and all states; (2) improve income
    opportunities for farmers; (3) contribute to the United States
    remaining the best fed country with the lowest share of income spent on
    food; (4) strengthen our competitiveness in the global marketplace,
    while achieving the proper balance with human and environmental needs;
    (5) enable producers to produce safer, healthier foods; (6) find new
    uses for agricultural products; and (7) enhance the protection of our
    natural resources.
        Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views. We look
    forward to working with you and the members of this Subcommittee in
    support of these important long-term objectives.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Consortium for Rural Geospatial
                             Innovations in America

        As your subcommittee prepares the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture,
    Rural Development and Related Agencies appropriations, we are
    requesting that you provide $1.6 million to support the Geographic
    System Information Program (GISP). We appreciate the support your
    subcommittee has provided our Program in the past. This Program has
    received funding from the Research and Education account of USDA's
    Cooperative State, Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
        The National Consortium for Rural Geospatial InnovationS (RGIS) is
    a group of eight university and non-profit sites distributed across the
    U.S. With the support of the Geographic System Information Program,
    RGIS sites assist state, tribal, regional and local governments and
    non- and for-profit organizations in implementing advanced geospatial
    information technologies. The last decade has seen an explosion of
    computer-based technologies for the creation and management and
    distribution of information about natural resources, property records,
    infrastructure, transportation, and other land use arenas. These
    technologies include geographic information systems (GIS), remote
    sensing image processing, global positioning systems (GPS) and other
    related information technologies. RGIS uses a variety of approaches to
    make these technologies understandable, affordable and useful. (See
    enclosure, National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations in
    America, Summer 2000)
        The mission of RGIS is to increase access to digital technology in
    rural America. We promote the transfer of geospatial technologies by:
      --Providing geospatial tools, technologies, and training to empower
            local governments, organizations, and citizens to understand
            and participate in decisions that affect their economy, quality
            of life, and environment;
      --Educating and training a cadre of people to apply geospatial
            technologies to rural issues;
      --Supporting the development of appropriate local land information
            systems, as well as linkage to and cooperation with regional,
            state, and national land information systems.
      --The goal of the program is to improve the quality of life,
            environmental health, and economic competitiveness in rural
            communities.
        RGIS members have proved that geospatial technologies are efficient
    and cost-effective tools to improve local decision-making and local
    governmental processes. RGIS members have enabled local communities to
    develop better information, which has allowed local communities to make
    better decisions on a variety of issues including farmland
    preservation, emergency services, watershed management, land records
    modernization, and environmental protection. Continued funding of the
    Program will allow the organization to continue these benefits and
    leverage other resources to improve the quality of life in rural
    America and insure these communities have access to cutting-edge
    technologies.
        The eight existing sites are contributing the following:
      --Wilkes University and Kings College in Pennsylvania bring expertise
            in how to implement geospatial technologies among rural local
            governments and engineering mapping skills for comprehensive
            watershed planning. (See Tackling Environmental Clean-up with
            GIS, February 2001)
      --Pennsylvania State University brings expertise in how to apply
            geospatial technologies to assess agricultural quality for
            rural land use planning and management and spatial analytic
            methods for assessing the environment. (See Farmland Protection
            and GIS, December, 2000)
      --University of Wisconsin-Madison continues its extensive set of
            geospatial outreach training programs, including hands-on land
            use planning and management program for county and town level
            planners. Selection by the Federal Geographic Data Committee
            (FGDC) Community Demonstration Program has provided an
            opportunity to assist local citizen planners in accessing new
            land use planning and management tools. (See On Solid Ground,
            June 2000)
      --University of North Dakota continues to respond to the expanding
            interest in geospatial technology by local governments. One of
            the most rewarding developments has been the assistance
            provided to the City of Grand Forks in the aftermath of the
            1997 devastating flooding of the Red River. (See Making Road
            Travel Safer, November 2000)
      --University of Arkansas continues to provide local, state and
            national leadership. Examples include providing geospatial
            expertise to the Arkansas Land Records Modernization Board, GIS
            training camps for local high schools, and assisting the NRCS
            in developing the capacity to transfer soils and
            orthophotography information over the Web. (See Finding the Lay
            of the Land on the World Wide Web, November, 2000)
      --Central Washington University continues to support the
            modernization of irrigation records used by water management
            boards to insure equitable distribution of hydraulic resources
            and continues to assist tribal and local rural communities
            assess the role and use of geospatial technologies. (See GIS
            Transforms Irrigation Management in Kittitas Reclamation
            District, September, 2000)
      --South Georgia Regional Development Center continues to assist local
            governments to modernize land record systems such as parcel
            records for various applications including economic development
            and infrastructure management. (See Ben Hill County, Georgia
            Reaps Benefits From GIS and Damping High Fire Insurance Rates,
            March, 2001)
      --Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI), in its inaugural
            Program year, started a program to assist tribal communities
            utilize GIS and GPS technologies for agricultural and local
            land management applications. Also SIPI hosted a satellite
            distance education geospatial program for 29 tribal colleges
            across the U.S. Each RGIS Program Site participated by
            providing a 15-minute technical segment to the two-hour
            satellite program.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Cotton Council of America

        This is to transmit the cotton industry's request for fiscal year
    2002 funding for selected programs under the jurisdiction of
    Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies.
    The National Cotton Council appreciates your assistance in making this
    statement a part of the hearing records related to the fiscal year 2002
    appropriations bill.
        The National Cotton Council of America (NCC) is the central
    organization of the U.S. cotton industry representing growers, ginners,
    warehousemen, cottonseed crushers, merchants, cooperatives and
    manufacturers whose primary business operations are located in 16
    cotton producing states. Cotton Council International (CCI) is the
    overseas promotion arm of the cotton industry. The annual average farm
    gate value of U.S. cotton production is about $5 billion and its retail
    value averages approximately $60 billion. U.S. raw cotton exports
    normally account for approximately 40 percent of annual production and
    are valued at approximately $4 billion. U.S. textile manufacturers
    continue to be the U.S. cotton producer's most important customers. In
    addition to the fiber, cottonseed products are used for livestock feed,
    and cottonseed oil is used for food products ranging from margarine to
    salad dressing. Cottonseed and cottonseed products generally account
    for about 3 percent of the annual revenue generated from U.S. cotton
    production. Cottonseed contributes about 17 percent of the value of the
    crop at the farm gate.
        Cotton and cottonseed prices remain at historic lows and market
    observers predict low prices could continue for the foreseeable future.
    Asia's slow economic recovery; changes in China's cotton import policy;
    and an excess supply of cotton have all effected demand for U.S. raw
    cotton. The strong U.S. dollar relative to other currencies has made
    exporting bulk commodities difficult and spurred alarming increases in
    textile and apparel imports into the U.S. Excess production and cheap
    prices for synthetic fibers also contribute to a situation that has
    cotton farmers and their customers deeply concerned by shrinking
    operating margins.
        The financial assistance Congress provided for economic and weather
    related losses for the last 3 crop years has been critically important
    for farmers and the industry infrastructure. Unfortunately, as was
    noted in a recent letter sent by 25 Senators to Chairman Domenici, the
    combination of chronically low prices, escalating input costs and
    sluggish demand will result in continued low farm income and the need
    for an emergency economic assistance package in 2001 to provide at
    least the same level of economic assistance as was provided for the
    2000 crop.
        In the long-term, cotton farmers will benefit from federally funded
    programs and activities designed to reduce production costs and build
    demand. Successful completion of the boll weevil eradication program,
    control of the pink bollworm, new technology developed through
    research, and demand building export programs including MAP, FMD and
    GSM credit are all essential to our industry.
        The cotton industry's long-term viability depends on: an effective
    farm policy without unreasonable eligibility restrictions or
    limitations on benefits, including a marketing loan and adequately
    funded 3-step competitiveness provisions; an investment in the
    development and application of scientific principles; and, aggressive
    market development activities. The National Cotton Council welcomes the
    opportunity to provide the following recommendations and requests for
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations for programs which make important
    contributions to our industry's ability to compete and prosper.
                               funding priorities
        Pink Bollworm Programs (APHIS).--$6 million to continue the San
    Joaquin Valley (SJV) containment program and to begin sterile moth
    release phase of the pink bollworm eradication program initiated in
    2001 in the Trans Pecos/El Paso Valley of Far West Texas (in
    combination with the Boll Weevil Eradication Program). The pink
    bollworm is a serious cotton pest in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and
    California with costs of prevention, control and yield loss exceeding
    $21 million annually. Sterile moth releases, pheromone traps and
    cultural methods have proven successful in preventing establishment of
    the pink bollworm. Growers in the SJV provide a significant portion of
    containment program costs through a self-assessment. Sterile moths are
    reared in a facility in Phoenix, financed by California growers.
    Management equipment, methods and partial support for rearing and
    operations are furnished by APHIS. The Far West Texas eradication
    program will initiate the three-phase program to eliminate the pink
    bollworm as a pest in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California and
    adjacent cotton areas in Northern Mexico. Program will employ Bt
    cotton, pheromones for mating disruption and sterile insect releases as
    eradication technologies. Increased funding in fiscal year 2000 and
    fiscal year 2001 allowed APHIS to prepare for demands of the Texas
    program. The significant increase in funding for fiscal year 2002 will
    allow the Phoenix facility to produce sufficient quantities of sterile
    moths to supply the SJV program and the new area wide program in Far
    West Texas.
        Boll Weevil Eradication (FSA).--Sufficient funding to allow FSA to
    make at least $100 million in loans to eligible Boll Weevil Eradication
    Foundations. To the extent Federal cost-share funds are insufficient
    for a 30 percent contribution and to assist producers in areas where
    farm income is extraordinarily low, loan funds are critical to
    successful operation and completion of the eradication program. There
    may also be an interest in expanding eligibility to include the pink
    bollworm eradication program to ensure it is adequately funded.
        Boll Weevil Eradication (APHIS).--$82.2 million for APHIS to
    maintain the Federal cost share at approximately 30 percent. More than
    10 million acres in Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas,
    Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and New Mexico will be under
    active eradication in 2001 and 2002 with a projected total program cost
    of $274 million. Approximately 4.5 million acres in Virginia, North
    Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee,
    Arizona and California will be in post-eradication having been declared
    weevil-free. The program has achieved documented economic and
    environmental benefits. Adequate Federal cost-share funds are critical
    to timely completion. APHIS should also be directed to make every
    effort to minimize overhead and administrative expenses for boll weevil
    eradication to ensure maximum funding reaches field operations.
        Market Access Program (MAP).--$90 million is currently authorized
    by 1996 farm law. Cotton Council International actively promotes
    exports of U.S. cotton and cotton products in Asia, Europe and Central
    and South America. Activities carried out using MAP (and FMD) have been
    responsible for increased export sales of raw cotton and value-added
    cotton products. Exports of value-added cotton products add more than
    $6 billion to the overall value of cotton exports. For every $1 in MAP
    and FMD funds, CCI has generated matching contributions of over $9.00.
    The industry also supports funding to ensure FAS is adequately staffed
    to carry out important market development and trade enhancing functions
    in headquarters and abroad.
        Foreign Market Development (FMD).--The fiscal year 2000
    appropriations measure included a provision resulting in funding for
    the FMD Cooperator Program being provided through CCC rather than as
    part of the annual FAS appropriation. The industry requests the
    subcommittee to urge FAS to support FMD activities by programming not
    less than $33.5 million for fiscal year 2002, the absolute minimum
    amount necessary to sustain current levels of market development
    activities.
        GSM-102 Credit Guarantee (FAS).--Maintain authority to make at
    least $5.9 billion in GSM-102 guaranteed export credit available for
    use by U.S. exporters and customers. Urge U.S. negotiators at the DECD
    not to agree to modifications in the terms and conditions of the
    program, which render it unworkable for U.S. exporters and their
    customers. An ineffective GSM-102 program would reduce U.S. cotton
    exports by up to 500,000 bales and reduce prices by as much as 3 cents
    per pound. Consider modifications to the rules governing the program to
    include authority to accept repayment in foreign currencies, to allow
    the guarantee to cover cost of shipping and other regulatory
    adjustments to improve the value of the program for U.S. exporters and
    their customers.
        Aflatoxin (ARS).--The cotton industry strongly supports the funding
    recommendations of the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group and
    particularly the work by Dr. Peter Coty with AF-36 in Arizona.
        Ginning Research (ARS).--Urge ARS to continue to provide funding at
    not less than fiscal year 2001 levels for operations and research
    activities conducted at the regional ginning labs at Stoneville, MS;
    Lubbock, TX; and Mesilla Park, NM.
        Ginning Specialist (CSREES).--Urge ARS/CSREES to fill the vacant
    position and continue full funding of the Cotton Technology Transfer
    and Education Coordinator with headquarters in Stoneville, MS.
        Precision Agriculture (CSREES).--Request that priority be given to
    funding for precision agriculture applications research and that USDA
    be provided funds for use in matching NASA/Earth Sciences Enterprises
    allocations to precision agriculture.
        Shafter Cotton Research Station (ARS).--Urge ARS to maintain
    funding for cotton research conducted at the Station and not to shift
    funds or staffing resources from Shafter.
        Agricultural Genetic Resources.--Urge an increase of $10,000,000
    for USDA's National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS). An increase for the
    NPGS would provide funds for acquisitions of specific cotton germplasm
    from Russia, Uzbekistan and Latin America. Funds will also enhance
    winter nursery capabilities in Mexico, intensify cotton germplasm
    regeneration program and develop methods for precise description of
    cotton genomic viability. Work will be done at College Station and
    Lubbock, Texas. It would also provide funds to Phoenix, AZ for
    broadening the relatively narrow genetic base for upland and pima
    cotton varieties in Western and Southwestern U.S. by incorporating
    genes from wild relatives.
        Farm Service Agency.--Provide adequate funding so the agency can
    deliver essential programs and services.
        Other.--Support funding for value-added textile research at New
    Orleans ARS/SRRC and ARS/Clemson, SC; PM10 air quality research by
    CSREES; silverleaf whitefly control programs; conservation programs
    including CRP, WRP and WHIP; the Office of Pest Management Programs
    which continues to provide important assistance to growers during EPA's
    review of critical crop protection products; and the Aerial Application
    Technology Program at College Station.
        Research & Extension.--Support formula funding for Research and
    Extension; National Extension Priorities including water quality, food
    safety, and pesticide assessment program, and, funds for National
    Research Initiative.
        Cotton Classing Services (AMS).--The cotton classing services
    provided by USDA's AMS Cotton Division are critically important to
    marketing U.S. cotton. Cotton must be classed to be eligible for the
    CCC loan. AMS has successfully held classing fees at current levels for
    several years. For 2001, the agency is anticipating a significant
    increase in energy expenses and qualified seasonal employees are in
    short supply at most classing office locations. Yet in recognition of
    the severe economic stress in the industry, the agency has elected to
    hold fees at 2000 crop levels. Over the next 3 years, significant
    capitol investment will be required to install new automated classing
    equipment which will improve accuracy and reduce labor costs. The
    industry urges the Committee to consider providing appropriated funds
    for fiscal year 2002 and fiscal year 2003 to be used for the purchase
    of new automated equipment as reliable equipment becomes available.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

        The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) appreciates very
    much this opportunity to share its views regarding the fiscal year 2002
    agriculture appropriations bill, and respectfully requests this
    statement be made a part of the official hearing record.
                    overview of ncfc and farmer cooperatives
        The National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) is a national
    trade association representing nearly 100 regional marketing, supply
    and credit cooperatives, and state councils. Included among these
    regional cooperatives are over 3,500 local cooperatives whose farmer
    owners represent a majority of America's 2 million individual farmers.
    With approximately 300,000 full-time and seasonal employees, farmer
    cooperatives also represent a significant source of employment in many
    rural communities.
        Farmer cooperatives are farmer owned and controlled. They exist for
    the mutual benefit of their farmer members. As farmer-owned businesses,
    they handle, process and market virtually every type of commodity
    produced in the U.S.; manufacture and sell farm supplies; and provide
    credit and related financial services for and on behalf of their member
    owners. Earnings from such activities are returned to their member
    owners on a patronage basis, thereby helping improve the income of
    farmers and contributing significantly to the economic and tax base of
    local communities.
                        near and long term action needed
        The experience of the last three years has demonstrated again how
    farm income can be highly variable due to the inherent risk associated
    with production agriculture and the volatile nature of commodity
    markets. Today, without continued government assistance, farm income
    will again be down significantly due to continued low commodity prices
    and rising production costs.
        Congress has been very generous in its response and we strongly
    support continued assistance to help meet the immediate income
    challenges facing agriculture. However, action is also needed to
    promote a more lasting economic recovery with regard to agriculture.
                farmer's share of the consumer dollar declining
        The farmer's share of the consumer food dollar has steadily
    declined to where it now represents just 20 cents, its lowest level
    ever. Reversing this decline would substantially improve net farm
    income and reduce the need for direct emergency economic assistance
    long term. For example, increasing the farmer's share of the consumer
    food dollar by just one cent to 21 cents would have added over $6.2
    billion to farm income in 1999 and potentially reduced dependence on
    direct government payments.
       globalization continues to drive changes in food and agriculture
                                    industry
        Globalization continues to drive changes throughout the economy,
    including continued consolidation in the food and retail sectors, as
    individuals and businesses look to gain the size and scale needed to
    become more efficient and competitive in a global economy. This has
    renewed concerns over the impact of such changes on farmers and their
    ability to remain competitive and obtain a fair return on what they
    produce.
            international markets characterized by foreign subsidies
        According to a recent analysis by USDA, the European Union (EU) and
    other foreign competitors are now outspending the U.S. by a factor of
    20 to 1 with regard to the use of export subsidies and other
    expenditures for export promotion.
        The same study shows that such countries are spending over $100
    million just to promote sales of their products in the United States.
    In other words, they are spending more to promote their agricultural
    exports to the United States, than the U.S. is currently spending ($90
    million) to promote American agricultural exports worldwide!
                       recommendation of ncfc task force
        In an effort to help identify and recommend specific actions needed
    to help meet the challenges facing farmers, NCFC established a special
    Task Force comprised of both farmer owners and managers of farmer
    cooperatives across the U.S. According to the task force, a key
    component of any strategy aimed at addressing the challenges facing
    agriculture should include action to strengthen the ability of farmers
    to join together in cooperative self-help efforts to improve their
    income from the marketplace, manage their risk, capitalize on potential
    market opportunities, compete more effectively in a rapidly changing
    global economy, and enhance their economic well being and profitability
    long term.
                        usda farmer cooperative programs
        Programs to help foster and promote such cooperative self-help
    efforts by farmers need to be revitalized and given a high priority. To
    help achieve this objective, we recommend that a separate agency be
    established within USDA, along with specific funding of not less than
    $6 million for fiscal year 2002, to carry out programs relating to
    farmer cooperatives.
        farmer cooperative research, education and technical assistance
        Funding for USDA research, education and technical assistance in
    support of cooperative self-help efforts by farmers should also be
    strengthened. Accordingly, not less than $6 million should be provided
    for programs relating to farmer cooperatives. This would include not
    less than $3 million for cooperative research agreements and not less
    than $3 million for cooperative education grants.
        Provisions should also be included to require such programs be
    carried out by public private partnerships with organizations with
    proven and demonstrated expertise to improve coordination and delivery
    of such programs, and to maximize available resources. We also
    recommend that not less than $1 million of available funds for
    cooperative education grants be utilized to help expand existing
    national cooperative education programs to provide farmers with greater
    access to the information and technical assistance needed for
    organizing and operating a farmer owned cooperative business.
        Funding for value-added technical assistance grants should also be
    maintained at not less than $25 million for fiscal year 2002 to further
    encourage and promote cooperative self-help efforts by farmers.
           usda's b&i loan guarantee program and farmer cooperatives
        USDA's Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program should
    be modified and strengthened to provide farmer cooperatives and their
    farmer owners with access to capital on a similar basis as currently
    available under related programs for rural electric and other types of
    cooperatives. This would include eliminating the current limitation on
    the amount of a guaranteed loan that may be made to a farmer
    cooperative, among other changes needed to provide greater program
    flexibility consistent with other types of cooperative lending
    programs. Farmers and their cooperatives need improved access to
    capital to modernize and expand, invest new plant and equipment, meet
    costly environmental and other regulatory requirements, capitalize on
    potential market opportunities, and to compete effectively in a rapidly
    changing global economy. In addition, funding for USDA's B&I guaranteed
    loan program should be increased to provide up to $10 billion in
    guaranteed loan authority for such purposes.
                        usda commodity purchase programs
        We strongly urge that statutory and report language included in the
    fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill be included in the
    fiscal year 2002 bill to ensure that farmer cooperatives are fully
    eligible to participate in USDA's commodity purchase programs. Such
    programs serve two important purposes. One, they help meet the food and
    nutrition needs of consumers. Second, they provide an important market
    outlet for farmers, especially during periods of surplus production,
    thereby helping strengthen farm income and promoting orderly marketing.
        However, under previous guidelines established by USDA, this
    important market was eliminated for many farmers choosing to
    cooperatively market their products. The fiscal year 2001 agriculture
    appropriations bill addressed this by clearly providing that farmer
    cooperatives are fully eligible to participate in such programs for and
    on behalf of their farmer owners. In doing so, it preserves an
    important market outlet for many farmers, promotes orderly marketing,
    encourages cooperative self-help efforts, and helps maintain and
    strengthen farm income--since proceeds from the sale of commodities and
    related products are returned to the cooperatives' farmer owners as
    patronage income. It also serves to increase the potential quantity and
    quality of commodities and related products available for purchase and
    use under such programs, and provides for more competitive bidding
    among participants. Finally, it helps contribute to stronger rural
    communities where farmer cooperatives and their farmer owners are
    located. For all these reasons, we again urge such provision be
    included in the fiscal year 2002 agriculture appropriations bill.
                                export programs
        We also believe it important to maintain and strengthen funding for
    USDA's export programs, including the Market Access Program (MAP) and
    Foreign Market Development (FMD) Cooperator Program, and we endorse the
    recommendations of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports
    of which NCFC is a member. Such programs have been tremendously
    successful and extremely cost-effective in helping maintain and expand
    U.S. agricultural exports, countering subsidized foreign competition,
    protecting American jobs and strengthening farm income.
        Programs such as MAP and FMD have also helped encourage and
    strengthen the ability of farmers to join together in cooperative
    efforts to promote their products in overseas markets and improve their
    income. Administered on a cost-share basis, they remain one of the few
    tools specifically allowed under the Uruguay Round Agreement to help
    American agriculture and American workers remain competitive in a
    global marketplace still characterized by subsidized foreign
    competition.
        We also urge continued funding for other related USDA export
    programs, including the Export Enhancement Program (EEP), Dairy Export
    Incentive Program (DEIP), GSM Export Credit Guarantee Program, and
    Public Law 480. All of these programs continue to be essential to help
    encourage U.S. agriculture exports, counter subsidized foreign
    competition, protect American jobs, and strengthen farm income.
                             agricultural research
        Another important area of emphasis when it comes to enhancing the
    global competitiveness of farmer cooperatives and American agriculture
    is research. It is equally important to help ensure that farmer
    cooperatives and American agriculture can continue to help provide
    consumers at home and abroad with a dependable supply of safe, high
    quality food and fiber at reasonable prices, while meeting important
    environmental and food safety objectives.
        NCFC endorses the statement by the National Coalition for Food and
    Agricultural Research of which NCFC is a member, which has set an
    objective of doubling Federal funding of food, nutrition, agricultural,
    natural resource, and fiber research, extension and education programs
    during the next 5 years.
                               conservation/eqip
        We strongly support continued funding for the Conservation Reserve
    Program (CRP), as well as restoring funding for the Environmental
    Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), as recommended in the
    Administration's budget. Such programs are necessary to help achieve
    and maximize water quality and other environmental benefits.
        The CRP and EQIP programs in particular are critical to empowering
    farmers to continue voluntary efforts to sustain the natural resource
    base and to respond to societal expectations and demands with regard to
    water quality and protecting our natural resource base.
                           meat inspection/user fees
        We continue to be opposed to user fees relating to Food Safety and
    Inspection Service (FSIS) for meat inspection. Such inspection programs
    provide important public benefits relating to food safety and quality
    and should continue to be publicly funded.
                                   conclusion
        Mr. Chairman, on behalf of NCFC and its members, we want to again
    thank you for the opportunity to share our views with regard to the
    fiscal year 2002 agriculture appropriations bill. We also wish to take
    this opportunity to express our appreciation to you and the members of
    the Subcommittee for your interest and support of farmer cooperatives
    and American agriculture.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association

        The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
    opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with our recommendations for
    fiscal year 2002 appropriations for key programs administered by the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture. The NCGA represents 30,000 corn growers
    in 48 states and the association's mission is to create and increase
    opportunities for corn growers in a changing world and to enhance corn
    utilization and profitability.
        The NCGA, strongly, urges the Subcommittee to:
      --Increase the ARS plant, animal, and microbial genomics programs by
            $5.0 million;
      --Increase funding for the National Plant Germplasm System by $10
            million; and
      --Maintain $120 million in funding for the Initiative for Future
            Agriculture and Food Systems.
        While many Federal agricultural programs are important to the
    nation's corn growers, the NCGA believes that the future of the corn
    industry is written in corn's genetic code and that plant genomics will
    give us the fundamental information necessary to revolutionize American
    agriculture. Plant genomics research advances our understanding of the
    structure, organization and function of plant genomes.
        Since 1996, funding for plant genomics has been the number one
    appropriations issue for the NCGA. The Plant Genome Initiative (PGI), a
    multi-agency program
        Focused on structural and functional genomics, will help
    scientists, geneticists, and plant breeders identify and utilize genes
    (from corn and other plants) that control important traits, such as
    nutritional value, stress tolerance, and resistance to pests. In a
    recently published report, the Interagency Working Group on Plant
    Genomes, estimated that $600 million, over three years (fiscal year
    2001-2003) was needed for the National PGI. While the NSF will provide
    a significant level of funding for the PGI, USDA must increase its
    plant genomics funding, substantially, if we are to meet the minimum
    level of need. Further, USDA must begin a concerted effort in animal
    and microbial genomics.
        For the fiscal year 2002 agricultural appropriations bill, the NCGA
    requests an increase of $5.0 million for plant, animal, microbial
    genomics at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). We support the
    Administration's requested increase of $4.5 million increase for
    bioinformatics research at ARS and urge the Subcommittee to provide an
    additional $500,000 for additional ARS genomics efforts. The NCGA,
    also, urges the Subcommittee to allow full funding to continue for the
    Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems as a significant
    portion of the funds are supporting plant, animal, and microbial
    genomics research.
        To take full advantage of the plant genomics revolution, diverse
    plant germplasm must be available for crop breeders to develop the
    varieties necessary to meet the changing circumstances and needs of the
    future. The USDA National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS)--
      --Acquires germplasm;
      --Develops and documents information on the germplasm;
      --Preserves and distributes germplasm upon request; and
      --Maintains quarantine facilities for testing imported germplasm.
        Funding for the NPGS has declined significantly, in constant
    dollars, since 1992, while demands on the system have increased. The
    NSF-funded plant genome research program has increased, tremendously,
    the amount of genetic stocks for the NPGS to manage. For example, one
    maize grant will generate, at least, 50,000 new maize genetic stocks,
    doubling the size of the NPGS maize stock center. Comparable situations
    will exist for several other economically important crops as well.
    Without a significant increase in funding, the NPGS will not be able to
    manage current stocks, much less the increased stocks generated through
    genomics research. It is critical that these resources remain in the
    public domain to ensure continued accessibility to all scientists and
    breeders. The 2 NCGA believes that the NPGS is a fundamental, strategic
    resource, and urges the Subcommittee to provide a $10 million increase
    for the NPGS.
        Advances in basic plant science that result from a vigorous plant
    genomics program and a strong, viable National Plant Germplasm System
    will allow us to create new hybrids and varieties that will--
      --Improve human and animal health;
      --Reduce medical costs due to more nutritious, healthier, food for
            individuals;
      --Reduce worldwide malnutrition through higher yielding and more
            nutritious crops;
      --Reduce environmental problems for crop and livestock growers;
      --Expand plant-based renewable resources for chemicals and energy;
            and
      --Allow growers to get more income from the market and reduce grower
            reliance on Federal farm programs.
        The National Plant Genome Initiative, the National Plant Germplasm
    System, and the competitive USDA programs that support genomics
    research are critical to the long-term viability of U.S. agriculture as
    they will provide our growers with the tools to meet the challenges and
    demands of the 21st century. The NCGA, strongly, urges Congress to
    provide a $5 million increase in ARS funding for plant, animal, and
    microbial genomics research and a $10 million increase for the USDA
    National Plant Germplasm System.
        Thank you for your consideration of our views.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians

                                  introduction
        My name is Susan Masten, and I am Chair of the Yurok Tribe of
    Northern California and President of the National Congress of American
    Indians (NCAI). I am pleased to have the opportunity to present a
    written statement regarding the President's budget request for fiscal
    year 2002 Indian programs and services within the Department of
    Agriculture.
        Since the 1970's, the high population growth rate of Indian
    reservations has put great strains on an already inadequate
    infrastructure. Education, law enforcement, transportation, health
    care, jobs, housing, technology, water and sewer systems--each of these
    basic governmental services all too often falls victim to resources
    that are spread far too thin. While fiscal year 2001 funding levels for
    Indian programs certainly made great strides toward meeting the basic
    programmatic needs of tribes, our work is not yet done. In order to
    fully support tribal self-government and economic self-sufficiency,
    Congress must not turn back the clock on last year's gains and in fact
    should consider increases for key programs that serve Indian Country.
        Last year, Congress enacted a final fiscal year 2001 budget that
    included a total of $9.4 billion for critical Indian programs. This
    total, a $1.1 billion increase over fiscal year 2000, represented the
    largest increase ever for Indian programs and brought together over a
    dozen agencies to help address the needs of Indian nations.
        The last time the Federal government enacted an increase of a
    similar scope was in the mid-1970's as part of President Nixon's self-
    determination policy. Self-determination has been and continues to be
    the most successful Federal policy toward Indian Nations. Under it,
    tribal governments have local control over programs and are able to
    fulfill needs and solve problems more quickly and efficiently than
    through a ``top-down'' Federal approach.
        For fiscal year 2002, the President has proposed $1.96 trillion in
    fiscal year 2002 spending, including a four percent increase in
    discretionary spending over fiscal year 2001. While this increase--
    which is slightly higher than inflation--seems positive, it is
    important to note that it is only half the 8.5 percent gain enacted
    last year. Furthermore, proposed budget for the Department of Interior
    is four percent less than the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
        The President's ``Blueprint for New Beginnings'' fails to provide
    many substantive, agency-level details about the fiscal year 2002
    budget request. Until these details become available through the
    release of more comprehensive agency budgets, it is extremely difficult
    to gauge the impact of the proposed fiscal year 2002 budget on programs
    that serve American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        I will address the proposed funding levels that are available and
    to highlight those programs that we believe are critically important to
    Indian nations. Much of the information and recommendations contained
    in my testimony was provided by our member tribes and by national and
    regional Indian organizations, such as the National Indian Education
    Association, the National Indian Health Board, the National American
    Indian Housing Council, the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health
    Board, and others.
                           department of agriculture
        Being the most rural of any minority group, American Indians
    residing on reservations are for the most part, geographically
    isolated, resource-limited, and the least likely of any farm group to
    receive loans from the United States. Of the some 55 million acres of
    Indian lands, 47 million acres are used for the production of crops,
    livestock, or both. Those individual operators and farming tribes who
    produce these resources are in need of capital, more efficient
    administration of existing Federal programs, and technical assistance.
    This need extends over all farming tribes even those who may have an
    abundance of natural resources. In addition, development assistance
    provided through USDA helps non-farming tribes to develop more
    sustainable economies.
        For fiscal year 2002, the President has proposed cutting USDA
    funding from its current level of $19.4 billion to $17.9 billion, a 1.6
    percent reduction. NCAI is particularly concerned about the proposed
    elimination of $235 million in rural development assistance.
    Furthermore, we recommend the following funding levels for Indian-
    specific programs:
    Extension Indian Reservations Program
        In fiscal year 2001, $2 million was provided for extension agents
    on Indian reservations, a slight increase over the fiscal year 2000
    enacted level of $1.7 million. Since 1990, the Extension Indian
    Reservation Program, authorized under the Food, Agriculture,
    Conservation and Trade Act, has provided services to Indian Country on
    issues ranging from crop and animal production practices to farm
    business management. It also has furnished extension agents, employees
    of the State Cooperative Extension System, who work with tribal
    advisory committees to develop educational programs in agriculture or
    agriculture-related youth programs that respond to tribal priorities.
    NCAI strongly supports an increase to $5 million for fiscal year 2002
    in order for the program to hire additional extension agents on large
    Indian reservations to help Indian Country promote productive and
    efficient land use.
    Rural Development Native American Program
        In fiscal year 2001, $24 million was provided for Indian Rural
    Community Advancement Programs (RCAP). While this funding level was
    welcome, NCAI further recommends that this funding be allocated as
    follows: $1 million for Rural Business Opportunity Grants to Tribes; $5
    million for Community Facilities Grants for Tribal College
    Improvements; $16 million for Drinking Water and Waste Disposal Systems
    for Tribes; and $3 million for Rural Business Enterprise Grants to
    Tribes.
    Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations
        The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR) is
    administered at the Federal level by the Food and Nutrition Service
    (FNS) in cooperation with 98 tribal organizations and six state
    agencies. Many Native Americans actually participate in the FDPIR,
    rather than the Food Stamp Program because of rural isolation and the
    lack of easy access to food stores.
        fiscal year 2001 funding for the FDPIR was $76.5 million, an
    increase of $1.5 million over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
    Maintaining this increase is crucial in order to provide commodity
    foods to low-income households on reservations and to Native American
    families residing in designated areas near reservations.
                                   conclusion
        We urge the Congress to fulfill its fiduciary duty to American
    Indians and Alaska Native people and to preserve the government-to-
    government relationship, which includes the fulfillment of health,
    education and welfare needs of all Indian tribes in the United States.
    This responsibility should never be compromised or diminished because
    of any political agenda or budget cut scenario. Tribes throughout the
    nation relinquished their lands as well as their rights to liberty and
    property, and we ask that the Congress maintain the Federal trust
    responsibility to Indian Country and continue to assist tribes on the
    road toward self-sufficiency. Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Food Processors Association

        Mr. Chairman, my name is John Cady, Chairman and CEO of the
    National Food Processors Association (NFPA), and today I am submitting
    testimony on behalf of NFPA. NFPA is the nation's largest food trade
    association representing a $460 billion industry that employs over 1.5
    million Americans. With three laboratory centers, NFPA is the leading
    authority on scientific and public policy issues involving food science
    and safety for the food industry. For more than 90 years, the food
    industry has relied on NFPA for government and regulatory affairs
    representation, scientific research, technical services, education,
    communications, and crisis management.
        NFPA was formed at a time when it was necessary to enhance public
    confidence in food safety, and we are proud of our contributions to
    further improve the safety of our nation's food supply. The U.S. food
    supply is the safest in the world. However, NFPA remains committed to
    working to make it even better. That is why NFPA advocates oversight
    and regulation that is appropriate. Our association is particularly
    supportive of providing an adequate level of funding for the Food and
    Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Agriculture's Food
    Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). While several Federal agencies
    have responsibility for food safety and quality programs, the FDA and
    FSIS share the primary responsibility for food regulation. NFPA, on
    behalf of our members, is making an enhanced commitment to focus on
    increasing the resources and productivity of these authorities.
        This year NFPA has launched a long-term effort, along with other
    leading food trade associations, to seek additional funding for FDA's
    Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN), which in real
    dollars, has had a steadily declining budget since 1973. While funding
    for CFSAN has risen by $100 million over the past four years, CFSAN
    must continue to enhance efficiency and productivity. Only by enhancing
    efficiency and productivity will the Center be able to stretch resource
    dollars further to meet the demands in areas such as food safety
    research, risk-based inspections and premarket reviews, including
    biotechnology and food additives. NFPA is committed also to adequate
    resources for the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) at the Department
    of Agriculture, specifically to fulfill it's mission to generate
    technical information on providing an adequate supply of food products
    by practices that maintain a permanent and effective agriculture and to
    improve the nutrition and well being of the American people.
                                   user fees
        The Administration's fiscal year 2002 Budget proposes new user
    fees--more appropriately described as regulatory taxes--that require
    food companies to pay for the privilege of being regulated. Though NFPA
    applauds the Administration for not proposing new user fees for FSIS,
    the fiscal year 2002 request does include $13.4 million in new,
    unauthorized user fees. This includes $8.1 million for new,
    unauthorized user fees for import inspections and $5.3 million export
    certifications. NFPA appreciates that the Committee repeatedly has
    rejected these proposals in past Administration budget requests, and
    recommends again that funding of food safety and regulatory programs
    should be borne through appropriated funds. The proposed FDA user fees
    would be collected to provide food companies with certification
    documents for exporting products. Amounting to a tax on food trade,
    this would discourage the export of U.S. food and agriculture products
    at a time of already declining agriculture exports. Proposed user fees
    on the food industry are hidden taxes whose costs would be borne both
    by producers and eventually consumers in higher food prices. NFPA does
    support the Administration's focus on FDA's export certification
    system, which needs reform to prevent the continuing backlog of
    document requests. However, establishing a user fee system would simply
    camouflage the deficiencies of the existing system. Furthermore,
    funding regulatory programs through taxes raised from the industry
    would only serve to undermine global public confidence in the
    independent judgment of FDA. We urge the Committee to reject this user
    fee proposal.
            food and drug administration's food regulatory programs
        NFPA supports the requested level of funding for FDA's food
    regulation activities, but recommends that priority be given to the
    areas of research, risk assessment, education and surveillance. Such
    priority setting will ensure that limited resources will be targeted
    toward reducing risk associated with food borne illness. In addition,
    we support FDA's infrastructure request for funding to administer the
    transfer of the CFSAN staff and facilities to College Park, Maryland
    and to construct a new regional laboratory in Los Angeles, California.
        We also urge the Committee to protect funding for science-based
    food activities at CFSAN. Recent increases to CFSAN's budget have been
    absorbed by a combination of dedicated funding for regulatory
    initiatives and staff salary increases and cost-of-living adjustments.
    This ``crowding out'' effect appears to have contributed to a slow, but
    steady, erosion in FDA's ability to preserve its food science base. The
    continued decline of FDA's scientific base can only imperil FDA's long-
    term capabilities to respond rapidly and authoritatively to emerging
    scientific and policy challenges that grow increasingly complex. We
    urge the Committee to explore with FDA opportunities to support the
    integrity of CFSAN's scientific capabilities.
                                 biotechnology
        NFPA recognizes the leading role FDA plays in ensuring public
    acceptance of emerging food technologies including biotechnology. NFPA
    strongly supports the proposed fiscal year 2002 increase of $1 million
    to strengthen CFSAN's scientific capabilities and requests the
    Committee provide an even higher level of funding for this important
    function. In January, FDA released a draft guidance on labeling for
    food derived from biotechnology and a proposed rule on premarket
    notification. FDA should expeditiously publish a final version of the
    guidance and rule to ensure the review process is thorough, rigorous,
    and scientifically based.
                      extending the food safety initiative
        NFPA appreciates the continued emphasis that Congress has placed on
    food safety through its funding for the Food Safety Initiative for FDA,
    USDA, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in
    fiscal years fiscal year 1998 through 2001. The fiscal year 2002
    request represents the new Administration's commitment to enhance
    efforts to prevent the spread of mad cow disease to the U.S., and to
    expand successful food safety activities. We endorse most aspects of
    the Administration's request to increase funding to reduce the
    prevalence of pathogens, and expand coverage to pesticides and chemical
    contaminants, particularly in those areas that emphasize research, risk
    assessment, education and surveillance. Our concern remains that FDA
    use resources efficiently and effectively. FDA should fully implement
    on-going monitoring and risk evaluations, and expand current laboratory
    capabilities in order to increase timely risk assessments and
    scientific analysis before premature regulatory steps are taken. We
    request that the Committee remain vigilant in its oversight to ensure
    that appropriated funds for food safety programs are deployed in a
    manner commensurate with relative food safety risks.
          further reforms needed at food safety and inspection service
        NFPA supports adequate resources for the FSIS, but is concerned
    with reports of personnel management practices that have led to
    inspector shortages and resulting plant slowdowns or work stoppages in
    meat and poultry establishments. We urge the Committee to review this
    problem to ensure the availability of inspection personnel either
    through additional resources or management reforms, including
    alternative inspection procedures.
        NFPA supports the transition to a HACCP-based inspection system,
    but notes that FSIS has not fulfilled its past pledges to remove
    inspection regulations that are inconsistent with HACCP. We urge the
    Committee to ensure that unnecessary layers of regulation are promptly
    removed to speed HACCP implementation.
        For example, NFPA is disappointed that FSIS reported to Congress in
    March 2001 that it would not follow through with an announced plan to
    move toward daily, unscheduled processing inspection in 2001. FSIS
    estimated that this would save an estimated $19 million. NFPA agreed
    that the FSIS plan put forward in the fiscal year 2001 budget would
    free up appropriated funds to address inspection shortages and other
    significant food safety risks. NFPA believes unscheduled inspection in
    processing establishments could yield even greater benefits by
    allocating resources based on a public health risk allocation of
    resources. We urge the Committee to direct FSIS to explore methods of
    further maximizing this flexible approach.
        NFPA also recognizes the lead role that FSIS plays in overseeing
    the work of the U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius. NFPA strongly
    supports the fiscal year 2002 requested increase for FSIS Codex
    activities, and recommends that the Committee provide an even higher
    level of funding for this important function. Codex remains a
    critically important forum for ensuring U.S. leadership in
    international trade and food safety activities.
                   adequate funding needed for food research
        The National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990
    directed the USDA's Agriculture Research Service to coordinate the
    Continuing Survey for Food Intake by Individuals (CSFII) with the
    National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) conducted by
    the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Though USDA is
    working diligently with DHHS to coordinate the two survey systems and
    methodology, USDA has failed to conduct the CSFII in 2000 and has no
    plans to conduct the survey in 2001. Congress has requested USDA report
    on how the Department plans to integrate the two surveys without losing
    the vital data collected by both programs. The recently released USDA
    report failed to appropriately address the concerns of the Congress as
    the language of the report appears to indicate plans to rely only on
    the data collected through NHANES. The CSFII is at the core of
    America's national nutrition monitoring system and is vital to
    understanding the growing problem of childhood obesity, conducting food
    safety risk assessments, refining objectives of Federal food assistance
    programs, and monitoring the nutritional health of various at-risk
    populations. NFPA urges the Committee to direct the ARS to continue to
    conduct the CSFII as the Service develops a coordinated plan with DHHS
    for both surveys.
        The ARS also performs the essential function of compiling and
    communicating agriculture and food industry data and information on the
    evaluations and decisions that impact the future capacity of production
    agriculture in the U.S., made by the Environmental Protection Agency.
    NFPA recommends the Committee increase the budget allocation for
    continuing implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act to ensure
    the Office of Pest Management Policy at ARS has adequate funding to
    support tolerance reviews and determinations of the cumulative risk
    assessments needed to ensure a safe food supply.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, NFPA is grateful for the important funding oversight
    that the Committee provides to ensure the integrity of U.S. food safety
    regulation. The food industry endeavors to produce the safest and
    highest quality food products in the world. As a result, NFPA
    understands that adequate funding for our nation's food safety
    regulators through direct appropriations and enhanced productivity by
    the agency is fundamental to good public health, and to maintaining the
    confidence of consumers in the safety of the food supply. NFPA
    appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on the President's
    fiscal year 2002 food safety budget request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Organization for Rare Disorders,
                                      Inc.

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
    on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies, the National
    Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), wishes to express its views
    regarding appropriations for the Orphan Products Research Grant Program
    administered by the Office of Orphan Product Development (OOPD) at the
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
        NORD is a federation of approximately 140 voluntary health
    organizations and over 70,000 individual patients, healthcare providers
    and clinical researchers dedicated to helping the 25 million people in
    the United States suffering with rare ``orphan'' diseases. An orphan
    disease is defined by statute as any disease or condition impacting
    less than 200,000 Americans.\1\ It makes no difference whether you are
    male or female, rich or poor, young or old, white, African-American,
    Latino, Asian or American Indian. These diseases affect everyone.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Orphan Drug Act of 1983.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the rare disease community, we are respectfully
    requesting that just one dollar for each and every person suffering
    with a rare disease be appropriated by this Subcommittee for the FDA'S
    Orphan Products Research Grant Program. Twenty-five million would
    represent a minimal investment by the Federal government in the
    development of lifesaving treatments that the private sector is not
    interested in. But the return on investment could be phenomenal if only
    a few new orphan drugs or devices are developed to reduce the burden of
    disease and death for thousands of patients with rare disorders.
        As you can imagine, appropriating just one dollar for each rare
    disease patient in America, rather than the current funding level of a
    mere fifty cents per patient, is a win-win situation. Patients win when
    their symptoms are alleviated or cured. Families win when their loved
    ones no longer suffer. Society, as a whole, wins when patients are able
    to return to school or work to become productive tax-paying citizens.
    Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies win when they are able to
    market new therapeutic products when part of the development costs are
    subsidized. The scientific community wins when the knowledge they gain
    can be applied to more prevalent diseases. And, finally, the government
    wins when the drain on healthcare dollars is minimized.
                  fda orphan products research grants program
        Congress created the research grants program in fiscal year 1983 to
    provide funding for pivotal clinical trials on new orphan drugs,
    medical devices, and medical foods for rare diseases. The funds have
    been made available to academic scientists and small companies. By
    definition, ``orphan products'' are treatments for rare conditions that
    have small potential markets and thus are not attractive to the
    commercial sector. Such treatments were not being developed for
    ``orphan'' diseases by the private sector until the Orphan Drug Act was
    enacted in 1983.
        Since then, the FDA has approved over 218 orphan drugs for
    marketing, and more than 800 additional drugs are in the research
    pipeline. Of those products approved for marketing, 27 (23 drugs and 4
    medical devices) were developed with funding from the orphan product
    grants. These 27 treatments would not be on the American market today
    saving the lives of thousands of Americans, enabling them to return to
    school or work, if Congress had not created this small but critically
    important pool of research funds.
        Most of FDA's Orphan Products Research Grants support small
    clinical trials at academic institutions throughout the nation to
    develop the preliminary evidence that is necessary to attract
    commercial sponsors. It is the quintessential model for a successful
    government/industry partnership. There is no more appropriate program
    deserving of Federal support because it fills a major gap between
    academic research and the private sector, and it creates lifesaving
    products that are needed throughout the world.
        For example, children with Severe Combined Immune Deficiency (the
    ``Bubble Boy Disease'') no longer have to live in a plastic bubble
    because now their immune systems can fight off germs, thanks to an
    orphan drug developed with these grant funds. Children with urea cycle
    disorders no longer slip into a coma and die because an orphan drug
    enables their bodies to eliminate toxic levels of ammonia. Babies born
    without ribs no longer suffocate in infancy because an artificial rib
    (an orphan medical device) is being developed now with funds from the
    Orphan Products Research Grants Program that allows the children's
    lungs to expand and breathe. Cystic fibrosis, Crohn's disease, and
    multiple sclerosis drugs are on the market today only because these
    grants supported some of their research.
        Unfortunately, there are many diseases and conditions that are too
    rare to attract private investment because the commercial sector is
    simply not interested in developing treatments for small markets. The
    investment necessary for research and development of new drugs and
    devices is too large in comparison to the size of the potential market
    for a rare disease. Case in point, there are only about 125 patients in
    the United States suffering with an orphan disease called
    fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva (FOP), Only 15,000 with
    Huntington's disease or Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, and only 30,000
    with cystic fibrosis. Many of the genetic diseases each impact no more
    than 40,000 Americans. Whereas, drugs for cancer, arthritis or
    hypertension, for example, each affect many millions of Americans,
    representing several billion dollars in potential sales each year.
        Given the fact that the Orphan Products Research Grant Program is
    attracting greater attention, more researchers are eager to participate
    each year. Therefore, it is very unfortunate that the annual
    appropriation for this program cannot begin to cover all of the
    meritorious grant requests for promising research projects. Today,
    about 100 grant applications are received annually, but many
    scientifically important applications are never funded simply because
    the appropriation is too small to meet the needs of the program. In
    fact, the appropriation now is less than it was in fiscal year 1995,
    and has remained between $10 to $12 million for many years.
        Mr. Chairman, if the government does not fund this research, who
    will? The private sector is simply not interested in rare diseases. If
    this Subcommittee does not meet the need of this unique sector of
    scientific research, people with rare diseases will be further
    victimized by the injustice of the supply and demand marketplace. For
    these diseases, no company wants to supply a treatment when the market
    demand is small.
                                   conclusion
        In 1989 the HHS National Commission on Orphan Diseases estimated
    that only 30 percent of the 25 million patients suffering with rare
    diseases receive a diagnosis in three to five years after the onset of
    symptoms. That works out to about 7.5 million patients who are shuffled
    from specialist to specialist, year after year. Fifteen percent, or 3.7
    million people, wait seven years or more. And even after diagnosis,
    they can only hope that someone, somewhere, will conduct research to
    develop a treatment for their disease.
        And so, on behalf of those medically disenfranchised Americans and
    their families, we respectfully request that the members of this
    Subcommittee appropriate no less than $25 million dollars to the FDA
    Orphan Products Research Grant Program for fiscal year 2002. We are
    relying on the members of this Subcommittee to fill the void between
    government and the private sector, and propel these treatments forward
    from academic laboratories to our local pharmacies. Ultimately, your
    compassion and insight will put new orphan drugs and devices into the
    waiting hands of critically ill patients. If you don't provide adequate
    resources for the Orphan Products Research Grants Program,
    unfortunately no one else will.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the National Potato Council

        My name is Todd Michael. I am a potato farmer from Ohio and current
    Vice President, Legislative/Government Affairs for the National Potato
    Council (NPC). On behalf of the NPC, we thank you for your attention to
    the needs of our potato growers.
        The NPC is the only trade association representing commercial
    growers in 50 states. Our growers produce both seed potatoes and
    potatoes for consumption in a variety of forms. Annual production in
    2000 was 500,000,000 cwt. with a farm value of $2,800,000,000. Total
    value is substantially increased through processing. The potato crop
    clearly has a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
        The potato is the most popular of all vegetables grown and consumed
    in the United States and one of the most popular in the world. Annual
    per capita consumption was 147 pounds in 2000 up from 107 pounds in
    1962 and is increasing due to the advent of new products and heightened
    public awareness of the potato's excellent nutritional value. Potatoes
    are considered a stable consumer commodity and an integral, delicious
    component of the American diet.
        The National Potato Council's fiscal year 2002 appropriations
    priorities are as follows:
    Cooperative Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
        Potato Special Grant Program.--The NPC urges that $1.6 million be
    appropriated for the special research grant program. The Congress
    increased the level in fiscal year 2001 by $150,000 to $1.45 million
    and should the Administration delete these funds from its budget we
    urge that Congress restore the fiscal year 2001 appropriated level as
    well as increase the funding to $1.6 million. The program had once been
    at $1.4 million but had been reduced due to various across the board
    cuts. This has been a highly successful program and the number of
    funding requests is increasing.
        The NPC also urges that the Congress, once again, include Committee
    report language as follows: ``Potato research.--The Committee expects
    the Department to ensure that funds provided to CSREES for potato
    research are utilized for varietal development testing. Further, these
    funds are to be awarded competitively after review by the Potato
    Industry Working Group.''
    Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
        The NPC urges that the Congress once again add Committee report
    language urging the ARS to work with the NPC on how overall research
    funds can best be utilized for grower priorities.
        Should the Administration's fiscal year 2002 budget delete the
    $250,000 for Prosser, Washington and the $300,000 for the Northeast
    Plant, Soil and Water Laboratory at Onono, Maine, added by the Congress
    in fiscal year 2001, the NPC urges that the Congress restore these
    funds.
                Grand Forks and East Grand Forks
        Appropriate $350,000 for a new scientist to be located at the
    Potato Research worksite in East Grand Forks, Minnesota. The scientist
    would address the effects of postharvest storage and treatments on
    potato market quality and value added traits. Since over 70 percent of
    the U.S. fall potato crop is placed into storage for year around sale,
    this research will benefit potato growers throughout the country.
                Fort Collins, Colorado
        Appropriate $300,000 for the Soil, Plant, and Nutrient Research
    Program at Fort Collins to conduct research to enhance water and soil
    quality with precision conservation farming.
                Aberdeen, Idaho
        Appropriate $150,000 for additional work by the potato breeder at
    Aberdeen. Since an estimated 96 percent of the current budget is
    committed to salaries and fixed costs, this additional funding is
    needed to provide for the development of a strong molecular biology
    program component to speed the incorporation of disease resistance from
    wild potato species into the cultivated potato.
        Appropriate $400,000 for planning and design for the construction
    of an advanced molecular genetics laboratory at the National Small
    Grains Germplasm Research Facility. This facility at Aberdeen is needed
    to assure the continuation of advanced molecular genetics research for
    potatoes and small grains. It is estimated that total construction
    costs will be $3.9 million.
                Albany, California
        ARS has funded Dr. William Belknap in Albany, with the support of
    the NPC, to develop genetic constructs for potato transformation that
    will be publicly available without patent restrictions on their use.
    His laboratory should serve as a source of reagents for use by ARS
    scientists and others who work in the public sector. Estimated cost of
    providing this service is an additional $100,000 in fiscal year 2002
    for Dr. Belknap's base budget to carry out the potato research.
                Beltsville, Maryland
        Improving the nutritional value of potatoes is a high priority of
    the NPC. Research should also be initiated at the Beltsville Vegetable
    Laboratory that combines traditional breeding and plant biotechnology
    to increase the nutritional value of the potato and add value to the
    crop. Estimated cost would be $300,000 for fiscal year 2002.
    National Agricultural Statistics Service (MASS)
        The NPC urges that the Congress appropriate $125,000 to the
    National Agricultural Statistics Service to conduct a Potato Objective
    Yield Size and Grade Survey. It is important that potato growers not
    only have objective yield surveys carried out by NASS in the major
    potato producing states, but also have a size and grade survey
    completed that estimates the marketable quality of those potatoes.
    Plant Protection and Quarantine Service (APHIS-USDA)
        The NPC urges that the Congress appropriate $610,000 for the Golden
    Nematode Quarantine Program. The National Potato Council also supports
    the appropriation of $100 million for the Agriculture Quarantine
    Inspection (AQI) user fee account; $52 million for the AQI appropriated
    fund account and $45 million for pest detection. As new trade
    agreements are negotiated, the agency must have the necessary staff and
    technology to deal with the threat of pests and diseases.
    FQPA Funding
        The NPC also supports the appropriation of $106 million for USDA to
    meet the data requirements of the new Food Quality Protection Act
    (FQPA). This would include $2.6 million for the USDA Office of Pest
    Management. The NPC has devoted considerable time and resources to the
    evaluation of pesticides required by the FQPA. However, it is essential
    that the USDA have adequate resources to assist in this effort.
    Otherwise, given the tight time frame for these assessments, the EPA
    will rely on default assumptions in the absence of actual data.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Partners for Rural America

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bob Swanson. I
    am the Executive Director of the Washington State Association of
    Community Action Agencies and serve as Chair of the Washington State
    Rural Development Council. I also serve as Chair of the Board of
    Directors of Partners for Rural America (PRA), which is the national
    service organization of the America's 40 state rural development
    councils (SRDCs).
            the contributions of the nrdp and srdcs to rural america
        SRDCs are unique entities. They do not administer programs or make
    grants. Although they influence the making of policies that affect
    rural America, they, themselves, do not make policy.
        SRDCs are composed of officials of Federal, state, local, and
    tribal governments and representatives of the private and non-profit
    sectors. These SRDCs promote:
      --Greater coordination among Federal agencies in the development and
            delivery of Federal programs that affect rural areas;
      --Greater collaboration between the Federal government and others
            working for an improved future for rural America;
      --Leveraging of limited financial resources that are available to
            rural communities;
      --Identification and elimination of program and regulatory
            impediments; and
      --Development of local solutions by local people to address the
            challenges and opportunities facing rural communities.
                  our fiscal year 2002 appropriations request
        On behalf of the NRDP and SRDCs, we respectfully request that the
    Subcommittee include an appropriation of $7.542 million in the fiscal
    year 2002 appropriations bill for the US Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) to support the operations and activities of the Partnership and
    SRDCs.
        Of this amount:
      --Slightly more than 90 percent ($6,820,000) would provide direct
            support for SRDCs.
        --80.22 percent of the request ($6,050,000) would flow directly to
                the SRDCs in the form of cooperative agreements or grants
                or both.
        --10.21 percent of the request ($475,000) would underwrite direct
                services to the SRDCs.
      --Just under 8 percent ($600,000) would underwrite program support
            for the SRDCs.
      --And 1.62 percent ($122,000) would cover administrative costs.
        Of the funds that go to SRDCs, roughly two-thirds is used for
    personnel costs, with the remainder used to underwrite operating costs.
    Each SRDC is typically a one-or-two person operation, although a few
    Councils have larger staffs. SRDCs are required to provide a 33 percent
    non-federal match (cash or in-kind), although some Councils have been
    able to leverage the Federal funds they receive by a factor of two or
    three. During the last five years, the match provided by SRDCs has
    exceeded $10.5 million.
        Because the issues on which the NRDP and SRDCs focus extend well
    beyond the responsibilities of the USDA/Rural Development Mission Area
    (USDA/RD) and--indeed, beyond the responsibilities of USDA--it is our
    position that support for the Partnership should come from funds
    generally available to USDA. Ultimately, we would support a strategy
    which provides support for the Partnership from across the Federal
    government, but--until a system can be devised that is stable and
    predictable--we must rely on USDA for core support for the NRDP and
    SRDCs. It is our strong desire that any funds provided to the NRDP and
    SRDCs through the Agricultural Appropriations Bill be ``new money;''
    that is, funds that are added to the Appropriations Bill rather than
    money that is transferred from other programs within USDA, many of
    which are already oversubscribed.
                  past federal support for the nrdp and srdcs
        This request for an fiscal year 2002 appropriation marks the first
    time Appropriators have been asked to directly support the Partnership
    and SRDCs. This request is being made because the past system for
    funding the NRDP and SRDCs has been inadequate.
        From its beginning in the early 1990s, the Partnership has never
    had a dedicated, predictable source of funding. Instead, it has
    depended upon voluntary contributions of discretionary funds from USDA
    and the Federal Departments of Labor, Transportation (DOT), Veterans
    Affairs, and Health & Human Services. Without the financial
    contributions and--more importantly--the dedicated participation of
    these agencies, the Partnership would never have achieved the many
    successes it has.
        Although we have decided to seek core funding for the Partnership
    through the Agricultural Appropriations Bill, it is our sincere hope
    the non-USDA agencies that have worked with us is the past will remain
    engaged in the Partnership and that they will be joined by many other
    Federal agencies. Participation by the greatest possible number of
    Federal agencies in the Partnership is essential in order to facilitate
    broad-based interagency collaboration. Providing core funding from the
    Agricultural Appropriations Bill will greatly increase administrative
    and logistical convenience, as well as significantly increasing the
    predictability of funding for the SRDCs. However, continued financial
    support from agencies beyond USDA can help to strengthen and expand the
    Partnership.
        Since fiscal year 1993, revenue available from these five agencies
    has decreased precipitously while the program's obligations have
    increased. In fiscal year 1993, when there were 26 SRDCs, program
    revenue totaled $5.250 million; in fiscal year 2000, when there were 37
    SRDCs, program revenue had decreased to $3.193 million. Support from
    USDA/RD decreased from a high of $4 million in fiscal year 1993 to just
    under $2 million in fiscal year 2000. Language in the fiscal year 1999,
    fiscal year 2000, and fiscal year 2001 DOT appropriations bills
    limiting the use of Federal Highway Administration funds resulted in
    DOT's contribution to the Partnership being reduced from $500,000
    annually to $50,000.
        SRDCs became aware of a likely funding shortfall in fiscal year
    2001 funding for the Partnership in the spring of 2000. Despite strong
    support for the Partnership from many members of Congress, including
    members of this Subcommittee, SRDCs' efforts to win inclusion of funds
    for the Partnership in the fiscal year 2001 Agricultural Appropriations
    Bill were initiated too late to be successful. During Senate
    consideration of the Conference Committee Report on the fiscal year
    2001 Agricultural Appropriations Bill, a number of Senators entered
    into a colloquy with Chairman Cochran in which the Chairman said, ``I
    want to assure the gentlemen that it is the Committee's belief that the
    Secretary of Agriculture should continue to provide funding from
    discretionary amounts for this program.'' (Congressional Record,
    October 18, 2000, pages S10680 and S10681.) Fortunately, USDA Secretary
    Ann Veneman has allocated recently additional funds to the Partnership
    to carry it through the end of fiscal year 2001.
        It is important that we be extremely clear why it was necessary for
    Secretary Veneman to allocate additional funds to the Partnership for
    fiscal year 2001. As noted above, we became aware of a likely fiscal
    year 2001 funding shortfall in the spring of 2000. Funds available at
    the beginning of fiscal year 2001 were adequate to only carry the
    Partnership through the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2001.
    The previous Administration neither provided additional funds to the
    Partnership nor did it put forward a plan to deal with the funding
    shortfall. Had Secretary Veneman not allocated additional funds to the
    Partnership, Federal financial support to SRDCs would have ended on
    March 31, 2001, thereby threatening the financial and operational
    viability of most SRDCs.
                        administrative support from usda
        From the beginning of the Partnership, USDA has provided
    administrative support for the NRDP and SRDCs through the National
    Partnership Office (NPO), an agency located within USDA/RD and now
    attached to the Office of Community Development. NPO staff salaries and
    general administrative expenses are paid by USDA/RD and are not
    included in this request.
        During the NPO's period of greatest staffing (when there were 36
    SRDCs), 7.5 FTEs were assigned to it. Currently, 4.5 FTEs are assigned
    to the NPO. We strongly believe that this level of staffing is
    inadequate to support this 40-state program and to provide appropriate
    oversight of SRDCs' operations on behalf of the Federal government.
    Accordingly, we urge that the staffing allocation for the NPO be
    restored to a minimum of 9 FTEs.
                         history of the nrdp and srdcs
        The basis of the NRDP and SRDCs can be found in the Rural
    Development Policy Act of 1980 (94 Stat. 1171), which called on the
    USDA Secretary to:

        ``. . . provide leadership within the executive branch for, and
    shall assume responsibility for coordinating, a nationwide rural
    development program using the services of executive branch departments
    and agencies, including, but not limited to, the agencies bureaus,
    offices, and services of the Department of Agriculture, in coordination
    with rural development programs of State and local governments.''

        ``. . . conduct a systematic review of Federal programs affecting
    rural areas to (A) determine whether such areas are benefiting from
    such programs in an equitable proportion to the benefits received by
    urban areas and (B) identify any factors that may restrict
    accessibility to such programs in rural areas or limit participation in
    such programs.''

        ``. . . develop a process through which multi-state, State,
    substate, and local rural development needs, goals, objectives, plans,
    and recommendations can be received and assessed on a continuing
    basis.''

        ``. . . undertake cooperative efforts with other Federal
    departments and agencies to improve the coordination and effectiveness
    of Federal programs, services, and actions affecting rural areas.''

        The actual establishment of SRDCs was called for in the January
    1990 report of the White House Economic Policy Council Working Group on
    Rural Development, Rural Economic Development for the 90s: A
    Presidential Initiative. The Presidential Initiative called for SRDCs
    to fill four principal missions:
      --To serve as the coordinating vehicle for delivery of Federal rural
            development programs;
      --To identify, assess, and address current local rural development
            needs;
      --To serve as the focal point for localizing and implementing Federal
            rural development initiatives; and
      --To provide personalized leadership and assistance to local
            community leaders desiring Federal rural development
            assistance.
        Eight states were chosen to host pilot SRDCs. With the success of
    these initial SRDCs, additional states were added to the program to the
    point where SRDCs operate in 40 states today. The value of SRDCs was
    recognized in the 1992 report of the President's Council on Rural
    America. Members of the Commission ``urge[d] that continuing support be
    given to the creation and maintenance of State Rural Development
    Councils in all states as a means of promoting cooperation between the
    Federal and state levels of government, local governments, and the
    private sector.''
        The 1996 Farm Bill also recognized the contribution the NRDP and
    SRDCs could make to rural America and, as a result, laid out specific
    expectations and responsibilities for the Partnership.
        As a result of a March 8, 2000, hearing on the structure and
    operations of the NRDP and SRDCs before the Senate Subcommittee on
    Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Senators Larry Craig and Kent
    Conrad introduced legislation to formally recognize the Partnership and
    to authorize it to receive appropriations (106th Congress, S. 3175, the
    National Rural Development Partnership Act). Twenty-eight Senators
    joined as co-sponsors of the bill, with co-sponsors equally divided
    between the two political parties. This legislation will soon be
    reintroduced in the Senate and will also be introduced in the House of
    Representatives.
        The enactment of the National Rural Development Partnership Act
    will represent an important milestone for the NRDP and SRDCs. During
    the last decade, SRDCs have made important contributions to their
    states as they have evolved. Although they typically do not administer
    programs or promulgate regulations, SRDCs' roles as facilitators and
    coordinators have proven invaluable to the communities they have
    served. Hopefully, a renewed focus on rural development policy and
    program coordination by Congress, the Bush Administration, and rural
    development practioners will lead to advances toward the goals set
    forth in the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 and the 1990
    Presidential Initiative.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the National Rural Housing Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Subcommittee on Agriculture,
    my name is Robert Rapoza and I wish to testify on behalf of the
    National Rural Housing Coalition.
        I wish thank you for the Subcommittee's support of the Rural
    Development programs of the United States Department of Agriculture and
    to urge you to support an increase in its budget for fiscal year 2002.
        As you may know, the National Rural Housing Coalition (the
    Coalition) has been a national voice for rural low-income housing and
    community development programs since 1969. Through direct advocacy and
    policy research, the Coalition has worked with Congress and the
    Department of Agriculture to design new programs and improve existing
    programs serving the rural poor. The Coalition also promotes a non-
    profit delivery system for these programs, encouraging support for
    rural community assistance programs, farm labor housing grants, self-
    help housing grants, and rural capacity building funding.
        The Coalition is comprised of approximately 300 members nationwide.
    We hope to work with you to assure that the voices of rural America are
    heard and its needs met. Our concerns are focused on rural housing and
    rural water and sewer systems.
                     the need for affordable rural housing
        A disproportionate amount of the nation's substandard housing is in
    rural areas. Rural households are poorer than urban households, pay
    more of their income for housing that their urban counterparts, and are
    less likely to receive government-assisted mortgages. They also have
    limited access to mortgage credit and the secondary mortgage market,
    making them prime targets for predatory lending. Rural America needs
    programs which focus on the issues facing it. The Rural Housing Service
    of Rural Development provides many of these needed programs.
        Homeownership is the principal form of housing in rural America.
    However, there are a number of obstacles to improving homeownership in
    rural areas including high rates of poverty and poor quality of
    housing. According to a 1999 Economic Research Service report, the
    poverty rate in rural America was 15.9 percent, compared to 13.2
    percent in urban areas. Minorities in rural areas have much higher
    rates of poverty with an average of 34.1 percent compared to urban
    minorities at 28.1 percent. More than 1.6 million low-income rural
    households live in moderately to severely inadequate housing. These are
    units without hot or cold piped water, and/or have leaking roofs,
    walls, rodent problems, inadequate heating systems, and peeling paint,
    often lead-based.
        Rural residents also have limited access to mortgage credit. The
    consolidation of the banking industry that accelerated throughout the
    1990s has had a significant impact on rural communities. Mergers among
    lending institutions have replaced local community lenders with large
    centralized institutions located in urban areas. Aside from shifting
    the locus of loan-making, this has resulted in the diminishment of a
    competitive environment which, in the past, encouraged rural lenders to
    offer terms and conditions that were attractive to borrowers.
        Because of the gap left by traditional lenders, rural households
    are often prime targets for predatory lenders. Predatory lending
    practices include excessive fees, prepayment penalties, and loan
    flipping into high cost subprime loans. Participants told about their
    borrowers' being convinced to convert their mortgages to high cost
    subprime loans, unaware of the higher interest rates. Even RHS
    borrowers paying a one percent interest rate were approached and
    convinced to switch.
        Renters in rural areas also live in difficult situations. Thirty-
    three percent of rural renters are cost-burdened, paying more than 30
    percent of their income for housing costs. Almost one million rural
    renter households suffer from multiple housing problems, 60 percent of
    whom pay more than 70 percent of their income for housing.
                          usda's rural housing service
        USDA's Section 502 single family direct loan program and Section
    515 rural rental housing program address many of these issues.
    Section 502 single family direct loan program
        To qualify for the direct loan program, borrowers must have very
    low or low incomes but be able to afford mortgage payments. Also,
    applicants must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere, yet have
    reasonable credit histories. The average income of households assisted
    under Section 502 is $18,500. About nine percent of households have
    annual incomes of less than $10,000. Since its inception, Section 502
    has provided loans to almost two million families.
    Section 515 rental housing program
        To qualify for the rental housing program, tenants must have low or
    very low incomes. Over more than 30 years, Section 515 has helped to
    produce over 500,000 homes. Under Section 515, USDA makes direct loans
    to non-profit and for-profit developers to build rural rental housing.
    The average tenant income is just over $7,500, approximately 26 percent
    of median, and more than half of tenants are elderly, disabled, or
    handicapped.
        Despite these conditions, Federal rural housing has received severe
    cuts in recent years. The USDA's Section 502 single family direct loan
    program, which funded 132,000 units in 1976, has dropped its production
    by 89 percent to fewer than 15,600 units. Spending for Section 515
    rental subsidized housing has been cut by 73 percent since 1994. And
    rural rental housing unit production by the Federal government has been
    reduced by 88 percent since 1990.
        With these dramatic reductions and new opportunities presented by a
    good economy for building higher end housing, the private sector
    delivery system is no longer dominant as it was when funding levels
    were higher, and in many rural communities does not exist. In some
    rural areas, non-profits have picked up the slack and pursued a
    multiple funding strategy. Skilled local organizations meld Federal,
    state, local and private resources together to provide affordable
    financing packages to low-income families. But there is not a dedicated
    source of Federal support to promote a non-profit delivery system for
    rural housing.
        As one way to improve its programs, USDA has expanded its
    cooperation with non-profit housing and community development
    organizations. Two successful programs are Mutual and Self-Help Housing
    and the Rural Home Loan Partnership.
        Under Mutual and Self-Help Housing, with the assistance of local
    housing agencies, groups of families eligible for Section 502 loans
    perform approximately 65 percent of the construction labor on each
    other's homes under qualified supervision. This program, which has
    received growing support because of its proven model, has existed since
    1961. The average number of homes built each year over the past 3 years
    has been approximately 1,500.
        The Rural Home Loan Partnership is a leveraged loan program. USDA
    provides a set-aside of Section 502 funds which are distributed to
    local partnerships of organizations. The Rural Home Loan Partnership
    has partnered with 177 non-profits and developed and financed close to
    1,350 homes.
    Section 514 loan and Section 516 grant farm labor housing programs
        Two additional rental housing programs address the needs of farm
    laborers. Migrant and seasonal farmworkers are some of the nation's
    most poorly housed populations. The last documented national study
    indicated a shortage of some 800,000 units of affordable housing for
    farmworkers.
        Farmworker households are also some of the least assisted
    households in the nation. Some 52 percent of farmworker households'
    incomes are below the poverty threshold, four times the national
    household poverty rate, and 75 percent of migrant farmworkers have
    incomes below the poverty line. Yet little more than 20 percent of
    farmworker households receive public assistance; most commonly food
    stamps, rarely public or subsidized housing.
        There are only two Federal housing programs that specifically
    target farmworkers and their housing needs: Sections 514 and 516 of the
    Housing Act of 1949 (as amended). Borrowers and grantees under Rural
    Housing Service Sections 514 and 516 receive financing to develop
    housing for farmworkers. Section 514 authorizes the Rural Housing
    Service to make loans with terms of up to 33 years and interest rates
    as low as one percent. Section 516 authorizes RHS to provide grant
    funding when the applicant will provide at least 10 percent of the
    total development cost from its own resources or through a 514 loan.
        Non-profit housing organizations and public bodies use the loan and
    grant funds, along with RHS rural rental assistance, to provide units
    affordable to eligible farmworkers. These funds are used to plan and
    develop housing and related facilities for migrant and seasonal
    farmworkers. Current funding for Sections 514/516 totals $34 million in
    program authority. This amount provides about 700 units of housing. The
    waiting list of applications for Section 514/516 is two to three times
    the appropriated level. USDA limits applications as there is little
    prospect of funding all the demand for assistance.
                   the need for rural water and sewer systems
        Hundreds of rural communities nationwide do not have access to
    clean drinking water and safe waste disposal systems. A 1995 USDA needs
    assessment of rural areas showed that more than one million households
    had no indoor plumbing, and 2.4 million households had critical
    drinking water needs. In its 1997 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs
    Survey, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that over the
    next 20 years, water systems serving communities of less than 10,000
    people will require $37.2 billion in funding for water systems
    improvements and upgrades. And regarding wastewater, a 1996 EPA Survey
    demonstrated that small communities with up to 10,000 residents will
    need 21,000 wastewater treatment facilities by 2016 at a cost of
    approximately $14 billion. According to EPA's numbers, approximately
    $51.2 billion will be needed to address the basic water and wastewater
    needs of small communities.
        Many projects that RUS funds are under consent order from the state
    EPA office for immediate action. The problems that the agency deals
    with range from communities and systems that are out of compliance with
    health and pollution standards, to communities without sewer systems
    where raw sewage runs in ditches after a heavy rainfall. Because so
    much time and money are spent on critical needs, the state offices
    spend less time on prevention. The programs and communities do not have
    enough resources to address issues before they become larger problems.
        The issue of affordability moves to the forefront with waste
    disposal systems, which are generally more expensive than water
    systems. Waste systems naturally succeed water systems--with central
    water comes indoor plumbing, washing machines, dishwashers, etc., all
    of which eventually require an efficient wastewater disposal system.
    Low-income communities often already pay as much as they can afford for
    water service alone and are unable to manage the combined user fees for
    water and waste. In some extreme situations, some households are being
    forced out of homeownership because they cannot afford rising user
    costs.
        As I mentioned earlier, rural communities have limited access to
    much-needed debt and equity capital, and small water and wastewater
    systems lack the economies of scale needed to reduce costs on their
    own. In order for communities to cut back on project costs and have
    affordable rates, operation and maintenance are typically
    underestimated in the budgets for many new systems. This often results
    in limited or no capital improvement accounts for future upgrades and
    expansions needed for community development including stabilization of
    local small business, affordable housing development, and other needed
    industrial development.
                         usda's rural utilities service
        USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) is the primary Federal force
    in rural water and waste development, providing loans and grants to
    low-income communities in rural areas. The agency assists low-income
    rural communities that would not otherwise be able to afford such
    services. Approximately one-fifth of the communities served live below
    the national poverty line.
        In providing these important services, the program also protects
    public health and promotes community stabilization and development.
    Aging municipal sewage systems alone are responsible for 40,000
    overflows of raw sewage each year. The overflows cause health hazards
    including gastrointestinal problems and nausea, as well as long-term
    damage to the environment. Businesses and industries are unable or
    reluctant to locate in areas without functioning water and sewer
    systems. But with the assistance of RUS, communities are able to have
    the services they need so that their health and economies may benefit.
        Although the need for RUS services continues, the level of
    available funds has decreased annually due to decreasing appropriations
    and increasing interest rates. In fiscal year 1995, $1.35 billion was
    obligated by the Federal program to the states. Since that time, due to
    decreasing appropriations and increasing interest rates, the
    obligations have decreased. Fiscal year 2000 funding, at $1.24
    billion--a decrease of over $100 million--was only 92 percent of its
    fiscal year 1995 level.
        Through Federal and state initiatives, RUS is working to confront
    the challenges faced by rural communities. With increasingly restricted
    time and money, state offices are using other resources such as
    leveraged funds and technical assistance from the Rural Community
    Assistance Program (RCAP). Funds are being leveraged through HUD's
    Community Development Block Grant program and the EPA's State Revolving
    Loan Funds, as well as some private lenders. Through the RCAP technical
    assistance program, more than 4,000 communities in 49 states have
    received assistance to identify solutions to water problems, improve
    and protect water quality, and construct and operate facilities.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we look to you for
    continued support of the efforts of Rural Development. These programs
    are vital to the survival of our small communities nationwide. They
    address the most basic needs of affordable housing and clean water that
    still exist all over the country. Because of the overwhelming need, we
    wish to submit the following proposals for increases to Rural
    Development funding:

    RURAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROPRIATIONS--FISCAL YEAR 2001
                         FINAL AND FISCAL 2002 PROPOSED
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Fiscal
                                                      year     Fiscal year
                        Program                       2001    2002 Proposed
                                                      final
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USDA Programs:
        502 direct.................................  1,100            1,700
        502 guarantee..............................  3,700            3,700
        504 grants.................................    30                50
        504 loans..................................  32.39               50
        514 loans..................................    32               100
        516 grants.................................    15                50
        515 loans..................................  114.3              250
        521 rental assistance......................   680           \1\ 800
        523 self-help grants.......................    34                50
        538 multi guarantee........................   100
        Farm Labor Program.........................  \2\ (4        \2\ (100)
                                                        7)
        Water sewer loans..........................  1,032            1,050
        Water sewer grants.........................   588               700
        Community facilities.......................   250               250
        Community facilities grants................    23                50
        RCDI.......................................     6               25
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Includes $50 million for new construction or preservation.
    \2\ Non-add includes funding for Sections 514 and 516.

        Thank you for your time and attention.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of National Rural Telecom Association

                         summary of testimony requests
    Project involved
        Telecommunications lending programs administered by the Rural
    Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Actions proposed
      --Supporting loan levels for fiscal year 2002 in the same amounts as
            those contained in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture
            Appropriations Act for hardship, cost-of-money, Rural Telephone
            Bank and guaranteed loan programs and the associated subsidy to
            fund those programs at the existing level. Opposing the
            recommendation by the administration contained in A Blueprint
            for New Beginnings to not fund new Rural Telephone Bank loans
            in fiscal year 2002.
      --Supporting continued funding in the amount of $27 million in loan
            and grant authority designated for distance learning and
            telemedicine purposes, $2 million of which to continue to be
            made available for a pilot program to finance broadband
            transmission and dial-up Internet service in rural areas.
      --Supporting an extension of the language removing the 7 percent
            interest rate ceiling on cost-of-money loans.
      --Supporting continuation of the restriction on retirement of Rural
            Telephone Bank class A stock at the level contained in the
            fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appro priations Act and an
            extension of the prohibition against the transfer of Rural
            Telephone Bank funds to the general fund.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is John F. O'Neal.
    I am General Counsel of the National Rural Telecom Association. NRTA is
    comprised primarily of commercial telephone companies which borrow
    their capital needs from the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (RUS) to furnish and improve telephone
    service in rural areas. Approximately 1000, or 71 percent of the
    nation's local telephone systems borrow from RUS. About three-fourths
    of these are commercial telephone companies. RUS borrowers serve almost
    6 million subscribers in 46 states and employ over 22,000 people. In
    accepting loan funds, borrowers assume an obligation under the act to
    serve the widest practical number of rural users within their service
    area.
                               program background
        Rural telephone systems have an ongoing need for long-term, fixed
    rate capital at affordable interest rates. Since 1949, that capital has
    been provided through telecommunications lending programs administered
    by the Rural Utilities Service and its predecessor, the Rural
    Electrification Agency (REA).
        RUS loans are made exclusively for capital improvements and loan
    funds are segregated from borrower operating revenues. Loans are not
    made to fund operating revenues or profits of the borrower system.
    There is a proscription in the Act against loans which would duplicate
    existing facilities providing adequate service and state authority to
    regulate telephone service is expressly preserved under the Rural
    Electrification Act.
        Rural telephone systems operate at a severe geographical handicap
    when compared with other telephone companies. While almost 6 million
    rural telephone subscribers receive telephone service from RUS borrower
    systems, they account for only four percent of total U.S. subscribers.
    On the other hand, borrower service territories total 37 percent of the
    land area--nearly 1\1/2\ million squares miles. RUS borrowers average
    about six subscribers per mile of telephone line and have an average of
    more than 1,000 route miles of lines in their systems.
        Because of low-density and the inherent high cost of serving these
    areas, Congress made long-term, fixed rate loans available at
    reasonable rates of interest to assure that rural telephone
    subscribers, the ultimate beneficiaries of these programs, have
    comparable telephone service with their urban counterparts at
    affordable subscriber rates. This principle is especially valid today
    as the United States endeavors to deploy telecommunications
    ``information superhighway'' technology and as customers and regulators
    constantly demand improved and enhanced services.
        At the same time, the underlying statutory authority which governs
    the current program has undergone significant change. In 1993,
    telecommunications lending was refocused toward facilities
    modernization. Much of the subsidy cost has been eliminated from the
    program. The subsidy that remains has been targeted to the highest
    cost, lowest density systems. Other loans are made at Treasury's cost-
    of-money or greater, and, in fact, involve negative subsidies.
        We are proud to state once again for the record that there has
    never been a default in the RUS/REA telephone program! All loans have
    been repaid in accordance with their terms with interest!
               need for rus telecommunications lending continues
        The need for rural telecommunications lending is great today,
    possibly even greater than in the past. Technological advances make it
    imperative that rural telephone companies upgrade their systems to keep
    pace with improvements and provide the latest available technology to
    their subscribers.
        These rapid technological changes and Federal policies of
    competition and deregulation in the telephone industry, as evidenced by
    passage of the ``Telecommunications Act of 1996'', underscore the
    continuing need for targeted assistance to rural areas. The inherently
    higher costs to serve these areas have not abated. Regulatory trends
    encouraging competition among telephone systems increase pressures to
    shift more costs onto rural ratepayers. Interstate subscriber line
    charges continue to shift substantial costs to local exchange
    customers. Pressures to recover more and more of the higher costs of
    rural service from rural customers to foster urban competitive
    responses will further burden rural consumers.
              1996 telecommunications act effect on rural america
        Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 as the
    culmination of more than a decade of debating national
    telecommunications policy and balancing many diverse needs and
    interests. The 1996 Act responded to a number of rural needs and
    differences with a series of safeguards to ensure that rates, services
    and network development in rural America will be reasonably comparable
    to urban telecommunications opportunities.
        The process of implementing the new law continues to raise
    troubling uncertainties and concerns about whether the FCC and the
    states will honor the balance Congress achieved in its policy, as
    regulators (a) radically revise the mechanisms for preserving and
    advancing ``universal service,'' (b) adjust the cost recovery
    responsibilities and allocations of authority between Federal and state
    regulation, (c) effectuate the Act's somewhat different urban and rural
    ground rules for how new companies and incumbent universal service
    providers connect their networks and compensate each other and (d) peel
    back layers of regulation developed over a century. So far, the FCC has
    been overzealous in expanding the Act's market-opening provisions to
    give new entrants a regulatory head start and advantage at the expense
    of the Act's rural development and universal service provisions. The
    FCC is trying to usurp the role of competition by dictating a whole
    new--and wholly inadequate--way to measure the costs of modern,
    nationwide telecommunications access to information. The FCC needs to
    reorder the sequence of its proceedings to ensure that rural Americans
    are not denied the ongoing network development and new services the Act
    requires. Rural telephone systems with universal service obligations
    must not be thwarted in their efforts to upgrade and provide rates and
    services reasonably comparable to urban offerings.
          expanded congressional mandates for rural telecommunications
        Considerable loan demand is being generated because of additional
    mandates for enhanced rural telecommunications standards contained in
    the authorizing legislation enacted in 1993 by Congress in Public Law
    103-129. These mandates coupled with the need for stable financing
    sources to meet the infrastructure demands envisioned for rural areas
    by the 1996 telecommunications act amply demonstrate the continuing
    need for this important program at the following levels:

    5 percent Hardship Loans................................     $75,000,000
    Cost-of-Money Loans.....................................     300,000,000
    Guaranteed Loans........................................     120,000,000
    Rural Telephone Bank Loans..............................     175,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     670,000,000

        These are the same levels established in the fiscal year 2001
    appropriations act for the hardship, cost-of-money, Rural Telephone
    Bank and guaranteed loan programs. The authorized levels of loans in
    all programs were fully obligated in fiscal year 2000 and we expect
    these levels to be met in fiscal year 2001. We believe that the needs
    of this program balanced with the minimal cost to the taxpayer argue
    for its continuation at enacted levels.
                           rural telephone bank loans
        In the Blueprint for New Beginnings, the administration proposes to
    not fund new Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) loans in fiscal year 2002,
    stating that ``the RTB has accomplished its mission'' and that not
    funding new loans should generate increased support for statutorily
    authorized privatization.
        The Rural Telephone Bank was established by Congress in 1971 to
    provide supplemental financing for rural telephone systems with the
    objective that the bank ultimately would be owned and operated by its
    private shareholders. The bank's mission is not complete--far from it!
    Loans made today provide state of the art telecommunications technology
    in rural areas including the deployment of broadband technology. If
    Rural Americans are to be full participants with their urban neighbors
    in the Information Age, that job is just beginning! Economists agree
    that modern telecom infrastructure is the key to rural economic
    development which generates jobs and tax revenues for the government.
    Also, the RTB was one of only three USDA agencies to receive an
    unqualified financial opinion from USDA's Inspector General in fiscal
    year 2000!
        The administration proposal will not ``generate increased member
    and borrower support for statutorily authorized privatization''. That
    already exists! Privatization of the RTB began in 1995 under the
    current law and is proceeding annually at the rate of approximately $25
    million per year. The Bank has now retired $115.4 million, or almost 20
    percent, of the government's $592 million investment. Not funding new
    loans in fiscal year 2002 could actually impede privatization of the
    Bank since the law requires that the Bank annually retire government
    stock at the rate of at least 5 percent of the amount of new loans. If
    no new loans were made, there would be no minimum requirement for
    retirement of additional government stock.
        The current loan level of $175 million has remained the same for
    many years. As a matter of fact, after factoring in the eroding effect
    of inflation, loan levels over the years have actually been reduced
    systematically. Despite this fact, we believe that the $175 million
    level is adequate to meet current program needs and strikes a cost
    effective balance for the taxpayer. This amount was fully obligated in
    fiscal year 2000 and we expect it to be met again this year. If no bank
    loans were made in fiscal year 2002, at current loan levels, the
    budgetary outlay savings would amount to less than $26,000 not the $3
    million quoted by the administration because RTB loans are funded over
    a multi-year period. Therefore, continuing to fund $175 million of
    infrastructure investment will cost less than $26,000 in fiscal year
    2002! Moreover, if administration interest rate predictions are
    accurate, RTB loans could actually generate a profit for the government
    because of the minimum statutory interest rate of 5 percent!
                          specific additional requests
    Continue the Removal of the 7 percent Cap on Cost-of-Money Loans
        Again this year we are supporting removal of the 7 percent ceiling
    on cost-of-money loans even though long-term Treasury rates are
    currently below this level.
    Continue the Restriction on Retirement of Class A Government Stock in
            the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) and also Continue the
            Prohibition Against Transfer of RTB Funds to the General Fund
            and Require the Payment of Interest
        The Committee should continue the restriction on retirement of the
    amount of class A stock by the Rural Telephone Bank in fiscal year
    2002. The Bank is currently in the process of retiring the government's
    stock as required under current law. We believe that this process which
    began in fiscal year 1996 should continue to be an orderly one as
    contemplated by the retirement schedule enacted six years ago and
    continued in last year's bill to retire no more than 5 percent of the
    total class A stock in one year. We also urge the Committee to continue
    the prohibition against the transfer of any unobligated balance in the
    bank's liquidating account which is in excess of current requirements
    to the general fund of the Treasury along with the requirement that the
    bank receive interest on those funds. The private Class B and C
    stockholders of the Rural Telephone Bank have a vested ownership
    interest in the assets of the bank including its funds and their rights
    should be protected. Previous appropriations acts (fiscal year 1997
    through 2001) have recognized the ownership rights of the private class
    B and C stockholders of the bank by prohibiting a similar transfer of
    the bank's excess unobligated balances which otherwise would have been
    required under the Federal credit reform act.
    Loans and Grants for Telemedicine, Distance Learning and Internet
            Access
        We support the continuation in fiscal year 2002 of the $27 million
    in loan and grant authority provided in fiscal year 2001 for
    telemedicine and distance learning purposes. Loans are made at the
    government's cost-of-money. The purpose is to accelerate deployment of
    telemedicine and distance learning technologies in rural areas through
    the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced
    technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural
    residents.
        We also support making available $2 million of the above amount for
    continuation of the pilot program to finance broadband transmission and
    local dial-up access to the Internet in rural areas. This $2 million
    allocation is providing $100 million in rural infrastructure
    improvements in fiscal year 2001.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the association's views
    concerning this vital program. The telecommunications lending programs
    of RUS continue to work effectively and accomplish the objectives
    established by Congress at a minimal cost to the taxpayer.
        At the time of this filing, the administration has not submitted to
    the Congress its comprehensive budget request for fiscal year 2002. A
    Blueprint for New Beginnings is all that has been made publically
    available. If the final budget submission contains additional
    recommendations concerning the RUS telecommunications lending programs,
    we respectfully request the opportunity to file additional testimony
    with the Committee in response to such initiatives.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Telephone Cooperative Association

                                    summary
        NTCA makes the following fiscal year 2002 funding recommendations
    with regard to the Rural Utilities Service Telecommunications Loan
    Program and related programs.
      --Support the provisions of the president's budget proposal calling
            for the required subsidy to fully fund the RUS
            Telecommunications Loan Program's Hardship Account at a $75
            million level, Cost of Money Account at a $300 million level,
            and Guaranteed Account at a $120 million level, and
            administrative expenses of $35.6 million.
      --Reject the provisions of the president's budget proposal calling
            for zero funding for the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). Instead,
            provide the required subsidy to fully fund the bank at last
            fiscal year's $175 million level. Also, provide a new line item
            appropriation of $500,000, over and above and separate from the
            regular administrative expenses of the RTB and the RUS for use
            by the RTB's elected directors to secure independent counsel
            and other professional services to help them properly perform
            their fiduciary responsibilities.
      --Support an extension of language that temporarily sets aside the 7
            percent interest rate cap on loans made through the RUS Cost of
            Money fund.
      --Support an extension of the restriction against RTB Liquidating
            Account funds from being swept to the general Treasury.
      --Support an extension of language prohibiting the expenditure of RTB
            Liquidating Account funds to provide for the subsidy or
            operational expenses of the bank.
                                   background
        NTCA is a national association representing more than-540 small,
    rural, cooperative and commercial, community-based local exchange
    carriers (LECS) located throughout the nation. These locally owned and
    operated LECs provide local exchange service to more than 2.5 million
    rural Americans. Through the 51-year history of the RUS
    Telecommunications Loan Program, more than 80 percent of NTCA's member
    systems have been able to utilize the Federal program to one degree or
    another.
        NTCA's members, like most of the country's independent LEC'S,
    evolved to serve high-cost rural areas of the nation that were
    overlooked by the industry's giants as unprofitable. On average, NTCA
    members have approximately 6 subscribers per mile of infrastructure
    line, compared with 130 for the larger urban-oriented LECs. This
    results in an average plant investment per subscriber that for NTCA
    members is 38 percent higher than for most other systems.
        Congress recognized the unique financing dilemma confronting
    America's small rural LECs as early as 1949. It was in that year that
    it amended the Rural Electrification Act (RE Act) to create the Rural
    Electrification Administration (REA) Telephone Loan Program, today
    known as the RUS Telecommunications Loan Program. Through the years
    Congress has periodically amended the RE Act to ensure that original
    mission--to furnish and improve rural telephone service--was met. In
    1971, the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) was created as a supplemental
    source of direct loan financing. In 1973, the RUS was provided with the
    ability to guarantee Federal Financing Bank (FFB) and private lender
    notes. In 1993, Congress established a fourth program lending facet,
    the Treasury Cost of Money account.
                     rus helps meet infrastructure demands
        While the RUS has helped the subscribers of NTCA's member systems
    receive service that is comparable or superior to that available
    anywhere in the nation, their work is far from complete. As Federal
    policies such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996 continue to evolve,
    and as policymakers and the public alike continue to clamor for the
    ubiquitous deployment of advanced services, the high costs associated
    with providing modern telecommunications services in rural areas will
    not diminish.
        RUS telecommunications lending has stimulated billions of dollars
    in private capital investment in rural communications infrastructure.
    In recent years, on average, less than $13 million in Federal subsidy
    has effectively generated $670 million in Federal loans and loan
    guarantees. For every $1 in Federal funds that were invested in rural
    communications infrastructure, $4.50 in private funds were invested.
    The RUS is also making a difference in our rural schools, libraries,
    and hospitals. Since 1993, the RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine
    Grant and Loan program has funded hundreds of projects throughout the
    nation for interactive technology in rural schools, libraries,
    hospitals, and health clinics.
        In addition, two other RUS-related programs are making a difference
    in rural America. Formerly under the RUS, and known as the Zero
    Interest Loan and Grant Program, the Rural Economic Development Grants
    Program, and the Rural Economic Development Loans Program are now
    managed by the Rural Business Cooperative Service. The two programs
    provide funds for the purpose of promoting rural economic development
    and job creation projects, including funding for project feasibility
    studies, start-up costs, incubator projects and other expenses tied to
    rural development.
             ntca's fiscal year 2002 appropriations recommendations
        Fully Fund The Entire RUS Telecommunications Loan Program.--With
    respect to the discussion above, it is imperative that the entire RUS
    Telecommunications Loan Program be funded at the following levels:

    Hardship Account........................................     $75,000,000
    Treasury-rate Account...................................     300,000,000
    Guaranteed Account......................................     120,000,000
    Rural Telephone Bank Account............................     175,000,000
                        --------------------------------------------------------
                        ____________________________________________________
          Total.............................................     670,000,000

        Additionally, to support the operations of the RUS, it is critical
    that Congress provide at least the $35.6 million in administrative
    appropriations the president's budget proposal envisions.
        Reject President's Proposal To Provide Zero RTB Funding.--The
    president's budget proposal contains a proposal that suggests the Rural
    Telephone Bank should not be funded in fiscal year 2002 which the
    administration insinuates may push private stockholders to move to the
    bargaining table regarding the potential accelerated privatization of
    the bank. The proposal is completely unfounded and unnecessary.
    Congress, RTB Stockholders, and the rural telecommunications industry
    deserve the benefit of having RTB privatization reviewed thoroughly,
    and not in the vacuum of the budgetary process.
        The bank is already privatizing at an annual minimum pace as is
    mandated by the Rural Electrification Act. Indeed, were Congress to go
    along with the president's fiscal year 2002 RTB proposal, it would
    effectively be halting this minimum statutory pace which is tied to the
    amount of loan making that is conducted in any given fiscal year. In
    light of these facts as well as that which clearly shows this proposal
    is out of step with the desire of policymakers and the public alike to
    quickly deploy advanced services throughout America, we urge Congress
    to reject this ill-conceived proposal and instead fully fund the bank
    at its regular $175 million annual level.
        With regard to privatization specifically, it is important to note
    that parties within the Office of Management and Budget, the Federal
    Treasury, the Rural Utilities Service, and indeed the industry itself,
    continue to look at the various issues associated with doing so on an
    accelerated basis. While NTCA does not reject such discussions out of
    hand, it does continue to believe such discussions may be premature as
    long as the bank is not provided with an absolute legal determination
    as to the status of its assets now and at the time of partial or
    complete privatization. Additionally, NTCA believes any accelerated
    privatization should never be commenced without first conducting the
    appropriate due diligence to determine whether the entity would be
    viable were it to privatize on such a basis.
        In order to help make such determinations, the bank's industry
    directors should be provided with adequate resources to both hire
    independent counsel as well as to secure other resources to assist them
    in making such determinations, and in effect, meeting their fiduciary
    responsibilities. With this in mind NTCA recommends that Congress
    appropriate an additional specific line item of $500,000 over and
    above, and separate from the regularly appropriated administrative
    amounts that are appropriated for RUS and RTB administrative and
    operational activities.
        Prohibit The Transfer Of Unobligated RTB Liquidating Account
    Balances.--NTCA also recommends that Congress continue the prohibition
    against the transfer of any unobligated balances of the Rural Telephone
    Bank liquidating account to the general fund of the Treasury. This
    language has routinely been included in annual appropriations measures
    since the enactment of the Federal Credit Reform Act (FCRA), Public Law
    101-508 that allows such sweeping to potentially occur. Restatement of
    this language will again ensure that the RTB's private class B & class
    C stockholder are not stripped of the value of their statutorily
    mandated investment in the Bank.
        Prohibit RTB From Self Funding Subsidy And Administrative Costs.--
    NTCA urges Congress to maintain its prohibition against unobligated RTB
    Liquidating Account Balances being used to cover the banks
    administrative and operational expenses for the following reasons: (1)
    such action would require amendment of the RE Act, (2) the proposal
    appears to be in conflict with the intent of the FCRA, (3) the proposal
    will not result in Federal budgetary savings, (4) it is unnecessary to
    the determination of whether the bank could operate independently, and
    thus would amount to wasting the resources of the bank which could be
    put to better use upon its complete privatization.
        Extend Removal Of The Interest Rate Cap On Treasury-Rate Loans.--
    NTCA is also requesting that Congress again include language removing
    the 7 percent interest rate cap on Treasury-rate loans. This provision
    has been included in recent appropriations measures to prevent the
    potential disruption of the program in the case where interest rates
    exceed 7 percent and insufficient subsidy cannot support authorized
    lending levels.
        Continue Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant
    Program.--The RUS Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loan and Grant
    program has proven to be an indispensable tool for rural development.
    In this regard, NTCA urges Congress to provide adequate funding for
    this critical program. NTCA supports the recommendations for this
    program that are contained in the president's budget proposal.
        Preserve RBCS Rural Development Grant and Loan Programs.--Likewise,
    NTCA has witnessed the good these programs have done for rural
    communities. NTCA urges Congress to ensure funding is at levels that
    are adequate to meet current demand for the programs.
                                   conclusion
        The RUS Telecommunications Loan Program bears a proud 51-year
    record of commitment, service, and achievement to rural America. Never
    in its entire history has the program lost even a dollar to abuse or
    default--an unparalleled feat for any government-sponsored lending
    program. Clearly such a successful program should remain in place to
    continue to ensure rural Americans have the opportunity to play a
    leading role in the information age in which we live. After all, an
    operational and advanced rural segment of the nation's
    telecommunications infrastructure is critical to truly ensuring that
    the national objective of universal telecommunications service is
    fulfilled. Please help us accomplish that objective.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the National Treasury Employees Union

        Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl, and distinguished members of
    this Subcommittee, my name is Colleen Kelley and I am the National
    President of the National Treasury Employees Union. NTEU represents
    more than l55,000 Federal employees across the Federal government,
    including the employees who work at the Food and Drug Administration. I
    want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to present testimony on
    behalf of these dedicated men and women who work to ensure the safety
    of our food, drugs, cosmetics, and medical devices.
        It is unfortunate that even at this late date, the Bush
    Administration still has not released details of its budget for the FDA
    or any other agency for fiscal year 2002. While I can only speculate
    about Congressional concerns about not knowing the new Administration's
    budget priorities, I know for certain that the men and women who work
    at the FDA are very frustrated that they still do not know what
    President Bush has in store for their agency.
        Without question, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one of
    the most important agencies in our government. The FDA regulates more
    than $1 trillion worth of products that account for about 25 cents out
    of every dollar of American consumer spending. The FDA is staffed with
    experts in an extraordinary range of fields. Microbiologists, chemists,
    consumer safety officers, and others are working around the clock
    testing, approving, and regulating new drugs, robotics, and other
    medical devices, that will not only improve the quality of life for
    millions of Americans, but in many cases actually save lives. They are
    working to ensure the food we eat is safe and free of disease-causing
    contaminants. They approve new food products, food additives, and
    dietary supplements, and work to ensure these new products pose no
    threat to our health.
        FDA employees who work in the field offices and laboratories
    located throughout the country have developed valuable working
    relationships with top scientists, health officials, and local
    industries. These employees are on the front lines in protecting
    consumers from mislabeled foods, food borne diseases, defective medical
    devices, or unsafe cosmetics or drugs. And they work very closely with
    Customs, USDA, and others at our borders and ports, to inspect and test
    imported foods and drugs.
        While FDA employees continue to respond to the call of the American
    people for ensuring our food supply is safe and more effective drugs
    and medical products are brought to consumers more quickly, the demands
    placed on the FDA workforce have increased significantly over the past
    decade, and will continue to grow. Research dollars invested by the
    pharmaceutical and food industries have been skyrocketing. And since
    the implementation of NAFTA, GATT, and other international trade
    agreements, there has been a dramatic increase in the quantity and
    complexity of imports of FDA-regulated products across our borders and
    into our ports. But while there are more products on the market to
    regulate, more imports of food and drugs to inspect, and more new
    product applications to approve, the FDA is being given fewer
    resources. The workload has increased while the budget for the FDA has
    remained flat.
        Unless President Bush and Congress agree to provide the FDA with
    more funding for staffing and resources, the agency will not be able to
    respond to the constantly changing and more complex public health
    threats facing our nation. Last year, Congress approved $1.217 billion
    for salaries and expenses at the FDA. Unfortunately, the amount
    provided was $89 million less than what President Clinton requested for
    the FDA. Meanwhile, Congress continued with its plans to double the NIH
    budget over the next five years. $20.3 billion was provided for NIH for
    fiscal year 2001, an increase of $1.5 billion over the President's
    request, and $2.5 billion more than the previous year. And the
    pharmaceutical industry and academic community invested billions more
    in medical research.
        If we want Americans to be able to reap the benefits as quickly as
    possible from medical breakthroughs resulting from our investments in
    medical research, then President Bush and Congress must ensure the
    FDA--the agency charged with regulating these new drugs and medical
    technologies--receives, at a minimum, funding increases proportionate
    to the increases for the NIH. NTEU is hopeful that President Bush and
    Congress will work to provide the FDA with the staffing and resources
    necessary to protect and improve the health of the American public.
    Funding shortfalls in the future will significantly hamper FDA's
    ability to identify and respond to current health threats, and take
    pro-active measures to approve drugs and other products aimed at
    preventing future health problems. I also want to highlight the need
    for Congress to pay special attention to not only maintain, but to
    expand, the current FDA laboratory and field structure. While most of
    the FDA's workforce is employed in the Washington, DC region, almost a
    third of the workforce is located outside of the Beltway. The FDA is
    beginning to implement a plan to close many of its field laboratories
    and consolidate them into a handful of locations. Shutting down most of
    these FDA labs across the country will lead to delays in getting
    potentially harmful market products to FDA laboratories for sampling
    and analysis. Furthermore, with increased trade into, and out of, our
    airports and seaports, and the growth of food and drug industries,
    FDA's lab infrastructure--both in terms of people and technology--is
    that much more critical for consumers and for industry.
        NTEU also has serious misgivings about FDA plans to change its
    program of voluntary Saturday work for employees in the field
    performing laboratory or lab-related functions to make such work
    mandatory. The agency is proposing this despite the fact that, around
    the country, it has encountered virtually no problems using its present
    program to secure volunteers for weekend work. Employees who work at
    the FDA laboratory understand that FDA needs to have its laboratories
    staffed on Saturdays, and we would be pleased to work with the agency
    to fix any real or perceived problems in the voluntary weekend work
    program. However, making weekend work mandatory for FDA employees--many
    of whom have worked Monday through Friday schedules for more than
    twenty years--is the wrong approach.
        The FDA proposals to close laboratories and force employees to
    dramatically change their work and family schedules are not only
    unnecessary, they are unwise. NTEU believes these plans are
    shortsighted and will force hundreds of experienced professionals to
    leave the agency at a time when competition for their services by
    private sector companies is intense. The American public cannot afford
    the risk of losing these valuable resources.
        It is ironic that at a time when many in Congress are increasingly
    concerned about the government's inability to retain and recruit highly
    qualified individuals into public service, FDA would seek to roll the
    dice with their own workforce. As it stands now, the FDA is struggling
    to retain and recruit qualified individuals to serve this Agency. And
    it has been widely documented that the Federal government is expected
    to lose nearly half of our experienced scientists in the next four
    years due to retirement. The FDA can only continue to maintain its
    competence and credibility by strengthening the agency's science base,
    not tearing it apart. With adequate funding for staffing and equipment,
    it would be NTEU's hope that FDA would abandon these risky plans.
    Therefore, it is incumbent upon the President and Congress to provide
    FDA with the resources necessary to retain those currently employed at
    the FDA and recruit more qualified individuals to ensure an efficient
    and effective FDA in the future.
        I am very proud of the work the men and women at the FDA do to
    protect consumers and improve our public health. Yet, our global
    leadership in this area will be jeopardized if we do not provide the
    FDA with the staffing and tools required to carry out its mission. The
    American people rightly demand and expect that their food, drugs,
    cosmetics, and medical devices are safe--and they deserve no less.
        Whether it is testing a new vaccine, approving the application for
    a new dialysis machine, or increasing the safety of our food supply by
    identifying deadly food pathogens, the men and women at the FDA are
    working for you, working for America. Congress needs to approve an FDA
    budget that works for them.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: On behalf of the
    National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP), I appreciate this
    opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with the turfgrass industry's
    perspective in support of restoration of the $55,000 appropriation for
    the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) deleted in the
    President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Agricultural
    Research Service (ARS). Also, I appreciate the opportunity to present
    to you the turfgrass industry's need and justification for continuation
    of the $250,000 appropriated in the Presidents's fiscal year 2001
    budget for a full-time turfgrass scientist position within ARS. In
    addition, I appreciate the consideration of an additional appropriation
    of $1,050,000 for the establishment of a national turfgrass research
    laboratory, as proposed by ARS, with three new research scientist
    positions at Beltsville, Maryland.
        Justification of $55,000 Appropriation Request for Program
    Support.--Once again, NTEP and the turfgrass industry come to the
    appropriations process to request that $55,000 be restored to the ARS
    budget to provide basic and minimal support for NTEP's activities at
    Beltsville. We appreciate the Subcommittee's restoration of this amount
    in previous fiscal years, and hope that you will agree with us that
    this request is justified for the ensuing fiscal year.
        The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) is unique in that
    it provides a working partnership that links the Federal government,
    turfgrass industry and land grant universities together in their common
    interest of turfgrass cultivar development, improvement and evaluation.
    The National Turfgrass Evaluation Program is the primary means by which
    cultivated varieties of turfgrass are evaluated in this country. It
    provides unbiased information on turfgrass cultivar adaptations,
    disease and insect resistance and environmental stress tolerance. The
    public and private sectors of the turfgrass industry use this
    information to develop cultivar recommendations for home owners, sod
    producers, sports turf and parks managers, golf course superintendents
    and highway vegetation managers.
        Our nation's awareness of safety is at an all-time high. Turfgrass
    provides multiple benefits to society including child safety on
    athletic fields, environmental protection of groundwater, reduction of
    silt and other contaminants in runoff, green space in home lawns,
    parks, golf courses, etc. With the advancements being made to
    turfgrasses that require less pesticides, water and other inputs as
    well as other efforts to improve integrated pest management programs,
    recycling, etc., the USDA has a unique opportunity to take positive
    action in support of the turfgrass industry. With a minuscule
    investment of Department funds, in relative terms within USDA's budget,
    a tremendous return can be gained for society and the turfgrass
    industry.
        While the vast majority of the USDA's funds have been and will
    continue to be directed toward traditional ``food and fiber'' segments
    of U.S. agriculture, it is important to note that turfgrasses (e.g.,
    sod production) are defined as agriculture in the Farm Bill and by many
    other departments and agencies. Further, it is estimated by the
    Economic Research Service that the turfgrass industry, in all its
    forms, is a $30-35 billion industry. It should also be noted that the
    turfgrass industry is the fastest growing segment of U.S. agriculture,
    while it receives essentially no Federal support. There are no subsidy
    programs for turfgrass, nor are any desired.
        For the past seventy years, the USDA's support for the turfgrass
    industry has been modest at best. The turfgrass industry's rapid
    growth, importance to our urban environments, and impact on our daily
    lives warrant more commitment and support from USDA. Failing to support
    the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program, would be a tremendous
    oversight of a major opportunity. USDA's support of NTEP at the $55,000
    level does not cover all costs. In fact, NTEP represents an ideal
    partnership of the public and private sectors in terms of program cost
    sharing. The NTEP relies most heavily on turfgrass industry (i.e.,
    public sectors, end-users) support. However, it is essential that the
    USDA maintain its modest financial support and work closely with NTEP.
    The turfgrass industry relies heavily on NTEP for unbiased information.
    Discounting this support will also eliminate a highly reliable and
    credible level of objectivity that is associated with the NTEP program.
        Justification of $250,000 Appropriation Request for ARS Scientist
    Position as well as $1,050,000 Appropriation Request for the
    Establishment of a National Turfgrass Research Laboratory.--NTEP and
    the turfgrass industry are requesting the Subcommittee's support for
    $250,000 continuing funding for the full-time scientist staff position
    at ARS, focusing on turfgrass research, that was appropriated in the
    fiscal year 2001 budget. We also request that the Subcommittee
    appropriate an additional $1,050,000 for establishment of a national
    turfgrass research laboratory within USDA, ARS for the specific purpose
    of collecting, evaluating and enhancing turfgrass germplasm. We ask
    that three new scientist positions be created and located at the
    Beltsville Agricultural Research Center in Beltsville, MD.
        Our society is becoming increasingly more urbanized. Currently,
    turfgrasses impact more than 90 percent of all people in the U.S.
    through exposure to home lawns, business landscapes, roadsides, parks,
    or recreational turf on a daily basis. As more and more cropland is
    converted to houses, office parks, shopping centers, etc., the acreage
    of turfgrass is increasing exponentially. However, with the increasing
    urbanization comes a greater demand on resources, such as potable
    water. Also, with the general public experiencing heightened awareness
    of the environment and its protection, use of inputs such as
    fertilizer, pesticides and water on turfgrass areas is coming under
    greater scrutiny. In some jurisdictions, use of these inputs will
    either be banned or severely restricted for turfgrass use. In addition,
    the urbanization of America is leading to an overuse of current
    recreational facilities such as parks, athletic fields and golf
    courses. New facilities are being considered or constructed, many on
    abandoned sites such as landfills, industrial wastelands, gravel pits
    or mine spoils. Turfgrasses in these areas will play an important role
    in reclamation vegetation, recreational turf or both.
        The USDA needs to initiate and maintain ongoing research on
    turfgrass development and improvement for the following reasons:
      --The value of the turfgrass industry in the U.S. is $30-$35 billion
            annually. Turfgrass is the number one or two agricultural crop
            in value and acreage in many states (i.e. MD, PA, FL, NJ, NC).
      --As our society becomes less rural and more urbanized, the acreage
            of turfgrass will increase significantly. Consequently, state
            and local municipalities will require the utilization of other
            water sources (i.e. effluent, reclaimed, sea water), reduction
            of pesticide use and elimination of nutrient runoff from
            turfgrass areas. However, demand on recreational facilities
            will increase while these facilities, for safety reasons, will
            still be required to provide safe, attractive athletic fields,
            parks and grounds.
      --Private and university research programs are working to develop
            improved turfgrasses, but they do not have the time nor
            resources to identify completely new sources of beneficial
            genes in commonly used species or the usefulness of potential
            new species. In addition, new plant materials collected by
            these institutions most often are not placed in the National
            Plant Germplasm System for use by all interested parties.
            Additionally, long-term research to identify and transfer
            desirable genes from other species (turfgrass or other crop
            species) is not being undertaken by public and private
            interests. ARS scientists working with turfgrass will enhance
            the ongoing research and development currently underway within
            the public and private sectors of the turfgrass industry. They
            will provide linkages between public and private research
            efforts and enhance the development of stress-tolerant and
            pest-resistant germplasm for the turfgrass industry.
            Furthermore, this research will not inhibit or compete with,
            nor will it duplicate, current efforts by public and private
            plant breeders, universities and development companies as
            germplasm (improved genetic stocks) developed will be released
            to the general public for further refinement.
      --USDA conducted significant turfgrass research from 1920-1988. The
            United States Golf Association (USGA) Green Section was
            initially a cooperative program between the USGA and USDA.
            However, since 1988, no full-time scientist has been employed
            by USDA, Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to conduct
            turfgrass research specifically.
      --Research on florist, nursery and ornamental crops is significant
            within USDA, ARS with new funding and programs being added
            virtually every year--industries with far less public and
            commercial value than turfgrass.
        A new turfgrass research scientist position within USDA, ARS was
    created by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Accordingly, in
    January 2001, the turfgrass industry met with USDA, ARS officials to
    discuss the position description, hiring process, facilities needed,
    etc. for the new position. ARS welcomed the new position but felt
    strongly that the position description was too broad in scope. Also,
    they were concerned that just one person working in turfgrass research
    would be ineffective in addressing the needs and concerns of the
    industry. They felt the duties described in the earlier funding request
    warranted several scientists working in a team effort. To accomplish
    this, ARS proposed the following:
                 a national strategy for ars turfgrass research
        Research Objectives.--Conduct long-term basic and applied research
    to provide knowledge, decision-support tools and plant materials to aid
    in designing, implementing, monitoring and managing economically and
    environmentally sustainable turfgrass systems including providing sound
    scientifically based information for use in the regulatory process.
        Research Focus.--To make a significant contribution in developing
    and evaluating sustainable turfgrass systems, ARS would need to conduct
    research in two major areas:
      --The collection, evaluation, protection and enhancement of
            germplasm, primarily through molecular techniques, to improve
            establishment, persistence and care of turfgrasses for a
            variety of uses. This research would include a plant physiology
            component to identify, understand and manage plant mechanisms
            that adapt to environmental stresses.
      --Long-term applied research to design and evaluate sustainable
            turfgrass management systems for a variety of environmental
            conditions with the objective of economically optimizing inputs
            and outputs to meet performance and environmental standards.
            This research would include ``turfgrass ecological systems''
            management that would look at such issues as water quality and
            watershed-level analysis, energy balances including carbon
            sequestration and management energy inputs, and impacts on
            wildlife in an urban environment.
        ARS will conduct a stakeholder workshop in fall 2001, as they have
    done with other commodities, to gain valuable input from turfgrass
    researchers, golf course superintendents, sod producers, lawn care
    operators, gardeners, regulatory personnel, etc. These discussions will
    allow ARS to refine the proposal to meet the specific needs of the
    industry. ARS plans to include this updated proposal in their fiscal
    year 2003 budget proposal which would include establishment of a
    national laboratory with four to five scientists initially. More
    funding for additional scientists would be requested in future ARS
    budget requests, in accordance with industry needs and possible
    redirection of current personnel.
        The turfgrass industry is very excited about this new proposal and
    wholeheartedly supports the efforts of ARS. However, the needs are so
    great, the turfgrass industry cannot wait an additional year to
    establish the national laboratory. Therefore, for fiscal year 2002, the
    turfgrass industry requests that the following unit be established
    within USDA, ARS:
        A turfgrass genomics unit that includes the following:
      --Plant Germplasm Collection and Evaluation.--This person will
            identify new genetic sources of commonly used and potential
            turfgrass species in natural habitats. Also, they will collect
            specimen plants as a vital first step in conserving resources
            and maintaining bio-diversity. Additionally, they will conduct
            germplasm evaluations to identify important traits that provide
            improved resistance to various environmental stresses and
            extreme conditions relating to soils, pests, etc. The new
            position created in the fiscal year 2001 budget will fulfill
            these duties.
      --Genomics/Genetics Studies.--A molecular geneticist or
            cytogeneticist is needed to better understand the genomics of
            various turfgrass species, collected wild germplasm and their
            evolution. Also needed is an understanding of how desirable
            genes and traits may be transferred from wild related plants to
            improved turfgrass species. This research will allow improved
            drought, salt and wear tolerance, along with disease and insect
            resistance, to be incorporated into species not currently
            possessing these traits.
      --Transfer of Desirable Genes.--A molecular geneticist will work to
            identify desirable genes and how they may be transferred to
            current turfgrass species. This person will work to better
            understand the molecular/cellular aspects of current and
            potential turfgrass species and using molecular techniques,
            will transfer desirable genes and traits within species and
            between species.
      --Evaluation and Enhancement of Genetically Altered Grasses.--A
            turfgrass breeder will evaluate and enhance the genetically
            altered plants from the program using recurrent genetic
            recombination techniques and selection of superior turfgrass
            plants. This person will also conduct genetic studies to
            confirm the presence of these genes and their stability within
            the genome. This work will produce germplasm with desirable
            turfgrass characteristics as well as new genes for stress
            tolerance, disease and insect resistance, etc. This enhanced
            germplasm will be easily accessible to breeders in the public
            and private sectors; i.e. released through the National Plant
            Germplasm System (NPGS).
        In conclusion, on behalf of the National Turfgrass Evaluation
    Program and the turfgrass industry across America, I respectfully
    request that the Subcommittee restore the vital $55,000 appropriation
    for the National Turfgrass Evaluation Program (NTEP) as well as the
    $250,000 appropriated in fiscal year 2001 for the new turfgrass
    scientist position in the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Agricultural
    Research Service. I also request that the Subcommittee appropriate an
    additional $1,050,000 for the establishment of a national turfgrass
    research laboratory at Beltsville, Maryland with three new full-time
    scientist positions within USDA, ARS for the specific purpose of
    collecting germplasm, conducting genetics/genomics studies and
    producing improved, genetically-enhanced turfgrasses for the public
    good.
        Thank you very much for your assistance and support.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Utility Contractors Association

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, my name is Angelo Di
    Paolo. I am President of the National Utility Contractors Association
    (NUCA) and President of Di Paolo Company in Glenview, Illinois. I see
    firsthand everyday the dire water and wastewater infrastructure needs
    our country faces, so I sincerely appreciate your interest in
    preventing public health and environmental disasters in rural
    communities by adequately funding the U.S. Department of Agriculture
    (USDA) Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Water and Waste Disposal
    infrastructure program for fiscal 2001.
                           fiscal 2001 recommendation
        On behalf of NUCA's nearly 2,000 members and the citizens of rural
    America who endure daily life without the basic wastewater
    infrastructure that ensures clean drinking water and appropriate
    disposal of waste, I respectfully request that the Subcommittee
    appropriate a minimum of $700 million in budget authority for the RUS
    Water and Waste Disposal Program. Further, I respectfully ask that
    Congress allow the RUS to determine the most appropriate allocation of
    the budget authority to loans and grants as it is in the best position
    to target the grants toward the very poor while providing loans for the
    relatively more well-healed communities.
             rural water and waste disposal needs and the rus cure
        Imagine waking up, sleepily walking into the bathroom, turning the
    shower faucet, and being greeted by stinky, murky water. Imagine being
    unable to quench your thirst because only unfiltered water comes to
    your house. Comparatively speaking, these are mild pictures of the
    horrible circumstances that almost a million rural residents endure
    daily. These Americans do not have potable water or effective waste
    disposal systems. Moreover, the citizens facing these problems are
    those least able to afford bottled water services. Generally, the
    affected families live below the poverty level, $16,700. So even if
    they aren't drinking contaminated water, they have no choice but to
    wash and cook with it. Ironically, in the town serving as the namesake
    for Deer Park bottled water, the locals were drinking unfiltered water
    from shallow wells until the RUS funded a $1.7 million water system in
    1998. RUS Water and Waste Disposal loan and grant programs provide such
    funds for small communities with 10,000 or fewer residents that cannot
    secure reasonable financing for drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure improvements. The majority of the residents are low-
    income and cannot afford even the smallest ratepayer increases,
    increases that would be certainties with other infrastructure funding
    sources.
        Currently, there is a $3.8 billion backlog of applications from
    needy communities that simply cannot afford to build their
    infrastructure through other funding sources. At this time last year,
    the backlog was only $3.2 billion. Today, communities must wait an
    average of approximately three years from the start of an application
    process to the time that RUS commits funds. During the three-year wait,
    children and the elderly continue to be exposed to waterborne diseases
    that have life-long or terminal effects on their health. No state is
    immune from this problem. According to the USDA's recent best
    estimates, at least 260,000 American homes still do not have complete
    plumbing. Another 715,000 homes have critical problems with drinking
    water quality, quantity, and availability. At least 1.1 million homes
    have inadequate wastewater disposal systems that threaten human and
    environmental health.
        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimated in 1997
    that some 15 million households use private wells and another 1 million
    homes rely on untreated water sources that include cisterns and water
    hauled from springs, rivers, and lakes. In 1996, the EPA estimated that
    small communities with 10,000 or fewer residents face more than $13.8
    billion in capital costs over the next two decades for sewage
    collection and treatment works. That figure does not include an
    estimation of septic system needs. These figures are considered by most
    within EPA to be conservative estimates. Regardless how you look at the
    needs, a $700 million investment would be worth every penny.
        Despite their inability to afford other funding sources, the
    communities historically do not default on RUS loans. Year after year,
    the USDA maintains an unrivaled loan delinquency rate of just over one
    percent and a long-term loss rate of one-tenth of one percent on the
    wastewater loan program.
                                   conclusion
        We, the members of NUCA, urge you to fund the RUS Water and Waste
    Disposal loans and grants program at a minimum $700 million for fiscal
    2001. Thank you for considering our recommendation.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Watershed Coalition

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am Bill Hamm from
    Walton, Kansas, and I am pleased to represent the National Watershed
    Coalition (NWC) as its Chairman. The National Watershed Coalition is
    privileged to present this testimony in support of the most beneficial
    water resource conservation programs ever developed in the United
    States. The Coalition recognizes full well the need to use our tax
    dollars wisely. That makes the work of this Subcommittee very
    important. It also makes it imperative that the Federal programs we
    continue, are those that provide real benefit to society, and are not
    programs that would be nice to have if funds were unlimited. We believe
    that the Small Watershed Program (Public Law 83-566) and the Flood
    Prevention Operations Program (Public Law 78-534) are examples of those
    rare programs that address our nation's vital natural resources which
    are critical to our very survival, do so in a way that provide benefits
    in excess of costs, and are programs that serve as models for the way
    all Federal programs should work.
        The watershed as the logical unit for dealing with natural resource
    problems has long been recognized. Public Law 566 offers a complete
    watershed management approach, and should have a prominent place in our
    current Federal policy emphasizing watersheds and total resource
    management based planning. Proper watershed management improves water
    quality. Why should the Federal government be involved with these
    watershed programs?
      --They are programs whose objectives are the sustaining of our
            nation's precious natural resources for generations to come.
      --They are not Federal, but federally assisted, locally sponsored and
            owned. They do not represent the continued growth of the
            Federal government.
      --They are locally initiated and driven. Decisions are made by people
            affected, and respect private property rights.
      --They share costs between the Federal government and local people.
            Local sponsors pay between 30-40 percent of the total costs of
            Public Law 566 projects.
      --They produce net benefits to society. The most recent program
            evaluation demonstrated the actual ratio of benefits to costs
            was approximately 2.2:1. The actual adjusted economic benefits
            exceeded the planned benefits by 34 percent. How many other
            Federal programs do so well?
      --They consider and enhance environmental values. Projects are
            subject to the discipline of being planned following the
            National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Federal
            ``Principles and Guidelines'' for land and water projects. That
            is public scrutiny!
      --They are flexible programs that can adapt to changing needs and
            priorities. Objectives that can be addressed are flood damage
            reduction, watershed protection (erosion and sediment control),
            water quality improvement, rural water supply, water
            conservation, fish and wildlife habitat improvement,
            recreation, irrigation and water management, etc. That is
            flexibility emphasizing multiple use.
      --They are programs that encourage all citizens to participate.
      --They can address the needs of low income and minority communities.
      --And best of all--they are programs the people like!
        The National Watershed Coalition is concerned with the recent
    Congressional lack of support for these watershed programs, with the
    exception of the recent watershed rehabilitation legislative efforts,
    and hopes the outcome of the fiscal year 2002 appropriations process
    will enable this vital work to continue and expand as we seek to
    preserve, protect and better manage our nation's water and land
    resources. Every State in the United States has benefited from the
    Small Watershed Program.
        In order to continue this high priority work in partnership with
    states and local governments, the Coalition recommends a fiscal year
    2002 funding level of $250 million for Watersheds and Flood Prevention
    Operations, Public Law 83-566 and Public Law 78-534. We recommend that
    $30 million of this amount be for Public Law 78-534 projects. For some
    years now, the Federal budget has eliminated the separate line items
    for the Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 watershed projects, and just
    lumped a total figure under Public Law 566 with a note that some amount
    ``may be available'' for Public Law 534 projects. This is an entirely
    unsatisfactory way of doing business. Public Law 534 still exists in
    law; it has not been repealed. It should be funded as a separate
    program. The current situation really penalizes both Public Law 534 and
    566, as 534 has no funds at the outset, and in order to provide a
    little something to the Public Law 534 watershed projects, NRCS has to
    take some money from the Public Law 566 accounts which are already very
    underfunded. Please restore funding for Public Law 534 watershed
    projects to $30 million in fiscal year 2002. We also recommend that
    watershed surveys and planning be funded at $25 million, which
    represents the true need.
        We would also suggest that $55 million be used for structural
    rehabilitation and replacement, in accordance with Public Law 106-472,
    the Small watershed Rehabilitation Amendments of 2000, passed by the
    Congress and signed into law on November 9th, 2000, and that another $5
    million be available for a thorough assessment of rehabilitation needs.
    The condition of our nation's dams, and the need for watershed
    structure rehabilitation, is a national priority we believe. There is
    also a research and development (R&D) need as we get the structural
    rehabilitation process underway. In USDA, that work in undertaken by
    the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). That need is estimated at $1.5
    million, and we ask that it be included in the ARS budget. It would be
    used for evaluation of upstream and downstream changes to the stream
    channel systems in cases of decommissioning, evaluation of the water
    quality impact of stored sediment releases, and the evaluation of
    impacts of the loss of flood protection, among other things.
        We recognize Congress may be thinking of lesser amounts for these
    programs. But we are not playing a responsible role if we do not help
    you recognize the true need if we continually recommend the Federal
    share of these needed funds be less. We hope that everyone understand
    these funds are only a part of the total that are committed to this
    vital purpose. The local project sponsors in these ``federally
    assisted'' endeavors have a tremendous investment also. We also suggest
    that the Emergency Watershed Program (EWP) be provided with $20 million
    to allow the NRCS to provide rapid response in time of natural
    disaster. Congress increasingly talks of wanting to fund those
    investments in our nation's infrastructure that will sustain us in the
    future. Yet past budgets have regularly cut funding for the best of
    these programs. This makes absolutely no sense! We continue to read
    that we are in a period of budget surpluses, almost as if the Federal
    coffers were overflowing with cash, yet there is next to nothing for
    watershed protection and improvement. In this period of surplus (tax
    overpayments) and relative prosperity we can't seem to invest and re-
    invest in our vital watershed infrastructure. That is simply
    unconscionable. Isn't water quality and watershed management a national
    priority? We believe it is.
        The issue of the current condition of those improvements
    constructed over the last fifty years with these watershed programs is
    a matter of great concern. Many of the nearly 10,500 dams that NRCS
    assisted sponsors build throughout the United States no longer meet
    current dam safety standards largely as a result of development, and
    need to be upgraded to current standards. A USDA study published in
    1991 estimated that in the next ten years, $590 million would be needed
    to protect the installed works. Of that amount, $100 million would come
    from local sponsors as their operation and maintenance contributions.
    NRCS also conducted a more recent survey, and in just 22 states, about
    $540 million in rehabilitation needs were identified. That is the
    reason we are recommending starting with $60 million ($55 million for
    rehabilitation work and $5 million to start a more precise assessment
    of needs) for the work necessary to protect these installed structures,
    and commend Congress for their leadership in passing Public Law 106-
    472. Watershed project sponsors throughout the U.S. appreciate your
    leadership on this vital issue. We now have the authorization, and need
    the appropriations. If we don't start to pay attention to our rural
    infrastructure needs, the ultimate cost to society will only increase,
    and project benefits will be lost. This is a serious national issue.
    Page 5 of our testimony provides a summary of the structures
    constructed in each state using these federally assisted USDA programs.
    Since most of these were constructed in the 1950's, 60's, and 70's, and
    were originally designed for a 50-year life, it is apparent we need to
    look at their current condition. If we do some rehabilitation work to
    bring many of these older structures up to current health and safety
    standards, they will continue to provide benefits far into the future.
        In addition to offering our thoughts on needed conservation program
    budget levels, we would like to express what we think will be concern
    with what the Administration's budget will propose in regard to
    watershed program funding in fiscal year 2002. While the President's
    budget will not be released until April 9th, we have read and heard
    enough in the news to make us believe watershed conservation programs
    are once again to be subject to reductions. If true, this is
    disturbing. We will analyze the President's budget when it is
    available, and provide your Subcommittee with our thoughts. Congress
    and the Administration need to recognize watershed natural resources
    conservation as a high national priority. It's only common sense.
        There are a number of suggestions we would like to make concerning
    this very important legislation that we will be making to other
    committees. They will have budget implications. We believe the
    objectives of this legislation should be expanded to include more non-
    structural water quality practices, allow the law to provide assistance
    in developing rural water supplies (without water there is no rural
    development), and eliminate the current requirement that mandates that
    twenty percent of the total projects benefits be ``directly related to
    agriculture'' which can be very subjective and has the unintended
    effect of penalizing poor, small, rural communities many of which are
    minority communities.
        The Coalition appreciates the opportunity to offer these comments
    regarding fiscal year 2002 funding for the water resource programs
    administered by USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
    With the ``downsizing'' the NRCS has experienced, we would be remiss if
    we did not again express some concern as to their ability to provide
    adequate technical support in these watershed program areas. NRCS
    technical staff has been significantly reduced and budget constraints
    have not allowed that expertise to be replaced. Traditional fields of
    engineering and economics are but two examples. We see many states
    where NRCS capability to support their responsibilities is seriously
    diminished. This is a disturbing trend that needs to be halted. This
    downsizing has a very serious effect on state and local conservation
    programs. Local Watershed and Conservation Districts and the NRCS
    combine to make a very effective delivery system for providing the
    technical assistance to local people--farmers, ranchers and rural
    communities--in applying needed conservation practices. But that
    delivery system is currently very strained! Many states and local units
    of government also have complementary programs that provide financial
    assistance to land owners and operators for installing measures that
    reduce erosion, improve water quality, and maintain environmental
    quality. The NRCS provides, through agreement with the USDA Secretary
    of Agriculture, ``on the land'' technical assistance for applying these
    measures. The delivery system currently is in place, and by downsizing
    NRCS, we are eroding the most effective and efficient coordinated means
    of working with local people to solve environmental problems that has
    ever been developed. Our system and its ability to produce food and
    fiber is the envy of the entire world. In our view, these programs are
    the most important in terms of national priorities.
        We are also disappointed that the subcommittee has a practice of
    not accepting oral testimony from organizations such as the National
    Watershed Coalition. When we were allowed to make an oral presentation
    in the House, we were able to talk to subcommittee members who could
    ask us questions. It was a chance for them to actually talk with people
    doing the work on the land. That personal contact in both houses is now
    missing, and it would be easy to think that our written testimony may
    not be seriously considered. We hope you will reconsider this practice
    in future years, and again allow oral testimony.
        The Coalition pledges its full support to you as you continue your
    most important work. Our Executive Director, Mr. John W. Peterson, who
    has over forty years experience in natural resource watershed
    conservation, is located in the Washington, DC area, and would be
    pleased to serve as a resource as needed. John's address is 9304 Lundy
    Court, Burke, VA 22015-3431, phone 703-455-6886 or 4387, Fax; 703-455-
    6888, email; jwpeterson@erols.com.
        Thank you for allowing the National Watershed Coalition (NWC) this
    opportunity.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

                                    summary
        This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
    Department of Agriculture's Colorado River Basin salinity control
    program. The salinity control program has not been funded at the level
    necessary to control salinity with respect to water quality standards
    of the basin states. Also, this failure to provide adequate funding
    negatively impacts the quality of water delivered to Mexico pursuant to
    Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission. Funding
    for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), from which the
    Department of Agriculture funds the salinity program, has been
    insufficient to fund needed salinity control measures. I urge that
    funding of more than $200,000,000 be appropriated for EQIP, with at
    least $12,000,000 designated to the Colorado River Basin salinity
    control program.
                                   statement
        The seven Colorado River Basin states, in response to the salinity
    issues addressed by Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado River
    Basin Salinity Control Forum. Comprised of gubernatorial appointees
    from the seven Basin states, the Forum was created to provide for
    interstate cooperation in response to the Clean Water Act, and to
    provide the states with information necessary to comply with Sections
    303 (a) and (b) of the Act. I am New Mexico's representative to the
    Forum. The Forum has become the primary means for the seven Basin
    states to coordinate with Federal agencies and Congress to support the
    implementation of the salinity control program.
        The Colorado River Basin salinity control program was authorized by
    Congress in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
    Congress amended the Act in 1984 to give new responsibilities to the
    Department of Agriculture. While retaining the Department of the
    Interior as the lead coordinator for the salinity control program, the
    amended Act recognized the importance of the Department of Agriculture
    operating under its authorities in meeting the objectives of the
    salinity control program. Many of the most cost-effective projects
    undertaken by the salinity control program have occurred since
    implementation of Department of Agriculture's authorization for the
    program.
        The Bureau of Reclamation is currently completing studies on the
    economic impacts of the salinity of the Colorado River in the United
    States. Reclamation's study indicates that damages in the United States
    may soon be approaching $1 billion per year. It is essential to the
    cost-effectiveness of the salinity control program that Department of
    Agriculture salinity control projects be funded for timely
    implementation to protect the quality of Colorado River Basin water
    delivered to the Lower Basin States and Mexico.
        Congress concluded, with the enactment of the Federal Agriculture
    Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (FAIRA), that the salinity control
    program could be most effectively implemented as one of the components
    of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). The salinity
    control program has not been funded since the enactment of FAIRA at a
    level adequate to ensure that the Basin State-adopted and Environmental
    Protection Agency approved water quality standards in the Colorado
    River will be honored with respect to total dissolved solids (i.e.,
    salinity). Appropriations for EQIP have not been sufficient to prevent
    salt loading by irrigated agriculture in the Upper Colorado River Basin
    from impacting the quality of water delivered to the downstream states,
    nor to Mexico pursuant to Minute No. 242 of the International Boundary
    and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.
        EQIP subsumed the salinity control program without giving adequate
    recognition to the responsibilities of the Department of Agriculture to
    implement salinity control measures per Section 202 (c) of the Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Act. The EQIP evaluation and project
    ranking criteria target small watershed improvements that do not
    recognize that water users hundreds of miles downstream are significant
    beneficiaries of the salinity control program. Proposals for EQIP
    funding are ranked in the states of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado under
    the direction of the respective State Conservationists without
    consideration of those downstream, particularly out-of-state, benefits.
    Irrigated agriculture in the Upper Basin realizes significant local
    benefits of the salinity control program and agricultural producers
    have succeeded in submitting cost-effective proposals to the State
    Conservationists. However, funding for needed salinity control projects
    has been limited because the full measure of the salinity control
    program benefits has not been considered when prioritizing funding
    allocated to salinity control projects and to all other programs
    administered by each state's autonomous office.
        The Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation
    Service (NRCS), following protracted urging by the Basin states, has
    concluded as a result that the salinity control program is different
    than the small watershed approach of the EQIP program. The watershed
    for the salinity control program stretches almost 1200 miles, from the
    headwaters of the river through the salt-laden soils of the Upper Basin
    to the river's termination at the Gulf of California in Mexico. NRCS is
    to be commended for its efforts to appoint a salinity program
    coordinator to work with each NRCS state office and to designate the
    Colorado River Basin an ``area of special interest'' including a
    special fund designation for the salinity control program.
        The Basin states were led to believe by Congressional staff when
    the EQIP program was created that the $200,000,000 annual Commodity
    Credit Corporation (CCC) borrowing authority given to the Secretary
    would ensure that through the year 2002 at least the requested amount
    of salinity control funding would be expended through the EQIP program.
    The Basin states, including New Mexico, have been very dismayed that
    funding for EQIP has been inadequate for this most important nationwide
    program. Several years of inadequate Federal funding for the Department
    of Agriculture have resulted in the Forum finding that the salinity
    control program needs to be accelerated to protect the Colorado River
    water quality standards for salinity and to maintain the water quality
    criteria of those standards. Since the designation by the Department of
    Agriculture of the Colorado River salinity control program as an area
    of special interest, about $4.5 million annually has been earmarked for
    the program. This amount is in sharp contrast to the $12 million annual
    funding required for the USDA portion of the plan of implementation of
    the Colorado River water quality standards for salinity, as adopted by
    the Basin States and approved by EPA.
        The Basin States added about $1.5 million in up-front cost sharing
    and local farms contributed an estimated $2 million to match the NRCS
    funds in the previous Federal fiscal year. State and local cost sharing
    is triggered by the Federal appropriation. The entire effort last year
    was funded at only about 40 percent of program needs. The requested
    funding of $12 million for fiscal year 2002 will continue to be needed
    each year for at least the next few fiscal years.
        The Department of Agriculture has indicated that a more adequately
    funded EQIP program would result in more funds being allocated to the
    salinity program. The Basin states have cost sharing dollars available
    to participate in on-farm salinity control efforts. The agricultural
    producers in the Upper Basin are willing to cost-share their portion
    and waiting for adequate funding for their applications to be
    considered. The Department of Agriculture projects have proven to be
    the most cost-effective component of the salinity control program.
    However, the prior Administration and Congressional funding support has
    dramatically declined despite increasing damages from the salinity of
    the Colorado River.
        I urge the Congress to appropriate at least $200,000,000 from the
    CCC in fiscal year 2002 for EQIP. Also, I request that Congress advise
    the Administration that $12,000,000 of the appropriation is to be
    designated for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
        Finally, I request that adequate funds be appropriated for
    technical assistance and education activities at the local level,
    rather than requiring the NRCS to borrow funds from CCC for the direly
    needed support functions. Recent history has shown that inadequate
    funding for technical assistance and education activities of the NRCS
    has been a severe impediment to successful implementation of the
    salinity control program. The Basin States parallel funding program,
    implemented as a means of cost sharing with NRCS, expends 40 percent of
    the states' funds available to meet the needs of NRCS for technical
    assistance and education activities. I urge the appropriation of
    adequate funds for these essential activities, and that the NRCS not be
    directed to borrow funds for these uses from the CCC.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee

        The Nez Perce Tribe requests the following funding amounts for
    fiscal year 2002, which are specific to the Nez Perce Tribe:
      --$221,575 through the United States Department of Agriculture,
            Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service for the biological
            control of noxious weeds for implementation and monitoring.
        The Tribe urges support for the full and adequate funding of Tribal
    programs through the Department of the Interior fiscal year 2002
    budget, with the specific request discussed below.
          nez perce biological control center funding: usda, $221,575
        The Nez Perce Tribe established the Bio-Control Center in 1999
    thanks to grant funds from the USDA-Business Cooperative Services
    program. Since its inception, the Center has developed partnerships and
    networks to coordinate the biological control of weeds through the
    State of Idaho and worked collaboratively with the USDA to develop and
    implement monitoring protocols. The Center has been instrumental in
    providing biological control agent releases and monitoring under
    contractual agreements with private landowners and Agencies throughout
    the region.
        The biological control of weeds uses the weeds' natural enemies to
    reduce the weeds' ability to compete with the desired vegetation.
    Biological control techniques have been used in the West since 1940 to
    reduce weed density on range and wildlands where cultural and chemical
    control methods are not economically feasible or practical. This
    allocation would enable the Tribe to rear and provide biological
    control organisms to private and public entities at no cost, to monitor
    the impacts, develop technology transfer materials, and host seminars
    for all interested parties.
        For fiscal year 2002, the Nez Perce Tribe requests that Congress
    earmark $221,575 from the USDA Animal Plant Health Inspection Service
    to establish nurseries to increase biological control availability,
    distribute biological control organisms throughout weed infestation
    areas, monitor the impacts, and provide annual technology transfer
    seminars to Cooperative Weed Management Area partners. This program
    will be developed in coordination with USDA, local universities, and
    regional experts.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am Billy Frank, Jr.,
    Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC), and on
    behalf of the twenty-Western Washington member Tribes, I submit this
    request for appropriations to support the research, sanitation and
    marketing of Tribal shellfish products. We request the following:
      --$500,000 to support commercial harvests costs which will assist the
            tribes in fulfilling the demands for their shellfish products
            both domestically and abroad;
      --$1,000,000 to support water and pollution sampling, sampling and
            research for paralytic shellfish poisoning and coordination of
            research projects with State agencies; and,
      --$1,000,000 to support data gathering at the reservation level for
            the conduct of shellfish population surveys and estimates.
                            treaty shellfish rights
        As with salmon, the tribes' guarantees to harvest shellfish lie
    within a series of treaties signed with representatives of the Federal
    government in the mid-1850s. In exchange for the peaceful settlement of
    what is today most of Western Washington, the tribes reserved the right
    to continue to harvest finfish and shellfish at their usual and
    accustomed grounds and stations. The tribes were specifically excluded
    from harvesting shellfish from areas ``staked or cultivated'' by non-
    Indian citizens. Soon after they were signed, the treaties were
    forgotten or ignored.
        The declining salmon resource in the Pacific Northwest negates the
    legacy Indian people in Western Washington have lived by for thousands
    of years. We were taught to care for the land and take from it only
    what we needed and to use all that we took.
        We depended on the gifts of nature for food, trade, culture and
    survival. We knew when the tide was out, it was time to set the table
    because we live in the land of plenty; a paradise complete. Yet,
    because of the loss of salmon habitat which is attributable to
    overwhelming growth in the human population, a major pacific coastal
    salmon recovery effort ensues. Our shellfish resource is our major
    remaining fishery.
        At least ninety types of shellfish have been traditionally
    harvested by the Tribes in Western Washington and across the continent
    Indian people have called us the fishing Tribes because of our rich
    history of harvesting and caring for finfish and shellfish. Our
    shellfish was abundant and constituted a principal resource of export,
    as well as provided food to the Indians and the settlers which greatly
    reduced the living expenses.
        Clams, crab, oysters, shrimp, and many othern species were readily
    available year round. The relative ease with which large amounts could
    be harvested, cured, and stored for later consumption made shell fish
    an important source of nutrition.
        Shellfish remain important for subsistence, economic, and
    ceremonial purposes. With the rapid decline of many salmon stocks, due
    to habitat loss from western Washington's unrelenting populous growth,
    shellfish harvesting has become a major factor in tribal economies.
        The tribes have used shellfish in trade with the non-Indian
    population since the first white settlers came into the region a
    century and a half ago. Newspaper accounts from the earliest days of
    the Washington Territory tell of Indians selling or trading fresh
    shellfish with settlers. Shellfish harvested by members of western
    Washington's Indian tribes is highly sought after throughout the United
    States and the Far East. Tribal representatives have gone on trade
    missions to China and other Pacific Rim nations where Pacific Northwest
    shellfish--particularly geoduck--is in great demand. Trade with the Far
    East is growing in importance as the tribes struggle to achieve
    financial security through a natural resources-based economy.
        Treaty language pertaining to tribal shellfish harvesting included
    this section:
        ``The right of taking fish at usual and accustomed grounds and
    stations is further secured to said Indians, in common with all
    citizens of the United States; and of erecting temporary houses for the
    purposes of curing; together with the privilege of hunting and
    gathering roots and berries on open and unclaimed lands. Provided,
    however, that they not take shell-fish from any beds staked or
    cultivated by citizens.''
                  treaty with the s'klallam, january 26, 1855
        In exchange for the peaceful settlement of what is today most of
    western Washington, the tribes reserved the right to continue to
    harvest finfish and shellfish at all of their usual and accustomed
    grounds and stations. The tribes were specifically excluded from
    harvesting shellfish from areas ``staked or cultivated'' by non-Indian
    citizens.
        Tribal efforts to have the Federal government's treaty promises
    kept began in the first years of the 20th Century when the United
    States Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Winans, that where a treaty
    reserves the right to fish at all usual and accustomed places, a state
    may not preclude tribal access to those places.
        Sixty years later, the tribes were again preparing for battle in
    court. After many years of harassment, beatings and arrests for
    exercising their treaty-reserved rights, western Washington tribes took
    the State of Washington to Federal court to have their rights legally
    re-affirmed. In 1974, U.S. District Court Judge George Boldt ruled that
    the tribes had reserved the right to half of the harvestable salmon and
    steelhead in western Washington.
        The ``Boldt Decision,'' which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,
    also re-established the tribes as co-managers of the salmon and
    steelhead resources in western Washington.
        As a result of this ruling, the tribes became responsible for
    establishing fishing seasons, setting harvest limits, and enforcing
    tribal fishing regulations. Professional biological staffs, enforcement
    officers, and managerial staff were assembled to ensure orderly,
    biologically-sound fisheries.
        Beginning in the late 1970s, tribal and state staff worked together
    to develop comprehensive fisheries that ensured harvest opportunities
    for Indian and non-Indian like, and also preserved the resource for
    generations to come.
        It was within this new atmosphere of cooperative management that
    the tribes sought to restore their treaty-reserved rights to manage and
    harvest shellfish from all usual and accustomed areas. Talks with their
    state counterparts began in the mid-1980s, but were unsuccessful. The
    tribes filed suit in Federal court in May 1989 to have their shellfish
    harvest rights restored.
        The filing of the lawsuit brought about years of additional
    negotiations between the tribes and the state. Despite many serious
    attempts at reaching a negotiated settlement, the issue went to trial
    in May 1994.
        In 1994, District Court Judge Edward Rafeedie upheld the right of
    the treaty tribes to harvest 50 percent of all shellfish species in
    their Usual and Accustomed fishing areas. Judge Rafeedie also ordered a
    shellfish Management Implementation Plan that governs tribal/state co-
    management activities.
        After a number of appeals, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
    let stand Rafeedie's ruling in 1998. Finally, in June 1999, the U.S.
    Supreme Court denied review of the District court ruling, effectively
    confirming the treaty shellfish harvest right.
        assist the tribes in fulfilling the demands for their shellfish
                               products, $500,000
        Shellfish harvested by members of Western Washington's Indian
    tribes is highly sought after throughout the United States and the Far
    East. We request $500,000 which will assist Tribes in promoting our
    shellfish products, in both domestic and international markets. We are
    now at a point in time when telecommunicating is both cost effective
    and timely when marketing products. Tribal fishers are not capable of
    supporting such an effort individually, but, could collectively benefit
    if such a network could be developed through the Northwest Indian
    Fisheries Commission and the Northwest Indian College in Bellingham,
    Washington. This institution is capable of providing the technology
    needed to implement such a marketing program for Tribal shellfish
    products.
       water and pollution sampling, sampling and research for paralytic
     shellfish poisoning and coordination of research projects with state
                              agencies, $1,000,000
        Shellfish growing areas are routinely surveyed for current or
    potential pollution impacts and are classified based on the results of
    frequent survey information. No shellfish harvest is conducted on
    beaches that have not been certified by the tribes and the Washington
    Department of Health. Growing areas are regularly monitored for water
    quality status and naturally-occurring biotoxins to protect the public
    health.
        However, both Tribal and non-Indian fisheries have been threatened
    due to the lack of understanding about the nature of biotoxins,
    especially in subtidal geoduck clams. Research targeted to better
    understand the nature of biotoxins could prevent unnecessary illness
    and death that may result from consuming toxic shellfish, and could
    prevent unnecessary closure of tribal and non-Indian fisheries.
     data gathering at the reservation level for the conduct of shellfish
                  population surveys and estimates, $1,000,000
        Very little current data and technical information exists for many
    of the shellfish fisheries now being jointly managed by state and
    Tribal managers. This is particularly true for many free-swimming and
    deep-water species. This lack of information can not only impact
    fisheries and the resource as a whole, but makes it difficult to assess
    50/50 treaty sharing arrangements. Additionally, intertidal assessment
    methodologies differ between state and tribal programs, and can lead to
    conflicts in management planning.
        Existing data systems must be enhanced for catch reporting,
    population assessment and to assist enhancement efforts. Research on
    methodology for population assessment and techniques also is critical
    to effective management.
        Onsite beach surveys are required to identify harvestable
    populations of shellfish. Regular monitoring of beaches also is
    necessary to ensure the beaches remain safe for harvest. Additional and
    more accurate population survey and health certification data is needed
    to maintain these fisheries and open new harvest areas. This
    information will help protect current and future resources and provide
    additional harvest opportunities.
                                   conclusion
        We ask that you give serious consideration to our needs. We are
    available to discuss these requests with committee members or staff at
    your convenience.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Fire Ant Task Force and the Oklahoma
         Fire Ant Research and Management Advisory Committee Task Force

        I am an agriculture producer, serve as a member of the National
    Fire Ant Task Force and the Oklahoma Fire Ant Research and Management
    Advisory Committee task force. Our national purpose is to develop and
    promote research that can be flexible, adaptable to different climatic
    regions of the country, sustainable but not chemical discouraging, but
    hopefully results in the use of less chemicals and less expense to the
    property owner while accomplishing the task at hand.
        From a state perspective, our purpose is to determine what can be
    done to address the continued growth of fire ants in our state with
    state resources and how that we might cooperate with other multi-state
    and national ventures to address the problem. This testimony is on
    behalf of the committee and myself as an impacted agriculture producer
    and how the research funding or lack thereof impacts locally within the
    states. I would like to discuss briefly the continued expansion of the
    range of imported fire ants in this country, the continued economic and
    social impact of such expansion and the resulting need for research
    funding.
        It is an exciting time for fire ant research because for the first
    time since the pest entered the United States, we have hope for
    stopping the spread and controlling its march across the south and soon
    to reach middle America. Our hope lies with bio-control methods coupled
    with other methods of control. But, without significant research funds
    to the basic research effort all efforts may soon be lost. The USDA-
    Agricultural Research Service charged with the mission of fire ant
    research has not seen a congressional increase in 30 years for this
    effort. Our request is that you increase the research base of the
    Imported Fire Ant Unit at the Center for Medical, Agricultural &
    Veterinary Entomology in Gainesville, Florida by a total of $900,000.
    The proposed Florida allocation would be $600,000 above the current
    level which would just return the location to where it was 14 months
    ago restoring two FTE's. The remaining $300,000 would be directed to
    the Mississippi location to further develop efforts there that tie back
    to the Gainesville activity.
        We appreciate the final conference committee funding of $325,000
    already included by Senate leadership for the last two years that was
    directed to Mississippi. However, the available base in the
    Agricultural Research Service for this research mission has actually
    been dropping steadily and we are in a position today where the
    critical mass of the few experienced scientists headquartered at
    Gainesville, currently only 4.5 FTE's, now available is about to be
    even further reduced. We believe investing in the basic applied
    research with ARS will compliment and enhance the specially directed
    funds.
        Why is Oklahoma so interested in seeing funding to a Florida
    location? As an emerging state with fire ant populations growth, we are
    interested in stopping the number of counties that are impacted each
    year. We have worked with cooperative research in Oklahoma with ARS and
    are working toward an area wide research effort to be conducted in
    Florida, Oklahoma , Texas and Mississippi. We are tired of losing
    livestock, other economic impacts and most importantly our elderly and
    children being attacked. With the rapid rate of expansion and the
    proven ability to survive in northern reaches of the projected
    expansion area, in just a short time they will most likely be in the
    District of Columbia--on the Capitol grounds, the White House lawn,
    other government buildings and private properties. For seven
    consecutive years, ants have been found north of Washington in the
    Bowie, Maryland area.
        While fire ants have been around for decades as a result of
    importation into Alabama from South America, this non-native pest has
    spread further and caused far more destructive damage than ever
    envisioned. Just a few decades ago, it was never anticipated that these
    pests would expand so far north and encompass so many states and such a
    great population. Yet, today there are no signs of any slow-down and
    the impacted constituencies continue to grow. The red imported fire ant
    now infests and requires APHIS quarantine in over 318 million acres in
    12 contiguous states plus counties with firm establishment in
    California and New Mexico--now under quarantine--Maryland, and
    occasional occurrences in Arizona, Nevada, West Virginia, and Kentucky.
        In 1985, Oklahoma's experience with fire ants began with the first
    mounds discovered in the Oklahoma-Arkansas border county of Leflore.
    Since that time twelve Oklahoma Counties now are classified as ``Red
    Imported Fire Ant Established.'' Another 15 counties have fire ant
    activity but that are not yet fully established. Some predicted that
    fire ants would never expand further than the southern Oklahoma border
    of the Red River, yet today Tulsa and Payne Counties in northern
    Oklahoma have recorded finding fire ants--the same latitude as the U.S.
    Capitol. Both counties are one and two counties south of the Kansas
    border. In the State of Arkansas they are near the Missouri border and
    in Tennessee they have been found near the Kentucky border.
        My interest in addressing the imported fire ant issue is not only
    from a professional point of representing the farm and rural membership
    of Oklahoma Farmers Union but also a very personal one. My family and I
    farm and ranch along the Red River in the southern Oklahoma counties of
    Love and Jefferson. In the last two years we have seen a literal
    proliferation of this pest to the point of destroying pasture land and
    harming farm equipment with their huge mounds.
        It even becomes more personal when my 5 year-old daughter is simply
    playing and the fire ants attack her--inside the house. Just two
    counties over a child in his own bed was attacked hundreds of time
    while he lay sleeping. Producers and other citizens alike experience
    the loss of electrical water heaters, air conditioning and heating
    units when fire ants gather in such numbers that they cause electrical
    shorts resulting in property loss. It is quite common for the local
    Rural Electric Cooperatives to experience losses on their supply lines
    because of the pests.
        From an agricultural economic standpoint, fire ants pose an
    immediate and present danger to our family farm and others just like us
    who are in the hay production business. Because our county is
    quarantined, we must sell our hay only to other counties where fire
    ants are established. This limits our available markets. We have just
    come through three of the worst droughts in U.S. history. Three years
    ago, many producers in Oklahoma received hay from Kansas, Colorado,
    Missouri and Arkansas. Imagine if the drought had been to the north and
    farmers depended on southern producers for their supply. Although we
    would have had hay, we would have been unable to provide a hay supply
    to our neighbors to the north because of fire ant quarantines. God
    forbid that such should ever happen. This has occurred when hay from
    North Carolina was shipped to drought areas of West Virginia and
    infestation resulted. Our own state department of agriculture is now
    aggressively working to check the border to ensure that product will
    not cross the border that is infested. Each load must be fire ant free.
    We applaud this effort but realize that research provides the only real
    answer to our plight.
        I would point out that the Southern United States, which so far has
    been greatest impacted, also has some of the most vulnerable citizens
    to fire ant stings. Since the South attracts more retirees than most
    parts of the country, the numbers alone make the elderly a prime target
    of fire ants. Attacks on the elderly, with weakened immune systems, in
    nursing homes and hospitals is coming far too often. Last year an
    incapacitated lady in Florida died from 1,600 stings while in a nursing
    home. Another of the most vulnerable--our children--have increasingly
    been evacuated from schools so the properties can be treated for fire
    ants. Other public properties around the United States such as parks,
    lakes and zoos are becoming inundated. Peanut farmers in Southern
    Oklahoma now think twice before they reach to repair a digger or
    combine that can be covered with fire ants that thrive in the sandy
    peanut soils. Three years ago, over 500 farmers in Bryan County
    gathered to talk about fire ants because they had been impacted by the
    rapid expansion of the fire ant. Producers want answers and quickly.
        While there has been extensive research work on baits and other
    chemical applications dealing with fire ants, it appears that these
    solutions only will help curtail and not eradicate or bring under
    control this pest. These options are also very expensive and for the
    chemical application process to work everyone must be willing to apply
    the solution repeatedly. We know that this is an unrealistic and
    expensive solution for either the private or government sector.
        What has shown the most promise in the last four years are
    biological control methods that can be applied in conjunction with
    chemical applications for what could be an effective permanent
    management solution. I am particularly excited about the development of
    a national strategy that will for the first time strategically address
    this pest since it first came to the shores of Alabama in the 1920's.
    Such a strategy has been set forth by the Southern Legislative
    Conference, comprised of state legislators across the south, and the
    scientists and research leaders of the United States Department of
    Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service. I am pleased to have had
    the opportunity to have participated in the development of this initial
    plan.
        USDA-ARS research in Gainesville, Florida, on the development and
    release of candidate self-sustaining bio-control agents, resulted in an
    Agreement in 1998 with the Southern Legislative Conference,
    representing the elected state officials in the southern 15 states.
    Based on the successful survival of the early releases of the two bio-
    control agents in Gainesville, a formal agreement with the SLC was
    established. Participating states provided limited state resources to
    assist the Gainesville laboratory in increasing production of bio-
    control agents for limited field trials in their states. By 2000,
    participating states included Oklahoma, Texas, Alabama, Georgia, South
    Carolina, North Carolina, and Louisiana. Other existing collaborations
    provided release opportunities in Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida and
    Tennessee. From 1998-2000, phorid flies were released and established
    in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Alabama, North Carolina, and
    South Carolina. In Florida, where releases began in 1997, populations
    expanded from 5 mound locations (1997-98) to 50 square miles by 1999,
    and to 1,000 square miles by December, 2000. Concurrent paired field
    studies (72 sites total) examining the impact on fire ant populations
    will continue through 2002.
        Also from 1998-2000, the disease agent of fire ants was released at
    selected sites (5 mounds each) in Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Alabama,
    Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana.
    Subsequent infections was detected in Florida, Oklahoma, Arkansas,
    Alabama, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and
    Louisiana. In Florida, infections spread among mounds at the initial
    release site, and resulted in a 40-60 percent reduction in fire ant
    populations in the affected area.
        In 2000, the first field test of an integrated management strategy
    for fire ants was initiated at a military installation in South
    Carolina. With supplemental temporary funding to ARS from EPA, and
    commitment of in-kind resources from the U.S. Army, the South Carolina
    National Guard and Clemson University, a central ``near-zero
    tolerance'' area was treated with traditional pesticide applications
    while surrounding areas were inoculated with phorid flies and the
    disease agent of fire ants. At 16 weeks, assessments indicated a 96
    percent reduction in the near-zero tolerance area, and the successful
    establishment of both bio-control agents. Assessments continue.
        Also in 2000, USDA-APHIS and the National Biological Control
    Institute, canvassed state departments of agriculture, and found that
    bio-control of fire ants was the single highest priority for invasive
    insect species. Subsequently, APHIS and ARS partnered with the State of
    Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to initiate
    mass-rearing of phorid flies at state facilities in Gainesville,
    Florida, for subsequent release in the infested states. The agreement
    was finalized in February, 2001. Releases will begin by late summer.
        As a result of the outcome of the ARS, DOD and SLC leadership in
    the South Carolina IPM project and based on the merits of the proposal,
    a new peer reviewed proposal funded internally will expand such tests
    to Oklahoma, Texas and Florida initially. This 4-5 year temporary
    project will focus on cattle and improved pasture regions. Of ten
    projects reviewed this was the one funded in fiscal year 2001. I stress
    this to demonstrate the confidence placed in the research through peer
    review. However exciting this funded project may be, it has no impact
    on the base funds to maintain--let alone increase--much needed basic
    research.
        The bottom line is to develop self-sustaining biological control
    agents for the imported fire ant. Farmers, and particularly
    disadvantaged farmers in the southern and western states, need relief
    from fire ants, but traditional baits and pesticides are too costly and
    require frequent application to manage the invader. In a survey of
    Texas cattle producers, an estimated $67 million per year in losses was
    due to fire ants. The ant also will kill chicks and adversely affects
    the yields of several important agricultural crops. The need for self-
    sustaining bio-control and a pesticide-reduced integrated pest
    management approach is critical. Besides being expensive, traditional
    chemical pest management strategies fail to provide sustained
    management of the pest without continuous re-applications of
    insecticides, which not only kill the imported fire ant but basically
    sterilize the sites of all living invertebrates, continuing the
    disruption of ecological balance originally upset by the invading fire
    ant. Because of wide-spectrum toxicity, adverse environmental impact
    and economic cost, chemical treatment strategies are not suitable for
    large tracts of land such as pastures in sustained management.
        The goal of the National Fire Ant Strategy is to develop customized
    regional management strategies to reduce the imported fire ant
    infestations to levels below economic thresholds on agricultural lands
    and large acreage tracts. Such is the case in South America, the native
    range of fire ants where populations are only 20 percent of those in
    the U.S. In fact, fire ants in that country are not generally
    considered a pest. A second purpose is to eliminate fire ants as a
    nuisance or health threat in local urban high-risk environments.
    Biologically-based technologies are a major component. A systematic
    approach will be developed to optimize integrated management strategies
    with biologically-based technologies as a major component. Coordination
    has occurred among Federal, State and private sectors to ensure that
    current and emerging technologies are evaluated for regional
    effectiveness, and that they are rapidly implemented.
        Through coordinated Federal, State and private sector efforts, the
    strategy includes the release and monitoring of candidate biocontrol
    organisms for regional comparisons, development of new biologically-
    based technologies and the subsequent ``fast tracking'' of the
    implementation of successful tools. With the use of the latest
    technology applications, customized regional, biologically based
    strategies will be developed. Precision targeting for maximum local
    elimination in high risk and high priority areas with existing bait or
    chemical technologies will be redefined. The final direction of the
    work plan strategy in accomplishing the objectives is to package the
    technologies and strategies for optimized integrated pest management.
        Biological methods for treatment of fire ants appears to be
    working! Two bio-control agents are now available with 25 remaining in
    South America with potential for reducing populations in the U.S. While
    it is exciting that we are finally making more progress on fire ants in
    the last few years than we have for the entire time that fire ants has
    plagued this country--it requires one key ingredient--adequate funding.
    Three years ago we began an effort to see increased funding. Based on
    the national strategy as developed, funding of $2 million would be
    needed on an annual basis to apply the strategy that shows so much
    promise and to ``fast track'' the results and technologically transfer
    that information to the private sector for application. The proposed
    increase of $900,000 above the current base restores lost positions and
    strengthens the program.
        We would strongly encourage you to provide the appropriate funding
    of $2 million annually to Gainesville by adding $900,00 to the ARS
    budget base for such a nationally biologically-based integrated
    management strategy that includes a partnership of both USDA-ARS, state
    land-grant universities, state legislatures and the private sector.
        Thank you again for this opportunity to submit testimony regarding
    the need for additional appropriations for fire ant research.
                                     ______

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

                               summary of request
        The Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
    Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO) seeks the Subcommittee's support
    for fiscal year 2002 loan levels for the telecommunications loans
    program and Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) program administered by the
    Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the following amounts:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    5 percent hardship loans..........................................    75
    Treasury rate loans...............................................   300
    Guaranteed loans..................................................   120
    RTB loans.........................................................   175

        In addition, OPASTCO requests the following action by the
    Subcommittee: (1) removal of the statutory 7 percent cap on Treasury
    rate loans for fiscal year 2002; (2) removal of previous appropriations
    act language limiting the retirement of Class A stock of the RTB to 5
    percent; (3) a prohibition on the transfer of unobligated RTB funds to
    the general fund of the Treasury; and (4) funding of the distance
    learning and telemedicine grant and loan program at sufficient levels.
                                    general
        OPASTCO is a national trade association of more than 500
    independently owned and operated telecommunications carriers serving
    rural areas of the United States. Its members, which include both
    commercial companies and cooperatives, together serve over 2.5 million
    customers in 42 states. Approximately half of OPASTCO's members are RUS
    or RTB borrowers.
        Perhaps at no time since the inception of the RUS (formerly the
    REA) has the telecommunications loans and RTB programs been so vital to
    the future of rural America. The telecommunications industry is at a
    crossroads, both in terms of technology and public policy. Advances in
    telecommunications technology in recent years will deliver on the
    promise of a new ``information age.'' The Federal Communications
    Commission's (FCC) ongoing implementation of the landmark
    Telecommunications Act of 1996, as well as modernization resulting from
    prior statutory changes to RUS's lending program, will expedite this
    transformation. However, without continued support of the
    telecommunications loans and RTB programs, rural telephone companies
    will be hard pressed to build the infrastructure necessary to bring
    their communities into this new age, creating a bifurcated society of
    information ``haves'' and ``have-nots.''
        Contrary to the belief of some critics, RUS's job is not finished.
    Actually, in a sense, it has just begun. We have entered a time when
    advanced services and technology--such as broadband fiber optics, high-
    speed packet and digital switching equipment, and digital subscriber
    line technology--are expected by customers in all areas of the country,
    both urban and rural. Unfortunately, the inherently higher costs of
    upgrading rural networks, both for voice and data communications, has
    not abated. Rural telecommunications continues to be more capital
    intensive and involves fewer paying customers than its urban
    counterpart. RUS borrowers average only 6.3 subscribers per route mile
    versus 130 subscribers per route mile for large local exchange
    carriers. In order for rural telephone companies to modernize their
    networks and provide their customers with advanced services at
    reasonable rates, they must have access to reliable low-cost financing.
        The relative isolation of rural areas increases the value of
    telecommunications services for these citizens. Telecommunications
    enables applications such as distance learning, telemedicine, and high-
    speed Internet connectivity that can alleviate or eliminate some rural
    disadvantages. Telecommunications can also make rural areas attractive
    for some businesses and result in revitalization of the rural economy.
    For example, businesses such as telemarketing and tourism can thrive in
    rural areas, and telecommuting can become a realistic employment
    option.
        While it has been said many times before, it bears repeating that
    RUS's telecommunications loans and RTB programs are not grant programs.
    The funds loaned by RUS are used to leverage substantial private
    capital, creating public/private partnerships. For a very small cost,
    the government is encouraging tremendous amounts of private investment
    in rural telecommunications infrastructure.
        Most importantly, the programs are tremendously successful.
    Borrowers actually build the infrastructure and the government gets
    paid back with interest. There has never been a default in the history
    of the telecommunications lending programs.
      the telecommunications act of 1996 has heightened the need for the
                   telecommunications loans and rtb programs
        The FCC's implementation of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 will
    only increase rural telecommunications carriers' need for RUS
    assistance in the future. The forward-looking Act defines universal
    service as an evolving level of telecommunications services that the
    FCC must establish periodically, taking into account advances in
    telecommunications and information technologies and services. As
    anticipated, in December 2000, the FCC convened a Federal-State Joint
    Board to begin reviewing the definition of the services supported by
    the universal service mechanism. While the competitive environment
    engendered by the 1996 Act may offer the means of meeting this evolving
    definition in urban areas, rural and high-cost areas have less
    potential for economically sound competitive alternatives. RUS has an
    essential role to play in the implementation of the law, as it will
    compliment new funding mechanisms established by the FCC and enable
    rural America to move closer to achieving the federally mandated goal
    of rural/urban service and rate comparability.
        At present, considerable regulatory uncertainty exists for rural
    telecommunications carriers as several critical FCC proceedings
    implementing the 1996 Act remain unresolved. These include fundamental
    changes to the universal service and access charge systems and the
    procedures incumbent carriers use to separate their costs between the
    Federal and State jurisdictions. In addition, uncertainty exists as to
    whether rural incumbent carriers will be able to recover the costs of
    the extensive additional regulatory obligations and potential broadband
    deployment demands placed on them. If these outstanding issues are
    resolved in a piecemeal fashion and/or with a strong bias toward new
    entrants, rural incumbent carriers with universal service obligations
    could be hampered in their ability to modernize their networks and
    provide quality, affordable service to all of their customers. Managed
    coordination of existing proceedings, as proposed in the Petition for
    Rulemaking of the LEC Multi-Association Group (MAG Plan, filed with the
    FCC Oct. 20, 2000), is necessary if the Commission is to preserve
    Congress's public policy goals of affordable rates and access to an
    evolving telecommunications network for all Americans. Adoption of the
    MAG Plan would ensure that all of the goals of the 1996 Act--including
    universal service, an even playing field for competition, and
    deregulation--are realized in rural areas.
        a $75 million loan level should be maintained for the 5 percent
                             hardship loan program
        One of the most vital components of RUS's telecommunications loans
    program is the 5 percent hardship loan program. These loans are
    referred to as hardship loans for good reason: They provide below-
    Treasury rate financing to telephone companies serving some of the most
    sparsely populated, highest cost areas in the country. The commitment
    these companies have to providing modern telecommunications service to
    everyone in their communities has made our nation's policy of universal
    service a reality and, in many cases, would not have been possible
    without RUS's hardship loan program. Companies applying for hardship
    loans must meet a stringent set of eligibility requirements and the
    projects to be financed are rated on a point system to ensure that the
    loans are targeted to the most needy and deserving. In fiscal year
    2001, the government subsidy needed to support a $75 million loan level
    was under $7.8 million. Given the necessity of this indispensable
    program, it is critical that the loan level be maintained at $75
    million for fiscal year 2002.
    removal of the 7 percent cap on treasury rate loans should be continued
        With regard to RUS's Treasury rate loan program, OPASTCO supports
    the removal of the 7 percent ceiling on these loans for fiscal year
    2002. This Subcommittee appropriately supported language in the fiscal
    year 1996 Agriculture Appropriations Act to permit Treasury rate loans
    to exceed the 7 percent per year ceiling contained in the authorizing
    act. The language has been continued in each subsequent year. Were
    long-term interest rates to exceed 7 percent, adequate subsidy would
    not be available to support the Treasury rate loan program at the
    authorized levels. Accordingly, OPASTCO supports the continuation of
    this language in the fiscal year 2002 appropriations bill in order to
    prevent potential disruption to this important program.
       a $175 million loan level should be maintained for the rtb program
        As previously discussed, the RTB's mission has not been completed
    as rural carriers continue to rely on this important source of
    supplemental financing in order to provide their communities with
    access to the next generation of telecommunications services that are
    essential for their survival. In fiscal year 2001, the government
    subsidy necessary to fund a $175 million loan level was only $2.59
    million, or 1.48 percent of the capital that the program generates. The
    ongoing need for the RTB program makes it essential that a $175 million
    loan level be maintained for fiscal year 2002.
    the 5 percent limitation on the amount of class a stock of the rtb that
                        can be retired should be removed
        OPASTCO believes it would be appropriate to remove or change the
    language contained in previous agriculture appropriations acts
    restricting the retirement of Class A stock of the RTB to 5 percent.
    This restriction is an impediment to the timely privatization of the
    RTB, as envisioned by the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. OPASTCO
    further suggests that Congress, the Administration, and the RTB Board
    of Directors develop a schedule and plan for privatizing the bank in a
    timely manner. OPASTCO believes that the timely privatization of the
    RTB is of great importance to rural telecommunications carriers as they
    seek to upgrade their networks for the provision of advanced services
    to their customers.
     the prohibition on the transfer of any unobligated balance of the rtb
       liquidating account to the treasury and requiring the payment of
                  interest on these funds should be continued
        OPASTCO urges the Subcommittee to reinstate the language introduced
    in the fiscal year 1997 Agriculture Appropriations Act, and continued
    in the years following, prohibiting the transfer of any unobligated
    balance of the RTB liquidating account to the Treasury or the Federal
    Financing Bank which is in excess of current requirements and requiring
    the payment of interest on these funds. As a condition of borrowing,
    the statutory language establishing the RTB requires telephone
    companies to purchase Class B stock in the bank. Once all loans are
    completely repaid, a borrower may then convert its Class B stock into
    Class C stock. Thus, all current and former borrowers maintain an
    ownership interest in the RTB. As with stockholders of any concern,
    these owners have rights which may not be abrogated. The Subcommittee's
    inclusion of the aforementioned language into the fiscal year 2002
    appropriations bill will ensure that RTB borrowers are not stripped of
    the value of this required investment.
     the distance learning and telemedicine program should continue to be
                           funded at adequate levels
        In addition to RUS's telecommunications loans and RTB programs,
    OPASTCO supports adequate funding of the distance learning and
    telemedicine grant and loan program. This sensible investment allows
    rural students to gain access to advanced classes which will help them
    prepare for college and jobs of the future. Also, rural residents will
    gain access to quality health care services without traveling great
    distances to urban hospitals. Loans are made at the government's cost-
    of-money, which should help to meet demand for the program in the most
    cost effective way. In light of the Telecommunications Act's
    requirement that schools, health care providers, and libraries have
    access to advanced telecommunications services, sufficient targeted
    funding for these purposes is essential in fiscal year 2002.
                                   conclusion
        The development of the nationwide telecommunications network into
    an information superhighway, as envisioned by policymakers, will help
    rural America survive and prosper in any market--whether local,
    regional, national, or global. However, without the availability of
    low-cost RUS funds, building the information superhighway in
    communities that are isolated and thinly populated will be untenable.
    By supporting the RUS telecommunications programs at the requested
    levels, the Subcommittee will be making a significant contribution to
    the future of rural America at a negligible cost to the taxpayer.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Red River Valley Association

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Wayne Dowd, and I
    am pleased to represent the Red River Valley Association as its
    President. Our organization was founded in 1925 with the express
    purpose of uniting the citizens of Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and
    Texas to develop the land and water resources of the Red River Basin.
        As an organization that knows the value of our precious water
    resources we support the most beneficial water and land conservation
    programs administered through the Natural Resources Conservation
    Service (MRCS). We understand how important a balanced budget is to our
    nation; however, we cannot sacrifice what has been accomplished. NRCS
    programs are a model of how conservation programs should be
    administered and our testimony will address the needs of the nation as
    well as our region. We strongly believe that this national program must
    be preserved.
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget guideline for USDA
    indicates a reduction of 8\1/4\ percent from fiscal year 2001. If you
    do not consider the emergency funds for fiscal year then the fiscal
    year 2002 appropriation is approximately a 3 percent increase; however,
    even this does not cover cost of living and inflation increases. This
    could mean NRCS programs will not be adequately funded, to the
    detriment of the agency and our natural resources. We would like to
    address several of the programs administered by NRCS. Failure to
    adequately fund these initiatives would reduce assistance to those who
    want it and the resources that need it.
        Conservation Operations Budget.--This has been in steady decline,
    in real dollars, over the past several years. It has occurred partly as
    a result of funds being reduced from Conservation Operations to balance
    increases in other conservation financial assistance programs.
    Approximately $620 million was allocated for this account in fiscal
    year 2001. This is far short of what is required to serve the needs of
    our nation's private lands. We request a total of $965 million be
    appropriated for Conservation Technical Assistance.
        Conservation Technical Assistance is the foundation of technical
    support and a sound, scientific delivery system for voluntary
    conservation to the private users and owners of lands in the United
    States. It is imperative that we provide assistance to all ``working
    lands'' not just those fortunate few who are able to get enrolled in
    programs. Working lands are not just crops and pasture (commodity
    staples) but includes forests, wildlife habitat and coastal marshes.
    The problem is that personnel funded from ``programs'' can only provide
    technical assistance to those enrolled in these cost share programs,
    leaving the majority of the agricultural community without technical
    assistance. We recommend that this funding for technical assistance be
    placed in ``Conservation Technical Assistance'', and allow NRCS to
    provide assistance to everyone.
        It also appears the emphasis has been to increase `command and
    control' enforcement and reduce voluntary, science based assistance.
    This is the wrong way to go. We encourage you to reverse this trend and
    allow our agricultural community to have access to technology for
    voluntary conservation, rather than be harassed by the constant threat
    of regulations and penalties for noncompliance.
        Section 11 Caps.--Another factor that seriously reduces the ability
    of NRCS to meet the considerable public demand for technical
    assistance, is the Section 11 cap and the transfer of funds from the
    Community Credit Corporation (CCC). The CCC funds NRCS technical
    assistance for several programs, including EQIP and CRP. Currently,
    this cap prevents NRCS from covering its staff costs for these crucial
    programs. We support the removal of the Section 11 Cap on technical
    assistance, which was established before EQIP, CRP and VW were created.
    We will also be addressing this issue in the ``Farm Bill'', as it
    develops.
        Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Law 566 & 534).--
    More than 10,400 individual watershed structures have been installed
    nationally. They have contributed greatly to conservation,
    environmental protection and enhancement, economic development and the
    social well being of our communities. More than half of these
    structures are over 30 years old and several hundred are approaching
    their 50-year life expectancy.
        Today you hear a lot about the watershed approach to resource
    management. These programs offer a complete watershed management
    approach and should continue for the following reasons:
      --They protect people and communities from flooding.
      --Their objectives and functions sustain our nation's natural
            resources for future operations.
      --They are required to have local partners and be cost shared.
      --The communities and NRCS share initiatives and decisions.
      --They follow NEPA guidelines and enhance the environment.
      --They often address the need of low income and minority communities.
      --The benefit to cost ratio for this program has been evaluated to be
            2.2:1.
        What other Federal programs can claim such success?
        There is no questioning the value of this program. The cost of
    losing this infrastructure exceeds the cost to reinvest in our existing
    watersheds. Without repairing and upgrading the safety of existing
    structures, we miss the opportunity to keep our communities alive and
    prosperous. It would be irresponsible to dismantle a program that has
    demonstrated such great return and is supported by our citizens.
        It was a great step forward to have the ``Lucas Bill'' passed last
    year, now adequate appropriations must be provided. A 1999 survey,
    conducted in 22 states, showed that 2,200 structures are in need of
    immediate rehabilitation at an estimated cost of $543 million. The
    funding level authorized in the bill is far short of this realistic
    need. We request that $5 million be appropriated for NRCS to conduct
    assessments of the rehabilitation needs nationwide. We request that 60
    million be appropriated to provide financial and technical assistance
    to those watershed projects where sponsors are prepared to commence
    rehabilitation measures.
        In addition to the needs for reinvesting in existing infrastructure
    there are many new projects, which are awaiting funds for construction.
    We strongly recommend that a funding level of 250 million be
    appropriated for the Public Law 534 ($30 million) and Public Law 566
    ($220 million) proprams. This is realistic and comparable to
    appropriations in years prior to 1994.
        Emergency Watershed Protection Program.--This program comes under
    Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, but is a separate line item.
    It has traditionally been a zero budget line item; however, there will
    always be emergency needs.
        As our land use expands to include sensitive environmental
    ecosystems, major weather events will have an adverse impact requiring
    NRCS assistance; therefore, it should be funded up front. It is
    important that NRCS is prepared for a rapid response, not waiting for
    legislative action. With funds available, they can respond immediately
    to an emergency when it occurs.
        We request that a minimum of $100 million be appropriated for this
    program in fiscal year 2002 and are not taken from elsewhere in the
    NRCS budget. In fiscal year 2000 $80 million was added and in fiscal
    year 2001 $110 million. It is inevitable that emergency funds will be
    required, so this should be included.
        Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).--This program, administered by
    Farm Services Agency, impacts NRCS the most. NRCS is reimbursed for
    providing technical assistance for this program. We understand the
    Administration is considering termination of this program since the
    original goals have been met. It restores the land to a higher and
    better use until such time as the nation may need it for food and fiber
    production. The environmental values gained from CRP should obviate the
    need and justify the investment of raising the CRP cap.
        We ask Congress to take the initiative to increase the CRP
    enrollment cap to a minimum of 45 million acres. This is an extremely
    beneficial program to both our nation and the Red River Valley, and
    should not be allowed to expire. It provides a safety net to those
    farmers trying to make a living on the marginal lands most suited for
    this program.
        Watershed Survey and Planning.--In fiscal year 2001 $11 million was
    appropriated to support this extremely important community program.
    NRCS has become a facilitator for the different community interest
    groups, state and Federal agencies. In our states such studies are
    helping identify resource needs and solutions where populations are
    encroaching into rural areas.
        As our municipalities expand, the water resource issue tends to be
    neglected until a serious problem occurs. Proper planning and
    cooperative efforts can prevent problems and insure that water resource
    issues are addressed. We request this program be funded at a level of
    $25 million.
        Forestry Incentives Program.--Congress transferred this program to
    NRCS from the Farm Service Agency as a restructuring in the Federal
    Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. Forestry on small,
    privately owned lands is recognized as a farming activity. NRCS is the
    best agency to administer this program, which assists farmers in
    production agriculture. It is more than just a timber production
    program. Forests are the most effective use of land as they relate to
    water quality, non-point source pollution, air quality, greenhouse gas
    reduction and wildlife habitat.
        We request Congress fund the Forestry Incentives Program at a level
    of $6.5 million for fiscal year 2002.
        Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP).--Request for
    assistance through the EQIP program has been overwhelming. Requests far
    exceed the available funds and place an additional workload on NRCS's
    delivery system. Additionally, adequate funding for technical
    assistance must be provided to administer the program at a minimum of
    19 percent of total program cost.
        The EQIP program for fiscal year 2002 should be appropriated $300
    million and the technical assistance budgeted at $57 million to meet
    the 19 percent TA level.
        Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).--This is a very popular and
    important program. It serves as a safety net to those farmers trying to
    make a living on marginal lands. It also addresses a variety of
    conservation needs, from water quality to global warming.
        We strongly recommend that the cap be raised by 250,000 acres for
    fiscal year 2002. This will allow the program to continue until fiscal
    year 2003 when a reauthorization for the program can be made.
        ``Red Bayou Irrigation Demonstration Project''.--Findings in the
    Natural Resources Inventory (NRI) have concluded that irrigated
    agriculture is moving from western states to the east. A prime example
    of this is the interest to irrigate along the Red River in Arkansas and
    Louisiana. The recent drought conditions have accelerated the efforts
    of different regions to form irrigation districts and start the process
    to install systems. The farmers along Red Bayou, Caddo Parish,
    Louisiana, have been very aggressive in their attempts to become
    operational. We request that this project be ``earmarked'' as a
    demonstration project to be used as a model throughout the Red River
    Valley. When the cost for this irrigation system has been determined
    and the irrigation district formed, we will request maximum Federal
    participation for the funding of this endeavor.
        Over 70 percent of our land is privately owned. This is important
    in order to understand the need for NRCS programs and technical
    assistance. Their presence is vital to ensuring sound technical
    standards are met in conservation. These programs not only address
    agricultural production, but sound natural resource management. Without
    these programs and NRCS properly staffed to implement them, many
    private landowners will not apply conservation measures needed to
    sustain our natural resources for fixture generations.
        There have been new clean water initiatives, but why do we ignore
    the agency that has a proven record for implementing watershed
    conservation programs? Congress must decide: will NRCS continue to
    provide the leadership within our communities to build upon the
    partnerships already established? It is up to Congress to insure NRCS
    is properly funded and staffed to provide the needed assistance to our
    taxpayers for conservation programs. Funding Conservation Technical
    Assistance at $965 million and eliminating the Section 11 Caps will go
    a long way in accomplishing this.
        All these programs apply to the citizens in the Red River Valley
    and their future is our concern. The RRVA is dedicated to work toward
    the programs that will benefit our citizens and provide for high
    quality of life standards. We therefore request that you appropriate
    the requested funding within these individual programs, to insure our
    nation's conservation needs are met.
        I thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on behalf
    of the members of the Red River Valley Association and we pledge our
    support to assist you in the appropriation process.
        Grant Disclosure.--The Red River Valley Association has not
    received any Federal grant, sub-grant or contract during the current
    fiscal year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Seminole Tribe of Florida

        The Seminole Tribe of Florida is pleased to submit this statement
    regarding the fiscal year 2002 budget for the Natural Resources
    Conservation Service (NRCS) in the Department of Agriculture.
        The Seminole Tribe of Florida asks that Congress earmark a total of
    $400,000 in the Natural Resources Conservation Service's (NRCS) account
    that funds the Small Watershed Program, as authorized by Public Law 83-
    566, for design and construction of a portion of the Tribe's Water
    Conservation Plan on the Big Cypress Reservation. The Tribe requests
    $300,000 for financial assistance for construction and $100,000 for
    technical assistance (08 funds) for operational planning. The Tribe has
    worked with the NRCS in Florida for five years to develop this small
    watershed project as a part of the Tribe's overall Everglades
    Restoration Initiative. The results of this small watershed project
    will complement the joint effort of the Tribe and the Corps of
    Engineers to complete the Initiative. This is the first year in which
    the Tribe has requested funding for this project.
        In addition, the Tribe supports full funding for NRCS's
    Conservation Operations--01 Partnership. The Seminole Tribe's
    agricultural enterprises and environmental programs benefit from the
    technical assistance the NRCS provides through its Conservation
    Operations Partnership. The Tribe works closely with the Florida State
    Conservationists on a number of 1996 Farm Bill programs and anticipates
    increased technical assistance needs in the coming fiscal year.
                         the seminole tribe of florida
        The Seminole Tribe lives in the Florida Everglades. The Big Cypress
    Reservation is located in the western basins, directly north of the Big
    Cypress National Preserve. The Everglades provide many Seminole Tribal
    members with their livelihood. Our traditional Seminole cultural,
    religious, and recreational activities, as well as commercial
    endeavors, are dependent on a healthy Everglades ecosystem. In fact,
    the Tribe's identity is so closely linked to the land that Tribal
    members believe that if the land dies, so will the Tribe.
        During the Seminole Wars of the 19th Century, our Tribe found
    protection in the hostile Everglades. But for this harsh environment
    filled with sawgrass and alligators, the Seminole Tribe of Florida
    would not exist today. Once in the Everglades, we learned how to use
    the natural system for support without harm to the environment that
    sustained us. For example, our native dwelling, the chickee, is made of
    cypress logs and palmetto fronds and protects its inhabitants from the
    sun and rain, while allowing maximum circulation for cooling. When a
    chickee has outlived its useful life, the cypress and palmetto return
    to the earth to nourish the soil.
        In response to social challenges within the Tribe, we looked to our
    Tribal elders for guidance. Our elders taught us to look to the land,
    for when the land was ill, the Tribe would soon be ill as well. When we
    looked at the land, we saw the Everglades in decline and recognized
    that we had to help mitigate the impacts of man on this natural system.
    At the same time, we acknowledged that this land must sustain our
    people, and thereby our culture. The clear message we heard from our
    elders and the land was that we must design a way of life to preserve
    the land and the Tribe. Tribal members must be able to work and sustain
    themselves. We need to protect the land and the animals, but we must
    also protect our Tribal farmers and ranchers.
        Recognizing the needs of our land and our people, the Tribe, along
    with our consultants, designed a plan to mitigate the harm to the land
    and water systems within the Reservation while ensuring a sustainable
    future for the Seminole Tribe of Florida. The restoration plan will
    allow Tribal members to continue their farming and ranching activities
    while improving water quality and restoring natural hydroperiod to
    large portions of the native lands on the Reservation and ultimately,
    positively effecting the Big Cypress National Preserve and Everglades
    National Park.
        The Seminole Tribe's Big Cypress Initiative addresses the
    environmental degradation wrought by decades of Federal flood control
    construction and polluted urban and agricultural runoff. The
    interrupted sheet flow and hydroperiod have stressed native species and
    encouraged the spread of exotic species. Nutrient-laden runoff has
    supported the rapid spread of cattails, which choke out the periphyton
    algae mat and sawgrass necessary for the success of the wet/dry cycle
    that supports the wildlife of the Everglades.
        The Seminole Tribe designed an Everglades Restoration Initiative to
    allow the Tribe to sustain ourselves while reducing impacts on the
    ecosystem. The Seminole Tribe is committed to improving the water
    quality and flows on the Big Cypress Reservation. We have already
    committed significant resources to the design of the projects and to
    our water quality data collection and monitoring system. Within the
    next few months, the Tribe will begin construction on the conveyance
    system that will serve as the backbone to Big Cypress water control
    system. We are willing to continue our efforts and commitment of
    resources, for our cultural survival is at stake.
                     small watershed project on big cypress
        As a part of the Tribe's Everglades Restoration Initiative, the
    Tribe completed a water conservation plan for the design and
    construction of surface water management systems to remove phosphorus,
    convey and store irrigation water, improve flood control, and rehydrate
    the Big Cypress National Preserve. This water conservation plan has
    been permitted for construction under the Clean Water Act Section 404
    program.
         Through the Corps of Engineers (COE) critical project program
    authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, the Tribe is
    building part of that water conservation plan. The first phase of the
    critical project is to construct a conveyance canal system that will
    supplement and improve the existing system. The balance of the critical
    project will construct water storage and treatment areas on the east-
    side of the Reservation.
        Over the last five years, the Tribe has enjoyed the support of the
    Florida State Conservationist and the Florida staff of the NRCS in the
    development of a small watershed project to address some needs
    identified in the water conservation plan. While some preliminary
    planning has been completed, an existing funding commitment prevented
    commencement of the small watershed project until fiscal year 2002. In
    fiscal year 2002, both the Tribe and the NRCS in Florida are prepared
    to begin design and construction of water storage and treatment areas
    on the west-side of the Reservation. To do so, Congress must
    appropriate the initial funding.
        While all the project component options have not been fully vetted,
    the cost estimates range from downward from $34.6 million. This project
    is approved to operate with a 75 percent Federal and 25 percent Tribal
    cost share. The timing of the design and construction are dependent on
    the funding stream.
                                   conclusion
        Everglades restoration is a well-recognized national priority. The
    Tribe's goal of sustainable agriculture is consistent with the goals of
    the NRCS. The NRCS's support of the Tribe's conservation measures in
    the past, along with the implementation of future programs, will make a
    significant impact on the Big Cypress Reservation and the South Florida
    Ecosystem.
        Through its assistance to the Tribe, NRCS has provided valuable
    technical assistance to date. Beginning in fiscal year 1999, NRCS has
    provided programmatic support through EQIP and WRP, which is
    anticipated to continue. Additional programmatic assistance through the
    small watershed program will provide the needed design and construction
    to complete the water conservation plan None of the joint objectives of
    the Tribe and the NRCS can be accomplished, however, without sufficient
    funding.
        The Tribe has demonstrated its economic commitment to the
    Everglades Restoration effort; the Tribe is asking the Federal
    government to also participate in that effort. This effort benefits not
    just the Seminole Tribe, but all Floridians who depend on a reliable
    supply of clean, fresh water flowing out of the Everglades, and all
    Americans whose lives are enriched by this unique national treasure.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present the request of the
    Seminole Tribe of Florida. The Tribe will provide additional
    information upon request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation

        We appreciate the support this Subcommittee has provided to these
    programs of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
    respectfully request the following modest appropriations to ensure the
    protection of animals and people and that the laws passed by Congress
    are being carried out effectively.
        A $14.5 Million Appropriation is Needed for APHIS/Animal Care's
    Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act
        A coalition of organizations including the American Veterinary
    Medical Association, the American Zoo and Aquarium Association and the
    Society for Animal Protective Legislation has joined together seeking
    adequate funds for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). This
    represents a unique meeting of the minds between the regulated
    community and the animal welfare community, who recognize the desperate
    need for increased funding for this vital program.
        The AWA is the chief Federal law for the protection of animals. The
    USDA seeks compliance with its minimum standards for the care and
    treatment of animals during transportation and at the approximately
    10,000 sites of dealers, research, testing and teaching facilities,
    zoos, circuses, carriers (airlines, motor freight lines and other
    shipping businesses) and handlers (ground freight handlers).
        Forty-two percent of the facilities that are inspected by USDA are
    found to be noncompliant. Facilities with serious deficiencies require
    reinspections to ensure that corrective action is taken, but lack of
    funds has prevented USDA from conducting this much-needed follow-up.
        In 1966 the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (later renamed the Animal
    Welfare Act) was adopted in an effort to prevent the sale of lost or
    stolen pets into research. Nevertheless, this has continued to be a
    serious problem. In an attempt to address this problem in the 1990s,
    APHIS Animal Care (AC) instituted a policy of conducting quarterly
    inspections of random source dealers. Since stepping up its enforcement
    in this area (which has come at the expense of inspections conducted
    elsewhere), USDA has revoked 11 dealer licenses and imposed more than
    $500,000 in fines. The number of random source (USDA licensed Class B)
    dealers supply dogs and cats to research has dropped from 104 to 23.
        This example illustrates the value of frequent, unannounced
    inspection of licensees and registrants. Increasing the number of
    inspections will ensure effective compliance with the law. Facilities
    need to comply with the minimum standards under the law, or they should
    not be operating businesses that involve the use of animals under the
    AWA.
        The 1985 amendment to the AWA mandates at least one inspection per
    year of all registered research facilities. A vigorous inspection
    program is critical to maintaining public confidence in the quality of
    research and ensuring the humane treatment of experimental animals.
    With the need to evaluate performance, as well as engineering,
    standards, each inspection is timeconsuming and necessitates skilled
    veterinary inspectors.
        Increased funding will permit AC to hire and equip more inspectors,
    and thereby increase the number of facilities that are inspected.
    Additional training of inspectors to improve the quality of their
    inspections will be possible, too. AC will be able to increase its
    searches for unlicensed facilities, an important effort because failure
    to obtain licensure is a widespread problem with many entities
    purposefully evading AC and the requirements of the AWA. An area
    frequently ignored for lack of sufficient funds has been inspection of
    airlines. Increased funding will permit AC to conduct an adequate
    number of inspections of airlines in an effort to protect against the
    injury, loss or death of animals being transported by air and to help
    meet the requirements of the recently adopted Federal Aviation
    Administration amendment for safe transport of animals by air.
        An Appropriation of $7.263 is needed for APHIS' Investigative and
    Enforcement Services.
        Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES), the enforcement arm
    within APHIS, is responsible for conducting investigations, tracking
    unresolved cases, coordinating investigations within APHIS and between
    APHIS and other Federal and/or state agencies and train APHIS
    inspectors in the collection of evidence and documentation of
    violations. IES provides support to AC and to three other APHIS
    programs.
        An increased appropriation is needed for IES to provide timely and
    complete investigations of alleged AWA violations. A $1 million
    increase will enable IES to fill a critical vacancy for an enforcement
    specialist and to continue to support four field investigators, now
    temporarily funded by the APHIS Administrator. IES would also fill four
    new field positions strategically located in the states with the
    greatest need. Additional funds to IES will: permit deployment of
    ``quickresponse'' teams to address high-priority/visibility violations,
    permit implementation of an electronic case report format to accelerate
    case routing and processing, reduce the time to complete
    investigations, and allow investigators to accompany AC inspectors to
    noncompliant facilities when necessary.
        A $1 Million Appropriation is needed for the Animal Welfare
    Information Center with a cap of 5 percent to Agriculture Research
    Services and/or the National Agricultural Library.
        The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) was established by the
    1985 amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, the Improved Standards for
    Laboratory Animals Act, to serve as a clearinghouse and educational
    resource of information on alleviating or reducing pain and distress in
    experimental animals (including anesthetic and analgesic procedures),
    reducing the number of animals who must be used for research and
    identifying alternatives to the use of animals for specific research
    projects.
        AWIC is the single most important resource for educating research
    facility personnel on their responsibilities under the AWA. There are
    more than 1,200 registered research facilities nationwide, and the
    services of the AWIC are available to all individuals at these
    institutions including the members of the Institutional Animal Care and
    Use Committees.
        The AWIC staff, four full-time professionals, one technician and
    two part-time professionals, respond to requests for information on
    topics covered by the AWA including alternatives to painful procedures,
    unproved methodologies, training, environmental enrichment for nonhuman
    primates, and checking for unintended duplication. The staff conducts
    training, present at meetings, exhibit at conferences, produce
    documents, maintain a website and work on special projects.
        The AWIC website (http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic), which receives
    approximately 45,000 hits per month, is a growing medium of information
    dissemination that needs to be expanded and updated. Annually the AWIC
    staff fills about 20,000 requests for specific publications and has
    provided reference services in response to more than 1,500 requests.
        The AWIC appropriation has remained at $750,000 since it
    establishment 15 years ago, and over time this has increasingly
    restricted the services that AWIC is able to provide. In addition, the
    National Agricultural Library (NAL) and the Agriculture Research
    Service (ARS) have been collecting ``overhead'' from AWIC, leaving the
    Center with a mere $365,000 to operate-less than half of their
    appropriation! This siphoning off of AWIC's resources warrants an
    inquiry. A cap on monies provided to ARS and NAL is needed.
        Additional funds will permit AWIC to sponsor workshops in different
    regions of the country and to develop web-based interactive training
    modules to educate the regulated community and thereby increase
    compliance with the Animal Welfare Act. The website would be expanded
    with additional material and an updated search engine to maximize the
    data available and the efficiency of obtaining it.
        A $500 thousand Appropriation is needed for APHIS/Animal Care's
    Enforcement of the Horse Protection Act
        Congress adopted the Horse Protection Act (HPA) more than 30 years
    ago yet soring of Tennessee Walking Horses continues to be a widespread
    problem. Soring is defined by APHIS as ``the application of any
    chemical or mechanical agent used on any limb of a horse or any
    practice inflicted upon the horse that can be expected to cause it
    physical pain or distress when moving.'' Horses are sored to produce an
    exaggerated gait.
        The most effective method of reducing the showing of horses who
    have been sored is to have Animal Care (AC) inspectors present at the
    shows. AC has been restricted to attending about 10 percent of horse
    shows because of insufficient funds. Unless funding is provided to
    enable AC to attend more events, the industry will continue to defy the
    law with impunity. Certain members of the Walking Horse industry with a
    careless disregard for the HPA have utilized a variety of strategies to
    prevent fair and proper enforcement of this law. The current effort to
    undermine the law is to deny inspectors the ability to use digital
    palpation of the pastern to determine soreness in horses. Use of
    digital palpation, an accepted veterinary diagnostic technique, is
    vital to AC's ability to enforce the law.
        Lack of financial support has made it necessary for AC to rely
    heavily on the industry to assume responsibility for enforcement of the
    law. This is the same industry that has turned a blind eye to
    compliance with the law since 1970! ``Designated Qualified Persons''
    (DQPs) are the ``inspectors'' from industry who are supposed to assist
    AC in identifying sore horses and pursuing action against the
    individuals who are responsible. The history of DQPs reveals their
    failure to achieve the level of enforcement of the unbiased, well-
    trained, professional AC inspectors. The gap is widening between the
    enforcement when AC inspectors are present versus the level of
    enforcement by unsupervised DQPs, clearly demonstrating the abysmal
    failure of the industry to regulate itself. For example, in fiscal year
    1999 the rate at which DQPs turned down horses for soring was .44
    percent. The turndown rate more than tripled to 1.49 percent when
    government inspectors were present to oversee the activities of the
    DQPs. The record was still worse for certain Horse Industry
    Organizations like the Kentucky Walking Horse Association; there was a
    nearly 12-fold increase in horses who were turned down for soring when
    AC inspectors were present as compared to when DQPs were unsupervised!
        We respectfully request that the Subcommittee resist all efforts by
    the industry to restrict AC's ability to enforce the Horse Protection
    Act. An increase in appropriations to $500,000 would permit AC to
    attend a greater percentage of horse shows, thereby ensuring
    significantly stronger compliance with the HPA.
        A $16.2 Million Appropriation is needed for Wildlife Services' Oral
    Vaccine Effort Against Rabies.
        Wildlife Services (WS) has been involved in a wildlife rabies
    vaccine program which uses treated baits in an effort to curb the
    spread of rabies. An appropriation of $16.2 million is needed to
    continue the expansion of regional barriers. Resources'should be
    maximized to address the rabies threat. We encourage that full funding
    be provided for this critical effort: $7.8 million through legislative
    appropriations and $8.4 million through the Commodity Credit
    Corporation. These funds will be used to assist participating states
    by: (1) continuing the vaccination program in Texas to control and
    eliminate gray fox rabies, while maintaining an effective barrier to
    prevent the reintroduction of canine rabies in coyotes, (2) maintaining
    the vaccination barrier in Ohio and West Virginia to keep raccoon
    rabies from advancing along the Ohio River Valley, (3) increasing
    existing vaccination barrier zones and establishing new critical
    barriers in the New England States and New York State to contain
    raccoon rabies and to establish raccoon rabies-free areas in the
    northeastern United States, with the ultimate goal of merging regional
    programs in Ohio and New York State, and (4) establishing a regional
    vaccination barrier program in the Southeastern United States to
    prevent the westward spread of raccoon rabies through Alabama and
    Louisiana.
        Congress needs to provide increased Oversight of Wildlife Services'
    Operations and Research.
        Wildlife Services (WS) needs to utilize a variety of tools for
    management of wildlife under its purview. However, it is essential that
    these tools are effective and publicly acceptable.
        WS needs to begin a phase out of steel jaw leghold traps. Leghold
    traps slam shut with bonecrushing force on the limbs of their victims,
    tearing ligaments and tendons, severing toes and causing excruciating
    pain. These traps, opposed by the vast majority of Americans, have been
    condemned as ``inhumane'' by the American Veterinary Medical
    Association, the American Animal Hospital Association and the World
    Veterinary Association. On December 11, 1997, the U.S. Government
    reached an ``understanding'' with the European Union in which the U.S.
    agreed to phase out use of ``conventional steel jawed leghold
    restraining traps.'' WS has the responsibility of complying with the
    U.S. obligation by ending its use of these barbaric devices.
        WS should begin by immediately prohibiting use of leghold traps for
    3 species for which there is extensive documentation that effective,
    publicly acceptable, less cruel alternatives exist. These species are
    raccoon, beaver and opossum. While we believe that this policy should
    extend to all species, there is no justification for refusing to
    implement this modest step in alleviating unnecessary animal suffering
    at once.
        WS should pursue no further testing of leghold traps as this would
    be an extremely wasteful use of taxpayer money and cause unnecessary
    animal cruelty. Previously, funds designated for trap research were
    merely passed on to a nongovernmental organization to utilize as it saw
    fit, without involvement and oversight from WS. If funds are allocated
    for trap testing, WS should conduct the research since the agency has
    the appropriate technical expertise.
        Further, WS should adopt a policy of checking all restraining traps
    within a 24-hour period. A wealth of scientific studies documents the
    fact that the longer an animal is in a restraining trap, the greater
    the injury. For this reason, the majority of states have a daily trap
    check requirement. Animals should not be subjected to long-drawn out
    pain because of a failure to assume the responsibility of carefully
    checking traps every day. This policy will help reduce the trauma
    experienced by non-target animals, too, ensuring that more of these
    animals will be able to be released alive.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Texas A&M University System

        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am Ed Hiler, Vice
    Chancellor for Agriculture and Life Sciences in The Texas A&M
    University System. I appreciate the opportunity to describe a few
    exciting research projects we have underway, and to ask for your
    support for continued Federal funding. New technology is the life blood
    of American agriculture. With the 1996 Farm Bill and resulting phase
    down in Federal farm programs, it is imperative that research continues
    providing a technological underpinning for agriculture. Today, I will
    briefly describe several examples of how we can provide this
    underpinning to benefit both agriculture and consumers.
     developing fruits, vegetables and other food plants for prevention of
                           life-threatening diseases
        I want to begin by describing an exciting research area that is
    joint between agriculture and medicine. Diet- related diseases--certain
    kinds of cancer, heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, and diabetes
    mellitus--are leading causes of two-thirds of the 2 million deaths that
    occur in the United States each year. These diseases also have long
    term costs associated with lost productivity and disease treatment.
    Scientists are identifying plant ``phytochemicals'' in food plants that
    prevent these diseases. Plant breeders, biochemists, and
    biotechnologists are working to increase levels of the compounds
    through conventional breeding and new molecular techniques. Our
    objectives seek to reduce the risk of, or to slow or even prevent
    diseases such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and atherosclerosis.
    Researchers at the Texas A&M Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center,
    Institute of Food Science and Engineering, and the Borlaug Crop
    Biotechnology Center will work with fruit and vegetable producers,
    seeds producers, and food processors to develop commercially viable
    products available for all Americans. Scientists at the Texas A&M
    University-Kingsville Citrus Center, University of Texas Southwest
    Medical Center in Dallas, Texas A&M University Health Science Center,
    Baylor College of Dentistry, and South Carolina Cancer Center within
    the University of South Carolina will cooperate in designing improved
    food crops for prevention of diseases. Consumers, health care
    providers, farmers, and government will benefit from the production,
    consumption, and health effects of producing and consuming these
    improved plants. We are requesting increased funding for this important
    continuing project at $2,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
    pollutants, odor, and dust from concentrated animal feeding operations
                          in the southern high plains
        The semiarid western United States of Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma and
    New Mexico produce over one-third nationally of beef and dairy cattle
    fed in confinement. The region likewise has experienced explosive
    growth of the dairy industry and large scale, multiple-site swine
    feeding operations. This industry growth has intensified public concern
    about effects of air pollution (noxious gases, odors and dust events)
    from these Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs. To address
    public concern, the Texas A&M University System and Kansas State
    University propose to establish a national program for research and
    technology transfer of methodologies that agricultural producers,
    processors, and managers of CAFOs can use to economically comply with
    air pollution regulations mandated by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA)
    and required by State Air Pollution Regulatory Agencies (SAPRAs). The
    goal of this initiative will be a reduction of public exposure of
    pollutants from agricultural operations while minimizing the economic
    burden on managers of agricultural operations. We are requesting
    funding for this project at $1,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
        increasing food safety through advanced molecular technologies ]
        Food safety is among the greatest concerns of the public,
    particularly safety of the nation's supply of meats, fruits, and
    vegetables. Foods contaminated with animal wastes and other sources of
    bacterial pathogens annually cause millions of illnesses and thousands
    of deaths. In this initiative, we are seeking appropriations to develop
    and test the application of advanced molecular technologies for
    enhancing the safety of the nation's food supply. New and rapidly
    advancing molecular technologies promise to make possible the early and
    economical tracking and investigation of such pathogens. They also will
    significantly increase our ability to determine sources of outbreaks
    and to anticipate the effects of food production and processing
    practices on the ability of these organisms to cause disease. The Texas
    and Iowa Agricultural Experiment Stations and Texas Tech University
    propose cooperative public-private research needed to put such
    technologies in place throughout the nation and the world. The
    requested resources will strengthen coordination among Iowa State
    University, the Institute of Food Science and Engineering at Texas A&M
    University, and The Center for Research on Animal Production Issues at
    Texas Tech University. We estimate that implementing this initiative
    will begin a process that reduces numbers of medical cases associated
    with food borne pathogens by 210,000 and the numbers of deaths by 380.
    We are requesting funding for this project at $1,250,000 for fiscal
    year 2002.
     protecting u.s. agriculture from bio-terrorism and exotic bio-invaders
        Bio-terrorism is a significant threat to the U.S. agricultural
    system and the U.S. food supply. The threat of biological weapons
    during the Gulf War, the planned use of chemical and biological agents
    by terrorists in Japan's subways, and a deeper understanding of the
    former USSR's bio-weapons program, underscores the potential threat of
    bio-terrorism to the U.S. population, its food supply, and the entire
    U.S. agricultural system. Genetically engineered bio-agents greatly
    expands the list of naturally occurring biological invaders and
    underscores the importance of early detection of bio-agents introduced
    into the U.S. from other parts of the world. An integrated system for
    protecting U.S. agriculture and its food supply against the threat of
    bioterrorism is recognized as an increasingly high priority addition to
    similar systems for protecting humans and cyberspace. The system will
    also work for natural or accidental outbreaks of animal and plant
    disease resulting from introduction of exotic bio-agents. The proposed
    agricultural bio-security system will include a surveillance network
    using GPS and satellite imaging technology, field and laboratory based
    diagnostic capacity deploying DNA-chip technology to identify and
    characterize bio-agents, and a geo-referenced information system for
    predicting and tracking the spread of bio-agent after introduction. The
    system will include means to support intervention and mitigation
    following attack. We will develop the system in partnership with the
    USDA's Agricultural Research Service, other universities, and the
    private sector. We are requesting funding for this project at
    $7,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
        The next few initiatives are collaborative efforts that are
    currently funded. This funding is greatly appreciated. My purpose in
    commenting on each initiative is to urge their continued funding in
    this next fiscal year.
      efficient irrigation for water conservation in the rio grande basin
        Recent drought conditions in the border region of the Rio Grande
    Basin highlight the importance of ample water resources for the
    region's economy and environment. More efficient agricultural and urban
    irrigation systems can conserve large amounts of water that can be used
    for other purposes. The objective of this two- state initiative is to
    increase the efficiency of agricultural and urban landscape irrigation
    and encourage development of efficient water markets in the basin. We
    are requesting continued funding for this project at $3,750,000 for
    fiscal year 2002.
                             animal fiber research
        We seek appropriations to continue wool, mohair and cashmere
    research that will stabilize and increase the profitability of the
    sheep, Angora, and cashmere goat industries in the United States and
    Texas while providing U.S. consumers with high quality animal fibers at
    internationally competitive prices. In this three- state initiative,
    emphasis will be placed on the development and expanded use of
    objective fiber measurements in the areas of nutrition, management,
    selection, harvesting, and marketing. We are requesting funding for
    this project at $300,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                   farm-level impacts of agricultural policy
        We need continued funding to conduct agricultural policy research
    that directly supports congressional committees involved in setting
    agricultural policy. This two-state research activity emphasizes the
    regional and farm-level effects of alternative agricultural policies on
    crop producers. Monitoring performance at the farm level continues to
    be particularly critical as government explores its role in providing
    an income safety net for American agriculture. We are requesting
    funding for this project at $750,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                      livestock and dairy policy analysis
        We need funds to allow Texas A&M University and Cornell University
    to conduct agricultural policy research on the livestock and dairy
    industries that will assist congressional committees in developing new
    legislation for agricultural programs. We will analyze legislative
    options to determine policy impacts on various sectors of the
    agricultural economy, markets and land prices. Monitoring the
    performance of the dairy sector at the farm level will be particularly
    critical at a time of regulatory dairy policy reform mandated by the
    1996 Farm Bill and government roles in providing an income safety net
    for American agriculture. We are requesting funding for this project at
    $925,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                       center for north american studies
        This two-state funding initiative, which has received continual
    support from Congress since fiscal year 1994, would continue and expand
    the programs of the Center for North American Studies headquartered in
    The Texas A&M University System. The Center provides leadership for the
    promotion of stronger agricultural relationships among Canada, Mexico
    and the United States through cooperative study, research, policy
    analysis and training. We are requesting funding for this project at
    $925,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                          shrimp aquaculture research
        Federal support is needed to maintain continued funding for ongoing
    efforts and to expand programs of the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming
    Program (USMSFP). This program, currently funded by the USDA/
    Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service (CSREES)
    through the Oceanic Institute in Hawaii and the Gulf Coast Research
    Laboratory Consortium as based in the Texas Agricultural Experiment
    Station and The Texas A&M University System Agriculture Program. We are
    requesting funding for this project at $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
           international goat research at prairie view a&m university
        Congressional funds are sought to continue the effort supporting
    dairy and meat goat research at the International Goat Research Center
    at Prairie View A&M University, a member of The Texas A&M University
    System. We are requesting funding for this project at $750,000 for
    fiscal year 2002.
        new products from rangelands at texas a&m university-kingsville
        Congressional funds are sought to continue research efforts to
    support the commercialization of new industrial and food crops from
    native plants--such as cacti and mesquite--from arid lands, greatly
    benefitting Americans who live in the southwestern United States. We
    are requesting funding for this project at $120,000 for fiscal year
    2002.
            southern plains cotton research and education consortium
        The cotton industry in the Southern Plains is under unprecedented
    stress from declining prices due to strong global competition, improved
    boll weevil management, and increased cotton acreage in the
    southeastern U. S. An agricultural research and education consortium
    composed of Texas Tech University, the Texas Agricultural Experiment
    Station, the Texas Agricultural Extension Service, and USDA
    Agricultural Research Service has been formed to address these
    challenges in the Southern Plains. The consortium proposes to initiate
    a five-year, $27.5 million program to increase profits of Southern
    Plains cotton farmers and processors. The effort will accomplish its
    goal by developing and disseminating improved cotton germplasm, crop
    management practices, pest control programs, textile processing
    technologies, and marketing programs. We are requesting funding for
    this project at $5,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
               agriculture and the environment--landscape issues
        The focus of the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research
    is on agriculture and the environment. Funding for this initiative will
    be used to continue development of (1) conceptual approaches that can
    be used to resolve environmental problems in agriculture while
    maintaining the competitiveness of the industry, (2) modeling tools
    that analyze policy alternatives to determine their effectiveness in
    achieving environmental objectives and their economic impacts on the
    targeted industry, and (3) implications of smart growth initiatives on
    production agriculture. We are requesting funding for this project from
    USDA at $1,500,000 for fiscal year 2002.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the U.S. Apple Association

        The U.S. Apple Association (USApple) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide this testimony on behalf of our nation's apple industry.
        Our testimony will focus on the following three areas: the Market
    Access Program (MAP); Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)
    implementation; and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) funding.
        USApple is the national trade association representing all segments
    of the apple industry. Members include 40 state and regional apple
    associations representing the 9,000 apple growers throughout the
    country as well as more than 500 individual firms involved in the apple
    business. Our mission is to provide the means for all segments of the
    U.S. apple industry to join in appropriate collective efforts to
    profitably produce and market apples and apple products.
        Assistance for Apple Growers.--USApple urges Congress to provide
    apple growers with fair and equitable inclusion in any farm relief
    program that may help apple growers survive the current devastating
    economic crisis.
        Apple growers lost an estimated $760 million between 1995 and 1998
    due to unfairly priced imports of apple juice concentrate, adverse
    weather conditions, continuing retail consolidation and rising
    regulatory costs among other factors beyond their control. Current
    apple prices, which are as much as 40 percent below grower production
    costs, are pushing apple growers deeper into financial crisis.
        Congress provided $100 million in market loss assistance and $38
    million in crop loss assistance for apple growers as part of the fiscal
    2001 Agricultural Appropriations act (Public Law 106-387). It provides
    Commodity Credit Corporation funds to compensate apple growers for
    recent devastating market and crop losses. However, this assistance is
    not adequate to sustain America's apple growers through the current
    economic crisis.
        Market Access Program (MAP).--USApple strongly supports increasing
    the annual appropriation for MAP from $90 million to $200 million.
        All segments of the U.S. apple industry benefit directly from the
    use of export promotion funds, which increase export demand. In fiscal
    year 2001, the apple industry received approximately $3 million in MAP
    export-development funds. These funds are matched by grower funds, and
    are used to promote apples in more than 20 countries throughout the
    world. Since 1987, when the apple industry first utilized MAP funds,
    apple exports have increased by 49 percent.
        The U.S. apple industry faces keen competition around the globe
    from competitors who receive significant government funds for generic
    promotions. The governments of our foreign competitors spend
    approximately $500 million on export promotion and market development.
    It has become increasingly difficult for U.S. exporters to compete with
    European and Chinese producers who receive massive government
    assistance. Increased funding for this critical program will assist
    U.S. apple producers to better compete and revive export demand in
    countries recently hit by adverse economic conditions.
        Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Implementation.--USApple
    strongly supports full funding for the following programs intended to
    facilitate fair FQPA implementation and to offset its anticipated
    negative impact on apple growers.
        Specifically, USApple supports the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
    following budget requests.
      --$20 million for the Pesticide Data Program, administered by the
            Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS);
      --$7.3 million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service
            (NASS) pesticide-usage surveys;
      --$2.6 million for the Office of Pest Management Policy administered
            by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS);
      --$4.1 million for minor-use registration of crop protection tools
            (IR-4) administered by ARS;
      --$16 million for area-wide Integrated Pest Management research
            administered by ARS;
      --$20 million for the Integrated Pest Management Research Grant
            Program administered by the Cooperative State Research,
            Extension and Education Service (CSREES);
      --$12 million for minor-use registration of crop protection tools
            (IR-4) administered by CSREES; and
      --$14.3 million for the Pesticide Impact Assessment Program, Regional
            Crop Pest Management Information Centers, Crops at Risk, and
            Risk Avoidance and Mitigation Program all administered by
            CSREES.
        Temperate Fruit Fly Research Position--Yakima, Wash.--USApple
    requests continued funding of $300,000 to conduct critical research at
    the USDA-ARS laboratory in Yakima, Wash. on temperate fruit flies, a
    major pest of apples.
        FQPA implementation is expected to significantly reduce the number
    of pesticides currently available to growers for the control of pests
    such as cherry fruit fly and apple maggot. Left unchecked, these
    temperate fruit flies can be devastating. Research is critically needed
    to develop alternative pest controls should growers lose access to
    presently available crop protection tools as a result of FQPA
    implementation.
        Congress appropriated $300,000 last fiscal year for this critical
    position. We request that the committee appropriate $300,000 for this
    position in fiscal year 2002.
        Post Harvest Quality Research Position--East Lansing, Mich.--
    USApple requests that the committee provide continued funding of
    $309,600 for postharvest-quality research at the ARS laboratory in East
    Lansing, Michigan.
        This facility is conducting research that is critical to the future
    economic recovery of the apple industry. Using a series of new sensing
    technologies, researchers at the East Lansing facility are developing
    techniques that would allow apple packers to measure the sugar content
    and firmness of each apple before it is shipped to consumers. Research
    has shown that consumers will increase purchases of high quality
    products that consistently meet their expectations. We believe
    consumers will eat more apples if this technology is fully developed
    and employed, by our industry.
        Congress appropriated $309,600 last fiscal year for this critical
    position. We request that the committee continue to provide funding for
    this critical research in fiscal year 2002.
        Fireblight Research--Kearneysville, W.Va.--USApple requests that
    the committee provide increased funding of $220,000 for fireblight
    tissue culture research at the ARS Appalachian Fruit Research Station
    in Kearneysville, W.Va.
        Fireblight is a devastating disease that threatens apple growers in
    all apple growing regions. This disease has become more prevalent and
    even more difficult to control as growers have shifted production to
    several popular new apple varieties on rootstocks that are especially
    susceptible to fireblight.
        Fireblight is a bacterial disease typically controlled with timely
    applications of antibiotics. However, various Federal agencies are
    reevaluating agricultural uses of antibiotics due to concerns that
    these uses may contribute to human resistance to antibiotics.
    Meanwhile, fireblight strains are becoming resistant to the apple
    industry's only antibiotic tool to control fireblight. This new funding
    is needed to find new alternative controls to antibiotics using tissue
    culture research and genetic engineering.
        We request that the committee provide an increase of $220,000 for
    this important research in fiscal year 2002.
        The U.S. Apple Association thanks the committee for this
    opportunity to present testimony in support of the U.S. apple
    industry's Federal agricultural funding requests.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Association Coordination Council (ACC), the
    National Labor Coordination Council (NLCC), and the Union Coordination
                                 Council (UCC)

        Chairman Cochran, Ranking Member Kohl, and members of the
    Subcommittee, I am Michelle Corridon, Communications Chairperson for
    the ACC, NLCC, and UCC. I thank you for this opportunity to offer
    comments on the proposed Department of Agriculture of Budget for fiscal
    year 2002.
                                  introduction
        For the past three years, the Association Coordination Council
    (ACC), the National Labor Coordination Council (NLCC), and the Union
    Coordination Council (UCC) have been working together on issues of
    substance, which will maximize customer service and provide employees
    with a positive working environment. Our councils represent a coalition
    of employees who are located in both the USDA Field Service Centers and
    headquarters locations who work for the Farm Service Agency (FSA),
    Rural Development (RD) and the National Resources and Conservation
    Services (NRCS). We are the employees who deliver USDA programs on a
    daily basis and have first hand knowledge of what can be successful
    regarding our USDA Service Centers and the customers that we serve.
        Since 1998, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) and
    the Service Center Agencies have been working together to modernize the
    USDA Service Center Information Technology architecture. The employee
    coalitions have directly been involved and have supported those effects
    and worked with the OCIO to secure funding for these improvements. We
    have taken our case to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to
    the Congress. We are also working closely with our Service Center
    partners, which includes the local Soil and Water Conservation
    Districts. Most Service Center employees will agree that the new
    computers, printers, software, and telecommunications upgrades are
    bringing our business into the 21st century. However, the USDA
    modernization is only 70 percent complete and some of the additional
    components including GIS, will provide dramatic improvements in how we
    can serve our customers.
                   e-commerce is the direction of the future
        With the passage of H.R. 852, ``The Freedom to E-File Act'', USDA
    employees face the challenge that our customers will have service
    expectations that are greater than the level of service provided today.
    USDA employees are concerned that they will be on the ``badside'' of
    the digital divide. Our customers often have better equipment than the
    average USDA employee does and we are concerned that we will not be
    able to process electronic service requests as intended in the Act, the
    technology modernization, including the upgrading of our Service Center
    telecommunications system.
        Our customers expect other e-commerce activities such as the sale
    of government owned real estate, electronic data interchange (EDI), and
    loan processing. Our Rural Development Guaranteed Rural Housing program
    lenders expect electronic processing of loan applications and loan
    underwriting. Lenders face the same problems as USDA employees, a lot
    of work with fewer employees. Web-based loan processing allows the
    lender to spend more time on more complicated applications while still
    maintaining volume. Without a web-based solution to process and
    underwrite loans, Rural Development and the Farm Service Agency will
    fall further behind in market share. That will mean we are not serving
    Rural America in the manner in which we are charged.
        As important as e-commerce is to our future, we all know that USDA
    will continue to have a large part of its customer base that is either
    not ``e-savvy'' or simply wishes to do business with us in other ways.
    We also have a large segment of Rural America that has traditionally
    not used our services such as Native American tribal organizations.
    Maximizing delivery of e-services and providing ``mobile'' technology
    tools will free up staff time to better address those needs.
                              human capital crisis
        It is anticipated that within the next 5 years, approximately 50
    percent of the USDA employee population can and will retire. We can all
    agree that the possibility of replacing those employees is not good.
    Additionally, USDA has lost about 22 percent of its employee population
    within the past 5 years with a corresponding increase in program level
    activity of approximately 78 percent. Also within that same time frame,
    employees have only been able to complete work that is absolutely
    necessary and have been unable to donate adequate time to important
    issues such as outreach to under served communities. For example in
    FSA, credit employees are mandated to provide supervised credit to
    borrowers. Employees have been unable to do so because of the demands
    of greeting borrowers, providing reports to upper management, and
    closing loans. USDA needs to stabilize employee numbers while updating
    outdated technology.
        The GIS tools will save a lot of time for NRCS, FSA, and RD
    employees. The Old methods of designing practices such as buffer strips
    used to take days; with GIS now being deployed, an employee can
    generate options for the customer in about 15 minutes. FSA employees
    are using GIS maps and GPS units to measure complex CRP signup fields
    in hours instead of days. Many offices map oriented processes are
    seeing 80 to 90 percent efficiency improvements. The customer spends
    less time in the office, giving them more time to spend on farm
    management. The employee is able to assist more customers.
                                farm bill issues
        The crisis in the farming community will mean a hard look at the
    current farm bill. Most farmers and FSA employees will agree that
    ``Freedom to Farm'' is not working. Due to the economic crisis across
    the U.S. and the world, the open market concept has not brought
    economic success to our American Farmers. FSA employees are under
    mandate from Congress to provide assistance checks to farmers because
    of low prices. These employees are stretched to the limit and need
    modern automation tools.
                      what is needed for fiscal year 2002
        In order for USDA to meet its obligations to Rural America, both in
    the short run and for the future, we ask that you provide fiscal year
    2002 funding sufficient to:
      --Maintain current staffing levels to allow us to provide current
            services while at the same time devoting resources to modernize
            our program delivery.
      --Complete the Common Computing Environment (CCE), as originally
            planned by the end of fiscal year 2002.
        In terms of the CCE, we believe that it is important to continue to
    provide these funds continually under the OCIO so that the new
    equipment is not ``owned and controlled'' by any one of the Service
    Center agencies but is available to all. We also know that from the
    USDA Service Center Modernization Technology Blueprint published in
    December 2000 and through our work with the OCIO technology team, that
    $100 million will be required in fiscal year 2002 to complete the CCE
    as scheduled. This will provide the critically needed
    telecommunications upgrade ($15 million), the needed GIS/application
    hardware, software and enterprise license ($44 million), the necessary
    labor saving tools such as digital cameras, GPS units, scanners etc.
    ($32 million) and support training, architecture, and security at the
    levels needed to successful ($9 million). Not funding the completion of
    the CCE in fiscal year 2002 will delay the benefits and stretch out the
    technology modernization to five years when some of the initial
    components begin reaching the point of needing replacement. The
    completion of the CCE in fiscal year 2002 and the establishment of a
    ``refresher fund'' in fiscal year 2003 will ensure that we will have a
    viable common technology infrastructure to provide customer service on
    into the future.
                                   conclusion
        USDA employees are committed to serving Rural America in the finest
    possible manner. However, it is difficult to do this without the proper
    tools. Your committee has been very supportive of our modernization
    efforts in the past and provided some special funding for this in
    fiscal year 2000 and 2001. We ask that you ratchet up this support to
    the point that we can finish this job this year and begin providing the
    kind of services that our customers deserve and a work environment that
    makes full utilization of the skill and knowledge that our employees
    have to offer. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the many employees at the
    Service Center agencies, I want to thank you for this opportunity to
    present testimony and I offer the assistance of the employee councils
    at any time.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the United States Telecom Association

                               summary of request
        Project Involved.--Telecommunications Loan Programs Administered by
    the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
        Actions Proposed.--Supporting RUS loan levels and the associated
    funding subsidy for the hardship, cost of money, Rural Telephone Bank
    and loan guarantee programs in fiscal year 2002 in the same amount as
    loan levels specified in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture
    Appropriations Act, and opposing the Administration's proposal which
    was contained in ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings'' to not fund Rural
    Telephone Bank loans. Also supporting an extension of the language
    removing the 7 percent interest rate cap on cost of money loans. Also
    supporting continuation of the restriction on the retirement of class A
    Rural Telephone Bank stock in fiscal year 2002 at the level contained
    in the fiscal year 2001 Agriculture Appropriations Act and an extension
    of the prohibition against the transfer of Rural Telephone Bank funds
    to the general fund. Supporting funding in the amount of $27 million in
    loan and grant authority designated for distance learning and
    telemedicine purposes, including allocation of $2 million of that
    funding to extend the pilot program begun last year of direct loans and
    grants to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet
    service in rural areas.
        The United States Telecom Association (USTA) represents over 1000
    local telecommunications companies that provide over 95 percent of the
    access lines in the United States. USTA members range from large
    public-held corporations to small family-owned companies as well as
    cooperatives owned by their customers. I am Gary Lytle, Interim
    President and CEO of USTA. I submit this testimony in the interests of
    the members of USTA and their subscribers.
        USTA members firmly believe that the targeted assistance offered by
    a strong RUS telecommunications loan program remains essential in order
    to maintain a healthy and growing rural telecommunications industry
    that contributes to the provision of universal telephone service. We
    appreciate the strong support this committee has provided for the
    telecommunications program since its inception in 1949 and look forward
    to a vigorous program for the future.
        This testimony is based upon the Administration's budget proposal
    for fiscal year 2002 entitled ``A Blueprint for New Beginnings''. As of
    the filing of this testimony, that document is the only information
    available concerning the President's plans for RUS for the fiscal year
    beginning October 1, 2001. This testimony is necessarily based upon the
    assumption that there are no changes from the fiscal year 2001
    Agriculture Appropriations Act other than those specified in the budget
    blueprint. USTA respectfully requests that the Subcommittee not close
    the hearing record until we have had an opportunity to supplement our
    testimony if the full Administration budget proposal differs from the
    budget blueprint with respect to appropriations for the RUS
    Telecommunications program.
                              a changing industry
        As Congress recognized through passage of the Telecommunications
    Act of 1996, telecommunications in the United States is in the midst of
    the most significant changes any industry has ever undergone. Both the
    technological underpinnings and the regulatory atmosphere are
    dramatically different and changing at an extraordinarily rapid pace.
    Without system upgrades, rural customers will be left out of the
    emerging information revolution.
        The need for modernization of rural telecommunications technology
    employed by RUS borrower rural telecommunications companies has never
    been greater. In addition to upgrading switching capability to allow
    new services to be extended to rural subscribers, it is crucially
    important that rural areas be included in the nationwide drive for
    greater bandwidth capacity. In order to provide higher speed data
    services, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) connections to the
    Internet, outside plant must be modernized in addition to new
    electronics being placed in switching offices. With current technology,
    DSL services cannot be provided to customers located on lines more than
    three miles from the switching office. Rural areas have a significant
    percentage of relatively long loops and are therefore particularly
    difficult to serve with these higher speed connections. Rural
    telecommunications companies are doing their best to restructure their
    networks to shorten loops so that DSL may be provided, but this is not
    an inexpensive proposition and may not be totally justified by market
    conditions. However, these services are important for rural economic
    development, distance learning and telemedicine. RUS-provided financial
    incentives for additional investment encourage rural telecommunications
    companies to build facilities which allow advanced services to be
    provided. The economic externalities measured in terms of economic
    development and human development more than justify this investment in
    the future by the Federal government.
        Greater bandwidth and switching capabilities are crucial
    infrastructure elements which will allow rural businesses, schools and
    health care facilities to take advantage of the other programs
    available to them as end users. The money spent on having the most
    modern and sophisticated equipment available at the premises of the
    business, school or clinic is wasted if the local telecommunications
    company cannot afford to build facilities that quickly transport and
    switch the large amounts of data that these entities generate. RUS
    funding enhances the synergies among the FCC and RUS programs targeted
    at improving rural education and health care through
    telecommunications.
        The RUS program provides needed incentives to help offset
    regulatory uncertainties related to universal service support,
    interstate access revenues and interconnection rules with a reliable
    source of fairly priced, fixed-rate long term capital. After all, RUS
    is a voluntary program designed to provide incentives for local
    telecommunications companies to build the facilities essential to
    economic growth.
        RUS endures because it is a brilliantly conceived public-private
    partnership in which the borrowers are the conduits for benefits from
    the Federal government which flow to rural telephone customers, the
    true beneficiaries of the RUS program. The government's contribution is
    leveraged by the equity, technical expertise and dedication of local
    telecommunications companies. The small amount of government capital
    involved is more than paid back through a historically perfect
    repayment record by telecommunications borrowers as well as the
    additional tax revenues generated by the jobs and economic development
    resulting from the provision and upgrading of telecommunications
    infrastructure. RUS is the ideal government program--it generates more
    revenues than it costs, it provides incentives where the market does
    not for private companies to invest in infrastructure promoting needed
    rural economic development, it allows citizens to have access to
    services which can mean the difference between life and death and it
    has never lost a nickel of taxpayer money. Furthermore, if the
    Administration's projected lower interest rates materialize, the
    already very small subsidy required to maintain this program will be
    even further reduced.
              impact of credit reform on the rural telephone bank
        Contrary to the intent of Congress, the interpretation of credit
    reform by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has significantly
    affected the operation of the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). One of the
    most damaging impacts of OMB's interpretation of the credit reform law
    is to essentially cleave the RTB into two banks--a liquidating account
    bank which is responsible for pre-credit reform loans, and a financing
    account bank which is responsible for post credit reform loans. USTA
    has protested this arrangement since it began, since it prevents the
    relending of borrower repayments to fund new loans in direct
    contravention of Sec. 409 of the Bank's enabling act. This, in turn,
    forces the RTB to borrow unnecessarily from the Treasury to fund new
    loans. It also permits funds to build up in the liquidating account
    that were generated by GAO-documented interest rate overcharges,
    instead of those funds being returned through relending to the same
    universe of borrowers that initially generated them. OMB should adhere
    to Sec. 409 of the Rural Electrification Act and allow those repayments
    to be used to fund new RTB loans.
                                recommendations
        Continuation in fiscal year 2002 of the loan levels and necessary
    associated subsidy amounts for the RUS telephone loan programs that
    were recommended by this committee and signed into law for fiscal year
    2001 would maintain our members' ability to serve the nation's
    telecommunications needs, maintain universal service and bring advanced
    telecommunications services to rural America.
        USTA strenuously objects to the proposal in the budget outline to
    not fund Rural Telephone Bank loans in fiscal year 2002. The proposal
    is fundamentally flawed. The RTB's mission is far from complete. Loans
    made today are to provide state of the art telecommunications
    technology in rural areas. Furthermore, the budget savings are
    miniscule. If no RTB loans were made in fiscal year 2002, at the
    current loan level of $175 million, the outlay savings next year would
    amount to less than $26,000, not the $3 million quoted in the budget
    outline, because RTB loans are funded over a multi-year period.
    Moreover if administration interest rate predictions are accurate, RTB
    loans could potentially generate a profit for the government because
    there is a minimum statutory interest rate of five percent!
        Not funding RTB loans will not ``generate increased member and
    borrower support for statutorily authorized privatization''. This
    ignores the fact that privatization of the RTB began in 1995 under the
    current law and is proceeding annually. Over $115 million, or almost 20
    percent, of the government's equity investment in the bank has already
    been retired. As a matter of fact, not funding new loans in fiscal year
    2002 could actually impede privatization since the law requires that
    the Bank annually retire government stock at the rate of at least five
    percent of the amount of new loans. With no new loans, there is no
    minimum requirement for retirement of government stock.
        For a number of years, through the appropriations process, Congress
    has eliminated the seven percent ``cap'' placed on the insured cost-of-
    money loan program. The elimination of the cap should continue. If long
    term Treasury interest rates exceeded the 7 percent ceiling contained
    in the authorizing act, adequate subsidy would not be available to
    support the program at the authorized level. This would be extremely
    disruptive and hinder the program from accomplishing its statutory
    goals. Accordingly, USTA supports continuation of the elimination of
    the seven percent cap on cost-of-money insured loans in fiscal year
    2002.
        The restriction on the retirement of the amount of class A stock by
    the Rural Telephone Bank, adopted in fiscal 1997, should be continued.
    The Bank is currently retiring Class A stock in an orderly, measured
    manner as current law requires. This should continue. The Committee
    should also continue to protect the legitimate ownership interests of
    the Class B and C stockholders in the Bank's assets by continuing to
    prohibit a ``sweep'' of those funds into the general fund.
    Recommended Loan Levels
        USTA recommends telephone loan program loan levels for fiscal year
    2002 as follows:

                            [In millions of dollars]

    RUS Insured Hardship Loans (5 percent)............................    75
    RUS Insured Cost-of-Money Loans...................................   300
    Rural Telephone Bank (RTB) Loans..................................   175
    Loan Guarantees...................................................   120
    Broadband Pilot Program...........................................   100
                                                                      ______
          Total.......................................................   770

    Distance Learning and Telemedicine
        USTA strongly supports the loan and grant proposal and recommends
    its funding for fiscal year 2002 at the levels adopted in last year's
    Agriculture Appropriations Act, that is, $27 million for loans and
    grants. This program is a perfect complement to the traditional RUS
    telecommunications loan programs. For distance learning and
    telemedicine to become a reality, schools and hospitals need training
    and equipment. Similarly, local telecommunications companies need
    modern infrastructure to connect these facilities to the
    telecommunications network.
        USTA also supports continued allocation of $2 million of this
    appropriation for the pilot program of loans and grants to finance
    broadband transmission and local dial up access to the Internet in
    rural areas. In its initial year, $100 million of loans for these
    important purposes were made. RUS was founded on the notion that rural
    Americans should have no lesser service, facilities and prices for
    telephone service as those living in more densely populated, lower cost
    areas. As we move into the Information Age, in which increases in
    productivity, economic development, education and medicine can greatly
    benefit from the tremendous potential of the Internet, it is a
    continuation of the historic mission of RUS to support the extension of
    vital new services to rural America.
                                   conclusion
        Our members take pleasure and pride in reminding the Subcommittee
    that the RUS telecommunications program continues its perfect record of
    no defaults in over a half century of existence. RUS telecommunications
    borrowers take deadly seriously their obligations to their government,
    their nation and their subscribers. They will continue to invest in our
    rural communities, use government loan funds carefully and judiciously
    and do their best to assure the continued affordability of
    telecommunications services in rural America. Our members have
    confidence that the Subcommittee will continue to recognize the
    importance of assuring a strong and effective RUS Telecommunications
    Program through authorization of adequate loan levels.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the University of Southern Mississippi Polymer
                                   Institute

        Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I would
    like to thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony describing
    ongoing research and commercializing efforts of The University of
    Southern Mississippi (USM) and the Mississippi Polymer Institute. I am
    very grateful to the Subcommittee for its leadership and the continued
    support of the Institute and its work. This testimony will include an
    update on the progress of the Institute since my testimony of
    approximately one year ago. During the past year, our efforts have
    focused principally on two commercialization thrusts. One effort
    involves our novel, agricultural-based inventions in emulsion
    polymerizations, and the other is to produce a commercial,
    formaldehyde-free, soybean derived adhesive for a variety of composite
    board materials, i.e., particleboard or oriented strand board (OSB).
    During the past year, we have continued to refine the adhesive and have
    made much progress. We are optimistic that these materials will be of
    commercial quality. I will discuss the progress made with the two
    inventions separately in order to offer more clarity.
        In the case of castor and soy oil, we have designed and synthesized
    several more novel monomers or polymer building blocks that offer
    state-of-the-art technology. For instance, the attributes of the
    technology includes the ability to produce odor free, solvent free,
    non-polluting latex coatings. This represents best-available-technology
    for the production of solvent free latex coatings. The success of the
    technology depends on the use of agricultural materials as a building
    block of emulsion derived polymers offering a new opportunity for ag
    derived materials as a raw material in the polymer industry. By
    contrast, contemporary latex coatings contain 250 grams/liter or more
    of air pollutants or volatile organic content (VOC) per gallon.
    Moreover, this novel technology, if practiced, would allow governmental
    regulatory agencies to tighten the restrictions on volatile organic
    content (VOC) emissions of applied coatings without harm to the
    coatings industry. The fundamental scientific principles regarding its
    mode of action have been confirmed, yet additional data must be
    collected as even more novel monomers, or polymer building blocks are
    designed and synthesized. We have identified emulsion polymerization as
    a synthetic technique particularly suited for use of these materials.
    We have also found that it holds much promise in ultraviolet cured
    polymers in that hard, scratch resistant coatings are produced in
    seconds from this novel technology. We have utilized this technology in
    the design and fabrication of industrial coatings that offer high
    performance, flexible, and non-blocking products. We have secured a
    pilot scale manufacturing facility for this material and as a result
    can produce 20 gallons of product per run. Financial assistance was
    obtained via the USDA SBIR division via competitive grant applications.
    We have met our SBIR objectives for Phase I and have thus submitted a
    Phase II award grant application. As a result of this work, we are now
    able to provide sufficient quantities of product to prospective users
    of this technology. We have sampled many interested parties and are in
    continuing negotiations with several firms regarding commercialization.
        Over the past year, several new patents have been obtained from the
    U.S. Patent office protecting this technology. Foreign patent filings
    have also been affected. Two new patent applications are anticipated
    for submission to the U.S. Patent office within the next few weeks.
    Negotiations are also underway with Pentagon officials to obtain
    ``Green Seal'' certification for paints formulated from this
    technology. Paints have been formulated and submitted which, in our
    hands, meet the Green Seal requirements. However, the formulated
    coating is, at this writing, being evaluated by outside testing
    laboratories. Should the formulated paint meet the Green Seal
    requirements, and we have no reason to believe that it will not, we
    expect an order(s) from the Pentagon for coatings to be used in the
    Pentagon.
        In summary, commercialization efforts have continued over the past
    year. New patents have been approved, new patent applications have been
    submitted, a pilot scale manufacturing process has been implemented, a
    USDA SBIR grant has been obtained to assist in the development of this
    technology, new industrial coatings have been designed, manufactured,
    formulated, and tested and formulation efforts have been directed
    toward the generation of finished goods, i.e., high performance, low
    odor, and low VOC coatings. We are optimistic that sales of these ag
    derived products will commence during 2001!
        In yet another of our novel ag based technologies, we have
    developed formaldehyde-free adhesives for use in the composites
    industry, specifically for particleboard and oriented strand board. The
    new adhesives are composed of more than 98 percent agricultural
    products and are comparable in properties with traditional formaldehyde
    adhesives. Formaldehyde emissions are regulated as formaldehyde is
    considered a potential cancer producing agent. Consequently, there is a
    move afoot to remove formaldehyde from articles of commerce. This work
    continues to be refined. More specifically, water absorption values
    have been too high and efforts have been underway during 2000 to reduce
    water absorption values. This goal has been met but at a slight cost;
    i.e., a slight reduction in internal bond strength. Thus, continual
    modification or property adjustments are necessary and will be the
    focus of work during the 2001 year. If successful, this work would
    provide an additional and substantial outlet for America's soy bean
    farmers.
        In 1983, the Mississippi Legislature authorized the Polymer
    Institute at USM to work closely with emerging industries and other
    existing polymer-related industries to assist with research, problem-
    solving, and commercializing efforts. During the past year, seventeen
    new polymer-related industries have located in Mississippi. In
    particular, during the past four years Sunbeam-Oster, Dickten and
    Masch, Wellman, and Kohler have constructed facilities approaching a
    cost of 1.4 billion dollars and each has commented on polymer science
    and engineering as a significant factor in their decision to locate
    near to The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi
    Polymer Institute.
        The Institute provides industry and government with applied or
    focused research, development support, and other commercializing
    assistance. This effort complements existing strong ties with industry
    and government involving exchange of information and improved
    employment opportunities for USM graduates. Most importantly, through
    basic and applied research coupled with developmental and
    commercializing efforts of the Institute, the Department of Polymer
    Science continues to address national needs of high priority.
        The focus of my work is commercialization of alternative
    agricultural crops in the polymer industry. This approach offers an
    array of opportunities for agriculture as the polymer industry is the
    largest segment of the chemical products industry in the world, and
    heretofore has been highly dependent upon petroleum utilization.
    However, my efforts are directed to the development of agricultural
    derived materials that will improve our nation's environment and reduce
    our dependence on imported petroleum. As farm products meet the
    industrial needs of the American society, rural America is the
    benefactor. Heretofore, this movement to utilize alternative
    agricultural products as industrial raw materials has received some
    attention but much less than opportunities warrant. Your decisions are
    crucial to the accomplishment of these goals as funding from this
    Subcommittee has enabled us to implement and maintain an active group
    of university-based polymer scientists whose energies are devoted to
    commercializing alternative crops. We are most grateful to you for this
    support and ask for your continued commitment.
        The faculty, the University, and the State of Mississippi are
    strongly supportive of the Mississippi Polymer Institute and its close
    ties with industry. Most faculty maintain at least one industrial
    contract as an important part of extramural research efforts.
        Polymers, which include fibers, plastics, composites, coatings,
    adhesives, inks, and elastomers, play a key role in the materials
    industry. They are used in a wide range of industries including
    textiles, aerospace, automotive, packaging, construction, medical
    prosthesis, and health care. In the aerospace and automotive
    applications, reduced weight and high strength make them increasingly
    important as fuel savers. Their non-metallic character and design
    potentials support their use for many national defense purposes.
    Moreover, select polymers are possible substitutes for so-called
    strategic materials, some of which come from potentially unreliable
    sources.
        As a polymer scientist, I am intrigued by the vast opportunities
    offered by American agriculture. As a professor, however, I continue to
    be disappointed that few of our science and business students receive
    training in the polymer-agricultural discipline as it offers enormous
    potential. The University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi
    Polymer Institute are attempting to make a difference by showing others
    what can be accomplished if appropriate time, energy, and resources are
    devoted to the understanding of ag based products.
        I became involved in the polymer field 37 years ago and since that
    time, have watched its evolution where almost each new product
    utilization offered the opportunity for many more. Although polymer
    science as a discipline has experienced expansion and a degree of
    public acceptance, alternative agricultural materials are an under-
    utilized national treasure for the polymer industry. Moreover, there is
    less acceptance of petroleum derived materials today than ever before
    and consequently the timing is ideal for agricultural materials to make
    significant inroads as environmentally friendly, biodegradable, and
    renewable raw materials. These agricultural materials have always been
    available for our use, yet society for many reasons, has not recognized
    their potential. The following examples are included and represent
    opportunities other than those already described which supports this
    tenet:
      --A waterborne, waterproofer has been designed and formulated with
            the help of several natural products. The material functions as
            a waterproofer yet is carried in water. However, after
            application to the intended substrate, typically wood or
            cementous products, the material becomes hydrophobic and highly
            water resistant. We have collected two and one-half years of
            exposure data on this product with excellent success. We have
            made additional contacts with industrial firms during the year
            in hopes for commercialization but industry is complacent and
            no driving force for change exists. For instance, unless VOC
            emission laws are tightened, little movement will be toward
            new, environmentally friendly, products. However, we will
            continue our efforts to promote the use of ag based products
            offering improved environmental attributes, i.e., high
            performance accompanied by low odor and low VOCs.
      --We have exploited the potential of lesquerella, a crop that
            produces a triglyceride similar to castor oil. Several high
            performance products have been prepared and include polyesters,
            stains, foams, pressure sensitive adhesives, and 100 percent
            solid ultraviolet (UV) coatings. This technology was
            highlighted at the AARC/NASDA meeting in Washington, DC. We
            have developed a cooperative relationship with Alcorn State
            University, Lorman, MS to grow and thus evaluate the agronomics
            of lesquerella as a new crop for Southeastern U.S. region.
            Consequently, we have fabricated ag based foams for use as weed
            retardant mulches. The new foams are under test as this report
            is being written.
        U.S. agriculture has made the transition from the farm fields to
    the kitchen tables, but America's industrial community continues to be
    frightfully slow in adopting ag based industrial materials. The prior
    sentence was included in my last testimony and rings true one year
    later as I write this report. However, we must continue to aggressively
    pursue this opportunity and in doing so:
      --Intensify U.S. efforts to commercialize alternative crops and
            dramatically reduce atmospheric volatile organic content
            emissions. The result will be much cleaner air for all
            Americans.
      --Reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum.
      --Maintain a healthy and prosperous farm economy.
      --Foster new cooperative opportunities between American farmers and
            American industry.
        Mr. Chairman, your leadership and support are deeply appreciated by
    the entire University of Southern Mississippi community. While I can
    greatly appreciate the financial restraints facing your Subcommittee, I
    feel confident that further support of the Mississippi Polymer
    Institute will continue dividends of increasing commercialization
    opportunities of agricultural materials in American industry. Advances
    in polymer research are crucial to food, transportation, housing, and
    defense industries. Our work has clearly established the value of ag
    products as industrial raw materials and we must move it from the
    laboratories to the industrial manufacturing sector. Only then can the
    U.S. enjoy a cleaner and safer environment which these technologies
    offer, as well as new jobs, and expanded opportunities for the U.S.
    farmer. We are most grateful for the support you have provided in the
    past. The funding you have provided has allowed the laboratory work to
    be conducted, yet we are at the crossroads of commercialization and
    additional funds are needed to take this technology from the laboratory
    to manufacturing and to the market place. Moreover, past funding has
    been essentially level with some slight increases.
        Since our testimony last year we have reached new levels of
    commercializing efforts. The technology has matured and marketing and
    sales must move parallel with continued commercial development of new
    products. Thus, we are in need of additional resources to take these
    technologies to the market place and to continue our developments of
    other exciting technologies. We therefore respectfully request $1.5
    million in Federal funding to more fully exploit the potentials of
    commercializing the technologies described herein. When we are
    successful, our efforts will be recognized as instrumental in
    developing a ``process'' for commercialization of new ag based
    products. That is, we will have taken a technology from the ``idea''
    stage to commercialization. The development of this process, and to
    show it successful, is extremely important to all entrepreneurs who
    believe in ag based products. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee for your support and consideration.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association

        The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association (UMRBA) is the
    organization created 20 years ago by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
    Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
    the five states' river-related programs and policies and for
    collaborating with Federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
    As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture's conservation programs and technical
    assistance.
        Funding for conservation programs on private lands--the working
    lands--has eroded over time and is now less in constant dollars than
    during the depths of the Great Depression. The USDA's conservation
    programs and technical assistance are the only viable alternatives to a
    totally regulatory approach to improving water quality. These important
    programs are inadequately funded. The UMRBA supports continuation and
    expansion of funding for these programs.
        Of particular importance to the UMRBA is funding for the
    Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), and
    Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Taken together, these
    three Commodity Credit Corporation-funded programs provide an
    invaluable means for the USDA to work with landowners, local
    conservation districts, and the states to ensure that agricultural
    productivity is maintained while protecting the nation's soil and water
    resources. Moreover, they do this in a voluntary, non-regulatory
    fashion. As stewards of some of the nation's most productive
    agricultural lands and important water resources, the five states of
    the Upper Mississippi River Basin believe these programs are vital.
    Strong farmer interest and state support demonstrate the region's
    commitment to the objectives of these programs. In 1998, state, local,
    and private entities matched every dollar of NRCS investment in the
    five states with an additional $0.80.
        Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2002 budget request does
    not place sufficient priority on these three key programs. Funding for
    the CRP would be increased modestly to $1.788 billion. While this
    funding increase is certainly welcome, the UMRBA is increasingly
    concerned that the CRP's 36.4 million acre enrollment cap threatens its
    continued success. Since its inception, enhancements to the CRP have
    increased its effectiveness in improving water quality, soil
    conservation, and habitat. These same enhancements, which include
    noncompetitive enrollment for filter strips, riparian buffers, and
    similar measures as well as establishment of the Conservation Reserve
    Enhancement Program, have made the program more flexible and thus more
    attractive to farmers. But, while demand for the program is up, the CRP
    is unable to capitalize fully on its increased attractiveness and
    effectiveness because of its acreage cap, which USDA projects will be
    reached by December 31, 2002. Thus, the states urge Congress not only
    to provide sufficient funding but also to increase the enrollment cap,
    thereby ensuring that the CRP will continue its vital role in helping
    states, local communities, and landowners meet their water quality and
    conservation goals.
        Even more pressing is the need to fund and expand the enrollment
    cap for the WRP, which will reach its 1.075 million acre cap before the
    end of 2001. Citing the cap, President Bush has not requested any
    fiscal year 2002 funding for the WRP. Since the WRP's establishment in
    1996, its easements have proven to be important tools for restoring and
    protecting wetlands in agricultural areas. This is clearly evident from
    the overwhelming landowner response and the resulting improvements to
    water quality and habitat. In the fiscal year 2001 agriculture
    appropriations bill, Congress addressed the WRP acreage cap problem on
    an interim basis, increasing it by 100,000 acres. However, as noted
    above, this increase will be fully subscribed this year. Clearly the
    time is right for Congress to secure the WRP's future in a longer term
    way this year by significantly expanding the acreage cap and providing
    continued funding for this valuable program.
        The CRP and WRP have been extremely effective in helping Midwest
    farmers to protect land and water resources by curtailing production on
    some of their most sensitive land. And there are certainly many more
    opportunities to make good use of the CRP and WRP in the region.
    However, it is also essential to support sound conservation practices
    on the far greater amount of land that remains in production. EQIP is
    the USDA's largest and most effective means of assisting farmers and
    ranchers to implement conservation practices on land currently in
    production. EQIP assistance can, for example, help operators balance
    the new dynamics of livestock production with the need to protect soil
    and water resources. The President has requested level funding of $174
    million for EQIP in fiscal year 2002. While the states are gratified
    that the new Administration supports EQIP, the UMRBA encourages
    Congress to increase fiscal year 2002 funding to the authorized level
    of $200 million and to expand the EQIP authorization as part of the
    upcoming Farm Bill.
        The UMRBA remains concerned with the adequacy of funding and
    staffing levels in the NRCS' conservation operations account. The
    technical assistance funded through conservation operations provides
    the foundation for the USDA's voluntary conservation planning. The
    Administration has proposed an increase of $59 million in conservation
    technical assistance funding for fiscal year 2002. However, up to $44
    million of this increase would be for CRP technical assistance costs
    that were previously reimbursed from the CCC. As a result, NRCS field
    staff will likely continue to have difficulty providing the timely,
    comprehensive technical assistance that farmers need if they are to
    participate effectively in the USDA's conservation programs. A 2001
    National Workload Analysis indicates that the NRCS needs approximately
    1,900 employees at the field level in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
    Missouri, and Wisconsin. Actual field staff in the five states numbers
    about 1,250, or one-third below the estimated needs. The UMRBA urges
    Congress to ensure that the NRCS has both the staff and funding
    necessary to deliver its conservation programs effectively.
        The Midwest and indeed much of the nation faces significant
    challenges in the future as dams built under the Public Law 534 and
    Public Law 566 programs age. More than 600 flood control structures in
    Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin need rehabilitation
    if they are to continue to function safely and effectively. This
    represents approximately one-third of the structures built in the five
    states under the USDA's dam-building programs. Rehabilitation costs in
    the five UMRBA states alone are estimated at $53.9 million. Last year's
    enactment of the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Amendments authorized
    NRCS to assist in rehabilitating these structures. The UMRBA now asks
    Congress to provide NRCS with the funding it needs to serve as an
    effective Federal partner in addressing these needs.
        The five states of the UMRBA acknowledge that our region faces
    enormous soil and water conservation needs and limited public and
    private resources to address those needs. In this context, it is
    imperative that NRCS work with the states, conservation districts, and
    farmers to identify and target the most pressing problems. Coordination
    and communication with the states is particularly critical to success
    in addressing the interstate resource challenges faced on the Upper
    Mississippi River. Success in addressing such complex, large-scale
    issues will not come quickly. It will require long-range thinking and
    commitment over time from all levels of government and from farmers.
    The states look to both Congress and the Administration to join them in
    providing such leadership.
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the USA Rice Federation

        USA Rice is a federation of U.S. rice producers, millers and allied
    businesses working together to address common challenges, advocate
    collective interests, and create opportunities to strengthen the long-
    term economic viability of the U.S. rice industry. USA Rice members are
    active in all major rice-producing states: Arkansas, California,
    Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. The U.S. Rice
    Producers' Group, USA Rice Council and the Rice Millers' Association
    are charter members of the USA Rice Federation.
                                    summary
        USA Rice supports agriculture appropriations falling into three
    major categories: international trade promotion, food aid and domestic
    programs. A total of $96 million is needed for international trade
    promotion, $1.507 billion for food aid and $3.825 million for domestic
    programs. In addition, the Foreign Agricultural Service should be
    funded to the fullest degree possible to ensure adequate support for
    trade policy initiatives and oversight of export programs like the
    Foreign Market Development program and the Market Access Program. All
    of these programs are critical for the economic health of the U.S. rice
    industry.
                         international trade promotion
        Exports are critical to the U.S. rice industry. Historically, 40-60
    percent of annual U.S. rice production has been shipped overseas. U.S.
    rice that is not shipped overseas stays in the domestic marketplace,
    driving down already low prices for rice even further. Thus, building
    healthy export demand for U.S. rice should be a high priority.
        In addition, exports mean U.S. jobs. According to USDA data, in
    fiscal year 1999, U.S. rice exports of $1 billion supported an
    estimated 15,200 direct jobs. Indirect jobs are estimated at more than
    45,000 (unofficial USDA estimates).
    Foreign Market Development
        The Foreign Market Development program allows USA Rice to focus on
    importer, food service, and other non-retail promotion and other
    activities around the world. For fiscal year 2002, FMD should be fully
    funded at $33.5 million. As the president's budget only calls for the
    Office of Management and Budget to apportion $27.5 million from
    Commodity Credit Corporation resources for this program for fiscal year
    2002, an additional $6 million (USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service)
    needs to be appropriated to reach the full funding level. If only the
    expected $27.5 million apportionment is realized, this will result in a
    20 percent cut in the program from recent levels. The Foreign Market
    Development program allows USA Rice to focus on trade servicing
    activities around the world. Without a fully funded FMD program, USA
    Rice will have to drastically reduce and/or cancel several of its
    worldwide activities targeted at markets that represent major growth
    opportunities for future U.S. rice exports. For example, USA Rice will
    forgo activities in Syria and Jordan where opportunities are expected
    for U.S. rice as state trading continues to give way to private sector
    rice trading, in Eastern Europe where increasing personal disposable
    income should lead to increased ability to purchase U.S. rice, and in
    Taiwan where opportunities are expected for U.S. rice once Taiwan joins
    the World Trade Organization.
    Market Access Program
        The Market Access Program allows USA Rice to focus on consumer
    promotion and other activities around the world. For example, USA
    Rice's MAP-funded efforts to increase U.S. milled rice sales to Japan
    have led to a tripling (from 500 to 1,800 metric tons from fiscal year
    1998 to fiscal year 1999) of U.S. milled rice being sold in identified,
    unblended form to the Japanese consumer. Another example is that as a
    result of USA Rice's MAP-funded in-store promotions in Guatemala this
    year, not only did sales of U.S. rice jump 25 percent during the
    promotion, but also a Guatemalan company is now importing U.S. rough
    rice, processing it, and labeling as ``U.S. rice'' on its consumer
    retail packaging. For fiscal year 2002, MAP should be fully funded at
    $90 million (USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service), the level currently
    authorized. Ideally, the program should be funded at $200 million as
    called for in legislation such as H.R. 98 and S.366.
    USDA/FAS
        Equally important to these programs is an adequately staffed and
    funded Foreign Agricultural Service in Washington, D.C. and in our
    embassies overseas. USA Rice and other agricultural groups rely on the
    significant expertise these agricultural experts bring to the table,
    and we rely upon them to help us gain, grow, and maintain market access
    worldwide. FAS should be funded to the fullest degree possible to
    ensure adequate support for trade policy initiatives and oversight of
    export programs like the Foreign Market Development program and the
    Market Access Program.
                                    food aid
        Food aid continues to be vital to the health of the rice industry
    and local economies as an instrument to remove excess rice stocks from
    the U.S. market, generate business, stabilize prices, and create market
    development by allowing entry into foreign markets not otherwise
    accessible to the United States. Nearly half of all U.S. grown rice is
    exported. Over twenty percent of this amount is reliant on food aid
    programming. In fiscal 2000, this accounted for nearly 9 million
    hundredweight (400,000 metric tons) of rice that otherwise would have
    remained on the U.S. market, severely impacting the welfare of farmers,
    millers, and allied industries by driving down prices, eliminating
    jobs, and undermining the infrastructure of the industry and local
    economies.
        Rice farmers as well as millers are dependent on food aid in order
    to remain financially solvent. Without adequate food aid funding
    levels, milling capacity is underutilized. Delays in the release of
    food aid funding in fiscal 2001 by OMB have meant fewer tenders,
    forcing some millers in the South to temporarily shut down operations,
    creating economic hardship for these businesses and for local workers.
    Such continued hardship would force these operations to close
    permanently. Rice farmers are equally dependent upon the stabilizing
    effect of food aid movements as a price support mechanism. With
    production costs nearing the $12.00 per cwt. mark, where they are
    approximately double the current market price, the reduction of ending
    stocks from the U.S. market is crucial to help increase prices, and
    avoid further emergency assistance.
        Last year the movement of rice food aid accounted for 1,200 jobs,
    and created an influx of millions of dollars to local economies in
    terms of labor hours, utilization of equipment and services, and
    investment in the rice industry infrastructure. This level of economic
    activity was dependent the use of value-added rice in food aid
    programs. For every 1 million hundredweight of U.S. food aid sent as
    rough rice rather than value-added, the total effect on the U.S. rice
    industry would be a loss of $23 million and nearly 136 jobs in the six
    rice-producing states. The rice producer as well as the rice miller
    directly benefits from value-added product. In years of larger supply,
    the margin of premium gained by the producer from value-added rice
    increases dramatically. For instance, in the 1999 crop year, one grower
    cooperative returned an average of 60 cents per bushel on milled rice
    over rough rice returns. Farmer-owned cooperatives account for about 40
    percent of the rice milled in the United States.
        Last year, 9 million hundredweight of rice was exported as food
    aid. The economic gain generated by further processing was retained
    within the United States. Furthermore, taxpayer dollars, including
    those of U.S. rice producers and millers, fund food aid programs. The
    U.S. government should maximize the use of taxpayer dollars by
    exporting the highest value product possible, not use U.S. taxpayer
    dollars to subsidize the development of foreign processing facilities.
    For these reasons, the appropriations bill language should indicate
    that for rice, only value-added products are to be used in food aid.
        Food aid programs are critical for the United States in maintaining
    its competitive position in the global marketplace. Overall, exports of
    U.S. agricultural commodities, including rice, are decreasing. The
    United States must look to new markets and gain access to developing
    markets in order to rebuild its comparative export advantage. Food aid
    is the only tool that allows for entry into an underdeveloped country's
    market when it cannot afford to pay a premium for high quality U.S.
    product, further aggravated by currency devaluations. Food aid allows a
    preference for U.S. rice to develop among foreign consumers and trade,
    setting the stage for future commercial sales when foreign economies
    improve. Food aid continues to be fundamental to humanitarian
    assistance efforts.
    Public Law 480 Title I
        Maintain $180 million in funding (USDA, Foreign Agricultural
    Service), with retention of at least $160 million dedicated to
    commodity loans, and any additional funding being allocated to freight
    and financing expense. Congress has recently criticized high funding
    carry-over levels in this program; funding carry-over has been
    diminished due to use in funding Title I Food for Progress sales to
    Russia in fiscal 2000. Therefore, retention of base level funding is
    necessary. Through work with FAS and foreign governments, USA Rice
    helps maintain a high percentage rate of successful agreement
    fulfillments, avoiding carry-over of unused funds. Public Law 480 sales
    into developing countries such as the Philippines have provided a
    critical link to local trade. Under Title I, 104,000 metric tons of
    U.S. rice reached the trade and consumers in the Philippines last year
    that otherwise would not have been competitive with Asian suppliers.
    Just as importantly, the movement of this rice enabled the U.S. rice
    industry to access local trade that is now allowed to transact limited
    private imports as the Philippines slowly transitions from monopoly
    control of sales under a state trading entity to a more liberalized
    market. By cultivating relationships with local trade through the
    Public Law 480 Title I program, a private commercial sale of thousands
    of metric tons of premium quality U.S. rice was made to the Philippines
    this year. This is a critical step in developing long-term prospects
    for a high quality niche market for U.S. rice in the Philippines.
    Public Law 480 Title II
        Maintain $837 million funding level (USDA, Foreign Agricultural
    Service). As Public Law 480 title I funding levels have declined by
    $580 million since 1990, other food aid programs are now crucial to
    maintain movement of rice stocks. Title II projects involving private
    voluntary organizations (PVO's) that monetize rice to fund other
    development projects are the most far-reaching vehicle to introduce
    U.S. rice into markets where the United States has limited or no
    commercial access. For instance, in Ghana, since the 1980's, as a
    result of Public Law 480 program penetration, U.S. rice has become the
    benchmark of quality in rice for Ghanaian consumers and remains the
    product against which all other imported rice is gauged. U.S. rice
    sales have grown steadily over the last five years, and in 1999 sales
    of almost 77,000 metric tons represent an 18 percent increase over
    1997, and account for about 33 percent of the total market.
    Food for Progress
        Maintain $94 million funding level (USDA, Foreign Agricultural
    Service). The Food for Progress program is particularly effective for
    market development because rice moves into the foreign market at local
    market prices. USA Rice works closely with PVO's in this program to
    develop trade connections. Increased movement of rice through this
    program is needed to most effectively target new markets, and to enable
    the United States to maintain market share when U.S. rice would
    otherwise be unable to compete commercially. This was the case in Cote
    D'Ivoire in the late 1990's, when the effects of currency devaluations
    in both Cote D'Ivoire and Thailand, a leading rice competitor of the
    United States, led to a period where U.S. rice could not compete
    commercially. Some market share was maintained through Food for
    Progress programs, which enabled quick recovery when conditions
    improved. This enabled retention of a market that had originally grown
    from a niche market to a large importer due to Public Law 480 sales.
    Imports of U.S. rice, including both commercial and government
    assistance programs, rebounded from around 1,000 metric tons in 1998 to
    over 25,000 metric tons in 1999 and 2000.
    Global Food for Education Initiative
        The Global Food for Education Initiative should be funded (USDA,
    Foreign Agricultural Service) for fiscal year 2002 at $300 million for
    preschool and school feeding programs and $50 million for maternal and
    infant health and feeding programs, per draft legislation of ``George
    McGovern-Robert Dole Global Food for Education and Infant Feeding Act
    of 2001.'' This program is designed to most efficiently deliver food to
    its targeted group. It will provide much need alternative access for
    distribution of rice to offset losses in other programs.
                               domestic programs
    Rice Research
        The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center should be funded for
    fiscal year 2002 at a minimum of $3.675 million, the same level as
    fiscal year 2001 (USDA, Agricultural Research Service).
        The mission of the Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center is to
    conduct research to help keep the U.S. rice industry competitive in the
    global market place, by assuring high yields, superior grain quality,
    pest resistance, and stress tolerance.
        The DB NRRC is an $11.2 million, state-of-the-art laboratory. The
    46,000 square foot DB NRRC contains offices, research laboratories,
    seed storage, and greenhouse space. The DB NRRC has USDA-ARS scientists
    in eight research categories: genetics, germplasm evaluation and
    enhancement, biology and control of weeds, cereal chemistry, molecular
    genetics, cytogenetics, molecular plant pathology and molecular
    biology. Shared laboratory space also is provided for the University of
    Arkansas rice research groups, as well as visiting scientists.
    Blackbird Control
        The Louisiana blackbird control project should be funded for fiscal
    year 2002 at $120,000 and the blackbird control research at $30,000.
    This is the same level of funding as fiscal year 2001 (USDA, Animal
    Plant Health Inspection Service). This program has been critical in
    reducing the damage this pest does to rice fields. If not controlled,
    blackbirds can significantly reduce rice yields, resulting in
    substantial loss of income to the producer.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the United States Beet Sugar Industry

                                  introduction
        The United States Beet Sugar Industry continues a long and
    productive working relationship with the Agricultural Research Service
    of the United States Department of Agriculture. Since before 1938,
    USDA-ARS research on sugarbeet has provided essential germplasm and
    knowledge to the U.S. sugarbeet industry. USDA-ARS research continues
    to enhance the productivity and profitability of growers across the
    United States. Over 50 years ago, the Beet Sugar Development Foundation
    signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the USDA-ARS, providing for
    close cooperation in defining, funding, and meeting challenges to the
    sugarbeet industry through research. No other public program in the
    United States, other than ARS, is involved in breeding disease
    resistance for sugarbeet. And no other program in the United States is
    involved with the fundamental biology of sugarbeet.
        Sugarbeets are produced on over 10,000 farms in 15 states
    (including seed production), often in northern tier states where crop
    choices are limited, population densities are low, and rural economies
    are heavily reliant on sugarbeet production. Market forces are
    reshaping sugar processing economics, with the increasing result that
    most growers own and operate their factories as cooperatives. Few, if
    any, of these cooperatives are able to provide the needed basic
    research that will keep the U.S. sugar beet industry viable
        Over the years, the industry has noted a decline in the number of
    USDA-ARS scientists involved in sugarbeet research. As it has been in
    the past, the products of this research are vital for the future of our
    domestic industry. Currently, there are five USDA-ARS stations serving
    the national research needs of the U.S. sugarbeet industry. A brief
    summary of the activities and accomplishments at each sugarbeet
    research location as well as the status of personnel and funds at each
    location is provided below. Also included is an industry perspective on
    the resources required at these locations to maintain and enhance our
    current efforts. For budgeting, we have used the USDA-ARS baseline
    figure of $300,000 per SY (scientist year).
                                  kimberly, id
        There is one very large void in the USDA-ARS sugarbeet research
    program. We grow 230,000 acres of sugarbeets in Idaho and eastern
    Oregon. Although all of the USDA/ARS stations work together on common
    problems in the industry nationwide, there is a great need for USDA/ARS
    sugarbeet research for this growing area with its unique challenges.
    The USDA/ARS has an existing research station in Kimberly ID, in the
    heart of the beet growing area. The addition of a sugarbeet unit to
    this existing station would be an excellent fit. We know that a USDA/
    ARS sugarbeet research program at this location would strengthen
    national sugarbeet research in three significant ways. We propose a new
    unit that would include a Physiologist, an Irrigation Specialist and an
    Agronomist/Crop Fertility Specialist.
        The Station at Kimberly has particular strength in Irrigation/Water
    Use research. The Irrigation Specialist would fit well with that group.
    It has been many years since irrigation work was done on sugarbeets,
    and this is especially needed with the increase in overhead irrigation.
    In growing areas where we are required to irrigate, the cost of water,
    along with the energy costs of pumping and distributing the water are
    major factors in the cost of production. With the current energy
    situation and outlook, an irrigation specialist for sugarbeet and other
    row crops is desperately needed.
        Although there has been considerable work done on sugarbeet
    fertility, basic work has been lacking recently on the interactions
    between fertility, genotype, irrigation, and crop quality. The research
    an Agronomist/Crop Fertility Specialist would do in this area is very
    much needed. This is an area that is also tied to the energy situation,
    since the majority of our fertilizers are produced from petroleum
    products. The costs of these inputs are steadily increasing. Also, a
    major problem in sugarbeet processing in the presence of impurities in
    the beet. This can be caused by over or improper fertilization. Of
    course, fertility is not isolated to one years' crop, but must be
    studied as an ongoing evolution, taking into consideration the other
    crops in the rotation.
         Finally, a Physiologist to work with crop biochemistry and post
    harvest storage is needed, not only for the Idaho area, but also for
    all growing areas. The area of crop biochemistry is directly related to
    the Irrigation Specialist and the Fertility Specialist. The basic
    knowledge to understand the best and most efficient usage of water and
    fertilizer, will require the input of physiological factors in
    sugarbeet development. Sugarbeet storage has been mentioned at three
    locations in this write-up. This is not by accident, and certainly not
    a duplication of efforts. Decreasing losses in the storage pile is a
    major component to profitability of the beet sugar industry. Each of
    the areas, where storage work in either going on or proposed to go on,
    are unique. Therefore they need to be investigated independently,
    however, these three stations working in unison would definitely be
    able to interact, and we are sure, speed up the delivery of useful
    results. Information obtained from all of these research areas is a
    national priority. We feel we would need $1,250,000 to start this
    program with three SY's and capital investments in research equipment.
                                ft. collins, co
        This station currently has three SY's working on CRIS projects
    involving sugarbeets. There is one Research Geneticist/Plant Breeder,
    one Plant Physiologist/Biochemist and one Plant Pathologist. The Fort
    Collins Unit is funded at a level of $750,413.00. A Molecular
    Geneticist is needed to complement the skills of the current geneticist
    and plant breeder, who is also Research Leader. An increase of $500,000
    is needed in this program.
        This station is the primary source of germplasm with resistance to
    Rhizoctonia root rot worldwide. It also is the primary ARS station
    involved in breeding for resistance to Cercospora leaf spot and has a
    very active program breeding for resistance to the curly top virus.
        One of the major pests lowering sugarbeet production in the US is
    the sugarbeet cyst nematode. Basic biochemical research on the
    mechanism of action of mustard and radish crops that can be used to
    decrease the soil concentration of this nematode has been undertaken in
    Fort Collins. Use of these ``trap crops'' can contribute to gains in
    productivity without the use of fumigants.
        Biological control research is ongoing at Fort Collins using
    Trichoderma strains. In other crops, a single seed treatment with
    similar strains has been demonstrated to reduce severity of several
    diseases, which cause seedling death. The use of one treatment to
    control multiple diseases would reduce cost of fungicides for disease
    control.
        Critical to solving many disease problems is the ability to
    complement traditional breeding, biochemistry, and plant pathology
    approaches with a molecular genetics approach. Researchers at Fort
    Collins have begun investigations to provide molecular markers and to
    identify resistance genes for sugarbeet diseases to increase efficiency
    in the plant breeding process.
        In addition to improved germplasm, new plant breeding techniques,
    and better disease management techniques, the Fort Collins scientists
    emphasize research addressing sugarbeet's biochemical quality,
    especially as it affects the amount of sugar that can be recovered
    through current processing technology. Scientists have worked with
    processing companies to assess and improve sucrose and chemical quality
    analysis procedures, which has reduced processing costs. Research to
    assess the effects of various diseases on the quality of beets held in
    storage before processing is being planned. Disease can have a
    tremendous impact on the potential amount of sucrose that can be
    extracted from such stored beets, and increase the cost of processing.
                                east lansing, mi
        This Station currently has three SY's working on two CRIS projects
    involving sugarbeets. They include one Molecular Geneticist, one
    Geneticist and one Pathologist. The Genetics CRIS has two scientists,
    and a total of $389,000, short $211,000 from the ARS target. The
    Pathology CRIS has one scientist projected to retire in the near future
    and a total of $169,500, or $130,500 short. Each of these positions is
    needed for future viability of the industry. In addition, a
    Physiologist /Biochemist position is needed to characterize processes
    of sucrose accumulation and focus on modifying those processes for
    alternative uses for sucrose. Expanding the uses of sucrose is the key
    to expanding profitability in sugarbeet production. This position would
    require $300,000. Therefore, a total request for East Lansing of
    $641,500.
        The sugarbeet Genetics program at East Lansing has three primary
    responsibilities: (1) to continue and strengthen sugar beet germplasm
    enhancement for the Eastern U.S. growing areas ongoing for 70 years,
    (2) to develop and apply molecular methodologies for dissection of
    genetic traits, and (3) to elucidate mechanisms and engineer solutions
    to persistent seedling emergence and stand establishment problems.
        Field emergence and stand establishment is perennially among the
    concerns for sugar beet growers. Recent results implicate a single gene
    that describes the difference between good emerging varieties and poor
    emerging varieties. This conclusion could only be drawn by the
    judicious application of the modern, and expensive, technologies that
    can now be applied to solve pernicious problems in sugarbeet growth.
        In very few instances is it known what genes influence agronomic
    traits in sugarbeet. With increasing requirements for multiple disease
    resistant sugarbeets in all areas of the U.S., it is imperative to be
    able to tailor gene combinations efficiently to meet changing
    environmental challenges imposed by these new disease pressures. The
    East Lansing location is developing the requisite materials to discover
    and deploy these genes.
        The Pathology/Physiology position at East Lansing conducts disease
    nurseries and examines pathogen populations throughout the growing
    regions, examining the structure of pathogen populations for type and
    fungicide resistance, and examining mechanisms of disease resistance
    that may be exploited for germplasm enhancement. This position
    interacts closely with growers and agronomists, and provides management
    options and recommendations when disease problems occur. The pathogens
    that affect the Eastern growing region occur elsewhere, but are
    particularly severe and occur regularly in Michigan. One reason costs
    of production are lower in Michigan than elsewhere in the U.S., aside
    from the lack of irrigation costs, is the wide use of disease resistant
    varieties. Resistance appears to carry a yield penalty, and one
    important future goal is to create high yielding, highly resistant
    sugarbeet germplasm that can be deployed through breeding.
        One of the keys for any commodity to develop new uses to identify
    alternative market. Sucrose is the most abundant, chemically pure,
    renewable resource on the planet, and would be ideal as a chemical
    feedstock for industrial and other chemicals. The only limitation for
    using sucrose industrially is its over-functionality. That is, chemical
    reactions are difficult to control because of the large number of
    potentially reactive sites on the sucrose molecular. The goal of the
    Physiologist /Biochemist CRIS is to develop strategies that would block
    most of the reactive groups, and allow for controlled chemical
    reactions.
                                   fargo, nd
        The Fargo ARS Station currently has three SY's working on CRIS
    projects involving sugarbeets. Unit scientists include one Pathologist,
    one Geneticist and one Physiologist. The CRIS funding for this location
    is $974,084.00. The sugarbeet industry is plagued by several major
    production problems in this area. Pre-harvest losses include crop
    damage incurred by the sugarbeet root maggot and by fungal diseases,
    such as root rot caused by Aphanomyces and leaf spot. Unit research
    activities include two major thrusts addressing these issues. Research
    focusing on both disease resistance and crop protection, as well as
    pathogen virulence is being actively pursued and is making excellent
    progress. A major portion of the unit's Genetics and breeding efforts
    is directed at identifying and introducing plant resistance to the
    sugarbeet root maggot. Research on sugarbeet physiology is directed
    toward identifying the internal processes that affect sucrose
    accumulation and retention in sugarbeets.
        Decreased pesticide use would greatly reduce producer's input
    costs. To this end, an entomologist conducting research on root maggot
    biology or on other insect-related problems of national importance
    (e.g. sugarbeet root aphid, beet army worm, nematodes) could be added.
    This research would compliment current unit efforts in breeding natural
    resistance to sugarbeet root maggot as well as investigating field
    application of a biological insecticide for root maggot control.
        Improvements in the management of postharvest beet storage would
    also result in increased profitability. Postharvest deterioration of
    piled beets due to storage pathogens, harvest injury, and temperature
    extremes and other physiological processes occurs frequently and
    results in the loss of a large portion of the harvested sucrose.
    Fundamental research into maintenance of sugarbeet quality during
    storage would therefore be appropriate for this location. These studies
    would complement current physiological studies on sucrose metabolism in
    sugarbeets. We feel an increase of $300,000.00 would be needed to fill
    either an Entomology or Storage (Physiology) SY position at this
    location.
                                  salinas, ca
        This station currently has four SY's working on CRIS projects
    involving sugarbeets. They include two Virologists and two Geneticists.
    The Virology CRIS is funded at $647,027.00. This virology program has
    been very productive in the past and continues to produce information
    which is used not only in California, but across the entire sugarbeet
    production area. This team continues the excellent virology work at
    this station. At this time, this CRIS, we feel has adequate funding.
    The Genetics CRIS is funded at $571,620.00. According to USDA/ARS
    baseline, the Genetics CRIS is currently under funded, we agree.
    Salinas unquestionably has the world's foremost sugarbeet breeding
    program. Germplasm created from this program has been used worldwide.
    The incorporation of genes for Rhizomania resistance, not only saved
    the industry in California, but is now used throughout the country and
    throughout the world. They are also concentrating their breeding
    efforts on sugarbeet cyst and rootknot nematode. These are a major pest
    in many growing areas, and ones that have very limited chemical control
    means. The chemical control means available are very expensive. It is
    imperative that this program continue. We are requesting and increase
    of $100,000.00 annually to fund this CRIS at a level where quality
    research can be conducted.
                                 beltsville, md
        This Station currently has two SY's working on CRIS projects
    involving sugarbeets. They include one Microbiologist and one
    Pathologist. This station is adequately funded at a level of
    $650,000.00 and doing a good job. No additional funding is requested
    for Beltsville.

                             Summary of Needed Funding

    Kimberly, ID............................................   $1,250,000.00
    Ft. Collins, CO.........................................      500,000.00
    East Lansing, MI........................................      641,500.00
    Fargo, ND...............................................      300,000.00
    Salinas, CA.............................................      100,000.00
    Beltsville, MD..........................................               0
                                     ______

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

        Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide
    testimony to you and the Subcommittee, to thank you for your past
    support and to discuss the achievements and opportunities of the U.S.
    Marine Shrimp Farming Program.
        We would like to bring to your attention the success of the U.S.
    Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium and its value to the nation. The
    Consortium consists of institutions from six states: The University of
    Southern Mississippi/Gulf Coast Research Laboratory, Mississippi; The
    Oceanic Institute, Hawaii; Tufts University, Massachusetts; Texas A & M
    University, Texas; The Waddell Mariculture Center, South Carolina; and
    the University of Arizona, Arizona. These institutions have made major
    advances in technology to support the U.S. shrimp fanning industry, and
    the program's excellent performance through multi-state collaboration
    has been recognized by the USDA in its recent program reviews. The
    Consortium is at a point of opportunity to make significant
    contributions to building the U.S. industry, reducing the trade
    deficit, and satisfying increasing consumer demand for shrimp. Seafood
    imports constitute the second largest trade deficit item for the U.S.
    at $7.1 billion and shrimp represents approximately half of this
    deficit.
                                accomplishments
        The Consortium, in cooperation with private industry, industry
    associations, and government agencies has generated new technologies
    for producing premium quality marine shrimp at competitive prices. To
    date the program has: (1) established the world's first and currently
    most advanced breeding and genetic selection program for marine shrimp;
    (2) completed pioneering research and development of advanced
    diagnostic tools for disease screening and control; (3) described the
    etiology of shrimp diseases associated with viral pathogens; (4)
    fostered shrimp production at near-shore, inland/rural farm and even
    desert sites; (5) served a lead role in the Joint Sub-committee on
    Aquaculture's efforts to assess the threat of globally transported
    shrimp pathogens; (6) supplied the U.S. industry with selectively bred
    and disease resistant shrimp stocks; (7) developed advanced technology
    biosecure shrimp production systems to protect both cultured and native
    wild stocks from disease; and (8) developed new feed formulations to
    minimize waste generation. These accomplishments are encouraging. The
    advances in these fundamental areas have provided the foundation for
    achieving our overall goal.
                             industry vulnerability
        While exceptional progress has been made, this emerging and
    important industry is continually confronted with new challenges. It
    depends on the U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Program for high-health and
    improved stocks, disease diagnosis and production technologies. As a
    result of the consortium's support, the U.S. industry has maintained
    relative stability while other countries have had major losses in their
    production due to diseases and environmental problems. Disease losses
    due to exotic viruses in Asia and Latin America during the last year
    approached $1 Billion and $250 million U.S., respectively. We are happy
    to report that U.S. farmers experienced no disease outbreaks during the
    same period while at the same time producing record harvests. In
    addition to supporting today's industry, our advanced biosecure shrimp
    production systems will allow the expansion of shrimp farming into
    near-shore, inland/rural, and desert sites away from the
    environmentally sensitive coastal zone.
                             industry independence
        As a result of the work of the Consortium, investor confidence is
    increasing. Notably, within the last three years, new shrimp farm
    startups have begun in Mississippi, Hawaii, Texas, Arizona, South
    Carolina and Florida and are being considered in other states.
    Importantly, these new production technologies produce the highest
    quality shrimp at world competitive prices, consume U.S. grains as
    feed, and do not pose any threat to the environment. Shrimp farming is
    the newest agricultural industry for the U.S., and CSREES has suggested
    that our program represents a model program for resolving important
    problems and capturing opportunities in both agriculture and
    aquaculture.
        To begin completion of our remaining tasks, an increase in the
    current funding level from $4.177 million to $5 million is being
    requested. Allocation of $5 million per year for the next few years to
    work in cooperation with the private sector, to support existing
    efforts, and to build this new industry with its associated jobs and
    economic benefits is in the best interests of the nation.
        Mr. Chairman, the U.S. shrimp farming industry and our Consortium
    deeply appreciate the support of the Committee and respectfully ask for
    a favorable consideration of this request.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Management Institute

        Dear Mr. Chairman: I am Ronald R. Helinski, Conservation Policy
    Specialist for the Wildlife Management Institute. Established in 1911,
    the Institute is staffed by professional wildlife scientist and
    managers. It's purpose is to promote the restoration and improvement of
    wildlife in North America. I am submitting testimony for the Senate
    Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies
    concerning appropriations for:
                     natural resources conservation service
        With such a short timetable I will hit the highlights of each line
    item/program and offer observations on impacts of this proposed fiscal
    year 2002 budget on conservation, particularly this nation's fish and
    wildlife resources.
        Conservation Technical Assistance--The proposed increase of $59
    million dollars is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of farmers,
    ranchers and private landowners who have or plan to participate in the
    current Farm Bill programs. Technical assistance is an expected
    service. It is provided by natural resource professionals to assist
    farmers, ranchers and private landowners in the planning,
    implementation and evaluation of said programs. It has often been
    argued that private landowner participation hinges on what kind of
    support the constituent obtains from those professionals. Given a 5:1
    demand for EQIP, 5:1 for WRP, and 3:1 demand for WHIP, landowners
    EXPECT those services and guidance.
        Admittedly, there is a need for more personnel in NRCS to provide
    this on-the-ground service. Consideration to alternative providers is
    one way to help address this endemic problem. WMI suggests that through
    the the leveraging of NRCS monies, state fish and wildlife agencies and
    conservation NGO's are in a position to help fill this void. Currently,
    this type of infrastructure is in place in many states including
    Missouri, Kentucky, Georgia, Texas and Arkansas. Reimbursement from
    NRCS to state agency personnel would go a long way to help resolve this
    problem. The state fish and wildlife agencies bring professional
    expertise to the table and are experienced in developing conservation
    plans to assist with the current overwhelming demand of Farm Bill
    applications.
        Specific Farm Bill Programs.--WHIP and WRP programs without a doubt
    are two of the most successful programs to ever come down the road for
    private landowners. As mentioned above, the current demand for the
    programs speak volumes to there popularity. This popularity equals
    additional monetary assistance to landowners in this time of economic
    decline. The conservation bonus has helped resolve many natural
    resource problems while acting as a long term investment for providing
    quality of life improvements for this nations citizens.
        WRP.--Increase the cap on WRP to 3.5 million acres or the annual
    enrollment cap to 250,000 acres. With a 3:1 ratio of applications to
    approved projects, the demand exists. Projects should be designed more
    carefully to help achieve wildlife restoration goals. Currently there
    is no additional acres for enrollment in 2002, this needs to be
    corrected.
        WHIP.--Provide $100 million annually. WHIP projects have reached
    non-traditional farm bill constituents where they have been able to
    address many endangered species scenarios while keeping regulations to
    a minimum. This program was embraced by landowners and formed many
    partnerships between USDA (NRCS) and non-Federal organizations,
    resulting in tremendous leveraging of non-Federal dollars.
        Section 211 (b) of the Agricultural Risk Protection Act provided an
    additional $40 million for soil and water conservation assistance. The
    2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act gave the Secretary the authority
    to reallocate these funds to WHIP and FPP, $8 million in additional
    funds was provided for FPP and $12 million was allocated to WHIP. The
    original allocation was $20 million allocated to WHIP. It goes without
    saying that the recognition of the utility and need for this program
    comes up year after year. It's time to allocate the necessary monies to
    make this a true national program. The allocations to the Northeast and
    far Western states are inadequate to meet these regional needs. In
    fact, WHIP is of the same stature as CRP to these regions.
        Forestry Incentive Program.--WMI recommends creating one non-
    industrial private landowner cost-share assistance program by combining
    the existing Forestry Incentives Program (FTP with the Stewardship
    Incentives Program (SIP) and fund it at $100 dollars. A financial
    incentives program is needed to encourage private land owners to adopt
    management practices that respond to national needs for healthy
    sustainable forests.
        Farmland Protection Program.--Provide $200 million for the Farmland
    Protection Program. Require conservation easements under the program to
    consider wildlife habitat, in addition to soil, and water conservation.
        Forest Legacy Program.--Increase to 5200 million annually. The
    Forest Legacy Program has a proven track record of protecting
    productive forestlands from development and fragmentation. Weather
    through conservation easements or fee purchase, Legacy focuses on state
    assessments of need to set program priorities. Public benefits amass
    from both environmental and economic values.
        Forest Stewardship.--Provide $50 million per year to increase
    planning assistance to private forest landowners. Non-industrial
    private forestland owners provide great benefits to wildlife through
    their forest management. Forest Stewardship plans ensure that non-
    commodity forest resources such as soil, water and fish and wildlife
    recreation and aesthetics are considered and balanced with commodity
    outputs.
                              farm service agency
        With an environment that includes low commodity prices and
    shrinking overseas markets, producing more commodities will not solve
    the problem. Given that there is no foreseeable change in this
    equation, giving private landowners options for other monetary sources
    would be a good thing. As I review the submitted budget for fiscal year
    2002 I see a number of popular Farm Bill programs being zeroed out. CRP
    has been a mainstay on this countries landscape. CRP has enabled
    private landowners to retire land to assist this country with soil,
    water and wildlife habitat enhancement. Alternative opportunities are
    presented for farmers and ranchers to secure additional monies for
    helping to improve the quality of life for all our citizens. Why stop
    now when the job is far from being completed.
        CRP.-On page 102 of the Budget for fiscal year 2002 it shows a zero
    allocation for obligations and technical assistance (CCC funds). What a
    mistake this would be. CRP is USDA's largest conservation/environmental
    program. It also includes the Buffer Initiative and Conservation
    Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) programs. WMI recommends raising the
    cap on CRP to 63.9 million acres (with a minimum of 45 million acres).
    A sensible approach to reduce excess production capacity through long-
    term idling of surplus cropland exists in this very popular program.
    The demand by landowners is tremendous. The program has enhanced more
    wildlife populations than any action ever taken in this nation. CRP has
    helped raise commodity prices, too. The value of the CRP's improvements
    to wildlife viewing and to pheasant hunting has been estimated at $704
    million/year (Claassen et al., 2001). Specific improvements to CRP
    include state flexibility in addressing rental rates and seed mixtures,
    along with natural regeneration on riparian buffers and marginal
    pastures.
        Technical Assistance.--In fiscal year 2001, $26 million was
    obligated for technical assistance services (see page 108 The Budget
    for fiscal year 2002). It is zeroed out for fiscal year 2002. If we
    minimally increase the cap to 45 million acres we will need an increase
    in technical assistance between percent 60 to 80 million dollars. If
    you refer to the section above entitled ``technical assistance'' under
    the MRCN section you will find that there is an alternative to this
    request.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the State of Wyoming

        This statement is sent in support of fiscal year 2002 funding in
    the amount of $12,000,000 for the Department of Agriculture's Colorado
    River Salinity Control (CRSC) Program, which, pursuant to Public Law
    104-127, is a component program within the Environmental Quality
    Incentives Program (EQIP). The U.S.D.A.'s Natural Resources
    Conservation Service designated the Colorado River Salinity Control
    Program as a national conservation priority area in fiscal year 2000. I
    request inclusion of this statement into the formal hearing record
    concerning fiscal year 2002 appropriations.
        Wyoming views the inclusion of the CRSC Program in EQIP as a direct
    recognition on the part of Congress of the Federal commitment to
    maintenance of the water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado
    River--and that the Secretary of Agriculture has a vital role in
    meeting that commitment.
        The State of Wyoming is a member state of the seven-state Colorado
    River Basin Salinity Control Forum, established in 1973 to coordinate
    with the Federal government on the maintenance of the basin-wide Water
    Quality Standards for Salinity in the Colorado River System. The Forum
    is composed of gubernatorial representatives and serves as a liaison
    between the seven states and the Secretaries of the Interior and
    Agriculture and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). The Forum advises the Federal agencies on the progress of
    efforts to control the salinity of the Colorado River and annually
    makes funding recommendations, including the amount believed necessary
    to be expended by the USDA for its on-farm CRSC Program. Overall, the
    combined efforts of the Basin states, the Bureau of Reclamation and the
    Department of Agriculture have resulted in one of the nation's most
    successful non-point source control programs.
        Farmers and agricultural producers in the five project areas of
    Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, where the Program's salinity control
    efforts are underway, have been willing participants in the salinity
    reduction effort. The salinity control effort has cost-sharing partners
    ready to participate, and through use of the Upper and Lower Colorado
    Basin Development Funds, additional funding above and beyond
    appropriations to the USDA can be expended to further increase the
    maximization of environmental benefits per appropriated dollar
    expended.
        One of the five CRSC Program units presently being implemented is
    located in southwestern Wyoming. The Big Sandy River Unit is located
    within the boundaries of the Eden Valley Irrigation and Drainage
    District. About 15,800 acres are irrigated on the District's lands each
    year, and it is projected that about 85 percent of the District's lands
    will have salinity reduction practices in place at full implementation
    of this CRSC Program unit. With that level of participation, the
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has projected that 53,000
    tons of salt will annually be prevented from entering the Colorado
    River system. The majority of the producers have opted to install
    center pivot sprinkler systems as the means to greatly increase their
    irrigation application efficiency.
        For the past 17 years, the seven-state Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Forum has actively assisted the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture in implementing this unique, collaborative, and important
    program. At its recent October 2000 meeting, the Forum recommended that
    the U.S. Department of Agriculture Colorado River Basin salinity
    control program, a component part of the EQIP, should expend
    $12,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. This funding level is appropriate to
    reduce a growing ``backlog'' in meeting the pace of necessary salt
    loading reductions. Failure to maintain the standards' numeric criteria
    could result in the imposition of state-line water quality standards
    and impair the Colorado River Basin states' ability to develop their
    Compact-apportioned water supplies. ``Catch-up'' funding in the future
    will require expending greater sums of money, increasing the likelihood
    that the numeric salinity criteria are exceeded, and create undue
    burdens and difficulties for one of the most successful Federal/State
    cooperative non-point source pollution control programs in the United
    States.
        The State of Wyoming greatly appreciates the Subcommittee's support
    of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program in past years. We
    continue to believe this important basin-wide water quality improvement
    program merits funding and support by your Subcommittee.

                                 RELATED AGENCY

                      Commodity Futures Trading Commission

            Prepared Statement of James E. Newsome, Acting Chairman

        Thank you, Chairman Kohl and members of the Subcommittee. I am
    pleased to submit this testimony on behalf of the Commodity Futures
    Trading Commission.
        First, I would like to discuss the mission and responsibilities of
    the agency and provide you with a detailed description of the manner in
    which we have used previous budget allocations. Then, I would like to
    describe how the profound changes in the regulatory landscape that have
    resulted from the passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of
    2000 will impact our budget plans for fiscal year 2002.
                             mission of the agency
        Since creating the Commission in 1974, Congress has tasked the CFTC
    both with protecting participants in the commodity futures and options
    markets against manipulation, abusive trade practices, and fraud and
    with enabling the markets to serve better their critically important
    economic role of providing a mechanism for price discovery and a means
    of managing risk. Most of the participants in the futures and option
    markets are commercial or institutional users of the commodities they
    trade and those commodities wind up ultimately in countless food and
    consumer products or are consumed in the provision of many important
    services.
        The mission of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission as an
    oversight regulator is two-fold: (1) to foster open, competitive, and
    financially safe and sound futures and options markets in the United
    States, and (2) to protect the public from fraud, manipulation, and
    abusive practices in these markets. To achieve these goals, the
    Commission employs a well-trained, dedicated, and responsive staff,
    consisting of lawyers, economists, accountants, auditors, futures
    trading specialists, computer specialists, and support and
    administrative staff. The staff is primarily comprised of three main
    operating divisions (Economic Analysis, Trading & Markets, and
    Enforcement), and two offices (Office of International Affairs and
    Office of the General Counsel). The Commission is headquartered in
    Washington, D.C. and maintains regional offices in Chicago, New York,
    Kansas City, Los Angeles and Minneapolis. Commission staff oversee the
    activities of futures exchanges and registrants--futures commission
    merchants, salespeople, floor brokers, floor traders, commodity pool
    operators, commodity trading advisors, and introducing brokers-in
    addition to working with the exchanges as self-regulatory organizations
    (SROs) and the National Futures Association (NFA), a statutorily
    recognized SRO overseen by the Commission, to maintain safe and secure
    markets.
                         responsibilities of the agency
        The oversight functions of the Commission encompass many diverse
    areas. The Division of Economic Analysis (EA) has a critical
    responsibility to ensure that futures and option markets operate
    competitively, free of manipulation and congestion, and serve the risk-
    shifting and price discovery needs of the United States and world
    economies. EA staff conduct daily market surveillance to ensure that
    the markets are functioning in an orderly manner and can, in an
    emergency, order an exchange to take specific action to restore an
    orderly market. EA staff also analyze reports of large trader positions
    in order to identify and address potentially problematic concentrations
    in the marketplace. The Commission is briefed weekly regarding any
    surveillance issues or concerns, and additional briefings are scheduled
    as necessary in response to specific market events. EA staff maintain
    ongoing liaison with other Federal regulators--for example, the United
    States Department of Agriculture and the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission--to discuss issues of common interest and to share
    information regarding market conditions.
        The Division of Trading and Markets (T&M) develops, implements, and
    interprets regulations that protect customers, prevent trading and
    sales practice abuses, and assure the financial integrity of the
    futures markets and firms holding customer funds. T&M staff oversee the
    compliance activities of the futures industry self-regulatory
    organizations, including the futures and options exchanges, their
    clearinghouses, and the NFA. Regarding solicitation of customers, T&M
    staff monitor issues relating to the requirements that registrants
    disclose market risks and past performance information to prospective
    investors. T&M staff also review registrant compliance with the
    requirements that customer funds be kept in accounts separate from
    those maintained by the firm for its own use. In addition, staff ensure
    that customer accounts are adjusted to reflect the current market value
    at the close of each trading day. T&M staff oversee NFA's activities
    relating to registration of individuals and companies that handle
    customer funds or give trading advice, and make appropriate referrals
    to enforcement staff as necessary. Moreover, T&M staff monitor
    registrants' supervision systems, internal controls and sales practice
    compliance, and ethics programs. T&M and EA staffs perform trade
    practice surveillance and work closely with exchanges in their self-
    regulatory capacity to ensure that their rules and regulations comport
    with Federal regulation in various areas, including clearance of
    trades, trade orders and records, position limits, price limits,
    disciplinary actions, and floor trading practices. The staffs conduct
    comprehensive semiannual reviews of all domestic futures and options
    exchanges to ensure that they remain in compliance with the Commodity
    Exchange Act and its regulations.
        The Division of Enforcement (DOE) investigates and prosecutes
    alleged violations of the Commodity Exchange Act and Commission
    regulations. DOE takes actions against individuals and firms registered
    with the Commission, those who are engaged in commodity futures and
    options trading on designated domestic exchanges, and those who
    improperly market futures and options contracts.
        DOE staff base investigations on information they develop
    independently, as well as information referred by other Commission
    divisions; industry self-regulatory organizations; State, Federal, and
    international authorities; and members of the public. At the conclusion
    of an investigation, DOE staff may recommend that the Commission
    initiate administrative proceedings or seek injunctive and ancillary
    relief on behalf of the Commission in Federal court. Administrative
    sanctions may include orders suspending, denying, revoking, or
    restricting registration and exchange trading privileges and imposing
    civil monetary penalties, cease and desist orders, and orders of
    restitution. The Commission also may obtain temporary restraining
    orders and preliminary and permanent injunctions in Federal court to
    halt ongoing violations, as well as civil monetary penalties. Other
    relief may include appointment of a receiver, the freezing of assets,
    restitution, and disgorgement of unlawfully acquired benefits. The CEA
    also provides that the Commission may obtain certain temporary relief
    on an ex parte basis, including restraining orders preserving books and
    records, freezing assets, and appointing a receiver. When those
    enjoined violate court orders, DOE staff may seek to have the offenders
    held in contempt.
        The Division of Enforcement works with the Department of Justice in
    the prosecution of criminal activity involving commodity-related
    issues. In addition, DOE staff provide expert help and technical
    assistance to U.S. Attorneys' Offices, other Federal and State law
    enforcement agencies, and international authorities. The Commission and
    individual States may join as co-plaintiffs in civil injunctive actions
    brought to enforce the Commodity Exchange Act.
        The Office of International Affairs (OIA) assists the Commission in
    responding to global market and regulatory changes by coordinating the
    Commission's international activities. OIA provides information and
    technical support to the Commission and to its other offices and
    divisions on international matters; assists the Commission in
    developing rulemakings having foreign implications; analyzes foreign
    regulatory developments; develops regulatory information-sharing
    arrangements; shares regulatory and fitness information with foreign
    authorities; and coordinates technical assistance to foreign
    jurisdictions. OIA represents the Commission in international
    organizations, organizes international conferences on behalf of the
    Commission, and provides technical comments to other U.S. financial
    regulators with respect to relevant international activities.
        The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) is the Commission's legal
    advisor. OGC represents the Commission in appellate litigation and in
    certain trial-level cases, including bankruptcy proceedings that
    involve futures industry professionals. Through its opinions program,
    OGC assists the Commission in performing its adjudicatory functions. As
    legal advisor, OGC reviews all substantive regulatory, legislative, and
    administrative matters presented to the Commission. OGC also advises
    the Commission on the application and interpretation of the Commodity
    Exchange Act and other administrative statutes.
                         highlights of fiscal year 2000
        The Commission's fiscal year 2000 appropriation was $62.8 million.
    This was $1.6 million or a 2.6 percent increase over our fiscal year
    1999 level. Actual staffing levels for fiscal year 2000 were down to
    556 full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) in fiscal year 2000 from 567
    FTEs in fiscal year 1999.
        Approximately three-fourths of the CFTC's appropriation is to cover
    the salary and benefits of the Commission staff. Recruiting and
    retaining a professional staff, consisting primarily of attorneys and
    economists, continues to be one the Commission's largest management
    challenges. Beginning in fiscal year 2000 and continuing in this fiscal
    year, the Commission has moved aggressively to recruit, and more
    importantly retain, its highly specialized professional staff by using,
    when fiscally feasible, all of the flexibilities available to it within
    Title V.
        The remaining quarter of the Commission's budget covers all other
    operating expenses. The two largest operating expenses are the lease of
    office space and the cost of maintaining an information technology
    infrastructure that enables the Commission to maintain an effective
    enforcement and market surveillance presence.
        Keeping pace with the rapid information technology developments in
    the futures industry is perhaps the Commission's second largest
    management challenge. For the first six months of the year 2000, the
    Commission undertook an independent assessment of its information
    technology program. The report included a number of specific
    recommendations including:
      --Reorganizing the Office of Information Resources Management;
      --Reestablishing an information technology strategic planning body
            with enhanced senior management involvement;
      --Increasing staff, over a two-year period, from 38 FTEs to 58 FTEs,
            to bring the Commission to acceptable industry standards;
      --Implementing skill requirements for staff based upon the Chief
            Information Officer's Council Core Competencies framework;
      --Changing the information technology infrastructure, including an
            enhanced security program; and
      --Reengineering the change management process.
        The Commission initiated a number of these changes with fiscal year
    2000 and fiscal year 2001 resources. For example, the Commission has
    already reallocated an additional six FTEs for information technology
    positions.
        In addition to the significant resources devoted to the substantial
    revisions to the Commodity Exchange Act, the following are some
    highlights from the ongoing work of the Commission's programs:
    Enforcement
        In the program areas, the CFTC has used its appropriations to
    maintain an effective enforcement and market surveillance presence in
    the growing futures and option markets. The largest share of our
    resources goes to support the Commission's enforcement program. The
    primary goal of the enforcement program is to police futures markets
    for conduct that violates the Commodity Exchange Act or Commission
    regulations. The Enforcement program continuously looks for new ways to
    enhance the Commission's ability to detect and deter wrongdoing. In
    fiscal year 2000, for example, the Enforcement staff took action in a
    variety of areas including:
        Fraudulent Internet Solicitations.--Internet fraud poses a grave
    new threat because technology now enables malefactors to solicit
    business fraudulently from millions of people quickly and cheaply. To
    combat this threat, the Commission's enforcement program:
      --Published a new Consumer Advisory; participated in Internet
            surveillance ``surf days'' in cooperation with the Securities
            and Exchange Commission and the Federal Trade Commission; and
            trained international enforcement agencies in the investigation
            and litigation of Internet-related fraud actions.
        On May 1, 2000, the Commission announced the initial results of a
    coordinated enforcement initiative with the Securities and Exchange
    Commission and the Federal Trade Commission aimed at cleaning up
    Internet Web sites. As part of the initiative, the Commission filed and
    simultaneously settled 10 administrative enforcement actions.
        Fraudulent Illegal Commodity Contracts.--Illegal futures or option
    contracts continue to pose a financial threat to the public. The
    Enforcement program actively seeks to protect the public from
    wrongdoers who fraudulently solicit customers for what are purported to
    be financed speculative purchases of precious metals and other
    commodities but which are in fact illegal futures or option contracts.
    In fiscal year 2000, the Commission brought several civil actions
    charging defendants with this type of misconduct. The Commission has
    also issued a Consumer Advisory to address these issues. In the
    Consumer Advisory, the Commission warned that companies making such
    pitches often overstate profit potential while minimizing the risk
    involved, falsely claiming that they are purchasing and storing metal,
    and charging phony ``storage'' and ``interest'' fees.
        Other enforcement initiatives focused on fraudulent trade
    allocations--targeting, for example, wrongdoers who purposefully failed
    to provide account numbers for trades--until after they knew the prices
    at which the trades had been confirmed--in order to favor some
    customers over others in the allocation of profits and losses.
        Market Surveillance, Analysis, and Research.--As noted above, one
    of the Commission's principal responsibilities is to assure that
    futures markets operate competitively, free of manipulation and
    congestion, and serve the price discovery and risk management needs of
    the U.S. and world economies. The Market Surveillance, Analysis, and
    Research programs in the Division of Economic Analysis focus on these
    objectives, periodically examine the effectiveness of their programs,
    and seek to institute revisions that reduce the costs of compliance.
    The following are examples of fiscal year 2000 initiatives in these
    programs:
        Adoption of New Procedures for New Contract Listing and Rule
    Reviews.--The Commission proposed a far-reaching and fundamental change
    to its procedures for listing new contracts offered by U.S. exchanges.
    The change responds to U.S. futures exchanges' concerns that their
    ability to list new contracts without delay is important to their
    continued competitiveness, particularly with foreign exchanges.
    Specifically, the Commission adopted procedures allowing an exchange to
    list new contracts one day after the exchange files a notice with a
    certification that the contract meets the Commission's requirements.
    The certification, in conjunction with fast-track procedures for
    approval of new contracts previously adopted by the Commission, ensures
    that the benefits of a new contract can be brought to the marketplace
    as soon as possible. Since then, the Commission further streamlined the
    exchange rules approval process to permit single, weekly summary
    filings rather than individual submissions.
        Listing of a Variety of New Products. The Commission approved 29
    new futures and option contracts, two of which were approved under 10-
    day fast track procedures, and 13 of which were approved under 45-day
    fast track provisions. In addition, exchanges filed 23 new contracts
    for listing under the Commission's certification procedures, which
    permit exchanges to certify their own contracts and list them prior to
    receiving Commission approval. Examples of new contracts include:
      --U.S. Agency Notes based on Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae instruments;
      --Illinois Waterway Barge Freight and St. Louis Harbor Barge Freight
            futures;
      --Cottonseed Oil futures and futures option contracts;
      --U.S. equity index contracts, including the Dow Jones Utilities
            Average and the Dow Jones Transportation Average, as well as
            the Dow Jones Composite Average;
      --Dairy and Livestock products, such as the cash-settled live cattle
            futures and option contracts based on the value of cattle at
            slaughter weight;
      --Regional Electricity contracts such as the MidColumbia electricity
            futures contract, which provides electricity market
            participants with risk management tools to respond to the
            evolving electricity cash market in the Pacific Northwest
            region of the U.S.
        Trading and Markets.--As noted above, T&M staff develop, implement,
    and interpret regulations that protect customers, prevent trading and
    sales practice abuses, and assure the financial integrity of the
    futures markets and firms holding customer funds. During fiscal year
    2000, the Commission published the following final rules, proposed
    rules, orders, and advisories as part of the Commission's effort to
    reduce regulatory burdens:
        Block Trading Proposals.--The Commission approved a proposal by the
    Cantor Financial Futures Exchange, Inc. (Cantor) to establish block-
    trading procedures at Cantor. The block-trading program at Cantor
    allows qualified market participants to negotiate and arrange futures
    transactions of a minimum size bilaterally, away from the centralized,
    competitive market. Once the specific terms of the block transaction
    are agreed to, the counterparties report the relevant details of the
    transaction to the exchange for clearing and settlement. The Commission
    also approved a later submission from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange
    to establish block trading.
        Electronic Signatures.--The Commission adopted new rules permitting
    futures commission merchants or FCMs, introducing brokers or IBs,
    commodity trading advisors and commodity pool operators to accept from
    their customers, clients or pool participants electronic signatures in
    those instances where Commission rules require registrants to obtain a
    signature on a document--such as an acknowledgement of receipt of
    required disclosure. The new rules include a definition of ``electronic
    signature'' patterned on the definition in the Uniform Electronic
    Transaction Act and a requirement to employ reasonable safeguards in
    accepting electronic signatures.
        Average Price Calculations.--The Commission issued an advisory
    permitting FCMs to calculate average prices for their customers, when
    permitted to do so by exchange rules, if multiple prices are received
    on an order or series of orders. Previously, the Commission had
    authorized only U.S. trading clearinghouses to perform the
    calculations. FCMs now have greater flexibility and increased
    efficiency in providing average pricing.
        Foreign Futures and Options.--The Commission adopted a rule
    permitting foreign firms acting in the capacity of FCMs and IBs to
    accept and execute foreign futures and option orders received directly
    from certain sophisticated U.S. customers without the firms being
    required to register with the Commission.
                  commodity futures modernization act of 2000
        The Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA) was signed into law
    on December 21, 2000, and with its enactment, the Commission was given
    the task of overhauling virtually the entire regulatory structure of
    the commodity futures and options industry. While this will bring
    tremendous pressures to bear on its staff and resources, the Commission
    is extremely pleased to have the opportunity to carry out the mandates
    of this flexible new oversight structure, and the agency is firmly
    committed to doing so in accordance with the timetables that are given
    within the statute.
        The CFMA provides legal certainty for over-the-counter markets,
    lightens regulatory burdens on domestic exchanges, and lifts the ban on
    single-stock futures. The new Act requires action by the Commission,
    including 15 rulemakings and three studies. In some cases, the
    Commission is required to coordinate its efforts with those of other
    Federal regulators. The CFMA also clarified the Commission's authority
    with regard to prosecuting foreign exchange bucket shops and provided a
    new framework for the oversight of designated clearing organizations.
        Additionally, the CFMA moved the Commission from a role as a front-
    line regulator to a more flexible oversight role. It might appear that,
    in this new capacity, the Commission would need fewer resources than in
    the past. However, just the opposite is likely to be true.
    Implementation of the CFMA promises to liberate market participants
    from prescriptive, often out-dated, regulations so that innovation in
    new products and new trading platforms may flourish. Market
    participants have already begun to respond enthusiastically to this
    opportunity. However, this very innovation, and the increasing
    diversity in products and platforms that it generates, can present the
    Commission with significant oversight challenges.
        For example, rapid developments in technology, particularly in
    telecommunications and the Internet especially, have sparked great
    interest in electronic exchanges and trading platforms. In just the
    last year or so, the Commission has approved three new exchanges and
    granted no-action relief to two electronic trading platforms for energy
    products. By comparison, for more than a decade prior to that, only two
    new exchanges were designated and neither became an economically viable
    trading platform.
        And it is very likely that those three new exchanges represent only
    the tip of the iceberg. Commission staff are currently reviewing the
    applications of, or have received serious inquiries from, another half
    dozen proposed electronic exchanges and we anticipate that some of the
    electronic cash markets may also give rise to additional electronic
    futures exchanges.
        This exciting growth and innovation in the marketplace has begun,
    and will continue, to provide real benefits to market participants,
    customers, and the economy as a whole. However, because the
    Commission's primary responsibilities have not changed, growth and
    innovation will also place increasingly greater demands on our
    resources. Several areas in particular require significant attention
    and effort:
      --New exchanges and alternate trading platforms, for which tailored
            oversight must be fashioned to fit each market along a spectrum
            of regulatory classifications from full oversight to basic
            fraud and manipulation protections;
      --A new product area (single-stock futures) which potentially will
            lead to new contracts;
      --Advancements in the practices of clearinghouses to respond properly
            to these new products and new trading platforms; and
      --Clarification of our enforcement mission to now include
            prosecutions in the increasingly problematic area of foreign-
            exchange bucket shops.
        To effectively fulfill its responsibilities in these areas, the
    Commission and its staff must rely heavily upon information management
    and telecommunications resources that are capable, efficient, and up-
    to-date in order to allow flexible, fast, and appropriate responses to
    market conditions and events. It should be emphasized that, as a
    financial regulator, and particularly a regulator that is witnessing
    phenomenal growth in electronically based market activity, the
    Commission depends heavily upon its information management and
    telecommunications resources. Without adequate resources in this area,
    the Commission cannot effectively monitor markets to detect potential
    problems on a timely basis. Nor can the Commission reconstruct market
    events when disputes arise or when violations are alleged. These
    monitoring and investigative responsibilities require the processing of
    vast quantities of information and the Commission's Office of
    Information Resources Management represents not a support function but
    rather a mission-critical core competency of the Commission.
        But our human resources, the dedicated people that interpret and
    act upon the information provided by our computer resources, are even
    more critically important to the performance of our mission, the
    protection of market participants, and the markets themselves. This
    mission requires staff members with the proper training and solid
    experience in the specifics of the markets we oversee.
                      budget request for fiscal year 2002
        The President's fiscal year 2002 budget request for the Commission
    is $70.4 million. That sum represents an increase of $2.6 million (or
    3.7 percent) over fiscal year 2001 appropriations. To maintain its
    current level of services and operations, the Commission would require
    for fiscal year 2002 approximately $76.2 million. Therefore, this
    budget will finance an estimated 57 fewer FTEs (in staff-years) for
    fiscal year 2002 than is provided for in fiscal year 2001.
               overview of funding levels and operational effects
        The proposed funding level for fiscal year 2002 will require the
    Commission to make some hard choices as it prepares to transform itself
    from a front line regulator to an oversight agency. The Commission's
    top priorities will continue, to every extent possible, to dedicate
    resources to the Enforcement and Surveillance programs and to permit
    ongoing critical investments in technology to increase the Commission's
    ability to make the most of the limited resources.
        The Commission will strive to ensure that the staff reductions will
    not seriously impair the Commission's ability to keep pace with the
    rapid growth in volume and the profound changes resulting from novel
    transactions, new trading systems, new market practices, technological
    advances, market globalization, and efforts to carry out the long
    awaited regulatory reform efforts culminating in the passage of the
    Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 or CFMA.
        Specifically, the fiscal year 2002 President's Budget will result
    in a reduction of twelve staff-years in the Enforcement program--a
    decrease that is approximately the size of an entire investigation/
    litigation team. While the FTEs eliminated will be distributed through
    the Enforcement program in an attempt to minimize the impact, this
    decrease will most likely have a measurable impact on the program. For
    example, more and more Americans have money at risk in the futures
    markets either directly or indirectly through pension funds or
    ownership of shares in publicly held companies that participate in the
    markets. The growing size and sophistication of these markets present
    new challenges to the Enforcement program and place new demands on its
    resources. The Enforcement program is important both as a deterrent to
    wrongdoers and as a signal of integrity to inspire confidence on the
    part of market participants. This reduction in staff means the
    Enforcement program will be less well equipped to respond to these
    challenges in the future.
        In fiscal year 2002, the Market Surveillance, Analysis, and
    Research program will lose nine positions. This loss means the level of
    surveillance, exchange oversight, contract design review, and market
    and product study may not be commensurate with the growth in new types
    of exchanges and the initiation of new products, such as single stock
    futures. If growth in the industry outpaces the resources available to
    oversee the industry, several risks are introduced, including the
    increased possibility of undetected price manipulations and abusive
    trading practices. A key goal of the Commission is to ensure that its
    regulatory policies reflect of industry developments so as not to
    impede market innovation. But because these markets and the products
    traded on them are increasingly complex, it will be difficult to meet
    this goal with fewer staff resources.
        The Division of Trading and Markets will lose approximately 17
    positions in fiscal year 2002. Trading and Markets plays an important
    leading role in developing many of the regulatory reform initiatives
    undertaken by the Commission and is key to the implementation of the
    CFMA and the many studies that it requires. In fiscal year 2002, in
    addition to providing guidance to the public and industry professionals
    concerning compliance with the CEA, the program will review Commission
    rules to determine if they should be streamlined further in light of
    technological and market developments, provide guidance to foster
    innovative transactions and electronic trading systems, and monitor the
    risks to regulated industry participants by unregulated derivatives
    activities as well as the risks posed to registrants by their
    unregistered affiliates. In addition, Trading and Markets will strive
    to maintain U.S. leadership in setting internationally acceptable
    standards for the regulation of markets and trading. However, with the
    decreased level of resources the program will not be equipped to
    respond as quickly as desired to these critical challenges and their
    associated interested parties.
        Other program areas at the Commission affected by this decrease
    include the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of
    Proceedings. In the Office of the General Counsel, a reduction of four
    FTEs means there may be delays in reviewing contract market designation
    applications, rule changes, and proposed enforcement actions; in
    analyzing legislation and proposed legislation affecting the
    Commission; in defending the Commission in appellate and other
    litigation; and in assisting the Commission in the performance of its
    adjudicatory functions. Likewise, the Office of Proceedings, which will
    lose five staff members, is expected to experience delays in the
    performance of its responsibility, which is providing an inexpensive,
    impartial, and expeditious forum for handling customer complaints
    against persons or firms registered under the CEA.
        The one function that will receive a net increase in staff is
    information technology. The Commission recognizes that the effective
    use of information technology is critical to the Commission's ability
    to carry out its mandate. The fast growing information-intensive and
    increasingly complex futures industry continues to expand into new
    markets and embrace electronic trading, creating a virtual global
    market. The Commission's investment in staff and budgetary resources in
    information technology is a recognition that the Commission must
    maintain technology capabilities that enable it to provide effective
    oversight of an industry with platforms and products that are
    constantly evolving based on technological innovations. It is critical
    that the Commission's information technology capacity stay on par with
    the industry in order to provide the right information at the right
    time and in the right format to our investigators, analysts, and
    attorneys. The increase of four positions for information technology
    will be more than offset by a reduction of seven positions in finance,
    human resources, and administrative services. The loss of seven
    positions among these administrative support functions means less
    responsive support to our program areas in critical areas such as
    recruiting and retaining employees and planning for the financial
    resources necessary to carry-out our mission. .
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our mission,
    responsibilities, and resource needs as we take on the challenge of
    rethinking our former methods of regulating the safest, soundest
    futures and options markets in the world. The Commission looks forward
    to working with Congress and other Federal financial regulators to
    ensure that we foster innovation and competition in the marketplace to
    enable the markets to grow and maintain their global leadership role. I
    would be happy to provide answers to any questions you may have.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Ad Hoc Coalition, prepared statement.............................   733
    Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), prepared
      statement......................................................   741
    Alachua County Board of County Commissioners, prepared statement.   743
    Alsop, James C., Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service,
      Department of Agriculture, prepared statement..................   472
    American:
        Dietetic Association, prepared statement.....................   748
        Farm Bureau Federation, prepared statement...................   750
        Farmland Trust, prepared statement...........................   754
        Federation of Government Employees, Local 3354, prepared
          statement..................................................   756
        Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Local
          3870, prepared statement...................................   756
        Forest & Paper Association, prepared statement...............   760
        Honey Producers Association, Inc., prepared statement........   764
        Horse Protection Association, Inc., prepared statement.......   765
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, prepared statement.......   767
        Phytopathological Society, prepared statement................   770
        Rivers, prepared statement...................................   772
        Seed Trade Association, Inc., prepared statement.............   774
        Sheep Industry Association, prepared statement...............   776
        Society for Microbiology, prepared statement.................   779
        Society of Civil Engineers, prepared statement...............   781
        Society of Plant Physiologists, prepared statement...........   783
    Association of:
        Coordination Council (ACC), prepared statement...............   922
        Research Directors, prepared statement.......................   786
        State Dam Safety Officials, Inc., prepared statement.........   787

    Berne, Bernard H., M.D., Ph.D., prepared statement...............   789
    Billy, Thomas J., Administrator, Food Safety and Inspection
      Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.........   429
    Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from Missouri, statements
      of.............................................................3, 280
    Bosecker, R. Ronald, Administrator, National Agricultural
      Statistics Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared
      statement......................................................   402
    Braley, George A., Acting Administrator, Food and Nutrition
      Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.........   440
    Byrd, Hon. Robert C., U.S. Senator from West Virginia, questions
      submitted by...................................................   156

    California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
      Coalition, prepared statement..................................   791
    Chambliss, Mary, Acting General Sales Manager, Department of
      Agri-
      ture...........................................................   161
    Clayton, Kenneth C., Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
      Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.........   405
    Coachella Valley Water District, prepared statement..............   817
    Coalition for APHIS/Animal Care Appropriations, prepared
      statement......................................................   792
    Coalition for Food Aid, prepared statement.......................   797
    Coalition of ESPCoR States, prepared statement...................   795
    Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports, prepared
      statement......................................................   800
    Cochran, Hon. Thad, U.S. Senator from Mississippi:
        Opening statements......................................1, 161, 279
        Questions submitted by.......................40, 226, 248, 399, 487
    Collins, Keith, Chief Economist, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of Agriculture......................................1, 161
        Prepared statement...........................................   189
        Statement of.................................................   187
    Colorado:
        River Basin Salinity Control Forum, prepared statement.......   801
        River Board of California, prepared statement................   803
        State University, prepared statement.........................   804
    Columbia University, prepared statement..........................   806
    Community Medical Centers, prepared statement....................   807
    Cooper, Norman G., Director, National Appeals Division,
      Department of Agriculture, prepared statement..................   443
    Council for Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching,
      prepared statement.............................................   808
    Craig, Hon. Larry E., U.S. Senator from Idaho:
        Questions submitted by.......................................   122
        Statement of.................................................     8

    Defenders of Wildlife, prepared statement........................   810
    Dewhurst, Stephen B., Budget Officer, Office of the Secretary,
      Department of Agriculture......................................     1
    Dorgan, Hon. Byron L., U.S. Senator from North Dakota:
        Prepared statements.........................................10, 204
        Questions submitted by...........................149, 233, 274, 276
        Statement of.................................................     9
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J., U.S. Senator from Illinois:
        Prepared statements....................................13, 205, 286
        Questions submitted by.......................................   149
        Statement of.................................................    11

    Easter Seals, prepared statement.................................   811

    Fiddick, Paul W., Assistant Secretary for Administration,
      Departmental Administration, Department of Agriculture,
      prepared statement.............................................   468
    Florida State University, prepared statement.....................   813
    Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, prepared statement.   815
    Friends of the National Arboretum, prepared statement............   816

    Hagy, William F., III, Acting Administrator, Rural Business-
      Cooperative Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared
      statement......................................................   377
    Harkin, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator of Iowa, questions submitted by.147, 272
    Healy, Patricia E., Acting Chief Financial Officer, Office of the
      Chief Financial Officer, Department of Agriculture, prepared
      statement......................................................   399
    Hefferan, Dr. Colien, Administrator, Cooperative State Research,
      Education, and Extension Service, Department of Agriculture,
      prepared statement.............................................   448
    Herglotz, Kevin, Acting Director of Communications, Office of
      Communications, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement..   385
    Hobbs, Ira L., Acting Chief Information Officer, Office of the
      Chief Information Officer, Department of Agriculture, prepared
      statement......................................................   460
    Honor, Phyllis W., Acting Administrator, Risk Management Agency,
      Department of Agriculture......................................   161
        Prepared statement...........................................   179
    Horn, Dr. Floyd P., Administrator, Agricultural Research Service,
      Department of Agriculture, prepared statement..................   373
    Humane Society of the United States, prepared statement..........   817

    Illinois Soybean Association and the University of Illinois,
      prepared statement.............................................   821
    Imperial Irrigation District, prepared statement.................   817
    International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, prepared
      statement......................................................   836

    Johnson, Hon. Tim, U.S. Senator from South Dakota:
        Prepared statements.....................................5, 202, 283
        Questions submitted by................................152, 234, 275
        Statements of................................................4, 282
    Joslin Diabetes Center, prepared statement.......................   838

    Kaplan, Dennis, Deputy Director, Office of Budget and Program
      Analysis, Department of Agriculture............................   161
    Kelly, James Michael, Acting General Counsel, Office of the
      General Counsel, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.   386
    Kohl, Hon. Herb, U.S. Senator from Wisconsin:
        Prepared statements........................................202, 285
        Questions submitted by...........................123, 232, 270, 275
        Statement of.................................................     2

    Levitt, Joseph A., Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition,
      Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
      Services.......................................................   279
    Little, James R., Acting Administrator, Farm Service Agency,
      Department of Agriculture, prepared statements...............161, 477

    Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, prepared
      statements...................................................817, 839
    Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group, prepared statement...........   841

    National Association of:
        Conservation Districts, prepared statement...................   844
        FSA County Office Employees, prepared statement..............   842
        Professional Forestry Schools and Colleges, prepared
          statement..................................................   847
        State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, prepared
          statement..................................................   851
        WIC Directors, prepared statement............................   856
    National:
        Beef Cattle Evaluation Consortium, prepared statement........   858
        Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, prepared
          statement..................................................   860
        Congress of American Indians, prepared statement.............   870
        Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations in America,
          prepared statement.........................................   862
        Corn Growers Association, prepared statement.................   869
        Cotton Council of America, prepared statement................   864
        Council of Farmer Cooperatives, prepared statement...........   866
        Fire Ant Task Force, prepared statement......................   903
        Food Processors Association, prepared statement..............   872
        Labor Coordination Council (NLCC), prepared statement........   922
        Organization for Rare Disorders, Inc., prepared statement....   874
        Potato Council, prepared statement...........................   876
        Rural Housing Coalition, prepared statement..................   880
        Rural Telecom Association, prepared statement................   884
        Telephone Cooperative Association, prepared statement........   887
        Treasury Employees Union, prepared statement.................   890
        Turfgrass Evaluation Program, prepared statement.............   892
        Utility Contractors Association, prepared statement..........   895
        Watershed Coalition, prepared statement......................   896
    New Mexico Interstate Stream, prepared statement.................   899
    Newsome, James E., Acting Chairman, Commodity Futures Trading
      Commission, prepared statement.................................   942
    Nez Perce Tribal Executive Committee, prepared statement.........   900
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, prepared statement........   901

    Offutt, Susan E., Administrator, Economic Research Service,
      Department of Agriculture, prepared statement..................   444
    Oklahoma Fire Ant Research and Management Advisory Committee Task
      Force, prepared statement......................................   903
    Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
      Telecommunications Companies, prepared statement...............   907

    Partners for Rural America, prepared statement...................   878

    Red River Valley Association, prepared statement.................   910
    Reed, Dr. Craig A., Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
      Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared
      statement......................................................   409
    Reed, Pearlie S., Chief, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
      Department of Agriculture, prepared statement..................   381
    Reyna, Honorable Michael M., Chairman and Chief Executive
      Officer, Farm Credit Administration, prepared statement........   481

    San Diego County Water Authority, prepared statement.............   817
    Schwetz, Bernard, D.V.M., Ph.D., Acting Principal Deputy
      Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Department of
      Health and Human Services......................................   279
        Prepared statement...........................................   291
    Seminole Tribe of Florida, prepared statement....................   912
    Sharpless, Mattie R., Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural
      Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.........   181
    Shipman, David R., Acting Administrator, Grain Inspection,
      Packers and Stockyards Administration, Department of
      Agriculture, prepared state-
      ment...........................................................   451
    Shipman, Thomas Hunt, Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Farm and
      Foreign Agricultural Services, Department of Agriculture.......   161
        Prepared statement...........................................   166
        Statement of.................................................   162
    Society for Animal Protective Legislation, prepared statement....   914
    Southern Illinois University, prepared statement.................   823
    Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S Senator from Pennsylvania, questions
      submitted by............................................119, 232, 269
    State of:
        Illinois, prepared statement.................................   829
        Wyoming, prepared statement..................................   940
    Stockton, Blaine D., Acting Administrator, Rural Utilities
      Service, Department of Agriculture, prepared statements........   367
    Sundlof, Stephen, D.V.M., Ph.D., Director, Center for Veterinary
      Medicine, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health
      and Human Services.............................................   279
    Suydam, Dr. Linda, Senior Associate Commissioner, Food and Drug
      Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........   279

    Texas A&M University System, prepared statement..................   917

    Union Coordination Council (UCC), prepared statement.............   922
    U.S. Apple Association, prepared statement.......................   920
    U.S. Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium, prepared statement........   938
    United States Beet Sugar Industry, prepared statement............   934
    United States Telecom Association, prepared statement............   924
    University of Illinois, prepared statements...............823, 825, 827
    University of Missouri, prepared statement.......................   823
    University of Southern Mississippi Polymer Institute, prepared
      statement......................................................   927
    Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, prepared statement....   930
    USA Rice Federation, prepared statement..........................   931

    Veneman, Hon. Ann M., Secretary of Agriculture, Office of the
      Secretary, Department of Agriculture...........................     1
        Oral remarks.................................................    17
        Prepared statement...........................................    20
    Viadero, Roger C., Inspector General, Office of Inspector
      General, Department of Agriculture, prepared statement.........   419

    Weber, Jeffrey, Acting Senior Associate Commissioner for
      Management and Systems, Food and Drug Administration,
      Department of Health and Human Services........................   279
    Weems, Kerry, Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Food
      and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
      Services.......................................................   279
    Wellstone, Hon. Paul D., U.S. Senator from Minnesota, letter from    16
    Wildlife Management Institute, prepared statement................   939
    Woodcock, Janet, M.D., Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and
      Research, Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health
      and Human Services.............................................   279

    Zoon, Kathryn, Ph.D., Director, Center for Biologics, Food and
      Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services...   279

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                           DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

                         Agricultural Marketing Service

                                                                       Page
    Agricultural marketing...........................................   406
    Budget:
        Proposal.....................................................   407
        Request summary..............................................   409
    Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program......................   407
    Mandatory market news............................................   406
    Microbiological data program.....................................   407
    Mission..........................................................   405
    National organic program.........................................   406
    Pesticide data program...........................................   407

                         Agricultural Research Service

    Fiscal year 2002 budget recommendations..........................   374
    Proposed fiscal year 2002 buildings and facilities increases.....   376

                   Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

    Our budget request...............................................   418

          Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service

    Advanced:
        Genetic technologies, Kentucky...............................   487
        Spatial technologies, Mississippi............................   488
    Aflatoxin research, Illinois.....................................   488
    AG-based industrial lubricants research program, Iowa............   492
    Agricultural:
        Diversification and speciality crops, Hawaii.................   489
        Diversity/Red River, Minnesota and North Dakota..............   491
        Telecommunications, New York.................................   494
    Agriculture water usage, Georgia.................................   495
    Agroecology, Maryland............................................   496
    Alliance for Food Protection, Nebraska and Georgia...............   496
    Alternative:
        Crops for arid lands, Texas..................................   499
        Crops, North Dakota..........................................   498
        Nutrient management, Vermont.................................   500
        Salmon products, Alaska......................................   501
    Animal Science Food Safety Consortium............................   502
    Apple fire blight, Michigan and New York.........................   503
    Aquaculture:
        Arkansas.....................................................   504
        Florida......................................................   505
        Louisiana....................................................   505
        North Carolina...............................................   508
        Product and marketing development, West Virginia.............   510
        Research, Stoneville, Mississippi............................   506
        Virginia.....................................................   509
        Washington...................................................   509
    Asparagus technology and production, Washington..................   511
    Babcock Institute for International Dairy Research and
      Development....................................................   512
    Beef technology transfer, Missouri...............................   513
    Biobased technology, Michigan....................................   514
    Bioinformatics initiative, Virginia..............................   514
    Biomass-based energy research, Oklahoma and Mississippi..........   515
    Biotechnology, North Carolina....................................   516
    Blocking anhydrous methamphetamine production, Iowa..............   516
    Bovine tuberculosis, Michigan....................................   517
    Brucellosis vaccine, Montana.....................................   518
    Center for:
        Animal Health and Productivity, Pennsylvania.................   519
        Rural Studies, Vermont.......................................   520
    Chesapeake Bay:
        Agroecology, Maryland........................................   521
        Aquaculture, Maryland........................................   522
    Citrus:
        Canker, Florida..............................................   523
        Tristeza.....................................................   524
    Competitiveness of agriculture products, Washington..............   524
    Cool season legume research, Idaho...............................   526
    Cranberry and blueberry, Massachusetts...........................   527
    Cranberry-blueberry disease and breeding, New Jersey.............   528
    Critical issues..................................................   529
    Dairy:
        And meat goat research, Texas................................   531
        Farm profitability, Pennsylvania.............................   532
    Delta rural revitalization, Mississippi..........................   532
    Designing foods for health, Texas................................   534
    Diaprepes/rootweevil, Florida....................................   535
    Drought mitigation, Nebraska.....................................   536
    Ecosystems, Alabama..............................................   537
    Efficient irrigation, New Mexico and Texas.......................   538
    Environmental:
        Biotechnology, Rhode Island..................................   539
        Horticulture, Florida........................................   540
        Research, New York...........................................   540
        Risk factors/cancer, New York................................   542
    Environmentally safe products, Vermont...........................   543
    Exotic pest diseases, California.................................   544
    Expanded wheat pasture, Oklahoma.................................   545
    Expert IPM decision support system...............................   546
    Farm injuries and illnesses, North Carolina......................   547
    Feed barley for rangeland cattle, Montana........................   548
    Fiscal year 2002 budget highlights...............................   450
    Fish and shellfish technologies, Virginia........................   549
    Floriculture, Hawaii.............................................   550
    Food:
        Agriculture Policy Research Institute, Iowa and Missouri.....   551
        Irradiation, Iowa............................................   552
        Marketing Policy Center, Connecticut.........................   554
        Processing Center, Nebraska..................................   555
        Quality, Alaska..............................................   556
        Safety Research Consortium, New York.........................   558
        Safety, Alabama..............................................   557
        Systems Research Group, Wisconsin............................   559
    Forages for advanced livestock production, Kentucky..............   560
    Forestry research, Arkansas......................................   561
    Fruit and vegetable market analysis, Arizona and Missouri........   562
    Generic commodity promotion, New York............................   563
    Global change....................................................   564
    Grain sorghum, Kansas............................................   566
    Grass seed cropping systems for sustainable agriculture, ID, OR,
      & WA...........................................................   567
    Human nutrition:
        Iowa.........................................................   568
        Louisiana....................................................   569
        New York.....................................................   570
    Hydroponic tomato production, Ohio...............................   572
    Illinois-Missouri Alliance for Biotechnology.....................   573
    Improved dairy management practices, Pennsylvania................   574
    Improved:
        Early detection of crop disease, North Carolina..............   575
        Fruit practices, Michigan....................................   575
    Infectious disease research, Colorado............................   576
    Institute for Food Science and Engineering, Arkansas.............   577
    Integrated:
        Pest management..............................................   578
        Production systems, Oklahoma.................................   580
    Intelligent quality sensor for food safety, North Dakota.........   581
    International Arid Lands Consortium, Arizona.....................   581
    Iowa Biotechnology Consortium....................................   582
    IR-4 minor crop management.......................................   584
    Jointed goatgrass--aegilops cylindricum, Washington..............   586
    Livestock and dairy policy, New York and Texas...................   588
    Lowbush blueberry research, Maine................................   589
    Mandatory programs...............................................   450
    Maple research, Vermont..........................................   590
    Meadowfoam, Oregon...............................................   591
    Michigan Biotechnology Consortium................................   592
    Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance, Nebraska...........   593
    Midwest agricultural products, Iowa..............................   594
    Milk safety, Pennsylvania........................................   595
    Minor use animal drugs...........................................   596
    Molluscan shellfish, Oregon......................................   599
    Multi-commodity research, Oregon.................................   600
    Multi-cropping strategies for aquaculture, Hawaii................   601
    National:
        Beef Cattle Genetic Evaluation Consortium, New York..........   602
        Biological impact assessment program, Virginia...............   603
    Nematode resistance genetic engineering, New Mexico..............   604
    Nevada arid rangelands initiative................................   605
    New crop opportunities:
        Alaska.......................................................   606
        Kentucky.....................................................   607
    Nonfood agricultural products program, Nebraska..................   608
    Nursery, greenhouse, and turf specialities, Alabama..............   609
    Oil resources from desert plants, New Mexico.....................   610
    Organic waste utilization, New Mexico............................   611
    Pasture and forage research, Utah................................   612
    Peach tree short life in South Carolina, South Carolina..........   612
    Peanut allergy reduction, Alabama................................   613
    Pest:
        Control alternatives, South Carolina.........................   614
        Management alternatives......................................   615
    Phytophthora root rot, New Mexico................................   616
    Pierce's disease, California.....................................   617
    Plant, drought, and disease resistance gene cataloging, New
      Mexico.........................................................   618
    Potato research..................................................   619
    Pre-harvest food safety, Kansas..................................   620
    Precision agriculture, Kentucky..................................   620
    Preservation and processing research, Oklahoma...................   622
    Produce pricing, Arizona.........................................   623
    Protein utilization, Iowa........................................   623
    Rangeland ecosystems, New Mexico.................................   624
    Red snapper research, Alabama....................................   625
    Regional barley gene mapping project.............................   626
    Regionalized implications of farm programs, Missouri and Texas...   627
    Rice modeling, Arkansas..........................................   628
    Rural:
        Development centers..........................................   629
        Policies Institute, NE, IA, MO...............................   633
    Russian wheat aphid, Colorado....................................   634
    Safe vegetable production, Georgia...............................   636
    Satsuma orange production, Alabama...............................   636
    Sclerotinia disease research, Minnesota..........................   637
    Seafood harvesting, processing, and marketing:
        Alaska.......................................................   638
        Mississippi..................................................   639
    Seafood safety, Massachusetts....................................   640
    Small fruit research, OR, WA, and ID.............................   641
    Southwest Consortium for Plant Genetics and Water Resources......   642
    Soybean cyst nematode, Missouri..................................   643
    Steep III--water quality in Pacific Northwest....................   644
    Sustainable agriculture:
        California...................................................   646
        Michigan.....................................................   647
        Systems, Nebraska............................................   648
    Sustainable:
        And natural resources, Pennsylvania..........................   649
        Beef supply, Montana.........................................   650
        Pest management for dryland wheat, Montana...................   651
    Swine waste treatment, North Carolina............................   652
    Technology development of renewable resources, Missouri..........   654
    Tillage, silviculture, and waste management, Louisiana...........   654
    Tomato wilt virus, Georgia.......................................   655
    Tropical:
        And subtropical research.....................................   657
        Aquaculture, Florida.........................................   656
    Turkey coronavirus, Indiana......................................   659
    Value-added product:
        Development from agricultural resources, Montana.............   660
        Illinois.....................................................   660
    Vidalia onions, Georgia..........................................   661
    Viticulture Consortium, New York and California..................   662
    Water conservation, Kansas.......................................   663
    Weed control, North Dakota.......................................   664
    Wetland plants, Louisiana........................................   665
    Wheat:
        Genetics, Kansas.............................................   666
        Sawfly research, Montana.....................................   667
    Wood utilization research........................................   668
    Wool research, Texas, Wyoming, and Montana.......................   670

                   extension federal administration projects

    After-school programs, California................................   704
    Agriculture in the Classroom.....................................   704
    Beef improvement, Arkansas.......................................   706
    Botanic garden initiative, Illinois..............................   707
    Conservation technology transfer, Wisconsin......................   708
    Dairy education, Iowa............................................   709
    Delta Teachers Academy...........................................   710
    Diabetes detection and prevention, Washington and Hawaii.........   711
    Efficient irrigation, New Mexico and Texas.......................   713
    Extension specialist, Mississippi................................   713
    Family Farm Beef Industry Network, Ohio..........................   714
    Food:
        Animal residue avoidance database............................   715
        Electronically and effectively distributed (FEED)
          demonstration project, Oregon..............................   716
    Income enhancement demonstration, Ohio...........................   716
    Integrated cow-calf resources management (CHIPS), Iowa...........   717
    National Education Center for Agricultural Safety, Iowa..........   719
    Pilot technology project, Wisconsin............................632, 720
    Potato pest management, Wisconsin................................   722
    Range policy development, New Mexico.............................   723
    Rural:
        Development through tourism, New Mexico......................   724
        Development, Alaska..........................................   724
        Rehabilitation, Georgia......................................   725
    Technology transfer projects, Oklahoma and Mississippi...........   727
    Vocational agriculture, Oklahoma.................................   728
    Wood biomass, New York...........................................   727

                   federal administration and special grants

    Agricultural:
        Development in the American Pacific..........................   672
        Waste utilization, West Virginia.............................   674
        Water policy, Georgia........................................   675
    Animal waste management, Oklahoma................................   675
    Biotechnology research, Mississippi..............................   677
    Center for:
        Agriculture and Rural Development............................   677
        Innovative Food Technology, Ohio.............................   679
        North American Studies, Texas................................   680
    Climate change research, Florida.................................   681
    Cotton research, Texas...........................................   681
    Curriculum development/Mississippi Valley State University.......   682
    Data information system questions................................   684
    Geographic information system....................................   686
    Germplasm development in forage grasses, Ohio....................   688
    Gulf coast shrimp aquaculture....................................   689
    Livestock Marketing Information Center, Colorado.................   690
    Mariculture, North Carolina......................................   691
    National:
        Alternative Fuels Laboratory, North Dakota...................   692
        Center for Peanut Competitiveness, Georgia...................   693
    PM-10 study, Washington..........................................   694
    Precision agriculture:
        Alabama Geospatial Training and Application Center...........   696
        Tennessee Valley Research and Extension Center, Alabama......   696
    Sustainable agriculture development, Ohio........................   697
    Urban silviculture, New York.....................................   697
    Water quality:
        Illinois.....................................................   698
        North Dakota.................................................   701
    Wetland plants, West Virginia....................................   703

                          Departmental Administration

    Agriculture buildings and facilities.............................   471
    Biobased products and bioenergy..................................   470
    Civil rights.....................................................   468
    Conflict prevention and resolution...............................   469
    Crisis planning and management...................................   470
    Direct appropriation.............................................   472
    Federal excess personal property program.........................   470
    Government ethics program........................................   471
    Hazardous materials management...................................   471
    Human resources management.......................................   470
    Outreach.........................................................   469
    Procurement policy...............................................   470
    Small and disadvantaged business utilization.....................   469

                           Economic Research Service

    Budget...........................................................   444
    Customers, partners, and stakeholders............................   448
    Economic analysis and expert witness support for the Pigford
      consent de-
      cree...........................................................   447
    ERS contributions to mission area goals..........................   444
    Mission..........................................................   444

                     Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services

    Activities for fiscal year 2001 are as of April 27, 2001.........   253
    Administrative and operating (A&O) expenses......................   180
    AG mediation.....................................................   233
    Agricultural trade/Foreign Agricultural Service..................   248
    Bioenergy program..............................................214, 234
    Byrd amendment on dumping........................................   269
    Catfish imports..................................................   269
    Cochran Fellowship Program.......................................   250
    Commodity loan rates...........................................217, 230
    Conservation:
        Program cuts.................................................   235
        Reserve program:
            Acreage..................................................   230
            Technical assistance.....................................   273
    Cranberry marketing..............................................   212
    Crop:
        Insurance coverage of unharvested sunflowers and corn in
          North Da-
          kota.......................................................   276
        Loss assistance..............................................   231
    Dairy:
        Export incentive program (DEIP)............................209, 270
        Policy.....................................................206, 275
    Effects of energy costs..........................................   226
    Emergency:
        Disaster assistance payments.................................   223
        Farm assistance..............................................   271
    Export credit:
        Guarantee activities.........................................   252
        Guarantees...................................................   272
    Farm:
        Economy......................................................   212
        Emergency aid................................................   235
        Income.......................................................   227
        Program delivery.............................................   233
        Repayment....................................................   221
        Service Agency (FSA).........................................   166
    FCIC fund........................................................   181
    Food aid.........................................................   274
    Foot and mouth disease...........................................   272
    Foreign:
        Agricultural Service (FAS)...................................   175
        Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    Guarantees

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Farm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill

    Farm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill

    Export credit:

    Guarantee activities

    252____________________________________________________________________

    Guarantees

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Farm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill226

    Emergency:

    Disaster assistance payments

    223____________________________________________________________________

    Farm assistance

    271____________________________________________________________________

    Export credit:

    Guarantee activities

    252____________________________________________________________________

    Guarantees

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Farm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill

    Guarantees

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Farm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm billFarm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill

    Guarantees

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Farm:

    Economy

    212____________________________________________________________________

    Emergency aid

    235____________________________________________________________________

    Income

    227____________________________________________________________________

    Program delivery

    233____________________________________________________________________

    Repayment

    221____________________________________________________________________

    Service Agency (FSA)

    166____________________________________________________________________

    FCIC fund

    181____________________________________________________________________

    Food aid

    274____________________________________________________________________

    Foot and mouth disease

    272____________________________________________________________________

    Foreign:

    Agricultural Service (FAS)

    175____________________________________________________________________

    Market development (FMD) cooperator program

    268, 273_______________________________________________________________

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule

    234____________________________________________________________________

    FSA staffing

    219____________________________________________________________________

    Global school feeding program

    272____________________________________________________________________

    International trade/MPC

    270____________________________________________________________________

    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program

    275____________________________________________________________________

    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania

    232____________________________________________________________________

    New farm bill

    Fruit and vegetable violations rule..............................   234
    FSA staffing.....................................................   219
    Global school feeding program....................................   272
    International trade/MPC..........................................   270
    Lamb meat adjustment assistance program..........................   275
    LDP program repayments in Pennsylvania...........................   232
    New farm bill....................................................   213
    New markets--biotechnology.......................................   232
    Overseas offices.................................................   266
    Production flexibility contract payments.........................   226
    Public Law 480...................................................   268
    Quality loss program.............................................   234
    Risk Management Agency (RMA).....................................   172
    Starlink buy-back/bioengineered foods..........................231, 248
    State:
        AG mediation grants program funding..........................   235
        Mediation grants.............................................   232
    Surplus commodity program 416(B) and Public Law 480..............   274
    Wool Assistance Program..........................................   236

                              Farm Service Agency

    Administrative support...........................................   480
    Commodity Credit Corporation.....................................   478
    Condition of the farm credit system..............................   483
    Farm Credit Administration, mission of the.......................   481
    Farm loan programs...............................................   479
    Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation........................   484
    Fiscal year:
        2000 accomplishments.........................................   481
        2002 budget request..........................................   481
    Other appropriated programs......................................   479

                           Food and Nutrition Service

    Child nutrition programs.........................................   441
    Commodity assistance programs....................................   442
    Food:
        Program Administration.......................................   443
        Stamp program................................................   440
    Nutrition program for the elderly................................   443
    School meals initiative and team nutrition.......................   441
    Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
      children (WIC).................................................   441
    2002 budget request..............................................   440
    WIC:
        Electronic benefit transfer (EBT)............................   442
        Farmers' market nutrition program............................   442

                       Food Safety and Inspection Service

    Communication with stakeholders..................................   435
    Fiscal year 2002 budget request..................................   438
    FSIS overview....................................................   429
    Infrastructure...................................................   430
    Targeting risk in the food safety and inspection program.........   432
    Upgrading education, training and professional skills in the
      workforce......................................................   435
    Workplace environment............................................   434

            Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration

    Fiscal year 2002 budget request..................................   458
    GIPSA's:
        Federal Grain Inspection Service.............................   455
        Packers and stockyards programs (P&S)........................   452
    Organization.....................................................   451

                    National Agricultural Statistics Service

    Fiscal year 2002 plans...........................................   405

                           National Appeals Division

    Mission..........................................................   444

                     Natural Resources Conservation Service

    Commodity Credit Corporation funded conservation programs........   383
    Conservation through partnerships................................   385
    Discretionary funding............................................   381

                            Office of Communications

    Fiscal year 2002 budget request..................................   386

                          Office of Inspector General

    Audit and investigations activities..............................   421
    Business and industry loan program...............................   426
    Crop insurance...................................................   426
    Employee integrity...............................................   423
    Financial integrity..............................................   423
    Health and safety................................................   421
    Information resources management.................................   425
    Introduction and overview........................................   419
    Other major challenges facing USDA...............................   425
    Rural housing program............................................   427

                     Office of the Chief Financial Officer

    Fiscal year 2002 budget request..................................   400
    Working capital fund.............................................   401

                    Office of the Chief Information Officer

    Computer (Cyber) systems security................................   463
    E-Government.....................................................   464
    Enterprise network initiative....................................   465
    Service center modernization initiative--information technology..   461
    Strengthening information technology management..................   466
    USDA:
        Architecture.................................................   467
        Fiscal year 2002 information technology budget summary.......   461
    Workforce planning...............................................   467

                         Office of the General Counsel

    Civil rights.....................................................   397
    Current activities and issues....................................   387
    Fiscal year 2002 budget request..................................   397
    Food and Nutrition Division......................................   388
    General Law Division.............................................   396
    International affairs and commodity programs.....................   387
    Legislation Division.............................................   397
    Litigation Division..............................................   397
    Mission..........................................................   386
    Natural resources................................................   393
    Organization.....................................................   387
    Regulatory and marketing programs................................   389
    Rural development................................................   392

                            Office of the Secretary

    Accomplishments..................................................    51
    Additional committee questions...................................    40
    Agricultural:
        Buildings and facilities and rental payments.................   128
        In the Classroom.............................................    50
        Marketing Service (AMS)......................................    43
        Research................................................35, 66, 129
        Research Service.............................................   130
            Buildings and facilities................................97, 131
        Trade dairy export incentives program........................   141
    Animal Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS)...............    40
    Animal welfare...................................................   135
    Aquaculture......................................................   159
    Budget revision..................................................    26
    Chief information officer (CIO)..................................   113
    Child:
        And adult care feeding program...............................   141
        Nutrition programs...........................................    46
    China importation of potatoes....................................    30
    Common computing environment.....................................   128
    Conservation CRP technical assistance............................   136
    Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.....   131
        Federal administration and special research grants...........    48
        Sustainable agriculture research.............................    48
    Country-of-origin labeling (COL).................................   152
    Cranberry:
        Industry.....................................................    16
        Purchases....................................................   136
    CRP-wetlands pilot project.......................................   152
    Current activities...............................................    51
    Dairy............................................................   119
        Compacts.....................................................   126
    Departmental management..........................................    25
    Disaster assistance..............................................    28
    Economic Research Service.......................................64, 130
    Efforts to prevent BSE and FMD...................................   155
    Electronic Service, E-Gov, and Government Paperwork Elimination
      Act (GPEA).....................................................   107
    Emergencies......................................................   156
    Emergency:
        Assistance...................................................   125
        Reserve fund.................................................   149
    Environmental protection and conservation........................    30
    Expedited approval of requests...................................    30
    Explanation of unobligated balances in excess of 10 percent of
      total funds available..........................................   116
    Farm:
        And Foreign Agricultural Services............................    21
        Programs emergency funding...................................    38
        Service Agency (FSA).........................................    43
    Food:
        Aid/donations................................................   150
        Assistance programs..........................................    28
        Nutrition, and consumer services.............................    24
        Safety...................................................23, 27, 32
        Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).........................    43
        Stamp Program................................................    45
    Foot and mouth disease......................................15, 26, 123
    Foreign market development (cooperator) program..................   147
    Freedom to E-File Act............................................   106
    Global feeding initiative........................................33, 34
    Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)....................   102
    Human nutrition..................................................   138
    Humanitarian food assistance.....................................   146
    Information technology (IT):
        Contracting..................................................   113
        Security.....................................................   109
        Technology/security..........................................    98
    Listeria.........................................................   149
    Major IT investments proposed for fiscal year 2002...............   100
    Mandatory price reporting........................................   155
    Marketing and regulatory programs................................    22
    Microbiological performance standards............................   147
    Milk protein concentrates (MPC's)................................   142
    National:
        Animal Disease Center: ARS and APHIS facilities at Ames, Iowa   148
        Appeals Division.............................................   127
        Nutrition monitoring system and the discontinuation of the
          USDA survey, the continuing survey of food intakes by
          individuals (CSFII)........................................   122
        Plant germplasm system (NPGS)................................    77
    Native American Institutions Endowment Fund......................    49
    Natural resources and environment................................    24
    Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)....................    43
    1890 Land-Grant Institutions.....................................    49
    Nutritional value of assistance programs.........................   138
    Office of the:
        Chief Financial Officer......................................   127
        General Counsel..............................................   128
    Outreach for socially disadvantaged farmers......................   129
    Potato wart......................................................    29
    Quality loss program.............................................    36
    Research:
        Education, and economics.....................................    25
        Facilities...................................................   158
        Programs/food safety/administration priorities...............   157
    Rural:
        Development..................................................    24
        Development rural community advancement program..............   136
        Economic area partnership....................................   150
        Health.......................................................    51
        Housing Service..............................................   137
        Telephone bank...............................................    39
        Utilities Service............................................   137
        Water and wastewater.........................................   156
    Sanctions........................................................   145
    School breakfast start-up grants.................................   138
    Senior farmers' market nutrition pilot program...................   158
    Seniors' farmers market..........................................   139
    Service center modernization initiative (SCMI) and plan..........   102
    Significant IT investments proposed for fiscal year 2002.........   100
    Special supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and
      children (WIC)................................................47, 121
    Starlink.........................................................    33
    State AG credit mediation program funding........................   154
    Telecommunications management....................................   115
    The emergency food assistance program (TEFAP)....................   139
    Trade sanctions..................................................    34
    Unobligated balances.............................................   116
    USDA:
        APHIS precedent for defining the origin of beef cattle.......   153
        Carcasses quality grading rule status........................   154
        EPSCoR.......................................................    60
        Foundation financial management systems (FFIS)...............   112
    Value-added cooperative funding..................................   150
    WIC..............................................................   147
        Funding......................................................    34
        Program......................................................   140
    Wildlife services................................................   134
    Year 2000 rollover...............................................   116

                       Rural Business-Cooperative Service

    Appropriate technology transfer for rural areas program..........   380
    Business and industry:
        Direct loan program..........................................   378
        Guaranteed loan program......................................   378
    Intermediary relending program...................................   378
    Rural:
        Business enterprise grant program............................   379
        Business opportunity grant program...........................   380
        Economic development loan program............................   379
        Empowerment zones and enterprise communities grants..........   380
    Salaries and expenses............................................   380

                             Rural Housing Service

    Native Americans benefit from RHS assistance.....................   476
    RHS:
        Homeownership programs reach the underserved.................   472
        Moves employees from welfare to work at the centralized
          servicing center...........................................   477
        Partners with private and nonprofit organizations to increase
          homeownership opportunities................................   473
        Programs serve America's farm workers........................   476
        Provides essential facilities to distressed rural communities   474
        Provides rural America's elderly with safe, affordable
          housing and essential community facilities.................   475
        Rental programs serve the most vulnerable rural Americans....   474

                            Rural Utilities Service

    Administrative expenses..........................................   369
    Distance learning and telemedicine...............................   372
    Electric program.................................................   370
    Facilitating advanced telecommnications in rural America.........   371
    Grants and loans to provide rural towns with broadband services..   373
    Outreach to the needest people...................................   372
    Responsive and responsible.......................................   370
    Rural:
        Business-cooperative services................................   368
        Development budget request...................................   368
        Housing Service..............................................   368
        Utilities Service............................................   369
    Telecommunications budget........................................   372
    Water and environmental programs.................................   371

                    DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

                          Food and Drug Administration

    Application review performance...................................   314
    Blood:
        Action plan..................................................   309
        Safety.......................................................   314
            And regulation of tissues................................   294
    Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) or ``Mad Cow Diseas282, 289, 312
        Enforcement actions..........................................   306
        Funding......................................................   301
    Cancer patients..................................................   293
    Cardiac patients and the elderly.................................   294
    Challenges.......................................................   296
    Children and infants.............................................   293
    Clinical trails..................................................   290
    Devices..........................................................   316
    Diabetes.........................................................   294
    Dietary supplements..............................................   304
    Drugs for resistant infections...................................   294
    FDA approvals....................................................   290
    Food safety..........................................290, 292, 299, 320
    Generic:
        Animal drug producer.........................................   281
        Drug approvals...............................................   283
        Drug resources...............................................   305
    Global trade and global production...............................   295
    Globalization....................................................   289
    Import inspections...............................................   302
    Importation of catfish...........................................   307
    Imported products................................................   289
    Imports and inspections..........................................   289
        Activities...................................................   297
    Infrastructure:
        Funding......................................................   311
        Support....................................................290, 300
    Medical products.................................................   292
    NARMS............................................................   310
    Patient safety task force........................................   308
    Post-market surveillance.........................................   319
    Prescription:
        Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) reauthorization....................   319
        To OTC.......................................................   304
    Product withdrawals--post market.................................   303
    Professional staff...............................................   289
    Protecting volunteers and the integrity of data in clinical
      trials.........................................................   298
    Public trust.....................................................   288
    Reduced adverse events related to medical products...............   298
    Resource our most important......................................   296
    Science and technology challenges................................   288
    State of the art robotic medical devices.........................   294
    Summary of data and information..................................   319
    Women............................................................   293

                                       -