- AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007

[Senate Hearing 109-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2007

----------

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 2007 budget request for programs
within the subcommittee's jurisdiction.]

Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (FSRIA) was
enacted 4 years ago following 2 years of exhaustive debate in the House
and Senate. The new farm law represents a delicate balance by
effectively addressing the stability of our agricultural production
base, protecting our important natural resources and enhancing
nutrition and food assistance programs in our Nation.
The mandatory programs administered by the Department of
Agriculture such as commodity, conservation, crop insurance, export
promotion programs, nutrition and forestry are of enormous importance
to farmers, ranchers, rural businesses, low-income Americans and our
Nation's children. Therefore, we respectfully ask the Appropriations
Committee to avoid making any changes to mandatory programs within the
USDA budget.
Contract-based working lands conservation programs such as the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), Conservation Security
Program (CSP), Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) and Forest
Land Enhancement Program (FLEP) are a priority within the agricultural
and landowner community, as shown by current levels of
oversubscription. Farm Bureau is concerned that many of these programs
have not been funded at optimum levels, especially the Conservation
Security Program. This has led to a level of confusion among farmers
and ranchers of when and how the program will be implemented within
their particular watershed, and whether or not the financial incentives
will be adequate to encourage participation. As we move forward in this
budget process, Farm Bureau encourages Congress to find an appropriate
balance of funding for targeted land idling programs, such as the
General and Continuous Conservation Reserve Programs, with our current
working lands conservation programs.
Farm Bureau supports the farm bill's energy title that includes
provisions for Federal procurement of bio-based products, bio-refinery
development grants, a biodiesel fuel education program, renewable
energy development program, renewable energy systems, a bioenergy
program, biomass research and development and value-added agricultural
product development and marketing. These programs play a critical role
in assisting in rural economic development as well as in increasing our
Nation's energy independence and should be fully funded at authorized
levels.
Farm Bureau has identified three areas as priorities for
discretionary funding in fiscal year 2006. They are funding for animal
identification implementation, programs that maintain the use of
agriculture inputs and programs that increase agriculture exports.
programs necessary for implementation of animal identification
The threat of bioterrorism and the discovery of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States has prompted increased action
by USDA and others to step up animal disease surveillance and funding
for critical programs such as animal identification. Farm Bureau places
great priority on efforts to safeguard our livestock and food supply
and requests increased resources be appropriated to the National Animal
Identification System (NAIS) for these activities.
We have serious concerns about the adequacy of the administration's
proposal for $33 million for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) to continue implementation of the NAIS. Industry
estimates of the U.S. Animal Identification Plan (USAIP), upon which
the NAIS is based, forecast an ongoing cost of about $100 million per
year to effectively implement such a system. USDA has expended just $84
million total in the first 2 years of development of the NAIS. When
added to this year's budget request, the total Federal fund commitment
amounts to approximately $117 million. This is significantly short of
the department's own cost estimate of $550 million for the first 5
years of NAIS operation.
If the government were to fund $33 million each year (the same as
their budget requests during the first 3 years of operation), two-
thirds of the cost of the NAIS would have to be funded by producers and
affected industries in order for the NAIS to proceed on the timeline
originally proposed by both USDA and the livestock industry. Farmers
and ranchers cannot afford to bear the brunt of the cost of this
program, which is essentially a public good. Although participating in
the NAIS does provide some insurance to producers in the event of an
animal health incident, this program also assists Federal animal health
officials and is an important tool against the effects of accidental or
intentional introduction of zoonotic disease. Given the benefits of the
NAIS to the general public and our overall national biosecurity, a
larger portion of the cost must be borne by the government.
If the industry bears the cost of identification devices and
application of those devices, and the Federal Government were to fund
the majority of the cost of database maintenance, program
administration, and retro-fitting for data collection at large co-
mingling sites (i.e., markets and processing facilities), the end
result would be an almost equal funding distribution between industry
and government. However, the current budget request will not support
this funding split under the timeline proposed in USDA's NAIS Draft
Strategic Plan. Under the fiscal year 2007 budget proposal, States and
industry would have to bear a greater share of the cost burden in order
to maintain the timeline through full implementation in 2009, although
States and industry cannot afford to pay for the majority of the
system, the United States cannot afford to delay implementation of the
system. A delay could be economically devastating in the case of an
animal disease outbreak such as foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), both in
terms of the impact on the domestic herd and the implications from the
loss of trading partners.
We appreciate the inclusion of NAIS funding in the fiscal year 2005
and fiscal year 2006 agriculture funding bills, and strongly encourage
the committee to significantly increase that amount in this year's
version of the agriculture appropriations bill. Progress has been seen
in making premises registration available in all 50 States and multiple
tribes. Nationally, just over 10 percent of all livestock premises are
now identified, but much work remains to bring the remaining 90 percent
into the system. Outreach and education are key to inform producers
about the purpose of the NAIS; it is critical to immediately correct
the many misconceptions that have circulated and may discourage
producers from participating. In addition to continuing funding for
APHIS's premises registration activities in cooperation with State
animal health officials, we believe it is important to proceed with the
next phases of the NAIS--the individual identification of animals or
groups of animals, and the tracking of animal movements. The department
has turned to the private sector to provide the data repository
necessary for animal tracking; therefore, we encourage the committee to
consider a cost-share funding allocation for privately managed, non-
profit animal ID databases maintained by agricultural organizations.
Such databases should be capable of providing multi-species data
repository services and access to that data by State and Federal
veterinary officials in the event of an animal health issue in order to
meet public needs and justify a Federal funding appropriation.
While there are still some major issues to be resolved, primarily
data confidentiality, AFBF strongly supports the NAIS. Timely
implementation of this critical program will not only add to our
ability to trace a diseased animal back to the source but will also
reassure the public and our trading partners of a safe food supply
system.

PROGRAMS TO INCREASE AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS

Creating new and expanding existing overseas markets for U.S.
agricultural and food products is essential for a healthy agricultural
economy anytime, but especially in 2006/07 when the USDA is forecasting
a reduction in net U.S. farm income of $15 billion. We recommend full
funding of all export development and expansion programs consistent
with our WTO commitments.
Export Development and Expansion Programs.--The Market Access
Program, the Foreign Market Development Program, the Emerging Markets
Program and the Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops program are
all very effective export development and expansion programs that have
demonstrated substantial increases in demand for U.S. agriculture and
food products abroad. These programs are also important because they
attract larger amounts of private sector funding into development and
expansion activities for U.S. agriculture and food exports. We
recommend full funding of these programs
Farm Bureau also supports General Sales Manager credit guarantee
programs. These programs are important because they make available
commercial financing to buyers of U.S. food and agricultural exports
that might otherwise not be available. They should be funded at fully
authorized levels.
Direct assistance for U.S. agricultural exports is also authorized
by the Export Enhancement Program, a program to counter unfair trading
practices of foreign countries. Farm Bureau supports the funding and
use of this program in all countries and for all commodities where the
United States faces unfair competition. The Dairy Export Incentive
Program is another similar program that allows U.S. dairy producers to
compete with foreign nations that subsidize their diary exports. We
recommend full funding of this program as well.
Food Aid Programs.--We urge full funding of Public Law 480 that
serves as the primary means by which the United States provides needed
foreign food assistance through the purchase of U.S. commodities. In
addition to providing short-term humanitarian assistance, the program
helps to develop long-term commercial export markets. We oppose any
efforts to reduce funding of Public Law 480, especially efforts to
transfer funding to other food aid and development programs outside the
jurisdiction of USDA. Further, the International Food for Education
Program will be an effective platform for delivering severely needed
food aid and educational assistance and we urge its full support.
Plant and Animal Health Monitoring, Pest Detection and Control.--
USDA services and programs that facilitate U.S. exports by certifying
plant and animal health to foreign customers, that protect U.S.
agricultural production from foreign pests and diseases, and fight
against unsound non-tariff trade barriers by foreign governments should
be funding priorities. Plant and animal health monitoring, surveillance
and inspection are crucial. We support funding increases for improved
plant pest detection and eradication, management of animal health
emergencies and to increase the availability of animal vaccines.
Expansion of Plant Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities
is necessary to protect U.S. agriculture from new, oftentimes virulent
and costly pest problems that enter the United States from foreign
lands.
APHIS Trade Issues Resolution and Management.--Full funding is
needed for APHIS trade issues resolution and management. As Federal
negotiators and U.S. industry try to open foreign markets to U.S.
exports, they consistently find that other countries are raising pest
and disease concerns (i.e., sanitary and phytosanitary measures), real
or contrived, to resist or prohibit the entry of American products into
their markets. Only APHIS has the technical capability to respond
effectively to this resistance. It requires however, placing more APHIS
officers at U.S. ports and in overseas locations where they can monitor
pest and disease conditions, negotiate trading protocols with other
countries and intervene when foreign officials wrongfully prevent the
entry of American imports. It is essential that APHIS be positioned to
swiftly and forcefully respond to such issues when and where they
arise.
APHIS Biotech Regulatory Service (BRS).--Agricultural biotechnology
is an extremely promising technology and all reasonable efforts must be
made to allow continued availability and marketability of biotech tools
for farmers. BRS plays an important role in overseeing the permit
process for products of biotechnology. Funding for BRS personnel and
activities are essential for ensuring public confidence and
international acceptance of biotechnology products. AFBF supports an
increase in spending to $11.417 million ($8.584 in 2006) for BRS
because it will enable the USDA to increase inspections of genetically-
modified crop field test sites and enhance its capacity to regulate
transgenic animals, arthropods, and disease agents.
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS).--The USDA's Foreign
Agricultural Service will require sufficient funding to expand services
to cover all existing and potential market posts. We support
continuance of funding at the 2006 appropriations level for the office
of the secretary for cross-cutting trade negotiations and biotechnology
resources.

PROGRAMS THAT MAINTAIN THE USE OF AGRICULTURE INPUTS

USDA must continue to work with EPA, agricultural producers, food
processors and registrants to provide farm data required to ensure that
agricultural interests are properly considered and fully represented in
all pesticide registration, tolerance reassessment re-registration, and
registration review processes. In order to participate effectively in
the process of ensuring that crop protection tools are safe and remain
available to agriculture, USDA must have all the resources necessary to
provide economic benefit, scientific analysis and usage information to
EPA. To this end, funding should be maintained or increased, and in
some cases restored, to the following offices and programs:
Office of Pest Management Policy (OPMP).--OPMP has the primary
responsibility for coordination of USDA's Food Quality Protection Act
(FQPA) and crop protection obligations and interaction with EPA. Proper
funding is vital for the review of tolerance reassessments,
particularly dietary and worker exposure information; to identify
critical uses, benefits and alternatives information; and to work with
grower organizations to develop strategic pest management plans. The
funding to OPMP should be designated under the secretary of
agriculture's office, rather than as an add-on to the Agricultural
Research Service budget.
Agriculture Research Service (ARS).--Integrated Pest Management
(IPM) research, minor use tolerance research (IR-4) must have funding
maintained, and research on alternatives to methyl bromide must have
funding restored and receive future funding to satisfactorily address
the unique concerns of these programs. Research is also needed to
identify new biological pest control measures and to control pesticide
migration.
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES).--Funding must be maintained, in some cases restored, and full
future funding provided for Integrated Pest Management research grants,
IPM application work, pest management alternatives program, expert IPM
decision support system, minor crop pest management project (IR-4),
crops at risk from FQPA implementation, FQPA risk avoidance and
mitigation program for major food crop systems, methyl bromide
transition program, regional crop information and policy centers and
the pesticide applicator training program.
Economic Research Service (ERS).--USDA and EPA rely on ERS programs
to provide unique data information and they should be properly funded
including IPM research, pesticide use analysis program and the National
Agriculture Pesticide Impact Assessment Program.
Food Quality and Crop Protection Regulation.--Additional funding
for proper regulation of pesticides is needed in the following
programs: National Agriculture Statistics Service pesticide use
surveys; Food Safety Inspection Service increased residue sampling and
analysis; Agricultural Marketing Service; and the Pesticide Data
Program.
______

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 33 Tribal
Colleges and Universities that comprise the list of 1994 Land Grant
Institutions, thank you for this opportunity to share our funding
requests for fiscal year 2007 (fiscal year 2007).
This statement is presented in three parts: (a) a summary of our
fiscal year 2007 funding recommendation, (b) a brief background on
Tribal Colleges and Universities, and (c) an outline of the 1994 Tribal
College Land Grant Institutions' plan for using our land grant programs
to fulfill the agricultural potential of American Indian communities,
and to ensure that American Indians have the skills and support needed
to maximize the economic development potential of their resources.

Summary of Requests
We respectfully request the following funding levels for fiscal
year 2007 for our land grant programs established within the USDA
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
and Rural Development mission areas. In CSREES, we specifically
request: $12 million payment into the Native American endowment fund;
$3.3 million for the higher education equity grants; $5 million for the
1994 institutions' competitive extension grants program; $3 million for
the 1994 Institutions' competitive research grants program; and in
Rural Development--Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP), that $5
million be provided for each of the next 5 fiscal years for the tribal
college community facilities grants program. RCAP grants help 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 and Universities
The first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring
education to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. Today,
over 140 years after enactment of the first land grant legislation, the
1994 Land Grant Institutions, as much as any other higher education
institutions, exemplify the original intent of the land grant
legislation, as they are truly community-based institutions.
The Tribal College Movement was launched in 1968 with the
establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College, serving
the Navajo Nation. Rapid growth of tribal colleges soon followed,
primarily in the Northern Plains region. In 1972, the first six
tribally controlled colleges established the American Indian Higher
Education Consortium to provide a support network for member
institutions. Today, AIHEC represents 34 Tribal Colleges and
Universities 3 of which comprise the list of 1994 Land Grant
Institutions located in 12 States--created specifically to serve the
higher education needs of American Indian students. Annually, they
serve approximately 30,000 full- and part-time students from over 250
Federally recognized tribes.
All of the 1994 Land Grant Institutions are accredited by
independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all institutions
of higher education, must undergo stringent performance reviews to
retain their accreditation status. Tribal colleges serve as community
centers by providing libraries, tribal archives, career centers,
economic development and business centers, public meeting places, and
child care centers. Despite their many obligations, functions, and
notable achievements, tribal colleges remain the most poorly funded
institutions of higher education in this country. Most of the 1994 Land
Grant Institutions are located on Federal trust territory. Therefore,
States have no obligation and in most cases, provide no funding to
tribal colleges. In fact, most States do not even fund our institutions
for the non-Indian State residents attending our colleges, leaving the
tribal colleges to absorb the per student operational costs for non-
Indian students enrolled in our institutions, accounting for
approximately 20 percent of our student population. Under these
inequitable financing conditions and unlike our State land grant
partners, our institutions do not benefit from economies of scale--
where the cost per student to operate an institution is diminished by
the increased size of the student body.
As a result of 200 years of Federal Indian policy--including
policies of termination, assimilation and relocation--many reservation
residents live in abject poverty comparable to that found in Third
World nations. Through the efforts of Tribal Colleges and Universities,
American Indian communities are receiving services they need to
reestablish themselves as responsible, productive, and self-reliant
citizens. It would be regrettable not to expand the very modest
investment in, and capitalize on, the human resources that will help
open new avenues to economic development, specifically through
enhancing the 1994 Institutions' land grant programs, and securing
adequate access to information technology.

1994 Land Grant Programs--Ambitious Efforts to Reach Economic
Development Potential
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 nonrenewable. The
Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994 is starting to
rectify this situation and is our hope for future advancement.
Our current land grant programs are small, yet very important to
us. It is essential that American Indians explore and adopt new and
evolving technologies for managing our lands. We have the potential of
becoming significant contributors to the agricultural base of the
Nation and the world.
Native American Endowment Fund.--Endowment installments that are
paid into the 1994 Institutions' account remain with the U.S. Treasury.
Only the annual interest, less the USDA's administrative fee, is
distributed to the colleges. The latest gross annual interest yield
(fiscal year 2005) is $2,577,357 after the USDA's administrative fee of
$103,094 is deducted; $2,474,263 is the amount available to be
distributed among all of the eligible 1994 Land Grant Institutions by
statutory formula. While we have not yet been provided the latest
breakdown of funds distributed to each of the 1994 institutions, last
year USDA's administrative fee amounted to more than the payment
amounts to 75 percent of the 1994 Land Grant Institutions. After the
distribution amounts are determined for this year's disbursement, we
fully expect similar results. We respectfully ask that the Subcommittee
review the Department's administrative fee and consider reducing it for
this program, so that more of these already limited funds can be
utilized to conduct vital 1994 Land Grant community based programs.
Just as other land grant institutions historically received large
grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this endowment assists
1994 Land Grant Institutions in establishing and strengthening our
academic programs in such areas as curricula development, faculty
preparation, instruction delivery, and to help address critical
facilities and infrastructure issues. Many of the colleges have used
the endowment funds in conjunction with the Education Equity Grant
funds to develop and implement their academic programs. As earlier
stated, tribal colleges often serve as primary community centers and
although conditions at some have improved substantially, many of the
colleges still operate under less than satisfactory conditions. In fact
most of the tribal colleges cite improved facilities as one of their
highest priorities. Several of the colleges have indicated the need for
immediate and substantial renovations to replace buildings that have
long exceeded their effective life spans and to upgrade existing
facilities to address accessibility and safety concerns.
Endowment payments increase the size of the corpus held by the U.S.
Treasury and thereby increase the annual interest yield disbursed to
the 1994 land grant institutions. This additional funding would be very
helpful in our efforts to continue to support faculty and staff
positions and program needs within Agriculture and Natural Resources
departments, as well as to continue to help address the critical and
very expensive facilities needs at our institutions. Currently, the
amount that each college receives from this endowment is not adequate
to address curricula development and instruction delivery, as well as
make even a dent in the necessary facilities projects at the colleges.
In order for the 1994 Institutions to become full partners in this
Nation's great land grant system, we need and frankly, under treaty
obligations, warrant the facilities and infrastructure necessary to
fully engage in education and research programs vital to the future
health and well being of our reservation communities. We respectfully
request the subcommittee fund the fiscal year 2007 endowment payment at
$12 million, $120,000 above fiscal year 2006 and the in the President's
Budget recommendation--restoring the across-the-board cut imposed on
fiscal year 2006 appropriated levels. 1994 Institutions' Educational
Equity Grant Program: Closely linked with the endowment fund, this
program is designed to assist 1994 land grant institutions with
academic programs. Through the modest appropriations made available
since fiscal year 2001, the tribal colleges have been able to begin to
support courses and plan activities specifically targeting the unique
needs of their respective communities.
The 1994 Institutions have developed and implemented courses and
programs in natural resource management; environmental sciences;
horticulture; forestry; bison production and management; and especially
food science and nutrition to address epidemic rates of diabetes and
cardiovascular disease on reservations. If more funds were available
through the Educational Equity Grant Program, tribal colleges could
channel more of their endowment yield to supplement other facilities
funds to address their critical infrastructure issues. Authorized at
$100,000 per eligible 1994 Institutions, in fiscal year 2006,
approximately $68,000 or two-thirds of the authorized level was
available to the 1994 institutions, after across-the-board cuts and
Department fees were applied to the initial appropriated level of
$2,250,000. We respectfully request full funding of $3.3 million to
allow the tribal colleges to build upon the courses and successful
activities that have been launched.
Extension Programs.--The 1994 Institutions' extension programs
strengthen communities through outreach programs designed to bolster
economic development; community resources; family and youth
development; natural resources development; agriculture; as well as
health and nutrition awareness.
In fiscal year 2006, $3,273,000 was appropriated for the 1994
Institutions' competitive extension grants, a slight increase over
fiscal year 2005. Without adequate funding, 1994 Institutions' ability
to maintain existing programs and to respond to emerging issues such as
food safety and homeland security, especially on border reservations,
is severely limited. Increases in funding are needed to support these
vital programs designed to address the inadequate extension services
provided to Indian reservations by their respective State programs. It
is important to note that the 1994 extension program is designed to
complement the Indian Reservation Extension Agent program and does not
duplicate extension activities. 1994 Land Grant programs are funded at
very modest levels. The tribal college land grants have applied their
ingenuity for making the most of every dollar they have at their
disposal by leveraging funds to maximize their programs whenever
possible. For example, College of Menominee Nation (CMN) in Keshena,
Wisconsin, has a multiyear program that leverages funding from several
activities to expand its extension program, which focuses on
strengthening the economic capacity of the local community. Partnering
with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, CMN is designing
curriculum that involves tribal elders, relevant service providers,
local schools, the Commission on Aging, and health clinics designed to
encourage minority youth to enter Allied Health fields. With a grant
from the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the college's
extension and outreach offers the Transportation Alliance for New
Solutions (TrANS) program. This is a 120 hour program designed to train
women and minorities in roads construction. In addition, the Federal
Highway Administration and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation
have provided grant funds to CMN extension and outreach to conduct a
Summer Transportation Institute focusing on middle school students.
Students spend 4 weeks exploring various careers within the
transportation industry. CMN is just one example of the innovative
programs being conducted at 1994 Institutions. To continue and expand
these successful programs, we request the Subcommittee support this
competitive program by appropriating $5 million to sustain the growth
and further success of these essential community based programs.
1994 Research Program.--As the 1994 Land Grant Institutions have
begun to enter into partnerships with 1862/1890 land grant institutions
through collaborative research projects, impressive efforts to address
economic development through land use have come to light. Our research
program illustrates an ideal combination of Federal resources and
tribal college-state institutional expertise, with the overall impact
being far greater than the sum of its parts. We recognize the budget
constraints under which Congress is functioning. However, $1,039,000,
the fiscal year 2006 appropriated level, is a 4.4 percent decrease in
funding that was already grossly inadequate. This research program is
vital to ensuring that tribal colleges may finally become full partners
in the Nation's land grant system. Many of our institutions are
currently conducting agriculture based applied research, yet finding
the resources to conduct this research to meet their communities' needs
is a constant challenge. This research authority opens the door to new
funding opportunities to maintain and expand the research projects
begun at the 1994 Institutions, but only if adequate funds are
appropriated. $1,039,000 for 33 institutions to compete for is clearly
inadequate. Project areas being studied include soil and water quality,
amphibian propagation, pesticide and wildlife research, range cattle
species enhancement, and native plant preservation for medicinal and
economic purposes. We strongly urge the Subcommittee to fund this
program at a minimum of $3 million to enable our institutions to
develop and strengthen their research potential.
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP).--In fiscal year 2006,
$4,464,000 of the RCAP funds appropriated for loans and grants to
benefit Federally recognized American Indian tribes were targeted for
community facility grants for improvements at Tribal Colleges and
Universities. This amounts to an increase of $464,000 over the level
that had been allocated to the program each year since it began in
fiscal year 2001. This program requires a minimum 25 percent non-
Federal match. Tribal colleges are chartered by their respective
tribes, which enjoy a government-to-government relationship with the
Federal Government. Due to this relationship, tribal colleges have very
limited access to non-Federal dollars making non-Federal matching
requirements a significant barrier to our colleges' ability to compete
for much needed funds. The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act,
(Public Law 107-171) included language limiting the non-Federal match
requirement for the Rural Cooperative Development Grants to no more
than 5 percent in the case of a 1994 institution. We would like to have
this same language applied to the RCAP community facilities grants for
tribal colleges to open the door to more 1994 Institutions to compete
for these dollars.
We urge the Subcommittee to designate $5 million for each of the
next 5 fiscal years to afford the 1994 institutions the means to
aggressively address critical facilities needs, thereby allowing them
to better serve their students and respective communities.
Additionally, we request that Congress include language directing the
agency to limit the non-Federal matching requirement to not more than 5
percent, the same level as applied to the Rural Cooperative Development
Grants program, to help the 1994 land grant institutions to effectively
address critical facilities and construction issues at their
institutions.

Conclusion
The 1994 Land Grant Institutions have proven to be efficient and
effective vehicles for bringing educational opportunities to American
Indians and hope for self-sufficiency to some of this Nation's poorest
regions. The modest Federal investment in the 1994 Land Grant
Institutions has already paid great dividends in terms of increased
employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this
investment makes sound moral and fiscal sense. American Indian
reservation communities are second to none in their potential for
benefiting from effective land grant programs and as earlier stated no
institutions better exemplify the original intent of the land grant
concept than the 1994 Land Grant Institutions.
We appreciate your support of the Tribal Colleges and Universities
and we ask you to renew your commitment to help move our communities
toward self-sufficiency. 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 equitable
educational, agricultural, and economic opportunities to Indian
Country.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our funding proposals to
this Subcommittee. We respectfully request your continued support an
______

Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
and other state and locally owned utilities throughout the United
States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver
electricity to one of every seven electricity consumers (approximately
43 million people), serving some of the nation's largest cities.
However, the vast majority of APPA's members serve communities with
populations of 10,000 people or less.
We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
our fiscal year 2007 funding priorities within the jurisdiction of the
Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee.

Department of Agriculture: Rural Utility Service Rural Broadband Loan
Program
APPA urges the Subcommittee to fully fund the Rural Utility
Service's (RUS) Rural Broadband Loan Program at $10 million, as
authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill. A funding level of $10 million would
produce approximately $356 million in RUS loans for fiscal year 2007.
APPA believes it is important to provide incentives for the
deployment of broadband to rural communities, many of which lack
broadband service. Increasingly, access to advanced communications
services is considered vital to a community's economic and educational
development. In addition, the availability of broadband service enables
rural communities to provide advanced health care through telemedicine
and to promote regional competitiveness and other benefits that
contribute to a high quality of life. Approximately one-fourth of
APPA's members are currently providing broadband service in their
communities. Several APPA members are planning to apply for RUS
broadband loans to help them finance their broadband projects.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

Dear Chairman Bennett, Ranking Member Kohl and Members of the
Subcommittee: On behalf of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop
Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America (ASA/CSSA/
SSSA), we are pleased to submit comments in strong support of enhanced
public investment in food and agricultural research, extension and
education as a critical component of federal appropriations for fiscal
year 2007 and beyond. With nearly 18,000 members, ASA/CSSA/SSSA are the
largest life science professional societies in the United States
dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASA/CSSA/SSSA play
a major role in promoting progress in these sciences through the
publication of quality journals and books, convening meetings and
workshops, developing educational, training, and public information
programs, providing scientific advice to inform public policy, and
promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy and crop and
soil sciences. The programs and activities of ASA/CSSA/SSSA are
tailored not only to our members' interests and scientific advancement,
but also serve the public interest. ASA/CSSA/SSSA publish six peer-
reviewed journals in which over 1100 scientific articles are published
yearly. The peer-review procedures for manuscripts published in ASA/
CSSA/SSSA journals as well as our activities and procedures for
publishing ensure the highest quality and integrity in our scientific
literature.
ASA/CSSA/SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight agriculture budget for
fiscal year 2007. We also recognize that the Agriculture Appropriations
bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the
efforts of the Subcommittee to fund mission-critical research through
the USDA-Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service
as well as its intramural research portfolio funded through the
Agricultural Research Service. We are particularly grateful to the
Subcommittee for funding the NRI at $181 million in fiscal year 2006.
Below we have highlighted recommendations for the fiscal year 2007
appropriations cycle.

Agricultural Research Service
ASA/CSSA/SSSA understand the agency's need to reprogram
approximately $49.1 million in funding to higher priority areas such as
homeland security, emerging diseases, food safety, obesity, climate
change, invasive species, and genomics and genetics. ASA/CSSA/SSSA
applaud ARS's ability to respond quickly and flexibly to rapidly
changing national needs. The proposed increase of $57.7 in new monies
for these high priority areas is also commended. However, ASA/CSSA/SSSA
are concerned that the proposed overall cut in total funding for ARS of
$123, or 11 percent, from fiscal year 2006 enacted, could result in
decreased research capacity and/or the elimination of important
research programs currently underway. ASA/CSSA/SSSA urge the
Subcommittee to act judiciously and not implement such drastic funding
cuts for this critical research agency.

Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
National Research Initiative.--ASA/CSSA/SSSA strongly endorse the
President's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget increase of $66.3 million
for the National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI)
which would bring total funding for this important research program to
$247.5 million. However, we do not support the President's proposal to
transfer the $42.3 million Sec 406 (Integrated Research, Education, and
Extension program) program into the NRI. This transfer may result in
the loss of critical programs such as the Organic Transitions Program.
NRI Integrated Research.--ASA/CSSA/SSSA request that any new monies
appropriated for the NRI, as requested by the administration, allow the
Secretary the discretion to apply up to 30 percent towards carrying out
the NRI integrated research, extension and education competitive grants
program.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Programs.--ASA/CSSA/
SSSA oppose the administration's request to cut funding for SARE by
more than $3 million. At a minimum, the Subcommittee should fund SARE
at the fiscal year 2006 enacted (pre-rescission) level of $12.4
million.
Indirect Costs.--ASA/CSSA/SSSA applaud the administration's
proposal to eliminate the indirect cost cap on the NRI, set at 20
percent for fiscal year 2006, which will broaden its appeal by putting
the NRI on equal footing with other federal competitive grants programs
such as those of NSF and NIH. However, we are concerned that new
funding was not provided to cover this change.
Research Formula Funding.--ASA/CSSA/SSSA oppose the
administration's proposal to change the methodology for distributing
Hatch Funds and McIntire-Stennis Funds through a multistate,
competitively awarded proposal program. Such drastic changes would be
detrimental to the entire USDA research portfolio. Because of their
timing and potential regional and intra-state impacts, much of the
infrastructure needed to conduct competitively funded research could be
compromised if formula funds were to be redirected as proposed, and
could irreparably damage programs housed at each land-grant university.
This would mean a huge and potentially damaging loss of national
infrastructure to conduct agricultural research. The private sector
depends heavily on the agricultural technology and training provided by
the U.S. land grant system, and the impact of such a drastic transfer
of formula funds to a competitive grants program would affect not only
the viability of U.S. industry but also the health and survival of
millions of people across the globe. Moreover, as noted below,
investments in formula funded research show an excellent annual rate of
return.
Agrosecurity.--ASA/CSSA/SSSA support the request of the
administration that $12 million be provided for the Animal and Plant
Diagnostic Labs and EDEN to facilitate protecting America's
agricultural production systems. ASA/CSSA/SSSA also endorse the
administration's request ($5.0 million) for the Agrosecurity Curricula
Development, which we consider to be a critical new initiative. Recent
security threats facing America require new and expanded agricultural
research to protect our nation's natural resources, food processing and
distribution network, and rural communities that will secure America's
food and fiber system.
Higher Education.--ASA/CSSA/SSSA urge the Subcommittee to fund the
Institution Challenge Grants at $6 million which will restore some of
the funding lost due to the 2006 rescission. We applaud the
Administration's budget request of $4.445 million for the Graduate
Fellowships Grants.
Extension Formula Funding.--Extension forms a critical part of the
research, education and extension program integration, the hallmark of
CSREES which in not seen in other agencies. Unfortunately, the Smith
Lever 3(b) and 3(c) account has been flat-funded (in constant dollars,
this account has seen a gradual erosion in funding), in recent years.
Moreover, the current trend of annual rescissions has resulted in an
even lower funding level for this and other vital extension programs.
ASA/CSSA/SSSA proposes, at a minimum, that the Subcommittee restore
funding for Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c) to the fiscal year 2006 pre-
rescission enacted level of $275.73 million.
A balance of funding mechanisms, including intramural, competitive
and formula funding, is essential to maintain the capacity of the
United States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural research,
improve crop and livestock quality, and deliver safe and nutritious
food products, while protecting and enhancing the Nation's environment
and natural resources. In order to address these challenges and
maintain our position in an increasingly competitive world, we must
continue to support research programs funded through ARS and CSREES.
Congress must enhance funding for agricultural research to assure
Americans of a safe and nutritious food supply and to provide for the
next generation of research scientists. According to the USDA's
Economic Research Service (Agricultural Economic Report Number 735),
publicly funded agricultural research has earned an annual rate of
return of 35 percent. This rate of return suggests that additional
allocation of funds to support research in the food and agricultural
sciences would be beneficial to the U.S. economy. We must also continue
support for CSREES-funded education programs which will help ensure
that a new generation of educators and researchers is produced.
Finally, we need to ensure support for extension at CSREES to guarantee
that these important new tools and technologies reach and are utilized
by producers and other stakeholders.
As you lead the Congress in deliberation on funding levels for
agricultural research, please consider American Society of Agronomy,
Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America as
supportive resources. We hope you will call on our membership and
scientific expertise whenever the need arises.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society of Civil Engineers

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 2007.
ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil
engineering organization. It represents more than 139,000 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.
The Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget includes only
$15.3 million in discretionary appropriations to fund rehabilitation of
unsafe and seriously deficient dams that were originally constructed
under USDA Watershed Programs. This is more than a 50 percent reduction
from the fiscal year 2006 when $31.5 million was appropriated by
Congress.
ASCE respectfully requests that this Subcommittee increase the
Administration's proposed appropriation to $75 million. This amount is
$60 million less than the total $135 million authorized in the 2002
Farm Bill which includes discretionary funds and Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) mandatory funding.
Of the 78,000 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 78-534 and the Watershed
Protection and Flood Control Act of 1953, Public Law 83-566). 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 11,000 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.
Since the program began, there have been 136 watershed
rehabilitation projects initiated in 21 States, which include 47
completed rehabilitation projects and 89 projects either in the
planning, design or construction phase. It is clear from these 136
projects as well as the 76 projects, which requested assistance but
were unable to be funded in fiscal year 2006, just how much demand
exists; and how successful this USDA program is.

EXTENT OF THE PROBLEM

ASCE views the funding of dam safety repairs as a critical need for
the nation. In ASCE's 2005 Report Card for America's Infrastructure
dams received a grade of D. Nearly 3,500 unsafe dams have been
identified in this country and many of the owners do not have
sufficient funding sources.
More that 900 watershed dams across the nation will need
rehabilitation in just the next five years at a cost of over $570
million. These numbers will increase as dams get older and thousands of
people and millions of dollars of property could be at risk if these
dams should fail. That is why Congress authorized $600 million for
rehabilitation for 2003-2007 in the last Farm Bill. Local watershed
project sponsors provide 35 percent of the cost of the rehabilitation
projects and many have local cost-share funds ready for projects that
could be lost if the Federal money isn't made available.
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. 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 recent dam failures in Hawaii and Missouri, and the near
failure in Massachusetts last year have brought into tragic focus for
the public the impact aging and under-funded dams can have on a
community. 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 asks that the Subcommittee view funding the Rehabilitation of
Watershed Dams as a significant re-investment in the benefits of the
program and an investment in the safety of these dams. Therefore, ASCE
respectfully requests that this Subcommittee provide additional
appropriations beyond the Administration's request to $75 million for
fiscal year 2006.
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.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) appreciates the
opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2007 appropriation
for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). The ASM is the
largest single life science organization in the world, with more than
42,000 members who work in academic, industrial, medical, and
governmental institutions. The ASM's mission is to enhance the science
of microbiology, to gain a better understanding of life processes, and
to promote the application of this knowledge for improved plant, animal
and human health, and for economic and environmental well-being.
The USDA sponsors research and education programs, which meet the
USDA's strategic goals of enhancing competitiveness and sustainability
of U.S. agriculture; increasing economic opportunities and improving
quality of life in rural America; enhancing protection and safety of
the Nation's agriculture and food supply; improving the Nation's
nutrition and health; and protecting and enhancing the Nation's natural
resource base and environment. U.S. agriculture faces new challenges,
including threats from emerging infectious diseases in plants and
animals such as avian influenza, as well as threats from climate
change, and public concern about food safety and security. It is
critical to increase the visibility and investment in agriculture
research to respond to these challenges. The ASM urges Congress to
provide increased funding for research programs within the USDA in
fiscal year 2007.
Microbiological research in agriculture is vital to understanding
and finding solutions to foodborne diseases, endemic diseases of long
standing, new and emerging plant and animal diseases, development of
new agriculture products and processes and addressing existing and
emerging environmental challenges. Unfortunately, Federal investment in
agricultural research has not kept pace with the need for additional
agricultural research to solve emerging problems. The USDA funds more
than 90 percent of all Federal support for the agricultural sciences.
According to the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) report,
Agricultural Research and Development: Public and Private Investments
Under Alternative Markets and Institutions, the rate of return on
public investment in basic agricultural research is estimated to be
between 60 and 90 percent.

Agricultural Research Service
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the USDA's chief
scientific research agency, which conducts research to develop new
scientific knowledge, transfers technology to the private sector to
solve critical agricultural problems of broad scope and high national
priority, and provides access to scientific data. The ARS supports
approximately 1,200 individual research projects conducted by
scientists from the USDA at over 100 Federal facilities. The
Administration requests approximately $1.03 billion for the ARS in
fiscal year 2007, a 20 percent decrease from fiscal year 2006. The ASM
urges Congress to strongly support the ARS in fiscal year 2007.

USDA Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative
The Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative is an interagency
initiative to improve the Federal Government's capability to rapidly
identify and characterize a bioterrorist attack, by improving the
national surveillance capabilities in human health, food, agriculture,
and environmental monitoring. The ASM supports the Administration's
request for this initiative of $322 million for fiscal year 2007, an
increase of $127 million over fiscal year 2006. This does not include
funding for construction of the Ames, Iowa facility for animal research
and diagnostics, which was fully funded in fiscal year 2006. Of the
total amount, an increase of approximately $30 million for Food Defense
would enhance the Food Safety and Inspection Service's (FSIS) ability
to detect and respond to food emergencies and for the USDA's research
agencies to conduct related research. For Agriculture Defense, the
budget includes a $97 million increase to improve the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service's (APHIS) monitoring and surveillance of
plant and animal health, including wildlife; response capabilities,
including provisions for the National Veterinary Stockpile; and further
research on emerging and exotic diseases.
The ASM supports this greater emphasis on research in the Food and
Agriculture Defense Initiative and recommends an increase in funding,
both extramural and intramural, for research on pathogenic
microorganisms as part of the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative.

Food Safety
The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) estimates that each year 76
million people get sick, more than 300,000 are hospitalized, and 5,000
die because of foodborne illnesses. Primarily the very young, the
elderly, and the immunocompromised are affected. Recent changes in
human demographics and food preferences, changes in food production and
distribution systems, microbial adaptation, and lack of support for
public health resources and infrastructure have led to the emergence of
novel as well as traditional foodborne diseases. With increasing travel
and trade opportunities, it is not surprising that now there is a
greater risk of contracting and spreading a foodborne illness locally,
regionally, and even globally. (MMWR 2004;53[No. RR-04]). The USDA's
Economic Research Service (ERS) estimates that the medical costs,
productivity losses, and costs of premature deaths for diseases caused
by just five types of foodborne pathogens exceeds $6.9 billion per year
in the United States. The USDA plays a vital role in the government's
effort to reduce the incidence of foodborne illness. Continued and
sustained research is important to safeguarding the Nation's food
supply and focusing on methods and technologies to prevent microbial
foodborne disease and emerging pathogens. The ASM supports the
requested increases for the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative and
the Food Safety and Inspection Service. Without sustained significant
increases in the level of food safety research funding, meeting the
National Health Objectives for 2010 in all likelihood will not become
reality. The ASM recommends a substantial increase in food safety
research, which is essential to ensure the protection of the Nation's
health.

Genomics Initiative
The NRI and the ARS fund the USDA collaborative efforts in the
field of genomics. There are opportunities to leverage the USDA's
investments with those of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the
Department of Energy (DOE), and the National Science Foundation (NSF)
in projects to map and sequence the genomes of agriculturally important
species of plants, animals, and microbes. Determining the function of
the sequenced genomes (functional genomics) and analyses of the data
(bioinformatics) now need investment for new management techniques and
tools. The USDA plays an important role in coordinating and
participating in interagency workgroups on domestic animal, microbial,
and plant genomics. Access to genomic information and the new tools to
utilize it have implications for virtually all aspects of agriculture.
The ASM urges Congress to provide strong support for the USDA genomics
initiative.

Emerging Infectious Diseases in Plants and Animals
The food production and distribution system in the United States is
vulnerable to the introduction of pathogens and toxins through natural
processes, global commerce, and intentional means. The ASM supports
increases in the USDA research budget for emerging diseases and
invasive species. Nearly 200 zoonotic diseases can be naturally
transmitted from animals to man and opportunistic plant pathogens and
soil-inhabiting microorganisms can be causal agents of infection and
disease in humans. For emerging diseases to be effectively detected and
controlled the biology, ecology, and mechanisms for pathogenicity of
the causal pathogens must be understood and weaknesses exploited to
limit their impact. This research will help address the risk to humans
from emerging diseases and opportunistic pathogens, and will ensure the
safety of plant and animal products. Additionally, expanded research is
needed to accelerate the development of information and technologies
for the protection of United States agricultural commodities, wildlife
and human health against emerging diseases.

Antimicrobial Resistance Research
The USDA plays a key role in addressing the national and global
increase in antimicrobial resistance and the complex issues surrounding
this public health threat. The ARS Strategic Plan for 2003-2007 states
the need to ``determine how antimicrobial resistance is acquired,
transmitted, maintained, in food-producing animals, and develop
technologies or altered management strategies to control its
occurrence.'' In 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) and the USDA established the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System (NARMS) to monitor trends in antimicrobial resistance
in foodborne pathogens; the USDA has expanded monitoring to include the
Collaboration on Animal Health Food Safety Epidemiology (CAHFSE)
program. The USDA support for these projects should continue and the
ASM urges Congress to increase support for antimicrobial resistance
surveillance, research, prevention, and control programs.

Conclusion
The USDA's mission and goals of leadership on food, agriculture,
and natural resources, based on sound public policy, the best available
science, and efficient management should be strongly supported. With a
significant investment in research, the USDA will be better able to
meet its goals. The ASM urges Congress to increase funding for
agricultural research programs to enable the USDA to help ensure a
safe, nutritious and plentiful food supply for America. This includes
providing $247.5 million for the NRI in fiscal year 2007.
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 appropriations process.
______

Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology

The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is submitting the
following statement in support of increased funding for the fiscal year
2007 budget of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ASM is the
largest single life science society in the world with over 42,000
members who are involved in basic and applied research and testing in
university, industry, government and clinical laboratories.
The Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $1.95
billion for the FDA includes $1.55 billion in budget authority and $402
million in industry user fees, a total increase of $70.8 million or 3.8
percent over the fiscal year 2006 budget. Despite the proposed
increase, the FDA's budget continues to be constrained, especially in
view of the increasing demands on the FDA related to food safety,
pandemic influenza, new and emerging infectious diseases, such as West
Nile and Mad Cow Disease, drug safety, and initiatives to advance
innovation in medical product development. The ASM recommends that
Congress provide additional funding for the FDA to increase its fiscal
year 2007 proposed budget. Increased support for the FDA will enable
the Agency to enhance programs that protect against unsafe healthcare
products, unhealthy foods, and health challenges from bioterrorism or
natural disasters. The FDA regulates products that account for almost
25 percent of U.S. consumer spending, including 80 percent of our
national food supply and all human drugs, vaccines, medical devices,
tissues for transplantation, equipment that emits radiation, cosmetics,
and animal drugs and feed. Together these products are worth nearly
$1.5 trillion annually and affect the daily lives of people.

Protecting America's Health--Pandemic Preparedness
The specter of a potential influenza pandemic requires increased
resources for preparedness. Recent research has found that viruses
responsible for the three influenza pandemics in the past century
carried genes from avian influenza viruses. In the current H5N1
outbreak, the World Health Organization has confirmed about 186 human
cases although thus far the virus does not spread readily from human to
human. If viral mutations make human-to-human transmission a tragic
reality, however, a deadly pandemic could cause millions of human
deaths and billions in economic costs. The FDA request for fiscal year
2007 asks for $55.3 million for pandemic preparedness, an amount $30.5
million more than the fiscal year 2006 level.
The FDA provides unique support to the recently launched National
Strategy for Pandemic Influenza, a broad, multi-agency effort to better
prepare the United States for any pandemic influenza. This Federal
response targets three primary goals: detect and contain outbreaks
wherever they occur; ensure that Federal, State, and local communities
are prepared; and stockpile vaccines and antiviral drugs through
accelerated development of new vaccine technologies and greatly
increased U.S. production capacity. Last December, when the Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) announced its Pandemic Influenza
Plan as part of the Federal strategy, the ASM endorsed its priority of
increased vaccine manufacturing capacity (enough vaccine for all
Americans within 6 months of a domestic outbreak). At present, there
are not nearly enough vaccines and antiviral drugs to meet Federal
goals. The ASM is concerned that adequate funding be given to the FDA,
which will be a central figure in vaccine and antiviral development and
manufacturing. Heightened output using new technologies will further
burden the FDA's product evaluation process, already stretched by
research responses to emerging infectious pathogens like SARS and West
Nile virus.
Scientists at the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and
Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) will
shoulder much of the Agency's growing vaccine and antiviral
contribution towards pandemic preparedness. Researchers from the FDA
and their private-industry partners will tackle the critical issues of
expanding U.S. capacity for traditional egg-based vaccine production,
the technological transition to cell-culture-based vaccine production,
and development of innovative vaccines and therapeutic drugs. Through
the FDA's Critical Path Initiative to get products to market more
quickly, accelerated approval can help expedite the Federal stockpile
of vaccines and antivirals needed to counter pandemic influenza.
The FDA not only assures the safety and efficacy of new products,
but agency personnel also provide technical support to manufacturers
from laboratory to market. In early March, the FDA issued two sets of
draft recommendations to aid manufacturers in developing vaccines, one
for seasonal, one for pandemic influenza. Seasonal influenza is an ever
present threat to American health and with pneumonia, it remains the
leading infectious cause of U.S. deaths. The two guidances also address
some promising higher-output technologies for vaccine production, such
as cell culture and recombinant manufacturing. The scientific advances
from the FDA's influenza activities will undoubtedly heighten
protection against infectious diseases in general, as well as
production of antiviral vaccines and drugs in particular. Efforts by
the influenza preparedness programs also will improve the safety of our
national food supply. Scientists from the FDA are developing new
methods to detect antiviral drug residues in food, while FDA
communications personnel are creating public guidelines on food
preparation in the event that avian influenza reaches poultry flocks in
the United States.

Protecting America's Health--Food Security and Safety
The FDA oversees about 80 percent of the nation's entire food
supply, with only the exception of meat, poultry, and some egg products
regulated by the Department of Agriculture (USDA). Within the FDA, the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the Office of
Regulatory Affairs are responsible each year for goods worth $417
billion in domestically produced foods and $49 billion in imported
foods. In fiscal year 2007, the agency's Prior Notice Center is
expecting to process daily up to 20,000 notifications of food import
shipments. The FDA's food safety efforts involve reams of regulations,
constant laboratory testing with the latest methods, and field
inspections of producers and handlers from among the 420,000 FDA-
registered food establishments here and abroad. The Administration's
proposed fiscal year 2007 budget requests about $450 million for the
FDA foods program, an increase of $11 million over last fiscal year.
Within this total, $178 million is earmarked for protecting our food
against deliberate attacks, a $20 million increase over fiscal year
2006.
The CFSAN conducts research typically not conducted by industry or
other research agencies, which provides the basis for regulating the
food-producing and processing industries to ensure a safe and
nutritious food supply from farm to table. It provides the scientific
basis for nutrition labeling regulations and guidance, identification
of foodborne pathogens, the development of mitigation and prevention
strategies, as well as identifying and recommending the adoption of
innovative technologies that reduce public health concerns related to
foodborne pathogens. The ASM is concerned with the proposed $5.2
million reduction for the CFSAN in fiscal year 2007, and the
redirection of resources from base programs that includes cuts to the
CFSAN's research program and the loss of 64 full-time employees (FTE).
With the current increasing trends in importation of produce, the FDA
needs to strengthen its role in this area, including better sampling
and real-time microbiological testing procedures, and more inspectors
to provide a greater assurance of public health protection.
Protecting the nation's food supply from bioterrorism is one of the
FDA's priority initiatives for fiscal year 2007, specifically through
improved prevention strategies and plans, advanced screening methods to
detect microbial food contamination, and outreach to industry, State,
and local stakeholders. The FDA's Food Defense Initiative is part of an
interagency strategy involving the Department of Homeland Security, the
USDA, and other government entities. Because of countless possibilities
for intentional and accidental food contamination, the ASM supports the
aggressive measures taken by the FDA to inspect, detect, and prevent
unsafe foods. For example, in fiscal year 2005, the FDA conducted more
than 86,000 import security reviews to identify any imported food and
feed products that might be intentionally contaminated. Much of the
fiscal year 2007 budget increase would expand the FDA's Food Emergency
Response Network (FERN) and the Internet-based data exchange system
used by health labs at all levels, the Electronic Laboratory Exchange
Network (eLEXNET). FERN is a network of Federal and State laboratories
designed to guarantee the analytic surge capacity to respond to any
attack on the U.S. food system. By the end of fiscal year 2006, the
network will incorporate 10 Federal and 10 State labs; the additional
fiscal year 2007 funds will expand the network into 6 more State labs.
Funds also support related basic food defense research and other
surveillance linkages among Federal, State, and local responders.
Although impressive in its quantity, quality and diversity, the
food supply system in the United States nonetheless remains vulnerable
to accidental cases of foodborne infectious diseases. Health officials
report that each year these diseases are responsible for an estimated
76 million illnesses, more than 300,000 hospitalizations, and 5,000
deaths. The USDA has estimated that each year the most common foodborne
pathogens cost the U.S. economy as much as $6 billion through direct
medical costs (acute and chronic cases) and lost productivity. The ASM
commends the FDA regulatory and research programs that address health
risks related to foods, cosmetics, and animal feed and drugs, many of
which involve microbial pathogens. Globalization of our food sources
has diversified American diets, but it also greatly increases the
possibilities for contamination as we eat more fresh produce, once-
unfamiliar foods, and products from less-regulated import sources.
Oversight of the new genetically engineered foods and recent dramatic
growth in the diet supplement industry also stretches limited FDA food
safety resources.
An estimated 118,000 illnesses occur each year in the United States
due to eggs contaminated with Salmonella bacteria (Salmonella caused
infections alone account for $1 billion yearly in direct and indirect
costs). In 2006, the FDA expects to publish its final rule to the
States and the egg industry to prevent Salmonella contamination during
production, with the intent of reducing the annual human cases by at
least 33,500. The agency uses on-going surveillance of U.S. foodborne
disease outbreaks to detect any incidents with products regulated by
the FDA. It also has several emergency response plans to address sudden
threats to food safety, for example, post-Katrina deployment to assess
stored-food sources in the Gulf Coast, and the BSE Emergency Response
Plan to quickly evaluate with the USDA any report of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy in US cattle. For fiscal year 2007, BSE research/
detection will be one of the two highest-priority programs at the FDA's
Center for Veterinary Medicine, along with reduction of antimicrobial
resistance in humans now linked to antibiotics fed to food animals.

Protecting America's Health--Biomedical Frontiers
The new Critical Path to Personalized Medicine will be the FDA's
top scientific policy initiative for at least the next 5 years, created
``to accelerate the field of personalized, predictive, and preemptive
medicine.'' Economic experts predict that by 2015 the United States
will pay out about 20 percent of its gross domestic product on health
spending. The FDA is seeking to more efficiently evaluate pre-market
biomedical products. The critical path initiative is the Agency's
response to recent stagnation in new product development due to
problematic clinical trials or manufacturing procedures that disallow
approval FDA from the FDA. By using cutting-edge molecular biology
technologies, the FDA expects to modernize the medical product
development process with cooperation from private industry. These
technologies also will enable scientists from the FDA to evaluate and
encourage superior therapies personalized or tailored to individual
groups of patients, reducing the time-consuming need to approve
products for broad use and paving the way to less-expensive clinical
trials and more effective drugs. The new molecular-based technologies
also are expected to help predict which patients would benefit from a
particular therapy and which might suffer ill effects. The ASM agrees
with the FDA intent to stimulate private industry use of new
generations of scientific tools, in order to expedite technology
transfer and to help maintain U.S. science-based competitiveness in an
expanding global healthcare market.
Conclusion
The ASM strongly recommends an increased budget for the FDA, which
would benefit its important programs and provided need resources for
priority initiatives.
______

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

The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), a non-profit
society representing nearly 6,000 plant scientists, urges the
Subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request
of $247.5 million for the Department of Agriculture National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI). We urge a significant
increase for the Cooperative State Research Education, and Extension
Service (CSREES) and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) over the
fiscal year 2006 appropriation.
Basic plant research supported by USDA-ARS and CSREES, including
the NRI, provides new knowledge that leads to improved and value-added
crops. This enhances economic opportunities for America's farmers. This
in turn benefits rural economies and the quality of life in rural
communities.
As ASPB Committee on Public Affairs Chair Roger Innes, Professor,
Indiana University, noted, NRI-funded research performed by ASPB
members has led to major advances in enhancing and protecting the
safety of the Nation's agriculture and food supply. ASPB members are
also studying how plants accumulate nutrients in order to develop crop
plants with higher nutrient content and are learning how plants utilize
water and soil nutrients (e.g. nitrogen and phosphorous) in an effort
to develop crops that require less fertilizer, which would have major
environmental, economic and health benefits.
Advances in science made possible through the NRI will enable
farmers to reduce their dependency on pesticides and antibiotics and to
protect the water supply, soils and fragile ecosystems, noted ASPB
Committee on Public Affairs Chair Pamela Ronald, Professor, University
of California, Davis.
Research sponsored by the NRI contributes to higher yields and
safer foods. The NRI contributes to the talent pool of agricultural
scientists in the states and Nation to better serve the needs of
producers and consumers. Without grant support from the NRI, the
agricultural research community in our Nation would be severely
weakened, commented ASPB President Michael Thomashow, Professor,
Michigan State University.
Research leading to improved energy crops could boost economies in
rural and urban areas of America while reducing dependence on foreign
oil. USDA and DOE reported in April how more than 33 percent of our
Nation's transportation fuels could be supplied by homegrown biofuels
compared to the current two percent. This would help cut the Nation's
trade deficit, while also reducing carbon emissions. We applaud the
Department of Agriculture for its own and collaborative efforts with
the Department of Energy and National Science Foundation to increase
basic understanding of plants for enhanced production of biofuels.
Advances in plant research that have helped farmers give Americans the
world's lowest cost for food (as the share of personal income) could
also lower fuel costs and stabilize energy supplies.
The majority of ASPB members perform research that addresses
fundamental questions in plant biology. It is this basic research that
leads to unexpected breakthroughs and new approaches to improving crop
production. For example, the discovery of RNA interference arose from
basic research on the control of gene expression and on virus
resistance in plants, but is now revolutionizing research and
applications in both plant and human biology. ASPB urges the
Subcommittee to continue supporting USDA-sponsored world leading basic
plant biology research. New enhanced crops result from research
directly on crops and on simpler model plants with shared traits, such
as Arabidopsis.
Tremendous advancements in our understanding of plant genomes have
been made in the last 5 years. These advancements have greatly
accelerated our ability to identify genes controlling important
agricultural traits such as disease resistance, flowering time, and
drought tolerance. These genomic resources have also greatly enhanced
our abilities to use molecular breeding tools to develop superior crop
varieties, Innes commented.
We have recommended in the past that the NRI increase funding
awarded for individual research grants for both direct and indirect
costs, but not decrease the total number of grants awarded. This
requires substantial additional funding for the NRI program. Due to
overall budget constraints, the NRI budget for existing programs has
not increased at a rate to keep pace with the higher grant award
levels, that are more comparable now to award levels from other
research agencies. As a result, to accomplish an increase in award
sizes, the NRI has had to fund fewer grants. This has caused funding
rates to plummet.
If such low funding rates are maintained, it will cause many
research labs to close and make it difficult for universities to
justify maintaining faculty in these areas. It will also make it very
difficult to attract new students and faculty into plant biology, just
at a time when the opportunities for rapid advancement are
unprecedented. A substantial increase as requested by the President for
the NRI would lead to a higher number of awards in plant biology and
other areas. This will result in more benefits in crop yields, human
health and nutrition, environmental quality, clean energy production
and farming practices.
Continued support for a balanced research portfolio in the
Department including extramural and intramural research is needed to
address the many and sometimes devastating problems farmers face in
growing crops. CSREES and ARS continue to address very effectively many
important research questions for American agriculture.
We deeply appreciate the Subcommittee's support for research
sponsored by the Department of Agriculture. The Subcommittee's support
has been essential to producing and securing the Nation's food supply.
Disclosure statement on Federal grant support
The American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) received Federal
grants from USDA-CSREES in the amount of $7,000 in each of fiscal years
2005 and 2006 to help coordinate the USDA-CSREES Plant and Pest Biology
Stakeholders' Workshop and print the subsequent workshop report. Many
associations representing growers of commodity crops; science societies
representing the research community; and officials administering
Federal research programs participated.
______

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
(CCOS) Coalition, we are pleased to submit this statement for the
record in support of our fiscal year 2007 funding request of $400,000
from the Department of Agriculture for CCOS. These funds are necessary
for the State of California to address the very significant challenges
it faces to comply with new national ambient air quality standards for
ozone and fine particulate matter. The study design incorporates recent
technical recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
on how to most effectively comply with Federal Clean Air Act
requirements.
First, we want to thank you for your past assistance in obtaining
Federal funding for the Central California Ozone Study (CCOS) and
California Regional PM10/PM2.5 Air Quality Study
(CRPAQS). Your support of these studies has been instrumental in
improving the scientific understanding of the nature and cause of ozone
and particulate matter air pollution in Central California and the
Nation. Information gained from these two studies is forming the basis
for the 8-hour ozone, PM2.5, and regional haze State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) that are due in 2007 (ozone) and 2008
(particulate matter/haze). As with California's previous SIPs, the
2007-2008 SIPs will need to be updated and refined due to the
scientific complexity of our air pollution problem. Our request this
year would fund the completion of CCOS to address important questions
that won't be answered with results from previously funded research
projects.
To date, our understanding of air pollution and the technical basis
for SIPs has largely been founded on pollutant-specific studies, like
CCOS. These studies are conducted over a single season or single year
and have relied on modeling and analysis of selected days with high
concentrations. Future SIPs will be more complex than they were in the
past. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is now recommending a
weight-of-evidence approach that will involve utilizing more broad-
based, integrated methods, such as data analysis in combination with
seasonal and annual photochemical modeling, to assess compliance with
Federal Clean Air Act requirements. This will involve the analysis of a
larger number of days and possibly an entire season. In addition,
because ozone and particulate matter are formed from some of the same
emissions precursors, there is a need to address both pollutants in
combination, which CCOS will do.
Consistent with the new NAS recommendations, the CCOS study
includes corroborative analyses with the extensive data provided by
past studies, advances the state-of-science in air quality modeling,
and addresses the integration of ozone and particulate pollution
studies. In addition, the study will incorporate further refinements to
emission inventories, address the development of observation-based
analyses with sound theoretical bases, and includes the following four
general components:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performing SIP modeling analyses........................ 2005-2011
Conducting weight-of-evidence data analyses............. 2006-2008
Making emission inventory improvements.................. 2006-2010
Performing seasonal and annual modeling................. 2008-2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------

CCOS is directed by Policy and Technical Committees consisting of
representatives from Federal, State, and local governments, as well as
private industry. These committees, which managed the San Joaquin
Valley Ozone Study and are currently managing the California Regional
Particulate Air Quality Study, are landmark examples of collaborative
environmental management. The proven methods and established teamwork
provide a solid foundation for CCOS.
For fiscal year 2007, our Coalition is seeking funding of $400,000
from the Department of Agriculture/CSREES in support of CCOS. Domestic
agriculture is facing increasing international competition. Costs of
production and processing are becoming increasingly more critical. With
the current SJV PM10 SIP and the upcoming ozone and
PM2.5 SIPs, the agricultural industry within the study area
is facing many new requirements to manage and reduce their air quality
impacts. The identification of scientifically validated, cost-effective
options for reducing the environmental impacts of on-field and
livestock related air emissions will contribute significantly to the
long-term health and economic stability of local agriculture. Funding
will support livestock and crop-related research that will help
maintain a vital agricultural industry within the state. Research will
be focused to measure baseline emissions, and to study the most
economical and effective approaches for reducing the impacts of
agriculture on air quality. These studies also have nationwide
benefits.
The funding request is for: (1) Study of agricultural VOC emissions
from pesticide application that will help answer questions relevant to
farmers and regulators throughout the Nation, (2) Evaluation of
baseline livestock emissions (VOCs, PM10, ammonia) and
effective methods to reduce these emissions, (3) Development of
livestock facility emissions models as recommended by the National
Academy of Sciences and (4) Improvement of emissions estimates for
agricultural related diesel engines, both on-road and off-road. This
includes emission factors, activity data, fleet characteristics,
seasonality of emissions, and benefits of incentive programs to
accelerate the introduction of cleaner engines.
Thank you very much for your consideration of our request.
______

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

The Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions (CoFARM)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2007
appropriation for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CoFARM is a coalition of 23 professional scientific organizations with
130,000 members dedicated to advancing and sustaining a balanced
investment in our Nation's research portfolio.
The USDA sponsors research and education programs which contribute
to solving agricultural problems of high national priority and ensuring
food availability, nutrition, quality and safety, as well as a
competitive agricultural economy. U.S. agriculture faces new
challenges, including threats from emerging infectious diseases in
plants and animals, climate change, and public concern about food
safety and security. It is critical to increase the visibility and
investment in agriculture research to respond to these challenges and
we appreciate the Subcommittee's efforts to fund the National Research
Initiative at $181 million in fiscal year 2006 and urge the
Subcommittee to support the Administration's fiscal year 2007 request
of $247.5 million for this program.

USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program
The National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI)
was established in 1991 in response to recommendations outlined in
Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the Agricultural, Food
and Environmental System, a 1989 report by the National Research
Council's (NRC) Board on Agriculture. This publication called for
increased funding of high priority research that is supported by USDA
through a competitive peer-review process directed at:
--Increasing the competitiveness of U.S. agriculture.
--Improving human health and well-being through an abundant, safe,
and high-quality food supply.
--Sustaining the quality and productivity of the natural resources
and the environment upon which agriculture depends.
Continued interest in and support of the NRI is reflected in two
subsequent NRC reports, Investing in the National Research Initiative:
An Update of the Competitive Grants Program of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, published in 1994, and National Research Initiative: A
Vital Competitive Grants Program in Food, Fiber, and Natural Resources
Research, published in 2000.
Today, the NRI, housed within USDA's Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), supports research on key
problems of national and regional importance in biological,
environmental, physical, and social sciences relevant to agriculture,
food, and the environment on a peer-reviewed, competitive basis.
Additionally, NRI enables USDA to develop new partnerships with other
Federal agencies that advance agricultural science. Examples of such
collaborations include USDA's involvement in the Microbial Genome
Sequencing Program, the Maize Genome Program, the Microbial
Observatories program, the Plant Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy
program, the Metabolic Engineering program, and the Climate Change
Science Plan.
CoFARM Urges Congress To Support the Administration's Requested
Increase or NRI in Fiscal Year 2007.--NRI's proposed increase comes
from the shifting of CSREES Integrated Activities, such as food safety,
pest management, and water quality, making up $42.7 million of the
proposed increase, providing a net increase of $24 million for NRI
including the additional responsibility of the Integrated Programs.
CoFARM supports the Administration's effort to increase competitively
awarded funding mechanisms and believes that competitive grants ensure
the best science.
Past investments in agricultural research have yielded many
breakthroughs in American agricultural productivity, including these
few Hatch and NRI funded research success stories:
--Pennsylvania researchers are developing rapid diagnostic tests to
curb avian influenza, a disease that could cripple the state's
$700 million poultry industry.
--University of Maryland researchers have created an advanced machine
vision technology to detect bone fragments and foreign objects
in meat.
--Researchers in Florida have tested a common fern's ability to soak
up arsenic, a cancer-causing heavy metal, from contaminated
soils. The market for plant-based remediation of wastes is
estimated to be $370 million in 2005.
--Entomologists and Nematologists developed a vaccine for the
protection of cattle from the horn fly, a major insect pest in
many parts of the world costing the North American cattle
industry alone more than $1 billion annually.
--As a result of NRI funding, a group of economists found that the
competitive environment of supermarket retailers encourages
patterns of adoption of food products using technologies that
are new to the market.
--Through NRI funded research, scientists developed a new assay that
allows for rapid identification of Clostridium perfringens,
which is associated with common food-borne illness, in hospital
outbreaks and has resulted in improved diagnostic procedures.
--Florida family and youth researchers have shed light on crime and
violence trends in schools and evaluated prevention programs.
The result has been a decline in disruptive behavior in
classrooms by 40 percent over 2 years. The work is a national
model for improving school safety.
Congress must enhance funding for agricultural research to assure
Americans of a safe and nutritious food supply and to provide for the
next generation of research scientists.
CoFARM 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 appropriations process.
______

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

As members of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports,
we commend the Chairman and members of the Subcommittee for their
interest and support of U.S. agriculture and express our appreciation
for this opportunity to share our views.
The Coalition to Promote U.S. Agricultural Exports is an ad hoc
coalition of over 100 organizations, representing farmers and ranchers,
fishermen and forest product producers, cooperatives, small businesses,
regional trade organizations, and the State Departments of Agriculture
(see attached). We believe the United States 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 highly subsidized foreign competition.
With the 2002 Farm Bill, Congress sought to bolster U.S. trade
expansion efforts by approving an increase in funding for the Market
Access Program (MAP) and the Foreign Market Development (FMD) Program.
This commitment began to reverse the decline in funding for these
important export programs that occurred over the previous decade. For
fiscal year 2007, the Farm Bill authorizes funding for MAP at $200
million, and FMD is authorized at $34.5 million. The Coalition strongly
urges that both programs be funded at the full authorized levels in
order to carry out important market development activities. These are
the same levels of funding included in the fiscal year 2006 Agriculture
Appropriations bill that was signed into law last November.
Farm income and agriculture's economic well-being depend heavily on
exports, which account for over 25 percent of U.S. producers' cash
receipts, provide jobs for nearly one million Americans, and make a
positive contribution to our nation's overall trade balance. In fiscal
year 2006, U.S. agriculture exports are projected to reach $64.5
billion which, if realized, would make it the highest export sales year
ever. However, exports could be significantly higher if it were not for
a combination of factors, including continued high levels of subsidized
foreign competition and related steep artificial trade barriers.
Agricultural imports are also forecast to be a record $63.5 billion,
continuing a 35-year upward trend that has increased at a faster pace
recently. If these projections hold, then agriculture's trade surplus
is only expected to be about $1 billion, a huge decline from the
roughly $27 billion surplus of fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1999,
the U.S. recorded its first agricultural trade deficit with the EU of
$1 billion. In fiscal year 2006, USDA forecasts that the trade deficit
with the EU will grow to $6.8 billion, the largest agriculture deficit
the United States runs with any market.
America's agricultural industry is willing to continue doing its
best to offset the alarming trade deficit confronting our country.
However, the support provided by MAP and FMD (both green box programs)
is essential to this effort.
According to USDA, the European Union (EU) spent more than $3.25
billion on agricultural export subsidies in 2003, compared to
approximately $30 million by the United States. In other words, the
United States is being outspent by more than 100 to 1 by the EU alone
with regard to the use of export subsidies.
In recent years, the EU, the Cairns group, and other foreign
competitors also devoted approximately $1.2 billion on various market
development activities to promote their exports of agricultural,
forestry, and fishery products. A significant portion of this is
carried out in the United States. Market promotion is permitted under
World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, with no limit on public or
producer funding, and is not expected to be subject to any disciplines
in the Doha Round negotiations. As a result, 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 strategies to target promising growth markets and bring
new companies into the export arena. European countries are expanding
their promotional activities in Asia, Latin America, and Eastern
Europe. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil have also budgeted
significant investments in export promotion expenditures worldwide 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.
Both MAP and FMD are administered on a cost-share basis with
farmers and other participants required to contribute up to 50 percent
of their own resources. These programs are among the few tools
specifically allowed in unlimited amounts under WTO rules to help
American agriculture and American workers remain competitive in a
global marketplace still characterized by highly subsidized foreign
competition. The over 70 U.S. agricultural groups that share in the
costs of the MAP and FMD programs fully recognize the export benefits
of market development activities. Since 1992, MAP participants have
increased their contributions from 30 percent (30 cents for every
dollar contributed by USDA) to 166 percent ($1.66 in industry funds for
every USDA dollar). For FMD, the contribution rate has risen from 76
percent to the current level of 139 percent. By any measure, such
programs have been tremendously successful and extremely cost-effective
in helping maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports, protect
American jobs, and strengthen farm income.
Competing in the agricultural export market carries new challenges
and opportunities for U.S. agriculture. Not only is the competition
becoming more intense with increased funding being brought to bear, but
we also face a world where new trade agreements are being developed
almost daily. The United States is also negotiating trade agreements
with the goal of opening new market opportunities for U.S. agriculture.
In addition, the opening of the Iraq market and the markets of other
previously sanctioned countries will offer further opportunities and
challenges.
For all these reasons, we want to emphasize again the need to
strengthen the ability of U.S. agriculture to compete effectively in
the global marketplace. American agriculture is among the most
competitive industries in the world, but it cannot and should not be
expected to compete alone in export markets against the treasuries of
foreign governments. As a Nation, we can work to export our products,
or we can export our jobs. Eliminating or reducing funding for MAP and
FMD in the face of continued subsidized foreign competition, and during
ongoing Doha Round trade negotiations, would put American farmers and
workers at a substantial competitive disadvantage and would be nothing
short of unilateral disarmament. 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 (Program) should be implemented in the most cost-
effective way. Realizing that agricultural on-farm strategies were some
of the most cost-effective strategies, the Congress authorized a
program for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through
amendment of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1984.
With the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996 (FAIRA), the Congress directed that the Program should
continue to be implemented as one of the components of the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Since the enactment of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (FSRIA) in 2002, there have
been, for the first time in a number of years, opportunities to
adequately fund the Program within the EQIP.
The Program, as set forth in the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Act, is to benefit Lower Basin water users hundreds of miles
downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin as the salinity of
Colorado River water increases as the water flows downstream. There are
very significant economic damages caused by high salt levels in this
water source. Agriculturalists in the Upper Basin where the salt must
be controlled, however, don't first look to downstream water quality
standards but look for local benefits. These local benefits are in the
form of enhanced beneficial use and improved crop yields. They submit
cost-effective proposals to the State Conservationists in Utah, Wyoming
and Colorado and offer to cost share in the acquisition of new
irrigation equipment. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
provides that the seven Colorado River Basin States will also cost
share with the Federal funds for this effort. This has brought together
a remarkable partnership.
After longstanding urgings from the States and directives from the
Congress, the USDA has concluded that this program is different than
small watershed enhancement efforts common to the EQIP. 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 and receives water from numerous
tributaries. The USDA has determined that this effort should receive a
special funding designation and has appointed a coordinator for this
multi-state effort.
In recent fiscal years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) has directed that over $19 million be used for the Program. The
Forum appreciates the efforts of the NRCS leadership and the support of
this subcommittee. The plan for water quality control of the Colorado
River was prepared by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
(Forum), adopted by the States, and approved by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Advisory Council has taken the position that the
funding for the salinity control program should not be below $20
million per year. Over the last 3 fiscal years, for the first time,
funding almost reached the needed level. State and local cost-sharing
is triggered by the Federal appropriation. In fiscal year 2006, it is
anticipated that the States will cost share with about $8.3 million and
local agriculture producers will add another $7.5 million. Hence, it is
anticipated that in fiscal year 2005 the State and local contributions
will be 45 percent of the total program cost.
Over the past few years, the NRCS has designated that about 2.5
percent of the EQIP funds be allocated to the Colorado River salinity
control program. The Forum believes this is the appropriate future
level of funding as long as the total EQIP funding nationwide is around
$1 billion. Funding above this level assists in offsetting pre-fiscal
year 2003 funding below this level. The Basin States have cost sharing
dollars available to participate in funding on-farm salinity control
efforts. The agricultural producers in the Upper Basin are waiting for
their applications to be considered so that they might improve their
irrigation equipment and also cost share in the Program.

OVERVIEW

The Program was authorized by the 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 specific to the
quality of water being delivered to Mexico below Imperial Dam. Title II
of the Act established a program to respond to salinity control needs
of Colorado River water users in the United States and to comply with
the mandates of the then newly-enacted Clean Water Act. This testimony
is in support of funding for the Title II program.
After a decade of investigative and implementation efforts, the
Basin States concluded that the Salinity Control Act needed to be
amended. The 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 USDA. The Congress
has charged the Administration with implementing the most cost-
effective program practicable (measured in dollars per ton of salt
controlled). It has been determined that the agricultural efforts are
some of the most cost-effective opportunities.
Since Congressional mandates of nearly 3 decades ago, much has been
learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. The
Bureau of Reclamation (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 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 the Congress in support of the implementation of
the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation with the EPA and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the
Forum prepares a formal report evaluating the salinity of the Colorado
River, its anticipated future salinity, and the program elements
necessary to keep the salinity concentrations (measured in Total
Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below the levels measured in the river
system in 1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations in 1972 have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. In order to eliminate the
shortfall in salinity control resulting from inadequate Federal funding
for a number of years from the USDA, the Forum has determined that
implementation of the Program needs to be accelerated. The level of
appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed
upon plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages
from the higher salt concentrations in the water will be more
widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentrations of salts in the river cause $330 million in
quantified damages and significantly more in unquantified damages in
the United States and result in poorer quality water being delivered by
the United States to Mexico. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and
--increased use of imported water for leaching and cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 mg/L increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75
million in additional damages in the United States. The Forum,
therefore, believes implementation of the USDA program needs to be
funded at 2.5 percent of the total EQIP funding.
Although the Program thus far has been able to implement salinity
control measures that comply with the approved plan, recent drought
years have caused salinity levels to rise in the river. Predictions are
that this will be the trend for the next several years. This places an
added urgency for acceleration of the implementation of the Program.

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 the USDA
concluded that the Basin States were authorized to cost share in the
effort, but the Congress had not given the 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 Reclamation, State officials in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming, agreed upon a program parallel to the salinity control
activities provided by the EQIP wherein the States' cost sharing funds
are being contributed and used. We are now several years into that
program and, at this moment in time, this solution to how cost sharing
can be implemented appears to be satisfactory.
With respect to the States' cost sharing funds, the Basin States
felt that it was most essential that a portion of the Program be
associated with technical assistance and education activities in the
field. Without this necessary support, there is no advanced planning,
proposals are not well prepared, assertions in the proposals cannot be
verified, implementation of contracts cannot be observed, and valuable
partnering and education efforts cannot occur. Recognizing these
values, the ``parallel'' State cost sharing program expends 40 percent
of the funds available on these needed support activities made possible
by contracts with the NRCS. Initially, it was acknowledged that the
Federal portion of the Program funded through EQIP was starved with
respect to needed technical assistance and education support. The Forum
is encouraged with a recent Administration acknowledgment that
technical assistance must be better funded.
______

Prepared Statement of the Council on Food, Agricultural, & Resource
Economics (C-FARE) and the Consortium of Social Science Associations
(COSSA)

Dear Chairman Bennett, Ranking Member Kohl and Members of the
Subcommittee: The Council on Food, Agricultural, and Resource Economics
(C-FARE) and the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA)
appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2007
appropriation for the United States Department of Agriculture. C-FARE
is a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to strengthening
the presence of the agricultural, natural resources, and applied
economics profession to matters of science policy and Federal budget
determination, and we represent approximately 3,500 economists
nationwide. COSSA is an advocacy organization for the social and
behavioral sciences supported by more than 100 professional
associations, scientific societies, universities, and research
institutes.
Our organizations understand the challenges the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee faces given the tight fiscal year 2007
agriculture budget. We also recognize that the Agriculture
Appropriations bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we
applaud the efforts of the Subcommittee to fund mission-critical
research. Below are listed recommendations for the fiscal year 2007
appropriations cycle.

USDA COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
(CSREES)

National Research Initiative
C-FARE and COSSA endorse funding for the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI) at the President's proposed
level of $247.5 million. The NRI encourages high quality research that
is conducted through a peer reviewed format. In particular, the
research issues addressed by Markets and Trade and Rural Development
are diverse and multi-faceted. Social Science research also enhances
ideas and technologies from other fields of science and research which
adds value to their role in the NRI.
C-FARE and COSSA requests that any new monies appropriated for the
NRI, as requested by the administration, allow the Secretary the
discretion to apply up to 30 percent towards carrying out the NRI
integrated research, extension and education competitive grants
program.
Our organizations applaud the administration's proposal to
eliminate the indirect cost cap on the NRI, set at 20 percent for
fiscal year 2005, which will broaden its appeal by putting the NRI on
equal footing with other Federal competitive grants programs.
Social Science research is highly valued by USDA and much of what
our scientists offer can help meet the strategic goals of CSREES. For
example, social science research meets CSREES strategic goal number 1,
``Enhance Economic Opportunities for Agricultural Producers'' by
providing science-based information, knowledge, and education to help
farmers and ranchers understand risk management, and the long-term
impacts of trade barriers. Research by our members also meets CSREES
goal number 2, ``Support Increased Economic Opportunities and Improved
Quality of Life in Rural America,'' by providing information to help
inform decisions affecting the quality of life in rural America.
Therefore, we request that the Committee encourage CSREES to fund the
social science research components of the NRI at a level sufficient to
allowing scientists to address these unmet research needs. Within the
last year, USDA changed funding for these core congressionally-mandated
programs to every other year, rather than on a yearly basis.
Formula Funding.--Cuts to and proposed elimination of CSREES'
formula-funded research programs can be detrimental to the entire USDA
research portfolio. Formula Funds support the continuing costs of
research activities while providing for long-term commitments to
research that is often essential. Because of their timing and potential
regional and intra-state impacts, much of the infrastructure needed to
conduct competitively award research would be compromised if formula
funds were cut. This would mean a huge and potentially damaging loss of
research data nationwide. A balance of funding mechanisms, including
competitive awards and formula funding, is essential if the capacity of
the United States to conduct agricultural research, both basic and
applied, is to be maintained and the country is to continue to excel in
areas such as agricultural production and expanding the quality of
rural life.

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS)
C-FARE and COSSA support the President's proposed fiscal year 2007
funding level for the Economic Research Service (ERS) initiatives. The
President's budget includes $5.0 million towards the Agricultural and
Rural Development Information System (ARDIS) to help ERS establish and
maintain data collection on the demographic, economic, government
program participation, and other household well-being information from
samples of non-farm rural households and rural-based farm households,
over time. The scientists our organizations represent need exactly such
new and valuable data for a variety of purposes, including estimating
impacts of farm policy changes. Simultaneously collecting the same data
and information from panels of farm and non-farm households in the same
rural area makes it possible to determine just how farm and non-farm
rural households are different from or similar to one another, and
provides a far more definitive than currently available basis for
judging whether and to what extent farm policy changes spill over into
the rural economy. We urge full funding of this initiative to assure
that agricultural and rural economic analysts can reap the minimum
necessary value added that will, in turn, enhance their contributions
to a sound farm policy and robust rural economies throughout the
Nation. We also support the President's proposal of $1.6 million for
the ERS Consumer Data and Information System at ERS. The funding will
include a comprehensive food data system that will be used to obtain
food away from home information. C-FARE and COSSA believe funding this
program is an important contribution to the government wide effort to
fight obesity.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
C-FARE and COSSA recommend supporting the President's priority
activities for NASS. These include a net increase of $14 million for
funding for agricultural estimates, Census of Agriculture, and pay
costs. Of the proposed increase, it is necessary to support $3.9
million for Agricultural Estimates Restoration and Modernization. This
initiative will continue NASS' efforts to restore quality and
modernization of the basic USDA agricultural estimates program that
supports the U.S. agricultural market system. The increase will also
include $7.3 million for the 2007 Census of Agriculture. The census
data are relied upon to measure trends and new developments in the
agricultural sector.

USDA Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS)
C-FARE and COSSA encourage Congress to continue supporting USDA's
AMS at a level that will allow them to continue offering the high value
programs they provide. As economists and social scientists we
appreciate that the AMS programs promote a competitive and efficient
marketplace. AMS services such as standardization, grading, market
news, commodity procurement, and other market-facilitating activities
benefit both consumers and producers. For the research community
specifically, AMS market news services provide in-depth data regarding
a wide range of commodities and modes of transportation; such basic
information is invaluable for analysis. AMS also supports research on
marketing and transportation issues through cooperative agreements and
through the Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program.

USDA Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA)
C-FARE and COSSA also value the vital work of GIPSA to help USDA
enhance economic opportunities for agricultural producers by promoting
fair and competitive trade practices and financial integrity in the
grain, livestock, meat and poultry industries. GIPSA reports provide
information that aid in the development of industry standards and
policy decision-making. Several of these reports are used in the
research conducted by social scientists. In particular, the Packers and
Stockyards Statistical Report provides researchers with data on
industry concentration, plant size, and other industry economic
information. The data helps social science researchers study important
social and economic issues, including concentration in the meat packing
industry. We encourage Congress to continue providing appropriate
support for GIPSA and their important programs.

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Our organizations also support sustained investment in our Nation's
natural resources and environment. We applaud USDA NRCS for promoting
conservation and sustainable use of natural resources on the Nation's
private lands. NRCS helps provide science-based knowledge to improve
the management of forests, rangelands, soil, air and water resources.
Social science researchers use this vital information to develop policy
recommendations that impact the future of our agricultural sector, as
well as life in rural America.

Conclusion
Recent security threats facing America require new and expanded
agricultural research to protect our Nation's forests, water supplies,
food processing and distribution network, and rural communities and
insure the future security, safety and sustainability of America's food
and fiber system. In order to address these challenges and maintain our
position in an increasingly competitive world, we must continue to
support research programs such as the NRI and formula funding, and
information systems such as those provided by ERS.
Thank you for the opportunity to present our recommendations. As
you know, past investments in agricultural research have yielded many
breakthroughs in American agricultural productivity. If you have any
questions or concerns regarding our priorities please do not hesitate
to contact us.

C-FARE DISCLOSURE OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AND GRANTS 2004-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Year Background
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA CSREES......................... 2005 $10,000 to help support C-FARE's Educational Outreach
Activities by funding a 2004 conference on ``Partnering for
Agricultural Research.'' The conference invited in scientists
from universities, government and private sector to discuss
ways to partner for enhanced research.
USDA ERS............................ 2004 $25,000 to help support C-FARE's Educational Outreach
Activities by funding a 2004 conference on ``Partnering for
Agricultural Research.'' The conference invited in scientists
from universities, government and private sector to discuss
ways to partner for enhanced research. Other portions of the
funding were dedicated to other education activities with
academic scientists.
USDA ERS............................ 2005 $25,000 to help support C-FARE's Educational Outreach
Activities by helping provide funding for C-FARE's intern
briefings, and other educational seminars.
USDA NASS........................... 2004 $7,500 to help support C-FARE's Educational Outreach Activities
by funding a 2004 conference on ``Partnering for Agricultural
Research.'' The conference invited in scientists from
universities, government and private sector to discuss ways to
partner for enhanced research.
USDA NASS........................... 2005 $7,500 in funding helped provide educational seminars to
college students about careers in Washington, DC and other
educational seminars
EPA................................. 2004 $5,000 to help support a 2003 conference on how to use various
database systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

______

Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife

On behalf of our members and supporters, Defenders of Wildlife
appreciates the opportunity to comment upon the fiscal year 2007 budget
for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Defenders of Wildlife is a
national nonprofit conservation organization committed to preserving
the integrity and diversity of natural ecosystems, preventing the
decline of native species, and restoration of threatened habitats and
wildlife populations.
Defenders of Wildlife has concerns about the administration's
fiscal year 2007 budget and we strongly oppose a number of changes the
Bush Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget would make to
Farm Bill conservation programs. While we applaud the administration's
recommendations to fully fund the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Bush
Administration's proposal continues to attempt to rewrite the Farm Bill
to the great detriment of the suite of USDA voluntary conservation
programs. We make recommendations in the following priority areas. 2002

Farm Bill Conservation Title Programs
Resource conservation programs within the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-171) (Farm Bill) provide an
integrated approach, through incentives and technical assistance, to
both production and stewardship of farm and ranch lands and the
environment. Further, these programs have been particularly valuable in
providing resources for addressing threatened and endangered species
conservation issues. The 2002 Farm Bill tried to achieve a balance
between farm commodity provisions and critical conservation, nutrition,
research and rural development programs that reach far more Americans
than the traditional commodity programs. But, in every year since the
passage of the Farm Bill, conservation programs continue to be funded
well under authorized levels. This comes at the expense of meaningful
benefits to both sustainable farmers and ranchers and the environment.
The conservation title specifically has bourn the brunt of the cuts.
Since the passage of the 2002 farm bill, congressional and
administrative actions have shortchanged promised conservation title
funding for programs administered by the National Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) by $1.444 billion over fiscal year 2003 through fiscal
year 2006. The President's proposed budget for 2007 unfortunately
continues this trend. We are pleased that the President's budget this
year again contains a promising proposal to limit environmentally
harmful agricultural commodity subsidies by capping payments at
$250,000 per farmer, and for the first time since he came to office, a
request to fully fund the Wetlands Reserve Program. Unfortunately, his
request still cuts critical conservation programs not just from the
mandated Farm Bill funding, but actually below even the fiscal year
2006 level.
Thus, Defenders of Wildlife urges Congress to restore balance to
the Farm Bill and to not shortchange progressive voluntary conservation
programs. National Farm Bill legislation has a profound impact on
native species and wildlife habitat conservation choices of individual
private landowners who practice crop, livestock, and forestry
activities. Almost 60 percent of at risk species (as defined by The
Nature Conservancy) are on private or state lands. Nearly 40 percent of
plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered are found
only on private or state lands. Seventy percent of the land in the
United States is held in private ownership in the form of range,
forestry, or agricultural use. As of 1995, nearly 84 percent of the
plants and animals listed as endangered or threatened were listed in
part due to agricultural activities. Specifically, we urge Congress to
restore balance by protecting funding allocations for the following
programs

The Conservation Security Program
The Bush Administration's proposed fiscal year 2007 budget
continues to cripple the landmark Conservation Security Program (CSP).
CSP is an innovative and important initiative that is meant to support
farmers and ranchers who implement and maintain effective stewardship
practices on their working farm and ranch lands. However, every year
since passage it has been a target for cuts thus limiting its ability
to be implemented as intended. Furthermore, the baseline for CSP was
dramatically slashed by $1 billion in the fiscal year 2006 budget
reconciliation. Yet, the administration's fiscal year 2007 budget cuts
CSP by a further 8 percent. As originally enacted, CSP should have
received $846 million in 2007, compared to the $342 million requested
in the President's 2007 budget.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget reduces the CSP
substantially below the original and intended level authorized in the
Farm Bill, but with the reduced baseline it amounts to an 8 percent
decrease. Moreover, because a significant portion of fiscal year 2006
funding will go to fund the continuation of contracts signed in 2004
and 2005, the proposed funding level will severely curtail the number
of watersheds where the program can be offered to well below the intent
of the 2002 Farm Bill. Current funding levels have permitted enrollment
of only about 10 percent of the Nation's watersheds in the first 2
years of program implementation. In the spring of 2006 the CSP sign-up
was cut in half because there was not enough money. Many farmers who
had been told that their watershed would be funded under CSP were
suddenly told there was no money. This inconsistency turns away many
good stewards of the land.
The Conservation Security Program offers long term benefits for
continued management of lands to promote environmental health. CSP is
structured to reward farmers who have already invested in environmental
stewardship, and to encourage them to go even farther to implement
stewardship practices on their working lands through the enhancement
payment structure. CSP is an essential part of the USDA portfolio of
conservation programs to protect our water, soil, and wildlife
resources. In order to achieve its promise of continuous income support
to all of the country's best stewards, the program must be available to
all producers nationwide, and must be implemented on a schedule that
permits farmers to re-enroll when their contracts are up. Thus
Defenders urges Congress to consider the benefits that these programs
can provide to sustainable farmers in all types of agriculture and in
all regions of the country, and appropriate at authorized levels. At
this point, perpetual cuts have the effect of rewriting the Farm Bill
and changing CSP from the first-ever working lands conservation
entitlement program envisioned by Congress, to a program with limited
enrollment, preferential bidding, and waiting lists.

The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
In the President's fiscal year 2007 budget the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program (WHIP) gets slashed by 35 percent--$30 million less
then fiscal year 2007 authorized level mandated in the 2002 Farm Bill
and $5 million less then the administration requested last year. WHIP
provides cost sharing and technical assistance for the development of
wildlife habitat on private lands. Though small in size, the program
provides significant benefits for wildlife and wildlife habitat and
provides proactive solutions to dealing with endangered habitat and
species issues before they become critical. More than 8,400 projects
affecting some 1.4 million acres have been approved under WHIP through
fiscal year 2004 (source: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/programs/farmbill/
2002/pdf/WHIPFct.pdf, fiscal year 2005 data still unavailable) There is
demand for more as backlog statistics from NRCS show us: nationwide,
according to figures through fiscal year 2004 (fiscal year 2005 data
unavailable), over 3,000 qualified applicants were turned away. The
value of the backlogged applications that could be going to these
stewards totals $10 million.
Defenders urges Congress to restore full funding to this program
and protect the allocation of this program to continue to provide
meaningful benefits to sustainable farmers and ranchers and to
wildlife.

Other Important Conservation Programs in the Farm Bill
Several other critical programs, that are part of the forward
thinking conservation initiatives in the Farm Bill, will also be
significantly cut, which in turn will undermine progressive efforts by
farmers and ranchers to steward land, conserve soil and water, and
provide habitat for wildlife. The Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP), which provides technical assistance, cost-share/
incentive funding to assist crop and livestock producers with
environmental and conservation improvements on their farms and ranches,
is cut by 21 percent--and is $17 million below 2006 funding levels. And
the Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program (FRPP), which keeps working
farms and ranches in production and puts cash in the pockets of farmers
and ranchers, is slashed by a whopping 48 percent--$23.5 million below
the fiscal year 2006 level. Defenders again urges Congress to protect
the restore funding and protect the allocation for these programs, as
well as the Conservation Reserve program. Farm Bill conservation
programs should be appropriated at authorized levels as intended by the
2002 Farm Bill. Overall, the President's request cuts 21 percent of the
Farm Bill's mandatory fiscal year 2007 funding for NRCS programs.
This pattern has real consequences both for environmental quality
and for the farmers and ranchers who need assistance. In 2004 alone,
nearly 152,000 qualified applications for farm conservation programs
had to be turned away--an astonishing unmet conservation need of almost
$4.5 billion! Defenders again urges Congress to protect the restore
funding and protect the allocation for these programs.

Farm Bill Energy Title Programs
Inclusion of an Energy Title in the 2002 Farm Bill was a huge
bipartisan victory for renewable energy and for rural America. However,
the program was allocated $23 million per year in mandatory funding for
fiscal years 2003-2007. The President's fiscal year 20067 budget
request provides only $10 million in discretionary funding. This title
provides programs to spur the growth of renewable energy within the
agriculture sector, an immense potential energy source. Sec. 9006 is
the only provision specific to renewable energy project development
within the Farm Bill. It provides grants, and eventually loans and loan
guarantees, to farmers, ranchers, and rural small businesses for the
development of renewable energy projects and energy efficiency
improvements. The program is designed to help farmers develop much
needed new income streams from renewable energy generation, including
wind, biomass, geothermal, hydrogen and solar energy, as well as
helping to meet the Nation's critical energy needs in an
environmentally sustainable way, and generate economic development in
every region of the country. Defenders urges Congress to restore full
funding to the Renewable energy program as mandated by the Farm Bill.

USDA Invasive Species Prevention and Rapid Response
Defenders of Wildlife is pleased that the President's budget for
fiscal year 2007 includes a $28 million increase over 2006 for the
Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service's Pest and Disease
exclusion program (page 83). Many of the pests, weeds, and diseases
that threaten livestock, crops and rangelands area are also problematic
for wildlife and wildlife habitats, and exclusion of these pests is the
safest and most cost-effective way to prevent these impacts.
Unfortunately, this foresightedness does not appear to extend to other
areas of the Agriculture budget. For instance: while the Agriculture
Research Service budget text promises ``increased emphasis'' on
diseases, crop pests and invasive species, many of the line items
related to these functions have been substantially decreased from 2006
levels: Food safety by $9 million, Livestock Protection by $7 million,
Crop Protection by $32 million, and Environmental Stewardship by $51
million (page 74-75). We note that the Homeland Security line item
receives a $45 million increase; however, the vast majority of damaging
organisms that have entered the United States have arrived
accidentally, or were deliberately imported for perceived benefit, not
through malicious intent. The Forest Service's Research and Development
program also promises ``increased funding'' for ``invasive species
research vital to a rapid management response'' but overall funding for
Forest and Rangeland Research is decreased by $56 million (pages 181-
182). Furthermore, State and Private Forestry programs, which provide
technical and financial assistance to states for invasive species
issues that impact forest health, is also cut by $39 million from 2006
levels (page 182).
Given the serious economic and ecological problems associated with
invasive species, which are particularly prevalent in agriculture,
rangelands and forests, we urge Congress to fund all of these programs
at their 2006 levels or higher.

Animal and Plant Health and Inspection Service and Wildlife Services
Livestock Protection
The Wildlife Services (WS) program, housed under the Animal and
Plant Health and Inspection Service (APHIS), continues to spend a
disproportionate amount of its annual allocation for livestock
protection activities, which translates generally into the killing of
predators primarily on behalf of sheep and cattle producers. But
according to a recent study by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS),
decades of U.S. government-subsidized predator control has failed to
prevent a long-term decline in the sheep industry. The study says that
more than 80 years of federally subsidized predator control with a
total investment of more than $1.6 billion have not been able to stave
off an 85 percent decline in the sheep industry since its peak of 56.2
million animals in 1942.
According to the study, predation by coyotes is often cited as the
primary cause of the decline. However, 80 years of historical data
reveal that a variety of market trends ranging from fluctuating hay
prices and rising wages for livestock workers, to the drop in wholesale
prices of lamb and wool, are the real culprits behind the industry's
drop-off. According to the study's author, ``If predation losses are
responsible for the decline in the U.S. sheep industry and Federal
predator control has been effective at reducing these losses, then we'd
expect to see a strong, positive relationship between efforts to
control predators and trends in sheep numbers and that is just not the
case.'' While predation is not the industry's primary threat, it is one
of the few factors over which ranchers feel they have some degree of
control. In fiscal year 2004 alone, Federal agents killed more than
80,000 mammalian carnivores, including 75,674 coyotes, 359 mountain
lions and 397 black bears. The study suggests that Federal funding for
predator control in the sheep industry should be re-evaluated given the
program's failure to prevent the industry's decline. We support such a
reevaluation and urge the Committee to direct Wildlife Services to
modernize its livestock protection program to focus on assisting
ranchers by providing them with a range of more effective means of
reducing predation, many of which have been developed by the program's
research facility, the National Wildlife Research Center, rather than
concentrating on killing predators. Specifically, Defenders is
concerned with the consistent lack of attention paid to repeated
Congressional directives to the Wildlife Services program that deal
with modernizing the field activities of its staff. Defenders
recommends that Congress ask for a report on Wildlife Services'
documenting its compliance with the directives dealing with the
increased use of non-lethal methods. Defenders of Wildlife requests
also that the Committee's report include the following language: ``The
Committee expects that Wildlife Services will make use of the non-
lethal methods developed by the National Wildlife Research Center and
will make non-lethal controls as the method of choice and resort to
lethal means only as a last resort.''
Defenders of Wildlife appreciates this opportunity to provide
testimony on the fiscal year 2007 USDA budget. Thank you for your
consideration of these comments.
______

Prepared Statement of the Duchesne County Water Conservancy District

The Duchesne County Water Conservancy District is requesting your
support for continued funding for the Colorado River Salinity Control
Title II Program. This program has greatly assisted in removal of many
tons of salt from the Colorado River, but there is still a great deal
of work to be completed that will require an adequate level of funding.
The seven Colorado River Basin States, as well as Mexico, have greatly
benefitted from this important program. For many years high
concentrations of salt in the Colorado River had severely damaged
agricultural production in the West as well as resulting in poor
quality water being delivered to Mexico.
Great strides have been made in improving water quality in the
Colorado River since the inception of this program but we strongly feel
that there is still a great deal to be done. We understand that the
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum is requesting $17,500,000
in funds be appropriated for this program for fiscal year 2007 and we
would like to add our full support to that funding level request. We
would also like to express support for the continued funding of the
Natural Resource Conservation Service program, the Environmental
Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) which works closely with the Salinity
Program. It is very important that adequate funding levels be
maintained for it also.
We request the Subcommittee's assistance to ensure that the
Colorado River Salinity Control Title II program and EQIP program are
provided with continued adequate funding.
______

Prepared Statement of Florida State University

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the Members of the
Subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
Committee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you with
Florida State University.
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 current or former
faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and 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. Florida State University had over $182
million this past year in research awards.
Florida State University attracts students from 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 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
research universities.
Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interests today. The
Southeast Climate Consortium (SECC), which consists of Florida State
University, the University of Florida, the University of Miami, the
University of Georgia, Auburn University, and University of Alabama at
Huntsville, has been at the forefront of research and extension for the
applications of climate predictions to risk reduction for agriculture.
With support from NOAA and USDA, the SECC has developed new methods to
predict the consequences of climate variability for agricultural crops,
forests, and water resources in the southeast United States. In recent
real-life tests, these methods have been applied to the problems that
farmers raising specialty crops face arising from variable rainfall,
temperature, and wild fires. By the use of these methods, these initial
challenges have been successfully met.
In the SECC, Florida State University will provide the climate
forecasts and risk reduction methodology. The University of Florida and
University of Georgia will translate this climate information into
risks associated environmental impacts on agriculture and, with Auburn
University, will work with Extension Services to provide information to
the agricultural community. The University of Miami will provide
economic modeling of agricultural systems. Together UM, UF, and the
University of Alabama-Huntsville are developing new tools to help
minimize climate risks to water quality and quantity, especially for
agriculture. FSU, on behalf of the SECC, seeks $4,500,000 in fiscal
year 2007 for this activity. Utilization of these tools and their
application to agricultural problems in this project has the strong
support of extension managers.
The new tasks for fiscal year 2007 are to develop flood forecasting
methods to help farmers and producers plan for reducing risks of
economic losses and environmental damage; to develop partnerships and
methods for incorporating climate forecasts and other climate
information into agricultural and water policy decisions, and to begin
development of a prototype decision support system for the application
of climate forecasts to water resource management, especially for
agricultural water use.
Mr. Chairman, we believe this research is vitally important to our
country and would appreciate your support.
______

Prepared Statement of Food & Water Watch

My name is Wenonah Hauter. I am the Executive Director of Food &
Water Watch, a non-profit consumer organization. We welcome this
opportunity to present our views on the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill.

USDA--FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE (FSIS)

The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing a shift
to a risk-based inspection system. We have the following concerns about
this proposal:
The Agency lacks the statutory authority to execute a risk-based
inspection scheme that would require less than daily inspection.
According to both the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603) and
the Poultry Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 455), the United States
Department of Agriculture is required to provide continuous inspection
in all establishments that produce meat and poultry products that enter
the food supply.
Furthermore, the FSIS' own glossary defines continuous inspection
as:
Continuous Inspection.--USDA's meat and poultry inspection system
is often called ``continuous'' because no animal destined for human
food may be slaughtered or dressed unless an inspector is present to
examine it before slaughter (antemortem inspection), and its carcass
and parts after slaughter (postmortem inspection). In processing
plants, as opposed to slaughter plants, inspectors need not be present
at all times, but they do visit at least once daily. Processing
inspection is also considered continuous.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Help/glossary-C/index.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Risk-based inspection needs to have a reliable database upon which
to make judgments about which meat and poultry plants meet or exceed
performance standards. At the present time, there are problems with the
data collection within the Food Safety and Inspection Service. The USDA
Inspector General, in a November 2004 audit report, stated the
following about the Performance Based Inspection System (PBIS)
database:
Due to the lack of controls noted during our audit, FSIS cannot be
assured that PBIS data is complete, accurate, and reliable. As a
result, FSIS management may not have the information it needs to
effectively manage its inspection activities. Without effective
controls over data integrity, the PBIS system may be an unreliable
repository that gives FSIS management a false sense that inspection
activities are adequately carried out and sanitation of plant
operations is accurately reported.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/2451-01-FM.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection
system still has problems. The authority of inspectors to prevent
adulterated products from entering the food supply has been severely
hampered. Company HACCP plans do not require pre-approval from FSIS
before they are implemented. Under HACCP, inspectors have been
relegated to verifying whether company-written HACCP plans are being
followed. Even when FSIS issues directives to companies to reassess
their HACCP plans to take into account new food safety policies (e.g.,
the 2002 directive requiring companies to deal with E. coli 0157:H7 as
an adulterant likely to occur in beef processing), companies often take
long periods of time to implement the new policy.
The HACCP-Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in poultry
slaughter still has fewer than two dozen plants participating in the
program. The Government Accountability Office issued the last
comprehensive analysis of this project in December 2001 and pointed out
a number of serious problems.\3\ Inspectors assigned to these plants
report that they are not able to perform food safety functions because
they are assigned to stationary positions on the slaughter lines (e.g.,
they are not able to look inside the cavity of poultry carcasses where
there may be contamination). Furthermore, defects that are considered
to be ``other consumer protection,'' such as blemishes, scabs, tumors,
feathers, and bruises, and would not pass muster in processing plants
using conventional inspection techniques are being permitted to enter
commerce under the HIMP system. We do not believe that they Agency is
prepared to extend this inspection model to the entire poultry industry
at this time. There should be a thorough examination of the HIMP
project before it is expanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://gao.gov/new.items/d0259.pddf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because there has not been a full evaluation of HIMP recently, we
filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 14, 2005
requesting certain documents so that we could conduct our own study.
FSIS responded that they wanted us to pay more than $10,000 for the
information. We have since scaled back the request, and yet they are
still requesting the exorbitant sum of $2,858 for the records. We are a
non-profit consumer group and we do have access to such large sums of
money. Furthermore, we believe that this information should be
available at no cost to requesters since the agency is proposing to
expand this pilot project that will radically change our inspection
system in slaughter establishments. We believe that Congress should
request full disclosure of this information.
In January 2006, the USDA Inspector General released an audit
report entitled, ``Food Safety and Inspection Service Assessment of the
Equivalence of the Canadian Inspection System'' (Report No. 24601-05-
Hy). The report indicates that Canada was continually exporting meat
and poultry products to the United States that had been subject to less
than daily inspection--in violation of U.S. standards. While those
responsible for enforcing our equivalency agreements at FSIS
recommended taking disciplinary action against Canada for their
repeated violations, they were overruled by the Secretary in 2004. We
find this most troubling. FSIS has repeatedly testified before Congress
that countries that wish to export their meat and poultry products to
the United States must maintain inspection standards that are identical
to those for domestic producers. Yet, in this instance, USDA has chosen
to look the other way.
While Canada has agreed to institute daily inspection in those
establishments that export to the United States, we have learned that
FSIS has been in discussions with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) to establish a pilot project with a subset of Canadian plants
that would be able to export products that have been subject to less
than daily inspection. This pilot program is being created without the
benefit of congressional input or discussion through rulemaking. We
believe that instituting such a pilot project would be a violation of
the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and the Federal Poultry Products
Inspection Act (FPPIA) and it should be stopped before it is
implemented.
We have also learned that Australia is in the process of
considering a ``trial'' of its controversial Meat Safety Enhancement
Program (MSEP) for a beef processor that would like to export its
products to the United States. MSEP is a privatized inspection system
for beef for which there is no comparable system here in the United
States. MSEP trials were last conducted in 1999, but were stopped since
the inspection system raised consumer concerns both here in the United
States and in Europe. We can only surmise that someone at USDA has
signaled to Australia that we would accept beef products produced under
a privatized inspection system.
We view both the Canadian pilot project and the Australian MSEP
trial as vehicles by the current USDA policymakers to institute
backdoor changes to our inspection system through our international
trading partners. Congress has already had to step in to warn USDA on
changing the programs authorized under the 2002 Farm Security and Rural
Development Act through the Doha round of WTO negotiations; it may be
time for Congress to send another shot across the bow to prevent the
undermining of the FMIA and FPPIA through international discussions
that have not had the benefit of congressional or public scrutiny.
For all of these reasons, we do not believe that the Agency is
prepared to make radical changes to the current inspection system, no
matter what terms they use to describe it. The concept of
``continuous'' government inspection has been the core of our meat
inspection system for 100 years, and the Agency should not be permitted
to abandon this principle.
______

Prepared Statement of The Humane Society

As the largest animal protection organization in the country, we
appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee on fiscal year 2007 funding items of great importance to
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its more than 9.5
million supporters nationwide.

ENFORCEMENT OF ANIMAL WELFARE LAWS

We thank you for your outstanding support during recent years for
improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) of
key animal welfare laws and we urge you to sustain this effort in
fiscal year 2007. Your leadership is making a great difference in
helping to protect the welfare of millions of animals across the
country. As you know, better enforcement will also benefit people by
helping to prevent: (1) orchestrated dogfights and cockfights that
often involve illegal gambling, drug trafficking, and human violence,
and can contribute to the spread of costly illnesses such as Exotic
Newcastle Disease and bird flu; (2) injuries to slaughterhouse workers
from animals that are still conscious; (3) the sale of unhealthy pets
by commercial breeders, commonly referred to as ``puppy mills''; (4)
laboratory conditions that may impair the scientific integrity of
animal based research; (5) risks of disease transmission from, and
dangerous encounters with, wild animals in or during public exhibition;
and (6) injuries and deaths of pets on commercial airline flights due
to mishandling and exposure to adverse environmental conditions. In
order to continue the important work made possible by the fiscal year
2006 budget, we request the following for fiscal year 2007:

APHIS/ANIMAL WELFARE ACT (AWA) ENFORCEMENT

We request that you support the President's request of $19,142,640
for AWA enforcement under APHIS. We commend the Committee for
responding in recent years to the urgent need for increased funding for
the Animal Care division to improve its inspections of more than 13,000
sites, including commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos,
circuses, and airlines, to ensure compliance with AWA standards. Animal
Care now has 100 inspectors (with four vacancies that the agency is in
the process of filling), compared to 64 inspectors at the end of the
1990s. We are pleased that the President's budget recommends an
increase of $1,481,420 (plus allowance for pay costs) to cover hiring
15 new staff to further improve AWA enforcement in fiscal year 2007.
This increase will enable the agency to handle additional
responsibilities as the number of licensed/registered facilities has
grown by 12 percent from fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2005.

APHIS/INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT SERVICES

We request that you support the President's request of $11,738,430
for APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Services. We appreciate the
Committee's consistent support for this division, which handles many
important responsibilities including animal welfare. The President's
budget recommends an increase of $1,235,000 (plus allowance for pay
costs) and 12 staff years for IES in fiscal year 2007. A portion of
this increase will be used to improve enforcement of federal animal
welfare laws. The volume of animal welfare cases is rising
significantly as new facilities become licensed and registered. In
fiscal year 2005, IES conducted 575 animal care investigations, with
169 cases resolved through either civil penalty stipulations or
Administrative Law Judge decisions and a total of $1.1 million assessed
in fines (compared to 288 investigations and 97 cases resolved through
stipulations or ALJ decisions and $548,614 in fines during fiscal year
2004).

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL/ANIMAL FIGHTING ENFORCEMENT

We request sustained funding of $800,000 for the Office of
Inspector General to focus on enforcement of animal fighting laws (this
amount is incorporated in the President's request for OIG base
funding). We appreciate the inclusion of $800,000 in each of the past
three fiscal years for USDA's Office of Inspector General to focus on
animal fighting cases. Congress first prohibited most interstate and
foreign commerce of animals for fighting in 1976 and tightened
loopholes in the law in 2002. Since then, USDA has begun to take
seriously its responsibility to enforce this law, working with state
and local agencies to complement their efforts. Dogfighting and
cockfighting are barbaric (but still surprisingly widespread) practices
in which animals are drugged to heighten their aggression and forced to
keep fighting even after they've suffered grievous injuries. Animal
fighting is almost always associated with illegal gambling, and also
often involves illegal drug trafficking and violence toward people.
Dogs bred and trained to fight endanger public safety, and some
dogfighters steal pets to use as bait for training their dogs.
Cockfighting was linked to an outbreak of Exotic Newcastle Disease in
2002-2003 that cost taxpayers more than $200 million to contain. It's
also been linked to the death of at least eight people in Asia
reportedly exposed through cockfighting activity to bird flu. Given the
potential for further costly disease transmission, as well as the
animal cruelty involved, we believe it would be a sound investment for
the federal government to increase its efforts to combat illegal animal
fighting activity.

FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE/HUMANE METHODS OF SLAUGHTER ACT
(HMSA) ENFORCEMENT

We request sustained funding of no less than $5,000,000 and no
fewer than 63 staff years for HMSA enforcement (this amount is
incorporated in the President's request for FSIS base funding) and
continued funding of $4,000,000 as provided in fiscal year 2006 for
further implementation of the new tracking system. We are grateful that
Congress provided $5 million in fiscal year 2006 to sustain at least 63
full time equivalent positions dedicated solely to inspections and
enforcement related to the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act, plus $4
million to incorporate a new tracking system to ensure compliance with
this law. The HMSA is designed to ensure that livestock are treated
humanely and rendered unconscious before they are killed. The effort to
target funds for this purpose was undertaken following reports of lax
enforcement of the HMSA and animals being skinned, dismembered, and
scalded while still alive and conscious. Implementation of the Humane
Animal Tracking System is ongoing; continued funding of $4 million will
be used to equip remaining facilities.

COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE/VETERINARY
STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS

We request $1,000,000 to continue a pilot program for the National
Veterinary Medical Service Act, authorized in 2003, that received
initial funding of $500,000 in fiscal year 2006. We appreciate that
Congress has begun to address the critical shortage of veterinarians
practicing in rural and inner-city areas, as well as in government
positions such as at FSIS and APHIS. Having adequate veterinary care is
a core animal welfare concern. There are only 70 veterinarians engaged
in poultry practice to address the needs of approximately nine billion
chickens raised each year in the United States, and only 75
veterinarians addressing the needs of 30 million beef cattle and 102
million pigs, respectively. Veterinarians support our Nation's defense
against bioterrorism (the Centers for Disease Control estimate that 80
percent of potential bioterrorism agents are zoonotic--transmitted from
animals to human). They are also on the front lines addressing public
health problems associated with pet overpopulation, parasites, rabies,
chronic wasting disease, bovine spongiform encephalopathy (``mad cow''
disease), and a host of other concerns. Veterinary school graduates
face a crushing debt burden of $80,000 on average, and the lowest pay
of any of the medical professions, with an average starting salary of
$43,000. For those who choose employment in underserved rural or inner-
city areas or public health practice, the National Veterinary Medical
Service Act authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to forgive student
debt. It also authorizes financial assistance for those who provide
services during Federal emergency situations such as disease outbreaks
or disasters. We hope you will build on the initial funding provided
last year to expand this needed program under CSREES or such other
account as the Committee deems appropriate.

APHIS/HORSE PROTECTION ACT ENFORCEMENT

We hope you will provide the $492,030 requested by the President
for fiscal year 2007, and we urge the Committee to oppose any effort to
restrict USDA from enforcing this law to the maximum extent possible.
Congress enacted the Horse Protection Act in 1970 to end the obvious
cruelty of physically soring the feet and legs of show horses. In an
effort to exaggerate the high-stepping gate of Tennessee Walking
Horses, unscrupulous trainers use a variety of methods to inflict pain
on sensitive areas of the feet and legs for the effect of the leg-jerk
reaction that is popular among many in the show-horse industry. This
cruel practice continues unabated by the well-intentioned but seriously
understaffed APHIS inspection program. We appreciate the Committee's
help providing modest increases to bring this program close to its
authorized annual funding ceiling of $500,000.

DOWNED ANIMALS AND BSE

We are pleased that the Bush Administration proposed an interim
final rule in January 2004 to ban the use of downed cattle for human
food, in the wake of the discovery of a cow in Washington State that
was infected with Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE). We hope the
Committee will codify this ban--and extend it to other livestock
besides cattle--with language barring the Food Safety and Inspection
Service from spending funds to certify meat from downed livestock for
human consumption. While the science to date on BSE has only indicated
transmission from infected cows to people, downer pigs and other downer
livestock are at a significantly higher risk of transmitting other
serious and sometimes fatal illnesses through their meat, such as E.
coli and Salmonella, and these animals, too, suffer when they are moved
en route to slaughter.
As the Committee is aware, some segments of industry and members of
Congress have recommended weakening the USDA downed cattle ban. They
claim that animals unable to walk because of injury pose no health
risk. But injury and illness are often interrelated--an animal may
stumble and break a leg because of disease that causes weakness and
disorientation. And USDA inspectors would have a difficult--if not
impossible--task trying to sort out the reason an animal became non-
ambulatory. Major consumer groups including Consumers Union and
Consumer Federation of America, support groups for victims of food-
borne illness such as Safe Tables Our Priority (S.T.O.P.), Creutzfeldt-
Jakob Disease Foundation, and CJD Voice, food safety organizations,
companies such as McDonald's and Wendy's, and many others have all
pointed out how reckless such a system would be. Of the BSE cases
identified in Canada and the United States to date, 7 out of 8 have
involved downers, and at least 3 of these were identified as downed due
to injuries, including the Washington State case (``calving injuries'')
and a January 2005 case in Canada (``slipped on ice/broken leg'').
From an animal welfare perspective, a comprehensive ban is needed
because a downer cow with a broken leg would suffer just as much as a
sick one if it's dragged through a slaughterplant--maybe even more. A
ban on use of all downers for human food also provides an incentive for
producers to treat animals humanely and prevent livestock from going
down. Even before the administrative ban, USDA estimated that only 0.4
percent to 0.8 percent of all cows processed annually were non-
ambulatory. The downer ban encourages producers and transporters to
engage in responsible husbandry and handling practices, so that this
percentage may be reduced to levels approaching zero. Temple Grandin--
advisor to the American Meat Institute and others in the meat
industry--has noted that as many as ninety percent of all downers are
preventable. Cases that involve broken bones and other injuries are
perhaps the most preventable with improved husbandry.
Most Americans had no idea that animals too sick or injured to walk
were being dragged with chains or hauled by bulldozer en route to the
food supply. When that fact came to light in December 2003, USDA's
prompt decision to ban all downer cattle from human food calmed
consumers. Unraveling the ban would undermine consumer confidence. More
than 99 percent of the 22,000+ public comments USDA received on its
downer ban called on the agency to maintain and strengthen its downer
ban, with most asking that other species be included. For a report on
the comments received by the agency, please go to: http://
files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/2004_06_16_rept_USDA_comments.pdf.
USDA testimony before various congressional committees has made
clear that the agency need not rely on slaughterplant testing of
downers for BSE surveillance purposes. Surveillance of downers can and
should be conducted at rendering plants and on farms.
In addition to the downer issue, we urge the Committee to provide
adequate funding to ensure meaningful enforcement by the Food and Drug
Administration of its ``feed ban,'' designed to prevent BSE-
contaminated animal products from being fed to other animals. We are
concerned that inspectors visit facilities infrequently and rely on
self-reporting by those facilities and paperwork checking rather than
first-hand evaluation of feed content and dedicated production lines.
We are also concerned that FDA relies a great deal on state agencies to
conduct this oversight, when most states face severe budget constraints
that may compromise their ability to handle this job. Preventing the
spread of BSE is vital to the Nation as a whole, for public health, the
agricultural industry, and animal welfare. Vigorous enforcement of the
feed ban is an essential component of this effort. We hope adequate
Federal funds will be provided in fiscal year 2007 to meet this
challenge.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Agriculture, Rural Development, and Related Agencies
Appropriation Act of fiscal year 2007. We appreciate the Committee's
past support, and hope you will be able to accommodate these modest
requests to address some very pressing problems affecting millions of
animals in the United States. Thank you for your consideration.
______

Prepared Statement of Interregional Research Project No. 4

The Interregional Research Project No. 4 (IR-4 Project) was
organized 43 years ago by the Directors of the State Agricultural
Experiment Stations (SAES) to obtain regulatory clearances for crop
protection chemicals on specialty or minor food crops when the economic
incentives for the registrants precluded private sector investment. IR-
4 has been administered by the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA's) Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) since its inception in 1963. The
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) component of the USDA established a
companion minor use program in 1976 to provide further program support.
The objectives of the IR-4 Project were expanded in 1977 to include
registration of pest control products for the protection of nursery,
floral, Christmas tree, and turf crops and again in 1982 when the
objective of clearance of biological control agents or biopesticides
was added.
The IR-4 Project works as a model government program that fosters
cooperative partnerships between the USDA (CSREES and ARS), the IR-4
Headquarters and Regional staff, the land grant university system, the
crop protection industry, commodity and grower groups, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the California Department of
Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) to bring crop protection solutions to
specialty crop growers.
The Food Use Program is the primary focus of the IR-4 Project. To
streamline the project request process, growers, commodity groups,
university researchers and extension personnel, USDA researchers and
other interested parties can submit on-line requests directly from our
website at: http://www.ir4.rutgers.edu/FOODRequestForm.htm. The
requests are recorded and reviewed by IR-4 Headquarters staff. At the
annual Food Use Workshop, growers, commodity groups, university and
USDA researchers, extension personnel, and EPA staff discuss and
prioritize the projects by consensus. The high priority projects are
finalized the following month at the annual National Research Planning
Meeting where field residue and analytical laboratory assignments are
made based on the best use of available USDA-ARS and land grant
university personnel within the funding provided by Congress. For more
information concerning the food use program and the status of on-going
projects or studies, access the IR-4 website at: http://
www.ir4.rutgers.edu/foodcrops.html. All IR-4 food use residue research
is carried out by EPA approved Good Laboratory Practices (GLP's) with
coordination and implementation by the Quality Assurance Unit (QAU).
Annual training of the Field Research Directors, laboratory personnel
and support staff involved in the conduct of work is essential to the
success of the IR-4 Project. GLP compliance audits of facilities and of
ongoing field and laboratory procedures, provides assurance that IR-4
food safety data will be accepted by the crop protection industry,
growers and the EPA.
The 991 food use clearances obtained in 2005 boosted the 43 year
total to over 9,300 clearances. It is interesting to note that 53
percent (4,949) of all clearances in the program's history have been
obtained in the last 8 years. In pursuit of this remarkable
accomplishment, IR-4 continues its commitment to producing high
quality, compliant scientific data in order to meet EPA's GLP
requirements and strive to further enhance our effectiveness and
efficiency by providing continuing GLP education and/or QA training
sessions for IR-4 personnel and cooperators, audit data and reports, as
well as, review and revise Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's).
The research program for year 2006 consists of approximately 110
studies supported by 701 field trials. One hundred and six (106) of
these studies will require the collection of residue samples and 4
studies will be for collecting efficacy and/or crop safety data to
support specific data needs. The smaller efficacy program this year is
a result of the reduced budget in 2006 thereby eliminating the pilot
efficacy program. Five hundred and twenty-eight (528) of the field
trials will be conducted by regional State agricultural research
stations, while USDA-ARS will be conducting 115 field trials and Canada
has agreed to cooperate on 58 trials.
The Section 18 Economic Benefits/Loss Avoidance Project to document
potential economic impact (loss) data from state submitted Section 18's
approved by the EPA and supported by IR-4 residue data was initiated in
1998. Since this initiative began, a total of 205 Section 18's have
been converted to full Section 3 labels as a result of IR-4 petitions.
This is the result of IR-4's commitment to minimize the number of years
that Section 18's are needed on new crop protection products before
Section 3 labels are approved by the EPA. The total over the eight year
period from 1998 to 2005 (where the data are available) bring the total
economic impact/loss avoidance to $12.589 billion from 1,229 Section
18's covering 47 States.
The ornamental industry is an extremely important component of
specialty crop agriculture with over $15 billion in annual sales which
comprise over 35 percent of all specialty crop sales. The research to
develop efficacy and crop safety data to support registration of both
traditional chemicals and biopesticides as pest control tools on
ornamentals continues to be an important component of our overall
program. The industry presents a formidable challenge since it involves
a diverse array of crops in various markets such as floral, bulbs,
forestry seedlings, Christmas trees, nursery, turf, commercial and
interior landscapes, greenhouses, etc.
Like the Food Use Program, requests are received, recorded and
reviewed by IR-4 Headquarters. At the annual Ornamental Horticulture
Workshop, growers, commodity groups, university and USDA researchers,
extension personnel and EPA staff discuss and prioritize the projects
by consensus. The efficacy and crop safety trials are planned in
discussions between the IR-4 Headquarters Ornamental Horticulture
Manager, regional field coordinators and ARS leadership. In 2006, the
Ornamental Horticulture research program will focus on the high
priority projects established at the annual workshop: Phytophthora
Efficacy, Pythium Efficacy, Thrips Efficacy, Coleopteran Efficacy, and
Broadleaf Weed and Sedge Management Tools Crop Safety. The research
program also enables each regional field coordinator to focus some
discretionary funds on trials of specific regional interest. The
Northeast and Southern regions are coordinating their funding on
herbicide fern safety, while the Western region enhanced the testing
program for the high priority herbicide project.
The Biopesticide Research Program continued its 8 year of
competitive grant funding of projects for $400,000 and amounting to
over $3,325,000 since its inception. In addition to funding projects
that have focused in recent years on the biopesticides considered
Advanced Stage (near commercialization or commercialized but expanding
uses to specialty crops), IR-4 has continued to help biopesticide
registrants with regulatory support needs.
For the 2006 Biopesticide Research Program, IR-4 received a total
of 113 proposals requesting approximately $1.2 million. Of the 113
proposals, 21 were Early Stage, 64 were Advanced Stage and 28 were
Demonstration Stage of which 70 involved disease management, 24 were
for insect/mite management, 5 were for weed control, 11 were for
nematode control, 2 were plant growth regulators and 1 involved bird
management. The 2006 program will fund 42 of the project proposals.
Without the existence of the IR-4 Project, fewer safe and effective
crop protection chemicals and biological alternatives would be
available for use on specialty crops today. The crop protection
industry has continued to be an excellent partner in working with IR-4
to provide their latest technologies, both chemical and biological, for
specialty crop uses. However, the Project must continue to evolve in
order to stay relevant. To this end, the importance of the continued
special research grant funding and strategic plan implementation will
be critical to the future of IR-4.
Three hot topics' for the fiscal year 2007 Congressional
Appropriations hearings were recently posed to the Cooperative State
Research, Education and Extension Service concerning the IR-4 Project.
The questions asked and answers provided are as follows:
Question. What has the Inter-regional Project #4 (IR-4) done to
provide safe and effective pest management solutions for growers of
specialty crops in the United States?
Answer. By cooperating with researchers, producers, the
agrichemical industry and Federal agencies, IR-4 has achieved over
9,300 food crop and 10,000 ornamental crop registrations for pest
management products since the project began in 1963. In 2004 and 2005
alone, there were over 2,000 clearances for these specialty crops which
are collectively valued at $43 Billion. Priorities for future research
and future registrations are established at IR-4's annual Food Use and
Ornamental Horticulture Workshops and a record attendance of over 325
stakeholders participated in defining IR-4's workplan for 2006.
Question. Since horticultural/specialty crops are an important part
of U.S. agriculture, what is being done to improve export opportunities
for the producers of these crops?
Answer. Over the past decade, the agrichemical industry has
developed a range of new, safer products and IR-4 has been very
successful in expanding the registrations of these products
facilitating their use on specialty crops. This has significantly
benefited growers producing food for domestic markets. However, some of
their new lower risk products are not approved by some of the U.S.
trading partners resulting in U.S. growers not being able to use some
of these products if their produce is going to be shipped to countries
that do not have Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) established for these
new products. Therefore, it has become critically important for a
product to be available globally in order to level the playing field
for United States specialty crop growers who wish to export their
crops. IR-4 is in a unique position to facilitate the Global Specialty
Crop Initiative where existing data in the IR-4 Library can be used to
solve some of the trade issues. This initiative would enhance global
registrations and reduce trade barriers, while at the same time further
promote the use of new, safer pest management products both
domestically and world wide.
Question. What is the economic impact of the IR-4 Project on United
States specialty crop growers?
Answer. Using economic loss avoidance data submitted to the EPA by
47 states covering over 1225 Section 18 requests supported by IR-4
specialty crop residue data, the economic loss avoidance between 1998
and 2005 has been $12.6 billion.
______

Prepared Statement of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is writing
in support of the following Federal program under the Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) budget that we believe is deserving of your
Subcommittee's support during the fiscal year 2007 budget process:
Natural Resources and Environment Mission Area--Agency: Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)--Farm Bill Programs (Funded by
the Commodity Credit Corporation)--Environmental Quality Incentives
Program:
--$1 billion requested by the President nationwide with $25 million
designated by the NRCS for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California is a public
agency that was created in 1928 to meet the supplemental water demands
of people living in what is now portions of a six-county region of
southern California. Today, the region served by Metropolitan includes
approximately 18 million people living on the coastal plain between
Ventura and the international boundary with Mexico.
Included in our region are more than 300 cities and unincorporated
areas in the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Riverside, San
Bernardino, and Ventura. We provide over half of the water used in our
5,200-square-mile service area and help our members to develop local
supplies through increased water conservation, recycling, storage and
other resource-management programs. Metropolitan's imported water
supplies come from the Colorado River via our Colorado River Aqueduct
and from northern California via the State Water Project's California
Aqueduct.
MWD continues to support USDA implementation of conservation
programs. MWD firmly believes that interagency coordination, along with
incentive-based cooperative conservation programs that 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 the Congress
provides USDA with the funding necessary to successfully carry out its
commitment to natural resources conservation.

Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP)
An important program for MWD has been the Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program, which is funded by USDA at the Federal level
through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program. MWD recommends
that EQIP be funded at $1 billion in fiscal year 2007, as proposed in
the President' Budget, with the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Program funded at $25 million, 2.5 percent of the EQIP budget, as
requested by the seven Colorado River Basin states through the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum.
EQIP provides assistance to farmers and ranchers who face threats
to soil, water, air and related natural resources on their land. EQIP
provides assistance in a manner that will promote agricultural
production and environmental quality as compatible goals. NRCS offers
the program throughout the Nation.
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
through 2001, USDA's participation in the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program (Salinity Control Program) had significantly diminished
as compared to the 1996 level of funding for salinity control. After
requests had been made by the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating
the seven Basin states' salinity control efforts, and others, as well
as directives from the Congress, USDA 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 Basin salinity control has benefits that are not merely local or
intrastate in nature, but continue downstream. EQIP is also important
because it provides funding for agricultural source water protection
measures that protect and improve the quality of Metropolitan's
imported supplies from Northern California.
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 study
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, diminishes the effectiveness of
water conservation efforts, 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.
During 2002, the Coalition was expanded to include major water and
wastewater agencies throughout Southern California. Presently, the ten
members of the coalition are working to implement a Strategic Action
Plan that focuses primarily on local contributions to southern
California's high-salinity problem.
In addition, Southern California leaders are working with urban
areas in Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas to find solutions to
mutual problems with salinity in imported supplies, such as from the
Colorado River, and other sources. These agencies participate in the
annual National Salinity Summit to examine and coordinate salinity
management activities.
Concentrations of salts in the Colorado River cause hundreds of
millions of dollars in damage in the United States according to the
U.S. Department of the Interior. Implementation of salinity control
measures:
--increases the yield of salt sensitive crops and decreases water use
for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--increases the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water
heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and decreases the use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--decreases the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and increases equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--decreases the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and
decreases sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--increases the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--eases the meeting of wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and decreases desalination and brine
disposal costs due to less accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and
--decreases use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
Absent the Salinity Control Program, impacts would progressively
increase with continued agricultural and urban development upstream of
California's points of Colorado River diversion. Droughts will cause
spikes in salinity levels in the future 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 2005 Review, Water Quality Standards for
Salinity, Colorado River System (2005 Review) in October 2005. The 2005
Review found over 900,000 tons of salinity needs to be controlled
annually to maintain 2004 salinity levels through 2025. From 1994
through 2003, funding for USDA's salinity control program did not equal
the Forum-identified funding need for the portion of the program the
Federal Government is responsible to implement. While NRCS has
designated Colorado River Basin salinity control as an area of special
interest, appointed a multi-state coordinator, and allocated about
$19.5 million in fiscal years 2005 and 2006, it is essential that
implementation of salinity control efforts through EQIP continue to 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 2.5 percent of the EQIP
funds, that is $25 million, is needed in fiscal year 2007 for on-farm
measures to control Colorado River Basin salinity. Funding at this
level will permit the state adopted and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency approved water quality standards to be met. With 2.5 percent of
the EQIP cost share financial assistance, monitoring, and technical
assistance funding requested by the President allocated to the Salinity
Control Program, an additional $21 million in states and local cost
sharing could be committed.
MWD urges the Subcommittee to support funding of $1 billion for
EQIP, the amount requested in the President's Budget, and advise USDA
that $25 million, or 2.5 percent of the 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
and California.
We look forward to working with you and your Subcommittee. Please
contact me at (213) 217-6211, if I can answer any questions or provide
additional information.
______

Prepared Statement of the Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance
(MAFMA)

The Midwest Advanced Food Manufacturing Alliance (MAFMA) is a
research consortium involving 13 leading Midwestern universities
(University of Illinois, Indiana University, Iowa State University,
Kansas State University, Michigan State University, University of
Minnesota, University of Missouri, University of Nebraska, North Dakota
State University, Ohio State University, Purdue University, South
Dakota State University, University of Wisconsin). MAFMA expedites the
development of new manufacturing and processing technologies for food
and related products derived from U.S. produced crops and livestock and
thus contributes to the economic development of the U.S. food industry,
one of this country's premier industry sectors. The research of MAFMA
is conducted by scientists in food science and technology, food
engineering, nutrition, microbiology, and other relevant disciplines
from universities participating in the MAFMA consortium. MAFMA sponsors
an annual peer-reviewed research competition where superior research
proposals are selected from among the submissions of scientists from
these 13 universities. Specific research proposals are funded on a
competitive basis to university scientists who must also demonstrate
matching funds from non-Federal sources (primarily the food industry)
for research involving processing, packaging, storage, and
transportation of food products. The close cooperation between
university and corporate researchers assures that the latest scientific
advances are applied to the most relevant problems and that any
solutions will be efficiently transferred and used by the private
sector. MAFMA research proposals are peer-reviewed by scientists from
academia and industry who are not affiliated with the 13 institutions
or any of the companies providing matching funds which assures that the
proposed research is sound and likely to contribute valuable scientific
information. The MAFMA project has been funded for 12 years and this
proposal will fund the 13th year of competition. During the past 12
years, the MAFMA consortium has funded 136 projects for a total of
$4,327,570 of USDA funds and an impressive total of $6,369,623 in
matching funds from non-Federal (primarily food industry) sources
involving 193 companies and other entities.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters

INTRODUCTION

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) is pleased to
provide testimony on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budget
request for fiscal year 2007. Representing the directors of State
forestry agencies from all 50 States, eight U.S. territories, and the
District of Columbia, our testimony centers around those program areas
most relevant to the long-term forestry operations of our constituents:
Research, Education, and Economics, as well as Natural Resources and
Environment. We believe the USDA budget for fiscal year 2007, which
offers opportunities for advancing the sustainable management of
private forestland nationwide, can be strengthened through our
recommendations.

USDA COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE
(CSREES) PROGRAMS

Cooperative Forestry Research (Mcintire-Stennis) Program.--The
Cooperative Forestry Research (McIntire-Stennis) Program (CFRP) is a
crucial part of the foundation that underlies academic and scientific
understanding of the Nation's forest resources. McIntire-Stennis CFRP
was originally enacted in order to provide universities with formula
funds for the explicit purpose of research in the field of forestry,
which was not provided for in similar research funding programs. For
more than 40 years, CFRP has equipped both private and land-grant
universities with the ability to produce invaluable research concerning
forest productivity, environmental quality, and technologies for
monitoring and extending the natural resource base. The program also
provides rigorous scientific education and training for university
students--the future managers of the Nation's forest resources.
Universities, supported by base funds from the Federal Government,
have consistently supplied science-based forestry research not
affiliated with any particular resource use or interest group. Without
sufficient base funds from the Federal Government, society will lose
the benefits wrought by this productive partnership.
NASF recommends $24.5 million for the Cooperative Forestry Research
(McIntire-Stennis) Program. The proposed increase in CFRP will help the
program continue to serve as the cornerstone of forest research in
universities, providing knowledge central to sound management from
environmental, economic, and social perspectives. In addition, we
strongly urge the Subcommittee to reject the President's proposal to
shift 59 percent of the program to competitive funding.
The Renewable Resources Extension Act (Rrea).--The Renewable
Resources Extension Act (RREA) facilitates the transfer of needed
forestry information and technology to non-industrial private forest
landowners, as well as loggers and small businesses involved with
forest resource management.
Extension's education programs aid private landowners in
understanding their management options and responsibilities, and
encourage them to take advantage of other technical and financial
assistance programs.
NASF recommends funding RREA at $4.1 million for fiscal year 2007,
in order to sustain the program's ability to address critical extension
and stewardship needs.

FARM BILL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS

NASF believes that the conservation programs enacted in the 2002
Farm Bill are integral for protecting water quality, erodible soils,
wildlife habitat, and wetlands associated with agricultural and
forestry operations. Trees and forestry practices are often the best
solution to many of the conservation challenges arising from these
operations.
NASF recommends funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) at the fiscal year 2006 level of $1.2 billion, full
funding for the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), and $85 million for
the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program (WHIP). NASF supports the
President's fiscal year 2007 funding proposal of $342 million for the
Conservation Security Program (CSP). NASF recommends that the
Subcommittee encourage the Secretary of Agriculture and the NRCS to
expand the emphasis on forestry practices in EQIP and the other Farm
Bill Conservation Programs.
These programs are important for landowners with both forest and
agricultural land, as well as farmers who wish to plant trees for
conservation purposes on their agricultural lands. Nearly two thirds of
the land in the United States is forested, the majority of which is
privately owned. Investing Federal funds in conservation practices on
private forest lands produces benefits for all, not simply landowners.
These benefits include abundant clean water for drinking and
recreation, improved wildlife habitat, open space, viable rural
economies, and many other tangible and intangible public benefits.

CONCLUSION

The National Association of State Foresters seeks the
Subcommittee's support for a USDA fiscal year 2007 budget that will
make sure the public's conservation needs--provided by private
landowners--are met. Thank you for the opportunity to provide our
testimony.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research

Dear Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Kohl and Members of the
Subcommittee: On behalf of the National Coalition for Food and
Agricultural Research \1\ (National C-FAR), we are pleased to submit
comments in strong support of enhanced public investment in food and
agricultural research, extension and education as a critical component
of Federal appropriations for fiscal year 2007 and beyond. National C-
FAR serves as a forum and a unified voice in support of sustaining and
increasing public investment at the national level in food and
agricultural research, extension and education. National C-FAR is a
nonprofit, nonpartisan, consensus-based and customer-led coalition
established in 2001 that brings food, agriculture, nutrition,
conservation and natural resource organizations together with the food
and agriculture research and extension community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As part of its mission, National C-FAR seeks to increase
awareness about the value of food and agricultural research, extension
and education. For example, National C-FAR is hosting an educational
series of ``Lunch-N-Learn'' seminars on the hill, featuring leading-
edge researchers on timely topics to help demonstrate the value of
public investment in food and agricultural research, extension and
education. More information about National C-FAR and its programs is
available at http://www.ncfar.org.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Support for Fiscal Year 2007 Funding for Food & Agricultural Research,
Extension & Education
CSREES--National C-FAR urges the Subcommittee and Committee to
support the Administration's fiscal year 2007 request for USDA's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
of $1.038 billion, and to augment funding to the extent practicable
since it represents a represents a significant decrease from fiscal
year 2006 funding levels. In particular, National C-FAR supports the
Administration's $247.5 million request for the National Research
Initiative (NRI). This represents a significant increase over fiscal
year 2006 levels. While a portion of the proposed increase occurs
through the shifting of Section 406 Integrated Activities funding and
responsibilities (such as food safety, pest management, and water
quality) to NRI, funding for NRI would still realize a net increase of
$24 million. Significantly, the Administration's proposal increases the
cap for Integrated Activities funding, providing more funding for
projects that include both research and extension components.
The NRI supports research on key problems of national and regional
importance in biological, environmental, physical, and social sciences
relevant to agriculture, food, and the environment on a peer-reviewed,
competitive basis. Additionally, the NRI enables USDA to leverage a
portion of its funds for food and agricultural research, extension and
education by fostering the development of new partnerships with other
Federal agencies that advance agricultural science. Examples of
successful collaborations include USDA's involvement in the Microbial
Genome Sequencing Program, the Maize Genome Program, the Microbial
Observatories program, the Plant Feedstock Genomics for Bioenergy
program, the Metabolic Engineering program, and the Climate Change
Science Plan.
ARS.--National C-FAR is concerned about the Administration's
proposed $123 million cut in funding for the USDA Agricultural Research
Service (ARS), as compared with fiscal year 2006 funding levels. Indeed
ARS funding has been cut each of the past several years. Research
conducted by ARS helps to ensure high-quality, safe food, and other
agricultural products, assess the nutritional needs of Americans,
sustain a competitive agricultural economy and enhance the natural
resource base and the environment. The steady erosion in ARS funding
could jeopardize the ability of the agency to carry out its important
mission.
ERS.--National C-FAR urges the Subcommittee and Committee to
support the Administration's fiscal year 2007 request of $83 million
for the USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), which represents a
modest increase over the fiscal year 2006 level. Many of the research
outcomes generated through ERS efforts provide value in both policy and
business application terms far in excess of what the modest size of the
ERS budget might suggest. An important part of the Administration's
budget includes $5 million for the ERS to establish and maintain data
collection on the demographic, economic, government program
participation, and other information from samples of non-farm rural
households and rural-based farm households, over time. National C-FAR
believes such new and valuable data is necessary for a variety of
purposes, including estimating impacts of farm policy changes. National
C-FAR urges full funding of this initiative to assure that agricultural
and rural economic analysts can reap the minimum necessary value added
that will, in turn, enhance contributions to a sound farm policy and
more robust rural economies throughout the Nation.
National C-FAR urges that funding for food and agricultural
research, extension and education be augmented to the maximum extent
practicable, as an important next step toward building the funding
levels needed to meet identified food and agricultural research,
extension and education needs.
As a coalition representing stakeholders in both the research,
extension and education community and the customers' who need and
depend upon their outcomes, National C-FAR urges expanded public
participation in the Administration's research priority setting and
funding decision process and stands ready to work with the
Administration and other interested stakeholders toward that end.

DEMONSTRATED VALUE OF PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH, EXTENSION AND EDUCATION

Public and private investments in U.S. agricultural research and
practical application of results have paid huge dividends to the United
States and the world, especially in the latter part of the 20th
century. However, these dividends are the result of past investments in
agricultural research.
If similar research dividends are to be realized in the future,
then the Nation must commit to a continuing investment that reflects
the long-term benefits of food and agricultural research.
Food and agricultural research, extension and education to date
have helped provide the United States with an agricultural system that
consistently produces high quality, affordable food and natural fiber,
while at the same time:
--Creating Jobs And Income.--The food and agricultural sector and
related industries provide over 20 million jobs, about 17
percent of U.S. jobs, and account for nearly $1 trillion or 13
percent of GDP.
--Helping Reduce The Trade Deficit.--Agricultural exports average
more than $50 billion annually compared to $38 billion of
imports, contributing some $12 billion to reducing the $350
billion trade deficit in the nonagricultural sector.
--Providing Many Valuable Aesthetic And Environmental Amenities To
The Public.--The proximity to open space enhances the value of
nearby residential property. Farmland is a natural wastewater
treatment system. Unpaved land allows the recharge of the
ground water that urban residents need. Farms are stopovers for
migratory birds. Farmers are stewards for 65 percent of non-
Federal lands and provide habitat for 75 percent of wildlife.
--Sustaining Important Strategic Resources.--This Nation's abundant
food supply bolsters national security and eases world tension
and turmoil. Science-based improvements in agriculture have
saved over a billion people from starvation and countless
millions more from the ravages of disease and malnutrition.
Publicly financed research, extension and education are necessary
complements to private sector research, focusing in areas where the
private sector does not have an incentive to invest, when (1) the pay-
off is over a long term, (2) the potential market is more speculative,
(3) the effort is during the pre-technology stage; and (4) where the
benefits are widely diffused. Public research, extension and education
help provide oversight and measure long-term progress. Public research,
extension and education also act as a means to detect and resolve
problems in an early stage, thus saving American taxpayer dollars in
remedial and corrective actions.
By any standard, the contributions of publicly supported
agricultural research, extension and education to advances in food
production and productivity and the resulting public benefits are well
documented. For example, an analysis by the International Food Policy
Research Institute of 292 studies of the impacts of agricultural
research and extension published since 1953 (Julian M. Austin, et al, A
Meta-Analysis of Rates of Return to Agricultural Research, 2000) showed
an average annual rate of return on public investments in agricultural
research and extension of 81 percent!

NATIONAL C-FAR URGES ENHANCED FEDERAL FUNDING FOR FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL
RESEARCH, EXTENSION AND EDUCATION

National C-FAR appreciates the longstanding support this
Subcommittee and the full Committee have demonstrated through funding
food and agricultural research, extension and education programs over
the years that have helped the U.S. food and agricultural sector be a
world leader and provide unprecedented value to U.S. citizens, and
indeed the world community.
National C-FAR is deeply concerned that shortfalls in funding in
recent years for food and agricultural research, extension and
education jeopardize the food and agricultural community's continued
ability to maintain its leadership role and more importantly respond to
the multiple, demanding challenges that lie ahead. Federal funding for
food and agricultural research, extension and education has been flat
for over 20 years, while support for other Federal research has
increased substantially. Public funding of agricultural research in the
rest of the world during the same time period has reportedly increased
at a nearly 30 percent faster pace.
Reduced public investment in food and agricultural research,
extension and education may well be a result of a view that the U.S.
food and agricultural system is an unprecedented success story.
However, societal demands and expectations placed upon the food and
agricultural system are ever-changing and growing. Simply stated,
Federal funding has not kept pace with identified priority needs.
National C-FAR believes it is imperative to lay the groundwork now
to respond to the many challenges and promising opportunities ahead
through Federal policies and programs needed to promote the long-term
health and vitality of food and agriculture for the benefit of both
consumers and producers. Stronger public investment in food and
agricultural research, extension and education is essential in
producing research outcomes needed to help bring about beneficial and
timely solutions to multiple challenges. Multiple examples, such as
those listed below, serve to illustrate current and future needs that
arguably merit enhanced public investment in research, extension and
education so that the food and agricultural system can respond to these
challenges on a sustainable basis:
--Strengthened bio-security is a pressing national priority. There is
a compelling need for improved bio-security and bio-safety
tools and policies to protect against bio-terrorism and dreaded
problems such as foot-and-mouth and ``mad cow'' diseases and
other exotic plant and animal pests, and protection of range
lands from invasive species.
--Energy costs are escalating, dependence on petroleum imports is
growing and concerns about greenhouse gases are rising.
Research, extension and education can enhance agriculture's
ability to provide renewable sources of energy and cleaner
burning fuels, sequester carbon, and provide other
environmental benefits to help address these challenges, and
indeed generate value-added income for producers and stimulate
rural economic development.
--Food-linked health costs are high. Some $100 billion of annual U.S.
health costs are linked to poor diets, obesity, food borne
pathogens and allergens. Opportunities exist to create
healthier diets through fortification and enrichment.
--Research, extension and education are key to providing to solutions
to environmental issues related to global warming, limited
water resources, enhanced wildlife habitat, and competing
demands for land and other agricultural resources.
--There was considerable debate during the last farm bill
reauthorization about how expanded food and agricultural
research, extension and education could enhance farm income and
rural revitalization by improving competitiveness and value-
added opportunities.
--Population and income growth are expanding the world demand for
food and natural fiber and improved diets. World food demand is
projected to double in 25 years. Most of this growth will occur
in the developing nations where yields are low, land is scarce,
and diets are inadequate. Without a vigorous response, demand
will only be met at a great global ecological cost.
--Regardless of one's views about biotechnology and genetic
resources, an effective publicly funded research role is needed
for oversight and to ensure public benefits.
Translational education (extension) is a vital link connecting the
research community to those who need and use research outcomes. The
extension and education system helps translate basic and applied
research outcomes into practical applications and more timely
implementation by the end user community, thus helping to realize
positive economic, environmental, health, food security and a host of
other benefits in the food and agricultural system, and for the
consuming public. The extension community is evolving its mission in a
positive direction, seeking to engage constituents in a way that not
only fulfills the traditional extension role but also actively solicits
feedback concerning research and extension needs as identified by the
customers' who need research outcomes. This is consistent with National
C-FAR's mission of increasing stakeholder involvement in decision
making about research priorities and funding. The USDA NRI has made
significant progress in recognizing the extension role, through funding
of projects that undertake an integrated research and extension
approach. National C-FAR strongly supports funding for extension and
education.
Finally, there is a continuing need to build the human capacity of
expertise to do quality food and agricultural research, extension and
education, and to implement research outcomes in the field and
laboratory. The food and agricultural sciences face a daunting task of
supplying the Nation with the next generation of scientists and
educators. If these basic human resource needs are not met, then the
Nation will face a shortage of trained and qualified individuals.
Public investment in food and agricultural research, extension and
education today and in the future must simultaneously satisfy needs for
food quality and quantity, resource preservation, producer
profitability and social acceptability. National C-FAR supports the
public funding needed to help assure that these interdependent needs
are met.
A Sense of the Congress resolution endorsed by National C-FAR to
double funding in food and agricultural research, extension and
education within five years was incorporated into the 2002 Farm Bill
that was enacted into law. However, the major commitment to expanded
research has not yet materialized. At the four-year mark, the larger
reality is the threat of funding cuts.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, National C-FAR respectfully submits that--
--The food and agricultural sector merits Federal attention and
support;
--Food and agricultural research, extension and education have paid
huge dividends in the past, not only to farmers, but to the
entire Nation and the world;
--There is an appropriate and recognized role for Federal support of
research, extension and education;
--Recent funding levels for food and agricultural research, extension
and education have been inadequate to meet pressing needs;
--Federal investments in food and agricultural research, extension
and education should be enhanced in fiscal year 2007 and
beyond; and
--The Administration should provide for expanded public
participation, including during review of programs being
considered for possible reforms or cuts.
National C-FAR appreciates the opportunity to share its views and
stands ready to work with the Chair and members of this Subcommittee
and Committee in support of these important funding objectives.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Cooperative Business Association

The National Cooperative Business Association appreciates the
opportunity to submit testimony on the importance of the Rural
Cooperative Development Grant program and the need for increased
funding. NCBA is the Nation's only national organization representing
cooperatives across all economic sectors--including agriculture,
childcare, electricity, finance, food retailing and distribution,
healthcare, housing, insurance, purchasing and shared services,
telecommunications and many others.
The Rural Cooperative Development Grant program, which NCBA helped
to establish, is the only dedicated source of Federal funding
supporting the network of more than 20 cooperative development centers
serving more than 40 States. This funding leverages much more from
State and local as well as private sources. The program also includes
money for economic research on the impact of cooperatives, research
needed to inform policymakers and cooperatives about how best co-ops
can address issues facing this Nation such as senior services and rural
housing.
Congress recognized the importance of the work of cooperative
development centers when it enacted the program in 1996 and authorized
$50 million annually to help create businesses and jobs in rural
America. In 2002, Congress reauthorized the program at the same level.
Unfortunately, chronic underfunding has limited the ability of centers
to capitalize on opportunities to revitalize rural areas. A first step
to address this problem is for this Subcommittee to appropriate $8.5
million in this year's appropriations bill and maintain the President's
funding for research on the economic impact of cooperatives.
Rural Cooperative Development Grants--Revitalizing Rural Economies
Cooperatives are businesses owned and controlled by the people who
buy their products or use their services. Tens of thousands of
cooperatives in this country range in size from small storefronts to
Fortune 500 companies. Credit unions, electric cooperatives, telephone
co-ops, agricultural cooperatives, purchasing cooperatives, and worker
cooperatives all serve the needs of millions of members.
Cooperatives represent a flexible business model that can be
developed by the community to address its economic needs. Co-ops
provide an opportunity for entrepreneurial ideas to become reality.
Since members own the cooperative, they participate in the earnings of
the cooperative. Rather than leaving the community, patronage refunds--
money paid to members based on their use in the cooperative--remains,
refueling the economy as members use their refunds to purchase goods
locally.
The Rural Cooperative Development Grants program funds the
establishment and operation of centers for rural cooperative
development to improve economic conditions in rural areas. Grants are
competitive, require a 25 percent non-Federal match in most cases, and
can be provided to nonprofits or institutions of higher education. For
the past few years, USDA has funded only half of all applications
received due to budget constraints. The program is authorized at $50
million.
Cooperative development centers are on the front lines of efforts
to revitalize struggling rural economies. They use Rural Cooperative
Development Grants to conduct feasibility studies, develop business
plans, launch new businesses, and provide education and training to
help ensure the success of these businesses. Through CooperationWorks!,
a national organization of more than 20 centers, centers share their
knowledge and experience. This network allows centers to maximize
resources, avoid duplication and bring the greatest benefit to their
communities.
The work of the centers translates into jobs and money in these
rural communities. Since the 1990s, the centers have helped start or
expand almost 400 cooperative businesses with more than 47,000 members,
creating more than 5,800 new rural jobs in virtually every sector of
the economy, including energy, housing, agriculture, forestry, food,
senior and childcare services, and health care. Investment in these
cooperatives exceeds $900 million.

The Need for Cooperative Development
Cooperative development centers address a growing need. Rural areas
in this country, especially in the Midwest, have not benefited from the
recent economic expansion. This has worsened an outmigration problem
that has ravaged the center of our country over the last few years.
For example, despite 3 years of economic expansion, 1.5 million
people were added to the poverty rolls in the Midwest between 2001 and
2004. In all non-metropolitan areas, the poverty rate has remained
stuck at 14.2 percent despite the economic recovery.
With the help of RCDG grants, cooperative development centers are
working with communities to create economic sustainability. For
example, the Georgia Cooperative Development Center helped 27 local
farmers create a co-op to get access to wholesale buyers who had
previously denied them business. The Farmers Fresh Food Network now
markets to agriculture members, local restaurants and farmers markets
and soon plans to provide local schools with fresh produce.
The Missouri Farmers Union Family Farm Opportunity Center helped
families turn seemingly profitless land into a sustainable business by
forming a co-op to mill their trees into high quality boards. Not only
are they practicing sustainable development with the project but the
estimated return to the community could jump from $35 million to $3.4
billion.
The centers also respond to communities in crises, such as those
devastated by Katrina. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives and the
Mississippi Association of Cooperatives have been working with farmers
to stabilize farms and homes destroyed by the storm, to provide
shelter, basic supplies and financial assistance. They are also working
long term to train people at their facilities and create cooperatives
that address basic economic needs of these hard-hit communities, such
as housing.
The common thread through these stories is economic sustainability
and revitalization. Substantial amounts of money generated by these
cooperatives are being put back into the local economy by members.

Cooperative Research--Filling a Gap
The number of jobs and other data collected by the cooperative
development centers and the success stories indicate that cooperatives
have great potential to address many of the problems facing rural
America. There is a serious gap, however, in the information about
cooperatives. Though economic data was collected on cooperatives many
years ago, there has been no comprehensive data collection effort to
find out the impact of all types of cooperatives on the United States
and regional economies.
The President's budget this year includes $495,000 for research on
the economic impact of cooperatives. The funding is for a cooperative
research agreement between USDA and a qualified academic institution to
direct research on the national economic impact of cooperatives. The
research can assess how cooperatives can address emerging economic
development needs in all sectors of the economy. The research funded
for fiscal year 2007 will build on the research currently underway on
the economic impact of all types of cooperatives. In addition, this
research is essential to assess the impact and cost effectiveness of
the Federal program on efforts to revitalize rural economies.
The limited studies available indicate the potential is significant
for cooperatives to address economic needs. According to the National
Co-op Month Planning Committee's ``2005 Snapshot,'' a quick survey of
co-ops, annual revenues for cooperatives are in excess of $211.9
billion. In Wisconsin, a study funded by USDA found cooperatives
supported close to 30,000 full time jobs. The South Dakota Rural
Electric Association found that the electric co-ops there generated 800
new jobs and $11 million in economic development over a 5 year period.
The Alabama Credit Union League found that their State's credit unions
generated 8,777 jobs, $288 million in household income and $24.1
million in tax receipts.
These types of studies need to be replicated on a nationwide basis
for all types of cooperatives. This country needs data such as:
--The number of jobs created by cooperatives both directly and
indirectly.
--The level of economic activity created by cooperatives.
--The tax revenue generated by the level of economic activity.
--A definitive census on the number of cooperatives and the types of
good and services that are being offered.
--The amount of patronage dividends that are returned to the members
from their cooperatives.
--The extent of the economic and social benefit where cooperatives
can meet the needs of communities that are not adequately met
by other types of businesses.
As Liz Bailey, Executive Director of the Cooperative Development
Fund noted:

We all know that there is a basic lack of understanding about
cooperatives in all levels of government, in the business community, in
the academic world, in the philanthropic world and among the general
public. Too few understand how cooperatives function and the role they
play in the Nation's economy. We all use anecdotal stories to tell of
successful cooperative enterprises, but we don't have access to the
kind of aggregated economic data that is routinely used by economic and
business analysts to map U.S. economic activity and interpret the data
for those who make or influence public policy. Government, through its
support of university research, has traditionally been the source of
this kind of basic research . . . It's also important to have data that
is continually updated. It can't be a one time snapshot . . . it's data
that needs to be tracked and reported on a regular basis. (emphasis
added) Testimony of Liz Bailey, USDA Public Meeting on Cooperative
Research Agenda, September 27, 2005

Chronic Underfunding Limits Opportunities
The need for rural economic development and cooperative development
is clear. Congress recognized the need when it developed the program:

The Managers intend to target the limited funds available for the
Rural Cooperative Development Grant program on cooperative development
centers that operate on a regional or statewide basis. By focusing this
grant program on regional centers rather than on small local projects,
the Committee hopes to link cooperatives from different communities and
different sectors of the economy to strengthen the cooperative movement
as a whole. (emphasis added) Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform
Act of 1996, Conf.Rep., p. 432

One of the ways Congress tried ``to strengthen the cooperative
movement as a whole'' with the program was to ``emphasiz[e] job
creation in rural areas through the development of rural cooperatives,
value added processing, and rural businesses.'' (Conf.Rep., p. 431) The
centers provide a cost effective and efficient way to deliver technical
assistance that creates businesses, jobs and opportunities. But the
program's funding has not kept up with the demand, which limits both
the ability of current centers to provide assistance to create jobs and
the development of new centers to ensure national coverage.
Last year, for example, many projects that could have created jobs
and economic opportunities were denied funding. Centers with proven
track records, with business development expertise, were turned down.
Though the program serves more than 40 States, the program was intended
to cover the entire country. More funding is needed to ensure that all
States are served by a center that can address the economic and
entrepreneurial needs of the area.
Private dollars also go into cooperative development. But these
funds struggle to meet the need as well. The Cooperative Development
Fund's Mutual Service Cooperative Fund, which makes grants for
feasibility studies, educational programming and technical assistance
projects, knows how great the demand for dollars is. In 2004, with
$90,000 in available funds for grants, CDF received 44 applications
requesting a total of $980,000. In 2005 the trustees narrowed the focus
of the Fund and still received over $300,000 in proposals, 3 times the
funds available.
Cooperative development centers also would benefit from multi-year
funding. Many times efforts to develop a business are halted due to a
lack of commitment for funds in the future. Since businesses typically
take at least 3 years from concept to operation, there is great need to
have funds available during that period.
The program's recent funding history shows little to no increase in
the program over the past 5 years despite the continued growing demand.
--Fiscal year 2006--$6.5 million (includes $500,000 for research
agreement)
--Fiscal year 2005--$6 million
--Fiscal year 2004--$6.5 million
--Fiscal year 2003--$6.5 million
--Fiscal year 2002--$5.25 million
This funding also is only a small portion of the program's
authorized level of $50 million. The program's sponsors intended there
to be enough funds to address the rural economic needs of the whole
country.
Request for Increased Appropriation for RCDG
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget includes $7 million for the
RCDG program, including $495,000 for research on the economic impact of
cooperatives. We seek an increase in funding to at least $8.5 million,
which would help provide funding for four to six additional centers and
help fulfill the goal of serving all States. The $8.5 million would
also ensure that sufficient funds are available to help build the
research capacity to provide policymakers with information to assess
the value of RCDG and how cooperatives can address economic issues
facing the country. This would be a first step toward achieving the
goals Congress intended for the program. Thank you for the opportunity
to submit testimony on this important topic.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association

Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, I am Tim Robertson,
President of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association (NCSFPA). Thank you for this opportunity to present
information regarding the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
CSFP was our Nation's first food assistance effort with monthly
food packages designed to provide protein, calcium, iron, and vitamins
A and C. CSFP began in 1969 for low-income mothers and children,
preceding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children known as WIC. CSFP pilot programs in 1983 added
low-income seniors to the list of eligible participants and they now
comprise nearly 90 percent of all participants.
CSFP is a unique Federal/State and public/private effort. The USDA
purchases specific nutrient-rich foods at wholesale prices for
distribution. State agencies such as the department of health,
agriculture or education provide administration and oversight. These
agency's contract with community and faith based organizations to
warehouse and distribute food, certify eligibility and educate
participants. The local organizations build broad collaboration among
non-profits, health units, and area agencies on aging so that seniors
and others can quickly qualify for and receive their monthly
supplemental food package along with nutrition education to improve
their health and quality of life. This unique public/private
partnership reaches even homebound seniors with vital nutrition.
The foods provided through CSFP includes canned fruits and
vegetables, juices, meats, fish, peanut butter, cereals and grain
products, cheese, and other dairy products. The availability of these
goods increases healthy food consumption among these low-income
populations.
The CSFP is also an important ``market'' for commodities supported
under various farm programs, as well as an increasingly important
instrument in meeting the nutritional and dietary needs of special low-
income populations.
In fiscal year 2006, the CSFP provided services through 150 non-
profit community and faith-based organizations at over 1,800 sites
located in 32 States, the District of Columbia, and two Indian
reservations (Red Lake, Minnesota and Oglala Sioux, South Dakota). On
behalf of those organizations the NCSFPA would like to express our
concern and disappointment regarding the reduction of available CSFP
resources for fiscal year 2006.
--Congress in the fiscal year 2006 Agricultural Appropriations bill
strongly encouraged USDA to make every effort to maintain the
fiscal year 2005 caseload by making full use of CSFP inventory
and carryover from preceding years and to access all available
resources from bonus commodity holdings and CCC stocks.
--It is not clear from the ``CSFP 2006 Final Caseload Assignments''
memorandum whether USDA has made full use of all available
resources, especially since States were instructed to cut
program participation by 6.26 percent (32,902 seniors
nationally).
--The prospect of seniors not receiving needed CSFP food in a year
when USDA has forecast in excess of $35.4 million in carryover
inventory at the end of the fiscal year 2006 is disturbing.
Clearly these inventories could and should be used to serve the
full fiscal year 2006 caseload.
--Other resources such as $4 million included for CSFP Gulf Coast
operators in the defense bill, and full use of Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) inventory appears not to have been factored
into the CSFP 2006 final caseload assignments.
--At a time when many Americans must choose between food or their
medicine, utilities, and other basic expenses, the Federal
Government should not be reducing benefits for our most
vulnerable citizens. We respectfully request your review of
USDA's adherence to your directive in the Agriculture
Appropriation Bill.
CSFP's 36 years of service stands as testimony to the power of
partnerships among community and faith-based organizations, farmers,
private industry and government agencies. The CSFP offers a unique
combination of unparalleled advantages.
--The CSFP specifically targets our Nation's most nutritionally
vulnerable populations: seniors and young children.
--The CSFP provides a monthly selection of food packages tailored to
the nutritional needs of the population served. Eligible
participants are guaranteed [by law] a certain level of
nutritional assistance every month in addition to nutrition
education regarding how to prepare and incorporate these foods
into their diets.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, which directly
supports the farming community. The cost of the average food
package for fiscal year 2006 is $15.04, but the retail value is
approximately $50.00.
--The CSFP involves the entire community in confronting the problem
of hunger. There are thousands of volunteers as well as many
private companies who donate money, equipment, and most
importantly time and effort to deliver food to needy and
homebound seniors. These volunteers not only bring food but
companionship and other assistance to seniors who might have no
other source of support. (See Attachment 1)
The White House proposed budget for fiscal year 2007, released on
Monday, February 6, 2006, would eliminate the CSFP completely, and
would eliminate all of this effort and support of those 36 years. This
proposal has shocked the entire CSFP community as well as legislators,
anti-hunger and senior service organizations and concerned citizens.
America's Second Harvest, AARP, FRAC, and others have all voiced their
opposition to the elimination of CSFP. It is unconscionable to
eliminate benefits for some of our most vulnerable citizens and to
eliminate hope of those waiting for participation in the program. It is
the cruelest cut for the greatest generation.
In a recent CSFP survey, more than half of seniors living alone
reported an income of less than $750 per month. Of those respondents
from two-person households, more than half reported an income of less
than $1,000 per month. Fewer than 25 percent reported being enrolled in
the Food Stamp Program. Over 50 percent said they ran out of food
during the month. Also, close to 70 percent senior respondents say they
use money for medical bills not food.
The Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee has consistently
supported CSFP, acknowledging it as a cost-effective way of providing
nutritious supplemental foods. This year, your support is needed
urgently to provide adequate resources for the 536,196 mothers,
children and seniors currently receiving benefits, 20,500 low-income
participants currently waiting in five new States and 154,259 seniors
waiting in current States for this vital nutrition program.
There is no discernible plan to address the long-term needs of
those affected by the elimination of CSFP. The proposed transition plan
provides that seniors being removed from CSFP will be provided a Food
Stamp Program (FSP) benefit of $20 per month for up to 6 months, or
until the participant actually enrolls in the FSP, whichever comes
first. As referenced earlier, CSFP provides a food package that costs
USDA about $15 per month. It has a retail value of approximately $50.
How does someone use $20 to purchase approximately $50 worth of
nutritious foods? What happens at the end of 6 months? Simply
transferring seniors to the FSP is an inadequate solution. It is
essential for seniors to have access to services which they
feel is offered with dignity and respect. Many will outright reject
the idea of applying for FSP benefits. According to the ERS Evaluation
of the USDA Elderly Nutrition Demonstrations: Volume I:

``The Commodity alternative benefit demonstration in North Carolina
was popular both among new applicants and among existing FSP
participants. Clients eligible for low FSP benefits were more likely to
get the commodity packages, which had a retail value substantially
greater than their FSP benefits''. In particular, seniors described the
anxiety of using FSP benefits in stores, where they felt shoppers and
store clerks looked down on them. The demonstrations attracted a
particularly large share of clients eligible for the $10 benefit
because the retail value of the commodity packages was worth $60-$70''.

Depending on their non-cash assets, seniors may not qualify for a
FSP benefit level equivalent to the CSFP food package. Seniors
receiving the minimum benefit would not be eligible for the $20/month
transitional benefit. The 25 percent of current CSFP participants who
already enrolled in the FSP will lose the benefits of CSFP and those
benefits will not be replaced at a time when they are struggling to
make ends meet. CSFP and FSP are supplemental programs. They work
together to make up the shortfall that many of our seniors are facing
each month. Both programs need to be available as part of the ``safety
net'' for our low-income participants.
USDA reports that the average FSP benefit paid to senior citizens
is about $65 per month, but in reality, many senior citizens receive
only the minimum monthly benefit of $10, which has not been updated
since 1975. USDA figures also report households rather than individual
participants and include households with disabled family members.
The proposed transition plan for women, infants and children
enrolled in the CSFP is to transfer them to WIC. However, due to
increasing coordination between WIC and CSFP at the State and community
levels, the number of WIC-eligible mothers and children enrolled in the
CSFP is steadily declining. In some States, this figure is less than 2
percent of all enrolled women and children, eradicating supplemental
food and nutrition benefits for that population as well. Further, the
majority of women and children receiving CSFP food are 6 month
postpartum women and 5 year old children who are not eligible for the
WIC Program.
The National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
requests the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee take the
appropriate actions to fund CSFP for fiscal year 2007 at $160 million
as illustrated below:

[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description People (caseload) Funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintain fiscal year 2005 Caseload 536,196............. $128.0
Requirements in Existing States.
Five New States (AK, DE, OK, NJ, 20,500.............. 3.7
UT).
Current States Senior Needs....... 154,259............. 27.6
USDA Costs for Procuring .................... .7
Commodities.
-------------------------------------
Total CSFP Request for 710,955............. 160.0
fiscal year 2007.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the aging of America, CSFP must be an integral part of USDA
Senior Nutrition Policy as well as comprehensive plans to support the
productivity, health, independence, and quality of life for America's
seniors.
Measures to show the positive outcomes of nutrition assistance to
seniors must be strengthened. A 1997 report by the National Policy and
Resource Center on Nutrition and Aging at Florida International
University, Miami--Elder Insecurities: Poverty, Hunger, and
Malnutrition indicated that malnourished elderly patients experience 2
to 20 times more medical complications, have up to 100 percent longer
hospital stays, and incurs hospital costs $2,000 to $10,000 higher per
stay. Proper nutrition promotes health, treats chronic disease,
decreases hospital length of stay and saves health care dollars.
Rather than eliminating the program, the NCSFPA recommends the
following initiatives to strengthen CSFP:
--Develop a formal evaluation process to demonstrate individual and
program outcomes of CSFP with Federal, State, and local CSFP
managers included in the study design.
--Restore financial guidelines for seniors to the original level of
185 percent of poverty.
--Set ``greatest need within a project area'' as the priority for
service or let each State set its priority for service under a
plan approved by the Secretary of Agriculture.
--Support and expand the program in those States that have
demonstrated an interest in the CSFP, including the 5 States
that already have USDA-approved plans to operate CSFP
(Arkansas, Delaware, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Utah) or that
have demonstrated a willingness to continue and expand current
CSFP services.
This program continues with committed grassroots operators and
dedicated volunteers. CSFP's mission is to provide quality nutrition
assistance economically, efficiently, and responsibly always keeping
the needs and dignity of our participants first. We commend the Food
and Nutrition Service of the Department of Agriculture and particularly
the Food Distribution Division for their continued innovations to
strengthen the quality of the food package and streamline
administration. We also remain committed to providing quality services
in collaboration with the community organizations and volunteers that
contribute more than 50 percent of the resources used in providing
these services.

ATTACHMENT 1.--NATIONAL CSFP ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE/VALUE SURVEY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Goods & Extra Goods
USDA Not Reimbursed CSFP Services Volunteer Annual Total Percent Paid donated to
Programs Reimbursed by USDA Cash Expenditures donated to Labor Hours Program Value by USDA CSFP
Cash Cash agency Value Value participants
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Hampshire................................................... $425,689 $16,902 $442,591 .............. $117,370 $559,961 76 $1,668
New York........................................................ 1,896,086 85,500 1,981,586 $20,000 9,126 2,010,712 94 10,425
Vermont......................................................... 257,950 318,327 576,277 1,200 96,578 674,055 38 ..............
Washington DC................................................... 449,139 1,500,000 1,949,139 1,600,000 12,513 3,561,652 13 ..............
Pennsylvania.................................................... 834,444 147,234 981,678 332,604 234,310 1,548,592 54 278,303
Kentucky........................................................ 912,417 35,538 947,955 5,000 376,799 1,329,754 69 ..............
Mississippi..................................................... 402,779 .............. 402,779 .............. 189,540 592,319 68 ..............
North Carolina.................................................. 79,849 40,000 119,849 .............. 3,438 123,287 65 20,000
South Carolina.................................................. 215,880 113,827 329,707 66,000 98,456 494,163 44 14,500
Tennessee....................................................... 827,805 .............. 827,805 .............. .............. 827,805 100 ..............
Illinois........................................................ 903,174 3,000 906,174 .............. 341,172 1,247,346 72 ..............
Indiana......................................................... 264,831 32,020 296,851 19,440 369,603 685,894 39 100
Michigan........................................................ 4,535,044 2,237,705 6,772,749 296,000 3,696,683 10,765,433 42 577,199
Minnesota....................................................... 806,379 277,890 1,084,269 28,000 798,525 1,910,794 42 497,700
Red Lake, MN.................................................... 5,937 5,937 11,874 .............. .............. 11,874 50 ..............
Ohio............................................................ 713,807 250,997 964,804 54,800 442,629 1,462,233 49 166,590
Wisconsin....................................................... 287,026 15,000 302,026 .............. 305,370 607,396 47 79,797
Louisiana....................................................... 4,672,088 .............. 4,672,088 377,479 1,483,387 6,532,955 72 2,500
New Mexico...................................................... 1,120,106 195,000 1,315,106 78,719 231,800 1,625,625 69 1,208,353
Texas........................................................... 706,534 85,000 791,534 1,500 115,830 908,864 78 12,000
Colorado........................................................ 1,196,217 425,963 1,622,180 13,375 174,254 1,809,809 66 650,425
Iowa............................................................ 228,563 286,543 515,106 .............. 67,247 582,353 39 108,510
Kansas.......................................................... 342,332 69,019 411,351 329,960 255,881 997,192 34 81,424
Missouri........................................................ 539,700 109,072 648,772 2,000 398,455 1,049,227 51 ..............
Montana......................................................... 81,528 29,649 411,177 115,929 515,022 1,042,128 37 37,800
Nebraska........................................................ 761,247 116,207 877,454 46,449 276,044 1,199,947 63 74,960
North Dakota.................................................... 161,155 43,208 204,363 .............. 192,594 396,957 41 1,695
South Dakota.................................................... 161,911 5,005 166,916 36,875 87,785 291,576 56 12,480
Oglala Sioux, SD................................................ 37,779 .............. 37,779 .............. .............. 37,779 100 ..............
Alaska.......................................................... 138,798 .............. 138,798 .............. 35,100 173,898 80
Arizona......................................................... 968,788 640,636 1,609,424 442,950 1,030,066 3,082,440 31 655,000
California...................................................... 3,095,354 1,036,699 4,132,053 242,424 3,532,078 7,906,555 39 588,868
Nevada.......................................................... 401,133 16,000 417,133 2,000 1,123 420,256 95 4,000
Oregon.......................................................... 72,603 .............. 72,603 .............. .............. 72,603 100 ..............
Washington...................................................... 134,426 31,000 165,426 12,600 6,318 184,344 73 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................................... 28,938,498 8,168,878 37,107,376 4,125,304 15,495,096 56,727,776 51 5,084,297
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 the
opportunity to present to you the turfgrass industry's need and
justification for continuation of the $490,000 appropriated in the
fiscal year 2006 budget for turfgrass research within the Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) at Beltsville, MD. Secondly, we ask that the
committee support and accept the $1,880,000 for Drought Mitigation in
the President's budget request. This funding will be used by ARS to
conduct turfgrass water conservation and salinity research at Phoenix,
AZ and Riverside, CA. Thirdly, to implement the most critical needs
within the National Turfgrass Research Initiative, we are asking for
five individual research positions of $450,000 each. This amount is
being requested by senators in the states where the positions are
located. We appreciate the support of research funding at Beaver, WV
($330,000) provided by the committee in fiscal year 2006 and request
that funding be restored in fiscal year 2007. All funding provided by
the Committee is requested to go directly to ARS/Beltsville, not the
industry per se.

Restoration of funding for the existing ARS Scientist Position and
related support activities at Beltsville, MD ($490,000)
NTEP and the turfgrass industry are requesting the Subcommittee's
support for $490,000 to continue funding for the full-time scientist
staff position within the USDA, ARS at Beltsville, MD, focusing on
turfgrass research, that was provided by the Committee in the fiscal
year 2006 budget, and in the four previous budget cycles. We consider
this funding our Congressional ``baseline'', i.e. that funding which is
central to and critical for the mission of the National Turfgrass
Research Initiative. We are very grateful for this support and hope the
Committee will continue this funding.
Turfgrass provides multiple benefits to society including child
safety on athletic fields, environmental protection of groundwater,
reduction of silt and other contaminants in runoff, and green space in
home lawns, parks and golf courses. Therefore, by cooperating with
NTEP, USDA has a unique opportunity to take positive action in support
of 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. 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 70 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.
A new turfgrass research scientist position within USDA/ARS was
created by Congress in the fiscal year 2001 budget. Additional funding
was added in fiscal year 2002 with the total at $490,000. A research
scientist was hired, and is now working at the ARS, Beltsville, MD
center. A research plan was developed and approved by ARS. This
scientist has used the funding for a full-time technician, equipment
and supplies to initiate the research plan and for collaborative
research with universities. We have an excellent scientist in place,
and he is making good progress in establishing a solid program. At this
point, losing the funding for the position would be devastating to the
turf industry, as significant research has begun.
Support the President's budget request for Drought Mitigation research
as proposed by ARS (See ARS Explanatory Notes, pages 10-82, 10-
83) ($1,880,000)
The turfgrass industry is excited that for the first time, the
President's budget contains funding for turfgrass research within ARS.
This funding will be used to hire scientists in two very important
locations, Riverside, CA and Phoenix, AZ, focusing on water
conservation, wastewater reuse and salinity research. These issues are
the most critical research needs for the survival of the turf industry.
Following is a brief description of the research that ARS will conduct
with this funding:
ARS will:
Develop Technology and Management Systems to Use Non-Potable Water
to Reduce Agriculture's Vulnerability to Drought ($1,880,000 Total).--
In the process, ARS will develop systems to safely reuse wastewater and
low-quality water as a means of irrigating agricultural, horticultural
and turf-based enterprises in an environmentally and economically
sustainable manner
As noted in USDA's Explanatory Notes accompanying this budget
request, this funding will be directed to the following two critical
locations:

Phoenix, AZ, ($940,000)
The U.S. Water Conservation Lab in Phoenix will determine the on-
site impacts and movement in the air, soil, plant, and ground water of
biological and chemical substances contained in treated and untreated
waste water used for irrigation of turfgrass. They will also develop
irrigation technologies and management systems to mitigate the impact
of elevated levels of these compounds and nutrients when wastewater is
used in the production of turf and specialty crops.

Riverside, CA, ($940,000)
This research will be conducted at the world-renowned U.S. Salinity
Lab. The Riverside lab will focus on the development of new irrigation
technologies and systems to either mitigate or manage the effect of
saline irrigation on the production of turf and specialty crops.
Request funding of Congressional earmarks for five ARS scientist
positions at four ARS installations @ $450,000 each (Total:
$2,250,000)
The turfgrass industry also requests that the Subcommittee
appropriate an additional $2,250,000 for the National Turfgrass
Research Initiative. This Initiative has been developed by USDA/ARS in
partnership with the turfgrass industry. We are asking for five
priority research positions at four locations across the United States.
These five positions address the most pressing research needs, namely
water use/efficiency and environmental issues. $450,000 is being
requested for each location.
The USDA needs to initiate and maintain ongoing research on
turfgrass development and improvement for the following reasons:
The value of the turfgrass industry in the United States is $40
billion annually. There are an estimated 50,000,000 acres of turfgrass
in the United States. Turfgrass is the number one or two agricultural
crop in value and acreage in many States (e.g., MD, PA, FL, NJ, NC).
As our society becomes more urbanized, the acreage of turfgrass
will increase significantly. In addition, State and local
municipalities are requiring the reduction of water, pesticides and
fertilizers on turfgrass. However, demand on recreational facilities
will increase while these facilities will still be required to provide
safe turfgrass surfaces.
Currently, the industry itself spends about $10 million annually on
applied and proprietary turfgrass research. However, private and
university research programs do not have the time nor the resources to
conduct basic research and to identify completely new sources of
beneficial genes for stress tolerance. ARS turfgrass scientists will
enhance the ongoing research currently underway in the public and
private sectors. Because of its mission to conduct the Nation's
research for agricultural commodities, ARS is the proper delivery
system for this research.
Water management is a key component of healthy turf and has direct
impact on nutrient and pesticide losses into the environment.
Increasing demands and competition for potable water make it necessary
to use water more efficiently. Also, drought situations in many regions
have limited the water available and, therefore, have severely impacted
the turf industry as well as homeowners and young athletes. Therefore,
new and improved technologies are needed to monitor turf stresses and
to schedule irrigation to achieve the desired quality. Technologies are
also needed to more efficiently and uniformly irrigate turfgrasses.
Drought tolerant grasses need to be developed. In addition, to increase
water available for irrigation, waste water (treated and untreated)
must be utilized. Some of these waste waters contain contaminants such
as pathogens, heavy metals, and organic compounds. The movement and
accumulation of these contaminants in the environment must be
determined.
USDA conducted significant turfgrass research from 1920-1988.
However, since 1988, no full-time scientist has been employed by USDA,
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) to conduct turfgrass research
specifically, until the recently appropriated funds became available.
ARS and the turfgrass industry enjoy a special, collaborative
relationship, and have even entered into a cooperative Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU). The turfgrass industry has met on numerous
occasions with USDA/ARS officials to discuss the new turfgrass
scientist positions, necessary facilities, and future research
opportunities. In January 2002, ARS held a customer workshop to gain
valuable input from turfgrass researchers, golf course superintendents,
sod producers, lawn care operators, athletic field managers and others
on the research needs of the turfgrass industry. As a result of the
workshop, ARS and the turfgrass industry have developed the National
Turfgrass Research Initiative. The highlights of this strategy are as
follows:
ARS, as the lead agency at USDA for this initiative, has graciously
devoted a significant amount of time to the effort. Like the industry,
ARS is in this research endeavor for the long-term. To ARS' credit, the
agency has committed staff, planning and technical resources to this
effort. This year is the first time ARS has been able to include some
funding in the President's budget for the Turfgrass Research
Initiative. However, there are so many issues and needs, that the
industry is desperate for answers. Thus, to address the critical
research needs, the industry is left with no alternative but to come
directly to Congress for assistance through the appropriations process.
The role and leadership of the Federal Government and USDA in this
research are justifiable and grounded in solid public policy rationale.
ARS is poised and prepared to work with the turfgrass industry in this
major research initiative. However, ARS needs additional resources to
undertake this mission.
The turfgrass industry is very excited about this new proposal and
wholeheartedly supports the efforts of ARS. Since the customers at the
workshop identified turfgrass genetics/germplasm and water quality/use
as their top priority areas for ARS research, for fiscal year 2007, the
turfgrass industry requests that the following positions be established
within USDA/ARS:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Position 1: Component II: Germplasm: Molecular $450,000
Biologist: Southwest--Lubbock, TX
Position 2: Component I: Water: Agricultural Engineer-- 450,000
Irrigation: Transition Zone--Florence, SC
Position 3: Component IV: Environment: Agricultural 450,000
Engineer--Fate & Transport: Northeast--University Park,
PA
Position 4: Component III: Pest Management: Weed 450,000
Scientist: Northeast--University Park, PA
Position 5: Component II: Germplasm: Geneticist-- 50,000
Biodiversity: Upper West--Logan, UT
---------------
Total............................................. 2,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this research we propose an ARS-University partnership, with
funding allocated to ARS for in-house research as well as in
cooperation with university partners. For each of the individual
scientist positions, we are requesting $300,000 for each ARS scientist
position with an additional $150,000 attached to each position to be
distributed to university partners, for a total of $450,000 per
position. We are also asking that the funding be directed to ARS and
then distributed by ARS to those university partners selected by ARS
and industry representatives.
Request restoration of funding for the ARS lab in Beaver, WV that was
appropriated in fiscal year 2006 ($330,000)
In the last 2 fiscal years, the Subcommittee has generously
provided funding for turfgrass research at the Appalachian Farming
Systems Research Center in Beaver, WV. The Subcommittee allocated
$150,000 in fiscal year 2005 and an additional $180,000 in fiscal year
2006, bringing the total to $330,000. As the Beaver lab has expertise
in soils research, the turf industry has embraced this funding and the
research possibilities. The turf industry is now working with the lab
to construct a research program on soil issues that affect turfgrass
production. This research fits very nicely within the framework of the
National Turfgrass Research Initiative. Therefore, we appreciate the
support of the Subcommittee for this new funding in the last 2 fiscal
years and ask for your continued support of that funding in fiscal year
2007.
In addition, the Committee should be receiving Member requests for
funding of each of the five positions described above. We appreciate
your strong consideration of each individual member request for the
turfgrass research position in his or her respective state.
In conclusion, on behalf of the National Turfgrass Evaluation
Program and the turfgrass industry across America, I respectfully
request that the Subcommittee continue the funding appropriated in
fiscal year 2006 for Beltsville, MD, ($490,000) and Beaver, WV
($330,000) within the Agricultural Research Service. I also request
that the committee support the President's budget request of $1,880,000
for Drought Mitigation. Finally, I request that the Subcommittee
appropriate an additional $2,250,000 for five new turfgrass scientist
positions around the country, with $450,000 provided for each location.
Thank you very much for your assistance and support.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2007 funding
request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation).
Included in this testimony is a summary of our history and fiscal year
2005 accomplishments, as well as the new and innovative programs we
hope to accomplish with the funding provided by this Committee.
Congress established the Foundation 22 years ago, and since that
time the Foundation's vision for more healthy and abundant populations
of fish, wildlife and plants has flourished through the creation of
numerous valuable partnerships. The breadth of our partnerships is
highlighted through our active agreements with 14 Federal agencies, as
well as various corporations, foundations and individual grantees.
Through these unique arrangements, we are able to leverage Federal
funds, bring agencies and industry together and produce tangible,
measurable results. Our history of collaboration has given way to
programs and initiatives such as the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program,
the Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed Grants Program and the Pulling
Together Initiative. With the support of the Committee in fiscal year
2007, we can continue to uphold our mission of enriching fish, wildlife
and the habitat on which they depend.
Federal dollars appropriated by this Committee allow the Foundation
to be highly successful in assisting the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) in accomplishing its mission to help people conserve,
maintain and improve our natural resources and environment. Whether it
involves farm, range or grassland conservation, species management or
conservation education, the Foundation strategically invests the
Federal funds entrusted to us in sound projects. The Foundation
respectfully requests that this Subcommittee fund the Foundation at $4
million through the U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
Appropriation.
This request would allow the Foundation to expand its highly
successful grant program to better assist NRCS in maximizing private
land conservation.
Since the grants partnership began in 2000, the Foundation has
received $18 million in NRCS Federal funds ($3 million per fiscal
year), which it has dedicated to a matching grant program focused on
private land conservation. The Foundation has supported over 400
projects in 49 states by leveraging the $18 million in NRCS funds into
more than $75 million in on-the-ground conservation. These projects
have led to the direct restoration of more than 200,000 acres of
farmland and rangeland and 775 miles of streams and rivers. In fiscal
year 2005, the Foundation received $3 million in NRCS Federal funds,
which it leveraged into more than $12 million in on-the-ground
conservation. With the funds provided by the Committee in fiscal year
2006, we are on track to successfully continue leveraging NRCS funds to
increase on-the-ground conservation benefits.
The Foundation's achievements are based on a competitive grant
process where Federal funds are matched by the grantee with non-Federal
funds and in-kind services. Grantees include Resource Conservation and
Development Areas, conservation districts, universities and non-profit
organizations who partner with farmers and ranchers to support
conservation efforts on private land. The Foundation also works to
further maximize Federal funds by providing private funds through the
generosity of our growing number of corporate and foundation partners.
These funds are in addition to the non-Federal funds that are provided
by the Foundation's grantees. In the Foundation's partnership with
NRCS, Federal funds have been supplemented with funding from Shell Oil
Company, FMC Corporation, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., Southern
Company, Summer T. McKnight Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott
Foundation, William Penn Foundation and the David and Lucile Packard
Foundation. The Foundation is also pleased to report that the Kellogg
Foundation has agreed to a multi-year partnership beginning in fiscal
year 2006 to further the Foundation's agriculture conservation work.
Working Landscapes.--Through our partnership, the Foundation works
with NRCS to identify and fund projects that have strong support in
affected agricultural and rural communities. We place our highest
priority on projects integrating conservation practices on ongoing
agricultural, ranching and forestry operations with the goal of
improving the ecological health of working lands. We fund partners and
provide expertise by engaging watershed experts, ranchers, foresters,
farmers, local governments and non-profits to undertake on-the-ground
private land activities with willing landowners. Through these efforts,
the Foundation has helped to reduce agricultural runoff, remove
invasive species and restore native ecosystems.
Conserving Fish, Wildlife and Plants.--With our NRCS dollars, the
Foundation funds projects that directly benefit diverse fish and
wildlife species, including salmon in the West, migratory birds in the
Midwest and grassland birds in the South. Habitat for native fish has
been restored on private lands throughout the United States through
vegetative planting, streambank stabilization, livestock fencing and
nutrient reduction efforts. In addition to improving water quality,
efforts have been undertaken by our grantees to reduce water loss
caused by invasive species or from outdated irrigation systems. By
reducing the water taken from rivers, there is less chance that drought
will negatively impact aquatic life.
We also measure our success, in part, by preventing the listing of
species under the Endangered Species Act and by stabilizing and
hopefully moving others off the list. Some species that have received
support through our NRCS grant program include salmonids, golden-
cheeked warblers, black-capped vireos, Southwestern willow flycatchers,
whooping cranes, sage grouse, lesser prairie chickens, aplomado
falcons, black-tailed prairie dogs, Louisiana black bears, bog turtles,
tiger salamanders and Karner blue butterflies. We invest in common
sense and innovative cooperative approaches to endangered species,
building bridges between the government and the private sector.
Expanding Conservation Education Opportunities.--Our grantees also
use our NRCS dollars to expand conservation education opportunities. Of
our fiscal year 2005 NRCS partnership grants, over one-fourth contained
an environmental education or outreach component. Some of the
conservation education projects supported through our NRCS grant
program seek to educate farmers and ranchers on conservation practices,
while demonstrating how best management practices and wildlife
incentives provide both environmental and economic benefits. Other
projects have provided training to secondary school teachers on the
ecological, economic and cultural benefits of rangeland and farmland
conservation.
Special Grant Programs.--In fiscal year 2005, NRCS joined the
Foundation's Pulling Together Initiative, a grant program that supports
the creation of local cooperative Weed Management Area partnerships.
These partnerships bring together local landowners, citizens groups and
weed experts to develop and implement strategies for managing weed
infestations on public lands, natural areas and private working lands.
Through this collaborative program, NRCS staff is able to join invasive
species experts from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA-Forest
Service, Bureau of Land Management, Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service and the Department of Defense to review and jointly select the
most innovative weed management projects. This collaborative model has
proven so successful that in late fiscal year 2005, the Foundation
launched a new strategically focused grant program targeting the Great
Lakes Watershed. The partners in this program include the Environmental
Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration and the USDA-Forest Service. The Foundation
is currently in discussions with NRCS regarding their formal
participation in the program for the next grant cycle.
The Foundation is currently developing two additional Special Grant
Programs that will be launched later this year. The purpose of the
first grant program is to implement the National Fish Habitat
Initiative Action Plan. The National Fish Habitat Initiative is a
multi-agency, multi-partner initiative to improve our Nation's aquatic
resources. The Foundation's grant program will bring together Federal
and non-Federal funds to strategically invest in priority fish habitat
grants. The Foundation's second grant program will focus on the Upper
Mississippi River Watershed. The program is being launched at the
direction of the USDA-Forest Service with the goal of restoring private
land streambanks with native trees and grasses. The Foundation is
hoping to expand this program into a multi-partnered effort in fiscal
year 2007.
Evaluation.--The Foundation has become a leader in evaluation and
adaptive management among its peers. The Foundation's goal is to build
the capacity of both itself and its partners to undertake more
effective evaluation, to assist in both measuring performance and
adapting methods and funding strategies for more effective
conservation. To address these goals, the Foundation is implementing
several evaluation strategies simultaneously. First, the Foundation has
instituted new protocols within its application process to provide the
measurable indicators needed to evaluate the impacts of our programs.
Second, the Foundation has convened discussions among our agencies
partners to identify and coordinate potential opportunities for
collaboration within evaluation. One of the initial results of these
meetings has been an interest in piloting new evaluation indicators, to
better articulate the Federal investment for GPRA and PART
requirements.
Third, the Foundation has commissioned several third-party
evaluations targeting standard methods like culvert removal to full
program evaluations to learn where we have been successful and where
past methods have not provided the desired impact. As an example, in
fiscal year 2006, the Foundation's Chesapeake Bay Small Watershed
Grants Program will be evaluated for the first 5 years of grant-making.
The evaluation will include 355 projects associated with about $10.6
million in Federal funds. The Federal legislation accompanying this
program included 10-year goals, and this evaluation presents an
opportunity to assess the mid-way mark in helping the Foundation and
its partners better focus their resources over the next 5 years. To
capture the evaluations and lessons learned, the Foundation is taking a
fourth key step by developing a new searchable project website where
users will be able to query information and learn more about funded
projects, including how to adapt projects for higher rates of success.
Continued Need.--The Foundation is uniquely positioned to continue
assisting NRCS in implementing beneficial conservation practices on our
Nation's farms and ranches by leveraging NRCS's scarce Federal
resources to maximize on-the-ground conservation benefits. The
Foundation's matching grant program has the flexibility to address many
agricultural conservation needs. These include, but are not limited to,
increasing instream flow for rivers while continuing to support
agricultural irrigation, promoting the recovery of specific threatened
or endangered animals on private lands, implementing critical
conservation practices on private lands that do not qualify for funding
under a Farm Bill program, working with non-traditional partners such
as the Amish and Mennonites and by forging broad community-based
partnerships. Additional resources are needed in fiscal year 2007 to
continue meeting the growing demand for private land conservation,
while expanding the participation of NRCS into new multi-partner
programs.
Accountability and Grantsmanship.--The Foundation constantly
strives to improve the grant making process while maintaining a healthy
level of oversight. To improve ease of use for potential applicants,
Foundation applications are now completed and reviewed electronically.
In early 2006, to further improve efficiency, the Foundation released a
revised application, grant contract template and reporting form. Even
with these efficiencies, the Foundation still requires strict financial
reporting by grantees and has once again received an unqualified audit
in fiscal year 2005.
In addition to the evaluation requirements described earlier, all
potential grants are subject to a peer review process. This involves
five external reviews representing state agencies, Federal agencies,
affected industry, environmental non-profits and academics. Before
being recommended to the Foundation's Board of Directors, grants are
also reviewed internally by staff, including our conservation
scientists. The internal review process examines the project's
conservation need, technical merit, the support of the local community,
the variety of partners and the amount of proposed non-Federal cost
share. The Foundation also provides a 30-day notification to the
Members of Congress for the congressional district and state in which a
grant will be funded, prior to making a funding decision.
Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The Foundation is governed by a
25-member Board of Directors, appointed by the Secretary of the
Interior and in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce. At the
direction of Congress, the Board operates on a nonpartisan basis.
Directors do not receive any financial compensation for service on the
Board; in fact, all of our directors make financial contributions to
the Foundation. It is a diverse Board, representing the corporate,
philanthropic and conservation communities; all with a tenacious
commitment to fish and wildlife conservation. I took over the
chairmanship in January, after serving on the Board for 10 years. It is
an honor to lead such a prestigious board.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
if not the most, cost-effective conservation programs funded in part by
the Federal government. Since our inception in 1984 through fiscal year
2005, the Foundation has supported over 8,190 grants and leveraged $339
million in Federal funds into more than $1 billion in on-the-ground
conservation. None of our Federally appropriated funds are used for
lobbying, litigation or the Foundation's administrative expenses. By
implementing real-world solutions with the private sector while
avoiding regulatory or advocacy activity, our approach is more
consistent with this Congress' philosophy than ever before. We are
confident that the money you appropriate to the Foundation will
continue to make a difference.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Organic Coalition

Chairman Bennett, Ranking Member Kohl, and Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Steven Etka. I am submitting this testimony on
behalf of the National Organic Coalition (NOC) to detail our requests
for fiscal year 2007 funding for several USDA marketing, research, and
conservation programs of importance to organic agriculture.
The National Organic Coalition (NOC) is a national alliance of
organizations working to provide a voice for farmers, ranchers,
environmentalists, consumers and others involved in organic
agriculture. The current members of NOC are the Center for Food Safety,
Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, National Cooperative
Grocers Association, and the Northeast Organic Farming Association-
Interstate Council.
We urge the Subcommittee's strong consideration of the following
funding requests for various USDA programs of importance to organic
farmers, marketers and consumers:
USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
National Organic Certification Cost-Share Program Request:
$1.5 million
In recognition of the costs to farmers and handlers associated with
the process of organic certification, the National Organic
Certification Cost Share program was authorized by Section 10606 of the
Food Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002. In fiscal year 2002
initial funding of $5 million was provided for this program through the
Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to AMS. The assistance provided by
this program has been particularly critical to small-to-medium scale
farmers and handlers struggling with the costs of mandatory organic
certification and required annual updates. Unfortunately, the initial
CCC funding for this program has been fully expended. Therefore, we are
seeking stop-gap funding of $1.5 million from the CCC to keep the
program running until the program can be reauthorized.
Organic Standards Request: 3.13 million
In fiscal year 2006, Congress specified funding of $2.026 million
for the AMS category of ``Organic Standards.'' In the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget submittal, a request was made for $3.13 million
for AMS ``Organic Standards.'' We support the President's budget, in
order to provide the National Organic Program with greater resources
for certifier training, National Organic Standards Board support,
enforcement, and public outreach and education on upcoming rulemaking
processes.
For several years, report language has been included in the Senate
report strongly urging the National Organic Program to take action on
several unfulfilled statutory requirements. Specifically, the Senate
report language in fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006 called on the NOP
to hire an Executive Director for the National Organic Standards Board
and to establish an on-going Peer Review Panel, as called for in OFPA,
to provide oversight and advice to the NOP regarding the accreditation
process for organic certifiers.
While progress has been slow in complying with these statutory
requirements, the members of the National Organic Coalition are very
pleased that an Executive Director for the National Organic Standards
Board has been hired by USDA. This position is critical in helping the
NOSB fulfill its statutory role, especially at time of such heavy
workload for the Board. We congratulate the NOP for taking this action.
In contrast, the requirements of Section 2117 of OFPA to establish
a Peer Review Panel and the further requirement of Section 205.509 of
the Organic rule to establish an annual Peer Review Panel have not been
met by the NOP. However, we are pleased that the NOP contracted with
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to perform an outside
audit of the NOP, the results of which were presented in late 2004. The
ANSI audit noted numerous technical and procedural deficiencies in the
NOP's operations and suggested corrective actions in several areas. In
addition, USDA's own Inspector General's office released an audit
report regarding the National Organic Program in July of 2005, which
was very critical of the National Organic Program's operations, and
also suggested several corrective actions that could be taken by the
Agency to resolve the problems. The Members of the National Organic
Coalition concur with the recommendations of the ANSI and Office of
Inspector General (OIG) audits, and believe that if the NOP were to
implement these recommendations, it would be a significant step to
resolving many of the concerns that have been raised by the organic
community regard the NOP's operations.
Recently, a new National Organic Program Director was hired with
significant expertise in the area of quality systems management and ISO
compliance. We are very encouraged that the new Director's expertise
will be helpful in guiding the NOP in implementing the ANSI and OIG
audit recommendations. However, we also believe that the House and
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees should be kept informed
by NOP with regular reports on their progress in complying with these
recommendations. Therefore, in addition to supporting the
Administration's budget request of $3.13 million for AMS/organic
standards, we are requesting that the following report language be
included:
The Committee is encouraged that the Agency has hired an Executive
Director for the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as well as a
new Director for the National Organic Program. The Committee also notes
that the audits performed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) in 2004 and by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) in
2005 made strong recommendations about changes needed in the
administration of the National Organic Program. The Committee expects
the Agency to take the necessary actions to comply with these
recommendations, and to provide a written report to the Committee by
December of 2006 regarding the progress in implementing these
recommendations. In addition, the Committee expects a report regarding
the complaints that the NOP has received about violations of the
organic standards, and the progress of the Agency in investigating and
responding to those complaints. Finally, the Committee expects the NOP
to work closely with the NOSB to implement the Peer Review Panel
requirements of OPFA and USDA's organic regulations.
USDA
Organic Data Initiatives
Authorized by Section 7407 of the 2002 Farm Bill, the Organic
Production and Marketing Data Initiative States that the ``Secretary
shall ensure that segregated data on the production and marketing of
organic agricultural products is included in the ongoing baseline of
data collection regarding agricultural production and marketing.'' As
the organic industry matures and grows at a rapid rate, the lack of
national data for the production, pricing, and marketing of organic
products has been an impediment to further development of the industry
and to the effective functioning of many organic programs within USDA.
Because of the multi-agency nature of data collection within USDA, the
effort to improve organic data collection and analysis must also be
undertaken by several different agencies within the Department:
Economic Research Service (ERS)
Collection and Analysis of Organic Economic Data Request:
$750,000
In fiscal year 2006, Congress appropriated $500,000 to USDA's
Economic Research Service to continue the collection of valuable
acreage and production data, as required by Section 7407 of the 2002
farm bill. Because increased ability to conduct economic analysis for
the organic farming sector is greatly needed, we request $750,000 to be
appropriated to the USDA ERS to implement the ``Organic Production and
Market Data Initiative'' included in Section 7407 of the 2002 farm
bill.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Organic Price Collection Request: $1 million
Accurate, public reporting of agricultural price ranges and trends
helps to level the playing field for producers. Wholesale and retail
price information on a regional basis is critical to farmers and
ranchers, but organic producers have fewer sources of price information
available to them than conventional producers. Additionally, the lack
of appropriate actuarial data has made it difficult for organic farmers
to apply for and receive equitable Federal crop insurance. AMS Market
News is involved in tracking product prices for conventional
agricultural products, and with funding, could broaden their efforts to
include organic price data as well. We request $1 million to be
appropriated to the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service for collection
of organic price information.
National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS)
Census Follow-up/Organic Grower Survey Request: $1 million
The mission of USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) is to provide timely, accurate, and useful statistics in service
to U.S. agriculture. NASS is making an effort to expand the quantity of
organic questions in the 2007 census. However, they will need to
conduct a follow-up survey to collect more in-depth information on
acreage, yield/production, inventory, production practices, sales and
expenses, marketing channels, and demographics. Therefore, we are
requesting $1 million for USDA NASS.
USDA/CSREES
Organic Transitions Program Request: $5 million
The Organic Transition Program, funded through the CSREES budget,
is a research grant program that helps farmers surmount some of the
challenges of organic production and marketing. As the organic industry
grows, the demand for research on topics related to organic agriculture
is experiencing significant growth as well. The benefits of this
research are far-reaching, with broad applications to all sectors of
U.S. agriculture, even beyond the organic sector. Yet funding for
organic research is minuscule in relation to the relative economic
importance of organic agriculture and marketing in this nation.
The CSREES Organic Transition Program was funded at $2.1 million in
fiscal year 2003, $1.9 million in fiscal year 2004, and $1.88 million
for both fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Given the rapid increase in demand
for organic foods and other products, and the growing importance of
organic agriculture, the research needs of the organic community are
expanding commensurately. Therefore, we are requesting that the program
be funded at $5 million in fiscal year 2007. In addition, we are
requesting that the Organic Transition Program remain a separate
program, and not be subsumed within the National Research Initiative,
as proposed in the President's budget.
USDA/CSREES
National Research Initiative (NRI) Request: Language
directing CSREES to add a new NRI program area to
foster classical plant and animal breeding
In recent decades, public resources for classical plant and animal
breeding have dwindled, while resources have shifted toward genomics
and biotechnology, with a focus on a limited set of major crops and
breeds. Unfortunately, this shift has significantly curtailed the
public access to plant and animal germplasm, and limited the diversity
of seed variety and animal breed development. This problem has been
particularly acute for organic and sustainable farmers, who seek access
to germplasm well suited to their unique cropping systems and their
local environment. Without renewed funding in this arena, the public
capacity for plant and animal breeding will disappear.
In both of fiscal years 2005 and 2006, the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee included report language raising concerns
about this problem, and urging CSREES to give greater consideration to
research needs related to classical plant and animal breeding, when
setting priorities within the National Research Initiative. Despite
this report language, research proposals for classical plant and animal
breeding that have sought NRI funding in the past couple of years have
been consistently declined. Further, the shift in NRI toward work on
genomics and biotechnology continues, to the exclusion of classical
plant and animal breeding.
As the nation's preeminent agricultural competitive grants program,
the National Research Initiative should be funding classical plant and
animal breeding activities. The NRI currently has over 30 program areas
of focus. We are requesting that an additional program area be created
within the NRI to foster this important research, and that this new
program area be entitled, ``Classical Plant and Animal Breeding to
Foster More Diverse, Energy Efficient and Environmentally Sustainable
Agricultural Systems.''
USDA/CSREES
Sustainable Agriculture Research Request: $15 million
(Chapter 1) and Education (SARE) and $5 million
(Chapter 3)
The SARE program has been very successful in funding on-farm
research on environmentally sound and profitable practices and systems,
including organic production. The reliable information developed and
distributed through SARE grants have been invaluable to organic
farmers. We are requesting $15 million for Chapter 1 and $5 million for
Chapter 3 for fiscal year 2007.
USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service Appropriate Technology Transfer
for Rural Areas (ATTRA) Request: $3.1 million
ATTRA is a national sustainable agriculture information service,
which provides practical information and technical assistance to
farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, educators and others interested in
sustainable agriculture. ATTRA interacts with the public, not only
through its call-in service and website, but also provides numerous
publications written to help address some of the most frequently asked
questions of farmers and educators. Much of the real-world assistance
provided by ATTRA is extremely helpful to the organic community. As a
result, the growth in demand for ATTRA services has increased
significantly, both through the website-based information services and
through the growing requests for workshops. We are requesting $3.1
million for ATTRA for fiscal year 2007, representing a $600,000
increase over fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 levels. These funds
would be used to initiate a Farm Energy Initiative, to respond to the
high demand for information and technical assistance from farmers about
ways to increase their energy efficiency in response to high energy
costs.
USDA/ARS
Strategic Regional Programming for Organic Agricultural
Research Request: $10 million, divided between
regions
In 2005, USDA-ARS spent about $3.5 million on organic-specific
projects, or about 0.35 percent of the overall ARS budget for fiscal
year 2005. Given its growing importance in the overall agricultural
economy, the commitment by ARS to organic research must be greatly
enhanced.
Distributed among the 7 Regional Areas and the ARS National Program
Office, this funding would provide needed flexibility to better address
the broad needs and opportunities of the organic production and
processing sector. Funding will be allocated by the Area Directors to:
(1) maintain and enhance existing CRIS projects, scientists and
technicians whose objectives are specific to organic production and
processing; and (2) provide support to integrate organic agriculture
objectives into other projects, when such capacity exists.
USDA/NRCS
Conservation Security Program Request: No Funding
Limitation
USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service
Value-Added Producer Grants Request: No Funding Limitation
The Conservation Security Program (authorized by Section 2001 of
the 2002 farm bill) and the Value-Added Producer Grant (authorized by
Section 6401 of the 2002 farm bill) have great potential to benefit
organic producers in their efforts to conserve natural resources and to
explore new, value-added enterprises as part of their operations.
Unfortunately, while these programs were authorized to operate with
mandatory funding, their usefulness has been limited by funding
restrictions imposed through the annual appropriations process. We are
urging that the Conservation Security Program and the Value-Added
Producer Grant Program be permitted to operate with unrestricted
mandatory funding, as authorized.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for your
consideration on these critical funding requests.
______

Prepared Statement of National Potato Council

My name is Ed Schneider. I am a potato farmer from Pasco,
Washington 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 is
estimated at 437,888,000 cwt. with a farm value of $3.2 billion. Total
value is substantially increased through processing. The potato crop
clearly has a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
The potato is the most popular of all vegetables grown and consumed
in the United States and one of the most popular in the world. Annual
per capita consumption was 136.5 pounds in 2003, up from 104 pounds in
1962 and is increasing due to the advent of new products and heightened
public awareness of the potato's excellent nutritional value. Potatoes
are considered a nutritious consumer commodity and an integral,
delicious component of the American diet.
The NPC's fiscal year 2007 appropriations priorities are as
follows:
Potato Research
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service
(CSREES)
The NPC urges the Congress not to support the President's fiscal
year 2007 budget request to eliminate the CSREES Special Grant Programs
and the formula funds under the Hatch Act. Both of these programs
support important university research work that helps our growers
remain competitive in today's domestic and world marketplace.
The NPC supports an appropriation of $1.8 million for the Special
Potato Grant program for fiscal year 2007. The Congress appropriated
$1.417 million in fiscal year 2004, a decrease from the fiscal year
2003 level of $1.584 million and $1.509 million in fiscal year 2005.
This has been a highly successful program and the number of funding
requests from various potato-producing regions is increasing.

The NPC also urges that the Congress 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
after review by the Potato Industry Working Group.''
Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
The NPC urges that the Congress not support the Administration's
fiscal year 2007 budget request to rescind all fiscal year 2005
Congressional increases for research projects.
The Congress provided funds for a number of important ARS projects
and, due to previous direction by the Congress, the ARS continues to
work with the NPC on how overall research funds can best be utilized
for grower priorities.
Foreign Market Development: Market Access Program (MAP)
The NPC also urges that the Congress maintain the spending level
for the Market Access Program (MAP) at its authorized level of $200
million for fiscal year 2007 and not support the Administration's
budget request to cap this valuable export program at the $125 million
level.
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)
The NPC supports the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of
$152.4 million for the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). This
level is the minimum necessary for the agency given the multitude of
trade negotiations and discussions currently underway.
Food Aid Programs
Mcgovern-Dole
The NPC supports the Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget
request of $100 million for the McGovern-Dole International Food Aid
Program. PVO's have been including potato products in their
applications for this program.
Public Law 480
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget requests $1.2 billion for
USAID programs, including $964 million for USAID Public Law 480 Title
II programs. The President's budget also transfers $300 million from
USAID Title II activities funded under the Agriculture Budget to the
Foreign Operations Budget. The NPC urges that the $300 million be
reinstated in the regular USAID Public Law 480 Title II budget to avoid
a significant loss of applications for dehydrated potatoes in Title II
programs and procurement of U.S. food commodities for food aid.
Pest and Disease Management
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Golden Nematode Quarantine.--The NPC supports an appropriation of
$1,266,000 for this quarantine which is what is believed to be
necessary for USDA and the State of New York to assure official control
of this pest. Failure to do so could adversely impact potato exports.
Given the transfer of Agriculture Quarantine Inspection (AQI)
personnel at U.S. ports to the Department of Homeland Security, it is
important that certain USDAAPHIS programs be adequately funded to
ensure progress on export petitions and protection of the U.S. potato
growers from invasive and harmful pests and diseases.
Pest Detection.--The NPC supports $45 million in fiscal year 2007,
which is the Administration's budget request. Now that the Agriculture
Quarantine Inspection (AQI) program is within the new Homeland Security
Agency, this increase is essential for the Plant Protection and
Quarantine Service's (PPQ) efforts against potato pests and diseases
such as Ralstonia.
Emerging Plant Pests.--$101 million was appropriated in fiscal year
2005. The President requests $127 million in fiscal year 2007 which the
NPC supports.
The NPC supports having the Congress once again include language to
prohibit the issuance of a final rule that shifts the costs of pest and
disease eradication and control to the States and cooperators.
Trade Issues Resolution Management.--$12,578,000 was appropriated
in fiscal year 2005 and the President requests $18 million in fiscal
year 2007. The NPC supports this increase only if it is specifically
earmarked for plant protection and quarantine activities. These
activities are of increased importance yet none of these funds are used
directly for plant protection activities. As new trade agreements are
negotiated, the agency must have the necessary staff and technology to
work on plant related import/export issues. The NPC also relies heavily
on APHIS-PPQ resources to resolve phytosanitary trade barriers in a
timely manner.
Agricultural Statistics
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
The NPC supports sufficient funds and guiding language to assure
that the potato objective yield and grade and size surveys are
continued.
Rural Development Grants
Since potato growers do not receive direct payments, the 2002 Farm
Bill provided for, among other things, grants to allow our growers to
expand their business opportunities. One program that has been used by
our growers is the value-added grant program. The NPC would urge that
the Farm Bill funding level for this program be maintained. In
addition, maintaining adequate farm labor is also important to our
growers. The NPC urges that farm labor housing grants be maintained and
not reduced as proposed by the Administration's budget request.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Rural Telecom Association

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 2007 in
the amounts requested in the President's budget for 5 percent direct
($144 million) and cost of-money ($247 million) and the associated
subsidy, as required, to fund those programs at the requested levels.
--Supporting Sec. 306 guaranteed loans in the amount ($299 million)
requested in the budget.
--Opposing the budget request that would cut direct loans for
broadband facilities and internet service access by almost 30
percent from the fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $500 million
to $356 million. Supporting the request to fund the program
through discretionary funding and the budget proposal to
provide $30 million of the authorized level in broadband loans
at an interest rate of 4 percent.
--Supporting the completion of the dissolution of the Rural Telephone
Bank in fiscal year 2006 in accordance with the
administration's budget assumption.
--Supporting continued funding, as requested in the President's
budget, in the amount of $25 million in grant authority
designated for distance learning and medical link purposes.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee: My name is John F. O'Neal.
I am General Counsel of the National Rural Telecom Association. NRTA is
comprised of commercial telephone companies that borrow their capital
needs from the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (RUS) to furnish and improve telephone service in rural
areas. Approximately 1000, or 71 percent of the Nation's local
telephone systems borrow from RUS. About three-fourths of these are
commercial telephone companies. RUS borrowers serve almost 6 million
subscribers in 46 states and employ over 22,000 people. In accepting
loan funds, borrowers assume an obligation under the act to serve the
widest practical number of rural users within their service area.
Program Background
Rural telephone systems have an ongoing need for long-term, fixed
rate capital at affordable interest rates. Since 1949, that capital has
been provided through telecommunications lending programs administered
by the Rural Utilities Service and its predecessor, the Rural
Electrification Agency (REA).
RUS loans are made exclusively for capital improvements and loan
funds are segregated from borrower operating revenues. Loans are not
made to fund operating revenues or profits of the borrower system.
There is a proscription in the Act against loans duplicating existing
facilities that provide adequate service and state authority to
regulate telephone service is expressly preserved under the Rural
Electrification Act.
Rural telephone systems operate at a severe geographical handicap
when compared with other telephone companies. While almost 6 million
rural telephone subscribers receive telephone service from RUS borrower
systems, they account for only 4 percent of total U.S. subscribers. On
the other hand, borrower service territories total 37 percent of the
land area--nearly 12 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 this administration endeavors to deploy broadband technology and as
customers and regulators constantly demand improved and enhanced
services. At the same time, the underlying statutory authority
governing the current program has undergone significant change. In
1993, telecommunications lending was refocused toward facilities
modernization. Much of the subsidy cost has been eliminated from the
program. In fact, most telecommunications lending programs now generate
revenue for the government. The subsidy that remains has been targeted
to the highest cost, lowest density systems in accordance with this
administration's stated objectives.
We are proud to state once again for the record that there has
never been a loan default by a rural telephone system! All of their
loans have been repaid in accordance with their terms: $13 billion in
principal and interest at the end of the last fiscal year.
Need for RUS Telecommunications Lending Continues
The need for rural telecommunications lending is great today,
possibly even greater than in the past. Technological advances make it
imperative that rural telephone companies upgrade their systems to keep
pace with improvements and provide the latest available technology to
their subscribers. And 5 years ago, Congress established a national
policy initiative mandating access to broadband for rural areas. But
rapid technological changes and the inherently higher costs to serve
rural areas have not abated, and targeted support remains essential.
Competition among telephone systems and other technological
platforms have increased pressures to shift more costs onto rural
ratepayers. These led to increases in both interstate subscriber line
charges and universal service surcharges on end users to recover the
costs of interstate providers' assessments to fund the Federal
mechanisms. Pressures to recover more of the higher costs of rural
service from rural customers to compete in urban markets continue to
burden rural consumers. There is a growing funding crisis for the
statutory safeguards adopted in 1996 to ensure that rates, services and
network development in rural America will be reasonably comparable to
urban telecommunications opportunities.
Ongoing Congressional Mandates for Rural Telecommunications
Considerable loan demand is being generated because of the mandates
for enhanced rural telecommunications standards contained in the
authorizing legislation. We are, therefore, recommending the following
loan levels for fiscal year 2007 and the appropriation of the
associated subsidy costs, as required, to support these levels:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent Direct Loans.................................. $144,000,000
Cost-of-Money Loans..................................... 247,000,000
Guaranteed Loans........................................ 299,000,000
Broadband Loans......................................... 500,000,000
---------------
Total............................................. 1,190,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are the same levels for 5 percent direct, cost-of-money loans
and guaranteed loans, as requested in the President's budget for fiscal
year 2007 and the enacted amount for broadband loans in the fiscal year
2006 appropriations act. The authorized levels of loans in each of
these programs were substantially obligated in fiscal year 2005 and
current estimates are that authorized program levels will be met in
fiscal year 2006. We believe that the needs of this program balanced
with the minimal cost to the taxpayer make the case for its
continuation at the stated levels.
Rural Telephone Bank Dissolution Initiative
Congress established the Rural Telephone Bank 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. However, changed circumstances in the rural telephone
industry and difficulties associated with accelerating privatization of
the Rural Telephone Bank have made this transition to private ownership
and control problematic raising difficult questions about the viability
of a privatized bank and its future support among rural telephone
systems.
In recognition of these factors, the administration, subject to
congressional approval, determined to dissolve the bank in fiscal year
2006 pursuant to Sec. 411 of the RTB enabling act. We continue to
support this action as well as the budget recommendation to transfer
the historic lending authority of the RTB ($175 million) to the
guaranteed loan program so that rural telephone systems will continue
to have adequate loan resources available for rural telecommunications
infrastructure development at the levels intended by the Congress. We
share the assumption in the fiscal year 2007 budget that the bank's
dissolution will be completed during the current fiscal year.
The Broadband Loan Program
The broadband loan program was funded last year for the current
fiscal year at $500 million. Very little subsidy cost is associated
with this program since most of the loans are made at the government's
cost-of-money. Despite that, the President's budget recommends reducing
the loan levels for fiscal year 2007 by almost 30 percent to $356
million. We are opposed to that and recommend to the committee that the
fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill continue to fund the program at
enacted levels. The demand for this program is still quite strong and
if the President's stated objective of deploying this technology to all
rural areas of this country is to be met, the $500 million funding
level must be maintained.
At the same time, this year's budget recognizes that given the high
costs involved in the more sparsely populated areas requires subsidy
assistance and recommends that $30 million of the authorized level of
these loans be made at a 4 percent interest rate. We support that
initiative as well as the budget request to fund the program through
discretionary rather than mandatory funding.
Grants for Medical Link and Distance Learning Purposes
We support the continuation in fiscal year 2007 of the $25 million
in grant authority provided in the President's budget for medical link
and distance learning purposes and the decision to not request
additional loan funds for these programs. The purpose of these grants
is to accelerate deployment of medical link 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 agree with the
conclusion in the budget that these projects are more feasible when
provided through grants to eligible recipients rather than loans.
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. They serve
to assure that America's rural inhabitants will never become second-
class citizens in this modern information age of telecommunications
technology.
______

Prepared Statement of the National WIC Association

Dear Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl: We write on behalf
of the National WIC Association, NWA, to present comments on the
President's proposal to fund the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program
for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, for the fiscal year
2007.
We write on behalf of the thousands of nationally recognized WIC
health professionals, nutritionists and dietitians who are committed to
addressing the nutrition and healthcare needs of WIC families. Our
members serve over 8.0 million low and moderate-income women and
children with, or at risk of developing, nutrition-related health
problems through 2,100 WIC agencies in 10,000 WIC clinics each month.
WIC serves almost one-half of all infants born in this country and
roughly 1 in 4 of all children between 1 and 5 years of age. Our
members are the front lines battling to improve the quality of life for
our most vulnerable populations.
At the outset, we would like to compliment both of you and members
of the Subcommittee for your long-term commitment to WIC. The future of
our Nation's low-income women, infants and children depend upon your
support. NWA is proud of the strong bi-partisan commitment WIC has
engendered since its inception.
As well, we compliment the President, Secretary Mike Johanns, Under
Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services Eric Bost and
their teams for their past support of WIC.
We applaud the President for proposing to provide $15 million for
breastfeeding initiatives, $14 million for infrastructure funds, $125
million to restore the contingency fund, and to maintain the moratorium
on new WIC-Only vendors.
In contrast to the President's budget proposal of $5.2 billion, NWA
strongly recommends that WIC be funded at $5.388 billion. NWA's
recommended funding level is $188 million above the President's request
and redresses the damages from the proposed cap on NSA funding ($152
million), the proposal to cap Medicaid adjunctive eligibility ($3
million), a failure to provide funding for essential MIS needs ($30
million) and important health outcomes research ($3 million).
We are dismayed that the President has again offered his proposal
to cap nutrition services funding (NSA) at 25 percent of the total
amount provided--that Congress wisely defeated in the 1st Session of
the 109th Congress. This proposal will reduce services for all mothers
and children and because States are highly unlikely to be able to
further reduce per participant costs, 850,000 mothers and children
could potentially lose essential nutrition services benefits.
Nutrition services include nutrition assessment, counseling and
education, obesity prevention efforts, breastfeeding support and
promotion efforts, on-going interventions of nutrition related
complications of pregnancy, complex feeding and growth issues of
infants and children, follow-up of special metabolic formulas, pre-
natal and pediatric healthcare referrals and follow-up, spousal and
child abuse referral, drug and alcohol counseling referral,
immunization screening assessment and referral and a host of other
client benefits. Simply put, the President's proposal to cap nutrition
services funding, NSA, represents a significant benefit cut to WIC
mothers and children.
The Government Accountability Office, GAO, in its mandated report
to Congress entitled ``Food Assistance: WIC Faces Challenges in
Providing Nutrition Services,'' published in December 2001, writes
that: ``WIC has been faced with the challenge of meeting additional
program requirements with available resources. Since the late 1980's, a
number of requirements have been placed on the program aimed at, among
other things, containing the cost of food benefits, promoting
breastfeeding, encouraging immunizations, and controlling program
abuse. While these requirements have placed additional service delivery
and administrative demands on WIC staff, they have not been accompanied
by more funding per participant; the NSA grant per participant was
established in 1989 and since then has only been adjusted for
inflation. There is also evidence that nonfederal support for NSA may
have decreased since fiscal year 1992. Nor have the additional demands
been offset by reductions in other responsibilities. As a result, WIC
agencies have had to cut costs and make changes in service delivery
that potentially will have a negative impact on the quality of WIC
services (GAO-02-142, p. 31).''
Balancing increased program demands and available resources has
forced WIC Programs across the nation to cut costs despite increasing
needs.
Indeed, local agencies have been forced to consolidate or close
clinics and in some cases dramatically increase participant to staff
ratios to unacceptable levels of 1,000:1 or 1,200:1 from 300:1. The GAO
quotes 1998 and 2001 USDA studies that found that ``22 percent of local
agencies serving almost 25 percent of all WIC participants reported
having inadequate office space. Additionally, 30 percent of local
agencies serving about 41 percent of all WIC participants reported
having insufficient numbers of professional staff. Finally, 56 percent
of State WIC agency automated management information systems were not
capable of performing, or efficiently performing, 1 or more of 19
essential program tasks (GAO-02-142, p. 37).'' Evidence suggests that
this situation has only gotten worse.
It is important to note that State cost containment efforts have
significantly contributed to reducing WIC food package costs. Indeed,
savings from infant formula cost containment efforts allow WIC to cover
the food benefits provided to roughly 20 percent of WIC mothers and
children and saved the Subcommittee and Federal tax payers over $23
billion since 1989. ``If rebate savings are considered, NSA has
remained roughly 20 percent of total program costs from 1988 through
1999 (GAO-02-142, p. 34).'' In essence, cost containment has
effectively capped NSA at unreasonably low levels. A legislated cap has
the potential to further diminish the success and savings the Program
has achieved.
It takes NSA resources to prescribe and distribute WIC food
packages and maintain program integrity. The President's proposed cap
on WIC NSA funding will result in unspent WIC food resources and unmet
participant needs, increasing the vulnerability of all ready food
insecure mothers and children. We cannot imagine that the President
intends this result when in previous years he was so committed to
ensuring that WIC received additional overall Program funding.
WIC's population, like the general population, has experienced
dramatic increases in the prevalence of overweight and obesity and
related health issues. A study released by the Department of Health and
Human Services' Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows that
deaths due to poor diet and physical inactivity rose by 33 percent over
the past decade and may soon overtake tobacco use as the leading
preventable cause of death. WIC Programs across the Nation have been
actively engaged in obesity prevention efforts since the turn of the
millennium and WIC is recognized for its role in addressing the
Nation's obesity health crisis.
WIC uses multiple key nutrition services strategies in the
Program's nearly 10,000 clinics to combat the growing national obesity
epidemic. These include:
--Individualized nutrition assessments provided to mothers and
children to identify overweight or obesity among other
nutrition risks;
--Individualized nutrition counseling provided for at-risk mothers
and children;
--Prescribed, tailored, reduced fat and low-sugar WIC food packages
provided to all WIC mothers and children that include reduced
or non-fat milk, reduced-fat cheese, and cereals with 6 grams
of sugar or less;
--Counseling to promote increased physical activity;
--Counseling for eating and life-style behaviors that may contribute
to overweight and obesity;
--Instruction on how to select and prepare healthy foods;
--Active promotion and support of breastfeeding as the best form of
infant feeding--acknowledged to aid in preventing childhood
overweight and obesity.
Inadequate nutrition services and administration funding will
stifle WIC's efforts to achieve positive nutrition outcomes.
The net result of the President's proposal to cap nutrition
services funding, NSA, would be to harm the Program and to erode
benefits and services for mothers and children.
We urge the Subcommittee to once again exempt WIC from the proposed
cap on Nutrition Services funding to protect critical WIC participant
benefits.
NWA urges the Subcommittee not to override WIC's authorizing
statute and to provide $30 million annually outside of the regular NSA
grant to implement MIS core functions, upgrade and maintain WIC
technology systems, achieve program efficiencies and economies, and
render systems EBT ready. This will fulfill the President's own WIC
technology initiative, embodied in the Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004.
The President, in his WIC reauthorization agenda, recognized that
technology provides a critical foundation for quality WIC services and
Program Integrity. He recognized that funding WIC technology from
existing resources compromises WIC's ability to deliver services and
develop responsive MIS systems. Current limits on funding prevent more
than half--56 percent--of WIC State agencies from meeting USDA core
functions. Among these core functions are those that are critical for
States to effectively manage grant funds and food cost containment
efforts.
To develop and maintain MIS and electronic service delivery
systems, and to link with other health data systems the President urged
Congress during reauthorization to earmark and provide a funding level
of $30 million annually outside the regular NSA grant to implement MIS
core functions, upgrade WIC technology systems, maintain MIS and
electronic services and expedite the joint NWA/USDA 5 year plan for
State MIS systems. This funding level is a mere down payment for the
actual costs of improving outdated and outmoded MIS systems--USDA
reported in 2001 that ``the cost of bringing WIC's essential program
tasks up to standard in all States over the next 6 years is between
$147 million and $267 million (GAO-02-142, p. 22).''
The President's fiscal year 2007 proposal provides no monies for
MIS, seriously jeopardizing mandated vendor cost containment
requirements and impending changes to the WIC food packages essential
to combating obesity. We urge the Subcommittee to act to fund MIS and
electronic service delivery systems at $30 million in its
appropriations bill.
NWA urges that Congress continue to save Medicaid funds by ensuring
that all Medicaid recipients remain automatically income eligible for
WIC. The President has again proposed a cap on Medicaid adjunctive
eligibility, freezing that eligibility level at 250 percent. This
proposal, wisely rejected by Congress last year, most directly affects
MD, MO, MN, NH, RI and VT.
This proposal flies in the face of the Administration's purported
efforts to reduce NSA costs by driving up the expense of doing WIC
business for the six States directly affected. Though it eliminates
eligibility for only a small number of individuals, it would require
the affected States to accomplish duplicative income documentation for
all Medicaid recipients applying for WIC. It would have the unintended
consequence of potentially discouraging otherwise WIC eligible mothers
and children from applying if they feel that they may not be eligible,
undermining the preventative impact of WIC and adding unnecessary
administrative burden.
Although this proposal is not included in the fiscal year 2007
budget request for WIC, the President has signaled his intention in the
Administration's fiscal year 2007 budget request to recommend in fiscal
year 2008 a required State match of 20 percent for nutrition services
(NSA) funds. NWA urges Subcommittee members to oppose this
recommendation. Based on USDA data, adjusted for inflation, in fiscal
year 2008, should States fail to provide a match, more than 1.5 million
mothers and children would be at risk of losing critical nutrition
services benefits!
It is inconceivable that State legislatures and governors would be
willing to provide matching funds. This proposal would be disastrous
for the future of WIC, leading to a significant deterioration in
services and State and local agencies closing down clinics, even entire
programs. WIC food benefits cannot be prescribed or provided, nor can
program integrity be maintained without adequate NSA resources.
A matching grant would undermine or even eliminate current
effective collaborative relationships due to reduced resources.
Collaboration is already jeopardized with some programs that have
limited resources as a result of Federal and State funding cuts.
A national priority for 32 years, WIC ensures healthy pregnancies,
babies and children. To make WIC anything less than a national priority
runs the risk of increased infant mortality and increased numbers of
low birth weight infants. WIC must remain a national priority.
Finally, NWA has sought changes in the WIC Food Packages since
2000, attempting to bring them in line with current dietary science.
The Association has encouraged USDA/FNS to publish a proposed rule
transforming the WIC food packages by adding fresh, frozen and canned
fruits and vegetables, among other changes proposed by the National
Academy of Sciences Institutes of Medicine. NWA urges the Subcommittee
to continue to press USDA/FNS for immediate publication of a proposed
rule, reflecting the IOM's recommendations, with a minimum 90-day
public comment period. The time for change in the WIC food packages is
now if we are to continue to meet the challenges of ensuring healthy
children and preventing obesity in low-income populations.
NWA urges the Subcommittee to fully fund WIC for the fiscal year
2007 at $5.388 billion, oppose the NSA and Medicaid caps, fund MIS at
$30 million, fund breastfeeding initiatives at $15 million, fund
infrastructure needs at $14 million, fully restore the WIC contingency
fund to $125 million, continue the moratorium on new WIC-Only stores
until State agencies are in full compliance with the Interim Final Rule
on Vendor Cost Containment, and fund WIC health outcomes research at $3
million.
WIC is a short-term intervention program designed to influence
lifetime nutrition behaviors and lifelong health outcomes in a
targeted, high-risk population. It has an extraordinary, nearly 31-year
record of preventing children's health problems and improving their
health, growth and development. WIC children enter school ready to
learn. They show better cognitive performance. It would be tragic to
undo 32 years of success and reverse the President's own multi-year
commitment to the families WIC serves.
______

Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate this
opportunity to present The Nature Conservancy's recommendations for
fiscal year 2007 appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development,
Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies. My name is Jimmie
Powell and I am the Director of Government Relations at the
Conservancy.
The Nature Conservancy is an international, nonprofit organization
dedicated to the conservation of biological diversity. Our mission is
to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent
the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they
need to survive. Our on-the-ground conservation work is carried out in
all 50 states and in 27 foreign countries and is supported by
approximately one million individual members. We have helped conserve
nearly 15 million acres of land in the United States and Canada and
more than 102 million acres with local partner organizations globally.
Much of my testimony today will concern the pests, pathogens and
other invasive species that threaten natural landscapes and working
lands all across our Nation. These threats are urgent and it is most
important that the federal government provide leadership now in
addressing this growing threat to our economy and to the wildlife and
plants of our continent.
Asian Longhorned Beetle.--The Asian Longhorned Beetle kills a wide
variety of hardwood trees, particularly sugar maple. ALB threatens to
devastate forests reaching from New England to the Great Lakes.
Currently the beetle is found primarily in New York City and New
Jersey. APHIS, working with state, and local officials, is succeeding
in a 10-year program to eradicate ALB. The President has proposed
funding of $19.927 million in fiscal year 2007 as compared to the
$19.859 million appropriated (after recision) in fiscal year 2006. We
urge the Subcommittee to fund ALB at $30 million in fiscal year 2007,
so that the ongoing efforts to eradicate this pest will succeed.
Failure to eradicate the ALB exposes both urban and rural areas of
northern states to substantial risk. If not stopped, ALB could kill 30
percent of the Nation's urban trees at a compensatory value of $669
billion. If it is unchecked, the New England maple syrup industry is
threatened as well as autumn foliage tourism which generates $1 billion
in revenue in New England every year.
Cactus Moth.--The cactus moth kills prickly pear cacti. First found
in Florida, the moth is rapidly moving along the Gulf Coast (currently
it has traveled as far as Alabama). APHIS has bred a sterile cactus
moth that may help control the spread of this pest. Control of the
cactus moth before it disperses around the Gulf Coast would protect the
vast diversity of prickly pear cacti in the southwestern United States
and Mexico. There are 31 likely host prickly pear species (opuntia) for
the moth across the United States (9 found nowhere else in the world),
including the federally endangered Opuntia treleasei, and 56 in Mexico
(38 found nowhere else in the world). Control would also protect
agricultural interests. Horticultural production of prickly pears
occurs in Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Texas. Annual
revenues for Arizona alone are estimated at $14 million. In drought
years, ranchers in Texas have burned the spines off opuntias and fed
them to cattle. Thus, the cactus moth presents both a critical
ecological and agricultural threat. We urge you to fund eradication
efforts at $1.5 million in fiscal year 2007 for a full sterile release
program.
Emerald Ash Borer.--The Emerald Ash Borer (EAB), an Asian native,
was detected in 2002. Control programs began in 2003. The quarantine
area now covers nearly 20,000 square miles in Michigan's Lower
Peninsula and nearby areas in Indiana, Ohio, with additional areas in
Ontario. At present, spread of the emerald ash borer to the Upper
Peninsula, Illinois, and Wisconsin is partially prevented by the Great
Lakes. However, if eradication efforts are not sufficiently aggressive,
EAB will spread further south into Ohio and Indiana, and be carried to
other vulnerable areas in the East and Midwest. Seven billion ash trees
are at risk across the Nation, at an estimated cost of $282 billion. We
urge the Subcommittee to provide APHIS with $55 million to contain the
Emerald Ash Borer in fiscal year 2007. In fiscal year 2006, APHIS is
spending only $9.93 million in appropriated funds. We support the
efforts of Governors and other partners to obtain urgently needed
emergency funds drawn from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to
contain this beetle. Since funding must continue at this higher level
for the program to succeed, it is important that the Congress
appropriate $55 million in fiscal year 2007 and beyond.
Sudden Oak Death.--Since 2000, APHIS has worked with California,
Oregon, and other states to prevent the spread of Sudden Oak Death
(SOD). This disease infects at least 40 native tree, shrub and herb
species. The disease kills a variety of western and eastern oak trees.
SOD has already killed one hundred thousand tanoaks, live oaks and
black oaks in California. If SOD spreads into Oregon and Washington, it
could severely disrupt production and movement of Douglas-fir seedlings
used in replanting. If SOD spreads to the East, it is likely to kill
large numbers of red oaks. Collectively the red and white oaks comprise
38 percent of the Nation's total hardwood saw-timber volume.
Containing Sudden Oak Death has become more challenging as the
number of host plants has grown. The situation became a crisis in 2004
when officials discovered that infected nursery plants had been shipped
to more than 200 nurseries across the country. APHIS adopted highly
restrictive regulations to prevent a recurrence of the 2004 crisis that
are proving effective: in 2005, inspectors detected infected plants in
56 nurseries, only 8 of which were not on the West Coast. In fiscal
year 2007, at least $9 million is needed to ensure the continued
efficacy of these regulations and curb the spread of this disease.
Sirex Woodwasp.--This wood-boring insect native to Europe, Asia,
and North Africa has been introduced into pine plantations in several
countries in the Southern Hemisphere where it caused serious damage
before the release of a biological control agent reduced the problem.
The wasp has now become established in New York and Ontario. According
to the USDA Forest Service, if the Sirex woodwasp is allowed to spread,
within 55 years it could cause damage ranging from $3 billion to $17
billion to U.S. pine timber and pulp production, primarily in the
South. To forestall these damages, APHIS must implement regulations to
prevent movement of infested material while expediting the safety
review required before any release in North America of the biological
control agent. We anticipate that APHIS will need several million
dollars for this new activity.
USDA Agriculture Research Service.--The Conservancy urges the
Subcommittee to provide funding for the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) to study possible biological control agents targeting two insects
that threaten the unique cycad forests of Guam. The Asian cycad scale
and cycad blue butterfly--both individually and together--are on track
to destroy these forests. ARS staff at the Ft. Pierce, Florida
laboratory should receive funds to identify and test possible
biological control agents targeting these two harmful insects.
Additional funds are needed for staff on Guam.
Noxious Weed Control and Eradication Act.--We respectfully request
$15 million to fully implement the Noxious Weed Control and Eradication
Act of 2004, enacted by the 108th Congress. As control and management
of invasive species are important for agriculture, natural areas,
forestry, and rangeland, this effort has strong bipartisan support.
This issue is vital to the health of the Nation's economy and
ecosystems. Funding for this program now will save money in the long-
term.
Pest and Disease Management Programs.--APHIS provides technical and
financial support to help control or eradicate a variety of threats to
our agricultural and natural systems. In an attempt to further combat
pest and disease outbreaks and problems the Administration has proposed
a $10 million pilot competitive-bid program to award grants to private
groups who can respond to invasive species with innovative
methodologies. It has been noted that a major obstacle to APHIS'
ability to rapidly respond to infestations is that there is no national
system that addresses all types of invasive species infestations--those
affecting aquatic areas, rangelands, and forests as well as crops and
livestock. With this pilot program the agency may be able to increase
its effectiveness with invasive species by including the early
involvement of on the ground groups who recognize the urgent need for
rapid response, active involvement, and can bring with them pioneering
and resourceful tactics.
Wetlands Reserve Program.--America's wetlands are the habitat for
thousands of species of wildlife, and up to half of all North American
bird species nest or feed in wetlands and about half of all threatened
and endangered species use wetlands. In addition, our wetlands help to
trap pollution, reduce the impact of floods, stabilize shore areas, and
provide recreational opportunities. President Bush has committed to
increasing the number of wetland acres in the United States and has
requested full funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) in his
fiscal year 2007 budget request. Full funding of WRP would allow for
enrollment of 250,000 acres in 2007, the full yearly authorized amount
in the 2002 Farm Bill. WRP is the key component in meeting the
president's promise to create, improve and protect at least 3 million
wetland acres over a 5-year period that ends in 2009.
Another very effective program administered under WRP, is the
Wetlands Reserve Enhancement Program (WREP), which uses existing
authority to enhance the delivery of WRP. Specifically, WREP provides
an avenue for NRCS to form special partnerships with States, local
governments, and non-profit organizations to improve and expand the
delivery of WRP through easement acquisition and activities associated
with wetland restoration, creation, or enhancement. We are pleased to
see NRCS using this tool to direct funding to locally initiated and led
projects that achieve maximum environmental benefits while remaining
cost-effective and leveraging non-Federal funds. We fully support the
expanded use of this program and propose that with an increased funding
level for WRP, NRCS be encouraged to expand its financial assistance
available for WREP.
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program.--The Wildlife Habitat Incentive
Program (WHIP) is a highly-effective and widely-accepted program across
the country. WHIP is able to target wildlife habitat projects on all
lands and aquatic areas, and provides assistance to conservation-minded
landowners to develop and improve wildlife habitat on their lands. We
recommend that the committee support the President's program request
for an increase of $12 million over the 2006 level. The Conservancy
supports the NRCS proposal to target $10 million to improve migratory
fish habitats by removing obstructions from rivers, such as small
private dams and water diversions. This focus will help to create
incentives to protect streamside areas, repair instream habitat,
improve water flows and water quality, or initiate watershed management
and planning in areas where streams are in a degraded condition due to
past practices.
Conservation Reserve Program.--The Conservancy has been a strong
supporter of USDA's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and supports the
full authorized enrollment of 39 million acres. Roughly 35 million
acres across the country are under short term CRP rental agreements,
and beginning in 2007, contracts representing over 22 million acres
will expire, over 62 percent of those acres. USDA's Farm Service Agency
(FSA) is currently deciding how to handle this large number of expiring
contracts and additional acres, as well.
Few environmental programs have matched the scope and achievement
of CRP. Since its inception in 1986, the program has been responsible
for reducing soil erosion by nearly 40 percent and restoring the
grassland and wetland communities of the Great Plains. However, there
is still so much more that the program could accomplish. We urge the
committee to direct USDA to increase CRP's environmental benefits by:
(1) better targeting CRP enrollments; (2) enhancing the management of
CRP lands; and (3) assuring that inappropriate cover plantings are not
encouraged by the program. In order to achieve these higher
environmental benefits, FSA will need to update and improve the
Environmental Benefits Index (EBI). Proper management of CRP lands and
improved targeting of CRP contracts to attain the highest conservation
goals will require increased funding for the agency as it prepares for
huge reenrollment that it now faces.
______

Prepared Statement of the New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission

SUMMARY

This Statement is submitted in support of appropriations for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP) and the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program.
Prior to the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(FSRIA) in 2002, the salinity control program had not been funded at
the level necessary to control salinity with respect to water quality
standards since the enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement
and Reform Act (FAIRA) of 1996. Inadequate funding of the salinity
control program also negatively impacts the quality of water delivered
to Mexico pursuant to Minute 242 of the International Boundary and
Water Commission. Adequate funding for EQIP, from which the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) funds the salinity program, is needed
to implement salinity control measures. The President's budget for
fiscal year 2007 requests an appropriation of $1 billion for EQIP. I
urge the Subcommittee to support an appropriation of at least $1
billion to be appropriated for EQIP. I request that the Subcommittee
designate 2.5 percent, but no less than $20 million, of the EQIP
appropriation for the Colorado River Basin salinity control program. I
request that adequate funds be appropriated for technical assistance
and education activities directed to salinity control program
participants.

STATEMENT

The seven Colorado River Basin States, in response to the salinity
issues addressed by Clean Water Act of 1972, formed the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum). Comprised of gubernatorial
appointees from the seven Basin States, the Forum was created to
provide for interstate cooperation in response to the Clean Water Act,
and to provide the States with information to comply with Sections
303(a) and (b) of the Act. The Forum has become the primary means for
the seven Basin States to coordinate with Federal agencies and Congress
to support the implementation of the Salinity control program.
Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin salinity control
program in the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974.
Congress amended the Act in 1984 to give new responsibilities to the
USDA. While retaining the Department of the Interior as the lead
coordinator for the salinity control program, the amended Act
recognized the importance of the USDA operating under its authorities
to meet the objectives of the salinity control program. Many of the
most cost-effective projects undertaken by the salinity control program
to date have occurred since implementation of the USDA's authorization
for the program.
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that damages from the Colorado
River to United States water users are about $330,000,000 per year.
Damages are estimated at $75,000,000 per year for every additional
increase of 30 milligrams per liter in salinity of the Colorado River.
It is essential to the cost-effectiveness of the salinity control
program that USDA 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 FAIRA in 1996, that the
salinity control program could be most effectively implemented as a
component of EQIP. However, until 2004, the salinity control program
since the enactment of FAIRA was not funded at an adequate level to
protect the Basin State-adopted and Environmental Protection Agency
approved water quality standards for salinity in the Colorado River.
Appropriations for EQIP prior to 2004 were insufficient to adequately
control salinity impacts from water delivered to the downstream States,
and hampered the required quality of water delivered 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 USDA 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 which do not recognize that water
users hundreds of miles downstream are significant beneficiaries of the
salinity control program. Proposals for EQIP funding are ranked in the
States of Utah, Wyoming and Colorado under the direction of the
respective State Conservationists without consideration of those
downstream, particularly out-of-state, benefits.
Following recommendations of the Basin States to address the
funding problem, the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) designated the Colorado River Basin an ``area of special
interest'' including earmarked funds for the salinity control program.
The NRCS concluded that the salinity control program is different from
the small watershed approach of EQIP. The watershed for the salinity
control program stretches almost 1,200 miles from the headwaters of the
river through the salt-laden soils of the Upper Basin to the river's
termination at the Gulf of California in Mexico. NRCS is to be
commended for its efforts to comply with the USDA's responsibilities
under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act, as amended.
Irrigated agriculture in the Upper Basin realizes significant local
benefits of improved irrigation practices, and agricultural producers
have succeeded in submitting cost-effective proposals to NRCS.
Years of inadequate Federal funding for EQIP since the 1996
enactment of FAIRA and prior to 2004 resulted in the Forum finding that
the salinity control program needs acceleration to maintain the water
quality criteria of the Colorado River Water Quality Standards for
Salinity. Since the enactment of FSRIA in 2002, an opportunity to
adequately fund the salinity control program now exists. The
President's budget request of $1 billion accomplishes the needed
acceleration of the NRCS salinity control program if the USDA continues
its practice of designating 2.5 percent of the EQIP funds appropriated.
The requested funding of 2.5 percent, but no less than $20 million, of
the EQIP funding will continue to be needed each year for at least the
next few fiscal years.
State and local cost-sharing is triggered by and indexed to the
Federal appropriation. Federal funding for the NRCS salinity control
program of about $19.5 million for fiscal year 2006 has generated about
$15.8 million in cost-sharing from the Colorado River Basin States and
agricultural producers, or more than an 80 percent match of the Federal
funds appropriated for the fiscal year.
USDA salinity control projects have proven to be a most cost-
effective component of the salinity control program. USDA 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 are awaiting funding for their
applications to be considered.
The Basin States expend 40 percent of the state funds allocated for
the program for essential NRCS technical assistance and education
activities. Previously, the Federal part of the salinity control
program funded through EQIP failed to adequately fund NRCS for these
activities, which has been shown to be a severe impediment to
accomplishing successful implementation of the salinity control
program. Recent acknowledgement by the Administration that technical
assistance and education activities must be better funded has
encouraged the Basin States and local producers that cost-share with
the EQIP funding for implementation of the essential salinity control
work. I request that adequate funds be appropriated to NRCS technical
assistance and education activities directed to the salinity control
program participants (producers).
I urge the Congress to appropriate at least $1 billion in fiscal
year 2007 for EQIP. Also, I request that Congress designate 2.5
percent, but no less than $20 million, of the EQIP appropriation for
the Colorado River Basin salinity control program.
______

Prepared Statement of the US 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 US
Marine Shrimp Farming Consortium(USMSFC), funded under the Federal
initiative, Shrimp Aquaculture.
We bring to your attention the success of the US Marine Shrimp
Farming Consortium and its value to the Nation. The Consortium consists
of institutions from 7 States: the University of Southern Mississippi/
Gulf Coast Marine Laboratory, Mississippi; the Oceanic Institute,
Hawaii; Tufts University, Massachusetts; Texas Agricultural Experiment
Station, Texas A&M University, Texas; Waddell Mariculture Center, South
Carolina; the University of Arizona, Arizona; and Nicholls State
University, Louisiana. These institutions, which oversee the USMSFC,
have made major advances in technology development and services to
support the U.S. shrimp farming industry. The USDA in its 2004 program
review recognized the program's excellent scientific performance,
output, and multi-state collaborative efforts. The Consortium is at the
crossroads of contributing to major growth of the U.S. shrimp farming
industry, consolidating its competitive advantages, and satisfying
consumer's demands for safe and wholesome seafood products. Shrimp is
the number one consumed seafood product in the United States, yet
contributes to a $3.6 billion trade deficit, second only to the import
of oil for the deficit contributed by natural resource products.
Accomplishments
The Consortium, in cooperation with private industry, industry
associations, and government agencies has generated new technologies
for producing safe and 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
Subcommittee on Aquaculture's efforts to assess the threat of globally
transported shrimp pathogens; (6) served on the Office of International
Epizootics, recommending country-of-origin labeling of imported shrimp
products to combat the spread of exotic disease pathogens, subsequently
adopted by the USDA in its 2002 Farm Bill; (7) supplied the United
States industry with selectively bred and disease-resistant shrimp
stocks; (8) developed advanced technology for biosecure shrimp
production systems to protect both cultured and native wild stocks from
disease; and (9) developed new feed formulations to minimize waste
generation and enhance the use of domestic grains and oilseed products.
These substantial accomplishments advance the continued growth of the
domestic industry place an important emphasis on environmental
sustainability, address concerns for the safety and quality of our
seafood supply, and increase market competitiveness.
Judging from the State of the industry today, USMSFC efforts
continue to have measurable positive effect. Coastal farming continues
to lead in the production of cultured shrimp in the United States,
inland farming has added new dimensions and growth to the industry, and
super-intensive production approaches are gaining momentum.
Improvements in farm management practices coupled with the widespread
use of disease-resistant stocks have resulted in bumper crops for the
industry over the last several years.
With reliable production in place, we have also seen a commensurate
geographic expansion of the industry within the United States from
three to seven States in the last 10 years. A broader industry base,
while increasing production through the addition of new farms, also
provides additional protection to the industry by geographically
isolating different regional sectors in the event of disease outbreaks
or natural disaster. Significant amounts of shrimp are now being
produced in Texas, South Carolina, Florida, Hawaii, Arizona, Alabama,
and Arkansas. Several other States are now beginning to explore
production with the newer, super-intensive technologies being
developed.
In addition, the recent and growing worldwide switch to use of
specific pathogen free (SPF) L. vannamei has created tremendous
opportunity for U.S. shrimp broodstock suppliers. This switch has been
caused by diseases overseas which have affected wild broodstock
animals, lowering overall yield and profitability. The SPF concept for
shrimp, pioneered by the USMSFC, has now been accepted worldwide and
U.S. broodstock suppliers are being overwhelmed by orders for their
stocks. For instance, in 2004, the State of Hawaii gave its exporter of
the year award to a local company specializing in shrimp broodstock.
Estimates are the world market for SPF stocks can reach near $90
million yearly.
Industry Vulnerability
While exceptional progress has been made, this emerging industry is
continually confronted with new challenges. The industry depends on the
USMSFC for leadership and innovative technology development. As a
result of development of high-health and improved stocks, disease
diagnosis, new feeds, and new production technologies and farming
approaches, the domestic industry has maintained relative stability,
while other countries have had major losses in their production due to
diseases and environmental problems. Disease losses due to exotic
viruses in Asia and Latin America during the past 6 years have
approached $6 billion USD.
Diseases present in imported commodity shrimp products threaten not
only the emerging domestic shrimp farming industry, but also the
Nation's native shrimp stocks. During 2004, limited disease outbreaks
did occur in Texas and Hawaii that were caused by a breakdown in
biosecurity protocols against imported shrimp products. A quick
response of the USMSFP, working in concert with the USDA's Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Services and other agencies in the State of
Texas, helped identify and isolate these outbreaks, limit the spread,
and minimize the loss in production nationwide. There were no
reoccurrences or outbreaks of other disease in 2005.
While significant progress has been made in risk assessment and
risk management with visible success, the industry and the USMSFC must
remain constantly vigilant and proactive to further improve global
competitiveness. In addition to providing significant input on the
development of national and international regulatory standards for
shrimp farmers, important service work for governmental agencies and
NGOs keeps us continuously apprised of new developments pertaining to
emerging regulations so that USMSFC research plans can be kept
proactively responsive to dynamic shifts in industry needs.
The overwhelming threat facing the U.S. marine shrimp farming
industry today is the significant decline in market prices for domestic
shrimp due to a surge of foreign imports over the last 3 years. The
decline has also seriously threatened the domestic shrimp harvest
industry. Average U.S. farm gate prices have fallen 40 percent since
then, constraining profitability and plans for industry expansion.
Anti-dumping tariffs imposed in February 2005 have not nor are
forecasted to stem the tide of rising imports, or improve domestic
shrimp prices as intended. Affected buyers and distributors have
largely absorbed those costs or producers have switched to product
forms not covered by the tariffs. Moreover, other countries not named
on the order have filled any voids with increased imports into the
United States.
Concerns also have been heightened over food safety issues
associated with unregulated use of antibiotics and fecal-borne
contaminants due to questionable production practices in certain
countries. Further, due to disease outbreaks worldwide, several foreign
countries have switched production to the dominant species in the
United States, eroding a previous competitive advantage. While it is
important that a level playing field be created through reexamination
of trade and food safety issues, more technologically advanced and
innovative approaches are now critically needed to leverage U.S.
industry gains, create competitive advantage, and improve
profitability. Innovative ways need to be sought to offset low prices
and to distinguish and add value to the domestic product to provide a
competitive edge in the marketplace and to ensure the safety of the
domestic seafood supply.
Industry Independence
In fact, despite recent price and profitability trends, investor
confidence is rising as a result of the work of the Consortium. New
farms are emerging utilizing new and improved technologies, while
others are working in cooperation with the Consortium on more advanced
approaches that are nearing fruition. In addition to supporting today's
industry, our advanced, high-density biosecure shrimp production
systems are now developed to the point for further expansion of shrimp
farming into near-shore, inland/rural and desert sites away from the
environmentally sensitive coastal zone. We now have in place the
economic models that will appropriately direct research to ensure
economic viability, taking in consideration all associated biological,
regional, and economic risk factors. Importantly, these new production
technologies produce the highest quality and safest shrimp, utilize
U.S. grain and oilseed products for feed production, and do not pose
any threat to the environment. These important traits of an evolving
domestic industry can be exploited to gain competitive edge, offset
declining prices, and ensure the quality and safety of shrimp for the
consumer. Clearly, the U.S. shrimp farming industry has emerged solid
from near collapse in the early 1990s, and appears well poised for a
new phase of growth, provided the technologies and innovations are in
place to support a larger, more diverse, and more competitive domestic
industry for the new millennium.
To support existing efforts and technology transfer and plans for
new dimensions to the research to address recent profitability issues,
an increase in the current funding level from $4.158 million to $6
million is requested. The increase will be used to: strengthen the
Consortium's biotechnology and molecular capabilities and activities to
support rapid and more advanced disease monitoring and genetic
selection efforts; accelerate the development of new genetic lines for
market advantage; advance high-density production prototypes to
commercial-scale testing; determine the mechanisms of disease immunity
in shrimp for protection of both farmed and wild shrimp stocks; and
address niche market technologies for competitive advantage. In
addition to these needed technological innovations, increased funding
will support new efforts to promote institutional innovations that will
enable expansion and vertical integration of the domestic industry,
including examination of regulatory impediments to shrimp aquaculture;
the effect of farm insurance; development of cooperatives; and the
socioeconomics of existing and advanced, high-density production
systems.
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 Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF)

The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) has received support
from the following federal grants and contracts during the period
October 1, 2002 to present.
environmental protection agency (epa) strategic agriculture initiative
(sai) grants under the food quality protection act (fqpa)
REGION 9
Grant Agreement: X-97901601-0
Project Title: Organic Farming Research for Alternative Weed and
Pest Management
Project Period: 10/01/2001--12/31/2003 amended to 6/30/2005
This assistance agreement provided full Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) funding in the amount of $84,000. The project supported
limited research in EPA Regions 8, 9 and 10 that investigated pest and
weed management in organic farming systems to develop alternative
approaches for managing pests and weeds without relying on agricultural
chemicals.

Grant Agreement: X-97935601-0
Project Title: Pest and Weed Management
Project Period: 11/01/2001--12/31/2004
This assistance agreement provided full Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) funding in the amount of $10,430. The project supported
investigation and development of pest and weed management methods in
organic farming systems for a variety of crops in EPA Region 9 to
develop alternatives to synthetic agricultural chemicals.

REGION 5
Grant Agreement: X8-96562001-0
Project Title: Organic Farming Research Foundation
Project Period: 10/01/2004--9/30/2006
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds in the amount of
$30,000 would be distributed through a competitive grants program for
projects that investigate organic pest control alternatives to
chemicals being reviewed under the Food Quality Protection Act. The
Organic Farming Research Foundation proposed to use EPA funding to
support research on organic farming practices for weed and insect pest
management in IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI and tribal Nations.

Grant Agreement: X8-96562001-1
Project Title: Organic Farming Research Foundation
Project Period: 10/01/2004--9/30/2006
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds in the amount of
$30,000 would be distributed through a competitive grants program for
projects that investigate organic pest control alternatives to
chemicals being reviewed under the Food Quality Protection Act. The
Organic Farming Research Foundation proposed to use EPA funding to
support research on organic farming practices for weed and insect pest
management in IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, and WI and tribal Nations.
REGION 8
Grant Agreement: X8-97815401-0
Project Title: Surveys, Studies, Investigations
Project Period: 10/01/2004--9/30/2006
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funds in the amount of
$40,000 support research on organic farming practices for weed and
insect pest management in CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WY, and 27 Tribal
Nations. Funds are channeled through OFRF's competitive grants program
for projects that investigate organic pest control alternatives to
chemicals being reviewed under the Food Quality Protection Act.
united states department of agriculture (usda)/initiative for future
agriculture and food systems (ifafs)
Subcontract RF740050 under the USDA/IFAFS Award Number: 00-52101-
9691
Project Title: Revitalizing Small and Mid-Sized Farms: Organic
Research, Education, and Extension
Project Period: 9/15/2000--9/30/2004 amended to 9/30/2005
USDA/IFAFS funding in the amount of $221,038 to establish a
consortium of universities, non-profit and grassroots farmers
organizations that will revitalize small and mid-sized family farms by
integrating multidisciplinary research, education, and extension of
organic agriculture. The goal is to catalyze new opportunities for
farmers including niche marketing of high-value horticultural and
agronomic crops by expanding existing organic agriculture programs at
three land grant institutions.
I, Brise Tencer, am submitting this testimony on behalf of the
Board of Directors of the Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) to
detail our recommendations and requests for funding of several USDA
marketing, research, and conservation programs of importance to organic
agriculture.
The Organic Farming Research Foundation is a non-profit whose
mission is to sponsor research related to organic farming practices, to
disseminate research results to organic farmers and to growers
interested in adopting organic production systems, and to educate the
public and decision-makers about organic farming issues.
As you prepare your appropriations priorities for the fiscal year
2007 Agriculture, Rural Development and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill, we request your support for the following organic programs.
Development of organic production effectively serves USDA strategic
objectives for environmental quality, human health and nutrition, and
agricultural trade. Organic agriculture has experienced extraordinary
growth over the last decade; the International Trade Center (UNCTAD/
WTO) estimates that organic products represent 2-2.5 percent of total
U.S. retail food sales. Because organic production improves
profitability and market access, it is a desirable alternative for many
producers and represents an important opportunity for growth in U.S.
agriculture. The organic sector is extremely diverse in scale,
technology, and market chains. Both ends of the scale spectrum are
experiencing vibrant growth. The modest funding levels requested below
will help these trends continue while providing a cost effective way to
create positive returns for the environment and our economy.
usda agricultural research service
$10 Million for Strategic Regional Programming for Organic Agricultural
Research
In 2005, USDA-ARS spent about $3.5 million on organic-specific
projects, or about .35 percent of $1 billion fiscal year 2005 ARS
expenditures. Under a 2 percent ``fair share'' framework, the ARS would
have generated about $20 million for organic research in its budget.
The 2004 and 2005 appropriations omnibus bills contained language
urging ARS to direct an increased amount of resources to organic. This
report language was not a mandate and no significant increases in
organic expenditures have been seen over the last several years.
For fiscal year 2007, OFRF recommends $10 million for Strategic
Regional Programming for Organic Agricultural Research. This funding
would be part of an overall package of $10 million total that would be
distributed among the 8 Regional Areas (and the National Agricultural
Library). Regional distribution of funds would provide flexibility to
address the needs and opportunities of the organic production and
processing sector. This approach would make progress towards the ``fair
share'' goal and provide a bridge to the evolution of a national
program for organic research. Funding will be allocated by the Area
Directors (with stakeholder input) to (1) Maintain and enhance existing
CRIS projects, scientists and technicians whose objectives are specific
to organic production and processing; and (2) Provide support to
integrate organic agriculture objectives into other projects and
partnerships, where such capacity exists and when the objectives meet
priority needs (e.g., as identified by the ARS National Organic
Workshop held January, 2005 in Austin, Texas). The attached addendum to
this request provides additional information about regional needs.
usda cooperative state research education and extension service
Organic Transitions Program: $5 million
Over the last few years the Organic Transition research program has
become one of the most competitive of the USDA CSREES integrated grant
programs. Because of the high level of interest in this program, only
about 10 percent of qualified applicants have been able to receive
funding (compared to 19-29 percent of qualified applicants that receive
funding in comparable grants programs at the USDA CSREES). We expect
interest in this program to continue to grow. Expansion of this program
should focus on a higher number of smaller grants. Also, it is
important that this program keeps its own identity and not be
incorporated into the National Research Initiative (NRI). We ask the
committee to increase funding for Organic Transition program to $5
million in 2007 and for it to remain as part of the Integrated Organic
Program, distinct from the National Research Initiative.
National Research Institute (NRI): 30 percent directed to goals of the
Initiative for Future Food and Agricultural Systems (IFAFS)
The IFAFS program has provided an important source of research
funds for projects relevant to organic growers. The appropriation bills
between fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2006 each prohibit USDA from
spending money for IFAFS, but directed the Department to spend a 20
percent subset of the National Research Initiative competitive grants
program ``under the same terms and conditions'' as IFAFS. For fiscal
year 2007 we support the President's request that 30 percent of NRI be
directed to IFAFS goals. Additionally, we request the Committee include
report language directing the USDA CSREES to direct a significant
portion of these funds to organic research (including trade and
economic policy topics) within the following program areas: Managed
Ecosystems and Small and Mid sized Farm Viability and Rural
Entrepreneurship through inclusion of language soliciting applications
on organic research topics in the NRI requests for applications.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE): Chapter 1: $15
million, Chapter 3: $5 million
SARE funds farmer-driven research and outreach on profitable,
environmentally sound farming practices, including organic production.
SARE's solid track record, regional structure, and close links between
research and outreach mean that farmers nationwide get reliable
information they need on how to stay in business while being
environmentally responsible. In 2005 the SARE program was funded at
Chap 1: $9.2 million, Chap 3: $3.8 million. For 2007 we seek $15
million, $5 million for Chapters 1 and 3, respectively.

USDA ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE

Organic Production and Marketing Data Collection: $750,000
Because increased ability to conduct economic analysis for the
organic farming sector is greatly needed, we request $750,000 be
appropriated to the USDA Economic Research Service to implement the
``Organic Production and Market Data Initiative'' included in Section
7407 of the 2002 farm bill.

USDA NATIONAL AGRICULTURE STATISTICS SERVICE (NASS)

Census follow up--Organic Grower Survey: $1 million
Unlike other sectors of agriculture, the organic industry has
suffered from a lack of data collection and analysis, which has limited
producers' ability to respond to market trends. The USDA NASS is
currently in the process of developing the 2007 agricultural census.
Although they are making an effort to expand the quantity of organic
questions in the census, they will need to conduct a follow up survey
in order to collect more in-depth information on acreage, yield/
production, inventory, production practices, sales and expenses,
marketing channels, and demographics. We request $1 million be
appropriated to the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service for
collection of organic price information, authorized by the ``Organic
Production and Market Data Initiative'' included in Section 7407 of the
2002 farm bill.

USDA AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE

Organic Price Collection: $1 million
Wholesale and retail price information is critical to farmers and
ranchers, but organic producers have fewer resources for price
information than conventional producers. Organic price information is
particularly important for insuring that organic producers receive
appropriate payment from Federal crop insurance when they incur a loss.
We request $1 million be appropriated to the USDA Agricultural
Marketing Service for collection of organic price information,
authorized by the ``Organic Production and Market Data Initiative''
included in Section 7407 of the 2002 farm bill.
Organic Certification Cost Sharer: $1.5 million
For small to medium scale producers and handlers, the cost of
organic certification can be a significant impediment to entry into the
USDA Organic Program. The cost of the program are not confined to
initial certification, in fact many small and medium sized producers
often cite the ongoing annual cost burden of maintaining organic
certification as an obstacle to staying in the USDA National Organic
Program. The Organic Certification Cost Share Program was created to
ease the cost burden of certification by providing up to 75 percent (to
a maximum of $500) of certification costs, but the $5 million provided
in the 2002 Farm Bill has now been expended at the Federal level
(although a few states have some residual funding which they are still
in the process of dispersing to producers or handlers). We urge the
committee to direct $1.5 million in funds of the Commodity Credit
Corporation as a stopgap measure to continue the National Organic
Certification Cost Share Program authorized in Section 10606 of the
2002 Farm Bill.
Organic Standards: $3.13 million
The national organic standards, which have been in effect since
October 31, 2002, provide a uniform national standard for the term
``organic'' that ensures consumer confidence in American organic
products. The rules, however, will have little effect unless it is
properly enforced thereby protecting both consumers and producers of
organic products. Additional funding is needed to investigate
complaints, on-site auditing of certifiers (for accreditation
purposes), and certifier training programs. In fiscal year 2005,
Congress appropriated $2 million to AMS for Organic Standards. For
2007, we support the President's request of $3.13 million to expand
enforcement and compliance of the National organic standards.
Additionally, we request the following report language be included:
``The Committee is encouraged that the Agency has hired an Executive
Director for the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB), as well as a
new Director for the National Organic Program. The Committee also notes
that the audits performed by the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) in 2004 and by the USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG) in
2005 made strong recommendations about changes needed in the
administration of the National Organic Program. The Committee expects
the Agency to take the necessary actions to comply with these
recommendations, and to provide a written report to the Committee by
December of 2006 regarding the progress in implementing these
recommendations. In addition, the Committee expects to be kept abreast
of the complaints that the NOP has received about violations of the
organic standards, and the progress of the Agency in investigating and
responding to those complaints. Finally, the Committee expects the NOP
to work closely with the NOSB to implement the Peer Review Panel
requirements of OPFA and USDA's organic regulations.''

USDA NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE

Conservation Security Program (Csp): Full Funding
The Conservation Security Program is a comprehensive stewardship
incentives program that provides financial and technical assistance to
farmers and ranchers nationwide to reward them for creating public
benefits such as clean water, clean air, wildlife habitat, and long-
term carbon storage. Such assistance is of particular importance to the
organic producers, many of whom already implement practices outlined in
this program. We seek full funding for the CSP as a nationwide
conservation entitlement program.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (Equip): Language supporting
incentive payments for transitioning to organic production
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) is a voluntary
conservation program for farmers and ranchers that promotes
agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible
national goals. EQIP offers financial and technical help to assist
eligible participants install or implement structural and management
practices on eligible agricultural land.
Incentive payments may be provided for up to three years to
encourage producers to carry out management practices they may not
otherwise use without the incentive. Some states, including
Massachusetts, Montana, and Minnesota have used incentive payments to
support producers transitioning to organic production. These transition
incentives payment programs assist farmers who choose to convert new
acreage to organic production. To qualify, farmers must apply at their
local NRCS offices, file organic system plans, and be inspected by a
USDA-accredited certifying agent. We urge the Committee to encourage
more states to make such programs available by adding language that
says: ``funds may be used for incentive payments for transition to
organic production''.

USDA RURAL BUSINESS-COOPERATIVE SERVICE

Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA): $3.9 million
ATTRA, is a national sustainable agriculture information service
managed by the National Center for Appropriate Technology. It provides
information and other technical assistance to farmers, ranchers,
Extension agents, educators, and others involved in sustainable
agriculture in the United States. The ATTRA website receives hundreds
of thousands of visitors annually. Often written in response to
questions from organic farmers, the ATTRA publications cover specific
issues about the most widely produced organic crops. With the continued
rapid growth of the organic industry, we anticipate an increase in
demand for ATTRA services in the coming year. Because ATTRA
specifically provides accurate and up-to-date technical information
relating to organic agricultural practices we request that it be funded
at $3.9 million.
Thank you for your consideration of these requests. Supporting
organic agriculture, by appropriating adequate funding for these
programs provides critical, cost-effective benefits for U.S. producers
and consumers.
______

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 2007 loan levels for the telecommunications loans
program administered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the
following amounts:

[Millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent hardship loans................................ 145
Treasury rate loans..................................... 250
Guaranteed loans........................................ \1\ 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: The $300 million requested for guaranteed loans includes $175
million in funding that was previously available through the Rural
Telephone Bank (RTB). The dissolution of the RTB necessitates
additional funds for RUS telecommunications loans in order to maintain
the level of funds available to rural telecommunications borrowers.

In addition, OPASTCO requests that the distance learning,
telemedicine, and broadband program be funded at sufficient levels.
OPASTCO is a national trade association of approximately 550 small
telecommunications carriers serving primarily rural areas of the United
States. Its members, which include both commercial companies and
cooperatives, together serve over 3.5 million customers in 47 States.
Perhaps at no time since the inception of the RUS (formerly the
REA) has the telecommunications loans program been so vital to the
future of rural America. The telecommunications industry is at a
crossroads, both in terms of technology and public policy. Rapid
advances in telecommunications technology in recent years have begun to
deliver on the promise of a new ``information age.'' Both federal and
state policymakers have made deployment of advanced communications
services a top priority. However, without continued support of RUS's
telecommunications loans program, rural telephone companies will be
hard pressed to continue building the infrastructure necessary to bring
their communities into this new age and achieve policymakers'
objectives.
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 fiber-to-the-home, 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. Moreover, the ability of consumers to use increasingly
popular Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services requires that they
first have a broadband connection from a facilities-based carrier.
Unfortunately, the inherently higher costs of upgrading the rural
wireline network, both for voice and data communications, has not
abated.
Rural telecommunications continues to be more capital intensive and
involves fewer paying customers than its urban counterpart. In the
FCC's September 2004 report on the deployment of advanced
telecommunications capability, the Commission correctly noted that
``[r]ural areas are typically characterized by sparse and disperse
populations, great distances between the customer and the service
provider, and difficult terrain. These factors present a unique set of
difficulties for providers attempting to deploy broadband services.''
Thus, in order for rural telephone companies to continue modernizing
their networks and providing consumers with advanced services at
reasonable rates, they must have access to reliable low-cost financing.
The relative isolation of rural areas increases the value of
telecommunications for these citizens. Telecommunications enables
applications such as high-speed Internet connectivity, distance
learning, and telemedicine that can alleviate or eliminate some rural
disadvantages. A modern telecommunications infrastructure can also make
rural areas attractive for some businesses and result in revitalization
of the rural economy. For example, businesses such as telemarketing and
tourism can thrive in rural areas, and telecommuting can become a
realistic employment option. Certainly, telecommunications plays a
major role in any rural community's economic development strategy, with
the existence of modern and advanced telecommunications infrastructure
being a major enabling factor in the development of small business and
manufacturing enterprises in rural areas.
While it has been said many times before, it bears repeating that
RUS's telecommunications loans program is not a grant program. 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 program
is tremendously successful. Borrowers actually build the infrastructure
and the government is reimbursed with interest.
In addition to RUS's telecommunications loans program, OPASTCO
supports adequate funding of the distance learning, telemedicine, and
broadband program. Through distance learning, rural students gain
access to advanced classes which will help them prepare for college and
jobs of the future. Telemedicine provides rural residents with access
to quality health care services without traveling great distances to
urban hospitals. Furthermore, funding that is targeted to finance the
installation of broadband transmission capacity will allow more rural
communities to gain high-speed access to the Internet and receive other
advanced services. In light of the Telecommunications Act's purpose of
encouraging deployment of advanced technologies and services to all
Americans--including schools and health care providers--sufficient
targeted funding for these purposes is essential in fiscal year 2007.

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.
______

Prepared Statement of the Pickle Packers International, Inc.

The pickled vegetable industry strongly supports and encourages
your committee in its work of maintaining and guiding the Agricultural
Research Service. To accomplish the goal of improved health and quality
of life for the American people, the health action agencies of this
country continue to encourage increased consumption of fruits and
vegetables in our diets. Accumulating evidence from the epidemiology
and biochemistry of heart disease, cancer and diabetes supports this
policy. Vitamins (particularly A, C, and folic acid) and a variety of
antioxidant phytochemicals in plant foods are thought to be the basis
for correlation's between high fruit and vegetable consumption and
reduced incidence of these debilitating and deadly diseases. The
problem is that many Americans choose not to consume the variety and
quantities of fruits and vegetables that are needed for better health.
As an association representing processors that produce over 85
percent of the tonnage of pickled vegetables in North America, it is
our goal to produce new products that increase the competitiveness of
U.S. agriculture as well as meet the demands of an increasingly diverse
U.S. population. The profit margins of growers continue to be narrowed
by foreign competition. Likewise, the people of this country represent
an ever-broadening array of expectations, tastes and preferences
derived from many cultural backgrounds. Everyone, however, faces the
common dilemma that food costs should remain stable and preparation
time continues to be squeezed by the other demands of life. This
industry can grow by meeting these expectations and demands with
reasonably priced products of good texture and flavor that are high in
nutritional value, low in negative environmental impacts, and produced
with assured safety from pathogenic microorganisms and from those who
would use food as a vehicle for terror. With strong research to back us
up, we believe our industry can make a greater contribution toward
reducing product costs and improving human diets and health.
Many small to medium sized growers and processing operations are
involved in the pickled vegetable industry. We grow and process a group
of vegetable crops, including cucumbers, peppers, carrots, onions,
garlic, cauliflower, cabbage (Sauerkraut) and Brussels sprouts, which
are referred to as minor' crops. None of these crops is in any
``commodity program'' and as such, do not rely upon taxpayer subsidies.
However, current farm value for just cucumbers, onions and garlic is
$2.3 billion with an estimated processed value of $5.8 billion. These
crops represent important sources of income to farmers, and the
processing operations are important employers in rural communities
around the United States. Growers, processing plant employees and
employees of suppliers to this industry reside in all 50 States. To
realize its potential in the rapidly changing American economy, this
industry will rely upon a growing stream of appropriately directed
basic and applied research from four important research programs within
the Agricultural Research Service.

VEGETABLE CROPS RESEARCH LABORATORY, MADISON, WISCONSIN

The USDA/ARS Vegetable Crops Research Lab at the University of
Wisconsin is the only USDA research unit dedicated to the genetic
improvement of cucumbers, carrots, onions and garlic. Three scientists
in this unit account for approximately half of the total U.S. public
breeding and genetics research on these crops. Their past efforts have
yielded cucumber, carrot and onion cultivars and breeding stocks that
are widely used by the U.S. vegetable industry (i.e., growers,
processors, and seed companies). These varieties account for over half
of the farm yield produced by these crops today. All U.S. seed
companies rely upon this program for developing new varieties, because
ARS programs seek to introduce economically important traits (e.g.,
virus and nematode resistance) not available in commercial varieties
using long-term high risk research efforts. The U.S. vegetable seed
industry develops new varieties of cucumbers, carrots, onions, and
garlic and over twenty other vegetables used by thousands of vegetable
growers. The U.S. vegetable seed, grower, and processing industry,
relies upon the USDA/ARS Vegetable Crops Research Lab for unique
genetic stocks to improve varieties in the same way the U.S. health
care and pharmaceutical industries depend on fundamental research from
the National Institutes of Health. Their innovations meet long-term
needs and bring innovations in these crops for the United States and
export markets, for which the United States has successfully competed.
Past accomplishments by this USDA group have been cornerstones for the
U.S. vegetable industry that have resulted in increased profitability,
and improved product nutrition and quality.
Both consumers and the vegetable production and processing industry
would like to see fewer pesticides applied to food and into the
environment in a cost-effective manner. Scientists in this unit have
developed a genetic resistance for many major vegetable diseases that
are perhaps the most important threat to sustained production of a
marketable crop for all vegetables. Genetic resistance assures
sustainable crop production for growers and reduces pesticide residues
in our food and environment. Value of this genetic resistance developed
by the vegetable crops unit is estimated at $670 million per year in
increased crop production, not to mention environmental benefits due to
reduction in pesticide use. New research progress initiated in the
1990s and continuing today in Madison has resulted in cucumbers with
improved disease resistance, pickling quality and suitability for
machine harvesting. New sources of genetic resistance to viral and
fungal diseases, environmental stress resistance like heat and cold,
and higher yield have recently been mapped on cucumber chromosomes to
provide a ready tool for our seed industry to significantly accelerate
the development of resistant cultivars for U.S. growers. Nematodes in
the soil deform carrot roots to reduce yield from 10 percent to over 70
percent in major production areas. A new genetic resistance to nematode
attack was recently discovered and found to almost completely protect
the carrot crop from one major nematode. This group improved both
consumer quality and processing quality of vegetables with a resulting
increase in production efficiency and consumer appeal. This product was
founded on carrot germplasm developed in Madison, Wisconsin. Carrots
provide approximately 30 percent of the U.S. dietary vitamin A. With
new carrots that have been developed, nutritional value of this crop
has tripled, including the development of nutrient-rich cucumbers with
increased levels of provitamin A. Using new biotechnological methods, a
system for rapidly and simply identifying seed production ability in
onions has been developed that reduces the breeding process up to 6
years! A genetic map of onion flavor and nutrition will be used to
develop onions that are more appealing and healthy for consumers.
Garlic is a crop familiar to all consumers, but it has not been
possible to breed new garlic varieties until a new technique for garlic
seed production was recently developed and is now being bred like other
crops.
There are still serious vegetable production problems which need
attention. For example, losses of cucumbers, onions, and carrots in the
field due to attack by pathogens and pests remains high, nutritional
quality needs to be significantly improved and U.S. production value
and export markets could certainly be enhanced. Genetic improvement of
all the attributes of these valuable crops are at hand through the
unique USDA lines and populations (i.e., germplasm) that are available
and the new biotechnological methodologies that are being developed by
the group. The achievement of these goals will involve the utilization
of a wide range of biological diversity available in the germplasm
collections for these crops. Classical plant breeding methods combined
with bio-technological tools such as DNA marker-assisted selection and
genome maps of cucumber, carrot and onion will be the methods to
implement these genetic improvements. With this, new high-value
vegetable products based upon genetic improvements developed by our
USDA laboratories can offer vegetable processors and growers expanded
economic opportunities for United States and export markets.

U.S. FOOD FERMENTATION LABORATORY, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

The USDA/ARS Food Fermentation Laboratory in Raleigh, NC is the
major public laboratory that this industry looks to as a source for new
scientific information on the safety of our products and development of
new processing technologies related to fermented and acidified
vegetables. Over the years this laboratory has been a source for
innovations, which have helped industry remain competitive in the
current global trade environment. We expect the research done in this
laboratory to lead to new processing and product ideas that will
increase the economic value of this industry and provide consumers with
safe, high quality, healthful vegetable products.
To maintain the current level of research we request that Congress
restore the funding increases provided in the fiscal year 2004
($270,000) and fiscal year 2005 ($100,000) budgets. It is very
important that Congress restore the full $370,000 in the fiscal year
2007 budget, since the funds were not included in the budget sent to
the Congress.
We seek additional funding to support two new research directions
for this laboratory that have substantial economic potential for our
industry and health benefits for the American public. These are: (1)
Preservation of a variety of high nutrient/high antioxidant vegetables
using fermentation or acidification techniques so as to maintain the
natural levels of beneficial phyotochemicals in convenient to use
value-added products; (2) development of techniques to deliver living
pro-biotic microorganisms to consumers in fermented or acidified
vegetable products.
Certain vitamins and beneficial phytochemicals in vegetables are
stabilized by the low pH in acidified and fermented foods. In addition,
low pH makes it possible to preserve vegetables with low heat or,
ideally, no heat. While many high nutrient/high antioxidant vegetables
are pickled to a very limited extent, traditional processes typically
include steps that lose many of the health-promoting components that
diet authorities emphasize when they urge people to increase their
consumption of fruits and vegetables. The objective will be develop new
acid preservation techniques for broccoli, Brussel sprouts, sweet
potato, cauliflower, and peppers that will provide high levels of
vitamin C, folic acid, carotenoids, glucosinolates, and phenolic
compounds to maximize the health benefits of these vegetables in
products that are convenient and attractive to consumers.
Most of what we hear about bacteria in foods concerns the pathogens
that cause disease. However, lactic acid bacteria are intentionally
grown in fermented foods because they are needed to give foods like
sauerkraut, yoghurt, cheeses, and fermented salami the characteristic
flavors and textures that we desire. There is a growing body of
research to indicate that certain living lactic acid bacteria are pro-
biotic' and can improve human health by remaining in the intestinal
tract after they are consumed. Fermented or acidified vegetables may be
a good way to deliver such pro-biotic bacteria to consumers. The
objective will be to identify pro-biotic lactic acid bacteria that can
survive in high numbers in selected vegetable products and investigate
the potential for using vegetables as healthful delivery vehicles for
pro-biotic organisms.

SUGAR BEET AND BEAN RESEARCH UNIT, EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

The USDA/ARS cucumber post harvest engineering research at East
Lansing, Michigan, is the only federally funded program that is devoted
to developing new and/or improved engineering methods and technology
for assessing, retaining, and assuring post harvest quality,
marketability, and wholesomeness of pickling cucumbers and other
vegetable products. The cucumber post harvest engineering research is
one component of the post harvest engineering research program within
the Sugar Beet and Bean Research Unit in East Lansing, Michigan. The
post harvest engineering research program currently has a full-time
research agricultural engineer whose primary research is to develop
methods and technology for assessing and assuring post harvest quality
of tree fruits. Because of severe under-funding, the location's
cucumber post harvest engineering research has not been carried out at
the full scope it would have been expected. A postdoctoral research
associate has been hired to conduct research on developing
nondestructive technology for assessing and grading pickling cucumbers
and other vegetables. The ARS East Lansing location has been
internationally recognized for developing innovative, practical
engineering methods and techniques to improve harvest and post harvest
handling systems for vegetables and tree fruits. The location recently
developed a new laser-based multi-spectral imaging technology for
grading and sorting fruit for texture and soluble solids content. The
technology has the potential for inspecting a variety of vegetable
crops including cucumbers. The location also developed an advanced
hyper-spectral imaging system for automated detection of defects and
quality attributes of fruit, which could be used for pickling cucumber
inspection.
Today, consumers have increasing choices of foods and they are
demanding for better, consistent safe products. Defective and inferior
cucumbers/vegetables will lead to poor quality, inconsistent pickled
products and can cause significant economic losses to growers and
processors. An effective quality control and assurance system
throughout the handling steps between harvest and retail is required
for the pickling industry to provide consistent, superior products to
the marketplace. Methods currently available for measuring and grading
quality of cucumbers and other vegetables are either ineffective or
time consuming. New and/or improved technologies are needed to assess,
inspect and grade fresh cucumbers rapidly and accurately for various
internal and external quality characteristics so that raw products can
be directed to, or removed from, appropriate processing or marketing
avenues. This will minimize post harvest losses of food that has
already been produced and ensure high quality, consistent final product
and end-user satisfaction. Current research at East Lansing is focused
on developing rapid inspection techniques for detecting and segregating
defective cucumbers to assure the keeping and processing quality of
pickling cucumbers. The research will lead to new inspection and
grading technology that will help the pickling industry in delivering
high-quality safe products to the marketplace. To enhance research on
the development of engineering methods and technology for assuring post
harvest quality and marketability of pickled and vegetable products, a
full-time research scientist (engineering) will be needed for the ARS
East Lansing research program.

U.S. VEGETABLE LABORATORY, CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

The research program at the USDA/ARS Vegetable Laboratory in
Charleston, South Carolina, addresses national problems in vegetable
crop production and protection with emphasis on the southeastern United
States. This research program is internationally recognized for its
accomplishments, which have resulted in development of over 150 new
vegetable varieties and lines along with the development of many new
and improved disease and pest management practices. This laboratory's
program currently addresses 14 vegetable crops including those in the
cabbage, cucumber, and pepper families, which are of major importance
to the pickling industry. The mission of the laboratory is to (a)
develop disease and pest resistant vegetable crops and (b) develop new,
reliable, environmentally sound disease and pest management programs
that do not rely on conventional pesticides.
Continued expansion of the Charleston program is crucial. Vegetable
growers depend heavily on synthetic pesticides to control diseases and
pests. Cancellation and/or restrictions on the use of many effective
pesticide compounds are having a considerable influence on the future
of vegetable crop production. Without the use of certain pesticides,
growers will experience crop failures unless other effective, non-
pesticide control methods are found quickly. The research on improved,
more efficient and environmentally compatible vegetable production
practices and genetically resistant varieties at the U.S. Vegetable
Laboratory continues to be absolutely essential. This gives U.S.
growers the competitive edge they must have to sustain and keep this
important industry and allow it to expand in the face of increasing
foreign competition.

FUNDING NEEDS FOR THE FUTURE

It remains critical that funding continues the forward momentum in
pickled vegetable research that the United States now enjoys and to
increase funding levels as warranted by planned expansion of research
projects to maintain U.S. competitiveness. We also understand that
discretionary funds are now used to meet the rising fixed costs
associated with each location. Additional funding is needed at the
Wisconsin and South Carolina programs for genetic improvement of crops
essential to the pickled vegetable industry, and at North Carolina and
Michigan for development of environmentally-sensitive technologies for
improved safety and value to the consumer of our products. The
fermented and acidified vegetable industry is receptive to capital
investment in order to remain competitive, but only if that investment
is economically justified. The research needed to justify such capital
investment involves both short term (6-24 months) and long term (2-10
years or longer) commitments. The diverse array of companies making up
our industry assumes responsibility for short-term research, but the
expense and risk are too great for individual companies to commit to
the long-term research needed to insure future competitiveness. The
pickled vegetable industry currently supports research efforts at
Wisconsin and North Carolina and anticipates funding work at South
Carolina and Michigan as scientists are put in place. Donations of
supplies and processing equipment from processors and affiliated
industries have continued for many years.
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory, Charleston, South Carolina
The newly constructed laboratory-office building at the U.S.
Vegetable Laboratory was occupied in April 2003. Design of the
accompanying greenhouse and head house using the funds appropriated for
this purpose in fiscal year 2003 was completed in July 2004. In fiscal
year 2004, construction of the head house component of this project was
funded. The head house component of the project is now under
construction with an expected completion in late spring 2006. In fiscal
year 2005, $2.976 million was appropriated for construction of
greenhouses. In fiscal year 2006, an additional $1.980 million was
appropriated for construction of greenhouses, but $7.169 million is
still needed for the planned $12.125 million greenhouse complex. This
new facility replaces and consolidates outmoded laboratory areas that
were housed in 1930s-era buildings and trailers. Completion of the
total research complex will provide for the effective continuation and
expansion of the excellent vegetable crops research program that has
been conducted by the Agricultural Research Service at Charleston for
over 60 years. It is most critical to the mission of the U.S. Vegetable
Laboratory that the fiscal year 2002, fiscal year 2003, and fiscal year
2004 appropriated funds for expansion of the Charleston research staff
is maintained in fiscal year 2007. In addition, new funds are still
needed to hire additional scientists to expand the research program. An
Entomologist is needed to facilitate development of host resistance and
new management approaches to a wider range of established insect pests
of vegetable crops; a Molecular Biologist is needed to develop and
utilize molecular techniques for pathogen and pest population studies
necessary to development of new management approaches and resistant
genetic stocks. Both of these new scientific positions will greatly
contribute to the accomplishment of research that will provide for the
effective protection of vegetable crops from disease and pests without
the use of conventional pesticides. Each of these positions requires a
funding level of $400,000 for their establishment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross funds
Appropriations to restore Fiscal year impacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Use Pesticides (IR-4)............. .............. $5,335
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory............... 2003 484,969
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory............... 2004 263,597
---------------
Total funds to restore............ .............. 753,901
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Funds
New Scientific Staff Needed Current Status Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entomologist...................... Needed.............. $400,000
Molecular Biologist............... Needed.............. 400,000
---------------
New funds needed............ .................... 800,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food Fermentation Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina
The current funding for the laboratory is $1,274,000. This includes
the new funds provided in fiscal year 2004 ($270,000) and in fiscal
year 2005 ($100,000) that are not in the fiscal year 2007 budget
proposal that was sent to the Congress. We request that the additional
funding provided by the Congress in fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year
2005 be restored in the fiscal year 2007 budget.
To initiate and then increase the research initiatives to preserve
high nutrient/high antioxidant vegetables to maximize healthful
components and to determine how to deliver living pro-biotic lactic
acid bacteria in acidified and fermented vegetable products, we request
additional support for the Food Fermentation Laboratory of $100,000 in
fiscal year 2007 with the expectation that an additional $100,000 be
added each year from fiscal year 2008 through fiscal year 2011. This
will provide an ability to have an orderly growth of research effort in
these areas by supporting Post-Doctoral or Pre-Doctoral research
associates initially and then hiring a permanent scientist in the third
or fourth year to provide a long term research capability in the most
productive research areas.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific staff Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiologist.................... Active.............. $318,500
Chemist........................... Active.............. 318,500
Food technologist/biochemist...... Active.............. 318,500
Microbial Physiologist............ Active.............. 318,500
Fiscal year 2007 post-doctoral or Needed.............. 100,000
predoctoral research associates.
---------------
Total funding required...... .................... 1,374,000
===============
Presidential Budget (fiscal year .................... 912,195
2007).
Appropriations to restore......... .................... 361,805
New funds needed.................. .................... 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vegetable Crops Research Laboratory Unit, Madison, Wisconsin
Current base funding for three scientists is $835,900, of which
$200,000 was added in fiscal year 2002. An additional $64,100 is needed
to fully fund the scientists and support staff, including graduate
students and post-doctorates.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific staff in place Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneticist........................ Active.............. $300,000
Horticulturist.................... Active.............. 300,000
Geneticist........................ Active.............. 300,000
---------------
Total funding required...... .................... 900,000
===============
Presidential Budget (fiscal year .................... 641,911
2007).
Appropriations to restore......... .................... 193,989
New funds needed.................. .................... 64,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A temporary addition of $200,000 was provided to enhance the
research effort of this program in fiscal year 2002, and we greatly
appreciate that additional support, but that addition is being proposed
for reduction in fiscal year 2007. Thus, the restoration of the funds
proposed for reduction, is urgently requested. We request a $258,089
permanent addition this year to sustain the long-term research of this
group.
Sugar Beet and Bean Research Unit, East Lansing, Michigan
The location urgently needs to hire a full-time research engineer
to develop a comprehensive research program on nondestructive
inspection, sorting and grading of pickling cucumbers and other
vegetable crops to assure the processing and keeping quality of pickled
products. The current base funding for the cucumber engineering
research is $200,000. An increase of $100,000 in the current base
funding level would be needed to fund the research engineer position.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific staff in place Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postdoctoral Research Associate... Active.............. $200,000
Research Engineer................. Needed.............. 100,000
---------------
Total funding required...... .................... 300,000
===============
Current Funding................... .................... 200,000
New funds needed.................. .................... 100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your consideration and expression of support for the
USDA/ARS.
______

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.
(Enclosure 1)
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 81st Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
24, 2006, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin Area as they pertain to the goals of the Association.
(Enclosure 2)
As an organization that knows the value of our precious water
resources we support the most beneficial water and land conservation
programs administered through the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS). We understand that attention and resources must be
given to our national security and the war in Iraq; however, we cannot
sacrifice what has been accomplished on our Nation's lands. NRCS
programs are a model of how conservation programs should be
administered and our testimony will address the needs of the Nation as
well as our region.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget for NRCS indicates a
decrease of $216.4 million (21.5 percent decrease) from what Congress
appropriated in fiscal year 2006. In addition, the Administration
eliminated two crucial watershed programs: Watershed & Flood Prevention
Operations and Watershed Survey & Planning. Along with drastic
reductions in the other programs, NRCS manpower for fiscal year 2007
would have to decrease by over 1,500 staff years, if the President's
budget is implemented. This is unacceptable.
This means that NRCS assistance to landowners will not be
adequately funded, to the detriment of the Nation and our natural
resources. We would like to address several of the programs
administered by NRCS. Failure to adequately fund these initiatives
would reduce assistance to those who want it and the resources that
need protection.
Conservation Operations.--This account has been in steady decline,
in real dollars, over the past several years. The President's budget
included $745 million, which is a decrease of $94.5 million from what
you appropriated in fiscal year 2006. Mandated increases in pay and
benefits, continuing increases in the cost of doing business' and
budget reductions greatly reduces the effective work that can be
accomplished in this account. Allocations should be increased not
decreased.
We request a total of $930 million be appropriated for Conservation
Operations for NRCS to meet the demands it faces today.
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 enroll in a Federal
program. Working lands are not just crops and pasture (commodity
staples) but includes forests, wildlife habitat and coastal marshes.
The problem is that NRCS personnel funded from mandatory programs' can
only provide technical assistance to those enrolled in these programs,
leaving the majority of the agricultural community without technical
assistance. We recommend that adequate funding be placed in
'Conservation Technical Assistance', and allow NRCS to provide
assistance to all who are in need of assistance.
It is our understanding that the Technical Service Providers (TSP)
program has not lived up to its expectations. Experience indicates
landowners are hesitant to use the program. This program funds projects
at a level estimated if NRCS conducted the work. Usually the TSP cost
exceeds this estimate and the landowner is responsible for the
difference, effectively making the landowner cost share. We believe
that TSPs should be used only after NRCS staffing is brought up to
levels commensurate with the increase in workload caused by the Farm
Bill, not to replace NRCS staffing.
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations (Public Law 566 & 534).--
We are greatly disappointed that the President's Budget provided no
funding for watershed operations. There is no doubt that this is a
Federal responsibility, in conjunction with a local sponsor. This
program addresses all watershed needs to include: flood protection,
water quality, water supply and the ecosystem. There is no Corps of
Engineer, Bureau of Reclamation or FEMA program to address small
watershed needs, before disaster strikes. We recommend that Congress
continue to hold oversight hearings to understand the importance and
hear how popular this program is to our communities.
These projects have developed a $15 billion infrastructure that is
providing $1.5 billion in annual benefits to over 48 million people. It
is not a Federal program, but a Federally assisted program. This
partnership between local communities, State agencies and NRCS has been
successful for over 50 years. It would take $1.6 billion to fund the
existing Federal commitment to local project sponsors. This cost only
increases every year if adequate funding is not provided.
If you allow this program to end, all ongoing contracts will be
terminated. This will ultimately lead to lawsuits and tort claims filed
by both sponsors and contractors, due to the Federal government not
fulfilling its contractual obligation.
We are very appreciative for the funding level of $75 million
enacted in fiscal year 2006. It is reassuring to know that both the
House and Senate realize the importance of this program to the
agricultural community. For every $1 spent, the Nation realizes $2 in
benefits.
There are many new projects, which are awaiting funds for
construction under this program. We strongly recommend that a funding
level of $190 million be appropriated for Watershed Operations
Programs, Public Law 534 ($20 million) and Public Law 566 ($170
million).
The Red River has proven, through studies and existing irrigation,
to be a great water source for supplemental' irrigation. The two
projects mentioned below, will use existing, natural bayous to deliver
water for landowners to draw from. The majority of expense will be for
the pump system to take water from the Red River to the bayous. These
projects will provide the ability to move from ground water dependency
to surface water, an effort encouraged throughout the Nation. Both will
enhance the environmental quality and economic vitality of the small
communities adjacent to the projects.
--Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, AR.--Plans and specifications have
been completed and it is ready to proceed into the construction
phase. An irrigation district has been formed and they are
prepared to take on the responsibility to generate the income
for the O&M required to support this project. We request that
$4,000,000 be appropriated for these projects in fiscal year
2007.
--Red Bayou Irrigation Project, LA.--The plans and specifications
have been completed, making this project ready for construction
in fiscal year 2007. An irrigation district has been formed and
is prepared to collect funds to support the O&M for this
proposed system. We request that $2,500,000 be specifically
appropriated to begin construction in fiscal year 2007.
Watershed Rehabilitation.--More than 10,400 individual watershed
structures have been installed nationally, with approximately one-third
in the Red River Valley. 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. They protect more people and
communities from flooding now than when they were first constructed.
The benefit to cost ratio for this program has been evaluated to be
2.2:1. What other Federal program can claim such success?
In the next 5 years over 900 watershed structures will require over
$570 million for rehabilitation. Each year this number increases as
more dams reach their 50-year life. There is no questioning the value
of this program. The cost of losing this infrastructure exceeds the
cost to reinvest in our existing watersheds. Without repairing and
upgrading the safety of existing structures, we miss the opportunity to
keep our communities alive and prosperous. It would be irresponsible to
dismantle a program that has demonstrated such great return and is
supported by our citizens. We cannot wait for a catastrophe to occur,
where life is lost, to decide to take on this important work.
The President's budget neglects the safety and well being of our
community needs by allocating only $15 million for this program. This
is drastically lower than the levels authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill,
which authorized $600 million for rehabilitation for 2003-2007.
We request that $65 million be appropriated to provide financial
and technical assistance to those watershed projects where sponsors are
prepared (35 percent cost share) to commence rehabilitation.
Watershed Survey and Planning.--In fiscal year 2006, $6.1 million
was appropriated to support this extremely important community program.
NRCS has become a facilitator for the different community interest
groups, State and Federal agencies. In our States such studies are
helping identify resource needs and solutions where populations are
encroaching into rural areas. The Administration decided to eliminate
this program. We disagree with this and ask Congress to fund this
program at the appropriate level.
Proper planning and cooperative efforts can prevent problems and
insure that water resource issues are addressed. Zeroing out the
planning process assumes the economy will not grow and there is no need
for future projects. We do not believe anyone supports or believes
this. Another serious outcome is that NRCS will lose its planning
expertise, which is invaluable.
We request this program be funded at a level of $35 million.
We request that the following two studies be specifically
identified and funded in the fiscal year 2007 appropriation bill.
--Maniece Bayou Irrigation Project, AR.--This is a project in its
initial stage of planning. An irrigation district is being
formed to be the local sponsor. This project transfers water
from the Red River into Maniece Bayou where landowners would
draw water for supplemental irrigation. We request that
$200,000 be appropriated to initiate the plans and
specifications.
--Lower Cane River Irrigation Project, LA.--The transfer of water
from the Red River to the Lower Cane River will provide
opportunities for irrigation and economic development. Funds
are needed to initiate a Cooperative River Basin Study. We
request that $250,000 be appropriated for this study.
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D).--This has
traditionally been a well-received program by the Administration, not
this year. Their budget proposal only had $27 million, far short of
national needs. This program leverages its resources at 4 to 1, with
communities, local sponsors and non-government organizations. The
benefits are realized at over 14 to 1, average per project. What other
Federal program can claim such a return on investment?
We request that $51 million be appropriated for this program, at
the same level as in fiscal year 2006.
Mandatory Accounts (CCC) Technical Assistance (TA).--Request for
assistance through the CCC programs has been overwhelming. Requests far
exceed the available funds and place an additional workload on NRCS's
delivery system. Adequate funding for TA must be provided at the full
cost for program delivery. This includes program administration,
conservation planning and contracting with each applicant. Congress, in
the 2002 Farm Bill, wisely increased conservation programs each year.
This increased investment, with the multi-year CCC programs, will
increase the NRCS workload. It is imperative that NRCS receive the TA
funding levels required to administer these programs. If they do not
receive full funding these programs will not realize their full
capability.
It has been mandated that a set percent of TA, from the CCC
Program, must be used for TSPs, approximately $40 million. This is
equivalent to losing 600 staff years from NRCS manpower. This is
another unacceptable policy, which will reduce the effectiveness of
NRCS. This mandate must be eliminated.
Over 70 percent of our land is privately owned. This is important
in order to understand the need for NRCS programs and technical
assistance. Their presence is vital to ensuring sound technical
standards are met in conservation. These programs not only address
agricultural production, but sound natural resource management. Without
these programs and NRCS properly staffed to implement them, many
private landowners will not be served adequately to apply conservation
measures needed to sustain our natural resources for future
generations. Technical Assistance cannot be contracted out to private
companies.
We are all aware of the issue with TMDL levels in our waterways. If
our Nation is to seriously address this we must look at the impacts
from our farmlands. Assistance for land treatment plans and plan
implementation is exactly what the NRCS Watershed programs are intended
to address. Watershed programs should be receiving an increase in
funds, not zeroed out!
With these new clean water initiatives 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.
These NRCS studies and watershed projects are an example of true
``cooperative conservation'' initiatives. There is an interface with
communities and local sponsors at each step of the process and local
sponsors do cost share at the levels expected of them.
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.

ENCLOSURE 1.--RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION

The Red River Valley Association is a voluntary group of citizens
bonded together to advance the economic development and future well
being of the citizens of the four State Red River Basin area in
Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Texas.
For the past 80 years, the Association has done notable work in the
support and advancement of programs to develop the land and water
resources of the Valley to the beneficial use of all the people. To
this end, the Red River Valley Association offers its full support and
assistance to the various Port Authorities, Chambers of Commerce,
Economic Development Districts, Municipalities and other local
governmental entities in developing the area along the Red River.
The Resolutions contained herein were adopted by the Association
during its 80th Annual Meeting in Bossier City, Louisiana on February
24, 2005, and represent the combined concerns of the citizens of the
Red River Basin area as they pertain to the goals of the Association,
specifically:
--Economic and Community Development
--Environmental Restoration
--Flood Control
--Irrigation
--Bank Stabilization
--A Clean Water Supply for Municipal, Industrial and Agricultural
Uses
--Hydroelectric Power Generation
--Recreation
--Navigation
The Red River Valley Association is aware of the constraints on the
Federal budget, and has kept those constraints in mind as these
Resolutions were adopted. Therefore, and because of the far-reaching
regional and national benefits addressed by the various projects
covered in the Resolutions, we urge the members of Congress to review
the materials contained herein and give serious consideration to
funding the projects at the levels requested.

ENCLOSURE 2.--RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2007 APPROPRIATIONS--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION
SERVICE (NRCS)
[Thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Pres. 2007
Discretionary accounts 2006 approp. 2007 request budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Operations......................................... 839,519 930,000 745,000
Watershed & Flood Prevention Operations......................... 75,000 190,000 ..............
Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, AR......................... .............. 4,000 ..............
Red Bayou Irrigation Project, LA............................ .............. 1,600 ..............
Watershed Rehabilitation........................................ 31,516 65,000 15,000
Watershed Survey & Planning..................................... 6,083 35,000 ..............
Maniece Bayou Irrigation Project, AR........................ .............. 200 ..............
North Wallace Lake Watershed, LA............................ .............. 250 ..............
Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D)...................... 51,300 51,000 27,000
Healthy Forest Reserve Program.................................. 2,475 5,000 2,475
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

______

Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protection Legislation

$1.5 Million for the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) at the
National Agricultural Library
The Animal Welfare Information Center was established by the
Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act (the 1985 amendment to
the Animal Welfare Act) to serve as a clearinghouse, training center
and educational resource for institutions using animals in research,
testing and teaching. A primary purpose of the Center is to help
research laboratories comply with the requirements of the Federal law.
The Center provides data 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 where possible, and identifying alternatives to the use of
animals for specific research projects. The AWIC was also charged with
providing information to prevent the unintended duplication of animal
experiments.
We greatly appreciate the past support Congress has provided to the
AWIC to carry out its programs: $750,000 and an add-on of $400,000. It
is essential to maintain the existing level of support therefore a
minimum base of $1.15 million is needed on an annual basis. We are
respectfully requesting an additional $350,000 for desperately needed
expansion in fiscal year 2007 including increased educational workshops
and exhibits presented throughout the United States, increased
production and printing of educational material and increased staffing
to meet the demand for services.
There is general consensus between the biomedical research industry
and the animal welfare community about the need for increased funding.
In fact, myriad individuals representing these disparate interests have
agreed on the need for $1.5 million in funding for the Animal Welfare
Information Center (see attached letter). The AWIC is able to help
improve the conduct of research, including the care provided to the
animals who are used, thereby ensuring a reduction in variables which
might skew the research. Better science is the end result.
The $1,500,000 would be used as follows: staff salary and benefits
($1,073,000), exhibitions conducted at major scientific conferences
($53,600), preparation and conduct of educational workshops across the
country ($16,800), educational workshops conducted at the Center
($4,100), printing and reproduction of paper and electronic material
($29,200), training for the NAL staff ($13,900), acquisition of,
including electronic access to, data ($38,000), internet services
($20,400), office supplies including hardware and software ($26,000)
and the overhead that must be provided to the Agricultural Research
Service and the National Agricultural Library (at least $225,000).
The Center's mandate necessitates the collection and dissemination
of material on humane housing and husbandry, the functions and
responsibilities of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees
(IACUCs), animal behavior, improved methodologies, psychological well-
being of primates and exercise for dogs. The AWIC has expanded to
include the broader industry regulated under the Animal Welfare Act:
animal dealers, carriers and handlers, zoos and other exhibitors. Other
topics covered by the Center include animal diseases, animal models,
animal training and environmental enrichment for all species. USDA
Animal Care's veterinary medical officers and animal care inspectors
are able to utilize the full range of services provided by the AWIC to
better fulfill their responsibilities.
The AWIC is the single most important resource for helping research
facility personnel meet their responsibilities under the Animal Welfare
Act. There are more than 1,200 research facilities nationwide, and the
services of the AWIC are available to all individuals at these
institutions including the cage washers, animal technicians, research
investigators, attending veterinarians, IACUC representatives including
the nonaffiliated member, and the Institutional Official. The Office of
Inspector General (OIG) audit titled ``APHIS Animal Care Program
Inspection and Enforcement Activities'' cited an increase in apparent
violations of the AWA by research facilities over the past few years.
There appears to be a significant problem with the oversight provided
IACUCs and training for IACUC members is encouraged. In response to
this need, we are requesting funds to allow--for the first time--AWIC
to conduct workshops at locations around the country rather than being
limited to conducting them only from the Center's base in Maryland.
The AWIC website (http:www.nal.usda.gov/awic) received more than 27
million hits in fiscal year 2005 (one of the most accessed sites at the
NAL). 300,000 documents were distributed via the web and more than
12,000 hard copies were distributed as well. Exhibitions and/or
presentations were provided at the following venues: American
Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) annual meeting,
National Capital Area Branch AALAS, Tribranch AALAS, Society of
Neuroscience, New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research, American
Veterinary Medical Association, Combined Animal Science meeting,
International Conference on Environmental Enrichment, American
Association for the Advancement of Science and the 5th World Congress
on the Use of Animals in the Life Sciences, Scientists Center for
Animal Welfare meetings and the Public Responsibility in Medicine and
Research annual meeting.
The AWIC works closely with both APHIS Animal Care and with
Emergency Veterinary Services on emerging crises such as the highly
pathogenic Avian Influenza. The Center is focused on transmissible
spongiform encephalopathy, exotic Avian Newcastle disease,
tuberculosis, West Nile Virus and micro-bacterial diseases too.
A proposal was made to create a ``Center for Excellence'' within
Animal Care, but we oppose this effort as an enormous misuse of funds.
There is no need to pay for a site and hire new staff because much of
the work proposed for such a Center for Excellence is already covered
effectively and efficiently by the AWIC. We would, however, support
further expansion of the AWIC at its current location within the
National Agricultural Library. The AWIC has a record spanning nearly
two decades that demonstrates its abilities to serve.
$19.143 Million for APHIS/Animal Care's Enforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act
The Animal Welfare Act (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 nearly 13,000 sites of dealers, research, testing and
teaching facilities, zoos, aquariums, circuses, carriers (airlines,
motor freight lines and other shipping businesses) and handlers (ground
freight handlers). There are a mere 101 Veterinary Medical Officers
(VMOs) and Animal Care Inspectors (ACIs) conducting searches, pre-
licensing inspections and enforcement inspections across the country.
In fiscal year 2005, 575 cases were brought regarding violations of
the AWA and more than $1.1 million dollars was received in fines and
stipulations. These enforcement actions help ensure the protection of
both animals and people as evidenced by the OIG Audit released this
fall.
We support the President's request for $19.143 million for
enforcement of the AWA. We hope the additional funds will permit USDA
to hire 15 additional inspectors and to conduct a national meeting
(with all inspectors in attendance). There were insufficient funds for
USDA to conduct a workshop this fiscal year, and a national meeting
must be held next year; it is vital as it provides proper training of
inspectors and ensures a high and equal standard of enforcement is
being implemented by the field inspectors nationwide. The cost for a
national meeting is expected to be $150,000.
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. Sound enforcement by USDA has reduced the number of
random source dealers in live dogs and cats to 10. More than half of
these are currently under investigation by USDA for their failure to
comply with the law. A recent Home Box Office documentary film, Dealing
Dogs, highlighted the problems that plague this cottage industry. The
committee could save Animal Care significant resources and aggravation
if it brought an end to this illicit trade by including report language
prohibiting the sale of dogs and cats to research by random source
dealers. Animals needed for research purposes can be obtained from
other sources including licensed breeders. This would ensure integrity
in the supply of dogs and cats for research purposes.
$750,000 for APHIS/Animal Care's Enforcement of the Horse Protection
Act
More than thirty years have passed since the Horse Protection Act
was adopted by Congress, yet soring of Tennessee Walking Horses
continues to be a widespread problem. Soring is defined by APHIS as
``the application of any chemical or mechanical agent used on any limb
of a horse or any practice inflicted upon the horse that can be
expected to cause it physical pain or distress when moving.'' Horses
are sored to produce an exaggerated gait.
The most effective method of reducing the showing of horses who
have been sored is to have Animal Care (AC) inspectors present at the
shows. Oftentimes, as soon as an AC inspector arrives at a show, there
is a rush to put horses back into trailers and haul them away. If the
likelihood that an AC inspector will show up increases significantly,
this will have a huge deterrent effect on those who routinely sore
their horses.
AC was only able to attend 32 events in fiscal year 2004 out of a
total of approximately 865 shows. $750,000 ($500,000 plus a $250,000
add-on) must be provided to enable AC to attend even a modest number of
events.
Unfortunately, the amount of penalties assessed for violations of
the law have dropped to a negligible amount. In addition to increasing
the presence of inspectors, USDA must increase the penalties which are
assessed or the industry will continue to defy the law with impunity.
Lack of financial support has made it necessary for Animal Care to
rely heavily on the industry to assume responsibility for enforcement
of the law. This is the same industry that has turned a blind eye to
compliance with the law since 1970! ``Designated Qualified Persons''
(DQPs) are the ``inspectors'' from industry who are supposed to assist
AC in identifying sore horses and pursuing action against the
individuals who are responsible. The history of the DQPs reveals their
failure to achieve the level of enforcement of the unbiased, well-
trained, professional inspectors who work for AC. Following is data for
horses shown with pads on their front feet to accentuate their gait: in
calendar year 2001 (the most recent year for which such information is
available from USDA); the average rate at which DQPs identified
violations for soring was 3.4 per 1,000 horses inspected. The rate of
violations reported when government inspectors were present to oversee
the activities of the DQPs was more than 5 times higher--19 per 1,000
horses inspected.
We have few current figures on enforcement, however, we recently
learned from USDA that in 2005 of the samples taken by a gas
chromatography machine (used to test for use of illegal substances to
sore horses) at the Kentucky Celebration horse show, 100 percent
indicated the presence of diesel fuel or another similar fuel plus
numbing agents. Clearly the law is not being taken seriously by the
industry.
An appropriation of at least $750,000 is essential to permit AC to
maintain a modest level of compliance with the Horse Protection Act by
trained AC professionals.
Strengthened Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Act by FSIS
When President Eisenhower signed the Humane Slaughter Act (HSA)
into law he noted that if he went by his mail he would think Americans
were interested in no other issue. The concern about HSA enforcement
continues today and is as broad now as it was then. Over the past few
years the Congress has generously provided additional appropriations to
the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) to improve enforcement of
the Humane Slaughter Act, however, problems persist. A big part of the
problem is that the vast majority of animals currently slaughtered at
the approximately 900 federally inspected plants are not observed by
FSIS until after they are already dead.
In addition, FSIS inspectors are discouraged from enforcing the
law. Inspectors are supposed to be able to stop the slaughter line if
violations are seen. However, stopping the line will markedly reduce
the plant's financial profits, thus there is intense pressure for the
inspector not to take action. The situation at plants appears to be
cozy for people, meanwhile the animals are suffering. For example, the
Office of the Inspector General conducted an investigation of a large
plant in Iowa, issuing a report on April 25, 2005, which concluded
that: ``employees of AGRI had engaged in acts of inhumane slaughter. It
was also determined that FSIS employees observed the acts of inhumane
slaughter and did nothing to stop the practice. Additionally, the
investigation revealed that FSIS inspectors accepted meat products from
AGRI employees and that FSIS employees engaged in other acts of
misconduct.''
FSIS has attempted a variety of machinations in an effort to dupe
Congress into believing that enforcement efforts have increased
dramatically. This is mere window dressing, and inspectors who are in
the plants have confirmed that little has changed--and abuses are rife.
The situation at Agriprocessors, described above is but one example
(http://awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_1/541p7a.htm). Because of
this, we vehemently oppose increased resources for FSIS. The agency
hasn't demonstrated its resolve to strongly enforce the law.
Bill language should direct FSIS to hire no fewer than 50
individual inspectors (as opposed to FTE's) to serve as permanent
fixtures in each of the largest slaughter plants to observe the
handling, stunning and slaughter of animals for compliance with the
law. When inspectors are not present, line speeds are increased and the
operations are conducted in a completely different (and horrific)
manner. A full-time presence is the only way to ensure compliance. FSIS
should report the results of this effort to the Committee and evaluate
the effectiveness of having full-time (not full time equivalent)
enforcement of the humane slaughter requirements following a year of
diligence. All inspectors who engage in HSA enforcement must receive
adequate training about the law and, more importantly, must receive a
strict mandate from the Secretary of Agriculture to take strong,
immediate action against any violators of the HSA. This would be a
modest step toward protecting the millions of animals who are killed
for food from unnecessary suffering.
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. As improved tools
are developed through research, operations must make use of this data
and shift methods accordingly.
WS needs to phase out of use of steel jaw leghold traps. WS' own
research demonstrates the archaic nature of certain leghold traps;
these should be prohibited immediately. Leghold traps slam shut with
bone-crushing force on the limbs of their victims, tearing ligaments
and tendons, severing toes and causing excruciating pain. These traps,
opposed by the vast majority of Americans, have been condemned as
``inhumane'' by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the
American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association
and the National Animal Control Association.
The European Union (E.U.) banned use of the barbaric steel jaw
leghold trap so that 88 countries now prohibit their use. Nobly, the EU
went a step further; the EU law also prohibits import of furs from
countries that use steel jaw traps. On December 11, 1997, in response
to this European law, the U.S. Trade Representative reached an
``Understanding'' with the E.U. in which the United States agreed to
end use of ``all jaw-type leghold restraining traps'' by 2002 on
muskrat and nutria and to phase out use of ``conventional steel-jawed
leghold restraining traps'' by 2004. WS has the responsibility of
complying with this United States obligation by ending its use of these
barbaric devices.
WS should pursue no further testing of leghold traps as this would
be an extremely wasteful and cruel use of taxpayer money. Previously,
funds designated for trap research were merely passed on to a
nongovernmental organization to utilize as it saw fit, without
involvement from WS. If funds are allocated for trap testing, WS should
conduct the research since the agency has the appropriate technical
expertise.
Further, WS should adopt a policy of checking all restraining traps
within a 24-hour period. A wealth of scientific studies documents the
fact that the longer an animal is in a restraining trap, the greater
the injury. For this reason, the majority of States have a daily trap
check requirement. Animals should not be subjected to long-drawn out
pain because of a failure to assume the responsibility of carefully
checking traps every day. This policy will help reduce the trauma
experienced by non-target animals, too, ensuring that more of these
animals will be able to be released alive.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony. We
would be happy to provide any additional information that might be of
interest.
______

Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research and
Women's Health Research Coalition

On the behalf of the Society for Women's Health Research and the
Women's Health Research Coalition, we are pleased to submit testimony
in support of increased funding for biomedical research, and more
specifically women's health research.
The Society is the only national non-profit women's health
organization whose mission is to improve the health of women through
research, education, and advocacy. Founded in 1990, the Society brought
to national attention the need for the appropriate inclusion of women
in major medical research studies and the need for more information
about conditions affecting women disproportionately, predominately, or
differently than men.
The Coalition was created by the Society in 1999 to give a voice to
scientists and researchers from across the country who are concerned
and committed to improving women's health research. The Coalition now
has more than 620 members, including leaders within the scientific
community and medical researchers from many of the country's leading
universities and medical centers, directors from various Centers of
Excellence on Women's Health.
The Society and the Coalition are committed to advancing the health
status of women through the discovery of new and useful scientific
knowledge. We believe that sustained funding for the women's health
research programs that are conducted and supported across the Federal
research agencies is necessary if we are to accommodate the health
needs of the population and advance the Nation's research capability.
Therefore, we urge your support for the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) Office of Women's Health and request funding of $5 million in
order that it may meet its program goals.
food and drug administration office of women's health
The Office of Women's Health (OWH) role at FDA is critical to
women's health, both within and outside the agency and to research into
sex and gender-differences, areas in which the Society long has been a
proponent. The office aims to provide scientific and policy expertise
on gender sensitive regulatory and oversight issues; to correct gender
disparities in the areas for which the FDA is responsible--drugs,
devices, and biologics and to monitor women's health priorities,
providing leadership and an integrated approach across the agency. The
OHW accomplishes its admirable work, despite inadequate budgets that
prevent it from fully accomplishing its mission.
Since its inception, OWH has funded high quality scientific
research to serve as the foundation for agency activities that improve
women's health. To date, OWH has distributed $12 million in funding for
over 100 research projects. OWH has recently funded research to fully
understand heart disease in women. Despite being the number one killer,
women with heart disease face misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, under-
treatment, and mistreatment due to the under-representation in heart-
related research studies. Extramural research funded by OWH is looking
into the use of coronary stents in women and problems with breast
interference in interpreting heart catherization studies.
We would encourage OWH to expand its research focus to further
address the discrepancies in heart disease treatment for women. The
Society in conjunction with WomenHeart: the National Coalition for
Women with Heart Disease compiled a list of ten questions that must be
answered if women are to receive optimal cardiovascular care and
treatment. The ten unanswered research questions are:
--Why do women receive significantly fewer referrals for advanced
diagnostic testing and treatments for heart disease than men,
and how can the referral rate for women be increased?
--What are the best tools and methods for assessing women's risk of
heart disease?
--What are the best strategies for preventing heart disease in women?
--What treatments for heart disease work best for women?
--What are the most effective methods and treatments for diastolic
heart failure, which is the most common form of congestive
heart failure in women?
--How can the heart disease diagnosis and care disparities between
white women and women of color be eliminated?
--What are the biological differences between men and women in the
location, type, and heart disease risk level associated with
fat deposits, and what determines these differences?
--How do sex differences in the regulation of heart rhythm affect
risk of heart disease and response to treatment?
--What is the role of inflammation in heart disease in women?
--Why are women ages 50 and younger more likely to die following a
heart attack than men of the same age?
As part of its educational outreach efforts to consumers, OWH
worked closely with women's advocacy and health professional
organizations to address some of the confusing issues related to the
findings of the Women's Health Initiative Study. As a result of this
OWH initiative, an informational fact sheet about menopause and
hormones and a purse-size questionnaire for women to review with their
doctor were distributed to national and local print, radio, and
Internet advertisements. The FDA website received over 3 million hits
to download campaign materials.
In 2001, the Society submitted testimony on behalf of the OWH and
in support of a centralized database at the FDA to coordinate clinical
trial oversight, monitor the inclusion of women in clinical trials,
oversee the parameters of informed consent, and identify training needs
for all scientific agency staff who analyze human clinical trials. Due
to Society efforts and this Committee's commitment, in 2002 Congress
provided the OWH at the FDA with funds to develop an agency-wide
database focused on women's health activities to include demographic
data on clinical trials. The FDA has been developing this database now
known as the ``Demographic Information and Data Repository'' to review
clinical studies, enhance product labeling, identify knowledge gaps,
and coordinate data collection.
While progress has been made, the database is far from up and
running. Currently, the FDA receives large volumes of information in
applications from drug manufacturers for review and evaluation. The FDA
reviewers must comb through the submitted drug trial reports and
digital data in as many as twelve formats in order to evaluate a new
drug's safety and effectiveness. With no uniform system or database,
reviewers must handpick gender, age, and ethnicity information from
stacks of reports and craft their own data comparisons. This is time
consuming, makes the review process less efficient, and delays access
to important information. Scientific and medical advances are occurring
rapidly and the public needs and deserves access to the most recent and
accurate information regarding their health. Therefore, in order to
fully capitalize on the potential of the data warehouse and the
resulting wealth of information, we urge Congress to commit $1 million
for the Demographic Information and Data Repository.
Scientists have long known of the anatomical differences between
men and women, but only within the past decade have they begun to
uncover significant biological and physiological differences. Sex
differences have been found everywhere from the composition of bone
matter and the experience of pain to the metabolism of certain drugs
and the rate of neurotransmitter synthesis in the brain. Sex-based
biology, the study of biological and physiological differences between
men and women, has revolutionized the way that the scientific community
views the sexes, with even more information forthcoming as a result of
the recent sequencing of the human X chromosome. The evidence is
overwhelming, and as researchers continue to find more and complex
biological differences, they are gaining a greater understanding of the
biological and physiological composition of both sexes.
The Society has long recognized that the inclusion of women in
study populations by itself was insufficient to address the inequities
in our knowledge of human biology and medicine, and that only by the
careful study of sex differences at all levels, from genes to behavior,
would science achieve the goal of optimal health care for both men and
women.
The differences between men and women are important in disease
susceptibility, prevalence, time of onset and severity and are evident
in cancer, obesity, coronary heart disease, autoimmune, mental health
disorders, and other illnesses. Physiological and hormonal fluctuations
may also play a role in the rate of drug metabolism and effectiveness
of response in females and males. This research must be both encouraged
and supported.
In addition, the Society encourages the establishment of drug-
labeling requirements that ensure labels include language about
differences experienced by women and men. Furthermore, we advocate for
research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs with specific
emphasis on data analysis by sex. When available, this information
should also be specified on drug labels.
Our country's drug development process has succeeded in providing
new and improved medications to ensure the health of both women and
men. However, there is no mandated requirement that the data acquired
during research of a new drug's safety and efficacy be analyzed as a
function of sex, to evaluate potentially important differences in
females versus males. Similarly, there are no requirements that
information regarding the action of drugs in various populations (e.g.,
women requiring a lower dosage because of different rates of absorption
or chemical breakdown) be included in prescription drug labeling or
other patient educational and instructional materials. In order for
patients to be an informed participant in their own care, they should
have access to all available pertinent information.
Proper drug labeling may not always provide the complete solution.
If the drug is not one newly approved or if sex-specific information is
detected only in post-marketing studies, the drug label will not convey
the sex-specific information discovered to the prescribing physician,
and it may be difficult to get such new information incorporated into
physicians' prescribing habits.
The Society believes the opportunity is now before us to
communicate the sex differences data discovered from clinical trials to
the medical community and to consumers through drug labeling and
packaging inserts, and other forms of alerts. As part of advancing the
analysis and reporting of sex-based effects, the Society encourages the
FDA to continue addressing the need for accurate drug labeling to
identify important sex and gender differences, as well as to ensure
that appropriate data analysis of post-market surveillance reporting
for these differences is placed in the hands of physicians and
ultimately the patient.
To ensure adequate analysis and recording of sex and gender
disparities in drugs, devices and biologics, and to provide for
appropriate regulatory policy and accurate drug labeling, we believe
that the OWH at the FDA should be funded at a total of $5 million so
that this Office can create, implement, and coordinate gender sensitive
programs vital to women and men throughout the Nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and this Committee for
its strong record of support for women's health. We look forward to
continuing to work with you to build a healthier future for all
Americans.
______

Prepared Statement of the Society of American Foresters, National
Association of State Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and National
Association of State Departments of Agriculture

Dear Mr. Chairman/Ranking Member: The Society of American
Foresters, National Association of State Foresters, The Nature
Conservancy, and the National Association of State Departments of
Agriculture urge the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,
and Related Agencies to increase funding substantially for the USDA
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Emerging Plant Pests
program. A sharp increase in funding is necessary in order to ensure
adequate funding for eradication and control efforts targeting the
emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, and sudden oak death. All
three introduced organisms threaten forest and amenity trees and
related economic activities worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
This statement of common goals supplements individual letters to
the Subcommittee submitted by several of these organizations. These
individual letters address additional issues which we do not include
here.
We seek an appropriation of $55 million for fiscal year 2007 to
contain the emerald ash borer. The emerald ash borer threatens twelve
species of ash across the continent, especially in the upper Midwest
and Southeast. At risk are the $25 billion ash timber industry in the
Northeast and street trees across the Nation valued at $20 to $60
billion. The emerald ash borer outbreak is large, but the core of the
infestation remains in the lower peninsula of Michigan--where it is
largely contained by the Great Lakes. It is absolutely essential that
APHIS receive adequate funding in fiscal year 2007 to enable affected
states to eradicate the limited and isolated outbreaks found in Ohio,
Indiana, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. It is also crucial that APHIS
and its partners carry forward detection surveys and regulatory and
educational programs aimed at preventing movement of infested firewood,
nursery stock, and other materials that spread the insect. Once the
outlying outbreaks are eradicated, officials can begin efforts to quash
the core outbreak in Michigan.
We seek an appropriation of $30 million for fiscal year 2007 to
carry forward eradication of the sole remaining populations of the
Asian longhorned beetle. The Asian longhorned beetle poses an alarming
threat to hardwood forests reaching from New England into Minnesota and
in the West, and to the hardwood timber, maple syrup, and autumn
foliage tourism industries dependent on these forests. Also at risk are
street trees across the Nation valued at $600 billion. Eradication has
been successful in Chicago, proving the efficacy of this approach.
Beetle populations in New Jersey are well on track for eradication.
Only the populations in New York persist--and that is because funding
for the New York effort has been reduced in past years to focus the
inadequate overall resources on Illinois and New Jersey. It is
essential to provide sufficient funding now and in coming years to
complete eradication in New York.
We seek $9 million in appropriations for fiscal year 2007 to
contain a third damaging forest pest, sudden oak death (also called the
phytophthora leaf and stem blight). If sudden oak death does escape
confinement, it threatens oaks in forests in Oregon and Washington as
well as throughout the Appalachians, Ozarks, and even into southern New
England. This disease is also a major threat to the Nation's nursery
industry as it readily attacks species such as rhododendron and other
species used in the garden nursery business. Spread of sudden oak death
is thus of enormous consequence to both native forests and the garden
nursery business. In its impact on the oak species, it has the
potential to devastate critical forage for many wildlife species as
well.
Additional forest pests introduced into the United States and
recently identified are currently being reviewed by scientific experts
convened by APHIS and the USDA Forest Service. The most prominent
example is the Sirex wood wasp, now present in New York, which
threatens valuable pine timber resources, including those of the
Southeast and eastern United States. The scientists' conclusions
regarding the wood wasp and other species might result in additional
funding needs.
The Society of American Foresters, National Association of State
Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and the National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture strongly support the Congress'
numerous statements urging the Administration to release emergency
funds from the Commodity Credit Corporation sufficient to enable full
implementation of management plans for the exotic threats to our forest
resources.
Action now at the funding level requested would help ensure that
these forest pests do not reach populations so large as to threaten
forest, amenity trees, garden nursery stock, and related economic
activities worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
______

Prepared Statement the Wyoming State Engineer's Office

Dear Chairman Bennett and Ranking Member Kohl: This letter is sent
in support of the designation of 2.5 percent of the fiscal year 2007
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Colorado River Salinity Control (CRSC)
Program. Pursuant to Public Law 104-127, the USDA's CRSC Program is a
component program within EQIP. 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. 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.
The Colorado River provides municipal and industrial water for 27
million people and irrigation water to nearly 4 million acres of land
in the United States. The River is also the water source for some 2.3
million people and 500,000 acres in Mexico. Limitations on users'
abilities to make the greatest use of that water supply due to the
River's high concentration of total dissolved solids (hereafter
referred to as the salinity of the water) are a major concern in both
the United States and Mexico. Salinity in the water source especially
affects agricultural, municipal, and industrial water users. While
economic detriments and damages in Mexico are unquantified, the Bureau
of Reclamation presently estimates salinity-related damages in the
United States to amount to $330 million per year. The River's high salt
content is in almost equal part due to naturally occurring geologic
features that include subsurface salt formations and discharging saline
springs; and the resultant concentrating effects of our users man's
storage, use and reuse of the waters of the River system. Over-
application of irrigation water by agriculture is a large contributor
of salt to the Colorado River as irrigation water moves below the crop
root zone, seeps through saline soils and then returns to the river
system.
In close cooperation with the EPA and pursuant to 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 elements necessary to keep the salinity
concentrations (measured at Total Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below
the levels measured in the river system in 1972 at Imperial Dam, and
below Parker and Hoover Dams. In setting water quality standards for
the Colorado River system, the salinity concentrations at these three
locations have been identified as the numeric criteria. The plan
necessary for controlling salinity and reducing downstream damages has
been captioned the ``Plan of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review of water
quality standards 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 from the USDA,
the Forum has determined that implementation of the Program needs to be
accelerated. The level of appropriation requested in this testimony is
in keeping with the agreed upon plan.
The Department of Agriculture's CRSC Program is an important proven
and cost-effective tool in improving irrigation water application and
thus reducing salt loading into the Colorado River system. For the past
22 years, the seven-State Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
has actively assisted the U.S. Department of Agriculture in
implementing its unique, collaborative and important program. With the
enactment of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(FAIRA), the Congress directed that the Program should be implemented
as one of the components of the Environmental Quality Incentives
Program (EQIP). Since the enactment of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act (FSRIA) in 2002, there is, for the first time, an
opportunity to adequately fund the Program within the EQIP. At its
recent October 2006 meeting, the Forum recommended that the USDA CRSC
Program should expend 2.5 percent of the Environmental Quality
Incentive Program funding. In the Forum's judgment, this amount of
funding is necessary to implement the needed program. ``Catch-up''
funding in the future will require expending greater sums of money,
increase 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 Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Advisory Council has taken the position that the funding for
the salinity control program should not be below $20 million per year.
Over the last 3 fiscal years, for the first time, funding almost
reached the needed level. The amount of State and local cost-sharing
that can be applied in each given fiscal year is driven by the amount
of Federal appropriations and the EQIP allocation. In fiscal year 2006,
the participating basin States will cost share with about $8.3 million
and local agriculture producers will add another $7.5 million. Hence,
it is anticipated that in fiscal year 2006 the State and local
contributions will be 45 percent of the total program.
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 support by your Subcommittee. We request that your
Subcommittee direct the allocation of 2.5 percent of the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program funding for the USDA's CRSC Program during
fiscal year 2007. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this
statement and its inclusion in the formal record for fiscal year 2007
appropriations.
______

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 areas: the Market Access
Program (MAP); funding for the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act,
Cooperative State Research, Extension and Education Service (CSREES)
and Agricultural Research Service (ARS) funding, nutrition education
and expansion of the fruit and vegetable snack program.
USApple is the national trade association representing all segments
of the apple industry. Members include 36 State and regional apple
associations representing the 7,500 apple growers throughout the
country as well as more than 300 individual firms involved in the apple
business. Our mission is to provide the means for all segments of the
U.S. apple industry to join in appropriate collective efforts to
profitably produce and market apples and apple products.
Market Access Program (MAP)
USApple encourages Congress to appropriate $200 million in MAP
funds, the level authorized in the farm bill for fiscal 2007.
The apple industry receives over $3 million annually in export
development funds from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Market Access Program (MAP). These funds are matched by grower dollars
to promote apples in more than 20 countries throughout the world. One-
quarter of U.S. fresh apple production is exported, with an annual
value of approximately $370 million.
Strong MAP funding is critical to the U.S. apple industry's efforts
to maintain and expand exports, and to increase grower profitability.
Congress recognized the importance of MAP by authorizing increased
funding in the 2002 farm bill. Over the past three years, congressional
appropriations have kept pace with the farm bill's authorized level.
Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Implementation
USApple urges full funding for the following U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) administered programs to mitigate the negative
impact of FQPA implementation on apple growers.
--$16 million for the Pesticide Data Program, administered by the
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS);
--$8.0 million for the National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) pesticide-usage surveys;
--$2.0 million for the Office of Pest Management Policy administered
by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS);
--$3.7 million for minor-use registration of crop protection tools
(IR-4) administered by ARS;
--$7.2 million for area-wide IPM research administered by ARS;
--$13.5 million for the Integrated Pest Management Research Grant
Program administered by the Cooperative State Research,
Extension and Education Service (CSREES);
--$10.8 million for minor-use registration of crop protection tools
(IR-4) administered by CSREES; and
--$12.5 million for the Pest Management Alternatives Program,
Regional Pest Management Centers, Crops at Risk and Risk
Avoidance and Mitigation Program also administered by CSREES.
National Tree Fruit Technology Roadmap
USApple urges the Committee to support the apple industry's efforts
to improve its competitiveness by providing increased Federal funding
for the development and application of new technologies as outlined
below.
Codling Moth and Other Lepidoptera Insect Research:
--$800,000 Agricultural Research Service--Yakima, Washington
--$800,000 Agricultural Research Service--Kearneysville, West
Virginia
Colonial immigrants introduced the codling moth into the United
States from Europe, and its presence in apple orchards has plagued
apple growers for the past 200 years. If uncontrolled, codling moth
larvae damage apples by burrowing into fruits. This pest causes
significant production losses and ruins demand. Codling moth is
presently controlled by pesticide applications or techniques that
interfere with reproduction. However, these options are insufficient to
fully meet industry standards for codling moth control. Shortcomings in
current controls have even led to the closure of the apple industry's
third largest export market. Other lepidoptera insects such as oriental
fruit moth and leaf rollers are also significant pests of concern that
decrease grower profitability.
The apple industry needs better decision-making techniques,
improved understanding of secondary pests and the biology of pest
predators, improved mating disruption techniques, rapid and efficient
pest detection and instrumentation methods. Geographic differences in
codling moth control capabilities requires a regional approach to
research funding.
Rootstock Breeding and Soil Replant Disease Research:
--$400,000 Agricultural Research Service--Geneva, New York
--$400,000 Agricultural Research Service--Wenatchee, Washington
Rootstocks are important to apple growers because of their
prominence in determining tree size, tree architecture and disease
vulnerability. There is a growing interest and demand for hearty
rootstocks that lend disease resistance and improved tree structures
that are more efficient and profitable to manage.
Soil replant disease is a poorly understood phenomenon that reduces
tree vigor and stunts tree growth in new orchards, which are planted on
the site of a previously existing orchard. A combination of organisms
such as bacteria, fungi, nematodes and viruses are suspected to play a
role in attacking the roots of new apple trees, limiting their growth
potential. This problem has surfaced as a high priority problem because
of the scarcity of new orchard sites, the need to replant existing
orchards, the high per acre cost of planting new orchards and shortage
of good options to control replant disease. Soil replant disease is a
problem for all tree fruits including apples, pears, peaches and
cherries. Genetics and genomics approaches are expected to yield
significant progress in addressing rootstock related research.
Research is needed to better understand site-specific drivers
causing the disease and how the disease causes damage. Research is
necessary to develop sustainable controls.
Fruit Quality Research:
--$750,000 Agricultural Research Service--Albany, California
--$750,000 Agricultural Research Service--Wenatchee, Washington
The future of the U.S. apple industry will depend on the ability of
apple growers to consistently grow and market apples with superior
quality. Improved fruit quality will not only ensure greater
international competitiveness, but it will increase consumer demand for
apples.
Research is needed on the physical, chemical and genetic
composition of apples so apple growers can produce apples with superior
consumer traits, such as texture, aroma, and nutrition and apples with
superior production traits such as uniform ripening and better storage
characteristics and systems to deliver better fruit quality to
consumers through improved defect and quality sorting.
Automation, Sensors, and Precision Agriculture Research:
--$4,000,000 Agricultural Research Service--Kearneysville, West
Virginia
--$2,000,000 Agricultural Research Service--East Lansing, Michigan
--$2,000,000 Agricultural Research Service--Prosser, Washington
Improving labor productivity is a critically important goal for the
apple industry as it strives to remain competitive with low-wage
international competitors. Tree fruit industries must identify and
incorporate new technologies that will minimize low skill tasks,
enhance worker productivity and safety, reduce production and handling
costs, decrease seasonality of labor, and maximize fruit quality
delivered to consumers.
Additional research is needed for fruit postharvest technology
research in a packing line environment to better evaluate internal
fruit quality characteristics, such as internal defects, sugar content
and fruit firmness. Improved sensor technology used on packing lines
will be beneficial in detecting internal defects, lessen that amount of
labor needed to detect and sort fruit and ensure that all packed fruit
meets consumer demand for high quality fruit.
Successful technological innovations must be coupled with novel
plant genetics, integrated orchard designs, biorational pest and
predator management systems, and prescriptive plant bioregulators. A
systems approach will also require the simultaneous development and
deployment of remote and ground sensing capabilities for real-time
assessment of micro-environmental variables; tree vigor and orchard
canopies; pest, pathogen, and predator pressure; water stress, and
fruit quality. This research would also be applicable to a host of tree
fruits including cherries, peaches, almonds and apples and pears.
The need for investment in these new technologies has never been
greater, but current Federal research to address this need is
insufficient. Therefore, the tree fruit industry is requesting an
increase in research funding to meet this great need.
Specialty Crops Competitiveness Act
USApple urges Congress to fund the block grants authorized under
the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act at the full $44.5 million
authorized under the Act.
The Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act (SCCA) was introduced in the
108th Congress by Reps. Cal Dooley (D-CA) and Doug Ose (R-CA) and in
the Senate by Senators Craig (R-ID) and Stabenow (D-MI). The bill was
designed to strengthen demand, reduce production costs, and enhance
production and marketing efficiencies.
The majority of the funds authorized funds would go toward block
grants, with each State department of agriculture being guaranteed a
minimum of $100,000. In fiscal year 2006 Congress appropriated $7
million for the block grants. USDA's Agriculture Marketing Service is
now in the process of drafting regulations to implement the program.
There is a strong need to build on the $7 million authorized for fiscal
year 2006 and continue this important program.
USApple urges Congress to increase funding for the Technical
Assistance for Specialty Crops (TASC) program to $4 million as
authorized under the Specialty Crop Competitiveness Act.
This program has been critical over the last 4 years in helping the
apple industry address specific sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) non-
tariff trade barriers.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program
USApple urges Congress to include $36 million in the USDA budget to
expand the fruit and vegetable snack program to 25 schools in each of
the 36 remaining States.
The 2002 farm bill established the Fruit and Vegetable Pilot
Program to promote consumption of fruits and vegetables among school
children by providing free produce to schools in 25 schools in each of
four States (Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and one Indian Tribal
Organization in New Mexico). The Child Nutrition and WIC
Reauthorization Act of 2004 made the pilot permanent and expanded it to
25 schools in Mississippi, three additional States (North Carolina,
Pennsylvania and Washington were chosen by USDA) and two additional
Indian Reservations. In fiscal year 2006, Congress expanded the program
to an additional 6 States (Utah, Wisconsin, Texas, Idaho, New Mexico,
and Connecticut). If Congress is unable to expand the program to the
entire country, USApple urges that the program be expanded to include
New York.
Reports from the original pilot showed that students were
increasing their consumption of fruits and vegetables, choosing more
fruits and vegetables for lunch, and asking their parents for fruits
and vegetables at home. The fruit and vegetable snack program works to
educate children about the healthy eating habits that will last a
lifetime. The fruit and vegetable snack program should be expanded to
25 schools in every State.

REINSTATEMENT OF RECESSIONS

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.
The Yakima, Wash., USDA ARS facility is conducting research
critical to the crop protection needs of the apple industry. FQPA
implementation has reduced the number of pesticides currently available
to growers for the control of pests, such as cherry fruit fly and apple
maggot. Left unchecked, these temperate fruit flies can be devastating.
Thus, research is needed to develop alternative crop protection methods
as growers struggle to cope with the loss of existing tools. While
Congress appropriated $300,000 last fiscal year for this critical
research, the administration's proposed budget for fiscal 2007 rescinds
this funding.
Post Harvest Quality Research Position--East Lansing, Mich.
USApple urges Congress to maintain funding of $309,600 in the USDA
ARS fiscal year 2007 budget for the postharvest quality research
position in East Lansing, Mich.
The East Lansing, Mich., USDA ARS facility is conducting research
critical to the future survival of the apple industry. Using a series
of new sensing technologies, researchers at this facility are
developing techniques that would allow apple packers to measure the
sugar content and firmness of each apple before it is offered to
consumers. Research indicates consumer purchases will increase when
products consistently meet their expectations, suggesting consumers
will eat more apples once this technology is fully developed and
employed by our industry. While Congress appropriated $309,600 last
fiscal year for this critical research, the administration's proposed
budget for fiscal 2007 rescinds this funding.
Genomics, Disease Resistance and Insect Behavior--Kearneysville, W.V.
USApple urges Congress to maintain funding of $588,900 in the USDA
ARS 2007 budget for genomics, disease resistance and insect behavior
research in Kearneysville, W.V.
This research provides critical information that assists with the
development of new apple varieties, identification of disease pathways
and strategies to control devastating insect pests. This research is
important in developing solutions to problems that reduce fruit quality
and increase production costs. Apple growers depend on this research
for economic sustainability and increased international
competitiveness.
Genetics of Fruit Quality Research--Wenatchee, Wash.
The Wenatchee, Wash., USDA Agricultural Research (ARS) lab is
building a genetics and genomics research program that will develop a
greater understanding of fruit quality attributes that are important to
consumers, such as flavor, texture, storability and nutrition. This
research will also provide a clearer understanding of where important
genes are located within the apple genome and the role those genes play
in the expression of desirable fruit quality attributes. This
understanding will provide new tools that can be understood as a
multiplier effect to propel existing research programs that will be
able to utilize the genetics and genomics tools related to fruit
quality and physiological issues.
USApple urges Congress to maintain baseline funding of $450,000 in
the USDA Agricultural Research Service's fiscal year 2007 budget for
the genetics of fruit quality research position in Wenatchee, Wash.
Laboratory.
______

Prepared Statement of the USA Rice Federation

Dear Mr. Chairmen: This is to convey the rice industry's request
for fiscal year 2007 funding for selected programs under the
jurisdiction of your respective subcommittees. The USA Rice Federation
appreciates your assistance in making this letter a part of the hearing
record.
The USA Rice Federation is the national advocate for all segments
of the rice industry, conducting activities to influence government
programs, developing and initiating programs to increase worldwide
demand for U.S. rice, and providing other services to increase
profitability for all industry segments. USA Rice members are active in
all major rice-producing States: Arkansas, California, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas. The USA Rice Producers'
Group, the USA Rice Council, the USA Rice Millers' Association, and the
USA Rice Merchants' Association are members of the USA Rice Federation.
USA Rice understands the budget constraints the committee faces
when developing the fiscal year 2007 appropriations bill. We appreciate
your past support for initiatives that are critical to the rice
industry and look forward to working with you to meet the continued
needs of research, food aid and market development in the future.
A healthy U.S. rice industry is also dependent on the program
benefits offered by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Therefore, we oppose any attempts to modify the support levels provided
by this vital legislation through more restrictive payment limitations
or other means and encourage the committee to resist such efforts
during the appropriations process.
A list of the programs the USA Rice Federation supports for
appropriations in fiscal year 2007 are as follows:
Funding Priorities
Research and APHIS
The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center should receive
continued funding at the fiscal year 2006 approved level. This center
conducts research to help keep the U.S. rice industry competitive in
the global marketplace by assuring high yields, superior grain quality,
pest resistance, and stress tolerance. The fiscal year 2007 budget
proposal from the U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes to rescind
$270,000 in funding for this key research center, which would severely
hamper the vital research activities being conducted at this national
center. We urge you to provide full funding to the Dale Bumpers
National Rice Research Center.
In addition, we have attached information outlining the top
priority research request from the USA Rice Federation; funding for
aromatic rice variety research at the Dale Bumpers Center. The request
is for $250,000 for fiscal year 2007 for research to develop domestic,
high-yielding, high-quality aromatic rice varieties for the U.S. rice
industry. Further details and specifics of this request are attached.
Furthermore, we urge the subcommittee to continue to provide full
funding for the USDA-ARS Rice Research Unit in Beaumont, Texas. The
fiscal year 2007 budget proposal calls for cuts of $1.4 million, which
would likely result in the closure of this important rice research
facility. We ask for your consideration in maintaining funds to keep
this center in operation for the benefit of the U.S. rice industry.
The Western Regional Research Center, located in California, should
receive continued full funding for operating funds. This center
provides important research activities in support of the California
rice industry, particularly post-harvest research. This facility has
undergone recent modernization and upgrades and it is important to
continue to provide the funds necessary to allow the center to continue
full operations.
For APHIS-Wildlife Services, we encourage the committee to fund the
Louisiana blackbird control project at $333,000. This program annually
saves rice farmers in Southwest Louisiana over $4,000 per farm, or $2.9
million total. No increases have been provided to the program since
1994 and inflation is reducing the overall impact. An increase from the
$150,000 baseline is justified.
Market Access
Exports are critical to the U.S. rice industry. Historically, 40-50
percent of annual U.S. rice production has been shipped overseas. Thus,
building healthy export demand for U.S. rice is a high priority.
The Foreign Market Development Program (FMD) allows USA Rice to
focus on importer, foodservice, and other non-retail promotion
activities around the world. For fiscal year 2007, FMD should be fully
funded at $34.5 million, consistent with the President's Budget
request.
The Market Access Program (MAP) allows USA Rice to concentrate on
consumer promotion and other activities for market expansion around the
world. For fiscal year 2007, MAP should be funded at $200 million as
authorized by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which
restores MAP funding to its authorized level. This is $100 million
above the President's budget request.
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. These programs are
critical for the economic health of the U.S. rice industry.
Food Aid
We encourage the committee to fund Public Law 480 Title I at a
minimum level of $100 million, an increase from fiscal year 2006
levels. This program is our top food-aid priority and we support
continued funding in order to meet international demand. Food-aid sales
historically account for a significant portion of U.S. rice exports.
For Public Law 480 Title II we support funding for fiscal year 2007
at $1.335 billion, equal to the fiscal year 2006 level. We encourage
the committee to fund Title II at a level to ensure consistent tonnage
amounts for the rice industry. We oppose any shifting of funds, as all
Title II funds have traditionally been contained within USDA's budget.
We believe all food-aid funds should continue to be used for food-aid
purchases of rice and other commodities from only U.S. origin.
USA Rice supports continued funding at fiscal year 2006 levels for
Food for Progress. Funding for this program is important to improve
food security for food deficit nations.
The Global Food for Education Initiative is a proven success and it
is important to provide steady, reliable funding for multi-year
programming. USA Rice supports the $103 million request in the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget for this education initiative
because it efficiently delivers food to its targeted group, children,
while also encouraging education, a primary stepping-stone for
populations to improve economic conditions.
Other
Farm Service Agency.--We encourage the Committee to provide
adequate funding so the agency can deliver essential programs and
services. The Agency has been hard hit by staff reductions and our
members fear a reduction in service if sufficient funds are not
allocated.
Please feel free to contact us if you would like further
information about the programs we have listed. Additional background
information is available for all of the programs we have referenced,
however, we understand the volume of requests the committee receives
and have restricted our comments accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
Attachment:

FISCAL YEAR 2007 FUNDING REQUEST FORM

Agency.--U.S. Department of Agriculture
Account.--USDA/ARS: The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center,
Stuttgart, AR
Project Name.--Research to develop domestic, high yield, high
quality aromatic rice varieties at the USDA/ARS Dale Bumpers National
Rice Research Center
Priority.--High.
New Project.--Yes.
Project Description.--Aromatic rice imports have grown dramatically
in the United States in the past 15 years and now total about 450,000
MT per year or 15 percent of total consumption. The United States does
not have an aromatic rice variety that has the yield, milling quality,
and flavor to compete with the imported products. The research will
enable the U.S. rice industry to compete effectively in a timely manner
in the U.S. market with imported aromatic rice.
The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center conducts research in
rice genetics, quality, and pests' resistance to help keep the U.S.
rice industry competitive in the global marketplace. The Center
directly serves the needs of the U.S. industry in Arkansas, California,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Missouri, and Texas. One of its major emphases
is the genetic improvement of rice through the use of cutting-edge
genomic tools and a multidisciplinary research approach.
Aromatic rice has a flavor and aroma similar to roasted nuts or
popcorn. This is a natural compound that is found in several plants
like corn and rice but is present in much higher concentrations as a
result of breeding and development of aromatic rice varieties.
What is the anticipated benefit and/or impact of the project?
Developing high-yielding domestic aromatic rice varieties with the
grain quality traits needed is essential for the U.S. rice industry to
compete in this market and meet domestic consumer demand. In addition,
developing a new understanding of the various chemical compounds that
result in aromatic flavors and smells, along with developing genetic
markers that can be used by breeders to improve grain chemistry and
grain appearance traits, will help the U.S. rice industry to have a
competitive edge in this value-added market.
Previous Funding: Fiscal Year 2002-06 And Amount.--Zero.
Fiscal Year 2007 Request.--$250,000; one full-time staff position
for 1 year.
Fiscal Year 2007 Share.--Fiscal year 2007 funding is for 1 year of
research, with development of a multi-year project pending the findings
of the 2007 research.
Local Share.--Availability of matching funds is being explored at
this time.
Request Description
ARS Account: Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center, Stuttgart,
AR
Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center, Stuttgart, AR
Domestic Aromatic Rice Varieties Research
The Committee provides $250,000 toward development of domestic
aromatic rice varieties to enable the U.S. rice industry to compete
effectively in a timely manner in the U.S. market.
______

Prepared Statement of the University of Southern Mississippi and the
Mississippi Polymer Institute

Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, I 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 a
summary of the Institute's research progress since my testimony of
approximately 1 year ago.
Research efforts over the last year have focused on developing
agricultural-based, environmentally responsible derivatives for use in
coatings and composites to replace petroleum derivatives. Novel
monomers for emulsion polymerization have eliminated the previously
required complicated synthesis procedures while allowing higher levels
of vegetable oil macromonomer (VOMM) incorporation. The resulting latex
polymers facilitate the formulation of architectural coatings with
gloss levels rivaling solvent-based coatings and zero volatile organic
compound (VOC) content. Performance and storage stability optimization
continues across a wide range of novel VOMMs. We are excited about the
continued progress as we believe the agriculturally-derived monomers
have the potential to improve performance while reducing environmental
hazards.
Last year, we reported the successful production of lab-scale soy-
based adhesive, formaldehyde-free particleboards that exceeded all
commercial specifications. We have confirmed that the adhesive can be
scaled up to 30 L batches that produce superior boards compared to the
conventional formaldehyde-based boards. Moreover, the soy-based
particleboards degrade faster than commercial particleboards as
evidenced in soil burial tests. To the best of our knowledge, this is
the only soy protein-based adhesive that can be formulated into
particleboards without the use of formaldehyde-releasing resins that
meets and exceeds commercial particleboard performance. Pilot plant
testing confirmed laboratory performance. It defined the limits of
conventional production and suggested areas requiring further research
to prepare it for commercial manufacturing.
Through our continued research, the U.S. farmer is better
positioned to grow and supply the sustainable raw materials required to
produce environmentally responsible products and reduce our dependency
on imported petroleum products. Coupled with the reduction in air
pollution, a carbon neutral technology, and the absence of
formaldehyde, our research is a valuable strategic component to
America's long-term success and aid in maintaining a higher standard of
living. To date, our technology has resulted in a total of 25 patents
and patent applications, both United States and foreign. Additional
patent applications will be submitted during the upcoming months. With
adequate funding, facilities, and commitment, ag-based research will
continue to the betterment of our society. We are most appreciative of
your support and will continue to push for full commercialization of
technological advances utilizing agricultural intermediates while
training scientists for careers in the next generation of
agriculturally-oriented polymer science.
The design and synthesis of novel vegetable oil macromonomers
(VOMMs) using soy oil, linseed oil, and tung oil are being
investigated. Continued research has increased the utility for new
monomers at higher levels of incorporation. Tailored synthesis methods
with the new monomers have increased the VOMM content in latexes to 80
percent of the monomers by weight, a 30 percent increase over last year
(based on solids). The monomers that permit the polymer chain to form a
smooth film also provide a mechanism for crosslinking through auto-
oxidation. Successful incorporation of a variety of VOMM levels allows
our research to advance to the optimization of unsaturation, comonomer
ratios, and coating performance. Long-term storage stability and
coatings performance continue to be investigated.
Surfmers or VOMMs that act as the stabilizing surfactant and a
participating monomer in emulsions continue to be investigated.
Neutralized soybean acrylated monomer (nSAM) functions well as a
surfmer and performs similar to commercial surfactants with good
polymerizability. Last year, we synthesized stable styrene emulsion
copolymers containing 44 weight percent VOMM-based surfmers. This year,
we have successfully synthesized 100 percent VOMM-based latexes that
yielded high gloss films without added plasticizers or solvents,
forming films at 0C.
Solvent-free nail polishes and waterborne industrial coatings based
on VOMMs were studied in comparison with commercial products. VOMM-
based nail polishes provided high gloss levels and improved adhesion on
plastic (ABS) and human nails. Research will continue to improve the
water resistance. Industrial coatings formulated with VOMM-based
latexes performed similar or superior to the control coatings when
crosslinked with melamine or aziridine crosslinkers, respectively.
VOMM-based latexes formulated into paper coatings have exhibited
performance properties similar to those of styrene-acrylic commercial
controls. VOMM coating properties continue to be evaluated and
optimized using various comonomer compositions.
Particleboard composites based solely upon soy protein adhesives
were scaled from the 1-4 L range to 30 L and proved that board
performance and storage stability are achievable. Additionally, the 30
L batch of adhesive produced quality composites after long-term
storage. Our research produced particleboards that have met or exceeded
each of the industry performance requirements as defined by ANSI
standards for M1, M2, M3, and M-S grade boards. The two primary
barriers to market entry/commercialization are solids content/viscosity
and cost. This year, the practical adhesive solids content was
increased from 20 weight percent to 29 weight percent. Commercial
formaldehyde-based resins are supplied at 65 percent or greater in
solids content. The low solids content of our adhesive necessitates
removal of large quantities of water during the commercial
manufacturing process which is influenced by various factors such as
temperature, time, and platen type and size. Current research efforts
are focused on improving the solids content/viscosity balance through
understanding the protein interactions in water that generate a viscous
solution. Soy protein isolate (SPI) is a high purity protein (90
percent) and therefore is more expensive than other forms of soy
protein such as defatted soy flour (DSF) at 53 percent protein content.
Particleboards manufactured with DSF as the sole replacement for SPI
exceeded MS and M1 specifications, but did not meet M2 and M3
performance requirements. Since SPI-based particleboards exceed the
commercial performance requirements of formaldehyde-based
particleboards in that it delivers superior moisture resistance and
improved structural integrity even after 24 hours of water immersion,
we believe the environmentally responsible and sustainable goals
warrant further research. In addition to the performance attributes,
SPI-based particleboards degrade more rapidly than commercial
particleboards during soil burial tests.
The Mississippi Polymer Institute is charged with promoting and
supporting Mississippi's polymer industry by providing workforce
development, technical service, product development, and assistance
with economic development activities. In the area of workforce
development, the Institute provides industry training in injection
molding, extrusion, blow molding, and lean manufacturing. In 2004-2005,
MPI trained 192 employees and in 2005-2006 MPI provided training for an
additional 152 employees. The Institute has implemented polymer
technology programs in high schools throughout the State of
Mississippi. Currently, MPI supports four high school polymer
technology programs in Petal, Moss Point, Columbia, and Corinth. There
are 74 students enrolled in these programs. Implementing similar
programs throughout the State will build a skilled workforce in polymer
science for Mississippi.
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
ubiquitous in industrialized societies and across all industries
including textiles, aerospace, transportation, energy, packaging,
architecture and construction, medicine, sports and sporting goods,
composites, and defense related materials. Critical for many of the
technologies is a combination of controlled performance, weight
reduction, and high strength performance. Unfortunately, our strategic
position resembles the natural rubber supply situation during WWII
which was controlled by potentially unreliable sources affecting our
Nation's security.
Our agriculturally focused research continues to create innovative
natural product derivatives across several technology platforms
targeting commercialization in coatings, adhesives, composites, and
polymers in general. America is presently at a critical point in
history as our standard of living is tied directly to technological
advancements and innovation demanding high energy usage and the need
for scientists and engineers. Since petroleum reserves are being
depleted at an accelerating rate and other countries are competing on
price and innovation, timing is critical. Our youth are no longer
choosing careers in science and engineering which will cause us to lose
our competitive edge, and in turn, affect the standard of living within
the next decade. Our greatest achievements can be accomplished through
the development of high performance materials based upon carbon neutral
sustainable raw material resources. Almost every technological
development over the past decade was dependent upon polymeric
materials. Since the polymer industry is the largest single consumer of
petroleum chemical intermediates in the world, our reality is clear in
that we must develop agriculture as the industry of the future.
Fortunately, many scientists are beginning to harness agricultural
feedstocks and natural products. For example, a scientific literature
search using the term biomimetic (defined as copying nature's methods
or designs) revealed only 125 peer reviewed publications and patents in
1990, whereas over 1,100 publications and patents in 2005, followed
nature's lead for energy-related products, coatings protection,
composites, adhesives, environmentally friendly antibacterial/
antimicrobial agents, and improved medicines. A similar search using
the word polymer provides over 70,000 publications and patents for
2005. Our research and commercialization efforts encompass many
important facets including training scientists that will continue to
innovate and develop technology that is critical for the maintenance of
our quality of life and national stability. We, as a Nation, can
improve our environment, reduce our dependence on imported petroleum,
keep America's farmlands in production, and continue to be the World's
technology leader. Your support is necessary to continue our research
efforts to accomplish the goals set forth.
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 despite its enormous
potential. The School of Polymers and High Performance Materials and
the Mississippi Polymer Institute at USM 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 more than 40
years ago, and have watched its evolution where almost each new product
offered the opportunity for many more. Although polymer science as a
discipline has experienced expansion and a degree of public acceptance,
alternative agricultural materials in the polymer industry continue to
be an underutilized national treasure. Today, society displays less
acceptance of petroleum-derived materials than ever before, and
consequently, the timing is ideal for agricultural materials to make
significant inroads as environmentally responsible, biodegradable, and
renewable feedstocks. Agricultural materials have always been available
for our use, and the scientific community often grasps the real
potential for renewable materials, unfortunately, society continues to
ignore their potential.
U.S. agriculture has made the transition from the 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 several of my previous testimonies and rings
true again. We are making progress and must continue to aggressively
pursue these opportunities and in doing so:
--Intensify U.S. efforts to commercialize alternative crops and
dramatically reduce atmospheric VOC emissions and odor. The
result will be much cleaner and less noxious air for all
Americans.
-- Reduce U.S. reliance on imported petroleum.
-- Maintain a healthy and prosperous farm economy with unlimited
sustainability.
-- Foster new cooperative opportunities between American farmers and
American industry.
--Create advanced polymer technology-based manufacturing jobs that
can not be easily exported to other countries.
Mr. Chairman, your leadership and support are deeply appreciated by
the entire USM 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 to pay
dividends of increasing commercialization opportunities of agricultural
materials in the American industry and training scientists required for
America's continued prosperity. Advances in polymer research are
crucial to food, energy, transportation, housing, medical, 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 United States
enjoy the cleaner and safer environment that these technologies offer,
as well as new jobs, and expanded opportunities for the U.S. farmer and
scientists. We are most grateful for the support you have provided in
the past. The funding you have provided has supported fundamental
research as well as pilot commercial manufacturing and testing.
However, additional funds are needed to further advance these
technologies.
Since our testimony last year, we have continued to research,
understand, and develop, agricultural-based materials for
commercialization. We are in need of additional and consistent
resources to advance these infant technologies to the market place, and
to continue our research and development of other exciting
technologies. We therefore respectfully request $2 million in federal
funding to more fully exploit the potential of commercializing the
technologies described herein. We have shown that we can be successful,
yet we need additional resources in order to ultimately utilize the
potential of this technology. Next year's research and
commercialization plan is aggressive, knowing that our Nation requires
technology to survive and that our efforts will be recognized as
instrumental in developing a ``process'' for the commercialization of
new ag-based products. The development of this process, and to show it
is successful, is extremely important to all entrepreneurs who believe
in and support 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 in 1981 by the Governors of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin to serve as a forum for coordinating
the five States' river-related programs and policies and for
collaborating with Federal agencies on regional water resource issues.
As such, the UMRBA has an interest in the budget for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's conservation programs and technical
assistance.
Of particular importance to the UMRBA is funding for the
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP),
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), and Conservation
Security Program (CSP). Taken together, these four Commodity Credit
Corporation-funded programs provide an invaluable means for the USDA to
work with landowners, local conservation districts, and the states to
maintain agricultural productivity while protecting the Nation's soil
and water resources. Moreover, they do this in a voluntary, non-
regulatory fashion. CRP, WRP, EQIP, and CSP will be key non-regulatory
elements in the States' efforts to address agricultural sources of
water quality impairment through the Total Maximum Daily Load program.
Successful application of conservation programs to this region's water
quality problems will also help address the growing national concern
with hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico, which has been linked to nutrient
loads from agriculture and other sources. 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.
Conservation Reserve Program
The UMRBA supports President Bush's fiscal year 2007 budget request
of $2.09 billion for the Conservation Reserve Program, a 5 percent
increase over fiscal year 2006. This increase is testament to the
strong landowner interest and high environmental benefits resulting
from enrollment of fragile cropland acres in CRP. Through CRP, farmers
and ranchers can voluntarily establish long term conservation
practices, such as filter strips and riparian buffers, on highly
erodible and environmentally sensitive cropland.
In the UMRBA States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin), total CRP enrollment is currently 7.0 million acres, or
approximately 19 percent of the national CRP acreage. Yet the five
States' CRP enrollment represents 41 percent of the total number of CRP
contracts, 40 percent of the total number of farms enrolled nationwide
in the CRP, and 32 percent of the total annual CRP rental payments.
In 2007, nearly 39,000 CRP contracts in the five UMRBA States will
expire, representing 29 percent of the CRP acres currently enrolled in
these States. To determine which expiring contracts will be eligible
for re-enrollment, USDA used an Environmental Benefits Index. As a
result, 99.7 percent of the contracts expiring in 2007 in the five
States will be offered re-enrollment.
All five UMRBA States also have active Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Programs tailored to meet their priority conservation
needs. Current CREP enrollment in the five States is nearly 243,000
acres, or 31 percent of the national total. These rates of
participation clearly demonstrate the importance of the CRP and CREP in
the Nation's agricultural heartland and reflect the compatibility of
these programs with agricultural productivity.
Wetlands Reserve Program
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget proposes $403 million for
the Wetlands Reserve Program, an increase of 60 percent over fiscal
year 2006 funding. UMRBA applauds this substantial increase and urges
Congress to provide sufficient funding to meet WRP's 2007 enrollment
goal of 250,000 acres, which is 100,000 acres more than the 2006
estimate.
Since the WRP was established 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. Through fiscal year 2004, WRP enrollment in Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin totaled more than 309,000 acres, or
19 percent of the national total. In fiscal year 2005, landowners in
the five States enrolled an additional 28,000 acres in the WRP.
However, there were 1,217 eligible, but unfunded, applications to
enroll another 134,000 acres from the five States in fiscal year 2005.
This represents 38 percent of the total national backlog of
applications for that year.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
In contrast to conservation programs that protect land and water
resources by curtailing production on sensitive lands, the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program supports conservation on
working lands. Promoting agricultural production and environmental
quality as compatible goals is particularly important in the Midwest
agricultural heartland.
The 2002 Farm Bill provides $1.3 billion of budget authority for
the EQIP in fiscal year 2007. However, the President is proposing to
fund EQIP at only $1.0 billion. The UMRBA urges Congress to fund EQIP
at its full authorized level. Like many other conservation programs,
EQIP funding has not kept pace with demand. Even at full funding, there
will likely be significant numbers of unfunded EQIP applications. In
fiscal year 2006, the EQIP allocation to the States of Illinois, Iowa,
Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin totals $118 million, only slightly
more than the $114 million provided in fiscal year 2004, a year when
there was an additional $180 million in unmet requests for EQIP
assistance.
Conservation Security Program
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget request of $342 million for
the Conservation Security Program reflects a 32 percent increase over
fiscal year 2006 for this popular voluntary program, which provides
financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers who
implement conservation measures on working lands.
In fiscal year 2005, CSP contracts were offered to farmers and
ranchers in 220 watersheds across the country. Twenty-two of those
watersheds were in the five States of the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. In those 22 watersheds, NRCS approved payments totaling $37.6
million, which was 26 percent of the total CSP contract payments that
year.
In fiscal year 2006, CSP will be offered in 60 different watersheds
nationwide, including one or two in each UMRBA State. It is too early
to judge the demand for CSP in fiscal year 2006. The fiscal year 2006
sign-up opened February 13, 2006 and is scheduled to close March 31,
2006. It remains to be seen what the ultimate level of landowner
interest will be in the CSP, as eligible watersheds change each year.
But the UMRBA is encouraged that CSP is continuing to expand and
funding levels are increasing.
Conservation Technical Assistance
Through the Conservation Technical Assistance program, NRCS
provides the technical capability that helps people plan and apply
conservation on the land. NRCS works through and in partnership with
conservation districts to assist individuals and groups in assessing
conservation needs and planning, designing, and installing conservation
practices. In addition, the CTA program assists in preparing landowners
to participate in USDA conservation financial assistance and easement
programs, provides emergency disaster technical assistance, and enables
NRCS to coordinate with other programs such as U.S. EPA's nonpoint
source management program and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Partners
for Wildlife. Approximately $92.8 million in CTA funding will be
allocated to the five UMRBA States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin) in fiscal year 2006. Yet that is an 8.6
percent decrease from funding levels just 2 years ago.
Given that CTA is the foundation for much of the Nation's private
lands conservation assistance, it is disappointing that the President's
fiscal year 2007 budget proposes a $62 million, or 9 percent, decrease
in the CTA account. The UMRBA urges that, at a minimum, funding for CTA
be maintained at the fiscal year 2006 level.
Watershed Programs
The UMRBA is concerned that the President is proposing deep cuts to
NRCS's watershed programs, including total elimination of the Watershed
and Flood Prevention Operations program, which funds Public Law 566 and
Public Law 534 projects. Funding for Watershed Operations has declined
substantially over the past 20 years, from an historical high of $199
million in fiscal year 1994 to only $74 million in fiscal year 2006.
And yet this program provides significant local, regional, and national
benefits, by addressing watershed protection, flood prevention, erosion
and sediment control, water supply, water quality, water conservation,
agricultural drought problems, rural development, municipal and
industrial water needs, upstream flood damages, fish and wildlife
habitat enhancement, and wetland creation and restoration. In May 2005
there were $1.89 billion of unfunded Federal commitments to Public Law
566 and Public Law 534 projects nationwide, with nearly $243 million of
that in the States of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, and Missouri. Despite
the fact that Public Law 566 and Public Law 534 projects in the five
States were allocated nearly 27 percent of the total national funding
in fiscal year 2005, that amount ($19.1 million) was far less than the
$243 million backlog. In fiscal year 2006, although there is only $74
million available for watershed protection and flood prevention
operations nationwide, there are funding requests totaling over $174
million, $44 million of which are in the five UMRBA States. Rather than
eliminating this important program, UMRBA urges that it be funded at
least equal to the fiscal year 2006 level of $74 million.
In addition to continuing to invest in watershed and flood
prevention projects, the rehabilitation of aging flood control dams
must also be addressed. Of the 11,000 Public Law 534 and Public Law 566
dams nationwide, more than 3,000 will reach the end of their design
life by 2013. Recognizing this fact, Congress authorized the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program in 2000 and authorized significant new funding
for the program in the 2002 Farm Bill. In particular, $60 million is
authorized for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program in fiscal year
2007. Yet the President's fiscal year 2007 budget request is only $15
million, a 52 percent decrease over the fiscal year 2006 funding level.
In fiscal year 2005, when $27.3 million was appropriated for the
Watershed Rehabilitation Program, only 60 percent of the $46 million in
project requests was met for the year. Rehabilitation of aging dams,
which could become a threat to public health and safety, is extremely
important and UMRBA thus urges Congress to fund the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program at least equal to its fiscal year 2006 level.
______

Prepared Statement of West Virginia University

Chairman Bennett and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to offer testimony to the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development, and Related Agencies. We request funding in the
amount of $1,000,000 in the USDA budget for fiscal year 2007 to
initiate a program called SCIPS, the Small Community Infrastructure
Protection and Sustainability program. Discussion regarding our request
is offered below.
Introduction
My name is Richard Bajura, and I serve as Director of the National
Research Center for Coal and Energy at West Virginia University in
Morgantown, West Virginia. We have a long history of working with small
and rural communities on projects in drinking water, wastewater, solid
waste management, security for small community water systems, and
emergency preparedness. We offer a resource of information and
specialized technical assistance and training services to small
communities and to those professionals that serve small communities and
rural areas.
Currently in the United States, there are no comprehensive regional
or national centers dedicated to helping a small community to prepare
for, respond to, and recover from natural or man-made emergencies or
terrorist acts which affect a community's water infrastructure. This
testimony outlines a model concept called Small Community
Infrastructure Protection and Sustainability (SCIPS) which addresses
this national need. Benefits to be gained by small communities include
improved emergency preparedness and reduced costs for restoring
infrastructure and services.
Need
In the last 5 years, the Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA) has responded to more than 300 declared disasters
including natural events such as earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes,
and floods and man-made perils such as major fires, dispersal of
hazardous materials, and acts of terrorism. Floods are the most common
and widespread of all natural disasters except fires. The devastation
caused by hurricanes such as Katrina or Rita is widely publicized and
impinges on our consciousness. During major disasters, much of the
Nation's attention is focused on large population centers, but nearly
one-third of all Americans live in small, rural communities. Early
reports on Hurricane Katrina's aftermath indicated that nearly 1,000
drinking water and sewer systems were damaged and non-functional. Most
of the impacted systems were in sparsely populated rural communities,
lacking in emergency communications, and typically last in line for
assistance as responders bypassed them on the way to the bigger cities.
Advance preparation before an emergency is essential since federal
protocols require that communities should be able to manage with their
own resources for at least 24 to 72 hours before national programs
provide assistance. But many small communities lack the expertise,
information, and resources to install and operate appropriate water and
wastewater systems, prepare the mandated emergency response plans,
respond to emergencies when they occur, and recover afterwards. Small,
and even medium-sized communities, are the least able to afford
security and emergency preparedness enhancements to their water
infrastructure or to obtain such expertise. These communities require
assistance in all phases of preparing for and responding to
emergencies.
SCIPS Model
States and their respective small communities would benefit from
access to a national resource dedicated to providing comprehensive
water and wastewater assistance in all phases of emergency management.
The SCIPS model program can assist small communities nationwide to
maintain, protect, and replace water infrastructure resources damaged
during emergency events. A service organization, or center, based on
the SCIPS model draws upon experts in technology, public health, public
administration, law, and policy to make the best environmentally and
economically sound options available to small communities. SCIPS can
serve as a comprehensive, one-stop resource for regulatory and public
officials, assistance providers, utility operators/managers, and
homeowners who want unbiased and timely information on water and
wastewater infrastructure selection, maintenance, and replacement.
Community Preparation.--During non-emergency periods, the SCIPS
center focuses on community preparedness. Preparedness includes
development and dissemination of short- and long-term strategies
addressing threats to, and fostering the sustainability of, small
community water and wastewater infrastructure. SCIPS personnel will
provide customized training and education, technical assistance, and
R&D throughout the Nation. These services will promote and facilitate
asset management practices and emergency protocols as an integral part
of infrastructure protection and sustainability. The SCIPS center
increases the knowledge base of community officials, policy makers,
scientists, engineers, and others through a research, education, and
awareness campaign.
Disaster Response.--During a disaster, the SCIPS center is a
specialized resource that can be drawn upon at the request of national
and local officials for timely assistance. The SCIPS center has core
capabilities as an information center and technical assistance provider
through its extensive knowledge of the network of public and private
service providers across the Nation. SCIPS personnel are available to
answer questions via hotline phone and internet facilities, serve as a
communications resource among responders, and provide specialized
assistance by arranging for technology experts to visit the affected
communities. The SCIPS center assists communities in quickly restoring
services as effectively as possible based on the extent of the
disaster.
Recovery.--During the post-emergency recovery phase, the SCIPS
center assists communities in assessing damage, evaluating options for
infrastructure replacement, and providing technical services for the
replacement, installation and/or repair of infrastructure damaged
during the emergency. The SCIPS center provides communities access to
local, regional, and national experts. The Center offers a
comprehensive spectrum of assistance to small communities for recovery
of services, which enables a return of economic productivity to the
community in addition to restoring essential services and ensuring
public health.
Benefits
The benefits to small and rural communities and to the Nation from
establishing the SCIPS program include:
--Implementation of viable security improvements for water and
wastewater infrastructure, systems ``hardened'' to withstand
disaster and prevent damage from terrorism acts, and quicker
recovery of essential systems and services after catastrophic
events;
--Small communities that are better informed about preparing and
implementing water and wastewater emergency procedures;
--Communications plans for small community water and wastewater
treatment systems in coordination with other community
organizations;
--Improved rural community public health and a protected environment;
and,
--Cost savings at the Federal, State and local levels realized by
implementing infrastructure sustainability measures which
reduce economic losses during catastrophic events.
West Virginia University
West Virginia University is uniquely qualified to undertake
implementation of the SCIPS model. As a comprehensive land grant,
research extensive university, West Virginia University has the
necessary faculty expertise to address the spectrum of legal, health,
policy, research, and service requirements of the SCIPS model. Its
National Environmental Services Center has more than 26 years of
service to the Nation's small communities in the areas of drinking
water, waste water, homeland security, and educational and training
programs. The Center also has working relationships with relevant
Federal agencies, State offices, and technology experts through out the
country who would participate in response teams addressing emergencies
in their respective regions.
Recommendation
The lessons learned from the effects of Hurricane Katrina
demonstrate the need for assistance to small communities in the
protecting drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. We recommend
establishing a national center to provide the services outlined under
the SCIPS model.
The following language is suggested for the Subcommittee Report:
``The Managers provide $1 million for the Small Community
Infrastructure Protection and Sustainability program.'' We have not
received funding for this program previously.
______

Prepared Statement of the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse

Chairman Bennett and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to offer testimony to the Subcommittee on Agriculture,
Rural Development and Related Agencies. We request an appropriation of
$2 million for fiscal year 2007 to continue the programs of the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse [NDWC] under the Rural Community
Advancement Program [RCAP] in the USDA budget.
Introduction
My name is Richard Bajura, and I represent the National Drinking
Water Clearinghouse, which is located at West Virginia University in
Morgantown, West Virginia. My unit is home to a specialized suite of
programs that address the environmental needs of small and rural
communities. Our staff members have expertise in drinking water,
wastewater, solid waste management, security systems for small
community infrastructure, and emergency preparedness. We offer a
resource of information and specialized technical assistance and
training services to small communities and to those professionals that
serve small communities and rural areas. This testimony focuses on our
programs in drinking water infrastructure that are funded under RCAP.
Need for Federal Programs
Clean, safe drinking water and the effective treatment of
wastewater are critical to public and environmental health. For most of
us, it's easy to take water for granted. However, not that long ago,
most people didn't have indoor plumbing. According to U.S. Census
Bureau data, half of American homes in 1940 lacked complete plumbing
facilities (defined as hot and cold piped water, a bathtub or shower,
and a flush toilet). By 2002, EPA found that the number of homes having
complete plumbing facilities increased to 91 percent. Much of this
improvement can be attributed to Federal infrastructure investment. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service [RUS] has
provided more than $20 billion for water and wastewater projects since
1947. In spite of these improvements, however, 670,000 households (with
nearly 2 million people) lack access to water, sanitation, or both.
Safe, affordable water infrastructure is an investment in the economic
viability and public health of rural America.
Water Infrastructure Challenges
Over 50,000 water treatment systems serve the U.S. population, with
86 percent of these systems being classified as ``small'' systems
(serving fewer than 3,300 customers) and ``very small'' systems
(serving fewer than 500 customers). Because smaller systems have lower
revenues and fewer resources, they are more likely to have difficulty
meeting an increasing number of environmental regulations. Very small
systems are 50 percent more likely to incur violations than all other
system sizes. When the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974, 18
contaminants were regulated. By 2004, that number had grown to 86.
Another eight will be added by 2008.
While significant progress has been made, a number of challenges
confront communities as they try to safeguard public health. The very
nature of rural/small town America works against easy solutions to
providing essential water service. The cost of providing basic water
service (and other infrastructure) is often prohibitive because of
geographic isolation, low population density, social and cultural
diversity, and a lack of proper information. Twenty-five percent of our
Nation's drinking water utilities have insufficient revenues to fund
the full cost of providing service to customers. An equal percentage of
utilities have deferred maintenance due to insufficient funding.
Estimates show that during 2000-2019, the operation and maintenance
funding gap for our Nation's drinking water utilities could be as high
as $495 billion, and the capital funding gap could be as high as $267
billion.
In many communities, water distribution systems and wastewater
collection systems are 40 to 50 years old, with many dating back more
than a century. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), U.S. drinking water systems are responsible for maintaining an
estimated 800,000 miles of water delivery pipelines. In the 2002 report
titled Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis, EPA
estimated that we need to invest $265 billion for drinking water
systems infrastructure through 2022. In the 2003 update to ASCE's
Report Card for America's Infrastructure, both drinking water and
wastewater were given a grade of ``D.'' The report suggests that,
without new investment, the progress made over the last 30 years is
threatened.
As a partial solution to addressing these challenges, the Technical
Assistance and Training [TAT] grants program under the USDA Rural
Community Advancement Program make it possible for small communities to
maximize their investments in water infrastructure through the use of
appropriate technology and sound management practices. The next
sections of this testimony focus on programs of the National Drinking
Water Clearinghouse which provide needed assistance to these
communities.
Information and Technical Assistance Services of the NDWC
For 15 years, the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse has helped
small and rural communities with their water infrastructure management
and utility security issues. The NDWC's services enable small
communities to provide clean water to their citizens and prevent
pollution. In this way the NDWC helps small and rural communities to
protect their public health, increase economic opportunity, and improve
their quality of life through providing adequate, safe, and economical
drinking water to their citizens.
The NDWC accomplishes its mission through a three-pronged approach.
First, the NDWC provides targeted assistance and quality information
for meeting regulatory compliance requirements and for optimizing
community water services. Second, the NDWC provides assistance and
strategic information to small communities to enable them to develop
sustainable water services that facilitate economic development. Third,
the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse provides information for
public awareness and increased stewardship of water resources to
educate community officials (who usually are part-time administrators)
and the general public.
The NDWC performs a range of assistance activities for small
communities. Telephone callers can obtain toll-free technical
assistance from our staff of certified operators, engineers, and
scientists. Our quarterly publication ``On Tap,'' a magazine about
drinking water treatment, financing, and management options helps
communities and small water systems to operate, manage and maintain
their facilities while keeping them financially viable. A comprehensive
Web site and databases with thousands of entries provide around the
clock access to contemporary information on small water systems.
Training sessions customized for small and rural areas,
teleconferences, and more than 400 free and low-cost educational
products provide people the instruction and tools they need to address
their most pressing drinking water issues.
These services are well received by small community officials and
service providers and should be continued. Unless the services of the
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse are available to provide
assistance to these communities regarding alternative technologies,
preparing grant proposals, and training the community officials and
service providers, the health of these communities will be jeopardized
and opportunities for economic development will be severely hampered.
We plan to use $1.5 million of our request to continue NDWC's
Information and Technical Assistance Services in fiscal year 2007. This
program receives funding from proposals submitted to the Technical
Assistance and Training [TAT] Grants Program in the RCAP budget line.
Special Services to Small Communities
In addition to the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse's
knowledge base and technical support, the NDWC is expanding its
assistance to small ``underserved'' communities through technical field
support. ``Underserved'' is a term that is used to characterize those
small and rural communities that, due to size and economic constraints,
have great difficulty assessing their environmental problems and
competing for funding. Examples would be communities such as we have in
West Virginia, Alaska, the sprawling Colonias bordering Mexico, Indian
reservations, and small communities in California, New York, and the
New England States.
The NDWC's funding under the Technical Assistance and Training
Grants program currently does not provide for direct ``on the ground''
services to underserved communities. A portion of our funding will be
used to develop a pilot program to honor requests for site-specific
technical support from underserved communities. This support gives
small and very small communities assistance through site assessments
and feasibility studies that they might not otherwise be able to access
for planning needed infrastructure improvements, their financing, and
management.
Communities often ask for help in assessing their water and
wastewater needs and options prior to contacting and retaining the
services of a private consulting firm. Through the pilot program, the
NDWC will be able to conduct site assessments and offer information and
education on technology options. In addition, NDWC staff will attend
and make presentations at community meetings concerning best technology
and management practices. Pre-engineering assessments conducted by NDWC
will enable communities to have a thorough knowledge of their water and
wastewater treatment needs and options, prior to retaining engineering
services. In this way they will be positioned to select technologies
that they can afford, and will be able to manage and maintain.
Funding for the special services to small communities programs will
enable assistance to be provided on location in communities throughout
the United States. We will use $500,000 of our appropriation for
special services to small communities.
For the past several years, the Managers of this Subcommittee have
inserted language in the committee report for Agriculture
Appropriations budget bill that recommended increases in our annual
funding to provide special services to underserved communities.
However, no specific amount of funding was earmarked through this
language, and, consequently, the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse
has not received funding from USDA to initiate the special services
program.
Request
In the Conference Report for the USDA appropriations for fiscal
year 2006 [H.R. 109-255], the Conference Managers directed spending in
the amount of $18,250,000 for the Technical Assistance and Training
[TAT] Grants Program in the RCAP budget line. For fiscal year 2007, we
request that the TAT program receive sufficient funding to maintain the
NDWC program and that of the total amount provided for fiscal year
2007, $2 million should be specifically earmarked for the programs of
the NDWC.
The following language is suggested for the USDA Subcommittee
Report: ``The Mangers provide $2 million to the National Drinking Water
Clearinghouse for information, technical assistance and special
services to small communities.''
A summary of our recent awards history is provided for reference.

FUNDING AWARDED TO THE NATIONAL DRINKING WATER CLEARINGHOUSE FOR
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING (TAT) PROJECTS UNDER THE RURAL
COMMUNITY ADVANCEMENT PROGRAM (RCAP) OF THE USDA BUDGET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal fiscal
USDA funded grants year Award amount
appropriated
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse... 2006 ( \1\ )
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse... 2005 $1,200,000
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse... 2004 1,157,000
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse... 2003 1,336,000
Technical Assistance for Rural 2003 510,000
Wastewater Management Entities (Project
II)....................................
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse... 2002 1,336,000
Technical Assistance for Rural 2002 500,000
Wastewater Management Entities (Project
II)....................................
.............. 6,039,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Amount pending.
Fiscal year 2007 Request: $2 million ($1.5 million for Information and
Technical Assistance Services and $0.5 million for Special Services to
Small Communities).

______

Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2007 budgets for the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Animal Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), and Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Services (CSREES). The Wildlife Society is the association of
almost 8,000 professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to
sound wildlife stewardship through science and education. The Wildlife
Society is committed to strengthening all Federal programs that benefit
wildlife and their habitats on agricultural and other private land.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP).--WHIP is a voluntary
program that provides technical and financial support to farmers and
ranchers to create high quality wildlife habitat. The Wildlife Society
recommends funding WHIP at $85 million in fiscal year 2007, the full
amount authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill.
Wetland Reserve Program (WRP).--WRP is a valuable program designed
to assist farmers and ranchers in protecting and restoring wetland
habitat. The Wildlife Society appreciates the continued targeting of
200,000 acres annually for enrollment in WRP. However, we recognize
that if the authorized level of 250,000 acres is not enrolled every
year, then enrollment must increase in future years to reach the
authorized level of 2,275,000 acres. Full WRP enrollment is needed if
the Administration intends to achieve the President's goal of no-net-
loss of wetlands. The Wildlife Society supports an enrollment target of
250,000 acres in fiscal year 2007.
Animal and Plant Heath Inspection Service
Wildlife Services.--Wildlife Services (WS), a unit of APHIS, is
responsible for controlling wildlife damage to agriculture,
aquaculture, forest, range, and other natural resources, for
controlling wildlife-borne diseases, and for controlling wildlife at
airports. Its activities are based on the principles of wildlife
management and integrated damage management, and are carried out
cooperatively with State fish and wildlife agencies.
The Wildlife Society is concerned by the Administration's proposal
to decrease funding in key activity areas for WS. The President's
fiscal year 2007 proposed budget directs an increase of $9,750,000 to
the WS Operations line item, while requesting $12,539,000 in deceases
to offset the proposed increases, for a net decrease of $2,789,000. In
essence, $9,750,000 is being redirected from existing activities to
support airport safety and assistance ($3,000,000), the oral rabies
vaccination program ($1,750,000), and wildlife disease monitoring and
surveillance ($5,000,000). While we are pleased that these activities
have gained presidential support, these new mandates, along with the
net decrease to the WS operational budget, will effect a $12,539,000
overall reduction to key activity areas. The Wildlife Society strongly
recommends that Congress restore, as an add-on, the proposed decrease
of $2,789,000 and provide increased funding of $9,750,000 for WS to
continue local program operations, as well as to support the airport
safety, rabies, and wildlife disease activities without redirecting
funds from other needed activities.
We understand the importance of safeguarding our Nation against
highly pathogenic avian influenza and applaud the added fiscal
resources to address this critical issue. The President's fiscal year
2007 budget proposal redirects $3.2 million for avian influenza
research as it relates to migratory birds. The Wildlife Society
recommends that Congress provide additional money to adequately fund
this and other important and associated research. Redirection of funds
for this program would have serious and, in many cases, terminal
effects on existing projects.
This program is also short $2.2 million because of previously
directed unfunded earmarks. These directed programs leave important
programs under-funded, like the Jack Berryman Institute for Wildlife
Damage Management at Utah and Mississippi State Universities; the
Logan, Utah Predator Research Station; the newly-established Texas A&M
University-Kingsville Research Field Station; important reproduction
inhibition research; and the National Trap Standards Development and
Testing Project.
Veterinary Services.--The Wildlife Society is deeply troubled by
the proposed cuts in several line-item budgets of USDA-APHIS-Veterinary
Services (VS). The protection of wildlife, livestock, and humans from
the threat of intentional and/or accidental introduction of disease
pathogens is very real and increases daily. The occurrence of Highly
Pathogenic Avian Influenza H5N1 in Asia, Europe, Africa, and the Middle
East, the introduction of Monkey Pox in 2003, the Exotic Newcastle
Disease event in California and other States in 2003-2004, and the
national spread of West Nile Virus starting in 1999 all indicate that
the introduction of diseases is rapidly increasing with no signs of
abating. In time of concern about national security and the need to
protect the citizens of the United States. from the introduction of
exotic diseases, it is imperative that funding for the agencies
responsible for detecting and prohibiting disease introductions be
adequately funded. The reemergence of several diseases, such as bovine
TB, Brucellosis, and others indicate that the efforts to control and
eradicate these diseases are not complete and APHIS must continue to
address the threats they pose to livestock, wildlife, and humans.
Additionally, VS continues to identify some diseases, such as
pseudorabies in feral pigs, as important economic drains on the economy
while sister agencies in USDA-APHIS propose to cut research into feral
hog control programs. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends that all
branches of USDA-APHIS coordinate budgets and activities for livestock
and wildlife disease surveillance, research, and control.
The Wildlife Society is very concerned about the proposed $1.405
million reduction in the Brucellosis Program budget. This appears ill-
advised given the fact that three States--Texas, Wyoming, and Idaho--
currently are without their brucellosis class-free status because of
recent outbreaks in domestic cattle herds. Because of its presence in
wild elk and bison, brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area will be
especially difficult to eliminate and will require more, not less,
fiscal resources to accomplish. We recommend Congress restore
brucellosis funding to $11 million in fiscal year 2007, and that USDA-
APHIS-Veterinary Services continue to utilize the authorities and
expertise of the Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee
to address domestic livestock interactions with wild elk and bison in
the region.
The Wildlife Society commends APHIS-Veterinary Services for
providing funding to state wildlife management agencies for Chronic
Wasting Disease (CWD) surveillance and management in free-ranging deer
and elk. Additionally, The Wildlife Society strongly supports APHIS'
efforts to eliminate CWD from captive cervids in order to eliminate the
risk of spread of the disease from these animals to free-ranging deer
and elk. The surveillance and monitoring efforts conducted by all 50
States during 2004 and 2005 would not have been possible without this
cooperative funding. Additionally, knowledge of the presence and
prevalence of CWD has been enhanced by this program. Without continued
funding, States will be unable to maintain the level of CWD
surveillance necessary to track the disease. The National CWD Plan
calls for additional management efforts to prevent the spread of CWD in
the United States. The finding of CWD in three additional States in
2005 (New York, West Virginia, and Kansas) emphasizes the need for
continued surveillance and monitoring. Without the State cooperative
agreement funding from Veterinary Services, this surveillance and
monitoring would not be possible. With additional States finding CWD or
bordering States with CWD, the amount of funding available will be
spread thinner, while the need for this activity increases. The
Wildlife Society strongly recommends Congress increase CWD funding to a
total of $30 million in fiscal year 2007, with $20 million designated
for cooperative agreements with the States for surveillance and
management of CWD in free-ranging cervids.
The Wildlife Society is encouraged by the additional funding
proposed in fiscal year 2007 for both low pathogenic and high
pathogenic avian influenza work. The potential for this disease to
spread to the North American continent and severely impact wildlife,
domestic poultry, and humans highlights the importance of continued
surveillance and monitoring of all zoonotic diseases. The fiscal year
2006 supplemental appropriation provided funding needed to begin to
address the avian influenza issue, both in the United States and
elsewhere. This effort must continue to ensure that America's citizens
and resources are protected. The Wildlife Society strongly supports the
proposed funding for low pathogenic avian influenza at $3.05 million
and for high pathogenic avian influenza at $51.7 million.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
Renewable Resources Extension Act.--RREA provides an expanded,
comprehensive extension program for forest and rangeland renewable
resources. The RREA funds, which are apportioned to State Extension
Services, effectively leverage cooperative partnerships at an average
of four to one, with a focus on private landowners. The need for RREA
educational programs is greater today than ever because of continuing
fragmentation of ownership, urbanization, the diversity of landowners
needing assistance and increasing societal concerns about land use and
the impact on natural resources including soil, water, air, wildlife
and other environmental factors. The Wildlife Society recommends that
the Renewable Resources Extension Act be funded at $30 million as
authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill.
McIntire-Stennis.--The proposed budget for fiscal year 2007
reflects a stable funding level for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry program. An alternative approach to the research formula base
programs would redirect 45 percent of both the Hatch Act and the
McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry program funds to nationally
competitively awarded multi-state/multi-institutional projects. This
represents a significant departure from prior years. These funds are
essential to the future of resource management on non-industrial
private forestlands, as forest products are produced while conserving
natural resources, including fish and wildlife. As demand for forest
products grow, private-land forests will increasingly be needed to
supplement supplies, but trees suitable for harvest take decades to
produce (versus the single year in which crops such as corn and
soybeans can be harvested). In the absence of long-term and on-going
research, such as provided through McIntire-Stennis, the Nation could
easily become ill-suited to meet future forest-product needs.
Replacement of McIntire-Stennis funding with competitive grants will
leave long-term and stable forest research to chance. The Wildlife
Society strongly believes that the reasons for continuing the McIntire-
Stennis Cooperative Forestry program into the future are compelling and
urges Congress to increase the fiscal year 2007 budget to $25 million,
an amount more consistent with historic levels.
National Research Initiative.--National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants (NRI) are open to academic institutions, Federal
agencies, and private organizations to fund research on improving
agricultural practices, particularly production systems that are
sustainable both environmentally and economically, and to develop
methods for protecting natural resources and wildlife. Innovative grant
programs such as NRI help broaden approaches to land management, such
as integrating timber and wildlife management on private lands. The
Wildlife Society supports the administration request of $247 million
for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants.
Thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals. We
look forward to working with you and your staff to ensure adequate
funding for wildlife conservation.