[Senate Hearing 110-98]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-98
Senate Hearings
Before the Committee on Appropriations
_______________________________________________________________________
Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and
Drug Administration
and Related Agencies
Appropriations
Fiscal Year
2008
th CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 110
H.R. 3191/S. 1859
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and
Related Agencies Appropriations, 2008 (H.R. 3191/S. 1859)
S. Hrg. 110-98
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
on
H.R. 3191/S. 1859
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2008, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of Agriculture
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug Administration
Nondepartmental witnesses
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
33-905 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
__________
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, Chairman
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont TED STEVENS, Alaska
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
PATTY MURRAY, Washington MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
Terrence E. Sauvain, Staff Director
Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug
Administration and Related Agencies
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin, Chairman
TOM HARKIN, Iowa ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah,
BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
BEB NELSON, Nebraska LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
Professional Staff
Galen Fountain
Jessica Arden Frederick
Dianne Preece
Fitzhugh Elder IV (Minority)
Stacey McBride (Minority)
Graham Harper (Minority)
Brad Fuller (Minority)
Administrative Support
Renan Snowden
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Page
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 1
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 479
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 721
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2007
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:02 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Harkin, Dorgan, Feinstein, Nelson,
Reed, Bennett, Specter, and Craig.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
CHARLES CONNER, DEPUTY SECRETARY
W. SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER
DR. KEITH COLLINS, CHIEF ECONOMIST
opening statement of senator herb kohl
Senator Kohl. Good morning. Today we will begin hearings
for the fiscal year 2008 budget. Our first panel will include
Secretary Johanns and other distinguished guests from the
Department of Agriculture, and following that we'll hear from
FDA Commissioner von Eschenbach on that agency's budget.
This is our first hearing for the year and it will be the
only general hearing on the fiscal year 2008 budget. The other
hearings that we'll have will focus more on issue-specific
areas such as food safety, conservation, and food aid. I hope
this is a change in format that will allow us to study certain
issues in more detail.
As everyone knows, the fiscal year 2007 appropriations
process was finished only a few weeks ago. While we understand
the President's request for 2008 is not changed by that action,
our bills by necessity build on previous year's action, and so
we'll need specifics as soon as possible regarding how the USDA
and the FDA will carry out this year's programs. I hope you
will all work as quickly as you can to make sure that that
information is available to us.
The President's budget includes fiscal year 2008
discretionary spending levels of more than $16 billion for USDA
and more than $1.6 billion for FDA. This includes an increase
of $43 million for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, an
increase of more than $260 million for the Farm Service Agency,
and an increase of $180 million for WIC. However, the budget
also proposes the elimination of the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program, which was proposed last year and which was
rejected by this subcommittee.
I would note that while the budget does include some new
fee proposals, they are presented in such a way that there is
little effect on 2008 funding levels. This is an improvement
over previous years. However, there are a few legislative
proposals, such as those regarding WIC and other programs, that
will cause us some concern. So, Mr. Secretary, I look forward
to your comments on those.
There are a number of other issues in the budget that we
will need to discuss, for example, eliminating the direct
single family housing program, and a number of other rural
development programs which are problematic.
This has already been a busy year, with much yet to come.
As we move through the appropriations process, I pledge to you
that we will maintain a constructive dialogue with USDA and
FDA. I can tell you that we intend to send our bills to the
President well in advance of September 30, so we all need to
work together so we can come to an agreement on administration
priorities and congressional prerogatives as easily and as
swiftly as possible.
Having said that, I'd like now to turn to my good friend
and the ranking member, Senator Bennett. As I've said many
times, I want to publicly thank him and his staff for the
helpful and bipartisan manner in which he has guided this
subcommittee over the past few years, and I assure him and
everyone else on this subcommittee that I intend to continue
that very admirable practice.
So, Senator Bennett, I would ask if you have any opening
comments, and then we will turn to other members for their
opening statements before we ask the Secretary to share his
thoughts with us. We'll recognize members in turn based on
their arrival, and in moving from majority to minority for the
first round of questions I ask that we use the 5-minute rule.
So, Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
congratulate you on your assuming again the chairmanship of
this subcommittee. I tried to follow your lead in the way that
we ran things, and I am very grateful to you for your kind
words. I believe we have an excellent working relationship on a
bipartisan basis and I'm sure it will continue.
I want to welcome Senator Nelson and Senator Reed, new
members of this subcommittee. I think they will add a great
deal to our deliberations. We arentering a very busy
time for USDA and the FDA because in the next few months
Congress will consider and, one hopes, pass the farm bill, the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, and the Medical Device User Fee
Modernization Act. These are some of the most important
reauthorizations that the Congress will deal with, and while
it's the responsibility of the authorizers to address these
issues, naturally that will strongly influence the work of this
subcommittee.
Now that the fiscal 2007 appropriations are in fact finally
behind us and we focus on 2008, I'm delighted, Mr. Chairman,
with your commitment to get this bill done in a timely fashion.
We've done it before, and either the full committee or the
House was unable to follow our excellent example and get things
done in a timely fashion, but I know you will do that and I'll
do everything I can to help you.
So this morning I welcome Secretary Johanns and those
accompanying him, and look forward to his testimony, and I also
look forward to the second panel with Dr. von Eschenbach and
those who will accompany him.
This is a unique subcommittee. The life of every person in
this country comes in direct contact with some of the product
regulated or the programs carried out as a result of the
appropriations we made in this subcommittee, and I don't think
any other subcommittee can say that. Every single American is
affected here, so that's how we will evaluate the budget
proposals of USDA and FDA.
Now, taking advantage of this opportunity, I want to offer
some praise to three USDA employees in Utah, so that the record
will show that I recognize their contribution: Bruce
Richardson, who is the Farm Service Agency State Executive
Director; Jack Cox, the Rural Development State Director; and
Sylvia Gillan, the Natural Resources Conservation Service State
Conservationist. Mr. Secretary, these are all three good
people, and I wanted to make that comment for the record.
Thank you very much for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett. We'll turn to
Senators for their comments, starting with Senator Dorgan. Then
we'll recognize Senator Craig, then Senator Nelson, then
Senator Reed, and then Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BYRON L. DORGAN
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you and the
ranking member, and let me say that I sure do support the
notion of getting this bill done, getting it done on time,
getting it through the Senate, in conference, and getting to
the President for signature. The mess that was created last
year, it cannot be repeated, and the mess doesn't belong to any
one person certainly, but we've got to finish all of these
appropriations bills on time.
I'm going to be asking Secretary Johanns some questions
about disaster relief, as he might well expect. The three times
I've gotten it through the Senate Appropriations Committee,
twice through the full Senate, twice have gotten to conference,
and it was blocked in conference. And I know the President at
that point had opposed disaster relief. I'm going to ask
Secretary Johanns about that today.
I also want to ask some questions about the issue of
opening the market to live Canadian cattle above 30 months of
age, which will I'm told result in about 1.3 million head of
Canadian cattle coming in this year, at a time when we have
just heard of the ninth--I guess actually tenth case, if you
consider the Canadian cow in the State of Washington--the tenth
case of BSE in Canada. I just held a hearing on that subject in
North Dakota last week, and I am very much opposed to the
proposed rule offered by the USDA. I hope we can overturn that
rule. I guess I hope the comment period will persuade the
Secretary not to proceed.
But both of these are very important issues. I want to
especially focus on the issue of disaster relief, and I will
wait until I question Secretary Johanns. Let me thank the
Secretary and the other members of USDA who have come here.
And, Mr. Collins, we had a discussion in North Dakota about
you, as a matter of fact. Someone was quoting the USDA
Economist, and I asked who, and they told me your name. I said,
``Well, I know him.'' And I used to teach economics, but I was
able to recover and move on. So we had a discussion about you.
But let me thank you for being here again, as you have for many
years, and being willing to visit with us about the agriculture
economy.
Secretary Johanns, welcome.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Craig.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LARRY CRAIG
Senator Craig. Well, Mr. Chairman, because I certainly want
to hear from the witnesses, and we have a lot to cover, I will
be brief. But let me join with my colleague, Senator Bennett,
in welcoming you to the chairmanship of this committee. We do
cover a lot of areas of major importance to a good number of
citizens in our country.
We come to Ag Appropriations at a time when the business of
crafting a new farm bill--and, Mr. Secretary, we're pleased
that the work you have done puts you into the middle of that
process. That's where a Secretary of Agriculture ought to be,
and frankly, some of our Secretaries have not been there, and
Congress has been doing the work in part on its own.
But I think it is a cooperative kind of shaping of policy
that is going to be extremely important for American
agriculture and U.S. consumers in the future; and, I must also
say, and the role agriculture is increasingly playing in the
production of energy. That is where I spend a fair amount of my
time these days, on that issue, and it is exciting for me to
see a future in which agriculture becomes an increasingly major
contributor to energy independence in this country, and policy
is certainly going to reflect that, loan guarantees, the whole
combination of things.
Mr. Chairman, I recently said before a hearing that I felt
that maybe we ought to take DOE's authority under Title 17 of
the Energy Policy Act and give it to USDA. They seem to know
how to get loan guarantees done, know how to do them, and
that's not a criticism as much as it is an observation of where
we are on that issue. That's important, and of course we'll
hear from FDA in a few moments. That, too, is critical to us.
I would hope that as we look at policy--and here is where
my friend from North Dakota and I oftentimes agree more than
disagree--Mr. Secretary, and as we shape policy that will be
reflected in the new farm bill, that we be as much focused on
our domestic needs as we are to our international trade
obligations. I know there are certain pressures there as it
relates to where we may or may not be in the discussion of
trade with our neighbors from around the world.
At the same time, I find it increasingly difficult to give
and not get in return. And, having said that, the ability of
American agriculture to produce is tied in part with trade. I
know there needs to be balances, but there also needs to be
balances.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I look forward to the
testimony of you, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Nelson.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NELSON
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, panelists, good to have you here today. The
future of agriculture I think is not only based on what we want
in terms of food, but also what we need in terms of fuel.
You've already heard me suggest changing the name of the bill
from a farm bill to the Food and Fuel Security Act of 2007, to
focus more on what it is we intend to do with American
agriculture as we move forward.
I'm hopeful today that you will be able, as a result of
this hearing, to establish that the planning in this bill is
based on the contingencies of everything going okay as well as
if everything goes bad. All too often we look at the current
market situation, we see $4 corn, the countercyclical payments,
they're not what they have been, so we therefore don't need the
money. If everything--as my dad used to say, the problem is,
when everything is going bad you never think it will go good;
when everything is going very, very well, you never think it's
going to go bad again.
And I'm hopeful that this bill doesn't constitute that kind
of a bill, so that we are in a position, if things do change
and the market changes dramatically and things are going
downhill, that this bill will protect American agriculture.
Because if we continue to import at the level we are and we
can't export at the level that we're unable to export to right
now, I don't know whether we're close, but maybe you can
enlighten us on this in your testimony, whether we are right at
becoming net importers of our food. And if that's the case, I
have said if you like importing 70 percent of your oil, you'll
love importing 70 percent of your food.
So that's why I think it has to be about food security,
produced here at home, and fuel security. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Reed.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm eager
to hear the testimony of our witnesses, and welcome them here
this morning. Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a
brief comment.
Mr. Secretary, I want to thank you for your prompt
declaration of a secretarial emergency in the California frost
situation. The Governor has submitted costs of approximately
$1.3 billion so far. It is a very major frost problem for the
State, and of course we don't know how many of the trees are
going to be taken out or crops prevented for the next 3 years
because of the absence of bud wood, so it's an ongoing
struggle.
I wanted to mention one point, and that one point, and I'm
going to ask you some questions about it, is that since USDA
transferred responsibility for port inspections to the
Department of Homeland Security, the number of inspections has
gone down seriously in California. I just sent my staff to the
State, and the number one problem they came back with is the
concern over the absence of adequate inspections and the belief
that next year is going to be a very bad year, with
infiltrating pests coming through the borders.
My information is that 60 percent of agricultural
inspection specialists indicated they were doing fewer
inspections since the transfer, and there's a problem. They
don't believe that Customs and Border Patrol respect their
work.
As you know, Mexican fruit fly larvae have been picked up,
and it took 4 months for it to be identified, is what it was.
And of course the problem is that a resulting quarantine,
quarantines vast areas of the State, so I'm going to ask you a
little bit about that when my time for questions comes up.
Thank you very much for being here. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Feinstein.
And now we turn to the Secretary for your remarks.
The subcommittee has received a statement from Senator
Cochran which will be placed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the fiscal year
2008 United States Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug
Administration budgets. I welcome Secretary Johanns and Commissioner
von Eschenbach back to the Committee.
An important aspect of the Agriculture Appropriations bill is the
funding it provides for agriculture research. This research is a
critical part of ensuring that U.S. producers remain the leaders in
food and fiber production. The funding this bill invests in agriculture
research is a small sum compared to the economic benefit it has on a
farmer's bottom line. I am concerned about the Administration's
proposal to combine the Agricultural Research Service and the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service into a
single agency. The current structure of the Agriculture Research
Service is working well and I believe it is important for the
Agriculture Research Service to maintain its independent role in the
Department of Agriculture.
I was pleased that the fiscal year 2007 Senate Agriculture
Appropriations bill fully funded the Wetlands Reserve Program. It is
unfortunate that Congress was unable to complete this bill. The
Wetlands Reserve Program has taken 1,750,000 acres of marginal
croplands out of production and converted to more beneficial uses of
enhanced flood protection, carbon sequestration, improved water
quality, and wildlife habitat. Many of these acres are located in the
Lower Mississippi River Flyway, the Nation's largest waterfowl flyway
for wintering habitat.
Last year, the Natural Resource Conservation Service adjusted the
method it uses to appraise land for consideration under the Wetlands
Reserve Program. I have heard from many constituents in my State and
conservation organizations that this change would shift acres away from
this important flyway to areas with significantly higher appraisal
value. I would like to work with the Department to find a solution that
would ensure this important program is implemented the way Congress
intended.
The Food and Drug Administration has the important role of
protecting the public by ensuring the safety and efficacy of drugs and
our Nation's food supply. Commissioner von Eschenbach, I look forward
to your comments on the FDA's plan and priorities for the upcoming
fiscal year. One example of the FDA's commitment to protecting the
public is the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition's research
on the safety of natural products used as dietary supplements by many
Americans. The National Center for Natural Products Research at the
University of Mississippi is a partner with the FDA to provide
research-based information on plant-derived products. With many new
dietary supplements coming to the market, this research is increasingly
important.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY MIKE JOHANNS
Secretary Johanns. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman and
distinguished members of the committee, it's an honor to be
here. I am joined today by some gentlemen that can assist me in
answering questions. To my right is our deputy, Chuck Conner;
to my left, Scott Steele, who is our budget officer; and of
course you all know Dr. Collins, our chief economist.
I am happy to report over the past year we've made a lot of
progress in meeting the needs of the Nation by improving the
rural economy and strengthening U.S. agriculture. Based on our
conversations with Americans on the farm and off the farm, we
developed a comprehensive list of farm bill proposals to
strengthen the farm economy in rural America, and those were
announced on the last day of January this year.
My primary focus of course will be on the budget, but I
would like to take just a few minutes to give an overview of
the proposals. The 2007 farm bill proposals and the 2008 budget
were developed on parallel tracks. The administration's farm
bill proposals represent the final phase of what was a 2-year
process. We listened to producers and stakeholders all across
the country, and we took a reform-minded and a fiscally
responsible approach to making farm policy more equitable and
predictable and protected from challenge in the world trade
arena.
While I firmly believe that the current law was the right
policy for the time, times do change and times have changed.
When the 2002 farm bill was passed, commodity prices were low,
exports had declined for several years, and the debt-to-asset
ratio was nearly 15 percent.
Today we see a different economic picture. Commodity prices
are strong for most program crops. Exports have set records now
several years in a row, including a record of $68 billion in
2006, and projections suggest we will reach another record of
$77 billion in 2007. We are experiencing the lowest debt-to-
asset ratio actually in recorded history. It's at about 11
percent for 2006.
Add to all of this the enormous impact of renewable energy
on the economy, and it's clear a lot of things have changed
since 2002. The time has come to move forward with a farm
program that's market-oriented and considers more than
commodity prices when determining the appropriate level of
support.
Our farm bill proposals bolster this administration's
commitment to conservation, with an additional $7.8 billion
over 10 years for conservation purposes. We propose an
additional $1.6 billion over 10 years to advance the
development and production of renewable energy. This will help
to achieve the President's goal of reducing our dependence on
gasoline by 20 percent in 10 years.
We propose funding to support $1.6 billion in loans to
rehabilitate over 1,200 rural critical access hospitals.
Another $400 million would be focused on trade, making sure
that our producers have a level playing field.
These are just a few highlights. When combined, we spend
about $10 billion less than what was spent under the 2002 bill
over the last 5 years, excluding the ad hoc disaster
assistance. It would be about $18.5 billion less if you include
that. But, importantly, we uphold the President's plan to
eliminate the deficit in 5 years. On the other hand, looking
forward, our proposals would provide about $5 billion more than
the projected mandatory spending if the 2002 farm bill were
just simply extended.
And this brings me to a quick review of the budget. The
2008 budget accommodates the farm bill proposals by including
an additional $500 million per year in the total for the
Commodity Credit Corporation. That was put there as a place-
holder, anticipating the release of our proposals, the
discretionary appropriation request pending before this
committee, which does not include the Forest Service, is $16
billion. It funds the highest priorities while exercising
necessary fiscal discipline.
I would like to note that the President's budget was
developed prior to congressional action on funding for the
remainder of fiscal year 2007. Therefore, our printed materials
reflect an estimate for 2007 under terms of the Continuing
Resolution that provided funding through February 15.
Now that action has been taken on funding the balance of
2007, I do want to thank the committee for addressing some
really critical needs. Key among these resources are resources
to ensure our meat and poultry inspection system can meet the
demand for inspections, support for the Census of Agriculture,
and funding to permit the Department to participate in
reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Utilizing $91 million in emergency supplemental funding,
USDA has significantly increased our efforts relative to avian
influenza overseas. The 2008 budget requests $82 million to
continue and enhance ongoing efforts to fight AI, an increase
of $32 million over the 2007 level. This funding will be used
for surveillance and diagnostics work, preparedness, response
efforts, international veterinary capacity-building, and
research relative to poultry vaccines.
The budget proposes $341 million for USDA's part of the
President's Food and Ag Defense Initiative. This includes $325
million, an increase of $148 million, to enhance our ongoing
efforts to detect and respond to food emergencies and threats
to agriculture. To keep USDA in the forefront of avian disease
research, the budget also requests $16 million to complete the
planning and design of the Consolidated Poultry Research
Facility in Athens, Georgia.
We are making considerable progress in ensuring the safety
of meat, poultry, and egg products. The Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention has reported significant declines in
foodborne illnesses. In order to continue protecting the
Nation's supply of meat and poultry and egg products, this
budget meets the demand for inspection services. The budget
also requests funding to expand the Food Emergency Response
Network, to increase the capability of State and local labs to
handle large volumes of testing that would be needed in the
event of a widespread food emergency.
Moving on to energy, renewable energy supported by American
agriculture and forestry does hold tremendous promise for our
country. The budget proposes $397 million in loans, grants, and
research, an increase of $161 million for our renewable energy
programs. This amount includes $70 million for energy research.
The majority of this will be focused on cellulosic energy. In
addition to this research, the budget makes available over $320
million in grants and guaranteed loans to assist efforts to
support the commercialization of renewable energy.
In the farm program area, our discretionary budget supports
$3.4 billion in direct and guaranteed farm loans, which
reflects the actual usage in recent years. The budget also
requests $1.5 billion for the Farm Service Agency to deliver
our farm programs. The level of funding is necessary to support
approximately the same number of staff as we had in 2007.
In 2008, crop insurance is expected to provide coverage for
nearly $68 billion in agricultural production, double the
amount of coverage provided in 2000. Recognizing the needs of
all partners in the crop insurance system, the 2008 budget
fully supports activities to ensure the integrity of the crop
insurance program. These efforts have achieved savings of more
than $456 million since the 2000 crop year, and program abuses
have been curbed.
Expanding access to global markets is essential for
agriculture. Our budget proposals for 2008 support our
continued commitment to trade expansion activities. Increased
funding is proposed to permit FAS to maintain its overseas
office presence and continue its representation and advocacy on
behalf of U.S. agriculture.
The budget includes $100 million for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program.
Additionally, we request funding in the Office of the Secretary
to support the department's efforts in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
In order to respond to emergency food needs during 2007,
supplemental appropriations of $350 million are requested for
the Public Law 480 Title II donations program.
The 2008 budget includes discretionary funding for
conservation technical assistance to meet high priority natural
resource concerns. It supports about $4 billion in mandatory
funding to continue implementation of the conservation
programs. In aggregate, funding in the budget will support
enrollment of an additional 17.8 million acres in conservation
programs, bringing total enrollment to 215 million acres.
That's the highest enrollment in history.
For rural development, the 2008 budget provides a $15
billion program level of activities to improve the economic
opportunities and quality of life in rural America. The
assistance will be used to finance home ownership, rural
business, renewable energy, electric, telecommunications, water
and wastewater disposal, other community facilities, and it
will also support revitalization of our multifamily housing
portfolio.
In the research area, the 2008 budget funds the highest
priority research. It also increases the use of competition to
improve the quality of research, including a total of $257
million for the National Research Initiative. The budget
includes $104 million in increases for high priority research
in areas such as food and ag defense, avian influenza,
bioenergy, animal genomics and genetics.
Finally, the budget includes an increase of $25 million to
support the 2007 Census of Agriculture.
The budget does fully fund the expected requirements of our
three major nutrition programs: WIC, food stamps, and the
school lunch program. For WIC, which is our largest
discretionary program, the budget proposes $5.5 billion in
program level to support the estimated 8.3 million
participants. For food stamps, the budget includes resources to
fully fund the estimated food cost inflation and participation,
and provides a $3 billion contingency in case costs exceed the
estimated level. We expect an increased level of school lunch
participation due to the increased number of school age
children, so we include an additional $632 million for our
Children Nutrition Programs.
We have had tremendous response to MyPyramid, and I'm
confident the awareness of eating a nutritious diet and being
active will improve the health of Americans. So in order to
continue this success, the budget includes a small increase to
make enhancements to MyPyramid.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
Let me just wrap up and say I want to emphasize that the
budget before you strengthens agriculture and rural economies.
It protects our food supply. It builds on our conservation
efforts, and provides for the neediest of our citizens. With
that, those of us at the table would be happy to respond to
your questions verbally or to submit answers in writing where
appropriate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Mike Johanns
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this Committee, I am
pleased to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget for
the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
I am joined today by Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner; Scott Steele,
our Budget Officer; and Keith Collins, our Chief Economist.
It is a pleasure to come before the Committee to discuss U.S.
agriculture and our efforts to make it stronger. I want to thank the
Committee again this year for its support of USDA and for the long
history of effective cooperation between this Committee and the
Department in support of American agriculture. I look forward to
working with you, Mr. Chairman, as well as the other Members to make
progress on these issues during the 2008 budget process and to ensure
strong programs for our Nation's farm sector and many other USDA
programs.
Over the past year, USDA has worked with and heard from people
throughout the Nation about the importance of agriculture to the
economy and the everyday life of all Americans. I am happy to report
that we have made much progress in meeting the needs of the Nation,
improving the rural economy, and strengthening U.S. agriculture. I
would like to point out that:
--Under President Bush's economic policy, rural America and U.S.
agriculture has prospered.
--Renewable energy production has grown dramatically and is
contributing to the energy security of the United States as
well as improving the farm economy.
--Utilizing $91 million in emergency supplemental funding, USDA
significantly increased its efforts to prepare for a potential
influenza pandemic and participated in the worldwide effort to
stop the spread of the H5N1 virus overseas.
--We are making considerable progress in ensuring the safety of meat,
poultry, and egg products. Recalls of meat and poultry and
processed egg products have been cut in half during the last 4
years due to improved oversight and the downward trend is
continuing.
--U.S. agricultural exports again reached a record level in 2006, and
are forecast to set another record in 2007. The 2007 forecast
level represents an increase of more than 50 percent since
2000.
--We have continued our efforts to open new markets. During the past
year, Trade Promotion Agreements were signed with Colombia and
Peru, and negotiations were completed with Panama.
--We remain committed to our objective of achieving fundamental
reform of agricultural trading practices through the Doha Round
of multilateral trade negotiations. Although no major
breakthroughs have been achieved, we are actively engaged in
discussions with our trading partners on technical aspects of
each of the three pillars in the agricultural area. We continue
to believe a successful outcome is achievable.
--We are continuing to regain our beef export market. Markets have
been reopened or maintained in the countries that closed their
borders to U.S. beef products after the first detection of BSE.
Recent progress has been made in such countries as Russia,
Columbia, Peru, and Panama.
--We have had tremendous response to MyPyramid, and I am confident
that as awareness of the importance of eating a nutritious diet
and being physically active increases, so will the health of
Americans.
On January 31, 2007, I announced a comprehensive set of 2007 Farm
Bill proposals for strengthening the farm economy and rural America.
The 2008 budget is based on the current Farm Bill. However, beginning
in 2008, the budget incorporates a $500 million increase each year in
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) estimates to accommodate the
cost of new Farm Bill proposals to be allocated among the various
titles of the bill.
2008 Budget
The President and the Congress are facing many challenges. The
President's 2008 budget meets these challenges by funding our highest,
most important priorities, while exercising the fiscal discipline that
is absolutely necessary to achieve the President's goals of
strengthening the economy and balancing the budget.
Today, I will be focusing on the proposals contained in the 2008
budget. Let me take a moment to briefly point out how this budget
supports our highest priority programs--programs that achieve results.
This budget:
--Fulfills our commitment to reduce trade barriers and expand
overseas markets;
--Supports the President's vision for energy independence by
significantly increasing funding for biofuels;
--Continues programs vital to the protection of agriculture from
disease, pests, and human threats, including avian influenza
and BSE;
--Supports policies that ensure Americans continue to enjoy a safe
and wholesome food supply;
--Provides sufficient resources to fully fund expected participation
and food cost inflation in our major nutrition assistance
programs;
--Enhances the environment by providing a record level of funding to
enroll a record number of acres into conservation programs;
--Builds a strong rural economy by supporting policies that enhance
job creation, improve rural infrastructure, and increase
homeownership opportunities; and
--Supports on-going basic and applied sciences that provide the
technology and information necessary for the development of
innovative solutions facing American agriculture;
USDA also shares the responsibility of controlling Federal
spending. This means doing more with less, eliminating programs that
are not getting the job done, cutting out wasteful spending, and
reforming the earmark process. We are pleased that the House Joint
Resolution for 2007 continuing appropriations significantly reduced
USDA's earmarks, and hopes that the Committee will continue those
worthy efforts. So, you will see throughout the 2008 budget proposals
that terminate or reduce spending. These proposals will produce real
savings in both mandatory and discretionary spending.
The President's 2008 budget, which was released on February 5,
2007, proposes to increase USDA's total budget authority from $88
billion in 2007 to $91 billion in 2008. For the Department's
discretionary budget, the overall request is $20 billion, about the
same level as in 2007 level. The discretionary appropriation request
pending before this Committee, which does not include the Forest
Service, is $16 billion.
I would now like to focus on some specific program highlights.
Pathogenic Avian Influenza (AI)
The infrastructure developed in response to outbreaks of highly
pathogenic AI has enabled the Department to strengthen its global
leadership in combating its spread and keeping it from entering the
United States. Utilizing the supplemental funding provided in fiscal
year 2006, the Department has worked closely with international
agencies and other countries to enhance the international capacity and
technical skills necessary to keep AI at bay. Domestic efforts have
built upon USDA programs that have been in place for more than two
decades to prevent an outbreak of dangerous strains of AI in our
country.
The 2008 budget requests a total of approximately $82 million to
continue and enhance on-going efforts related to AI, an increase of $32
million over the amount estimated for 2007, not including supplemental
funds. Of the increase, $20 million is related to continuing activities
related to highly pathogenic AI, including: surveillance and
diagnostics work; preparedness and response efforts; and international
veterinary capacity building. An additional increase of $6 million is
requested for the development of methods to detect AI in the
environment and further AI research, including development of poultry
vaccines. Another $6 million increase is requested to expand activities
related to the on-going program for low pathogenic AI. Low pathogenic
AI is of concern for its potential costs to the poultry industry and
potential ability to mutate into highly pathogenic AI.
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative
USDA continues to be vigilant in ensuring the safety of
agriculture. The Department is a strong partner in the Administration's
efforts to prepare for any potential bioterrorist attack. We have
established effective working relationships with other Federal agencies
to ensure an appropriate Government response to a wide array of
threats.
To protect American agriculture and the food supply from
intentional terrorist threats and unintentional introductions, the
budget proposes $341 million for USDA's part of the President's Food
and Agriculture Defense Initiative. Funding for ongoing programs is
$325 million, an increase of nearly $148 million from the 2007 level.
Of the total amount for on-going programs, an increase of about $36
million for Food Defense would enhance the Food Safety and Inspection
Service's (FSIS) ability to detect and respond to food emergencies and
for USDA research agencies to conduct related research. For Agriculture
Defense, the budget includes an increase of about $39 million for
research on emerging and exotic diseases to, among other things,
improve animal vaccines and facilitate rapid response to agricultural
threats. An additional $72 million would be used to improve USDA's
ability to safeguard the agricultural sector through enhanced
monitoring and surveillance of pest and disease threats, improved
response capabilities, and other efforts, such as an expansion of the
National Veterinary Stockpile.
In order to keep USDA in the forefront of avian disease research,
the budget requests an increase of $16 million for planning and design
of the Consolidated Poultry Research Facility in Athens, Georgia. This
facility is critically needed to conduct research on exotic and
emerging avian diseases that could have devastating effects on animal
and human health.
Food Safety
Americans enjoy one of the safest food supplies in the world. Data
from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows improvements
based on historical reductions in the incidence of foodborne illness.
The continued reduction in illnesses from pathogens associated with the
consumption of meat, poultry, and egg products is a tremendous success
story. These results demonstrate that we are moving in the right
direction. USDA is committed to continuing this positive trend in the
future. We will continue to pursue the development and implementation
of risk-based inspection systems that are grounded in science. These
systems will make us smarter about where we focus our resources and our
expertise to make the most difference.
The 2008 budget requests record funding of nearly $1.1 billion, an
increase of $104 million over 2007, for FSIS to protect the Nation's
supply of meat, poultry and egg products. This includes $930 million in
appropriated funds. About 80 percent of the increase in funds is for
pay, including monies required for Federal and State inspection
programs to meet the demand for inspection services. The budget
requests an increase of $21.7 million to expand the Food Emergency
Response Network (FERN and strengthen food and agriculture defense.
With this funding, FSIS will continue to develop the network of food
laboratories and the result will be an increase in the capability of a
network of coordinated Federal, State and local laboratories to handle
large volumes of testing that would be needed for biosurveillance or in
the event of a widespread food emergency.
The budget estimates that $135 million in existing user fees for
voluntary inspection will be collected. For 2008, we will be submitting
authorizing legislation to Congress to collect an additional $96
million in user fees. The budget does not assume the use of these fees.
Discretionary funding to cover the total cost of the program is
included in the request. This includes legislation to authorize a
licensing fee to collect $92 million from meat, poultry, and egg
products establishments. In addition, it would also authorize the
agency to recover $4 million for the cost of providing additional
inspection services from establishments as a result of performance
failures, such as sampling violations, recalls, or an outbreak of
foodborne illness.
Energy
Another priority for the Department and the Administration is a
continued focus on expanding renewable energy. I sit before you today
with the belief that renewable energy, supported by American
agriculture and forestry, holds tremendous potential for the Nation's
future. We are starting to see that the benefits of renewable energy
are far-reaching and will continue to grow as energy production from
renewable sources continues to expand in the near future. Renewable
fuels reduce our dependence on foreign oil, which contributes to our
Nation's security. Renewable fuels are environmentally friendly and
produce fewer emissions of greenhouse gases than fossil fuels.
Furthermore, renewable fuels are often produced in rural areas,
providing a source of income for farmers, ranchers and rural Americans.
USDA is committed to ensuring that renewable fuels production
continues to help meet the Nation's energy and security needs. The
budget includes $396 million, an increase of $161 million, for the
Department's energy initiatives. Part of USDA's commitment is
demonstrated through research activities. The 2008 budget includes $70
million, an increase of $29 million, for energy research supported by
ARS and CSREES. A majority of this research will focus on improving
cellulosic ethanol production by improving feedstock growth potential
and introducing new ways to harvest, handle, and transport the
feedstock to production facilities. In addition, USDA is working to
improve the conversion efficiency of biomass feedstocks into biofuels
and bioproducts. This research will lead to new opportunities to expand
renewable fuel's potential to meet the Nation's energy needs, while
creating significant opportunities for farmers, ranchers, and rural
communities.
In addition to this research, the budget would make available
nearly $320 million in grants, guaranteed loans, and other efforts to
support the commercialization of renewable energy production. Through
the Rural Development mission area, USDA is making financial support
available to leverage private sector funding for small and large-scale,
renewable energy generation activities. This financial support provides
incentives for individuals and cooperatives to choose renewable energy
production methods. USDA has also encouraged the development of various
renewable energy projects, including ethanol plants and wind farms. We
remain committed to expanding these opportunities to improve the
Nation's energy security and environment, while providing additional
possibilities to U.S. agricultural and rural communities.
Farm Commodity and Agriculture Credit Programs
Rising crop prices, particularly for corn, has had a major impact
on farm program costs, which is due to the rapid growth in ethanol
production. As a result, farmers are relying more on the market for
revenue rather than payments from the Government. As such, net outlays
for the farm commodity programs funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) are expected to decline significantly in 2007 and
2008 as rising prices for corn and other major commodities are reducing
outlays. Compared to estimates made when the 2002 Farm Bill was
enacted, actual spending for CCC funded programs, which excludes some
conservation programs, has been about $17 billion below the 2002
projections when ad hoc disaster assistance is excluded. Beginning in
2008, the budget incorporates a $500 million increase each year in the
CCC estimates to accommodate the cost of the new Farm Bill proposals.
This additional funding will be spread among various titles of the Farm
Bill.
USDA's farm credit programs provide an important safety net for
farmers by providing a source of credit when they are temporarily
unable to obtain credit from commercial sources. The 2008 budget
supports about $3.4 billion in direct and guaranteed farm loans. The
2008 budget proposes loan levels that generally reflect actual usage in
recent years.
The budget requests $1.5 billion for the Farm Service Agency to
deliver farm programs. This level of funding will support approximately
the same number of staff years as in 2007 and includes the funding to
support ongoing operational needs based on current programs and the
current delivery system. Once the parameters of the new Farm Bill are
known, we may need to re-evaluate resource needs for program
implementation, including staffing and information technology (IT).
Crop Insurance
Crop insurance is designed to be the primary Federal risk
management tool for farmers and ranchers. In 2008, crop insurance is
expected to provide coverage for nearly $68 billion in risk protection,
double the amount of coverage provided as recently as 2000. This growth
has been accomplished, in part, through the development of new and
innovative plans of insurance. These innovations have expanded coverage
to new crops or improved the coverage available under existing
policies.
Over the years, Congress has challenged USDA to expand the
availability of crop insurance to under-served commodities, in
particular, to livestock and pasture, rangeland, and forage. I am happy
to say that USDA is meeting that challenge. Currently, the crop
insurance program offers protection for swine, fed cattle, feeder
cattle; and, new for 2007, lamb. Also new for 2007, the crop insurance
program is offering two innovative programs covering pasture,
rangeland, and forage.
In order to build on these successes, Risk Management Agency's
(RMA) aging information technology (IT) system needs to be modernized.
The existing IT system has been in service for more than a decade and
needs to be upgraded to address evolving programmatic needs. That
system was designed for a much smaller and simpler program. As a
result, RMA must use numerous manual over-rides and work-arounds to
support the new insurance products. This manual intervention increases
the costs to maintain and operate the system. It also increases the
risk of data errors that could jeopardize the integrity of the crop
insurance program. The 2008 budget includes a legislative proposal to
initiate a small participation fee in the Federal crop insurance
program to fund modernization and maintenance of a new IT system. The
fee would generate about $15 million annually, which would initially
supplement the annual appropriation to modernize the IT system.
However, in future years, the fee would replace appropriated funding
for IT maintenance.
In addition, the 2008 budget includes about $79 million in
discretionary funding to administer the Federal crop insurance program,
compared to about $76 million for 2007. The increase would accommodate
pay costs and inflationary increases. The budget also includes a
general provision to fund data mining and the common information
management system through the crop insurance mandatory account.
International Programs
Expanding access to global markets is essential for U.S. food and
agricultural products, and plays a critical role in our efforts to
provide a prosperous future for America's farmers and ranchers. In this
regard, we must ensure that our producers and exporters have the tools
they need to compete for a greater share of the benefits flowing from
trade agreements and the resulting expansion in global markets.
Our 2008 budget proposals support our continued commitment to trade
expansion activities. Increased funding is provided for the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) to maintain its overseas office presence and
continue its representation and advocacy activities on behalf of
American agriculture.
The FAS budget includes funding to restore the Cochran Fellowship
Program to its traditional annual appropriated level of $5 million and
also provides funding for FAS trade capacity building activities. Those
activities assist developing countries to strengthen their agricultural
policy making and regulatory systems adhere to internationally
recognized standards and become better trading partners. By assisting
them to adopt policies that meet World Trade Organization standards and
adopt regulatory systems that are transparent and science-based, we
improve access for U.S. products to their markets.
For the foreign food assistance programs, the budget continues to
place the highest priority on meeting emergency and economic
development needs of developing countries. Appropriated funding for the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program is increased to $100 million, which will allow USDA to extend
school feeding and educational benefits to about 2.5 million women and
children during 2008. The program is helping children in countries with
severe educational and nutritional needs. In recent years, more than 13
million children throughout the world have received benefits from the
McGovern-Dole program and its predecessor, the Global Food for
Education Initiative.
In order to respond to emergency food needs during 2007,
supplemental appropriations of $350 million are being requested for the
Public Law 480 Title II donations program. The additional funding will
be used to address urgent humanitarian needs in the Darfur region of
Sudan, including for refugees and others in Chad and surrounding areas
who are affected by the violence. The funding will also assist in
meeting other critical food needs, particularly in the Horn of Africa,
southern Africa, and Afghanistan.
For 2008, the budget requests appropriated funding of $1.2 billion
for the Public Law 480 Title II program, which is expected to support
the donation of 2.5 million metric tons of food commodities. In
addition, to help improve the timeliness, efficiency, and effectiveness
of the U.S. Government's response to emergency situations, increased
flexibility is requested in the purchasing of Title II commodities.
In addition, the budget requests funding in the Office of the
Secretary to support the Department's efforts to assist in agricultural
reconstruction activities in Afghanistan and Iraq. USDA is providing
technical advisors assigned to the Ministry of Agriculture in Iraq who
are assisting in agricultural planning, extension, and food safety and
inspection. Other agricultural advisors are serving on the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs) working in the rural provinces of
Afghanistan and Iraq on activities such as irrigation system
rehabilitation, post-harvest loss reduction, marketing system
improvements, and livestock health. These advisors are providing much
needed, valuable assistance in addressing a wide range of problems
brought on by years of neglect and mismanagement in the agricultural
sectors of these two countries.
Conservation
USDA also fosters environmental stewardship through conservation
programs supported with mandatory CCC funding. The 2008 budget reflects
an unprecedented commitment to conservation and includes nearly $4
billion in mandatory funding to provide conservation financial and
technical assistance on a cumulative total of 215 million acres, the
greatest amount of conservation assistance provided in the Nation's
history.
Within the total amount of mandatory funds, the budget proposes
over $455 million for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP), an increase
of $191 million, or nearly 72 percent over 2007. The projected WRP
enrollment for 2008 would be the largest ever, involving up to 250,000
acres, and will bring the total acreage enrolled in the program to
2,275,000 acres, the maximum level authorized by the 2002 Farm Bill.
The WRP is the principal supporter of the President's goal to restore,
protect, and enhance 3 million acres of wetlands by 2009.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) accounts for more than half
of the mandatory funds with total funding of just over $2 billion.
Enrollment in CRP is expected to decline by about 9 percent to 33.6
million acres in 2008. Although continuous sign-ups will be maintained,
no general signups are assumed for 2007 and 2008 due to the increase in
corn production to meet the demand for ethanol. Funding for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program will be maintained at $1
billion to treat more than 170 million acres in 2008. The budget
requests an increase of $57 million for the Conservation Security
Program for total funding of $316 million. This level of funding will
continue support to the more than 19,000 contracts signed in prior
years.
The 2008 budget includes $825 million in discretionary funding for
on-going conservation work, a decrease of $94 million below the 2007
level. This level of funding supports programs that provide the highest
quality technical assistance to farmers and ranchers and address the
most serious natural resource concerns. The budget includes a proposal
to reduce the number of Federal coordinator positions funded under the
Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program, for a savings of
$36 million. Under this proposal, the number of authorized RC&D areas
would be maintained at the current level of 375, but coordinators would
provide assistance to multiple areas by focusing on programmatic
oversight.
Rural Development
Through Rural Development (RD) programs, USDA improves the economy
and quality of life in all of rural America by supporting essential
housing and public facilities, such as water and sewer systems, health
clinics, and electric and telecommunication systems. In addition, RD
promotes economic development by providing guaranteed loans to
businesses in coordination with the private sector.
The 2008 budget supports $14.9 billion for the RD programs. This is
about $985 million more than the amount estimated to be available for
2007. At the requested level, most key rural development programs would
be maintained at their historic operating levels.
The 2008 budget does, however, contain some important changes in
policy and funding priorities. In particular, the 2008 budget
significantly increases funding for single-family guaranteed loans.
Guaranteed loans, which are unsubsidized, have accounted for almost all
of the growth in USDA's homeownership assistance. Due to the success of
guaranteed single-family loans in meeting the needs of rural citizens,
the budget does not include funding for direct single-family loans, a
reduction of nearly $1.2 billion. While not funding direct loans is a
change in policy for USDA, it is consistent with Federal housing policy
as reflected in the programs administered by the Departments of Housing
and Urban Development and Veterans Affairs. Moreover, it reflects
recent changes in the home mortgage market that allow more low-income
families to qualify for private sector loans. USDA's single family
guaranteed program is expected to provide 39,000 homeownership
opportunities in 2008.
With regard to multi-family housing, the 2008 budget includes $567
million for rental assistance payments. This funding is needed to
provide for a higher rate of renewals due to recent action to reduce
the renewal period from 5 to 1 year. The 2008 budget also includes
$27.8 million to continue the Administration's initiative to revitalize
USDA's portfolio of multi-family housing projects, which are home to
close to half a million low-income families. A recent Supreme Court
decision allows project sponsors to prepay their loans and convert
their projects to uses other than low-income housing, putting tenants
at risk of higher rents and potential loss of housing. The
Administration's initiative includes providing housing vouchers to
protect the rents of tenants of projects that are withdrawn from the
portfolio, as well as the restructuring of existing loans in exchange
for the project sponsor's agreement to stay in the program and make
improvements to their projects. A pilot program, as authorized by the
2006 Appropriations Act is already underway. The Administration plans
to resubmit to the Congress draft legislation to authorize debt
restructuring and other revitalization incentives.
For the on-going electric and telecommunications programs, the 2008
budget supports about $4.8 billion in direct loans, of which $4.1
billion would be for the electric programs. Most electric loans would
be at interest rates that are currently comparable to the direct
municipal and direct Treasury rate programs. Combined, these programs
would simplify the overall program with essentially no adverse impact
on borrowers. The electric program would focus on financing the
distribution and transmission of power and the improvement of existing
generation facilities. The commercial sector should be relied on for
financing new power generation. For the water and waste disposal
program, the 2008 budget provides for $349 million in grants and almost
$1.1 billion in direct loans. This reflects a lower grant-to-loan ratio
than the current program because the Administration is re-proposing its
plan to reduce interest rates in exchange for a reduced amount of
grants. For most rural communities, which receive a combination of loan
and grant assistance, the reduction in interest rates would be of
greater benefit because it would reduce the overall debt servicing
costs of their projects.
The 2008 budget includes additional funding for the renewable
energy and energy efficiency loan and grant program. It includes $15
million for grants and supports $195 million in guaranteed loans,
compared to $11 million for grants and $175 million in loans estimated
to be available for 2007.
The business and industry guaranteed loan program would be
increased to $1 billion, which is the historic funding level for this
program. This program and the intermediary re-lending program have been
an important source of job creation in rural communities.
Research
Over the last century, productivity has been a major focus of
agricultural research. Driven by advances in plant and animal genetics,
nutrition, and health, this research has paid off with major gains.
Agricultural research is taking on the challenges of a new century and
USDA's leadership will continue through innovative research in
bioenergy production, obesity prevention, and food and agricultural
defense.
Advances in science have opened new frontiers in agricultural
research that have put solutions to national challenges within our
reach. It is important that we seize the opportunity by focusing our
resources and efforts on the highest priority work relevant to the
needs of producers and consumers of agricultural products. Our budget
requests over $1 billion for the Agricultural Research Service. The
proposed level includes $104 million in increases for high priority
research on food and agricultural defense, bioenergy, plant and animal
genomics and genetics, and human nutrition and obesity prevention.
These lines of investigation have great potential to benefit producers
and consumers; assure an abundant, safe, and inexpensive supply of
food; and ensure the preservation of our natural resource base. The
budget proposes elimination of $293 million of earmarked research and
facility projects in ARS.
A key factor in the success of agricultural research has been our
continuing partnership with the land-grant universities and other
performers of agricultural, natural resource and food research. These
institutions provide a unique set of expertise in the range of
scientific disciplines needed to address complex issues facing the
food, agriculture and natural resource communities. Further, these
partnerships foster the transfer of knowledge through higher education
and the unique system of Extension that has been so successful in
America. Our budget continues our support for university-based
research, higher education and extension programs and addresses the
need to focus those resources on the highest priorities. Under our
proposal we are placing a greater emphasis on merit-based, peer-
reviewed grants to achieve the highest quality research from taxpayer
dollars. In addition, $157 million of earmarked Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service research grants and lower
priority projects would be eliminated.
A major element of the research budget is an increase of $68
million, for total funding of $257 million, for the National Research
Initiative--the Nation's premier competitive, peer-reviewed research
program for fundamental and applied sciences in agriculture. This
increase includes funding for bioenergy and biobased fuels, one of the
Department's highest priority initiatives. It also supports integrated
projects that focus on water quality, food safety, organic transition,
and pest management. In total, $29 million would be added to CSREES
programs for research in bioenergy.
A longstanding part of USDA support for the university research
partnership has been through the Hatch Act and McIntire-Stennis Act
formula grant programs. As stated above, the budget continues funding
for these programs with a proposal to emphasize funding for
competitively awarded multi-state research programs to ensure the
highest quality research proposals are supported. We will be working in
close consultation with our university partners to craft the details of
these modifications.
The budget includes an increase of $25 million to support the 2007
Census of Agriculture, the most comprehensive source of statistically
reliable information regarding our Nation's agriculture. With
information collected at the national, State, and county levels, the
Census provides invaluable, comprehensive data on the agricultural
economy which are relied upon to keep agricultural markets stable and
efficient.
Nutrition Assistance
The budget contains sufficient resources to fully fund expected
participation and food cost inflation for the Department's three major
nutrition assistance programs--Food Stamps; Women, Infants and Children
(WIC); and Child Nutrition. Participation levels fluctuate with
economic conditions and the budget keeps pace. WIC participation is
expected to grow slowly in 2008 to a total of 8.3 million participants,
while Food Stamp participation is estimated at 26.2 million, roughly
the 2007 level. School Lunch participation is estimated to grow about 2
percent to keep pace with the growing student population, as it has in
recent years, to a new record level of 31.5 million children per day.
For Food Stamps, legislation will be proposed that would exclude
all retirement and education savings accounts from eligibility
determinations regardless of how other programs treat them. By 2010,
this would allow about 98,000 additional people to participate who,
otherwise, would have been ineligible unless they spent down their
retirement and education savings. This would add an estimated $44
million in costs for 2008 and about $138 million in 2010 when fully
implemented. The 2008 budget also reproposes legislation to restrict
participation among certain households with incomes or resources above
normal eligibility thresholds. Affected households are those that do
not receive cash Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
benefits, but become categorically eligible for food stamps because
they receive a TANF-funded service, such as a one-time referral. This
change would reduce costs by an estimated $65 million in 2008, with
additional savings in subsequent years.
The WIC request provides full funding for all those estimated to be
eligible and seeking services. At the same time, the Department will
work with stakeholders to contain costs and continue to improve the
program's performance. WIC legislative proposals include limiting
administrative funding to the 2006 per participant level and limiting
categorical eligibility to those with incomes under 250 percent of
poverty.
The 2008 budget reproposes elimination of the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP), which is not available nationwide and
duplicates two of the Nation's largest Federal nutrition assistance
programs--Food Stamps and WIC. Eligible women, infants and children
participating in CSFP will be encouraged to migrate to the WIC Program.
Eligible elderly CSFP recipients will be encouraged to migrate to the
Food Stamp Program, where most are believed to be eligible. The budget
includes temporary transitional benefits for CSFP participants 60 years
of age or older equaling $20 per month for the lesser of 6 months or
until the recipient starts participating in the Food Stamp Program.
As I mentioned earlier, we have had a great deal of success in
promoting healthy eating habits and active lifestyles with MyPyramid.
The MyPyramid website has received 2.6 billion hits since it was made
available in April 2005. In order to continue this success, the budget
includes an increase of $2 million to make enhancements to MyPyramid
and to begin planning for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
This supports two pillars of President Bush's HealthierUS Initiative,
to eat a nutritious diet and to be physically active, and will help
reduce obesity in America.
Department Management
The 2008 budget continues our progress in improving the overall
management of the Department. Increased funding is being sought for
selected key priorities including:
--Replacing the Department's outdated, core financial system and
supporting systems that no longer meet all Federal standards
for financial reporting and management. The budget requests
funding to begin a multi-year implementation of a replacement
system that will provide consistency and increase efficiencies
for financial reporting across the Department. The new system
will strengthen internal controls, eliminate material
weaknesses, and diminish improper payments, which will improve
the Department's overall financial management.
--Expanding Civil Rights compliance reviews of agency hiring
practices and program activities. These reviews allow the
Department to identify and address issues of inequality and
unfairness in personnel decisions and the delivery of its
program benefits.
--Continuing capital improvements to USDA facilities to ensure that
employees and customers have a safe and modern working
environment.
In closing, I want to emphasize that the USDA budget fully supports
the President's goals to strengthen the economy, increase security, and
restrain spending. The budget before you addresses these goals by
funding our highest priorities. These funding priorities strengthen
agriculture and rural economies, protect our food supply, build on our
conservation efforts, and provide for the neediest individuals.
That concludes my statement. I look forward to working with Members
and staff of the Committee and will be glad to answer questions you may
have on our budget proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of Boyd K. Rutherford, Assistant Secretary for
Administration, Department of Administration
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this statement supporting the President's budget
proposal for fiscal year 2008 for the Department of Agriculture's
(USDA) Departmental Administration.
Departmental Administration (DA) is at the core of USDA's
management initiatives. Through a strong commitment to the President's
Management Agenda, we have realigned our services to provide continued
leadership and better program management, resulting in greater
efficiencies, enhanced internal controls and effective customer
service. DA enhances Department-wide strategies by ensuring appropriate
administrative policy and by providing essential management to all
agencies and staff offices. This is accomplished through our
Department-wide management services, which include: human capital
management; facilities operations; security services; procurement and
property management; small business utilization; Administrative Law
support; and ethics guidance.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 OBJECTIVES
DA has the following objectives for fiscal year 2008 that
contribute to the Department's ability to successfully fulfill its
mission:
--Ensure USDA has a diverse, ethical, results-oriented workforce able
to meet mission priorities and work cooperatively with USDA
partners and the private sector.
--Ensure USDA has a trained acquisition workforce with the
procurement policies and systems needed to ensure
responsiveness, high quality, cost-effectiveness, and
accountability using an increasingly diverse vendor pool and
range of products.
--Promote the efficient and economical use of USDA's resources to
support customers, promote organizational productivity, and
ensure accountability.
--Provide the policies, technical guidance, and operating environment
that enhance the safety and security of USDA personnel,
information and facilities, and the continuity of its vital
programs and operations.
--Provide formal adjudicative support.
--Expand the implementation of the BioPreferredSM Program
within USDA and other Federal agencies. The
BioPreferredSM Program, authorized in the 2002 Farm
Bill, is a Federal procurement program that requires that
Federal agencies provide a preference for the purchase of USDA
designated biobased products. In fiscal year 2008 DA will be
jointly focused on establishing USDA as a leader in biobased
purchases and providing support and guidance to other Federal
agencies and to biobased manufacturers.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 REQUEST
DA's fiscal year 2008 budget request is divided into three separate
appropriations: DA Direct; Agricultural Building and Facilities and
Rental Payments; and Hazardous Material Management.
DA DIRECT
The DA Direct fiscal year 2008 budget is $24,608,000, which funds
personnel and office operations costs. The increased request will
address the following:
--An increase to cover personnel costs for 2007 and 2008. This
appropriation funds administrative support in the National
Capital Area and on-going programs in human capital management
and small business utilization across the Department.
--An increase for Continuity of Operations (COOP) for the Office of
the Secretary, providing guidance and training to the mission
areas, and providing support and training to USDA's National
Emergency Preparedness Team. These efforts will ensure USDA is
compliant with Executive Orders and Presidential Directives
associated with Emergency Preparedness and requirements for
Executive Branch COOP.
agriculture buildings and facilities and rental payments
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Agricultural Building and
Facilities and Rental Payments is $216,837,000, of which $156,590,000
is for rental payments to the General Services Administration (GSA) and
Department of Homeland Security for security payments and $60,247,000
for Building Operations and Maintenance.
The increased request addresses the following:
--An increase for the Central Rent Account is needed to fund the
estimated cost of GSA space assignments and physical security
costs payable to the Department of Homeland Security, increased
lease expenses, maintenance services, and preventative
maintenance services of the fire alarm and switchgear systems
located at the USDA Headquarters Complex.
--An increase for repairs and maintenance projects for the USDA South
Building. The South Building of the Headquarters Complex was
built between 1930 and 1936 and houses approximately 4,600
employees. It is in much need of repair and maintenance.
Repairs are needed to bring several major systems up to current
code requirements and to generally improve employee safety.
Providing a safe and healthy work environment for our employees
supports our Human Capital Objective.
--An increase to cover the rising cost for steam and electric
utilities for the USDA Headquarters Complex. GSA has notified
USDA to expect significant increases in 2007 and 2008 utility
costs. In 2005, the price of GSA's district steam increased by
22 percent. Paying utility costs from current Building
Operations funding will reduce funding available to address the
existing maintenance and repair needs for the facilities and
possibly contribute to future system failures.
--An increase for annual contract increases due to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and collective bargaining. This request is needed
to pay mandatory increases for payroll and other fixed and
discretionary costs associated with operating USDA facilities.
This request supports DA's continuing efforts to provide high
quality services so that USDA personnel have the space,
facilities, mail and property services, personnel support and
resources needed to deliver their program services in a timely
and effective manner.
--An increase to support the Building Operations and Maintenance
staffs in performing preventive and routine maintenance and
repairs in the USDA Headquarters' Complex, including the George
Washington Carver Center. This increase will cover rising
general operating costs and preventive maintenance repairs to
major systems within the Headquarters' Complex. The lack of
funding in previous years for major repairs has led to a series
of system failures which includes: repairs for building roofs
and major plumbing, electrical, heating, and air conditioning
systems. Instead of being able to address these matters before
they fail, the Department is often patching and repairing
damage resulting from the failure of systems long past their
useful life. Routine maintenance and minor repairs to major
systems, when done on a timely basis, prolong the life of
equipment and avoid costly repairs and replacement if the
equipment is allowed to fail.
--An increase for the 2007 and 2008 pay costs. This increase is
necessary to be able to maintain this office's current staffing
levels without compromising its efforts to provide a safe
workplace for USDA Headquarters and the George Washington
Carver Center.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT
The fiscal year 2008 budget request for Hazardous Material
Management is $12,200,000. The increase represents pay costs. This
request will fund clean-up activities under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (``CERCLA'')
and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (``RCRA''). The purposes
of the Hazardous Materials Management Program are to cleanup and
restore USDA-managed lands.
CONCLUSION
The goal of DA is to provide the tools necessary for USDA to
accomplish its mission of providing effective leadership on food
safety, agriculture, and natural resources. Accordingly, we
respectfully ask for your support in this effort.
Thank you for this opportunity to present Departmental
Administration's fiscal year 2008 request.
______
Prepared Statement of David M. Combs, Chief Information Officer
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to share with you our progress on using information
technology (IT) to improve service delivery to the customers of the
Department of Agriculture (USDA), while implementing Enterprise
Architecture (EA) principles and Electronic Government (eGovernment)
throughout the Department.
USDA participates in 22 of the 30 government-wide President's
Management Agenda (PMA) eGovernment initiatives and eight of the nine
lines-of-business. At the same time, under the framework of the
Department's EA, the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) is
managing USDA IT investments to promote collaboration across common
lines-of-business, reducing duplication through our internal Enterprise
Shared Services, and finding savings by leveraging the USDA's size/
economies-of-scale in Department-wide IT acquisitions.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for OCIO is $16.4
million to continue to guide the Department's IT Strategy. We are
requesting approximately $663,000 to cover pay costs.
usda's fiscal year 2008 information technology investment summary
During the fiscal year 2008 USDA budget preparation process, OCIO
staff scrutinized agency IT investment plans to ensure alignment with
USDA program delivery plans as well as the USDA EA. In fiscal year
2008, the Department is requesting about $2.1 billion for IT.
Components of the IT portfolio include:
--$816 million (39 percent of fiscal year 2008 IT spending) for
transfer to the States for the development and maintenance of
automated systems to support Food Stamps, WIC, and related
programs.
--$1.3 billion in IT discretionary funding as broken down, includes:
--$467 million (36 percent) for support services (e.g. architects,
design engineers, project managers, and consultants). The
Department seeks to use small businesses, especially
disabled veteran owned businesses for these services.
--$373 million (27 percent) for Federal IT personnel costs.
--$170 million (13 percent) for computer and network equipment,
such as routers, servers, workstations and printers.
--$188 million (15 percent) for out-sourced services (e.g.
telecommunications, help desk services, technical design
and architect services).
--$93 million (7 percent) for software to support our data centers,
desktops, helpdesks and other hardware.
Overall, the IT related proposals in this request represent about 3
percent of the total $67 billion proposed for IT investments for the
Federal Government in fiscal year 2008.
service center modernization initiative--(scmi)
The Common Computing Environment (CCE) initiative is managed by
OCIO working in collaboration with the Service Center Agencies' (SCA).
CCE supports over 36,000 Federal employees from the SCA and Information
Technology Services (ITS), volunteers and partners in the delivery of
over $55 billion in programs through our field office delivery system.
The infrastructure is flexible and built around maximizing information
sharing both within USDA and with other Federal, State and local
agencies, the private sector, and USDA customers.
The CCE is the commonly defined, commonly acquired, and commonly
deployed IT infrastructure for the USDA county-based SCA, namely the
Farm Service Agency (FSA), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS), and Rural Development (RD). CCE was established to maximize
data sharing, leverage investments and support true ``one-stop
shopping'' for customers of the county-based agencies, and is managed
by the ITS of OCIO. ITS serves as one unified organization dedicated to
supporting both the shared and the diverse IT requirements of the SCA
and their partner organizations.
Several of ITS' significant accomplishments in 2006 include:
--Deployment of database management systems in support of several FSA
applications was completed.
--Completion of the Software Update Service (SUS) migration for large
offices was completed. SUS keeps computers up-to-date with the
latest critical updates, security updates, and service packs.
To date, a total of 89 security patches have been tested,
certified and deployed since SUS went live on August 2004.
--Completed and awarded a Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) for
operational contract support. This allows for the consolidation
of many existing legacy contracts resulting in cost savings and
increased operational efficiency. Another BPA was awarded that
allows for the SCA to purchase hardware such as workstations
and certain peripherals as their need dictates and as their
funds allow. Over $13.7 million was spent on workstations at
the end of fiscal year 2006.
--Deployed the Encrypted File System (EFS) to all laptops and tablet
personal computers (PC) in the end user computer environment.
EFS provides for the encryption of files, thus reducing the
risk of compromising sensitivity data in the event of a lost or
stolen laptop or tablet PC.
--Conducted a disaster recovery test to simulate a loss of the Kansas
City Web Farm; one major FSA financial application was
successfully restored in St. Louis. Participated in the Kansas
City Regional Inter-Agency Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)
Exercise. The Federal exercise tested COOP essential functions
in the Greater Kansas City metropolitan area and their ability
to efficiently perform their duties during emergency
situations. More than 600 officials representing over 30
Federal agencies participated in the exercise. This was the
third annual exercise and it exists as the largest interagency
COOP exercise outside of Washington, DC.
ITS management of CCE is maturing into a fee-for-service activity,
while still supporting the ``one-stop shopping'' aims of the SCMI. This
support includes contract consolidation, BPAs, and negotiating with the
SCA for needed levels of service, while at the same time researching
and implementing ways to achieve economies of scale. Because of the
establishment of ITS as a fee-for-service entity, funds necessary to
maintain the SCA shared IT infrastructure will be based upon the level
of service delivery the SCA choose to effect.
To that end, the fiscal year 2008 CCE budget is requesting no
funds. For fiscal year 2008, the funds normally requested in the CCE
appropriation can be found in the individual agencies' budget requests.
ITS provides unified management of the shared IT infrastructure of
the SCA, including CCE but also non-CCE legacy technologies, and
manages the use of the CCE funds. While the responsibility for
developing IT applications remains with the agencies with little or no
involvement from ITS, ITS does deploy the applications, provides the
platforms they run on, and provides those components of the
infrastructure that make them available, reliable, and secure.
The organization measures its success against service level
agreements with each of the SCA that define performance metrics and
customer expectations. This provides openness to the agencies regarding
the costs of IT infrastructure, maximum leverage for large-scale system
management techniques and technologies, and a basis for continuous
improvement. To implement these agreements, ITS and the SCA negotiated
the service lines, the appropriate metrics, and acceptable levels of
service.
Going forward in fiscal year 2008 and beyond, ITS will determine
the agency obligations based on the service usage. This will be a more
equitable method that can also provide the agencies with the
information they need to reduce costs by effectively managing their IT
infrastructure use.
Congressional support for the CCE initiative has been key to its
success. As we move forward with ITS, Congressional support will remain
critical.
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
USDA continues to evolve its telecommunications services to meet
customer needs and provide secure infrastructure for the President's
expanding eGovernment initiatives. Following the successful deployment
of the Department's enterprise telecommunications network, the
Universal Telecommunications Network (UTN), all USDA agencies are
accessing the Internet via the UTN. USDA agencies continue to move
their existing networks to the UTN. Agency network migration and
optimization activities are achieved through a UTN Technical Review
Board that is aligned with the Department's IT governance methodology.
We are also developing a Department-wide strategy for Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP). During fiscal year 2007, we will complete an
enterprise ``roadmap'' for USDA agencies to use in their businesses
cases for VoIP investments. Additionally, USDA is heavily engaged in
the General Services Administration (GSA) Network acquisition (which we
expect will help further reduce our costs) and transition activities as
well as migration activities for the transition to Internet Protocol
version 6.
NATIONAL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DATA CENTER (NITC) HOSTING
NITC continues to be USDA's centralized source for IT services
offering 24/7 operations and customer support. The organization began
fee-for-services operations in July 1973. NITC serves the needs of over
25 USDA agencies, and more than 15 non-USDA agencies. Our customer
portfolio grew by 10.5 percent in fiscal year 2006 to a total of $85.6
million.
Certified by GSA as a Level 4 Facility, as delineated in the
Department of Justice Security Level standards, NITC operates as a Tier
IV Electrically and Tier III Mechanically data center. An electrical
upgrade has been completed that eliminates any single point of failure,
increases availability, and adds redundancy.
Recently NITC received an Office of Inspector General Unqualified
Opinion in 2006 for Internal Controls, the Commissioner's Special
Citation from the Food and Drug Administration for software development
work, the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Award
for Service Disabled Veterans, an ePermits Award, and a customer survey
response of 85 percent satisfied or highly satisfied.
INFORMATION SECURITY
For many years USDA has been slow to meet all Federal information
security requirements. To address this situation, we have significantly
improved the posture of our security program by shifting funds and
developing policies and procedures. But there is still a tremendous
amount of work to be done. The Federal Information Security Management
Act (FISMA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-
130 require all Federal agencies, to certify and accredit (C&A) their
systems. Through this effort we have improved our security plans,
updated and corrected our security documentation, tested our networks
and applications for security weaknesses, and successfully engaged our
business organizations in the discipline of security management.
USDA IT security staffs are now in the process of addressing
security issues that arose through our C&A activities. Action plans
have been established to mitigate specific security weaknesses and
implement improved controls, and to meet the FISMA performance measures
designed by OMB. These plans also support the remediation of
information security weaknesses identified during the Department's
implementation of the Circular A-123 review. Within the OCIO, we have
established a rigorous process to track agencies in these corrective
actions and to ensure they are completed in a timely and efficient
manner.
In order to eliminate the root causes for our security weaknesses,
we must mature our information security processes. Automated tools are
necessary to quickly and efficiently address cyber security risks. We
must improve our ability to secure our data with monitoring devices and
automated processes that assist in preventing disruption by intrusion
or the introduction of malicious programs. During fiscal year 2006, we
deployed an improved incident tracking system to help us better manage
and report detected breaches. We will continue to maintain a rigorous
security training and awareness program which requires annual
participation by all USDA and contract personnel.
Through good preventative planning, such as system C&A combined
with improving the Department's overall operational response to
security challenges, we are reducing the risk associated with the
electronic use and delivery of USDA information and services.
Congressional support for the initiatives we have planned is critical
to their achieving the desired outcome.
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
We continue to move aggressively to implement inter-agency and
inter-Departmental services to support common needs. The primary goals
of our approach are to reduce costs and improve the quality of
interactions with our customers.
USDA, along with our partners in the other Federal agencies, has
worked hard over the past 5 years to simplify citizen's access and
interaction with their government. The results of these efforts are
remarkable. As part of our support of the PMA's promise of easy access
to the government, customers may now easily locate USDA's online
information and services at www.usda.gov, and with ``MyUSDA'', visitors
can customize USDA's Web-site to provide immediate access to the
information they regularly want to see. Currently, 59 Web-sites have
moved to the Department's Web standards, and another 31 agency sites
are in the process of doing so. Our efforts reduced the burden on
citizens, partners, and employees by simplifying access to the
Department's information and services and streamlining internal
processes. In addition, USDA is a partner in 30 inter-Departmental
projects to improve citizen access to government. All fourteen USDA
rulemaking agencies migrated in 2006 to the Federal Docket Management
System which provides citizens easy access to USDA regulatory action.
As a result, the public can review and comment on USDA regulatory
actions through Regulations.gov.
USDA posts all discretionary grants to Grants.gov which provides a
single location for citizens to find funding opportunities and the
ability to apply online for them using common forms, processes, and
systems.
USDA is a major geospatial data producer and contributor to the
Federal Government's www.geodata.gov. USDA's partnership with the
initiative allows cross-Departmental sharing of geospatial information
and the opportunity for reducing costs.
Through the USDA eAuthentication Service all USDA employees and
over 130,000 customers use a secure, single sign-on to access
applications, thereby reducing our customer support needs through
improved security and usability. In addition to the 230 USDA
applications, users can also use their eAuthentication credentials to
access any of the 24 systems integrated with the Federal E-
Authentication Federation. The eAuthentication Service is a component
of the streamlined implementation of Homeland Security Presidential
Directive 12 (HSPD-12.
AgLearn is USDA's implementation of the E-Training initiative. The
consolidation of training and learning management functions within
AgLearn allows agencies to cooperate in developing, tracking, and
purchasing training. Training that has proved successful for one agency
can easily be made available for others, eliminating redundant costs
for course development and sharing subject matter expertise to a
broader audience and the coordination of agency purchases of online
courseware provides volume discounts. USDA provides its mandatory
training through AgLearn including the annual Ethics, Security
Awareness, and Privacy Basics. In an average month, more than 16,000
AgLearn users complete nearly 27,000 training events. This has
significantly reduced the overall USDA training costs normally
associated with courses that require travel.
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE (EA) AND IT MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
USDA is managing its EA as a high-level roadmap to achieve our
organizational and business needs within an efficient IT environment.
USDA's EA program identifies similar processes and opportunities to
improve and when possible share and reuse IT solutions across our
agencies. We continue to assemble and refine the data needed, at both
the Departmental level and within individual agencies, to better
organize and analyze our business processes, information needs, and
supporting technologies. The USDA EA Program is fully integrated with
the Department's IT Capital Planning and Investment Control (CPIC)
process. USDA's central CPIC body reviews, monitors and approves all
major IT investments to ensure alignment with the Department's
strategic goals and objectives. The EA provides a formal basis for
evaluating a single investment against other investments in terms of
its contribution to enhanced delivery of customer services and
opportunities for collaboration and reuse. In addition to strengthening
the CPIC process, EA enables USDA to improve key Department-wide
enterprise hardware, software, and service agreements.
The quality of this work is supported by an IT Project Management
Program. USDA has trained 480 project managers who have helped us keep
our IT projects on schedule and within budget.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Chairman, we are always looking for creative ways to improve
our services, reduce our costs and be good stewards of the tax payers
dollars. With the continued support of this Subcommittee and the
Congress, I am confident that we will continue to be successful in
achieving our objectives.
______
Prepared Statement of Charles R. Christopherson, Jr., Chief Financial
Officer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
present the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA), Office of the Chief Financial Officer
(OCFO) and the Department's Working Capital Fund (WCF).
The myriad of programs at the Department of Agriculture create a
large financial organization. If compared to companies in the private
sector, USDA would be both the ninth largest company and the ninth
largest bank in the United States. Under the Chief Financial Officers
Act of 1990 (CFO Act), the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) is responsible
for the financial management of the Department including financial
policy, personnel, systems, and budget execution. First, this testimony
will address the key areas of my responsibility under the CFO Act and
then proceed into the specific budget of the OCFO and WCF.
The President's budget for the Department of Agriculture is a
comprehensive effort that involves the input of each mission area and
staff office. The budgeting office does an exceptional job at managing
and compiling the vast amount of financial information from each of the
agencies within the Department. Over the years, the budget of the
Department has remained relatively flat. The budget for fiscal year
2008 is lean and focused on the highest priorities of the Department.
Summary of Financial Operations and Processes
In the area of financial operations and policy, the Department of
Agriculture continues to make vast improvements in business processes,
improper payments, and internal controls. For fiscal year 2006, the
Department of Agriculture attained another clean opinion on its annual
financial statements.
Also during 2006, USDA achieved compliance with OMB Circular A-123,
Appendix A by completing the assessment of Internal Controls over
Financial Reporting in a single-year. This effort involved over 1,000
USDA employees from 29 agencies and staff offices. These employees
documented over 5,000 controls within 13 financial cycles, 76
processes, and 92 financially significant systems. A significant number
of the controls documented during this process were also tested. The
assessment resulted in identifying four materials weaknesses which are:
--Obligations--Forest Service and Commodity Credit Corporation
--Management Estimates and Accruals--Forest Service and Commodity
Credit Corporation
--Producer Payments and Commodity Loans--Commodity Credit Corporation
--Information Technology Controls--All Organizations
Software Change Controls
Disaster Recovery
Access Control--Logical
Access Control--Physical
To manage the internal controls and eliminate material weaknesses,
the Department has instituted a Senior Management Control Council,
Chaired by the Deputy Secretary and Co-Chaired by the CFO with its
committee members comprised of the highest ranking officials in each of
our agencies and staff offices. The members of this committee are
dedicated to the proper management and safe keeping of the funds of our
Nation's tax paying citizens.
In order to provide the most effective and efficient financial
operations, this last year we started a dedicated effort of refining
several of our processes and are actively moving to uniform processes,
procedures, and systems across USDA. For example, this year we formed a
grants committee to document the grants process across all mission
areas of the Department. In the near future, a formal USDA process,
with all of the correct internal controls, will be formally documented
and we will start reducing the 13 grant systems into one. This will not
be a new system, but one developed from a system currently in use in
one of the agencies. The agency that currently operates that system
will retain the management of the system while OCFO will manage the
policy, process changes, and approve system modifications. We are also
moving toward uniform processes for loans, contract invoices, and
insurance.
For all processes, we are moving toward solutions that provide
electronic interfaces with the customers, automate document flow and
approvals, and automate payments. The majority of the work will be
accomplished with USDA employees and software that we currently own.
Over this last year, we strengthened our policy on measuring
improper payments to be in better alignment with the Improper Payments
Act. Under the Act, agencies are required to measure both incorrect
payment amounts and incomplete qualifying paperwork. Under this new
policy, the Department continued to reduce incorrect payment amounts,
but incomplete qualifying paperwork increased. The majority of the
paperwork errors are in the Farm Service Agency. So as not to
misinterpret the outcome of the information and to show the
Department's commitment to correcting the paperwork problem, we met
with House and Senate Committees. During these meetings we communicated
both the results and the corrective plan. The agency continues to move
forward with the corrections and we expect to see a vast reduction in
paperwork issues in this year's review.
Financial Systems
The Department's current primary financial systems were developed
in the late 1970's and early 1980's. For the 2008 OCFO budget, includes
a request to continue the replacement of financial systems that are
critical for payments, reporting, and fiscal management.
Two financial systems are in need of replacement at USDA. The first
is the core financial system; the second is the farm payments system.
Currently the core financial system is comprised of nine general ledger
systems which have not been supported by the vendor for several years.
The systems do not meet Federal financial system requirements, and are
showing the early signs of failure. The primary objective of the
Financial Management Modernization Initiative (FMMI) is to replace this
20 year old, outdated mainframe technology providing for Department-
wide expanded functional capability, full integration of critical
system components and high-quality production and customer support.
FMMI also addresses a critical and growing need for better integration
of program, financial, and budgetary information to support more
efficient and effective management of USDA's missions and improved
delivery of programs against established performance goals and
objectives. Based on both the risk and the savings, we have accelerated
the implementation timeline of this system to a 3 year implementation.
The farm payments system is in critical need of modernization
through replacement. This system manages the requirements and
interactions of over 120 farm programs to create producer payments. The
systems are homegrown, in an outdated programming language, and on
hardware that is no longer manufactured. In addition, the systems
cannot be modified to meet current Federal IT security requirements.
Over the years, core financial software vendors have improved their
products to support broader operational flexibility and requirements.
Included in the request for proposals (RFP) for FMMI are the
requirements and business cases to address the basic requirements of a
modern farm programs system. We believe that the new financial system
will provide a strong foundation to a modern and upgradeable payment
system to support the farm programs.
These critical systems are in the early phases of failure and
require a multi-year implementation cycle. It is very important that
the funds for these systems are approved at their requested fiscal year
2008 budget levels.
Financial Personnel
Employee turnover in the Department for fiscal year 2005 equaled
8.36 percent. The majority of this turnover is related to retirements
in the Department (4.6 percent). I believe that it is also safe to
speculate that USDA turnover is impacted by promotions due to
retirements in other government entities. We project that turnover due
to retirements will increase by approximately 1 percent each year which
equals approximately 8 percent (at least 12 percent with other elements
of turnover) by fiscal year 2009. This high level of turnover places a
significant amount of responsibility on our management teams, as they
must transition knowledge based jobs. To address the transition and the
shrinking workforce, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer is
training the financial workforce, standardizing and documenting
processes, and competing work skills that are available in the private
sector.
Employee Training.--Office of the Chief Financial Officer has
started training employees in the skills of Lean Six Sigma, which is
characterized as an improvement methodology because it uses data to
identify waste and non-value added activities; reduce them, while
improving service delivery. Through the Lean Six Sigma process,
employees' document current business processes and then refine the
process for a zero tolerance for errors; while using fewer resources
and improving customer service. In addition, the Office of the Chief
Financial Officer holds various training sessions every year in order
to address the knowledge gap in financial and USDA knowledge due to the
high turnover rate.
Competitive Sourcing.--Competitive sourcing provides a resource to
supplement skills and resources of the Department's workforce. The
Center for Naval Analysis conducted a study titled Long-run Costs and
Performance Effects of Competitive Sourcing, and found that competition
drove costs down over 30 percent while improving performance. The
process is designed to select the competitor who can provide the most
cost effective service delivery methodology to the Department and
ultimately the taxpayers. Returns on investment are even greater for
the activities that agencies have identified most frequently from
competition: IT, maintenance/property management, logistics, HR/
personnel servicing and education, and financial management. Two-year
savings per Full-Time Equivalent studied in these categories generally
range from $25,000 to $33,000. As required skill sets and technology
change, the Federal sector, by using an external firm, can be flexible
in the knowledge skill sets of technology teams by adjusting the
requirements of the vendor's contract. Our veteran owned companies,
small and disadvantaged businesses, as well as other private companies
have been important to the past success of our government and will
continue important technical skills in the future.
Recruitment.--Last, we need to continue to recruit employees from
our nation's universities into the Federal workforce. These young
employees bring excitement to the work environment and complementary
technical skills to our knowledge based employees. Since the Federal
requirements for accounting are slightly different than those taught in
the universities, we will partner with the USDA Graduate School to
provide the additional Federal knowledge.
This comprehensive approach to address the high turnover in the
financial workforce should provide the Department with the employees
required for the management and safeguarding of the assets appropriated
by the Congress.
National Finance Center
Before we move to the budget request, I would be remiss if I did
not discuss the National Finance Center. The National Finance Center
(NFC), located in New Orleans, provides payroll processing and related
services for approximately 33 percent of the Federal civilian workforce
in more than 175 government entities. In fiscal year 2006, the NFC
processed $30 billion in payroll for approximately 595,000 Federal
employees. The NFC provides a human resources suite of services to
approximately 150,000 employees of which 72,000 are USDA employees in
Farm Service Agency, Rural Development, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, and Forest Service; and 69,400 Department of Homeland Security
employees in Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Coast Guard
and Headquarters. The NFC services the Office of Personnel Management
performing health benefit reconciliations and health care premium
processing on a Government-wide level. Finally, the NFC provides
personnel transaction processing services for several agencies
including TSA, Coast Guard and Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA).
The National Finance Center continues to prove the efficiencies and
effectiveness of a very focused shared services operation. The payroll,
human capital, and data center operations continue to be a low cost
provider with a very high level of customer satisfaction. During fiscal
year 2006, the NFC operations returned to New Orleans after relocating
due to Hurricane Katrina. At the time of the return, the New Orleans
area was still in the early stages of rebuild. The NFC employees have
endured long lines at the limited number of grocery facilities, the
constraints of living in FEMA trailers, slow payments of insurance
proceeds, inflation in the cost of property insurance, and other
hurdles. In addition, employees have increased workload as the employee
vacancy rate has increased due to separations and retirements. Even
with all of these hurdles, the work from the three CFO operations at
the NFC is exceptional. We are very proud of these employees and
consider them pioneers in the rebuild of New Orleans. Last year's
significant results for the National Finance Center include:
--Reduction of backlogs to pre-Katrina levels.
--Implementation of the Department of Justice to the payroll system
(30,000 employees).
--First stage implementation of Forest Service to the Human Resource
Line of Business suite of services.
--Selection of and significant progress on the Primary Computer
Facility (PCF). As disclosed in our report to Congress, the
Primary Computer Facility is located at the Denver Federal
Center. The project is on target to complete the relocation of
the systems from the temporary disaster recovery facilities to
the PCF by June 2007.
Budget of the Office of the Chief Financial Officer
The OCFO is responsible for the financial management of an
enterprise with almost $75 billion in annual spending, over 106,000
full time equivalents (staff years) and over $134 billion in assets.
Areas of focus for fiscal year 2008 include supporting shared
services that reduce the cost to USDA mission areas and the Federal
Government; strengthening the financial operations of the program
areas; completing uniform processes and procedures; creating efficient
IT solutions; remediation of deficiencies in internal controls, and
progressing in the implementation of the systems in critical need of
replacement.
Our fiscal year 2008 operating budget request is for $30.8 million,
which includes increases for 2007 and 2008 pay costs as well as the
replacement of the core financial system. Approximately 90 percent of
the OCFO's obligations are for the salaries and benefits of the OCFO
employees. OCFO is a labor intensive staff office with very little
ability to absorb pay cost increases without holding a large number of
positions vacant for the entire fiscal year; thereby adversely
affecting its ability to lead the Department in the areas of financial
management, oversight, and guidance necessary to prevent fraud, waste,
and abuse; reduce risk of improper payments, plan for financial
systems, and to institute proper internal financial controls. The pay-
related increases requested are necessary for us to accomplish key
outcomes and to successfully meet our goals for fiscal year 2008.
OCFO is requesting an increase in funding to partially fund the
implementation of the system used to replace our core financial
management systems and provide a foundation to the farm payments
system. These systems are in critical need of replacement. As I stated
above, this core system is replacing nine general ledger systems
currently operating in USDA and provides the foundation system for the
modernization of the farm payment system. Currently these systems do
not meet the requirement of financial systems as required by the
Federal Financial Management Improvement Act, are showing early signs
of failure, and are no longer supported by the vendor. If the current
systems fail, the Department will not be able to report required
financial information, manage receipts, or produce payments. This
system will also replace the four general ledger systems and five
payment modules currently contained in the farm payment systems (all of
which are no longer supported by the vendor). Continued reliance upon
this old technology poses unacceptable risks to USDA financial
operations and data. I greatly appreciate your support in the
replacement of these key systems.
USDA Working Capital Fund
The CFO is responsible for the budget of the Department's Working
Capital Fund (WCF). The WCF serves as the Department's principal
investment engine to achieve progress in developing and implementing
new corporate systems.
Unobligated Funds.--Under the authority of Congress, USDA is
allowed to transfer unobligated balances from discretionary accounts
into the WCF. For fiscal year 2005 the transfer was approximately $2
million and for fiscal year 2006 the transfer was approximately $4
million. During that same period we have received capital project
requests for unobligated funds in excess of $30 million. While all of
the requests appear to be very important, we have placed a priority to
statutory obligations. The first obligation is for the capital required
to meet the reporting requirements of the Transparency Act passed by
Congress in this fiscal year. The next priority is to meet a small
amount of the capital requirements of the PCF. As previously reported
to Congress, the PCF will be operational by June of this year. The
information concerning the transfer of unobligated funds and the
capital requests for these funds will be reported to the Committees on
Appropriations in the near future.
Working Capital Funds--Capital.--For fiscal year 2007, request for
the hardware to support corporate systems and facilities equaled $84.5
million. The Department's available balance for allocation was $24.8
million. The Department graded the investments with statutory,
security, and disaster recovery receiving the highest scores for
funding. Statutory investments include NFC's PFC, NFC's backup
facility, and Homeland Security Operation Plan system. We are grateful
for the support and look forward to working with the Committee as we
repair and improve our corporate systems.
Working Capital Funds--Operations.--In addition to the investments
in corporate systems, the WCF supports the operations of our shared
service activities. These services include financial management,
information technology, payroll, human capital systems, communications,
administration, as well as record keeping and item processing. It is
our objective to use this financing mechanism to provide to the mission
areas and the Federal Government the most effective cost-efficient
services available.
The President's fiscal year 2007 budget estimates that total costs
for recurring operations in the WCF in fiscal year 2008 will be $534.3
million, a 3.7 percent increase over the fiscal year 2007 estimate. The
majority of this increase is to move the Department to a uniform human
resource system hosted at the National Finance Center and an increase
in the cost of services at the National Information Technology Center.
Also included in the fund are such services as: video and
teleconferencing production services provided by the Broadcast and
Media Technology Center in the Office of Communications; personal
property, mail, duplicating, and acquisition system provided by
Department Administration.
I would like to point out that the WCF financing mechanism, as a
reimbursement for goods and services provided, gives us an opportunity
to refine our estimates as newer and better information becomes
available regarding customer demand and costs. Our office is working
with activity centers to review fiscal year 2008 estimates with the
goal of reducing the cost of individual services that are provided to
USDA agencies. It was with this objective in mind that we were able to
submit an operating estimate for fiscal year 2008 that is consistent
with expected inflation.
One thing we have done to impose more discipline on costs is to
require individual activities to begin compiling and reporting costs
for specific business lines within their respective activities. This
method is being developed and refined as we move forward in fiscal year
2007 and will be a critical element as we revisit fiscal year 2008 cost
estimates. As we begin development of the fiscal year 2009 budget this
spring, we will be reexamining fiscal year 2008 estimates for more
economies and savings. As has been the practice for the last 2 fiscal
years, we will establish spending targets for WCF activities that take
into account the Department's spending priorities among its agencies
reflected in the President's budget.
Last year, we expressed to the Committee our appreciation for all
of the assistance and support provided to the Department in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina. It was a critical ingredient in our ability to
resume normal business operations and recover from that event. We have
continued to strengthen our business continuity practices, and we are
working to ensure that in the event of the need to respond to a similar
natural disaster in the future we are positioned even better to respond
and ensure uninterrupted service to our customers. For your continued
support in that effort, we are grateful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to share the results
we have achieved and our fiscal year 2008 budget request with the
Subcommittee. We have very dedicated employees that are passionate
about nature and conservation, food assistance and the Nation's health,
rural America and renewable energy, food production and safety, and the
vast benefits of scientific research. The budget for such a large
Department is an effort based on the goals of our 5 year strategic
plan, the highest priorities of each mission area, and replacing
critical support infrastructure. We look forward to working together
with you and the Subcommittee in fulfilling the vision for financial
management and accountability we all have for USDA.
______
Prepared Statement of Margo M. McKay, Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to submit this statement supporting the President's fiscal
year 2008 budget proposal for the United States Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights
(ASCR).
The Office of the ASCR provides policy guidance, leadership,
outreach, coordination, training, and complaint prevention and
processing for USDA. Our mission is to provide equal opportunity, equal
access and fair treatment for all USDA customers and employees.
The Office of Civil Rights, under the ASCR, has made significant
progress in complaint processing and complaint prevention. Overall USDA
experienced a 15 percent decrease in the number of new Equal Employment
Opportunity (EEO) complaints filed during fiscal year 2006 as compared
to fiscal year 2005. The decrease in EEO complaint filing is attributed
to factors such as increased usage of the Alternative Disputes
Resolution (ADR) process, improved compliance and accountability, and
an overall decrease in the size of the workforce.
We have also strengthened our compliance and outreach efforts. In
August 2006, we convened our Third Annual Partners' Meeting. This is a
principal outreach effort for organizations representing underserved
populations, including minority, small and limited resource farmers.
These meetings continue dialogue with USDA stakeholders, providing a
forum through which the voices and concerns of underserved constituents
can be heard by USDA, and avenues can be found for resolving long-
standing issues of access and accountability.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 OBJECTIVES
The Office of Civil Rights (CR) has the following strategic
objectives for fiscal year 2008 that contributes to the Department's
success. They are to:
--Ensure employees and applicants are provided equal opportunities in
all aspects of employment activities.
--Ensure USDA employment activities are conducted in a
nondiscriminatory manner and agencies comply with CR/EEO laws,
rules and regulations related to women, minorities, and persons
with disabilities.
--Ensure equal access to USDA programs.
--Ensure Program and EEO complaints are timely processed.
--Ensure complaints are processed in an efficient and cost-effective
manner.
--Increase USDA-wide awareness and use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR), and resolution of conflicts through ADR in
the early stages of workplace and program disputes (non-civil
rights).
--Establish effective outreach programs in the Department to ensure
equal and timely access to USDA programs and services for all
customers, with special emphasis on the minority and
underserved.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 KEY OUTCOMES
CR plans to achieve the following key outcomes in fiscal year 2008:
--Decrease in the number of individual EEO and Program complaints
filed.
--Reduction in the average number of days to process Program and EEO
complaints to issuance of Report of Investigation and Final
Agency Decisions.
--Increase in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of processing of
Program and EEO complaints within the regulatory timeframes.
--Increase in ADR usage.
--Increase the number of minority, underserved, and socially
disadvantaged persons made aware of USDA programs and services.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
The fiscal year 2008 Appropriation request for CR is $23.1 million.
The funding request includes increases for the following:
--Civil Rights Enterprise System Improvements.--Funds for the Civil
Rights Enterprise System are requested to continue the
expansion of the complaints processing system. Funding is
necessary to support the President's Management Agenda
initiative of expanding electronic government by improving
complainant/customer access to information about the complaints
and providing a more accountable mechanism for EEO and Program
complaint filing. USDA agencies will be able to interface on a
Web-based system that will provide customers and employees
real-time data regarding their discrimination complaints. The
system encompasses a planned multi-year phased approach
projected through fiscal year 2009. After fiscal year 2009, the
implementation of the system will be complete and funds will
only be needed to support operation and maintenance.
--Compliance Monitoring Activities.--Funding is needed to meet new
requirements designed to meet the affirmative employment goals
of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's Management
Directive 715. In addition, CR will undertake significant
compliance activities in the field offices. Compliance reviews
will result in civil rights complaint prevention and new
complaint reductions.
--Pay cost.--Funding is needed for the 2007 and 2008 pay raises.
I would like to emphasize the importance of the Subcommittee's
approval of the President's $23.1 million budget for CR. The proposed
budget will help ensure that USDA continues to make substantial
progress toward providing fair and equitable delivery of our services
and programs to our customers and protecting the civil rights of USDA
employees.
______
Prepared Statement of Terri Teuber, Director, Office of Communications
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
discuss the fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Department of
Agriculture's Office of Communications (OC).
When Congress wrote the law establishing the U.S. Department of
Agriculture in 1862, it said the Department's ``. . . general designs
and duties shall be to acquire and to diffuse among the people of the
United States useful information on subjects connected with agriculture
in the most general and comprehensive sense of the word.'' OC
coordinates the implementation of that original mandate.
OC coordinates communications with the public about USDA's
programs, functions, and initiatives, providing vital information to
the customers and constituency groups who depend on the Department's
services for their well-being. For example, OC is coordinating the
Department's communications efforts relating to the threat of avian
influenza (AI) and is prepared, if necessary, to activate a Joint
Information Center (JIC) funded through the Supplemental Appropriation,
which would support the Department in meeting its obligations in the
event of an AI detection and/or outbreak. This effort is a follow-on to
efforts OC has undertaken in the past to inform the public of the
Department's actions taken to protect animal and human health. OC
assisted in addressing such serious issues as bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE), which have been of interest to consumers around
the world. In addition, OC also coordinates the communications
activities of USDA's seven major mission areas and provides leadership
for communications within the Department to USDA employees.
OC is adopting new technologies to meet the increased demands for
the dissemination of accurate information in a timely manner. Using the
Internet, radio, television and teleconference facilities, we are able
to ensure that the millions of Americans whose lives are affected by
USDA's programs receive the latest and most complete information. As
the continuing concern over AI and BSE incidents demonstrate, these
technologies are a critical resource used by the Secretary and the
agencies to provide timely information, which helps to maintain
consumer confidence and stabilize agricultural markets.
OC's 5-year strategic goal is to provide maximum support to all
mission areas of the Department in the development of programs and in
creating awareness among the American public about USDA's initiatives
and services. This is essential to providing effective customer
services and efficient program delivery. As a result, we expect more
citizens, especially those in underserved communities and geographic
areas, to access helpful USDA services and information. A central
element of this support is OC's active participation in the
Department's eGovernment initiative as part of the President's
Management Agenda. OC plays a key role in ensuring that the
Department's eGovernment implementation results in the public's
improved access to more current, accurate, relevant, and organized USDA
products, services, and information. The USDA.gov portal, managed by
OC, is customer- or citizen-centric, allowing OC to target information
by audience preference, subject and personalization. On average, 1.5
million citizens access the site weekly. The demand by citizens and
other constituencies for information, via USDA.gov, Web casting,
electronic mail distribution, teleconferences, and publications, is
expected to continue to increase.
OC will continue to take an active role in policy and program
management discussions by coordinating the public communication of USDA
initiatives. We will continue to provide centralized operations for the
production, review, and distribution of USDA information to its
customers and the general public. Also, we will monitor and evaluate
the results of these communications. Our staff is instructed to use the
most effective and efficient communications technology, methods, and
standards in carrying out communications plans.
Also, we are focusing on improved communications with USDA
employees, especially those away from headquarters, which will enhance
their understanding of USDA's general goals and policy priorities,
programs and services, and cross-cutting initiatives.
Our office will continue to work hard to meet our performance goals
and objectives. We will work to communicate updated USDA regulations
and guidelines, conduct regular training sessions for USDA
communications staff about using communication technologies and
processes to enhance public service, foster accountability for
communications management performance throughout USDA, and continue to
work to create a more efficient, effective and centralized OC.
Increasing availability of USDA information and products to
underserved communities and geographic areas through USDA's outreach
efforts is integral to our performance efforts. OC will continue to
provide equal opportunity for employment and promote an atmosphere that
values individuals.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
OC is requesting a budget of $9,720,000, which includes an increase
to cover fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 pay costs.
As more than 89 percent of OC's obligations are for salaries and
benefits, the requested increase is vital to support and maintain
staffing levels for current and projected demands for our products and
services. While OC has realized some cost savings by replacing high
grade employees who have retired with lower grade employees, our
current budget leaves little flexibility for absorbing increased costs.
In fact, OC would not be able to absorb the increased salary costs in
fiscal year 2008 without placing considerable constraints on daily
operations or affecting staff size and therefore the timely delivery of
information to the public.
Our central task is to ensure the development of communications
strategies, which are vital to the overall formation, awareness and
acceptance of USDA programs and policies. OC has led the adoption of
content management software which speeds the addition of new material,
improves our quality control measures to ensure the accuracy of the
information available through USDA.gov, and reduces the staff time
required for overall maintenance of the site.
This improved control greatly reduces the time necessary to post
important information to the media and the public while providing a
greater ability to ensure the accuracy of the information. This allows
OC to use a large document and Web repository, sharing resources and
information with mission areas and agencies as well as the public.
OC looks forward to continuing our commitment to the American
public by providing timely, accurate information about our programs and
services.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions.
______
Prepared Statement of Keith Collins, Chief Economist
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to discuss the general economic situation in U.S.
agriculture as background for the Subcommittee's review of the
Department of Agriculture's (USDA) fiscal year 2008 budget submission.
I will review the major factors affecting agricultural markets in the
coming year and their implications for financial conditions in U.S.
agriculture.
U.S. agriculture continues to prosper following the economic
slowdown at the start of this decade. With solid growth in domestic and
export demand, large crop harvests, and record-high cattle, broiler and
milk prices, net cash farm income reached a record high $81.5 billion
in 2004. In 2005, net cash farm income was nearly as high and the
second highest on record despite a large increase in crop stocks which
reduced crop prices; multiple hurricanes that shut down the central
marketing infrastructure of the country; sharply higher energy prices
that raised production, marketing and processing costs; continued loss
of Asian beef markets; and the emergence of global Avian Influenza (AI)
concerns. In 2006, net cash farm income is estimated at $66.7 billion,
down from the previous 2 years, reflecting lower milk prices and
government payments, smaller crop harvests, plus higher production
expenses, especially energy costs.
In 2007, global economic growth and food demand is expected to
remain strong. However, growing demand for biofuels is expected to be
the key factor driving crop prices. Markets for most major crops will
experience stronger prices as stock levels decline. In addition,
continued expansion of livestock production following several years of
profitable returns could lead to slightly lower market prices for
cattle and hogs. Weather, energy costs, higher interest rates, and a
slow recovery of foreign markets due to animal health concerns are also
likely to be factors affecting economic performance. Together, these
factors suggest that net cash farm income will rise modestly in 2007.
Rising expenses will cause financial stress for some farming
operations, particularly livestock and poultry producers, but the
overall farm economy is expected to perform above long-term average
levels with net cash farm income forecast at $67.2 billion, farm
household income remaining strong, and farm net worth continuing to
increase.
Global Economic Growth and Farm Product Demand
The U.S. economy grew at 3.4 percent in 2006, up from 2005's 3.2
percent but below 2004's 3.9 percent. For 2007, U.S. Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) growth is expected to be slightly less than last year.
The decline in the rate of growth in 2007 from last year is expected to
be due to slower growth in consumption, weak housing, and tight energy
markets. Increased tightness in labor markets is likely also to be a
factor. As the unemployment rate remains low, productivity growth and
output growth usually remain at or just below trend.
Real foreign economic growth accelerated in 2006 to 4.0 percent
from 2005's strong growth rate of 3.7 percent, with many areas
improving, particularly Western Europe and Asia. This year, Western
Europe is expected to grow at above 2 percent for the second
consecutive year, the first time this has happened since 1999-2000.
Growth in Japan, Canada, and Mexico are expected to be slightly below
2006. Asia, excluding Japan, will likely grow at 7 percent in 2007,
above trend for the 4th consecutive year. Foreign economic growth is
expected to be 3.7 percent in 2007, down slightly from 2006, but well
above trend, as has been the case beginning in 2004.
With the U.S. economy expected to have another year of steady
growth, consumption expenditures on food continue to rise, although the
rate of growth is likely to decline to near 4.4 percent from the
unusually high 6 percent growth in 2006. Growth was less than 2.5
percent during the economic slowdown in 2001 and 2002. This year,
slower growth in consumer spending on food is likely, as consumers face
heavy debt loads and high energy costs and are less likely to use
household assets to finance consumption. Consumer spending, which
accounts for two-thirds of GDP, increased by 4.4 percent in the last
quarter of 2006, well above the third-quarter, but a slowdown is
expected in the first quarter of 2007.
U.S. Agricultural Trade
Turning to foreign demand for U.S. agricultural products, our
latest quarterly forecast for farm exports in fiscal year 2007,
released in March, is a record-high $78 billion, up $9.3 billion from
fiscal year 2006's record. Gains are expected across the board in
grains and feeds, livestock, and horticultural products.
U.S. agricultural imports are forecast at a record $70 billion, $6
billion more than in fiscal year 2006. The agricultural trade surplus
for fiscal year 2007 is forecast at $8 billion, up from $4.7 billion in
fiscal year 2006.
While the agricultural export-weighted value of the dollar
appreciated in the first half of 2006, it has depreciated steadily
since July, continuing its declining long-term trend from 2001. The
current period of strong foreign economic growth and continued effects
of the decline in the value of the dollar from several years ago should
result in higher U.S. agricultural exports in the future and a modestly
improving trade balance. However, strong consumption growth in the
United States and consumers' desire for year-round fruits and
vegetables, as well as more variety, suggest the trade surplus in the
future will be smaller than in the past. USDA's long-run projections
issued February 14, 2007, forecast U.S. agricultural exports rising to
nearly $94.8 billion by fiscal year 2016 and imports rising at an even
faster pace to $92.7 billion, leaving a trade surplus of $2.1 billion.
Major Crops: Supply, Demand, and Price
The 2005/06 marketing year began with relatively ample world crop
supplies. Thus, despite declines in production of grains and cotton,
stocks remained relatively stable year-to-year. Global oilseed
production was record high in 2005/06, boosting stocks to record
levels. As a result of these generally plentiful supplies, market
prices were relatively flat. In 2006/2007, global wheat and coarse
grain production declined as weather problems affected output. World
oilseed production set another record and world cotton production rose
slightly. Global total use this year is expected to rise for rice,
coarse grains, oilseeds, and cotton. Global wheat use is expected to
decline modestly, reflecting tighter supplies and higher prices. With
generally lower production and rising consumption, global stocks of
most major commodities, except oilseeds, will decline in 2006/2007, and
grain (wheat and coarse grain) stocks will fall well below last year's
levels. In the United States, supplies for feed grains, cotton, and
rice are well below their record levels in 2005/2006. U.S. wheat
supplies are down sharply from 2005/2006, but soybean supplies set
another record.
With world grain consumption during 2006/2007 expected to exceed
last year's record high and again exceed world production, world grain
stocks as a percent of total use are expected to fall to 15.5 percent,
compared with 19.5 percent in 2005/2006. The picture for oilseeds is
quite different as global soybean production is forecast to be record
high for the third consecutive year, exceed consumption, and result in
higher global stocks. For soybeans, global stocks as a percent of use
is forecast to exceed the high set in 1986. World cotton stocks are
expected to decline slightly as consumption exceeds production for the
second consecutive season.
For the United States, good grain and oilseed harvests and strong
demand have supported above average farm income in recent years.
Current market prospects look even brighter as growth in demand,
particularly for producing biofuels, has pushed grain prices to 10-year
highs. High grain prices and demand for vegetable oil have also pushed
soybean prices higher, despite the higher soybean supplies.
U.S. soybean stocks are expected to be record high at the end of
2006/2007, rising 132 percent above the level of 2 years ago. This jump
reflects the bumper harvest this past fall and the highest beginning
stocks in 20 years. This stock buildup is projected despite expected
record soybean crush and exports. Still, U.S. soybean prices this
winter have been strong in the face of the prospective stock buildup,
reflecting higher corn prices, purchases by index funds, and strong,
biodiesel-driven soybean oil prices. For the year as a whole, the farm
price received for soybeans is expected to average $6.30 per bushel
compared with $5.66 last marketing year. Despite prospects for record
production in the Southern Hemisphere and the increase in U.S. stocks,
soybean prices will likely remain strong in the second half of the
year, reflecting relatively high corn prices.
For 2007/2008, high corn prices relative to soybeans likely will
cause a sharp swing away from soybean planting. We expect a reduction
in soybean planted area of about 5 million acres. Lower planted area,
combined with trend yields, would result in production below expected
use; consequently, carryover levels would decline significantly.
Reduced production, lower stocks, and high corn prices should keep
soybean prices strong into 2007/2008.
The U.S. corn market in 2006/2007 is expected to see a second year
of declining carryover as ending stocks fall markedly from 2005/2006.
Corn prices have risen sharply since September 2006 when the market
began to reflect the extraordinary ongoing expansion in corn-based
ethanol production capacity. Additional factors supporting the rapid
rise in corn prices have been the decline in 2006-crop corn acreage and
yield and strong export demand. Farm-level corn prices are expected to
average $3.20 per bushel this marketing year, up substantially from
$2.00 per bushel last year. The increase in prices nearly eliminated
loan deficiency payments (LDPs) and marketing loan gains (MLGs) for
2006-crop corn. As of March 2007, LDPs and MLGs totaled only $3 million
on 2006-crop corn with all of these payments occurring in the first
weeks of the marketing year. For the 2005 crop, LDPs and MLGs totaled
$4.6 billion, with 97 percent of that year's production receiving an
average payment of $0.42 per bushel.
Biofuels is now the most important influence on corn and other crop
markets. Ethanol production this marketing year is expected to account
for 20 percent of U.S. corn production. The USDA's long-term
projections to 2016, released on February 14, 2007, project ethanol
production will account for 30 percent of corn use by 2009/2010 and
drive corn prices to $3.75 per bushel. Biodiesel production has
increased from less than a half million gallons in 1999 to over 225
million in 2006, equivalent to 8 percent of soybean oil production.
In 2004, ethanol accounted for about 2 percent of motor gasoline
use in the United States on a volume basis. Under the Department of
Energy's Annual Energy Outlook 2007, ethanol use is expected to grow to
over 7 percent of motor gasoline use by 2010. The USDA projections to
2016 put corn-based ethanol production at 11 billion gallons by 2010/
2011. This would be a 3-fold increase in corn ethanol production since
2004/2005.
As a result of higher prices and returns for corn fueled by the
expansion in ethanol use, corn area is expected to expand by about 9
million acres in 2007. Much of this increase will come from soybeans.
Additionally, area for cotton, hay, and other crops are all expected to
decline to meet the demand for more corn production. Even with higher
acreage and production, corn ending stocks are likely to tighten again
in 2007/2008 and remain at relatively tight levels in the coming years
as ethanol demand continues to be strong.
The 2006/2007 wheat market reflects tighter world supplies, but
continued strong demand. U.S. wheat stocks at the end of this marketing
year are projected to decline from their levels in 2005/2006 as a
result of weather problems that reduced yields in 2006. Farm prices are
forecast to average $4.25 per bushel, up from $3.42 in 2005/2006 and
$3.40 in 2004/2005. Prices in 2006/2007 have been boosted by weather
problems in the United States and in Australia that reduced this year's
production. Wheat prices have also benefited from rising corn prices.
For 2007/2008, wheat acreage, which has been trending downward over
the past 25 years, is expected to increase by nearly 3 million acres
due to higher prices last fall that encouraged more seeding of winter
wheat. Heavy fall rains limited seeding in the eastern Corn Belt, but
the area is up for all classes of winter wheat. Yield prospects for the
2007 crop remain favorable at this time as winter storms have brought
much needed precipitation to the Central and Southern Plains. Global
wheat production prospects are also good with most major wheat
producing countries expected to expand acreage in 2007 because of
strong prices. Weather in most of the major-producing countries has
remained favorable for winter seeded crops. This suggests global wheat
production will rise in 2007/2008. Based on trend yields, U.S. wheat
production is expected to rebound in 2007, hitting its highest level
since 2003. Despite higher expected demand, especially for feeding,
ending stocks are expected to increase. Prices, however, are expected
to be higher than in 2006/2007 as higher corn prices put a floor under
wheat feeding value.
U.S. cotton production fell 9 percent in 2006/2007 from the
previous year's record, however, carryover stocks are still expected to
rise for the third consecutive year and reach nearly 9 million bales.
The increase is the result of declining domestic textile mill use and
cotton exports. U.S. cotton mill use continues to trend down as textile
mill activity continues to move offshore. Mill use this year is
forecast at 5 million bales, compared with 5.9 million last season.
Exports are forecast to decline by over 20 percent from last year's
record to 14.0 million bales. Lower exports are due mainly to reduced
import demand by China, the largest U.S. customer. Farm prices of
cotton have been running about the same as year-ago levels. For 2007/
2008, lower acreage and production are expected to support prices. With
the prospect of stronger exports due to rising world demand, ending
stocks will likely decline.
Tighter domestic rice supplies and higher global prices have helped
to boost U.S. farm prices in 2006/2007. The global rice market is a
major factor contributing to strong U.S. farm prices as global ending
stocks are expected to be the lowest since 1983/1984 and the lowest
stocks-to-use ratio since 1981/1982. The season-average-farm price is
forecast at $9.85 per cwt, over $2 per cwt above the year earlier
average price and the highest since 1996/1997. Rice ending stocks are
forecast at 31 million cwt, down from carry-in stocks of 43 million
cwt. Medium and short grain stocks, at about 8 million cwt, are the
tightest since 1998/1999.
A reduction in area in 2006 led to a decline in production. Higher
fuel and fertilizer prices, difficulty acquiring bank loans, and
weather-related problems in some areas--especially Louisiana and parts
of Arkansas--accounted for much of the area decline in the South. A
second consecutive cold, wet spring prevented California growers from
boosting rice acreage, despite high prices and expectations of tight
global supplies of medium-grain rice.
On the demand side, impact in some markets from the discovery of
trace elements of a genetically engineered strain of rice--Liberty Link
Rice 601 (LL601)--in U.S. long-grain supplies and reduced production
are behind expectations of weaker U.S. exports in 2006/2007--forecast
at 102 million cwt, down 12 percent from the year earlier. Despite an
expected drop in exports to Europe due to the European Union's
rejection of U.S. rice due to LL601, U.S. exports to markets in the
Western Hemisphere, Northeast Asia, and the Middle East are expected to
be strong.
For 2007/2008, U.S. farm prices of rice are expected to strengthen
on continued tight domestic supplies and firm global prices. Planted
area is expected to be about the same as 2006 with a rebound in
California, but a reduction in area in the South. Higher net returns
for competing crops--mostly corn, restrictions on the planting of
Clearfield CL131 seed and low government payments could lead to reduced
rice planted area in the South. Total use and ending stocks are
expected to be about the same as 2006/2007.
Farm program costs for the 2006 program crops are sharply lower due
to higher grains and oilseeds prices. Counter-cyclical payments are
projected at $1.5 billion, down from $4.7 billion from the 2005 crops.
Outlays for 2006-crop marketing loan benefits are projected at $900
million, down substantially from $6.3 billion for the 2005 crops.
Program crop producers also receive more than $5.2 billion annually in
direct payments.
The 2006/2007 sugar market has differed from other crops this year
as prices have declined, returning from the extreme highs attained when
hurricanes drastically reduced supplies in 2005/2006. To meet this
year's demand and help relieve market tightness, USDA increased import
quotas above the minimums established under the World Trade
Organization. However, 2006/2007 sugar imports, forecast at 2 million
tons, would be down from 3.4 million tons last year.
Farm sales of fruits, nuts, vegetables, and nursery and greenhouse
products are expected to remain steady at $53 billion in 2007,
accounting for 40 percent of all crop cash receipts. Fiscal year 2007
U.S. horticultural exports are forecast at $18.4 billion and imports at
$31.2 billion, indicating a continuing widening of the sector's
traditional trade deficit.
Livestock & Livestock Products: Production, Demand, and Price
Turning to livestock and poultry markets, U.S. red meat and poultry
exports are expected to reach a record high in 2007. Pork exports are
forecast to lead the way, increasing for the 17 consecutive year and
exceeding 3.1 billion pounds carcass weight or 14.6 percent of
production. After depressed sales in early 2006, poultry sales
increased as foreign concerns about AI abated and United States broiler
meat prices declined. Broiler exports likely will increase to 5.4
billion pounds in 2007, but fall short of the record 5.6 billion pounds
exported in 2001. Beef exports are expected to increase with the
gradual expansion of exports to Japan and Korea. However, Korea's
import restrictions and Japan's age limits on imported beef from the
United States continue to limit growth. Although total beef exports are
expected to increase 17 percent to 1.3 billion pounds in 2007, the
level of exports will remain below the 2003 pre-bovine spongiform
encephalopathy level of 2.5 billion pounds.
Total U.S. production of meat and poultry is expected to be record-
high in calendar year 2007, but nearly flat growth in supplies of
broiler meat are expected to support higher broiler prices and help
maintain cattle and hog prices near last year's levels. For livestock
and poultry producers, feed prices will be an important component of
producer production decisions in the upcoming year.
Beef production is currently forecast to increase 1.6 percent in
2006 as both slaughter numbers increase. Slaughter weights could
decline in 2006 due to higher feed prices. Steer prices will likely
remain near last year's $85.41 per cwt and average $84-$89 per cwt.
Poor forage conditions resulted in higher cow slaughter during 2006 as
many producers lacked sufficient forage resources to support their
herds. Herd expansion is expected to be slow as the January Cattle
report indicated a small calf crop and producers expected to retain 0.5
percent fewer heifers for addition to the beef breeding herd.
Pork production in 2007 will expand about 2.6 percent, marking the
7 year of expansion as producers continue to respond to favorable
returns over the last several years. Given farrowing intentions
reported in the most recent Hogs and Pigs report, inventories will
continue to expand, albeit at slower rates. The increase in 2007
production primarily will reflect increased slaughter as weight gains
will be limited as producers respond to higher feed prices. Hog prices
are expected to reflect the increased production, declining from 2006's
$47.26 per cwt to average $45-47 per cwt.
Broiler producers have endured several periods of low returns due
to relatively low broiler prices in 2005 and 2006 and higher feed
costs. Consequently, producers reduced chicks placed in 2006, resulting
in the lowest rate of production growth since the early 1980s.
Production growth in 2007 is expected to be even slower. With tighter
broiler meat supplies, prices are expected to average 72-77 cents per
pound in 2007, up 16 percent from 2006.
Milk producers are expected to respond to higher feed prices and
lower 2006 milk prices by modestly reducing cow inventories and as a
result, the rate of growth of milk production in 2007 will be slower
than in 2006. Production in 2006 increased almost 3 percent and the
all-milk price declined to $12.90 per cwt from $15.15 per cwt in 2005.
Output per cow in 2006 was affected by abnormally high temperatures in
much of the country during the summer, but growth is expected to follow
a more normal pattern in 2007. Demand for dairy products, both
domestically and for export, is expected to remain relatively firm in
2007. Commercial exports of nonfat dry milk and whey are likely to
remain strong, reflecting limited supplies from competing exporters.
Domestic demand for cheese and butter is also likely to remain firm,
thus, prices of cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, and whey are all
forecast higher in 2007 and will support the all-milk price at $15.05-
$15.65 per cwt. With product prices above support, no Commodity Credit
Corporation net removals are forecast.
Implications for the Financial Situation of U.S. Agriculture
Net cash farm income declined to $66.7 billion in 2006 from the
record and near record levels of 2004 and 2005 but is expected to be
slightly higher at $67.2 billion in 2007. This year strong crop prices
and a modest increase in livestock receipts are expected to lead to a
$16 billion rise in cash receipts to a record-high $258.7 billion. This
large increase in cash receipts is not translating into a large
increase in net cash farm income because much of the increase in market
receipts is expected to be offset by higher cash expenses and declining
government payments.
In 2005, government payments to producers were a record high $24.3
billion, declined to $16.3 billion in 2006, and are expected to fall to
$12.4 billion in 2007. In 2005, increased marketing loan costs, higher
counter-cyclical payments, ad hoc disaster assistance, and tobacco
program buyout payments, all contributed to higher government payments.
Lower ad hoc disaster payments, marketing assistance loan outlays, and
counter-cyclical payments will combine to reduce direct government
payments in 2007, as they did in 2006.
Cash production expenses are expected to rise 6 percent, or $12.2
billion, in 2007 following increases of 5 percent in 2006 and 7 percent
in 2005. Energy-related inputs (fertilizer, lime, fuels, oils, and
electricity) increased by $1.9 billion in 2006 and are expected to rise
by nearly $1 billion in 2007. Fuels and oils expenses are expected to
moderate in 2007 as the Department of Energy projects that diesel
prices in 2007 will fall by 1.8 percent from 2006.
Farm household income is also expected to recover in 2007, after
its first decline in 7 years in 2006. At over $80,700 in 2006, farm
household income would still be 20 percent higher than in 2003 and well
above the average of all U.S. households.
Farm real estate values are expected to rise again in 2007,
following a 7.5 percent gain in 2006. Another land value increase would
continue the recent strong improvement in the farm sector balance
sheet. The ratio of real estate value to net cash farm income, a
concept similar to a price-to-earnings ratio, is forecast to remain
high in 2007, near the highest level since the early 1980s. Between
2003 and 2006, farm net worth went up by $510 billion or about $170
billion per year, which is far more than the annual increase in farm
income and farm debt. In 2007, increases in farm real estate values are
expected to slow to 4.7 percent and farm net worth is expected to
increase by $66 billion. Farm net worth is expected to reach another
record high at $1.76 trillion by the end of 2007, and the debt-to-
equity ratio is forecast to remain at 13.4 percent, which would be the
lowest on record.
A return to slightly above average national farm income, for the
second consecutive year, is likely to keep U.S. agriculture on a
sustainable foundation. Most production sectors in U.S. agriculture are
expected to see net cash income the same or higher in 2007, with hogs
being the main exception. Farm prosperity in the coming year will be
influenced by the durability of the United States foreign economic
growth, oil prices, the value of the dollar, the ongoing biofuels
production expansion and its impacts for feed costs, and trade-related
animal health issues. The outcome of trade and farm bill negotiations
will also be crucial determinants of the future direction of U.S.
agriculture.
FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
The Office of the Chief Economist (OCE) advises the Secretary of
Agriculture on the economic implications of USDA policies, programs and
proposed legislation. OCE serves as the focal point for the Nation's
agricultural economic intelligence and projections, risk analysis,
global change issues, and cost-benefit analysis related to domestic and
international food and agriculture, provides policy direction for the
Department's bioenergy and biobased product programs, and is
responsible for coordination, review and clearance of all commodity and
aggregate agricultural and food-related data used to develop outlook
and situation material within the Department.
The OCE budget request for fiscal year 2008 is $11,347,000, which
includes an increase of $360,000 for 2007 and 2008 pay costs. The
budget request also includes an increase of $500,000 for the Methane-
to-Markets Initiative. The Methane-to-Markets Partnership is designed
to promote cost-effective, near-term methane recovery internationally
through partnerships with fourteen other countries, including Russia,
China, the United Kingdom, Italy, Mexico, and Brazil. Under this
initiative, USDA will promote the international adoption of
technologies to reduce methane emissions from animal waste systems and
demonstrate United States leadership in reducing methane emissions.
USDA support for the Methane-to-Markets Partnership will be used
to: identify and promote areas of bilateral, multilateral, and private
sector collaboration on methane recovery and use; develop emissions
estimates and identify the largest relevant emission sources to
facilitate project development; identify cost-effective opportunities
to recover methane emissions and potential financing mechanisms to
encourage investment; improve the legal, regulatory, financial,
institutional and other conditions necessary to attract investment in
methane recovery and utilization projects; identify and implement
collaborative projects aimed at addressing specific challenges to
methane recovery, such as raising awareness in key stakeholders,
removing barriers to project development and implementation,
identifying project opportunities, and demonstrating technologies; and
develop and implement a process for evaluating progress and reporting
results.
That completes my comments and thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, Office of the
Inspector General
Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to the
Subcommittee about the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) recent and
ongoing audit and investigative work, and our fiscal year 2008 Budget
Request.
My testimony presents the highlights of our audit and investigative
work for the period of March 2006-March 2007. OIG conducted extensive
work in 2006 on important issues and USDA activities regarding food
safety, the risks posed by plant and animal-based diseases, fraud that
impairs vital nutrition and hurricane-relief programs, and financial
management accountability within USDA agencies.
To ensure that OIG devotes its resources to the most pressing
issues and challenges facing USDA agencies, stakeholders, and
consumers, we have formally prioritized our work and organized our
resources according to three Strategic Goals. They are improving
Safety, Security, and Public Health in USDA operations; enhancing
Program Integrity in the many USDA benefit programs that touch the
lives of your constituents; and oversight work regarding USDA's
Management of Public Resources. This statement presents the key
elements of our recent and current work to the Subcommittee under the
framework of these three strategic priorities.
SAFETY, SECURITY, AND PUBLIC HEALTH
One of OIG's top priorities is conducting independent and
professional audits and investigations to protect the safety and
security of USDA entities and the many agricultural stakeholders and
consumers who benefit from USDA operations each day. In fiscal year
2006, we issued 12 audit reports involving safety, security, and public
health issues related to USDA programs and operations. During the
fiscal year, OIG referred a total of 120 cases for prosecution.
Assessing the Performance of Consumer Safety Inspectors in Meat and
Poultry Establishments
In our prior audits we determined that the Food Safety and
Inspection Service's (FSIS) management control system needed
strengthening to ensure accountability of consumer safety inspector
performance. A key component of the FSIS management control system is
the In-Plant Performance System (IPPS), which was established to
strengthen supervision and improve inspector accountability. In
response to several OIG audits, FSIS has cited IPPS reviews as a
critical measure to improve monitoring of food safety at meat and
poultry establishments.
In our most recent audit of this area, issued in 2006, we evaluated
the adequacy of agency policy and procedures related to preparing for,
executing, and monitoring IPPS reviews. FSIS did not require
supervisors to complete and/or document the completion of all IPPS
review procedures when evaluating inspectors. In 84 percent of the
inspector assessments OIG reviewed, certain elements of inspector
duties--some of which could be considered critical \1\--were not
addressed. We found that FSIS did not have a system to schedule and
track the completion of IPPS reviews and supervisors were not required
to use the extensive guidance available to help them prepare for the
reviews. As a result, supervisors had not used significant segments of
the guidance to enhance their onsite review of consumer safety
inspectors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Such as hazard analysis and critical control point system
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS agreed to closely monitor field managers and supervisors
involved in the IPPS process, analyze IPPS review data, and
periodically evaluate the IPPS review process. FSIS also agreed to
revise its guidance to require supervisors to examine specific data
sources and system reports before performing an IPPS review and
complete and provide narratives for all IPPS review elements during an
inspector's performance rating period.
Improving Pathogen Reduction Testing in Meat and Poultry Establishments
The Pathogen Reduction Enforcement Program (PREP) is a system used
to support FSIS' pathogen reduction efforts by scheduling
microbiological product sampling at FSIS-inspected meat and poultry
establishments and generating automated reports that allow FSIS
managers to monitor both the sampling process and the results of
laboratory tests.
OIG evaluated the effectiveness of FSIS' process for scheduling and
conducting microbiological testing of meat and poultry products. We
found that in the testing programs for the adulterants E. coli 0157:H7
and Listeria monocytogenes, FSIS had developed procedures to transfer
establishment data from the Performance Based Inspection System (PBIS)
to the PREP (two separate systems) and was selecting the identified
meat and poultry establishments for testing within reasonable
timeframes.
However, we found that Salmonella testing program controls needed
strengthening to ensure that all applicable establishments are included
in the universe for microbiological testing. A significant number of
establishments were excluded from Salmonell a testing due to
ineffective processes for identifying establishments eligible for
testing. FSIS district office personnel did not fully understand the
process for inserting/updating establishments into the testing
database. In one district we visited, 28 percent of the establishments
subject to Salmonella testing were excluded from testing. We also found
that establishments whose slaughter or processing activity falls below
a specific threshold or produces non-intact beef products (such as raw
ground beef sausages and meatballs) were also excluded from the
universe for testing.
We recommended that FSIS strengthen its procedures to ensure that
all establishments subject to Salmonella testing are identified and
modify PBIS to allow PREP to draw establishment information for testing
from PBIS rather than depend on manual updates. The agency should
develop a risk assessment to support its policy for excluding low-
volume establishments from Salmonella testing or conduct testing in all
plants. Further, FSIS should obtain scientific advice to evaluate
whether its policy of not testing certain raw ground beef products for
E. coli O157:H7 contamination should be continued. FSIS officials
generally agreed with OIG's findings and recommendations.
Assessing FSIS Oversight of State Meat and Poultry Inspection Programs
FSIS has oversight responsibility for State meat and poultry
inspection (MPI) programs to ensure that meat and poultry products sold
intrastate meet inspection standards ``at least equal to'' \2\ Federal
laws and regulations. OIG initiated a review to examine the
effectiveness of FSIS management controls and procedures to ensure that
State MPI programs were ``at least equal to'' Federal inspection
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As established by the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the
Poultry Products Inspection Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined that FSIS was not providing timely oversight of State
MPI programs. From October 2003 through June 2005, FSIS had conducted
only 8 initial onsite reviews from a total of 28 State MPI programs.
After our fieldwork began and since July 2005, FSIS initiated reviews
of 16 more State MPI programs and developed plans to conduct the 4
remaining reviews prior to the end of fiscal year 2006. Completing the
review process is important, especially since four of the eight
programs initially reviewed needed corrective actions to achieve ``at
least equal to'' Federal standards.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ FSIS issued a report in January 2007 that contained the results
of all 28 reviews.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, FSIS had not performed timely onsite fiscal reviews and
reviews of new programs and did not timely implement its year-end grant
closeout procedures to ensure that State MPI programs promptly returned
any excess Federal funds. FSIS had not recovered $260,201 in excess
Federal funds from one State for fiscal year 2004. In this State,
during fiscal year 1997-2004, unnecessary interest costs of
approximately $100,000 were incurred by the Federal Government because
the State retained unused Federal funds.
OIG made numerous program improvement recommendations based upon
this audit. We recommended that FSIS establish criteria to determine
how deficiencies in meat processing establishments affect State
acceptability determinations. FSIS should analyze the staffing
requirements of State MPI programs and confirm that laboratories adhere
to standards ``at least equal to'' Federal requirements. The agency
needs to eliminate the backlog of onsite fiscal reviews and perform
timely, year-end grant closeouts of State MPI programs and seek prompt
recovery of $260,201 from the identified State MPI program. FSIS
responded positively to OIG's recommendations, and management decision
was reached on 6 of the 12 recommendations.
The USDA Response to Avian Influenza
The emergence of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) as a
potential pandemic has rapidly changed the environment in which the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) operates. The
November 1, 2005, issuance of the President's strategy for the
preparation, detection, and response to a pandemic accelerated APHIS'
actions in dealing with AI. The strategy recognizes roles for all
segments of society, including Federal, State, local and Tribal
governments, private industry, international trade partners, and
individual citizens.
In our June 2006 review of APHIS' oversight of Avian Influenza
(AI), we concluded that APHIS has made commendable progress in
developing plans and establishing the networks necessary to prepare
for, and respond to, outbreaks of AI. However, APHIS had not yet
developed a comprehensive approach for surveillance and monitoring of
AI in domestic poultry. APHIS relies on a variety of voluntary State
and commercial programs to monitor and test domestic poultry and wild
birds. Because these programs are voluntary, APHIS did not know the
extent of surveillance activity in place and was not gathering
consistent data to properly detect changes in epidemiological
parameters (e.g., subtype of AI or rate of prevalence) or to report
incidents of AI in accordance with new international trade
requirements.
In regard to USDA's National AI Preparedness and Response Plan, OIG
found that APHIS needed to provide additional guidance on preparing and
responding to HPAI or notifiable AI outbreaks in live bird markets or
other ``off farm'' environments.\4\ APHIS also needed to clarify
actions that employees should take in obtaining and administering
necessary vaccines and anti-virals in the event that a culling
operation for HPAI occurs. Finally, APHIS needed to finalize
interagency coordination on the process and procedures for notifying
owners of susceptible animals of the current infectivity risks and the
necessary protective actions they should take when an outbreak of AI
occurs. In its response, APHIS described a number of initiatives
planned and in process to address our concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The plan is intended to complement regional, State, and
industry plans that are written to be more specific to local issues and
needs. States should continue to develop plans that are specific to
their poultry industries and requirements. The USDA/APHIS plan will
evolve as additional information and experience is gained.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG currently has a related audit underway. We are evaluating the
effectiveness of APHIS' implementation of the Homeland Security
Council's National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza (issued May 2006).
We will also follow up with the agency on its corrective actions
responding to our prior audit.
Targeting the Smuggling of Animals and Plant Products
The smuggling of animals and animal/plant products into the United
States is of significant concern. The smuggling of these products
presents both a human health risk and a risk to the United States'
animal and plant populations because of the potential for the
transmission of disease.
OIG works closely with USDA regulatory agencies such as APHIS and
FSIS that enforce standards for the importation for meat, poultry, and
live animals into the United States. As stated in our testimony before
the Subcommittee last year, OIG works with USDA agencies to achieve a
balance among risk mitigation efforts, regulatory investigations, and
criminal investigations when such products are smuggled into the United
States. To achieve this goal, we have been working to establish
protocols to clarify each USDA agency's role in response to smuggling.
We anticipate the Department will issue these protocols this summer.
One of the groups in which OIG is participating is an interagency
working group comprised of both regulatory and law enforcement agencies
from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of
Justice, and the Department of Interior. While the initial objective of
this working group was to improve smuggling investigations concerning
HPAI, OIG's participation has also improved our investigative
capabilities to respond to smuggling investigations involving any type
of prohibited product. The inter-agency working group fostered
productive relationships and communications between OIG and those
departments and more clearly defined our respective roles.
OIG participated in a joint investigation at the Port of Newark
known as ``Operation Fowl Play.'' The investigation led to the seizure
of approximately 1 million pounds of prohibited poultry, fowl, meat,
pork, vegetables, fruit, and other merchandise over several months. The
investigation, which began in 2005, involved several New York based
companies responsible for importing these products from China.
Preparing for Agricultural Emergency Situations and Wildland Fire
Fatalities
OIG's Emergency Response Team (ERT) and Wildland Fire Investigation
Team (WFIT) engaged in training and were both actively deployed in
fiscal year 2006. The ERT has the capability to safely and effectively
respond to criminal acts that could threaten or compromise the United
States' food supply, agricultural infrastructure, or USDA facilities.
The WFIT is responsible for conducting an independent investigation
into the deaths of any Forest Service (FS) firefighters who are killed
as a result of a burnover or entrapment. We thank the Members of the
Subcommittee for your continued support of these important programs.
During 2006, ERT members participated in several tabletop exercises
concerning AI and Foot and Mouth Disease, attended Food Defense
Exercises, and State and local emergency preparedness meetings. Our ERT
works with various Federal, State, and local agencies to educate them
about the assistance and resources OIG can provide when an agriculture-
related incident occurs. Coordination with and outreach to our
counterparts at the State and local level is vital to build the skills
and partnerships necessary for effective, multilevel government
responses to agricultural emergencies.
During the execution of a search warrant in one investigation in
2006, the ERT assisted with the identification and depopulation of game
fowl at an illegal cockfighting pit in Oklahoma. Birds utilized in
animal fighting competitions present a health risk to humans and
animals because the birds may carry infectious diseases such as Exotic
Newcastle Disease and AI.
Our WFIT members undergo extensive training to gain the skills and
experience necessary to conduct wildland fire-related
investigations.\5\ The OIG agents comprising the WFIT attend the FS'
Basic Fire Academy that incorporates training in Incident Command,
Basic Wildfire Suppression Orientation, Firefighter Training,
Introduction to Wildland Fire, and Interagency Serious Accident
Investigation Training. In October 2006, WFIT members responded to the
Esperanza Fire that claimed the lives of five FS fire engine crew
members near Cabazon, California. WFIT members arrived at the site
within 24 hours of the fatalities to begin organizing their
investigation. OIG's investigation of the circumstances leading to the
Esperanza Fire deaths is ongoing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Public Law 107-203, enacted July 24, 2002, established the
statutory requirement for a USDA-OIG investigation of FS fatalities
occurring due to wildland fires.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program
APHIS administers the Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program
(BTEP) that was established in 1917 to eliminate bovine tuberculosis
(TB) in the United States. Because of concerns we previously identified
regarding the agency's systemic classification and testing of relevant
TB cases in one State, OIG conducted a more comprehensive audit of
APHIS' administrative controls over BTEP. We found that APHIS had made
improvements to BTEP since the Secretary's Emergency Declaration in
October 2000,\6\ but weaknesses in oversight made it difficult for the
agency to timely detect and eradicate the disease. APHIS' status
system--important because it dictates the extent of Federal testing and
movement controls for cattle in each State or zone--did not capture
most TB cases. From fiscal year 2001 through 2005, 272 TB-infected
cattle were detected through slaughter surveillance, but APHIS excluded
96 percent from the status system because it could not locate the
source herd or find an additional infected animal in that herd.
Approximately 75 percent of the TB-infected cattle detected through
slaughter surveillance originated in Mexico, and these animals spent
months at U.S. farms and feedlots with no restrictions to prevent
commingling with domestic cattle. Mexican cattle are tested before
entry, but APHIS had not established controls to compensate for the 3-
to2 month TB incubation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The emergency declaration authorized the transfer of $44.1
million from emergency contingency funds to APHIS to expand the TB
eradication program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We recommended that APHIS perform program reviews periodically;
review and approve States' annual and monthly reports and use them to
assess/minimize areas of highest risk; enhance its two key BTEP control
functions (the status classification and slaughter surveillance
systems); and strengthen movement/testing controls to address the
disease's incubation period. The agencies agreed to take corrective
actions based on our findings and recommendations.
Agricultural Inspection Efforts on the U.S. Border
With the creation of DHS in March 2003, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) assumed responsibility to inspect agricultural goods
arriving at U.S. ports while APHIS retained responsibility for
agriculture related policies and procedures. We issued a report in
February 2007 from our joint review with DHS-OIG of border inspection
issues. We assessed selected agricultural inspection activities that
were transferred to CBP.
Our joint review found that CBP generally complied with
agricultural inspection requirements at the ports we visited. However,
improvements are needed regarding risk identification activities. CBP's
sampling for Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Monitoring (AQIM)--
which helps USDA predict future risks to agriculture from pests/
diseases--did not meet sampling requirements for 13 of 18 pathway
activities at four ports.\7\ CBP also lacks a current staffing model
for agriculture specialists and performance measures for many
activities that would ensure personnel are used effectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Such as air passengers and truck cargo AQIM inspections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS officials agreed to develop a risk assessment process for
incoming rail cargo. However, agency officials cite operational
difficulties (such as obtaining timely cargo manifests) as a barrier to
developing a workable system. APHIS has not yet issued policies and
uniform procedures to clearly define how transportation/export
shipments will be monitored. We also found that APHIS needs to issue
instructions to CBP clarifying APHIS policy on labeling and packaging
seized agricultural products.
protecting and improving the integrity of usda programs
OIG's second strategic priority is audit and investigative work to
protect the integrity and efficiency of USDA programs and benefits. A
substantial amount of OIG's audit and investigation resources in fiscal
year 2006 were focused on Farm Service Agency (FSA) and Risk Management
Agency (RMA) programs and operations. OIG continues to work to combat
fraud and deter criminal activity in farm programs, such as payment
limitations, crop insurance, and conversion of mortgaged property.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) programs providing food assistance
to needy Americans is a major portion of USDA's annual budget--the Food
Stamp Program helps over 26 million people each month, and 15.5 million
children receive a free or reduced-price school lunch. Fraud in FNS
programs such as the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), Food Stamp,
and the Children and Adult Care Feeding Programs remains a high
priority for OIG.
USDA Compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act
Within USDA, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is
designated as the lead agency for coordinating and reporting on the
Department's efforts to implement the Improper Payments Information Act
(IPIA). OCFO has designated IPIA compliance as a top priority for
fiscal year 2007.
To determine the Department's compliance with IPIA, OIG initiated
audits of four USDA agencies in fiscal year 2006--FSA, FS, Rural
Development's (RD) Rural Housing Service (RHS), and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Our objectives included
reviewing agency efforts to quantify improper payments for high risk
programs, assessing agency corrective actions related to our previous
audits, and substantiating agency results reported in USDA's
Performance and Accountability Report for fiscal year 2005.
Our audits revealed significant findings on agency compliance with
IPIA. OIG found that valid statistical samples had not been performed
for three of the four agencies reviewed. Improper payments reported in
fiscal year 2005 were not properly calculated and the estimated
improper payments reported in fiscal year 2005 did not always include
payments made to ineligible recipients. We determined that corrective
actions were too narrow in scope and ineffective in addressing our
prior findings. OCFO generally agreed with our recommendations to
correct these conditions and we are working with agencies to improve
their implementation of IPIA requirements. OIG is currently auditing
several USDA agencies to assess their efforts to quantify improper
payment error rates for high risk programs.
Farm Programs--Improving Agency Controls to Prevent Loans to Ineligible
Recipients
When farmers and ranchers are unable to repay their Farm Loan
Programs (FLP) loans in full, Congress requires that FSA consider them
ineligible for future loans. Using data-mining techniques, we reviewed
the approximately 139,000 loans active in FSA's database (as of the
beginning of fiscal year 2005) to isolate 239 borrowers who were
potentially ineligible for having received prior debt forgiveness. Our
detailed review of six potentially ineligible borrowers revealed that
three were, in fact, ineligible and should not have received FLP loans.
FSA subsequently reviewed all 239 borrowers and ultimately found 113
loans totaling over $7.5 million, issued during 1999-2004, were
ineligible. In general, we determined that the unauthorized assistance
occurred because FLP loan officials did not follow established
procedures for determining applicants' eligibility and FSA's automated
management tools lacked the applicants' complete debt history.
FSA took action to collect the 113 ineligible loans as appropriate.
Further, FSA issued guidance to help employees determine whether
applicants have received prior FLP debt forgiveness and is developing a
new automated system that will automatically display applicants'
complete debt histories. FSA is currently pilot testing the new system
at two State offices and plans to implement it nationwide.
Improving the Integrity of the Crop Insurance Program
Due to continuing concerns about costs incurred by the Federal crop
insurance program, OIG conducted an overview of the program. In
collaboration with FSA and RMA, OIG identified conditions that are
often associated with fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.
We identified two major factors that must be in place to enhance
the integrity of the crop insurance program: effective management
controls to ensure program operations are meeting program objectives
and aggressive enforcement through criminal investigations and agency
compliance reviews.
Based on this overview and our discussions with FSA/RMA about the
current state of the crop insurance program, we presented a series of
recommendations that are consistent with OIG's prior work. Among other
recommendations, we found that agency officials should accelerate plans
to create a single comprehensive information system for crop insurance,
conservation, and farm programs; increase coordination and
communication between RMA and FSA to ensure more effective growing
season inspections; and strengthen RMA's oversight and monitoring of
the private sector's application of the quality control review system.
Investigating Fraud in USDA Farm Programs
A recent OIG investigation resulted in a Montana producer and a
former loan officer being sentenced for a scheme in which the producer
filed false claims with FSA in order to receive program payments. The
producer circumvented program payment limitations to fraudulently
receive $1.4 million. The private loan officer provided false financial
documents to FSA regarding the other partners' participation in the
farming operation. In July 2006, the producer was sentenced to serve 10
months in Federal prison and ordered to pay $226,035 in restitution.
The former loan officer was sentenced the following month to a period
of home confinement and probation.
Another OIG investigation into potential farm program fraud
resulted in orders to repay the Government over $1 million and the
sentencing of two individuals and three corporations in 2006. Our
investigation revealed that two individuals and three corporations in
the Texas panhandle fraudulently obtained approximately $400,000 in RMA
crop insurance indemnity payments and FSA disaster program payments by
shifting their unreported cotton production for program payment
purposes. The producers assigned their hidden cotton production to
other established accounts at a cotton gin owned by one of the
individuals. A producer and two corporations were sentenced in August
2006. The producer was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment, followed
by 36 months' supervised release, and was ordered to pay approximately
$331,000 in restitution. The corporations each received sentences of 60
months of probation and were ordered to pay restitution totaling
approximately $331,000. In September 2006, the second individual and
the remaining corporation were both sentenced to 60 months of probation
and were ordered to pay restitution of $362,775, severally and jointly.
A third OIG investigation involving farm program fraud resulted in
the repayment of $1,085,000 to FSA. The Idaho producer involved
received 3 years of probation and 80 hours of community service. The
producer's son was also sentenced to 3 years probation and was fined
$4,000. The sentence included a joint restitution order of $1,085,000
imposed on the two defendants. The OIG investigation disclosed that the
mother and son converted 305 head of cattle pledged as collateral to
FSA. They pled guilty in May 2006 to theft/conversion of FSA
collateral. FSA also has a lien against their property that is valued
at more than $1 million.
USDA Food Programs--FNS Oversight of Electronic Benefits Transfer
Operations
In fiscal year 2007, FNS estimates that Food Stamp benefits of
about $30 billion will be provided to over 25 million participants.
State agencies now deliver Food Stamp Program (FSP) benefits almost
entirely through Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) systems using EBT
benefit cards issued to recipients. OIG has monitored and audited the
implementation of EBT by FNS and States since the system's inception in
the 1990s. We recently issued a follow-up audit to evaluate corrective
actions FNS has taken in response to our prior audits and to ensure
adequate agency oversight of EBT systems.
We concluded that FNS oversight of EBT operations was generally
effective. However, despite FNS requirements to safeguard EBT systems,
inadequate control over State agency access to the system remains a
problem. Based on our earlier work, FNS had agreed to strengthen
procedures for controlling access to State EBT systems and directed
States to conduct semiannual reviews of employee access. However, FNS
did not independently confirm that States adequately controlled access.
EBT trafficking through the illegal and unauthorized use of Point
of Sale (POS) equipment is another system vulnerability. Unscrupulous
retailers have circumvented the EBT security controls by fraudulently
obtaining new equipment and/or illegally moving existing machines to
unauthorized locations. Our September 2006 report found that in their
contract proposals to acquire EBT systems, States were not required to
consider equipment functionality and/or technological specifications
that could prevent the illegal removal and unauthorized use of existing
EBT POS equipment.
Based on our audit, FNS agreed to take steps to ensure that States
limit unauthorized access to EBT systems and to require States to
implement, via the EBT contract, formal processes during POS equipment
replacement to prevent retailers from fraudulently obtaining equipment.
This year, we will conduct further audits regarding FNS oversight
of EBT systems. Our work will include reviewing FNS oversight of the
largest private EBT processor and two State agencies.
Investigations of EBT Trafficking
OIG devotes extensive resources to investigate unscrupulous
retailers who circumvent EBT security controls by fraudulently
obtaining new equipment and/or illegally moving existing machines to
unauthorized locations. In our Food Stamp Program investigative work,
we focus our resources on high impact cases, such as those involving
large-scale traffickers, those with potential connections to terrorist
activity, and cases involving additional types of criminal activities
beyond benefit fraud.\8\ Comparing our final fiscal year 2006
investigative statistics to the prior fiscal year, the number of food
stamp trafficking investigations we opened increased from 77 to 84; the
number we referred to DOJ increased from 21 to 31; and the number of
indictments resulting from OIG food stamp investigations increased from
70 to 146.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Examples would be food safety concerns affecting public heath,
such as contaminated food or black-market WIC products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EBT fraud cases are very complex investigations, so OIG worked in
2006 to develop and conduct training focused on improving methods to
detect and analyze trends indicating fraud. OIG is creating a database
that will capture vital information regarding EBT trafficking
investigations to identify large scale fraud networks.
OIG has initiated numerous investigations as a result of our
collaborative efforts with multiple Federal and local law enforcement
agencies. A major OIG food stamp fraud investigation resulted in a
Chicago grocery store owner being sentenced in August 2006 to 51 months
in prison and ordered to pay $1.4 million in restitution. The store
owner pled guilty to wire fraud and money laundering. Two months
earlier, the store owner pled guilty in Federal court in Florida to
conspiracy for providing funding to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, in
violation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. The store
owner had conspired with other persons and unauthorized stores to
conduct thousands of illegal electronic food stamp benefit
transactions.
Expanding Efforts to Deter WIC Fraud
WIC is a vital Federal program to provide supplemental foods and
nutrition education to lower-income pregnant, breast-feeding, and
postpartum women, and infants and children who are at nutritional risk.
The main product purchased with WIC vouchers is infant formula.
Theft rings around the country are stealing, re-labeling, and reselling
infant formula. When infant formula is stolen, it is taken out of the
regulated retail system, and there can be no guarantee the formula is
safe and wholesome. In response to this growing concern, OIG is
expanding alliances with State and local law enforcement agencies to
better coordinate jurisdictional investigative efforts into broader
regional efforts. Our ultimate objective is to develop a national
initiative that will enable OIG to track and maintain records of stolen
infant formula incidents across the United States.
A recent OIG infant formula investigation involved an Ohio
furniture store owner who led a nationwide network that trafficked in
stolen merchandise and food stamps through inner-city markets. The
stolen merchandise included infant formula, diabetic blood glucose test
strips, and over-the-counter medications. The stolen merchandise was
transported to wholesalers and warehouses in States including Indiana,
Illinois, Wisconsin, New York, Florida, and California. The store owner
and 24 other individuals were charged with crimes ranging from food
stamp trafficking to transportation of stolen property and money
laundering. During 2005-2006, 21 individuals have pled guilty or were
found guilty, including the leader of the criminal organization.
Sentences imposed on the defendants ranged from 8 months to 11 years,
and monetary judgments and restitutions totaled over $2.7 million. On
February 20, 2007, two of the three store owners involved in the scheme
in Wisconsin pled guilty to false statements and conspiracy; the third
is awaiting trial. This was a joint investigation with the FBI and the
Ohio Organized Crime Investigations Commission.
A second OIG infant formula investigation determined that a
Pennsylvania convenience store owner was trafficking in food stamps and
operating and engaging in an unlicensed money transmitting business.
From 2001 to May 2006, the store owner transmitted more than $7 million
without the license required by Federal and State law. The store owner
bought and sold stolen goods such as infant formula, drug
paraphernalia, and counterfeit cigarettes and music CDs. The store
owner pled guilty in Federal court in November 2006 to operating an
unlicensed money transmitting business and agreed to forfeit over
$252,000. This investigation was part of a taskforce that included OIG
agents and several other Federal and State enforcement agencies (FBI,
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Secret Service, IRS, and the
Pennsylvania Department of Revenue).
The OIG Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Audit Oversight and
Investigative Support
During last year's testimony, we discussed USDA's role in the
Federal recovery efforts related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. OIG
continues to work with the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (PCIE) and DHS working groups to coordinate related
investigative efforts and thereby maximize Federal investigative
resources and prevent duplicative efforts. We coordinated efforts with
both the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) OIG and
DHS-OIG to develop computer matching agreements with RHS. These
agreements facilitate the ability of the participants to identity
improper and fraudulent disaster assistance payments. Data matching is
a highly effective tool in disaster assistance payment investigations
for all of the agencies involved.
OIG special agents are working Hurricane Katrina Fraud Task Force
investigations in the Gulf Coast region. We continue to receive
referrals throughout the country on individuals who have submitted
false claims or provided false statements to obtain Federal benefits
for which they were not entitled. At this time, as hurricane
reconstruction efforts in the Gulf Coast region continue, OIG has begun
receiving investigative referrals from FSA and RD that involve larger
monetary amounts of fraud or theft and more complex fraud cases.
A recent example of our hurricane relief investigative work
involved an Illinois woman who obtained at least $23,000 in Hurricane
Katrina housing, food stamps, and cash assistance for which she was not
entitled. OIG worked with the Postal Service's OIG to determine that
the individual never resided in Louisiana or Mississippi and thus would
not have been affected by Hurricane Katrina. The individual sought
benefits for non-existent family members. She pled guilty in October
2006 to mail fraud and false statements and was sentenced in January
2007 to 48 months in Federal prison, followed by 36 months of
supervised release, and was ordered to pay $23,982 in restitution.
We have also committed significant audit resources to conduct
reviews of the Department's hurricane relief efforts. In view of the
substantial Federal funds appropriated for hurricane disaster relief, a
continuing concern for both program managers and the Congress is the
potential for excessive or duplicative payments to individuals in
hurricane-affected communities.
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, RD--through RHS--
placed 11,000 evacuees into 4,100 Rural Rental Housing (RRH) apartment
units in 45 States and provided $2.6 million in emergency rental
assistance. OIG evaluated RHS management controls for multifamily
housing funds targeted for disaster assistance. We found that most
residents placed in RRH apartments needed only adequate housing and not
rental assistance because the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) was already providing financial assistance. As a result, much of
the $2.6 million provided by RHS duplicated FEMA assistance.
Specifically, our review determined that RHS' database system
contained generally inaccurate/incomplete information on hurricane
victims and the amount of rental assistance they received. Some
property owners required tenants to pay rent even though the owner had
already received rental assistance directly from RHS. The agency was
also not able to identify victims who used the FEMA identifying numbers
of other individuals to obtain housing assistance. OIG found that some
property owners had reclassified existing tenants as hurricane victims
even though the tenants had no change in income or other circumstances.
This resulted in unnecessary RRH rental assistance to the tenants.
RHS agreed to improve its information system and related management
controls. To better prepare for future disaster situations, the agency
is implementing corrective actions regarding coordinating its actions
and information with other Federal agencies providing housing
assistance.
This year, we will continue our oversight work regarding USDA's
response to major hurricanes. OIG currently has 11 audits in process
pertaining to the Department's hurricane relief operations, including
reviews of FNS' Disaster Food Stamp Program payments in five hurricane-
affected States and RMA controls to provide hurricane victims in
Florida with timely and accurate indemnity payments.
Assessing USDA Trade Programs and Operations
In 2002, the Farm Bill and the President's Management Agenda (PMA)
established a number of new goals and requirements for the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS), the agency charged with coordinating USDA's
international activities. The 2002 Farm Bill's trade section contained
13 provisions affecting FAS programs, including export credit
guarantees, market development, export enhancement, food aid
development, and technical barriers to trade. OIG initiated a review to
determine the status of FAS' efforts to implement the 2002 Farm Bill's
trade and food aid programs and to evaluate the agency's efforts to
address problems that the PMA identified in food aid programs.
We found that FAS took prompt action to implement 10 out of the 13
Farm Bill trade provisions within 1 year of enactment. However, FAS has
not developed a business process to ensure that the Farm Bill's global
market strategy requirements--coordinating USDA resources and programs
with other Federal agencies to identify export opportunities and remove
trade barriers--are being met on a global basis. FAS managers have
followed a strategy of supporting agricultural exporters (referred to
as ``cooperators'') when implementing their individual country and
regional market strategies. In our view, such efforts have not been
sufficiently integrated to produce a focused, global strategy that
would allow FAS to effectively identify and react to changing trends in
global markets. The U.S. share of global agricultural exports declined
from 22 percent to 9.7 percent during 1984-2005, yet FAS officials do
not believe that a central planning process or formal global marketing
strategy is necessary.
The PMA cited several problems in U.S. food aid programs, including
program duplication between FAS and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) that wasted donated food supplies and excessive
administrative/transportation costs. OIG found that FAS has
strengthened its program planning and improved consultation and
coordination with USAID, USDA's Economic Research Service, and other
organizations to develop better outcome-oriented performance measures
and reporting. However, we recommended that FAS develop outcome-based
performance measures to more accurately reflect program accomplishments
in recipient countries. OIG is assessing the agency's response to our
draft report and we anticipate issuing a final report in April 2007.
Identifying Barriers to U.S Agricultural Exports
OIG received a congressional request in 2006 to review certain
aspects of FAS market development programs in fostering expanded trade
activities for U.S. agricultural exports. We initiated an audit to
examine the extent to which FAS conducts outreach to U.S. agricultural
interests to identify trade constraints and foreign agricultural
business opportunities; determine if the agency is presenting
information on identified trade barriers to the U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) and FAS' private sector cooperators; and review
whether USDA efforts to promote U.S. agricultural exports are being
presented, with measurable benchmarks, in the National Export Strategy.
OIG's report was issued in February 2007. We found that FAS does not
formally track its efforts to expand trade activities or conduct
outreach to U.S. exporters and does not have a formal process for
summarizing and presenting trade barriers to the USTR.
Ensuring Accountability in Foreign Food Aid Programs
FAS administers foreign food aid programs, largely through grants
to intermediaries known as private voluntary organizations (PVOs), the
charitable, nonprofit organizations responsible for implementing
program objectives abroad. FAS expended approximately $400 million for
its food aid programs in fiscal year 2006. In March 2006, we issued a
report assessing FAS' progress in addressing management control
weaknesses regarding the Food for Progress program identified in an
earlier OIG audit. Our latest report also reviewed eight judgmentally
selected PVOs, three of which were the subjects of a hotline complaint.
The audit evaluated issues such as internal agency controls/processes
for evaluating grant proposals and awarding grant agreements,
monitoring compliance with grant terms and conditions, and determining
program results.
OIG found that many of the recommendations from our prior audit
report had not been implemented, and therefore FAS could not provide
reasonable assurance that PVOs were meeting their program objectives or
spending funds appropriately. FAS lacked procedures to confirm that
PVOs were recognized by their host governments and were able to operate
effectively in-country. FAS did not pursue grant funds lost due to PVO
mismanagement. Due to these internal control weaknesses, we concluded
that FAS did not adequately follow up and determine whether there was
mismanagement of $2.2 million in grant funds.
We recommended that FAS strengthen its ability to monitor food aid
agreements by implementing procedures to review PVOs' semiannual
reports, conduct onsite reviews, and complete closeout reviews of food
aid agreements. The agency should confirm that PVOs are viable agents
in their host countries before shipping donated commodities to these
private groups and aggressively seek recovery of grant funds lost due
to PVO mismanagement. Generally, FAS agreed with our recommendations
and stated that agency efforts were underway to implement several of
them.
Oversight of Farm, Conservation, and Research Programs in 2007
OIG has initiated or plans to conduct several audits to review USDA
farm and conservation programs. Work is underway to examine RMA's
effectiveness in monitoring private insurance providers and determine
if its compliance activities are adequate to improve the crop insurance
program and reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. We are planning to review
FSA's management controls in 2007 to assess their effectiveness to
prevent farm program payments being made to producers who have been
disqualified due to civil, criminal, or administrative actions.
There is considerable congressional interest in expanding USDA's
role in our nation's efforts to develop a viable renewable energy
program. The Department's activities include financial incentives
(loans, loan guarantees, grants for capital equipment) for farmers to
grow crops that can produce renewable energy products such as ethanol.
USDA research agencies are engaged in developing and improving methods
to produce renewable energy. In 2007, OIG will evaluate the
Department's efforts to foster renewable energy technologies as well as
the coordination between USDA agencies and other Federal agencies.
These audits are currently underway.
NRCS' Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) is a voluntary program
offering landowners the opportunity to protect, restore, and enhance
wetlands on their property. NRCS provides technical and financial
support to help landowners with their wetland restoration efforts. We
are reviewing the legitimacy of restoration costs and the agency's
ability to monitor restoration efforts. A related voluntary agency
program is the Conservation Security Program (CSP), in which payments
are provided to landowners to maintain and enhance natural resources.
CSP identifies and rewards those farmers and ranchers who are meeting
the highest standards of conservation and environmental management on
their operations. The Government Accountability Office reported that
NRCS lacked adequate controls to prevent participants from receiving
financial assistance from multiple programs for the same conservation
practice. OIG has initiated an audit to determine whether NRCS has
adequately implemented provisions of CSP. We are focusing on whether
the agency has properly handled key issues such as program eligibility,
the calculation of program payments, and the detection of improper
payments.
OIG also has an audit underway to review the agency's procedures to
assess and prioritize the rehabilitation of dams constructed with NRCS
funding. Many of these dams are nearing the end of their 50-year design
life. A recent survey of known rehabilitation needs in 22 States
revealed that more than 2,200 dams need rehabilitation at an estimated
cost of more than $540 million. The cost of rehabilitation will only
increase with time as deterioration increases, construction costs rise,
and more rehabilitation needs are identified. The Watershed
Rehabilitation Program budget reported in the USDA fiscal year 2008
Budget Summary and Annual Performance Plan is $6 million. Our primary
objective is to review the adequacy of NRCS program controls for the
rehabilitation of flood control dams to mitigate potential threat or
danger to life and property.
Congress has provided substantial resources to support Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) research regarding a wide array of food quality
and safety issues, nutritional needs, and our environment's natural
resource base. ARS spends approximately $1.1 billion annually on 1,200
research projects organized into 22 national program areas at 100
locations and 4 overseas laboratories. We are currently evaluating the
efficacy of ARS management controls over its intramural and extramural
research agreements to ensure they are properly implemented. Our audit
is examining ARS procedures to ensure that research funding is used for
its intended purposes, research projects are adequately monitored, and
project milestones are properly managed.
THE MANAGEMENT OF USDA'S PUBLIC RESOURCES
Information Technology Security in USDA
In recent years, USDA's Office of the Chief Information Officer
(OCIO) and OIG have placed a major emphasis on the need to plan and
implement effective information technology (IT) security for the
Department. OIG continues to conduct various audits and reviews of the
Department's IT security systems to assess and improve their
performance.
Based on our reviews in 2006, the National Information Technology
Center (NITC) in Kansas City, Missouri, sustained its unqualified
opinion on its general control structure, and OCFO's National Finance
Center (NFC) in New Orleans, Louisiana, received its first unqualified
opinion on its design of its general control structure. However, we
issued a qualified opinion on the effectiveness of NFC's controls
because the controls were not operating during the entire year. This
effectiveness qualification was primarily attributed to the disruptive
effects of Hurricane Katrina on NFC's normal operating procedures. When
our review determined that certain controls were not adequately
designed, OCFO NFC updated its procedures to address our concerns.
As required by the Federal Information Security Management Act of
2002, our annual audit of the Department's IT security program
continued to find significant weaknesses. These included needed
improvement in contingency planning and testing, annual risk
assessments, and configuration management. Due to the significance of
the issues identified in our reviews, we continue to classify IT
security as a material internal control weakness for USDA.
USDA's Universal Telecommunications Network (UTN) is the critical
general support system serving the Department's data network backbone
for telecommunications and network support services. We identified
weaknesses in OCIO's ability to effectively manage and secure the UTN.
OCIO had not completed required system testing, security control
testing, and certification/accreditation of the UTN network prior to
implementation. OCIO concurred with our recommendations and has taken
significant actions to address identified weaknesses.
Reducing Risks From Stolen USDA Computer Equipment
In light of the disclosure or theft of Privacy Act/sensitive
information from several Federal agencies in 2006 and OMB's recent
mandates on securing such information, OIG is assessing potential risks
at USDA. We issued a report on February 27, 2007, from our review of
stolen equipment within USDA.
To the extent possible, we identified the information maintained on
the stolen computers as well as sensitive information currently
maintained on computers within the Department. OIG found that controls
over stolen computer equipment were lacking in the four USDA agencies
reviewed.\9\ Specifically, we found Privacy Act/sensitive information
was stored on computers that were stolen and the agencies did not
notify the individuals whose information may have been compromised.
Additionally, these agencies lacked policies and procedures to
adequately notify proper authorities and affected parties when thefts
of computer equipment occurred. The agencies agreed with OIG's
recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ FSA, NRCS, RD, and OCIO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To date, OCIO has provided agencies with limited guidance on what
actions to take if computers are lost or stolen. OIG recommended that
OCIO implement Departmentwide guidance regarding tracking and reporting
requirements for lost/stolen computer equipment. This should include
procedures for determining whether the subject equipment may have
contained Privacy Act or sensitive information.
USDA Procedures to Assess Employee Civil Rights Complaints
We have previously presented testimony to the Subcommittee about
our audit work focusing on the Department's processes and performance
in handling allegations of discrimination against USDA employees or in
USDA programs. Our most recent civil rights audit \10\ assessed the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights (ASCR)
implementation of prior OIG recommendations that focused on the
agency's management and oversight of program and employment complaints.
In response to a 2006 congressional request, we initiated an audit to
evaluate the Department's progress in addressing employee civil rights
complaints and employee accountability for acts of discrimination. OIG
will identify and evaluate the adequacy of the Department's controls to
properly process employee civil rights complaints and its processes to
hold employees accountable for discrimination towards employees or in
USDA programs. We anticipate issuing this report by the end of March
2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ``Follow-up on Prior Recommendations for Civil Rights Program
and Employee Complaints,'' issued September 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Computer Forensic Division: Advanced Investigative and
Evidentiary Support
As an authoritative resource in the investigation and analysis of
network intrusions and attacks on USDA networks, OIG's National
Computer Forensic Division (NCFD) conducts thorough and accurate
analyses of any IT network compromise by analyzing compromised servers,
firewall logs, Intrusion Detection System logs, and Internet Protocol
traffic logs. The NCFD continues to provide support, training, and
advice on evidence collection and analysis to USDA agencies. During the
past year, the NCFD provided onsite search warrant assistance for 12
warrants and analysis for 38 cases involving criminal activity,
employee misconduct, and network intrusions.
An example of NCFD's work includes an investigation that was
requested by the Department relating to a network intrusion and two
servers that were compromised. NCFD determined that while two computer
servers had been compromised multiple times by hackers in June 2006,
the database containing personal identity information for 26,000 USDA
employees had not been compromised or transferred from USDA computers.
OIG is working with OCIO to ensure that all USDA networks and employee
personal information are secure.
Another recent investigation involved a woman employed as a
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technician with FSA. The woman
reproduced and sold 41 pirated copies of USDA-licensed software on two
Internet auction websites. The woman received $7,120 from the sales of
the pirated software although its retail value exceeded $326,000. In
June 2006, the woman pled guilty in a Federal court in Indiana to
copyright infringement and was sentenced to 5 years of probation,
restitution of $7,120 to the company owning the software copyright, and
forfeiture of all computer-related equipment seized at her residence.
This case resulted in the first Federal criminal conviction in Indiana
involving the illegal sale of copyrighted materials over the Internet.
NCFD forensically imaged and analyzed the hard drives of eight
computers in the GIS lab of FSA's Indiana State office for evidence
that the software was copied utilizing one of the FSA computers. The
forensic analysis produced evidence that was utilized in negotiating a
guilty plea.
USDA Financial Management
As defined by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), success
in Federal financial management is an unqualified audit opinion with no
reportable conditions and no instances of noncompliance with laws and
regulations. In 2006, the Department's financial statements received
unqualified audit opinions, as did six USDA entities.\11\ This is an
improvement from previous years. However, the Department and three
agencies had material weaknesses and reportable conditions. The
Department and four agencies also had instances of noncompliance with
laws and regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, Commodity Credit
Corporation, FS, Rural Telephone Bank, FNS, and RD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specifically, the Department's material weaknesses related to
improvements needed in overall financial management across USDA and IT
security and controls. A reportable condition existed related to
improvements needed in certain financial management practices and
processes. Three instances of noncompliance were identified relating to
the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act, the Improper Payments
Information Act, and Managerial Cost Accounting practices. OIG
continues to work with OCFO to ensure effective financial management
throughout USDA.
The Role of USDA and Agriculture in Protecting the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
The Chesapeake Bay Program, which is administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), is mandated to direct
restoration of the Chesapeake Bay through a regional partnership of
Federal, State, and local agencies, academic institutions, and non-
government organizations. OIG participated in a joint review of the
program with EPA's OIG that concentrated on the agricultural best
management practices used to address non-point nutrient and sediment
loading to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
Despite significant efforts to improve water quality in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, excess nutrients and sediment continue to
impair the Bay's water quality. Our joint review found that few of the
agricultural practices in the State tributary strategies have been
implemented because the agricultural community considers many of these
practices to be either unprofitable or to require significant changes
in farming techniques. We found that EPA must improve its collaboration
with its Bay partners and the agricultural community to reduce the
agricultural nutrients and sediments entering the Chesapeake Bay
watershed. Members of the agricultural community have been reluctant to
participate in this endeavor with EPA because of its regulatory
enforcement role.
We recommended that the Secretary or Deputy Secretary assign a
senior-level official with commensurate authority to coordinate
relevant USDA goals and programs with EPA and the Chesapeake Bay
Program. USDA should consider the feasibility of targeting USDA funds
on a regional and/or geographical basis to assist the Bay's
environmental restoration. The Department should also direct USDA
agencies to expedite the establishment of outcome-based performance
measurements to properly evaluate their conservation activities. USDA
generally agreed with our recommendations.
Evaluating Forest Service Use of Private Wildland Firefighting Crews
As wildfire activity on National Forests (NF) has become more
intense, FS has made increasing use of contract suppression crews to
supplement agency resources. FS incident management personnel had
previously noted numerous performance problems with poorly trained and
inexperienced crews. Other reports (GAO, incident management personnel)
have indicated similar problems. We evaluated FS' administration of
these contracts and its coordination with other parties \12\ that also
use these contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Primarily State and local governments. The crews at issue in
this report were obtained from the Oregon Department of Forestry's
list.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We determined that FS needed to improve its contract oversight to
ensure that contract employees had met both the training and experience
requirements for the positions they held on fire fighting crews. Our
review found that a significant number of contract firefighters may not
have been qualified to perform the duties required under the contract.
FS needed to address control weaknesses with wildfire suppression
associations \13\ that provide training to contract employees. Language
proficiency assessments should be improved to ensure contract crew
personnel can communicate adequately with FS incident management
personnel. Finally, we recommended that FS coordinate with other
Federal agencies to identify undocumented workers on contracted crews.
FS officials agreed with all of OIG's recommendations and established
timeframes for corrective actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Private organizations that represent wildlife suppression
contractors and provide training to their employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reducing Forest Service's Large Fire Suppression Costs: Shared
Responsibilities
FS' wildfire suppression costs have exceeded $1 billion in 4 of the
past 7 years. Our audit focused on the most significant ``cost
drivers'' that were impacting fire suppression costs. We determined
that the majority of FS' large fire suppression costs are directly
linked to protecting private property--as opposed to National Forest
System land--in the wildland urban interface (WUI). FS managers need to
evaluate their agreements with State and local governments to ensure
the costs of protecting the WUI are appropriately apportioned. A
significant portion of these costs can be avoided and the safety of
firefighters improved if the Federal Government can proactively work
with State and local governments regarding prudent ``Firewise'' zoning
and building codes.
In another report focusing on wildland fire issues and the Healthy
Forest Initiative, we determined that FS needs to change some policies
regarding wildland fire use (WFU). Hazardous fuels such as dead
vegetation and undergrowth in our national forests are increasing the
size and complexity of wildland fires. FS needs to reduce these fuels,
increase the number of qualified personnel, and expand WFU to help
control the costs of future fires. OIG further recommended that the
agency implement improved processes to more effectively hold managers
accountable for the financial impact of their decisions.
FS agreed with our findings and recommendations and initiated
corrective actions. These include working with OIG to jointly develop
training for FS personnel conducting reviews of large fire operations.
FS and OIG will jointly conduct the training prior to the 2007 fire
season.
OIG'S FISCAL YEAR 2008 BUDGET REQUEST
Before concluding, I would like to briefly comment on OIG's fiscal
year 2008 Budget Request. With your assistance and support, we are
pleased to have built a solid record of constructive audit oversight
and investigative accomplishment. Over the last 4 years we have
produced a return on investment of $5.34 for each dollar of
appropriated funds you have provided. During that period, our work has
produced over $1.65 billion in monetary recoveries and cost avoidances,
1,449 indictments and 1,358 convictions. In addition to our monetary
results, we have made numerous recommendations that resulted in
substantive management and program improvements. For example, in fiscal
year 2006 we issued 425 program improvement recommendations and USDA
managers agreed to implement 384 of them. These recommendations
involved issues of congressional and public concern such as improving
surveillance and monitoring of AI in domestic poultry, strengthening
USDA's food inspection operations, and improving the collection of
unauthorized farm program payments.
In addition to the statistical accomplishments mentioned above,
fiscal year 2006 and the first few months of fiscal year 2007 have been
a particularly productive time for OIG in other ways as well. The
following activities may be of particular interest to the Subcommittee.
--OIG has devoted over $2 million and several staff years to
providing oversight to USDA programs supporting the Gulf Cost
region devastated during the 2005 hurricane season in order to
increase accountability in these programs and avoid waste and
fraud in the distribution of benefits. The $445,000 Congress
authorized in the fiscal year 2006 emergency supplemental to
support these efforts was of great assistance. Currently, we
have 11 audits and 11 investigations underway pertaining to
USDA hurricane recovery assistance programs.
--We also directed resources to review Departmental plans to deal
with the threatened avian influenza pandemic, by advising the
Department on how it could improve its plans and programs.
--OIG took prompt and comprehensive action to evaluate the
implementation of the Department's IT security system. Through
a coordinated program of audits, investigations, and other
reviews, USDA OIG is addressing the areas of highest risk and
providing insight and support to USDA program agencies.
--We formed an Office of Inspections and Research (OIR) to address
emerging issues that may require scientific, legal,
statistical, or other expert competencies. Generally, OIR will
conduct short-term, focused reviews and inspections of USDA's
programs and operations. OIR projects completed in the last
year and currently underway include:
A review of the Federal crop insurance program that, in
collaboration with FSA and RMA, identified a number of
fraud indicators or conditions that are often associated
with fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
An inspection regarding the coordination of the Department's
international activities and agreements.
An inspection of the security practices at a USDA laboratory that
found the laboratory had made many improvements, both
physical and through extensive training of personnel.
--With the support of our congressional appropriators, we were able
to strengthen our ability to support USDA programs through
effective audits and investigations. Five years ago our
information technology systems were inadequate to support our
audit and investigative program. Thanks to your continued
support, our IT environment is current and able to support
sophisticated audit and investigative techniques. From fiscal
year 1996 to fiscal year 2006, OIG's staff level fell a total
of 21 percent--which directly translates into a commensurate
reduction in our audit and investigative capacity. With your
support, we were able to arrest that trend in fiscal year 2006
and have begun--in a very small way--to strengthen our
capacity.
We respectfully request your support in continuing our efforts to
maintain, and in some areas even improve, OIG effectiveness in fiscal
year 2008. The President's request asks for the minimum necessary to
support our staffing level and advance our ability to safely and
effectively respond to emerging public health and agriculture security
threats. Specifically, the President's fiscal year 2008 request of $84
million for OIG provides for:
--$1.9 million for 2008 mandatory pay costs.
--$994,000 for 2007 pay costs.
--$340,000 to fund five staff to reinforce our audit, investigation,
and inspection programs focusing on the approximately $20
billion spent annually on USDA farm programs.
--$757,000 for necessary equipment and training updates to the
Computer Forensics Unit and the Emergency Response Team, and
implementation of an automated audit workpaper system that will
improve the timeliness of our audits and ensure that audit
evidence is kept in accordance with Department of Justice
standards.
This concludes my testimony statement. I thank the Members of the
Subcommittee for the opportunity to present information about OIG's
activities and our fiscal year 2008 Budget Request.
______
Prepared Statement of Nancy C. Pellett, Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Farm Credit Administration
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am Nancy C. Pellett,
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Farm Credit Administration
(FCA or Agency). On behalf of my colleagues on the FCA Board, Leland
Strom of Illinois and Dallas Tonsager of South Dakota, and all the
dedicated men and women of the Agency, I am pleased and honored to
provide this testimony to the Subcommittee.
I would like to thank the Subcommittee staff for its ongoing
assistance during the budget process, and before I discuss the role and
responsibility of the Farm Credit Administration and our budget
request, I would respectfully bring to the Subcommittee's attention
that FCA's administrative expenses are paid for by the institutions
that we regulate and examine. In other words, FCA does not receive a
Federal appropriation but is funded through annual assessments of Farm
Credit System (System) institutions and the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). We fully support the proposed 2008
Budget Submission of the President.
Mission of the Farm Credit Administration
As directed by Congress, FCA's mission is to ensure a safe, sound,
and dependable source of credit and related services for agriculture
and rural America. The Agency accomplishes its mission in two important
ways.
First, FCA ensures that the System and Farmer Mac remain safe and
sound and comply with the applicable law and regulations. Specifically,
our risk-based examinations and oversight strategies focus on an
institution's financial condition and any material existing or
potential risk, as well as on the ability of its board and management
to direct its operations. Our oversight and examination strategies also
evaluate each institution's efforts to serve all eligible borrowers,
including young, beginning, and small farmers and ranchers.
Secondly, FCA approves corporate charter changes, and researches,
develops, and adopts regulations and policies that govern how System
institutions conduct their business and interact with their customers
and provides other necessary guidance. If a System institution violates
a law or regulation, or operates in an unsafe or unsound manner, we use
our supervisory and enforcement authorities to ensure appropriate
corrective action.
Fiscal Year 2006 Accomplishments
In 2006 we continued our efforts to achieve our Agency's strategic
goals through (1) responsible regulation and public policymaking and
(2) effective risk identification and corrective action. FCA has worked
hard to maintain the System's safety and soundness. We also continually
explore ways to reduce regulatory burden on the FCS and to ensure that
all System institutions are able to provide agriculture and rural
America with continuous access to credit and related services.
examination programs for fcs banks and associations
One of the Agency's highest priorities is the development and
implementation of efficient and effective risk-based oversight and
examination programs that meet the high standards and expectations of
the Congress; investors in System debt obligations; the farmers,
ranchers, and cooperatives that own System banks and associations; and
the public at large. Our examination programs and practices have worked
well over the years and have contributed to the present safe and sound
overall condition of the System, but we must continue to evolve and
prepare for the increasingly complex nature of financing agriculture
and rural America.
With the changes in the System and our human capital challenges
within the Agency (i.e., pending retirements, normal attrition of
staff, and the ever-increasing need for more sophisticated skills in
the financial sector), we have undertaken a number of initiatives to
enhance our skills and level of expertise in key functional examination
areas. We have also realigned our organizational structure to make the
best use of our resources. The evolving nature of agriculture and the
Farm Credit System necessitates a flexible organizational structure at
FCA. At the present time, the sound financial condition of the System
also provides us a unique opportunity to prepare for the future. In
2006 our Office of Examination completed its transition from a
regionally based field office structure to division examination teams
that are organized on a national basis. Office locations have been
retained, but the examination programs are now managed nationally to
better match examiner skills to material and strategic risks faced by
the FCS institutions.
On a national level, we actively monitor risks that may affect
groups of System institutions or the entire System, including risks
that may arise from the agricultural, financial, and economic
environment in which the System institutions operate. Our job is not to
forecast specific events but to understand the environment so that we
can take steps to help System institutions take pre-emptive actions
before adverse trends develop.
Examiners also use a risk-based examination and supervision program
to differentiate the risks and develop individualized oversight plans
for each FCS institution. We set the scope and frequency of each
examination based on the level of risk in the institution. In addition,
we continually identify, evaluate, and proactively address risks within
each institution. Examiners base the scope of their oversight and
examination activities on their assessment of an institution's internal
control environments and the ability of the institution's board and
management to manage risks, both present and future. The frequency and
depth of our examination activities may vary, but each institution is
provided a summary of our activities and a report on its overall
condition every 18 months as required by the Farm Credit Act.
As part of our ongoing efforts, we monitor each institution's risk
profile. The Financial Institution Rating System (FIRS) is the primary
risk categorization and rating tool used by examiners to indicate the
safety and soundness of an institution. The rating system is similar to
other Federal financial regulators' CAMELS (capital adequacy, asset
quality, management performance, earnings, liquidity, and sensitivity
to interest rate risk) rating scale. FIRS ratings range from 1 (for a
sound institution) to 5 (for an institution that is likely to fail).
Throughout fiscal year 2006, FIRS ratings as a whole continued to
reflect the stable financial condition of the FCS. The overall trend in
FIRS ratings continues to be positive, with eighty-three 1-rated
institutions and seventeen 2-rated institutions, and one 3-rated
institution. Importantly, there were no 4- or 5-rated institutions. In
addition, no FCS institutions were under enforcement action and no FCS
institutions were in receivership. The overall financial strength
maintained by the System remains strong and does not pose material risk
to investors in FCS debt, the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation
(FCSIC), and FCS institution stockholders.
During fiscal year 2006, FCA also performed various examination and
other services for the Small Business Administration, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, FCSIC, and the National Cooperative Bank.
Each of these entities reimburses FCA for its services. The safety and
soundness of the System and Farmer Mac remains our primary objective.
However, we believe the continuing use of FCA examination resources by
other agencies is a positive reflection on the expertise of FCA
examiners and serves to broaden their examination skills while
increasing job satisfaction and employee retention. It also helps us
defray some of the costs of our operations while providing a valuable
service.
REGULATORY ACTIVITY
Congress has given the FCA Board statutory authority to establish
policy and prescribe regulations necessary to ensure that FCS
institutions comply with the law and operate in a safe and sound
manner. The Agency's regulatory philosophy articulates our commitment
to establishing a flexible regulatory environment that enables the
System, consistent with statutory authority, to offer high-quality,
reasonably priced credit to farmers and ranchers, their cooperatives,
rural residents, and other entities on which farming operations depend.
This translates into developing balanced, well-reasoned, flexible, and
legally sound regulations. We strive to ensure that the benefits of
regulations outweigh the costs; to maintain the System's relevance in
the marketplace and rural America; and to ensure that FCA's policy
actions encourage member-borrowers to participate in the management,
control, and ownership of their Government-sponsored enterprise (GSE)
institutions.
For 2006 and early 2007, the Agency's regulatory and policy
projects included the following:
--A final rule on governance of FCS institutions that provided
enhanced oversight of management and operations by
strengthening the independence of System institution boards and
by incorporating best governance practices.
--A final rule that amended and updated the regulations governing the
termination of System status by a System institution.
--A final rule to improve the transparency of public disclosures,
strengthen board and management accountability and auditor
independence, and increase shareholder and investor confidence
in the System.
In addition, relative to Farmer Mac, the Agency finalized a rule
updating the Farmer Mac Risk-Based Capital (RBC) Stress Test. We
amended the RBC regulations in response to changing financial markets,
new business practices, and the evolution of the loan portfolio at
Farmer Mac, as well as continued development of industry best practices
among leading financial institutions. The rule is intended to more
accurately reflect risk in the model in order to improve the model's
output--Farmer Mac's regulatory minimum risk-based capital level.
The Agency has also adopted an ambitious regulatory and policy
agenda for 2007. The agenda includes the following goals:
--Evaluating comments received on a proposed rule to change the
ownership requirement for the eligibility of processing and
marketing entities.
--Continuing to evaluate how System partnerships and investments can
increase the availability of funds to help stimulate economic
growth and development in rural America under a pilot program
initiated during fiscal year 2005.
--Continuing to review current regulatory requirements governing
eligibility and scope of lending to determine if these
requirements are reasonable in light of agriculture's changing
landscape. Agency staff will identify issues and explore
options for the Board's consideration.
--Developing and issuing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to
solicit public input on appropriate changes to FCA's capital
adequacy requirements for the System in light of Basel II and
IA proposals by the other Federal banking agencies.
CORPORATE ACTIVITIES
The pace of System restructuring remained slow in fiscal year 2006.
Only one corporate application was submitted for FCA Board review and
approval during fiscal year 2006, compared with four applications the
prior year. As of January 1, 2007, the System had 95 direct-lender
associations and five banks for a total of 100 banks and associations.
Seven service corporations and special-purpose entities brought the
total number of FCS institutions to 107 entities. Through mergers, the
number of FCS associations has declined from 172 to 95 since 2000, and
the number of FCS banks has dropped from seven to five.
Condition of the Farm Credit System
I will now turn to the condition of the Farm Credit System. I am
pleased to report that the System's overall condition and performance
remained strong throughout 2006. The FCS is fundamentally sound in all
material aspects, and it continues to be a financially strong, reliable
source of affordable credit to agriculture and rural America. Capital
levels continued to be strong, especially in consideration of the
System's risk profile. Asset quality remained high, loan volume growth
was strong, and favorable credit conditions enabled the System to
achieve almost $2.4 billion in earnings for the 12 months ended
December 31, 2006.
Loan volume continued to grow at a strong pace during 2006 while
loan quality remained high. Gross loans increased by 16.2 percent to
123.4 billion. The level of nonperforming loans, including nonaccrual
loans, decreased to 0.50 percent of gross loans outstanding.
Delinquencies also remained minimal. The System has earned more than $1
billion consistently since the early 1990s; as a result, capital
remains strong and is made up largely of earned surplus, the most
stable form of capital. A strong capital position will help the System
remain a viable, dependable, and competitive lender to agriculture and
rural America during any near-term downturns in the agricultural
economy.
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation
FCA also has oversight, examination, and regulatory responsibility
for the Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, which is commonly
known as Farmer Mac.
Congress established Farmer Mac in 1988 to provide secondary market
arrangements for agricultural mortgage and rural home loans. In this
capacity, Farmer Mac creates and guarantees securities and other
secondary market products that are backed by mortgages on farms and
rural homes. Through a separate office required by statute (Office of
Secondary Market Oversight), the Agency examines, regulates, and
monitors Farmer Mac's disclosures, financial condition, and operations
on an ongoing basis and provides periodic reports to Congress.
Like the Farm Credit System, Farmer Mac is a GSE devoted to
agriculture and rural America. FCA and the financial markets recognize
Farmer Mac as a separate GSE from the System's banks and associations.
Farmer Mac is not subject to any intra-System agreements or to the
joint and several liability of the FCS banks, nor does the Farm Credit
System Insurance Fund back Farmer Mac's securities. However, by
statute, in extreme circumstances Farmer Mac may issue obligations to
the U.S. Treasury Department to fulfill the guarantee obligations of
Farmer Mac Guaranteed Securities.
In conclusion, we at FCA remain vigilant in our efforts to ensure
that the Farm Credit System and Farmer Mac remain financially strong
and focused on serving agriculture and rural America.
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request
Earlier this fiscal year, the Agency submitted a proposed total
budget request of $47,482,520 for fiscal year 2008. The Agency's
proposed budget includes an assessment on System institutions for
fiscal year 2008 of $42,550,000. The total amount of assessments
collected from the FCS and Farmer Mac with carryover funds equals
$46,000,000. Since approximately 82 percent of the Agency's budget goes
for salaries, wages, and related costs, almost all of the total budget
amount will be used for these purposes.
It is our intent to stay within the constraints of our fiscal year
2008 budget as presented, and we continue our efforts to be good
stewards of the resources entrusted to us in order to meet our
responsibilities. The Agency has worked hard to hold down the
assessment to the System for our operations, and I believe we have
achieved that objective over the past several years. While we are proud
of our record and accomplishments, I assure you that the Agency will
continue its commitment to excellence, effectiveness, and cost
efficiency and will remain focused on our mission of ensuring a safe,
sound, and dependable source of credit for agriculture and rural
America. On behalf of my colleagues on the FCA Board and at the Agency,
this concludes my statement and I thank you for the opportunity to
share this information.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. We'll now
begin our rounds of questions.
FSIS FUNDING LEVEL
Mr. Secretary, I was pleased to see an increase in the
budget for the Food Safety and Inspection Service of
approximately $100 million over the level provided in fiscal
year 2006, but as you know, Mr. Secretary, there were some very
serious budget problems last year, even though we provided the
requested funding. Can you commit that this funding level will
be adequate, in light of increasing workload and industry
growth, for FSIS to maintain the proper amount of staff with
the ability to do the proper testing and the work throughout
the country?
Secretary Johanns. Yes, we believe it will. And you're
absolutely right, last year we were in a very tough situation
with the budget, and about 80 percent of this area is staffing,
so if you get in a tough situation there's not much you can do.
It's just a very, very difficult situation. But with the
increased funding we have requested, we believe we can cover
the anticipated need out there and meet the needs of this
inspection area. So we appreciate your understanding of the
situation, but we believe this will get us there.
Senator Kohl. All right. Mr. Secretary, the problems faced
in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007 were the result of
several years of FSIS being shortchanged in their pay costs,
although Congress has always provided the full amount
requested. We seem to have dug ourselves out of that hole. Will
this funding level keep us above board, or is FSIS going to
have to dig into their program levels to fully fund pay costs?
Secretary Johanns. Well, I'll ask Scott to talk about pay
costs, but again I think we're in good shape with this funding
request to get the job done. But, Scott, talk about pay costs,
if you will.
Mr. Steele. Thank you. Yes, Senator, we have fully funded
the on line inspection staff. We're anticipating the growth in
the industry in terms of meat and poultry inspection
requirements. Of course there is some uncertainty with that, in
terms of how much demand for inspection will be out there in
the meat industry, but this is our best estimate right now.
Based on that, we have fully funded all the inspection
requirements, on line inspectors, that we need.
And of course, as the Secretary pointed out, a large part
of the budget is for wages and benefits, so there is a limited
amount of flexibility. But we are doing audits on the agency
right now. We've had people come in and look at that, outside
auditors to look at the financial balance sheets of the
organization. We're doing a better job of tracking the
expenditures in the agency. I think we're at this point in time
on top of the workload and funding requirements, but we will
keep the committee and staff informed as we move through the
year and report to you if there are any changes to our
estimates.
Senator Kohl. That's good.
AVIAN INFLUENZA (AI)
Mr. Secretary, the problem of avian flu, as we all know,
has not gone away. In fact, there have been recent reports of
an outbreak in England, and with spring weather around the
corner there will be a lot of activity in migratory bird
flyways. Can you tell us the total amount within APHIS that
will be spent on avian flu activities this year, and tell us
what this money will buy?
Secretary Johanns. Yes. The 2008 budget requests a total of
$82 million for avian influenza. This will continue efforts
initiated with the supplemental funding, which if you'll
remember was $91 million. $57 million of that is specifically
designated for APHIS highly pathogenic AI activities.
Funding will be used to continue our surveillance,
diagnostics, preparedness and response efforts, and then a
piece of that is for international veterinary capacity-
building. Of the total requested, $3.2 million is to develop
methods to detect AI in the environment and over $5 million is
for further AI research, including development of poultry
vaccines.
The 2008 budget also includes about $17 million for the
APHIS ongoing low pathogenic program. Low path AI is a concern
for its potential cost to the poultry industry, but it's also a
concern to us because of the potential that it might mutate
into the highly pathogenic variety, so we also pay attention to
that. So that details what we're doing with the AI funding.
Senator Kohl. Mr. Secretary, can we expect more outbreaks
of avian flu this spring? And if we can, what precautions do
you have in place?
Secretary Johanns. Low pathogenic AI is common in the
United States, so to address low path first, it's been around
about 100 years. Birds go through a flu season much like humans
go through a flu season. It's typically not fatal to birds, and
it's not a problem to human consumption of poultry. You cook
the bird and you kill the virus. And that would be true of both
low and high path. But we will see low path. We have strategies
in place to deal with that, but again, it's fairly common.
We've only had high path avian influenza in the United
States on three occasions. The most recent was in 2004. And so
far in this most recent international outbreak of high path
avian influenza, we have not detected it.
And we have been doing aggressive testing, in cooperation
with the Department of the Interior, of wild birds and in
Alaska, birds that would come down through the United States,
through the flyway. In fact, we've done 79,000 wild bird
samples to date. We haven't detected it, which is good news. We
will continue our efforts to monitor and detect, will continue
to do environmental samples, but so far, so good, on the high
path.
EMERALD ASH BORER
Senator Kohl. Good. I'd like to ask you about emerald ash
borer. Would you speak to the efforts of APHIS in undertaking
to control and eradicate emerald ash borer where it has been
found, and also please say a word about the surveys that the
budget requests funding for in order to prevent the spread of
emerald ash borer in States like my own of Wisconsin?
Secretary Johanns. The budget includes $30.7 million, an
increase of about $21 million over the 2007 Continuing
Resolution, for emerald ash borer efforts. The funding will
support survey efforts and regulatory activities to prevent
additional spread of the pest. The budget also requests $2
million in APHIS plant methods development, a line item to
develop control methods to do a better job of managing EAB.
The program's immediate goal is to protect infested areas
by containing the current infestation--mainly that would be in
Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana--and eliminate isolated outbreaks,
such as those detected in States like yours or Illinois or
Maryland, and develop a long term control and eradication
strategy. So we've boosted our request for funding here by
about $21 million over where we were with the Continuing
Resolution.
Senator Kohl. I thank you very much. I'd like to call on
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
FSA COMPUTER SYSTEM
Mr. Secretary, we're becoming increasingly aware of the
situation regarding the computer system in the Farm Service
Agency. I'm sure you're familiar with that. I understand it has
gotten so bad that direction has been given to State and county
officers as to what times of day they could use the system
because it's not up in a uniform fashion.
Can you walk us through the issues in relation to that and
what you're doing? The funding request did not appear in this
year's budget, so I assume you have a strategy for dealing with
it. Just talk us through that one.
Secretary Johanns. Well, we are working with staff. In
fact, I think it was yesterday we gave an extensive briefing
with our computer experts on some of the problems we are
facing. And I'll just be very candid with you. This is an area
where we're going to need some help.
Senator Bennett. Does ``help'' mean money?
Secretary Johanns. It always does in government, doesn't
it?
Senator Bennett. Yes.
Secretary Johanns. Here is the challenge we face. Beginning
in November 2006, FSA experienced performance problems in its
web-based software for programs such as the MILC program,
Direct and Counter-Cyclical Payments, and the 2007 crop year
farm reconstitutions. The amount of time systems were off line,
in other words, dark, became progressively longer. A number of
corrective actions were put in place, but again, the problem
just continued to worsen.
So FSA did what you said, they rationed web access time to
try to alleviate that overloading of computing resources, as a
means to try to continue serving producers while other steps
were put in place to aggressively diagnose the problem we're
facing. That policy was suspended on February 9.
A team was put together of USDA and private sector experts
to observe the Kansas City Web Farm under a load situation. The
team's recommendations to optimize the performance of the
computing environment in applications systems are being
implemented, and service has been restored at a pre-November
level. That's my understanding. But I will tell you that I
don't believe, in fact, no doubt about it, the problem is not
solved.
FSA and the department's OCIO have compiled a comprehensive
list of investments in managed services that are needed to
stabilize the infrastructure used by FSA to deliver program
benefits. There's dozens of reasons as to why this is happening
now, but suffice it to say that over time a lot has been added
to this system, and maybe at times not enough money to deal
with the issues that the system was asked to face.
So what happens now, as it has been explained to me, and
this is very nontechnical language, but let's say a farmer
shows up and we put that farmer's information into the system
to assist that farmer in some way. That is routed to our Kansas
City facility, where that request works its way through a very
complex system of lap and overlap and overlays, and quite
honestly patched-together systems over a period of years. And
as it's working its way through all of that and trying to make
this work, a period of time elapses, and if you don't get your
request met within that period of time, it will just kick you
out.
Senator Bennett. Yes. I don't want to go that deep into it
because I want to hang onto my time, but I'm glad to know
you're on top of it to that degree. Can we expect a request for
reprogramming or a supplemental or something?
Secretary Johanns. In the next 3 weeks we hope to have in
front of you, your staff, a business case for what's going to
be involved in this system. Here is what I will tell you,
Senator, just to cut to the chase.
I think there's going to be a short term response to this,
because building a new system takes time and it's very
expensive. It takes time. It could take 3 years plus. And so
because of a new farm bill, because of a whole bunch of other
things that just come along, I think there will be a short term
response that we're going to have to deal with and then a long
term approach to a system.
Senator Bennett. I see. Well, thank you.
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Let's talk about international trade. You mentioned exports
being up, record levels. Trade Promotion Authority is set to
expire this year. How much of the increase that we've seen in
farm exports can be attributed to TPA, and also Trade
Adjustment Assistance, or TAA, for farmers? How effective has
all of this been with respect to that, and what would be the
effect if TPA expired without being renewed?
Secretary Johanns. Personally, I think it would be a very
bad situation for farmers. Our exports have been growing. There
are better experts here on the panel that can tell you or offer
thoughts about what is related to Trade Promotion Authority or
what is not, but here is the bottom line.
I don't think you will see another trade agreement
negotiated or approved without Trade Promotion Authority. I
think the trade initiative will just stop. It will just stop.
Why? Why would a country negotiate with us, if the end result
is there really is no agreement? There really is no end to the
negotiations, and the possibilities for shaking on the deal and
then the deal not really being a deal. So I personally believe
it's critically important.
I will also offer this, because I've said it publicly. To
me it doesn't matter who is in the White House, it doesn't
matter if it's one party or another party, I would have the
same argument for Trade Promotion Authority no matter who was
in the White House. I believe it's just an important part of
what we do.
Now, I think there's always an opportunity for discussion
and analysis and debate about are we doing it well enough, are
we not doing it well enough, what should we be doing, are we
taking care of labor issues, environmental issues, trade
issues, all of that. I think that's a very, very appropriate
discussion. But I think without Trade Promotion Authority we
disarm whoever is in the White House to negotiate trade
agreements and bring those to the Senate and the House for
approval.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. I was going to discuss ag
disaster assistance, but I think Senator Dorgan has signaled
that he is going to deal with that.
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM (NAIS)
Let me ask you one last question quickly about the National
Animal Identification System. There is some confusion about
that. We have given you some money in the past. You have asked
for some more money. But can you help us understand exactly
where that is and where you see it going in the coming year?
Secretary Johanns. The first thing I want to tell you is
that it is a voluntary system. The system that we have designed
and articulated basically says to the producer, ``this is for
you to make a decision as to whether this is the best approach
for what you're doing in your operation.'' It is a voluntary
system.
The first piece of funding, if you will, actually predates
me, but it was funding designed to put in place the structure
necessary to do premises identification and lay the groundwork
for the next steps. I can tell you that we had a goal at the
end of January of having 25 percent of our premises registered,
and we met that goal. We were right there. It was about 24.6
percent, so we have met that goal, and we continue to work with
States across the country.
The bottom line is this, Senator. Some States are really
doing well. They're doing great. They're registering premises.
People believe in it. Other States are not doing as well. They
are behind. They are not registering premises as aggressively.
There is a debate in the country as to how important this might
be, but I think we're overcoming that. We're working to get
good information out there.
Ultimately, I think it has to happen. I was an advocate
when I was Governor. I'm an advocate now as Secretary. I do
believe the voluntary approach beats the mandatory approach. I
think that's where we need to be now. So I personally believe
it is where we need to be headed.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Johanns. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
Senator Dorgan.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
DISASTER AID
Mr. Secretary, welcome. I intend to try to offer a disaster
aid provision to the emergency supplemental bill. I mentioned
to you that I've done that three times. Twice it got through
the full Senate, got to conference, and was blocked by the
administration. If I am successful in getting a disaster aid
bill through the Senate on this supplemental, I'm wondering
whether the administration will continue to want to block it or
whether you'll be working with us to try to pass it.
Secretary Johanns. As you know, the administration's
historic position is to require offsets to find a way to pay
for disaster aid, and I don't see anything that would indicate
a change in that historic position.
Senator Dorgan. Well, the President doesn't request any
offsets for any emergency supplemental bills.
Secretary Johanns. In this area, the administration's
position, though, has been to require offsets. Here is what I
would say, Senator, and you know I went through this when I was
governor, and it hasn't changed. On an annual basis we talk
about disaster, and there will be disasters. This is a very,
very large country. Weather patterns are different north to
south and east to west. Probably the one guarantee I can make
you each year is that somewhere in the United States there will
be a disaster.
It's just a big country. Somewhere there's going to be
drought. Somewhere there's probably going to be hurricane and
tornado and hail damage and all of the things that farmers and
ranchers deal with. And yet in other parts of the country they
oftentimes experience historically best years. I won't go
through the figures. You know the figures. But I could cite
figures about corn production this year and soybean production,
etcetera.
I personally believe that the long term answer to this is
to look at what we're doing here in terms of the policy and try
to figure out, is there a solution? I would love to sit down
with you and talk to you about some of the proposals we've made
in the farm bill, because I believe they'll make a big
difference. I believe they will help this situation. Revenue
countercyclical does work better----
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, I only have 5\1/2\ minutes
of it is now gone. I'm very interested in what you are saying,
but that--I'm interested in a response to the question of will
the administration attempt to block a disaster piece that I put
in the emergency supplemental.
Secretary Johanns. I can tell you, Senator, today the
administration's position has been and will be that offsets
will be required to finance that.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, did the administration
request offsets when we provided farm disaster aid for farmers
who lost everything during Hurricane Katrina?
Secretary Johanns. We have programs for disaster aid that
we administer, and we administered some of those programs there
that were funded and we literally could identify some funding
and go out there and try to help in the Katrina situation.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Secretary, with respect to Katrina,
that disaster had a name. Last year's drought, the epicenter of
which was in North and South Dakota, but it spread
substantially, had no name. But the farmers in the Gulf region,
as a result of Hurricane Katrina, did get disaster relief. A
significant portion of that was declared emergency, signed by
the President.
I think it is unfair to suggest somehow that other farmers
who lost everything, and there are others that did, should be
subject to a different standard. And I just would say to you
that I'm going to attempt once again to put a disaster
provision in the emergency supplemental, and my hope is that
this time the administration will not block it.
COUNTRY-OF-ORIGIN LABELING
I want to ask--again, we have such limited time--I want to
ask about Canadian beef. I don't understand why the
administration is so anxious to almost have a cattle drive from
Canada coming to this country. One-third of the cattle that
have been identified with BSE in Canada were born after the
feed ban, and yet the administration tells us because of the
imposition of a feed ban that we won't have any risk associated
with this.
It seems to me, Mr. Secretary, if you're at least
considering, as you are, bringing in substantial additional
animals from Canada, who just recently discovered their ninth
case--or tenth, if you consider the American cow--of BSE, that
before you would do that you would agree to implement country-
of-origin labeling and be aggressively interested in country-
of-origin labeling, after which we then have a discussion about
whether it is protective of this country's economic interests
and this country's beef industry to bring in additional cattle
from Canada in the shadow of their ninth case of BSE. Would you
respond?
Secretary Johanns. I'd be happy to. In reference to the
question about country-of-origin labeling, let there be no
mistake. Country-of-origin labeling is the law, effective
October 1, 2008. I want you to understand that although I may
have personal feelings about it and desire to have a great
debate about it, those personal feelings aren't important at
this point. We will administer the law that Congress has put in
place.
In reference to the minimal risk rule that you referred to,
that is in the rulemaking process at this point in time. We
have sought comments. The deadline for that is coming up pretty
quickly. We will very carefully review those comments and then
make a decision about the appropriate course of action.
We oftentimes say, and you've heard me say it, and probably
read my comments when I speak of Japan and South Korea, that
they must live by international standards. It's not fair to
have a personal country standard. And so I will endeavor to do
everything I can to make sure we live by those standards, and
that not only do I preach them, but I'm willing to recognize
those standards in this country. So that's kind of how we
approach it.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, first of all, thank you. I
would like to submit additional questions, and I'd like the
record to show my great personal restraint in not responding to
the cheerleading about Fast Track.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Dorgan.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Byron, message received.
USDA LOAN GUARANTEE AUTHORITY
Mr. Secretary, I have twice passed legislation seeking to
increase USDA loan guarantee authority from the $40 million it
is now to about $100 million. Your lawyers said then that they
couldn't handle the logistics for projects this size. Now the
President has proposed in his fiscal year 2008 budget a USDA
loan guarantee package much larger than I ever tried to pass,
as you know, to get into the ag portfolio new technologies. We
must go beyond where we have been. I sensed that some years ago
with anaerobic digestion and a combination of other things, not
only to solve waste problems but to enhance energy production.
Question: Since we are now talking in the backdrop of a new
farm bill that will likely increase the energy title and
therefore the loan guarantee authority for USDA, could you talk
about the process of the USDA's loan guarantee program and your
opinion as to how the department will handle this new loan
guarantee authority?
Secretary Johanns. Well, we do loan guarantees. They're not
new to us, as you know, Senator, and they are something we're
familiar with. In the farm bill proposal that we have
submitted, we are proposing, for example, $2.1 billion in loan
guarantees targeted at cellulosic ethanol.
Senator Craig. Right.
Secretary Johanns. And I guess probably the best way of
answering your question is that the process that we have in
place, we really envision as the process that would move us
through those loan guarantees. So, again, it's not new for us.
It's something we have done in the past. We feel confident that
we can do it for what we're proposing in the future.
Senator Craig. Okay. Well, we'll work with you on it. We're
glad that USDA is moving more aggressively in that direction.
That's certainly part of the solution of getting us over the
hump in some of these changes necessary in technology,
cellulosic being one of them.
THE NATIONAL VETERINARIAN MEDICAL SERVICE ACT
In December 2003 the President signed into law a USDA
program called National Veterinarian Medical Service Act that
provides incentive to bolster the number of veterinarians in
the field who would serve as first responders in emergency
situations. Now, we're primarily talking about large animal
industry type veterinarians in rural areas.
As I said in my opening statement, we are dumping millions
of dollars into livestock disease research, and this panel
helped provide hundreds of millions of dollars to create a
National Animal Disease Lab in Ames, Iowa. I find it ironic
that after spending all this money, we find ourselves in a
crisis situation where we have a shortage of livestock
veterinarians whose sole purpose is to intercept and defend
this country against catastrophic animal diseases.
Congress provided $500,000 in 2006, $750,000 in the 2007
budget bill, to implement a pilot program, but your fiscal year
2008 budget still does not support this program. Now I'm
hearing from veterinarians that your department has no plan to
implement the rules and regulations for the law passed over 3
years ago to reverse the spiraling reduction in our first
responders, i.e. large animal veterinarians. Your response to
that?
Secretary Johanns. You are right, there was $500,000 worth
of funding in 2006. Here's what it boiled down to. By national
standards, in trying to pull off a national program, it wasn't
a huge amount of money, I think we would both agree. It turned
out to be a rather complex program. It was a program that took
some effort, if you will, to get together.
I will assure you, Senator, it's not a program that we are
opposed to, not at all. We see the need out there. Vets are
educated and only a few of them decide to go with large animals
versus the small animal practice. You see that in your State,
we saw it in our State.
Senator Craig. It's where the money is.
Secretary Johanns. Yes. Well, and you know, there's just a
certain difference in the kind of work that is performed, too.
Senator Craig. Sure.
Secretary Johanns. But we believe in the program. The only
defense I can offer, and I don't want to sound defensive
because we do like the program, is it just turned out to be
more complicated than what it would appear.
Senator Craig. Then my question is, is there a process of
rules and regulations that will be implemented? Is this program
something that will come into function, or is it at idle?
Secretary Johanns. We are moving ahead with the design and
the implementation of the program, so the answer to your
question is yes.
Senator Craig. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES FOR EARMARKS
Mr. Secretary, as you know, during recent months there has
been a great deal of attention drawn to earmarks, and we can
certainly agree that transparency, accountability, and
disclosure is extremely important on this topic. With that in
mind, and this is sort of--it's a budget issue and question--
can you tell me if 100 percent of the congressionally-directed
earmarks that go through USDA are actually allocated to the
congressionally-directed recipient?
Put another way, does USDA take some money, a certain
percent of the earmark, for its own administrative expenses in
connection with the earmark, both related and unrelated to the
earmark? And would you support greater transparency, so that
Congress and the public are aware of exactly how USDA directs
this money? And it may be something you want to refer to
somebody else, but----
Secretary Johanns. I'll have Scott Steele offer a thought
on that.
Mr. Steele. Senator, yes, as I understand it, each of the
agencies that pass through money through earmarks do take some
administrative costs from that amount, and I think the
percentages vary by agency. But yes, we think it should be
transparent. I think that we do identify, and I'd have to check
the records on this, and I can respond more for the record
exactly what percentages agencies do take, but the Cooperative
State Research, Education and Extension Service I know does
take a certain percentage, and NRCS and the others do, but I
think they do vary by agency.
Senator Nelson. But what is the authority to do that?
Because I'm not sure that there's any mandated percentage that
is part of the earmark, that directs the agency to be able to
do this. And so is the amount determined within the agency? Why
is that not included within the appropriations process for the
agency's budget, so it doesn't become skimming?
Mr. Steele. Well, I don't know if it's called skimming or
not. I think it's an issue of the cost of doing business. There
are some administrative costs in dealing with implementing
programs, and they can't all be ignored.
Senator Nelson. Well, why wouldn't that be, without being
argumentative, why wouldn't that be in the budget process, in
the appropriations process we approve here?
Mr. Steele. Well, the earmarks themselves, we have not
requested earmarks in our budget request. We receive the
earmarks from the Congress. So in our justification to the
committees, we would not be justifying the earmark to the
committee.
We receive the money. In turn, we make use of it and follow
the legislative intent, and I think in that process certain
agencies have taken a percentage of the earmark for their
administrative costs of tracking the expenditures and making
sure that the work is carried out properly and there is some
overhead costs that have to be covered in this process.
Senator Nelson. But that's not an agency expenditure that's
appropriated as part of the budgetary process.
Secretary Johanns. No. I think what's happening here,
Senator, is this. Historically earmarks have not been included
in the administration's budget request. Even before the
discussion really heated up on earmarks, you could go and look
at past budget requests and we don't include them, so therefore
there would be no administrative costs to include.
But, as Scott indicates--and you probably have the numbers
in front of you but we would be happy to supply them to the
committee, too--there is a certain cost in just administering
the earmark that has been established, and so that
administrative cost has been covered by some piece of that, and
I'm not even aware how much, for the program itself.
Senator Nelson. Well, some are 2.5 percent for expenses
related to implementing the President's Management Agenda;
agency assessment of about 8 percent to pay for administrative
support; program assessment, 2.5 percent to 9 percent, to
support overall program direction. It means that the range
could be from somewhere from 13 to 20.5 percent, or higher if
the department charge is raised.
It is something I think we need to look into as part of the
appropriations process, so that we don't end up with, in
effect, off-budget, outside appropriation, taking of certain
expenses to the agency for the process of doing that. Or at
least it ought to be formalized in some uniform way, so that if
an earmark is in fact directed to a certain agency, that you
know in advance what it's going to be, so it doesn't erode the
amount of the earmark that you're expecting to go to the
recipient.
Secretary Johanns. We would be happy to work with you to
find a very transparent approach, because I think the dilemma
we find ourselves in is, we do have certain oversight
responsibilities and so that's how this is coming about. But
again, we want to be transparent about it. If we're doing
something that you'd like to see different, we're open to----
Senator Nelson. As a matter of compliment, you were able to
provide us some of this information when we requested it. Some
other agencies told us it was none of our business.
Secretary Johanns. No, we're happy to provide it and happy
to work through the issue.
[The information follows:]
Administrative Costs for Earmarks
Several USDA agencies administer funds as a result of Congressional
earmarks. The amount of administrative costs withheld from an earmark
differs based on the nature of the earmarked funds and the agency
administering the particular earmark. There are some specific statutory
set-asides that all agencies within USDA are required by law to apply
against programs, including from earmarks. For example, all funding
related to extramural research and development is subject to a
requirement to set aside 2.5 percent of funds to be used for the Small
Business Innovation Research Program (Small Business Research and
Development Enhancement Act of 1992, Public Law 102-564, as amended).
In addition, all biotechnology research projects are required to set
aside 2.0 percent of funds to support the Biotechnology Risk Assessment
program (Section 1668 of the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade
Act of 1990, Public Law 101-624, as amended).
In addition to statutory set-asides, agencies also have authority
to use a portion of the appropriated funds to pay for administrative
costs. The portion of the appropriated funds used to pay for
administration costs may differ for each agency and program. Specific
examples include:
--The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES) has specific statutory authority (Section 1469 of
National Agricultural Research, Extension and Teaching Policy
Act of 1977, Public Law 95-113, as amended) to retain up to 4
percent of amounts appropriated for research, extension and
teaching programs for administration of these programs.
--The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) assesses 10 percent of all
appropriations to finance management costs associated with the
conduct of their nationwide research programs. ARS does not
have a separate budget line item to cover management support.
--The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) assesses a
rate between 2.5 percent to 9 percent depending upon the
program. APHIS, like ARS, does not have a separate budget line
item to cover management support.
Senator Nelson. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Johanns. Yes.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Nelson. Senator Reed, then
Senator Feinstein, then Senator Specter. Senator Reed?
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Mr.
Secretary and gentlemen.
PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAMS (PRTS)
I understand that this budget for the first time includes
$12.5 million to support USDA personnel in provincial
reconstruction teams in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Is that
correct, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Johanns. That is correct, yes.
Senator Reed. Any reason why this is the first time it's
been in the budget? I can tell you they are really high valued
items over there.
Secretary Johanns. Scott tells me that it was actually in
last year's budget at $5 million, so maybe what caught your
attention is that it's there this year at $12 million. The
reason why it's there is that we do have a presence. We think
that presence is important. We think we can do some good things
in those countries.
In fact, in one of the farm bill proposals we made, we
identify a place for this kind of activity, whether it's Iraq
or Afghanistan or some other place. We have international
expertise. We have offices in 75 foreign countries or 70
foreign countries. We are all over the world, and we think we
can be very helpful.
Senator Reed. Well, Mr. Secretary, I second that. I've been
out visiting these PRT teams numerous times and talking to
military leaders. I was up in Tikrit with General Nixon of the
25th Infantry Division, and he said he could use many more USDA
experts.
Secretary Johanns. Yes.
Senator Reed. Will you be able to fill all the requirements
that you've received with this money?
Secretary Johanns. Yes, we believe we will. I can give you
an update today, that we have staff in Iraq and we have had
from the beginning. We have, on the PRTs I think we have six
positions, five of which are already there, and I think the
sixth one will be heading over there in April of this year. So
this would fund what we've been asked to do.
Senator Reed. Are these contract personnel or employees?
Secretary Johanns. No, they're employees.
Senator Reed. There are some non-DOD agencies that are
having difficulty getting personnel to go over, for a couple of
reasons. One is, they don't get all the benefits that DOD gets,
but also there's a fear that if they leave their job in the
United States or elsewhere, that they will suffer in terms of
promotion or their management will suffer in terms of losing a
key person without replacement.
How are you dealing with that? Say for example an expert
from the Southeast of the United States goes overseas. Can you
put a replacement in there, or does that agency or that unit
have to get along without them?
Secretary Johanns. I've never run into it, but I would tell
you my personal approach would be that they not lose anything;
that if they want to go over and do a period of time in Iraq,
that is of real value, or Afghanistan, they should not be set
back in their career pathway. But, like I said, I haven't run
into it, so I'm hoping that's an indication that that has not
been a problem. In fact, one of our personnel--he just
refreshed my recollection--actually came back because they got
a promotion, and so they came back to fill that promotion.
Senator Reed. Well, I think this is a key area, and it's
not just for the Department of Agriculture, it's for all the
agencies that are complementing our military efforts, and I
would ask you to go back and look seriously about the
incentives or disincentives, about the ability to fill all of
the requested slots and the sufficient funding to do that. But
I note this is some progress. It's taken 4 years or so to
finally gear up, but at least we've geared up.
LOCALLY PRODUCED FOOD TO SCHOOLS
Let me change topics quickly. In Rhode Island there's a
number of organizations that are working with farmers in our
State to bring locally produced food to schools, and I'm glad
that one of the recent USDA farm bill proposals indicates
support for fresh fruits and vegetables in schools. However,
since the Farm-to-Cafeteria program was authorized in Section
122 of the 2004 child nutrition and WIC reauthorization, the
program has received no funding in the administration's budget.
Why is that the case, if we're trying to get fresh food into
the school cafeteria program?
Secretary Johanns. Scott, do you know about past funding?
Mr. Steele. Senator, I think that there was a pilot for the
schools in prior years that we did fund, and we've been trying
to get local sponsors to work and continue those pilots. But I
think that the farm bill proposal is going to accelerate our
efforts in dealing with this question.
Secretary Johanns. Our farm bill proposals, and I'll turn
to that, would dramatically boost our efforts here. We're
proposing $2.75 billion--and these are all scored in a 10-year
basis--$2.75 billion in funds to purchase fruits and vegetables
for our food assistance programs, and an additional $500
million to increase the purchase of fruits and vegetables in
our school meals program. So over $3 billion will go into
fruits and vegetables purchases in nutrition or school lunch.
Senator Reed. And just a final question because my time has
expired, but there will be an emphasis on purchasing local
produce from local farmers?
Secretary Johanns. Absolutely. Wherever we can buy locally,
we want to do that. And the other thing I would point out is
that our proposals at least are for mandatory money, so again
if Congress agrees with us, your fruit and vegetable producers,
your specialty crop farmers, will see a pretty significant
presence in the farm bill that they have never seen before.
Senator Reed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Feinstein.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
DHS AGRICULTURAL INSPECTIONS AT U.S. BORDERS
If I might, Mr. Secretary, why don't we go to this question
that I had about DHS taking over ag inspections at the border.
Just from the California experience, there is some indication
to me that this may not be the best way to go. Could you
comment?
Secretary Johanns. We have a cooperative effort that goes
on here with Homeland Security, and the USDA is a part of that.
We can give you some numbers of things that we have done
together. I can tell you from the USDA standpoint it is our
goal to work as seamlessly as we possibly can with DHS in the
administration of this program, and our attitude is, if we have
resources that might be helpful, we want to provide those
resources and be of assistance.
I think, Senator, part of what is maybe being experienced
here, this was a change, and sometimes it just takes a while
for the system to adjust to that change. Every time I go to
California, and I'm there on a frequent basis, this issue does
arise from the agricultural community, because they're worried
about pests coming in and that sort of thing.
Senator Feinstein. And they're coming in.
Secretary Johanns. Well, and from the USDA standpoint, I
want you to know that we're ready to do whatever we can to make
the system work, and we'll work as seamlessly as we possibly
can to do that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, I am told that fewer ag
inspections are being done since the transfer.
Secretary Johanns. I don't have those numbers in front of
me, but----
Senator Feinstein. May I ask you to take a look at that?
Secretary Johanns. I will.
Senator Feinstein. And get back to me, because California's
ag is so big and affects so many States, and the penalty that
comes from having fruit fly and then you quarantine three
counties, the penalty is enormous. The key has to be to keep
contaminated fruit out. Right now there's a problem with
avocados coming in with a pest attached, and it's not being
caught.
Secretary Johanns. I will be happy to dig into the numbers
and we will provide you with that information.
[The information follows:]
AGRICULTURAL QUARANTINE INSPECTION
[Inspection Data]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pathway United States California
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2002:
Air Passengers arrivals............. 55,220,906 10,728,329
Air Passengers inspected............ 10,521,155 1,560,235
Cargo inspections/clearances........ 2,821,221 518,040
Fiscal Year 2003:
Air Passengers arrivals............. 56,690,220 10,584,656
Air Passengers inspected............ 9,814,540 1,789,183
Cargo inspections/clearances........ 3,208,140 544,973
Fiscal Year 2004:
Air Passengers arrivals............. 57,204,756 11,354,159
Air Passengers inspected............ 11,757,977 1,551,359
Cargo inspections/clearances........ 2,544,184 644,893
Fiscal Year 2005:
Air Passengers arrivals............. 66,254,784 12,538,889
Air Passengers inspected............ 10,092,452 1,384,565
Cargo inspections/clearances........ 2,316,903 724,088
Fiscal Year 2006:
Air Passengers arrivals............. 68,457,060 12,832,403
Air Passengers inspected............ 8,523,178 1,437,212
Cargo inspections/clearances........ 2,110,075 752,715
------------------------------------------------------------------------
One of the major benefits of transferring all port of entry
inspections to one agency is a front line inspection for all types of
contraband by one individual. As a result, the front line inspectors
today are not solely agricultural, narcotics, or weapons inspectors,
but rather they have been trained to detect any and all contraband.
This system allows for an efficient use of resources without
compromising protection. However, having the front line inspectors
trained to detect multiple forms of contraband does not allow for a
direct comparison with the inspection regime prior to the transfer. For
example, all international air passengers must be cleared through the
Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection's (CBP)
primary inspection. They may be directed to undergo a secondary
agricultural inspection for a variety of reasons. While the actual
number of secondary agricultural inspections of air passengers has
decreased since the transfer, the primary inspection now includes a
much stronger agriculture component because APHIS provides basic
agricultural training to all CBP inspectors. Additionally, CBP has a
more sophisticated risk identification system and database that allows
for more targeted inspections.
AGRICULTURAL QUARANTINE INSPECTION (AQI) FEES
Senator Feinstein. All right, because don't you have $133
million for administrative expenses? Is that for new ag
inspectors, or is that something else?
Secretary Johanns. Scott, do you know?
Mr. Steele. Senator, this is the Agricultural Quarantine
Inspection fee program that we carry out. We collect these fees
from airline passengers, and that money is collected and those
fees do change periodically in terms of how much money we
recover from them. Then some of that money is transferred over
to DHS from the Department. At this point in time for the 2008
budget, it looks like we have estimated obligations in this
program of about $482 million, and about $299 million, almost
$300 million, of that would be transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security to carry out the inspections you're talking
about.
Now, APHIS does keep some of those fees for their own
internal use in helping DHS carry out its responsibility, but
DHS is now in charge of the front line inspectors. They would
be the one checking the baggage and those kinds of things.
APHIS would be called in if there needed to be fumigation,
training, and other things, sort of a secondary back-up role to
the DHS people. Now, those DHS people, they were transferred
from APHIS over to DHS. They originally worked for USDA, and
they are now working for DHS, and they are being assigned and
managed by DHS.
NUMBER OF AQI INSPECTORS
Senator Feinstein. How many of them are there?
Secretary Johanns. I don't have an exact number, of the
total number of inspectors, but we can provide that for the
record and tell you exactly who is doing what.
Senator Feinstein. Well, for the record, this is one
Senator--
Secretary Johanns. Yes, and how many are in California.
Senator Feinstein [continuing]. That doesn't really like
that transfer. I don't think that inspections are well served
by taking agricultural people and putting them under DHS, where
the mission is totally different, and I don't want to see my
State suffer because of it, either. So I'm going to watch
carefully, and I hope you will as well.
Secretary Johanns. We will, and we'll get you that
information you have requested.
[The information follows:]
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection Positions Transferred to DHS
In fiscal year 2002, the Animal and Health Inspection Service
(APHIS) had 3,484 Agricultural Quarantine Inspection (AQI) full time
equivalents (FTEs). Of these FTEs, 2,515 were inspection personnel.
In fiscal year 2003, APHIS transferred 2,655 positions (529 of
those positions were in California with 75 vacant positions) to the
Department of Homeland Security. Of these 2,655 positions, 2,407 were
inspection positions (including Plant Protection and Quarantine
Inspectors and Technicians). Of the inspection positions, 346 were
vacant at the time of the transfer (accordingly, 2061 inspection
personnel were transferred). Of the total 2,655 positions, 387 were
vacant.
In fiscal year 2007, DHS informs the Department that they have
2,188 agricultural specialist positions, including 130 vacancies. DHS
also indicates that there are 337 inspectors currently located in
California.
E. COLI IN SPECIALTY CROPS
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Let me go to E. coli. The
outbreak of E. coli that essentially came from California
products, at least the spinach, I mean, 90 percent of the
United States is fed with that spinach, and I note that the
budget increases by $4 million food safety research, but you
also discontinue the food safety project at the Albany station
in California which specifically targets E. coli, and so my
question is, why?
Secretary Johanns. This is one of the things that I
mentioned in my opening statement. We did a farm bill proposal
on kind of a parallel track with the budget, but eventually
these two have to marry together because in 2008 we have a new
farm bill.
When it comes to specialty crops, I think you're going to
like the proposals we have made. We are proposing not only that
increase of additional fruit and vegetable purchases, which of
course would be really good for California, but we're also
proposing to increase research in that area by $1 billion--and
again, these numbers are all on a 10-year score--because one of
the things that we heard from our specialty crop farmers was,
we need assistance in this area of research and phytosanitary/
sanitary issues.
So we heard them, and again, never, I promise you, never in
the history of farm bills have we had such a significant
presence for specialty crop producers as what we are proposing.
So if these proposals were to be adopted, there would be a
major step forward for research in this area. It would be very
significant.
Senator Feinstein. My time is up, Mr. Chairman, but if I
might just say--and you don't have to answer it, we can talk
about this later--the time has perhaps come for some
regulations from your department with respect to the
phytosanitary handling of crops, to prevent this from happening
again, instead of leaving it up to each State.
Secretary Johanns. California has a very, very mature ag
industry, as you know. They do good work. Some of their
counties actually produce more agricultural products in value
than some States. And so I guess what I would say to you is, we
like what we're seeing there. They really do seem to be
aggressively addressing this issue. Any time you go to a
national phenomenon, it becomes that. I mean, it tends to be
uniform, one-size-fits-all. I really want to talk to you about
that before maybe any of us reach some conclusions on that.
I would also mention that APHIS does work with California,
and the FDA, in this area. But again, I think this would really
warrant some serious thought and discussion, and I would really
want to consult with our producers across the country,
especially in California. They do some good work, as you know.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP)
Mr. Secretary, I am concerned about the budget request
which is $4 billion lower than the 2006-2007 level, and the
termination of the Commodity Supplemental Food Program which
provided some 6.4 million food packages to over 500,000 people
in low income brackets, also seniors. I know that the
projection is that the WIC program and food stamps will meet
the needs, but that really isn't applicable when the seniors
are not included in those programs.
So my question, how can your department really keep up with
the demands for very important services, and have a budget cut
and not have even an inflationary increase, and continue to
provide important programs like the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program?
Secretary Johanns. Overall, our nutrition programs are
fully funded--not only funded for what we have today but the
anticipated need. They're fully funded for the inflationary
increase we anticipate, and they're even fully funded in terms
of a contingency amount of money for WIC and food stamps. So we
believe that we will meet the needs that are out there, and if
we don't, if we have underestimated those, we have a
contingency program that is available.
Senator Specter. What is the contingency program?
Secretary Johanns. It's a large amount of money. Scott, how
much?
Mr. Steele. Senator, yes, we have set aside additional
money in a contingency fund if we would need to use it. It's $3
billion for the Food Stamp Program. If our estimates are wrong
on participation, we could then go to that contingency fund to
make up the difference, the shortfall.
In the WIC program it's $200 million. If we miss the
estimate that we have now for 8.3 million women, infants and
children, we would be able to tap into that $200 million if our
estimate is wrong. So we have asked for that additional amount
of money in the budget request.
Secretary Johanns. Here is the situation on CSFP, and it is
a popular program. It's certainly well received out there. Here
is why it keeps popping up. The administrative costs get
people's attention. They are about 46 percent of the food that
is purchased. It is not a nationwide program. It's in 32 out of
the 50 States, and I think we have it on some Indian
reservations.
And, again, we just believe--and we have monies in the
budget for outreach--that if we can identify the people and
move them to one of our other programs, it will work better for
them. So that's why it keeps popping up every year.
Senator Specter. Mr. Secretary, let me thank Keith Collins,
your chief economist, for substantial help he has given us in
the past when we've had some tough milk issues in Pennsylvania.
I recall one incident where he came to the State and was
enormously helpful.
I'm not going to be able to stay for Commissioner von
Eschenbach's testimony. I want to note with approval his
confirmation. Good to see him on the job, past that hurdle.
And one question which I would like him to answer for the
record. It involves the--I note an increase in user fees, $15.7
billion, on some of the drug review programs. We hear comments
from time to time that the people who are awaiting those
programs would be glad to increase their user fees if we could
have more expeditious treatment. I'd like him to take a look at
that question and give us a response in writing.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Specter.
Senator Harkin.
Senator Harkin. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, Mr. Deputy Secretary, and all of you
who are here. I just had a couple of questions.
ORGANIC FARMING
Again, we tried in the last farm bill, Mr. Secretary, to
put in some funds and different programs to help organic
farmers. There has always been this sort of ``valley of death''
as they call it, when a farmer wants to transition to become an
organic. Well, you take 3 years. You've got to have 3 years.
Well, during those 3 years you can't really say it's organic,
so how do you get through that sort of ``valley of death'' from
being nonorganic to being organic?
So we put funds in the bill and we put a couple of programs
in there to help farmers do this. I see that the budget now
zeros this out, zeros this out. Let's see, where was it? Yes,
we had $1.8 million, very small, in discretionary funds last
year, and the budget would provide no funds at all.
Now, we do have some money that we put in there, mandatory
money. We do have some of the mandatory money in there, that's
true, but that's sort of on research and stuff. But the
transition funds--we do the research, and that money is there,
Mr. Chairman, for research in organics and what farmers might
do and how they set up marketing things and stuff like that.
That's that research, but the transition funds were extremely
important, and they're just zeroed out at a time when consumers
can't get enough organics.
The fastest growing part of the food industry in America is
organics, 20 percent a year. People at Whole Foods say they
can't get enough organics. They can't even keep up with it. So
people want it. The producers can't keep up. It seems to me a
great opportunity, and I just want to know what kind of
justification there is, because I'm looking at the farm bill
this year, and if nothing else, I'd like to actually beef that
up and do more in that area, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Johanns. I was just looking at our proposals that
we submitted to your Agriculture Committee, Mr. Chairman,
relative to organic farming, and we're doing a number of things
here that I think would be helpful. I don't pick up that
proposal in what we've put here, though, I don't think.
So I guess what I would offer to you, I'd be anxious to sit
down with you and see if there's something we can do there,
because you're right, there is a period of time where you
transition. We do have some money in this year's budget, some
mandatory funding, as you point out, but in the next farm bill
there's probably an opportunity here to take a look at this
issue again.
Senator Harkin. I'm open for any suggestions you've got on
things where we can work together and how we focus on this.
And the other thing that I heard, Mr. Secretary, was that
we just had a meeting with some of these farmers in Iowa
recently, sometime in January, I think it was, and the problem
seems to be in terms of marketing, regional kinds of processing
facilities and stuff, where a small farmer could take this in
and get it processed and packaged and sent out, someplace like
that, so I would like to visit with you about that.
Secretary Johanns. Okay.
DHS AQI INSPECTORS
Senator Harkin. I am told that in my absence Senator
Feinstein covered the problems with the inspectors coming in. I
think we've got a real problem there, and we're going to have
to think about whether or not, Mr. Chairman, whether or not
these inspectors ought to be brought back under USDA or should
they stay under DHS. And quite frankly, everything I have heard
is that they were doing their job under Ag, they had a good
structure for it, and now they have been shifted and it's sort
of the tail end of everything out there under DHS. I just
wonder if we shouldn't somehow bring them back in under USDA. I
assume you spoke about that in my absence.
Secretary Johanns. Yes. Senator Feinstein has asked for
some information on where were we on inspections before the
change, where are we at now, and we'll provide that.
FOOD AID
Senator Harkin. Okay. The last thing I just want to cover
is food aid. Because of the continuing crisis in Africa and
everywhere else, we have been obligated to provide additional
emergency funding for Title II international food aid above and
beyond the appropriated levels, and this goes back for the last
several years.
Again, the administration--we're talking about a budget
here, now--the administration has been unwilling to acknowledge
that increased demand. They have not requested any funding
above the recent level of $1.2 billion for Title II, and I'm
wondering why, since we know we're going to have to provide
more, why there isn't more of a budget thing and why there
isn't some justification in the budget for this food aid? It
just makes it tough on us when it's not in that budget.
Now, if you don't have the answer now, if you could submit
it in writing, that would be fine with me.
Secretary Johanns. Okay. We'll submit it in writing.
Senator Harkin. That's fine. Just look at that.
Secretary Johanns. Okay.
Senator Harkin. Same level it has always been every year.
We've got to come in and get more and more every year. And I
think as you look around the world now, we're going to be asked
to do that again, so it should be part of the budget.
Secretary Johanns. Okay.
[The information follows:]
2008 Budget Request for Public Law 480 Title II Donations
The 2008 budget requests just over $1.2 billion of appropriated
funding for Public Law 480 Title II donations; this is a slight
increase above the level provided in 2007. The requested funding will
be supplemented by reimbursements from the Maritime Administration for
prior year cargo preference costs, which are expected to total just
over $120 million in 2008.
The appropriations request reflects a careful prioritization among
the competing demands for international humanitarian assistance. The
United States has a number of different programs and authorities for
responding to humanitarian needs overseas, each of which is important
and makes a unique contribution to our humanitarian response efforts.
In addition, it is important to understand that emergency food
needs are difficult to predict in advance, especially given the complex
nature of evolving, rapidly changing conflicts and the unpredictability
of rainy seasons in drought-prone areas. However, should unanticipated
and extraordinary emergencies arise during the course of the year, the
Administration has a number of options for responding, including a
supplemental appropriations request and a release of commodities from
the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust. At present, the Trust holds
915,000 metric tons of wheat and $107 million of cash. The wheat
tonnage equivalent of that cash is approximately 500,000 metric tons,
so in total the Trust has resources equal to about 1.4 million metric
tons of wheat.
In view of these considerations, the Administration believes the
2008 budget continues our commitment to addressing the most severe and
critical emergency food aid needs.
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Harkin.
Senator Nelson, do you want to make comments?
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CONTINGENCY FUNDING
One quick item: Mr. Chairman, I commend the contingency
fund to deal with the challenges of food stamps and making sure
that the numbers match with the requirements. I wonder if it's
possible to do a similar thing with mitigation funding, with a
contingency fund.
We know every year we're going to have disasters that will
relate to agriculture, whether it's hurricanes or whether it's
continuing drought. In the past they've been offset typically
from some program within the previous farm bill, 2002. I
remember Nebraska being a beneficiary of that when you were
Governor. It's an ongoing situation. We don't know where it's
going to happen, but we know that it will happen.
Why aren't we in a position to set aside a contingency? If
we're going to take $18 billion, roughly, out of the farm bill,
why don't we preserve some of that to deal with the fact that
disasters will occur that are not going to be adequately
covered by crop insurance?
There isn't any way an 8-year continuing drought can be
covered by crop insurance. We went over that, I think, in the
Senate Ag Committee, in talking about how we will balance that
all out. But isn't it possible to set aside $5 billion or $6
billion? If we can set aside $3 billion for food stamps, it
would seem to me that we ought to be able to hedge our bet a
bit on natural disasters for crop coverage.
CROP INSURANCE GAP COVERAGE
Secretary Johanns. Here is the challenge you will face if
you want to establish a fund and just have money in it,
whatever that amount would be. Keep in mind during the last
farm bill, notwithstanding the attempts to pass recent disaster
relief, we spent about $8 billion on disaster relief programs,
and the current discussion is somewhere along the lines of $3
or $4 additional billion, so you could be up to around $12
billion. And you're going to start with a baseline just like we
did, and everything outside of that is above the baseline, and
you know the drill on amounts above the baseline.
Here is what I would offer to you, though. I do believe
that this crop insurance approach is worth looking at. One of
the big criticisms with crop insurance today is, you can't
cover the gap, so we're proposing a gap coverage be made
available to cover that typically 30 percent gap in coverage
between 70 percent and 100 percent.
And then the second thing is the revenue-based
countercyclical program just will work better. We can't talk
about the specific product, we're forbidden, but there is some
effort to look at this issue of ongoing disaster and its impact
on crop insurance and----
Senator Nelson. Well, you just reach the base, so that
ultimately you're out of business unintentionally.
Secretary Johanns. Exactly. Dr. Collins can give you a
great briefing on that. But we're looking at some of the very
issues you're talking about, and this actually might--I would
respectfully suggest--be a better model than just the fund.
Senator Nelson. Well, I would agree with you for the
occasional loss. I don't think that you can rely on crop
insurance to cover a disaster that continues for 8 years. It's
not designed to do that. That's like insuring your house and
having it burn down every year for 8 years. The mechanism just
doesn't presuppose that in the actuarial computations.
But statistically I'm sure Mr. Steele could calculate over
the last 20 years what, adjusted for current dollar value, what
the crop losses have been that would be disaster occurrences,
so that you could calculate highs and lows and treat it as, if
you will, a contingency fund on an actuarial or statistical
basis within the budget, and have it covered.
Now, it's true, sometimes it's better to cover that 30
percent. I understand that difference. But I don't think your
crop insurance is going to work for a multiyear drought that
goes on and on and on and on. For occasional losses, I think
that's the way to go for 2 or 3 years, but not an 8- or 9-year
loss as you know we're experiencing in southwest Nebraska.
Something for you to consider, and I hope that you will
take a close look at it, and I hope as we put together the
appropriations package, we can work in that direction.
Secretary Johanns. Okay. We would be anxious to sit down
with you, and we'll consider your comments.
Senator Nelson. Thank you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Nelson.
And we would like to thank you, Secretary Johanns, along
with Mr. Conner, Mr. Steele, Mr. Collins. Your testimony and
your response to our questions has been really good, and we
look forward to continuing to work with you as the process
unfolds.
Secretary Johanns. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
veal
Question. Mr. Secretary, I am very concerned that we have some
serious trade distortions with Canada which disadvantage U.S. veal
producers.
Wisconsin veal producers believe that Canadian policies,
particularly access to low-priced feed coupled with support from the
Quebec production price insurance program, give their competitors in
Canada an unfair economic advantage in the form of lower production
cost which encourage over production. Some of the increased production
is exported to the U.S. market where it is further processed and sold
as U.S. produced product. The relatively low cost of production in
Canada also encourages many Canadian producers to purchase replacement
calves in the United States which drives up prices for U.S. producers.
I would like the USDA's Economic Research Service to review this
topic and provide some updated data on this matter. I'm particularly
interested in an updated comparison of subsidies which apply to U.S.
veal producers and their counterparts in Canada.
Answer. The information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
In 2005 the cost of production for a milk- or formula-fed veal calf
raised to about 450 pounds in the United States was $682.50 versus a
net cost of $699.97 in Canada, which includes a payment from the
Canadian Agricultural Income Stabilization (CAIS) program.
Exports of veal meat from Canada to the United States in the
carcass, cuts-bone-in, and cuts boneless categories (assumed to be
available for further processing in the United States) have increased
from 2000 to 2005.
Carcass exports to the United States have risen rapidly due to
increased slaughter capacity in Canada and restrictions on live animal
trade as a result of BSE-related border measures. U.S. cattle export
data to Canada do not provide breakouts by size so we cannot readily
determine how many calves are really being shipped to Canada for veal.
A category in USDA export statistics that includes these calves is
Cattle not for Breeding which we show here for 2002 to 2006.
Exports fell with the onset of BSE-related border measures,
dropping from about 133,500 animals in 2002 to a low of 14,200 in 2004
and rebounding slowly afterward. Exports reached 36,050 animals in
2006. Purchases of veal calves by Canadians make up some unknown share
of these exports.
Veal market data reports show the following calf slaughter numbers
in Canada and the United States in recent years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Canada U.S.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................... 251,309 971,459
2004.................................... 284,334 838,405
2005.................................... 267,900 717,338
2006.................................... 245,341 698,618
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. I would also like to receive a summary of steps you have
taken in conjunction with the U.S. Trade Representative to resolve this
dispute.
Answer. USDA, along with the Office of the United States Trade
Representative (USTR), is aware of the concerns that have been
identified and has examined Canadian Federal and provincial policies
regarding support provided to Canadian veal producers. To date, USDA
has not identified components of the Quebec Income Stabilization
Program that are inconsistent with Canada's international obligations
but remains open to additional information and assessment. There are
several recent factors that have changed the dynamics of the United
States and Canadian veal and veal calf markets, including the
imposition of U.S. BSE restrictions on Canadian cattle. USDA will
continue to monitor the situation closely. If new information indicates
that Canada is not fully meeting its international obligations, USDA
and USTR will take prompt action to address the matter.
AFGHANISTAN/IRAQ PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Question. Last August, we received notification from the U.S.
Department of State that $7.8 million of the Iraq Relief and
Reconstruction Fund was being transferred to USDA to restore and expand
a sustainable agriculture sector in Iraq. Your request for 2008
includes $12.5 million for Provincial Reconstruction Teams to restore
and stabilize the agricultural economies in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Please tell us the amount of funds that USDA has used for these
activities since the beginning of fiscal year 2006, including funds
directly appropriated to USDA or transferred from other Departments.
Also tell us what specific activities were carried out with these
funds.
Answer. Since the beginning of fiscal year 2006 through March 2007,
USDA has expended approximately $3.39 million in Afghanistan ($2.45
million transferred from USAID, $140,000 from the CCC-funded Emerging
Markets Program, and $800,000 from USDA appropriated funding) to
support USDA participation in the Provincial Reconstruction Teams
(PRTs); to provide technical assistance and capacity building to the
Ministry of Agriculture; and to support development of agriculture and
trade programs at institutions of higher education. This amount will
grow as additional expenses are incurred during fiscal year 2007.
Since the beginning of fiscal year 2006 through March 2007, USDA
has used approximately $6.56 million in Iraq ($5.3 million transferred
from the State Department to support revitalization of Iraqi
agricultural extension programs; $260,000 transferred from USAID to
support USDA participation in the PRTs; and $1 million from USDA
appropriated funding) to provide both agricultural advisors to the PRTs
and Ministry of Agriculture, and public affairs specialist to work with
the Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO). This amount will also
increase as we move through fiscal year 2007.
Question. What specific outcomes have been realized by the
expenditure of these funds and are these consistent (and on schedule)
with the original objectives of the allocations?
Answer. With this funding, USDA has been an active participant in
the ongoing reconstruction initiatives in both Afghanistan and Iraq. In
the case of Afghanistan, USDA has been able to introduce modern
agriculture production and marketing techniques to the rural provinces.
Among other things, efforts have been focused on irrigation system
rehabilitation, post-harvest loss reduction, marketing system
improvements and livestock health.
In Iraq, USDA's Agricultural Extension Revitalization Program is on
schedule to provide the first training of Iraqi extension agents in
June 2007. In addition, USDA has deployed PRT and ministry advisors as
well as public affairs specialists who are now embedded into the Iraqi
and U.S. institutions to which they were assigned. Recruitment for
additional advisors is ongoing. USDA is cooperating with other U.S.
Government agencies to continue identifying appropriate assignments.
The outcomes that have been achieved through these activities have
been consistent with the purposes for which the funding was originally
allocated.
Question. How do you recruit people to take assignments in
locations such as Iraq and Afghanistan, and how do you assure their
security?
Answer. The Foreign Agricultural Service coordinates the
recruitment and selection of USDA agricultural advisors, drawing upon
the expertise of the Department's agencies such as the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, and the Agricultural Marketing Service, as well as the Land
Grant Universities and 1890 colleges. A panel from USDA interviews and
selects candidates, matching their technical skills, as well as their
anticipated ability to operate in an insecure area, to skills needed in
the PRTs. Recommendations are sent to the Secretary for final approval.
Prior to deployment, all advisors attend a two-week security
training program. Once deployed, each advisor is embedded with the U.S.
military to ensure personal security.
Question. In Afghanistan, there had been hopes that poppy
production could be replaced with food crops that could help sustain
their people. Yet we hear that poppy production there is still their
leading crop and that the World Food Program considers that country in
serious need of humanitarian food assistance.
Explain what has been done to try and move Afghan farmers away from
poppy production and why does it not seem to be working?
Answer. USDA's role in support of the Administration's efforts to
promote alternative livelihoods includes providing expertise to the
Afghanistan Ministry of Agriculture to strengthen programs in
agricultural extension, animal health, plant protection, and natural
resources, and helps the Ministry extend its programs to all provinces
and districts of the country. USDA's advisors on the PRTs work with
their ministry counterparts to build capacity and develop programs at
the local level.
USDA helped to establish and continues to support the Afghan
Conservation Corps which has employed thousands of Afghans in projects
for reforestation, soil and water conservation, and conservation
education. With local sales proceeds derived from the monetization of
USDA food aid commodities, USDA has supported the renovation of
agricultural and veterinary teaching facilities at Kabul University and
the training of faculty. USDA also is working to build the capacity of
five agricultural universities in Afghanistan, through faculty
training, construction, and renovation of laboratories and classrooms.
Finally, because livestock is vitally important to the Afghan
economy, USDA is training Afghan veterinarians in the recognition,
diagnosis, and control of animal diseases.
CCE AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Question. Mr. Secretary, the budget for the Common Computing
Environment is spread to the 3 agencies it serves this year--Rural
Development, the Natural Resources Conservation Services, and Farm
Service Agency. However, total funding for CCE decreases by nearly $30
million.
It is not my understanding that information technology needs at
USDA have decreased--in fact, at the Farm Service Agency--the opposite
is true. We have all heard about the problems and delays at the county
offices--when the East Coast is working, the West Coast can't work, and
vice versa, or FSA risks overloading the system. This is clearly
unacceptable, and although the Farm Bill is scheduled to be
reauthorized this year, which will obviously increase FSA's workload,
funding increases in their budget for IT will only maintain the
antiquated system in place now. It's like trying to stop a dam from
bursting with duct tape.
Why is the budget for CCE decreasing this year, when needs are
certainly not?
Answer. Funding for the CCE has been comprised of Service Center
Agency (FSA, NRCS, RD) information technology (IT) purchases through
their own appropriations, in addition to funding provided through the
CCE direct appropriation. This funding has been used to develop an
infrastructure to support the business delivery functions of the
Service Center Agency (SCA) field offices located across the country.
The 2008 budget requests that $78.5 million with an additional $12
million for CCE activities specific to FSA be included in the SCA
salaries and expenses appropriations to meet the ongoing business
delivery needs. This funding will support the continued IT activities
of the SCAs as they jointly maintain the CCE infrastructure. In
addition, the SCAs will continue to work with the Information
Technology Services (ITS) division of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer in USDA. ITS is funded through reimbursable
agreements with the SCAs and delivers staffing and services to the
agencies in support of the CCE. In coordination with ITS, the agencies
will be able to ensure that the necessary services and staffing are
available to maintain the infrastructure and program delivery.
Question. Does the USDA have a solid budget estimate of the cost to
replace the current outdated FSA computer system?
Answer. FSA is planning to implement a long-term modernization
effort known as MIDAS to replace its obsolete equipment. At this time,
FSA anticipates submitting a business case for this investment to the
Office of Management and Budget during March 2007. Preliminary cost
estimates indicate that this planned transition would require about
$278 million over fiscal years 2007 through 2009. It would also have a
total 10-year lifecycle cost of $463 million unadjusted for risk and an
estimated cost of $617 million when adjusted for risk.
In addition to this modernization effort, further costs must be
incurred to stabilize the FSA IT system components at field offices in
the short term. These additional costs are estimated to be about $150
million to bring the Kansas City web-based system up to at least
moderate reliability; about $97 million to implement likely disaster
assistance and Farm Bill legislation; and nearly $29 million to replace
obsolete field office components. Thus, estimated total costs of nearly
$553 million over fiscal years 2007 through 2010 will be required to
bring the current system up reasonable operating capability and to
transition to a modernized system. However, the actual modernization
component as noted above is estimated to cost about $278 million.
Question. Is this part of the Farm Bill proposals submitted? If
not, where will this funding come from, since it is not in the
President's budget?
Answer. Funding for modernization of FSA's information technology
systems is not included in the Administration's Farm Bill proposal.
USDA is working with the Office of Management and Budget to identify an
appropriate funding source for this investment.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Question. Federal support for agricultural research is one of the
most important contributions we make to support productivity for our
farmers, ranchers, and all parts of our rural economy. A very good case
can be made that this type of research is not getting the full support
it needs in terms of funding, but the results have been impressive.
What, if anything, is broke about the current agricultural research
programs? If there is a need to combine agencies like ARS and CSREES,
isn't that just a matter of coordination? Isn't that the role of the
Under Secretary now?
Answer. While current agricultural research programs are
functioning well, they can be strengthened. Currently, both ARS and
CSREES support basic and applied research spanning the full spectrum of
agriculture related issues including plant and animal systems, food and
nutrition, and natural resources.
Our proposal will greatly facilitate closer collaboration by
establishing a single National Program Staff (NPS) to manage programs
and resources across all areas of research, both intramural and
extramural, as well as extension and education. This will help ensure
that resources will be maximized and that the comparative strengths of
our intramural and extramural system are better utilized to address
critical problems facing agriculture.
While the Under Secretary has a role in coordinating programs
between the REE agencies, it is important that this coordination be
institutionalized. This can best be accomplished by merging the
agencies.
Question. Can you please give us your view on how Federal support
for agricultural research should be administered? For example, what is
the role of the State/Federal partnerships that have worked so well
over the past?
Answer. Continued Federal support for agricultural research is
critical to the future of American agriculture. It is important to
maintain both strong intramural and extramural research programs.
Central to USDA's extramural efforts is the State/Federal partnership
with the Land Grant Universities and other cooperators. These efforts
should be maintained and strengthened.
Question. Do you think that USDA should have its own in-house
research agency? As you know, there are proposals under consideration
that would remove agricultural research from the jurisdiction of USDA
and place it with an independent agency. How do you feel about that?
Answer. Agricultural research and education is a core mission of
USDA and it is important to maintain a strong intramural research
capacity. The Administration strongly supports keeping intramural
research efforts within the jurisdiction of USDA and does not support
moving these efforts into an independent agency.
One of the Administration's farm bill proposals would make
significant changes to the Research, Education, and Economics mission
area within USDA. Specifically, CSREES and ARS would be folded into one
agency. The thrust of the argument for this change is that it will
provide better coordination and allow for enhanced efficiency and
effectiveness of program implementation and resource allocation.
Question. How do you think we best meet the needs for long-term
research that can be well served by long-term formula funds and
competitive grants and the short term problem solving needs that can
perhaps be best served by use of your special grant authorities? Do you
think we need to maintain a balance to meet both these type of research
needs?
Answer. Our experience is that a mixed portfolio of formula funds
and competitive grant programs allows us to address the needs of
research for American agriculture. Our programs support the goals and
objectives of USDA, and incorporate stakeholder input on a continuing
basis. Formula funds ensure that each State has an immediate response
capacity to address emerging issues and problems. When an issue arises,
existing resources can be mobilized quickly to begin to deal with the
problem.
For those areas of longer-term concern, competitive programs are
able to lay the scientific groundwork needed to address specific
problems. Because these programs are designed at the Federal level,
with stakeholder input, and take into account the needs of the entire
nation, they apply available resources to America's highest
agricultural research priorities. In our experience, well developed and
logically structured competitive programs take no longer and can be as
responsive to solving science based issues as legislatively mandated
special research grants.
NATIONAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT
Question. Please provide an update on the implementation of the
National Veterinary Services Act.
Answer. We plan to publish a Final Rule delegating the National
Veterinary Medical Services Act program to CSREES in the Federal
Register on March 19, 2007. Although there are additional
administrative steps that must be completed prior to the distribution
of funds, a framework for the program has been developed by CSREES. The
Department recognizes the importance of this Act to the veterinary
community and those that they serve and is moving forward in the
implementation of this program as quickly as possible.
AVIAN FLU
Question. Secretary Johanns, as you are aware, we provided in the
Joint Resolution we recently passed more than $47 million to annualize
funding provided in an fiscal year 2006 supplemental bill for avian flu
activities in APHIS. Further increases are included in the budget,
although we understand that this may change some based on passage of
the joint resolution. Although it may seem that there was certainly a
few months where we didn't hear about too many avian flu outbreaks,
very recently there has been a new outbreak in Britain, and we are
headed into the spring, when the birds will be migrating and we know
their migratory patterns must be monitored closely. I know that you are
aware of the importance of staying ahead of this situation--this is
evidenced by your budget request.
What is the total amount within APHIS that will be spent on avian
flu activities this year? What will this money buy?
Answer. APHIS is planning to spend $107.7 million ($30 million in
2006 supplemental funding, $16.8 million carryover from Low Pathogenic
Avian Influenza (LPAI), $47.2 million for highly pathogenic avian
influenza (HPAI) appropriated funding and $13.7 million for LPAI
appropriated funding) during fiscal year 2007. The use of these funds
will increase surveillance in wildlife, domestic poultry, and game
birds; increase and enhance existing preparedness; and provide capacity
building for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) in the
international community. Additionally, APHIS is increasing its
interdiction activities to reduce the threat of an HPAI introduction
through smuggling.
Question. Can we expect more outbreaks of avian flu as we enter
Spring?
Answer. The United States has not experienced any introductions of
the Asian strain of highly pathogenic avian influenza. APHIS is
confident that the current surveillance activities in wildlife,
domestic poultry, as well as smuggling interdictions provide an ample
early warning solution that will enable Federal, State, and local
resources to rapidly respond to an incursion of the virus, and thereby
limit its potential for spread.
EMERGING PESTS
Question. Secretary Johanns, I was pleased to see an increase of
$20.5 million in the Emerging Plant Pests program for Emerald Ash
Borer, bringing total funding to respond to this pest to more than $30
million. I was also pleased to see that a portion of this increase is
going to support surveys in States where EAB is most likely to occur
next, one of which is my home State of Wisconsin. USDA estimates, as
you know, that if EAB is not contained and eradicated, it could cost
State and local governments and landowners $7 billion over the next 25
years for tree removal and replacement. It has already devastated areas
where it has shown up.
Could you please speak to the efforts APHIS is undertaking to
control and eradicate Emerald Ash Borer where it has been found? Also,
please talk about the surveys the budget requests funding for in order
to prevent the spread of EAB. What do you do if you find it in a new
place?
Answer. APHIS and USDA's Forest Service have been cooperating with
affected States since 2002 to address EAB. The program uses a
management strategy with survey, regulatory, outreach, and control
components designed to contain the general EAB infestation and find any
isolated infestations and take appropriate action to contain or
eradicate them. In December 2006, APHIS expanded its EAB quarantine
regulations to cover the entire States of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio,
more than tripling the existing regulated area to prevent additional
spread of EAB.
Regulatory activities include monitoring high-risk businesses and
ensuring that they move regulated articles only under compliance
agreement with the EAB program as well as working to identify pathways
for the potential movement of regulated articles and conducting special
operations such as weigh station blitzes. The regulatory program also
includes a strong outreach component to ensure that businesses and
residents in quarantined areas are aware of the risk of moving items.
Survey activities, including visual surveys and the use of
detection trees, which are trees that have been stressed to release
volatile chemicals attractive to the beetle, are used to detect the
presence of EAB in new areas and delimit the extent of known
infestations. If the program detects EAB outside of the known infested
areas, delimiting surveys are conducted to determine how old and how
large the infestation is and what action would be appropriate. The only
available eradication method requires the removal of all ash trees
within a half-mile radius of a young infestation. Such activities take
place only at small, truly isolated infestations.
APHIS is also investing in methods development projects for EAB,
including more accurate survey methods and control options. The fiscal
year 2008 Budget also requests funds to expand survey efforts into
States near currently infested areas, including Wisconsin, Minnesota,
Iowa, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and New York. These States have risk factors based on the
movement of EAB host materials.
Question. How does APHIS work to prevent things such as Emerald Ash
Borers (EAB) and the Asian Longhorn Beetles from entering the United
States? What improvements need to be made at the borders to prevent
these incredibly expensive pests from entering and causing these
problems?
Answer. The Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection program protects
the United States from the risks associated with the introduction of
invasive agricultural pests and diseases. APHIS and the Department of
Homeland Security cooperate to carry out this program, and fund the
programs through a combination of appropriations and user fees. The
Pest Detection program supports APHIS' goal of safeguarding U.S.
agricultural and environmental resources by ensuring that new
introductions of harmful plant pests and diseases are detected as soon
as possible, before they cause significant damage. USDA is requesting a
$15 million increase in the Pest Detection program for fiscal year
2008.
Exotic wood boring and bark beetles such as EAB and Asian
longhorned beetle (ALB) likely entered the United States through
infested solid wood packing materials such as pallets, crates, and
other materials used in international shipping. These materials are
often reused and reshipped many times throughout the world. Many
countries have recognized the need to deal with the pest risk. APHIS
worked with its international counterparts to develop standards for
safely moving solid wood packing materials and implemented regulations
based on the developed standards. While APHIS and affected States are
still dealing with the effects of EAB and ALB and several other exotic
forest pests already in the United States, we believe that the new
regulation of wood packaging materials should help prevent future
infestations of this type.
ERADICATION VERSUS MANAGEMENT
Question. At what point do you make a determination that the
eradication of a disease isn't possible, such as in the case of citrus
canker? What are the next steps once that determination has been made.
Answer. Although each pest or disease situation must be analyzed
separately, there are several factors we consider when determining
whether or not eradication is feasible. Among these are: the
availability of adequate funding and active participation from Federal,
State, and industry cooperators; weather and any other environmental
constraints; the potential of the pest to do significant economic
damage to agricultural or forest resources; the extent to which the
pest or disease has spread; the availability of effective detection,
diagnostic, and control technology; the availability of acceptable
alternatives to eradication; public support for an eradication program;
the disease's public health significance; and the vectors associated
with a disease (e.g., mosquitoes, ticks, etc.).
Federal officials take all of these and other factors into
consideration as they determine whether the eradication of a pest or
disease is possible. If one or more of these factors change
considerably during the course of an eradication effort, the planned
course of action will be reevaluated. Prior to making any major
decisions about discontinuing an eradication effort, Federal officials
will consult with their State and industry cooperators, then update
policies and regulations as appropriate.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Question. Please provide a list of current plant and animal
invasive species, ranked by their threat level. What is APHIS' short
and long-term plans to deal with these?
Answer. The Administration has not ranked invasive species by
threat level. Invasive species that APHIS addresses include, but are
not limited to, the programs focused on cattle fever tick,
Mediterranean fruit fly, emerald ash borer, potato cyst nematode,
sudden oak death, citrus diseases, brucellosis, pseudorabies, and
chronic wasting disease. APHIS addresses each of these threats as
resources allow.
Over the long term, APHIS develops response plans for exotic pests
and diseases that have the potential to cause significant economic or
environmental damage and uses its safeguarding system, which involves
prevention, detection, and management components, to protect U.S.
agriculture. Under the Pest and Disease Exclusion mission area, APHIS
works to prevent exotic pests such as cattle fever tick and
Mediterranean fruit fly from entering the United States. These and
other pests have direct pathways into the United States. APHIS takes
action at U.S. borders or in other countries to mitigate the risks
associated with them.
Under the Monitoring and Surveillance mission area, APHIS conducts
plant pest surveys, animal health surveillance, and other activities
designed to detect exotic plant pests and foreign animal diseases if
they are present so that we can deal with them quickly if needed. These
programs target a changing list of high-risk plant pests depending on
trade and travel pattern and outbreaks in other countries. These
programs also conduct intensive monitoring and emergency preparedness
efforts. APHIS analysts follow animal and plant health situations
around the world and frequently adjust monitoring and surveillance
efforts and pest and disease exclusion priorities to safeguard U.S.
agriculture and natural resources from high-risk pests and diseases.
APHIS also works to control or eradicate high priority invasive
species through programs in the Pest and Disease Management area,
including, but not limited to, emerald ash borer, potato cyst nematode,
sudden oak death, several citrus diseases, brucellosis, pseudorabies,
and chronic wasting disease.
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE/STATE MATCH
Question. The budget request includes a decrease of over $6 million
for activities related to chronic wasting disease. One of the
justifications for this decrease is a match in which the Federal
Government will pay for 60 percent of anticipated program needs, and
the State will fund the rest. Similar proposals for State match are
mentioned throughout the APHIS budget.
Specifically for Chronic Wasting Disease, how will the requirements
for the States change with this proposal? Will their funding level need
to increase?
Answer. The 2008 budget proposes a reduction of about $4 million.
The program requirements for the chronic wasting disease (CWD) herd
certification program (HCP) will not change with the funding reduction.
At the requested funding level, USDA anticipates the States and
cooperators would contribute additional resources to support the
efforts at current levels.
Question. More broadly, what amount does APHIS anticipate saving by
requiring increased State matches for APHIS activities? Is there
currently a mandated match level for States, or is this an entirely new
proposal? If a State can't or does not provide the requested match
amount, what will APHIS do then?
Answer. The following table is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Item Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Wasting Disease................................. $4,400
Emerging Plant Pests--Citrus Health Response Program 2,300
(Florida)..............................................
Emerging Plant Pests--Asian Longhorned Beetle (NJ & NY). 1,691
Emerging Plant Pests--Glassy-Winged Sharp Shooter 1,001
(California)...........................................
Johne's Disease......................................... 5,005
Noxious Weeds........................................... 300
---------------
Total............................................. 14,697
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is currently no mandated match level for States, nor is USDA
proposing a mandated level. It is our goal to leverage increased
participation from the States to maximize the benefits received from
Federal dollars.
If a State is unable to contribute the estimated amount for a
particular program, USDA will evaluate the overall impact to program
efforts and adjust future funding requests accordingly.
JOHNE'S DISEASE
Question. Mr. Secretary, the APHIS budget for Johne's disease
includes a decrease of nearly $10 million approximately 75 percent. One
of the reasons for this justification is the supposition that States,
universities, and producers, would be responsible for testing, herd
clean-up, risk assessments and disease management, as well as the
continuation of the national Johne's demonstration herd project.
Was there any input gathered from those whose responsibilities will
be increased before this proposal was put forth? Are these activities
that the States, etc. are currently undertaking, or would have to pick
up?
Answer. USDA has consulted with our partners in the Voluntary
Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program (VBJDCP), and they are aware of
our request. From its inception, the VBJDCP has been a cooperative
effort among APHIS, State departments of agriculture, and industry.
States have been the main driving force of the VBJDCP. A large part of
the Johne's disease funds not requested in the President's Budget has
been used by the States to pay for producer testing and risk assessment
fees. With a reduction in Federal funding, these costs will need to be
covered by producers who benefit from this program. In addition, State
and University partners would assume responsibility for continuation of
the Johne's disease demonstration herd projects implemented in each
region. These projects focus on new and current testing schemes and
control methods to determine the most effective cost management
practice options.
APHIS will continue to provide oversight to the VBJDCP and support
analysis of the national demonstration projects, along with continuing
laboratory approval and licensing diagnostic tests and vaccines for
commercial use.
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Question. What is the status of the development of a National
Animal Identification System?
Answer. The National Animal Identification System is composed of
three components: premises registration, animal identification, and
animal tracing. Premises registration is the foundation of the program.
As of March 12, 2007, all 50 States, 60 Tribes, and 2 U.S. Territories
are capable of registering premises according to USDA standards, and
approximately 378,000 locations have been registered.
Significant progress has also been made on the second component of
NAIS, animal identification. As of March 12, 2007, approximately 1
million Animal Identification Number devices have been distributed.
The third component of the NAIS, animal tracing, is currently under
development with the help of USDA's industry and State partners.
Industry, through private systems, and States will manage the animal
tracing databases that maintain the movement records of animals. Full
deployment of the Animal Trace Processing System is planned for the
near future.
Question. If such an animal identification system is made
voluntary, what effect does APHIS anticipate that will have on
participation? What efforts will be made to encourage participation?
Answer. Participation in the NAIS is voluntary. The USDA remains
committed to building upon our strong partnership with the States and
industry to meet producers' needs and establish a versatile system that
makes sense for everyone.
Moving forward with this voluntary approach has allowed producers
the opportunity to test the program and recommend the most practical
solutions for a more effective system. In this sense, producers
themselves are playing an active role in helping to shape the NAIS
program so that it works well for their particular needs. Additionally,
a voluntary NAIS allows for the best price competition between service
providers (identification device manufacturers, database providers,
etc.) and leaves room for market applications (such as age/source/
process verification) to help drive the system.
To encourage participation, USDA has provided funding to facilitate
development and implementation of an efficient system, and flexibility
to adapt to producers' operations and needs. On February 2, 2007, USDA
published a request for proposals from nonprofit organizations that
wish to enter into cooperative agreements with USDA to advance premises
registration. USDA will make up to $6 million available, subject to the
availability of funding, for the cooperative agreements. These
cooperative agreements will support the efforts of such organizations
to promote the NAIS and, specifically, increase participation in
premises registration--the foundation of the program.
SMALL FARM/ORGANICS/AMS SEED MISLABELING
Question. We continue to hear reports that the number of farmers in
the United States is getting smaller and the farms are getting larger.
Still, we have a responsibility to promote programs and policies to
help small and beginning farmers be productive and able to maintain a
reasonable life style. After all, these small independent farmers are
truly small business entrepreneurs who need the government to be their
friend, not their obstacle. I fear that in too many cases, government
is their obstacle.
Last year I asked you a question about how USDA can help these
small farmers.
What have you done since then to improve their opportunities?
Answer. Through a number of different programs, USDA helps
operators of small and medium-size farms. For example, the Farm Service
Agency (FSA) provides a variety of farm loan programs, including
traditional operating loans, beginning farmer and youth programs. The
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) helps small producers obtain
greater access to marketing channels and engage in more profitable farm
marketing activities through research, alternative market development,
and grant programs. Additional information will be provided for the
record.
[The information follows:]
FSA offers direct and guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans
to family-size farmers and ranchers who cannot obtain commercial credit
from a bank, Farm Credit System institution, or other lender. Borrowers
include beginning farmers who do not qualify for conventional loans
because they have insufficient financial resources, as well as
established farmers who have suffered financial setbacks from natural
disasters, or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable
farming operations. FSA loans can be used to purchase land, livestock,
equipment, feed, seed, and supplies; they can also be used for building
construction and improvements. FSA guaranteed loans provide
conventional agricultural lenders with up to a 95 percent guarantee of
the principal loan amount. The lender is responsible for servicing a
borrower's account, including the collection of payments, for the life
of the loan. All loans must meet certain qualifying criteria to be
eligible for guarantees. Farmers interested in these loans must apply
to a conventional lender, which then arranges for the FSA guarantee.
AMS conducts or supports applied research to help small and medium-
sized farm producers and processors make better informed business
decisions in the face of changing marketing conditions and practices;
maintains a centralized information clearinghouse of agricultural
marketing research materials and resources on the agency's website and
disseminates research results, technical assistance, and data via
internet, publications, conference presentations, and outreach efforts;
administers the Farmers Market Promotion and Federal-State Marketing
Improvement grant programs; and collaborates with other agencies that
support small farm marketing, including State departments of
agriculture, land-grant universities, Tribal governments, trade
associations, non-profit organizations and private foundations.
During fiscal year 2006 and early 2007 AMS supported four national
and four regional farmers market and direct marketing workshops, and
AMS personnel presented or trained at nineteen conferences and meetings
that support small farms, farmers markets, and agricultural community
outreach to improve food marketing practices among small-scale and
socially disadvantaged farmers, and expand awareness of available
marketing services and resources. Further, AMS created a regularly
updated Farmers Market Resource Guide in March 2006 that provides a
one-stop information source about available financial and technical
assistance for farmers market and direct farm marketing activities.
AMS also provides specific funding assistance. AMS awarded $1
million through 20 Farmers Market Promotion Program (FMPP) grants for
2006. Agricultural cooperatives; local and Tribal governments; non-
profit, public benefit and economic development corporations; and
regional farmers' market authorities are eligible for FMPP grants. The
Federal-State Marketing Improvement Program (FSMIP) funded 27
competitive matching grants worth $1.334 million to State Departments
of Agriculture and other appropriate State agencies to assist in
exploring new market opportunities for U.S. food and agricultural
products and to encourage research and innovation aimed at improving
the efficiency and performance of the U.S. marketing system. The
majority of FSMIP projects are geared toward small to medium sized
producers. In addition, the Specialty Crop Block Grant Program makes
funds available to State departments of agriculture to enhance the
competitiveness of specialty crops. It has made $6.58 million available
to 50 States (and to Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia).
Question. When we see problems like the mis-labeling of GM grain
that gets into the market place, that sends a very troubling message to
our trade partners and can create problems that small operators can't
absorb.
We have heard several reports of genetically modified material
getting into crops intended for commercial sales, the most well-known
being rice. What has the economic effect been of instances such as
this?
Answer. The economic effect can be reductions in seed available for
planting and potential trade restrictions. For example, two popular
long grain rice varieties can no longer be planted for commercial
production due to the presence of genetically modified material. The
value of certified seed of these varieties produced in 2006 for
planting in 2007 is estimated to be $39 million.
Question. What programs does USDA have in place to make sure those
sort of labeling problems don't happen?
Answer. The Agricultural Marketing Service administers the
interstate labeling provisions of the Federal Seed Act, a truth-in-
labeling law that regulates the interstate shipment of agricultural and
vegetable seeds. Enforcement of the Act by AMS helps ensure that seed
purchased by small independent farmers is of high quality and
truthfully labeled. However, the Act does not regulate biotechnology
traits or biotechnologically derived seeds. Instead, the Act considers
biotechnology derived seeds found in traditional varieties as ``other''
crop seeds and they have to be labeled as such. If the biotechnology
derived seeds exceed 5 percent, they have to be listed as a separate
component on the seed label.
Question. As you know, the organics label is a very important
label, what are you doing to protect the integrity of that label?
Answer. USDA's National Organic Program (NOP) is responsible for
administering the organic regulations and ensuring that all
requirements are met to protect the integrity of the organic label. The
2008 budget includes an increase of about $1 million above the 2007
level of $2 million to ensure that the NOP can meet the needs of the
rapidly growing organic industry. The increase will support, among
other efforts, development of standards requested by the industry and
regulatory enforcement to maintain labeling credibility. To ensure
compliance with the regulations, the NOP directly oversees its
accredited certifying agents to monitor organic producers and
processors, conducts retail surveillance, conducts investigations,
takes action on complaints, and imposes penalties where appropriate.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED MATERIALS IN COMMERCIAL CROPS
Question. How is AMS, and USDA overall, working to prevent the
introduction of genetically modified materials into crops intended for
commercial sales?
Answer. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
involved in regulation of the biotechnology industry. Various measures
are used in authorized field tests to ensure that genetically
engineered organisms are confined to the test site. The measures
include isolation distances to mitigate cross pollination with other
crops and weedy relatives, cleaning of farm equipment to mitigate the
inadvertent spread of seed, timely disposition of the field test, and
post-harvest monitoring for volunteers. To ensure compliance,
inspections of the test site, facilities, and records are conducted.
Once a crop is deregulated, that crop is considered no different than
conventional crops and may be planted without restrictions from APHIS.
For organic products, regulations of AMS' National Organic Program
prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms in organic
production. Accredited certifying agents review organic production and
handling plans before certified organic production begins to ensure
that no genetically modified organisms are used in production and that
handling procedures protect organic products from contact with
genetically engineered materials. Penalties are in place for
intentional disregard of the regulations.
COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING (COOL)
Question. Please provide an update on plans to implement COOL.
Answer. AMS has entered into cooperative agreements with 14 States
for the purpose of conducting audits of retail establishments to
enforce the COOL regulations for fish and shellfish. Audits in States
without cooperative agreements were conducted by USDA personnel. In
fiscal year 2006 1,159 retail stores were audited; the number of audits
in fiscal year 2007 will increase slightly.
For the remaining covered commodities, AMS will issue proposed
regulations for public comment and issue final regulatory actions to
implement COOL by the statutorily established effective date.
Question. If language was enacted that would move the current
implementation date for COOL forward to sometime during fiscal year
2008, please explain what steps would be required to implement it on an
accelerated schedule. What funds would be required to implement COOL
during fiscal year 2008?
Answer. To implement COOL for the remaining covered commodities on
an accelerated schedule, it could be necessary for AMS to issue final
regulatory actions without the benefit of a public comment process.
Given the current implementation date, AMS will not need additional
funding in fiscal year 2008. To include the additional commodities, the
program needs to develop the necessary regulations. Once regulations
are established, the program must expand retail and supplier
enforcement through adequate Federal staffing and by establishing
additional cooperative agreements with State agencies and U.S.
territories to conduct retail surveillance audits. The program would
focus on training and educating Federal and State employees on their
enforcement responsibilities; overseeing the uniform application of the
requirements from the Federal level; conducting educational and
outreach activities with interested parties; conducting routine
surveillance and product trace-back audits throughout the supply chain
to ensure proper labeling and enforcement; responding to formal
complaints; and initiating enforcement actions against violators. Since
expanding the current program to all commodities in the statute will
constitute an increase in program activity, implementation will require
an increase in funding.
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Question. Is RMA developing any new products to serve regions of
the country that currently have few, if any, options for risk
management? If so, please explain them.
Answer. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) has undertaken an
evaluation of its product portfolio to identify gaps in availability,
particularly with respect to underserved crops and/or regions. This
evaluation found that, with few exceptions, crop insurance coverage is
generally available for the most economically significant crops in the
underserved regions. This result is consistent with the conclusions of
a recent independent evaluation of RMA's product portfolio. This
suggests that RMA should place greater emphasis on improving currently
available products to provide more effective risk management
protection, and target efforts on the development of new products
towards filling the few remaining gaps. RMA is currently conducting
comprehensive evaluations of several crop programs to identify areas
for improvement, particularly among underserved regions.
In addition, RMA has implemented several new products, most notably
Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite (AGR-Lite),
and two Pasture, Rangeland and Forage (PRF) pilot programs. The AGR,
AGR-Lite and PRF programs are particularly oriented to producers for
whom traditional crop insurance products were either impractical, or
did not provide effective risk management protection. In addition, over
twenty pilot programs are currently active that pertain to specialty
crops, including pilot programs for processing chili peppers, Hawaii
Tropical Fruit, and Florida Fruit Trees. RMA also has ongoing
development efforts for a revenue insurance product for certain
specialty crops, as well as an umbrella weather-peril product that
could provide effective coverage for certain crops with relatively
limited market value. Additional risk management tools are developed
through partnership agreements that impact underserved producers. These
partnership agreements deal with a wide range of topics including the
development and understanding of markets, pest and disease control, and
water management.
The Crop Insurance Board also accepts private sector submissions
that allows persons to develop and submit for approval their own
products targeted to specific risk management needs.
GLOBAL WARMING
Question. USDA conservation programs provide a model for natural
resources protection on a vast scale. Today, there is much discussion
about the issue of global climate change.
Please describe any current agricultural activities that may
contribute to global climate change.
Answer. Through a portfolio of beneficial conservation programs and
energy conservation practices Producers have opportunities to save
money and time while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There are
several agricultural and forestry production systems that can be
implemented to reduce GHG emissions and increase carbon storage, called
sequestration, in soils and vegetation. Many conservation practices
used by agricultural producers can mitigate negative effects attributed
to climate change. One example of a specific practice is Conservation
tillage. Residues and tillage can be managed to build organic matter
and to sequester carbon while also reducing energy requirements and
soil erosion. Another example is Comprehensive Nutrient Management
systems. These systems can capture methane for energy production while
also reducing negative water quality impacts.
Question. Please describe any changes in agricultural production or
conservation practices that might better mitigate against the threat of
global climate change. For example, what are the benefits of carbon
sequestration as a means to reduce greenhouse gasses or other potential
contributors to global warming?
Answer. USDA is providing incentives and supporting voluntary
actions by private landowners in targeting efficiency improvements
through the USDA/Department of Energy (DOE)/Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) AgSTAR, as well as many other programs. USDA has
instituted new standards and is targeting specific incentives that
encourage carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission
reduction efforts. USDA also is sponsoring improved monitoring and
reporting guidelines for voluntary initiatives. USDA agencies and their
partners are developing tools to estimate the amount of carbon stored
and GHG emissions reduced at the field and producer level. Such tools
will make it easier for producers to estimate carbon storage and GHG
emissions reductions.
The Agricultural Research Service conducts global climate change
research under the Global Change National Program. This research
focuses on four aspects of global change: Carbon Cycle and Carbon
Storage; Trace Gases; Agricultural Ecosystem Impacts; and Changes in
Weather and the Water Cycle at Farm, Ranch, and Regional Scales. These
factors may significantly affect agricultural productivity and are not
addressed specifically by other ARS National Programs. Recently, in
response to concerns about global climate change, a strong interest has
developed in determining how agricultural activities and practices can
be used to store carbon, particularly in soil. A Federal multi-agency
research initiative on the carbon cycle, the U.S. Global Change
Research Program Carbon Cycle Initiative, is under development to
address carbon cycle science.
VALUE-ADDED GRANTS
Question. Funding has been provided for Value-Added Agricultural
Product Market Development Grants since the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000. Ample time has elapsed to evaluate the
effectiveness of this program.
Please describe the types of products that have been funded.
Answer. A wide variety of projects are funded, including value
added products made from meat, dairy products, grains, fruits and
vegetables, oilseeds, and renewable energy sources. Grant funds
totaling $150,000 were used as working capital for the start up phase
of a new tilapia production facility where the fish will be raised and
processed into fillets. Other types of products include wine, compost
made from diary waste, wind energy, soy-flour, identity-preserved
yogurt, dehydrated apple slices, and branded cuts of beef.
Question. Are these products becoming marketable and sustainable?
Answer. Information about the long-term sustainability became
available early this year from a study that the University of Missouri
has done. The study indicates that approximately 60 percent of the
projects funded resulted in a marketable product.
Question. What are the outcome measures that are being used to
determine the success of this program?
Answer. Several measures evaluating the program are in place,
including the number of jobs created, the increase in producer revenue
due to the project, the increase in customer base due to the project,
and the sustainability of the business receiving the grant.
Question. How many grants and how much funding has been provided to
energy-related projects?
Answer. Since 2001, 155 grants have been made for energy-related
projects, totaling $25.2 million.
Question. How successful are these energy-related projects and how
do you define success?
Answer. We define the success of energy-related projects in the
same way as for other project types--we consider any project that
resulted in a marketable product to be successful. We estimate that
approximately 48 percent of energy related projects resulted in a
marketable product. This compares to 60 percent success in projects
over all for the value added program.
SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING LOAN PROGRAMS
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Budget terminates the direct single
family housing loan program that has served very low and low income
rural households well for over 40 years. The 2000 Census reveals that
7.8 million of the non-metropolitan population is poor, 5.5 million
face housing cost overburden, and 1.6 million non-metro housing units
are either moderately or severely substandard.
While the direct loan program is terminated, funding for the
guaranteed loan program is given a concomitant increase. However, this
increase comes with a 50 percent rise in the fee to participate.
Average incomes of households in the guaranteed program are about twice
as high as in the direct program, and this fee increase will force
those incomes higher.
The Administration proposes to submit legislation for subsidized
guaranteed options, but no language has been provided and no funding is
requested in 2008.
Given the large income differential between direct and guaranteed
program participants, how will very low income households gain
assistance for homeownership loans?
Answer. We anticipate that many very-low income families will be
able to participate in our guaranteed homeownership program. Currently
about 30 percent of those families who have received guaranteed loans
have very low and low incomes.
Question. When does the Administration expect to send up
legislation on subsidized guarantees?
Answer. We anticipate the legislative package will be delivered
soon.
Question. The current direct program can provide mortgage interest
rates as low as 1 percent for very low income households. How deeply
subsidized do you expect the proposed guaranteed program to be?
Answer. We are currently developing options to assist very low and
lower income families through the subsidized guaranteed program. Our
goal is to help more lower income families to achieve homeownership
through a guaranteed loan originated and serviced by private sector
lenders. Currently interest rate reduction provisions have not been
developed.
Question. Do you expect the guarantee fee increase to result in a
deterioration in the credit quality of the guaranteed portfolio?
Answer. No, all applicants will be required to meet current credit
quality standards. The proposed fee increase, which can be financed as
part of the loan, will only increase the average customer's loan
payment by about $7 per month.
Question. How much do you expect the average income of guaranteed
program participants to rise as a result of raising the fee?
Answer. We do not expect to see an increase in the income of our
guarantee program participants.
OFFICE CONSOLIDATIONS
Question. Mr. Secretary, delivering a direct single family housing
program is clearly much more labor intensive than a guaranteed program.
In conjunction with refocusing housing lending from direct to
guaranteed loans, Rural Development is proposing to reduce staff
somewhat and consolidate its field office structure.
What is the proposed magnitude of staff reductions, and extent of
field office consolidations?
Answer. Any office consolidations that may occur will be done so as
recommended by each Rural Development State Director in order to
accommodate a reduction of management levels in each State while
recognizing population shifts, the need to improve delivery systems in
order to deliver all programs in all locations and to accommodate
enhancements in technology enabling us to do business in new ways.
Since the State plans are currently being reviewed, we do not know
the number of offices to be closed or that will operate on a part-time
basis. RD will keep the Committee informed of its plans. It is RD's
intent that the realignment be completed by March, 2008.
Rural Development operated with 6,475 FTE's in fiscal year 2006,
and expects to operate with 6,300 FTE's in fiscal year 2007. Rural
Development is not proposing a Reduction-in-Force and all employees
will be offered a position at their current grade and pay level. We are
also seeking Voluntary Early Retirement Authority which could be of
interest to those employees who are several years short of being
eligible for regular retirement.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES GRANTS
Question. Rural Development's Community Facilities program includes
direct loans, guaranteed loans, and grants to support essential
community facilities in poor, remote rural communities. Through this
program communities can finance rural hospitals, health clinics, day
care centers, libraries, town halls, fire trucks and other first
responder vehicles and equipment, and a myriad of other essential
community facilities. This has been one of the most successful programs
in Rural Development's portfolio.
Budget authority may be transferred among the loan and grant
programs. However, this Budget appears to eliminate the grant program,
leaving only direct and guaranteed loans to meet needs of small rural
communities.
What is the back-log of applications and pre-applications for loans
and grants?
Answer. As of March 13, 2007, there were 667 applications and pre-
applications totaling $955,581,290 for the Community Facilities direct
loan program, 48 applications and pre-applications totaling
$176,316,844 for the guaranteed loan program, and 757 applications and
pre-applications totaling $62,511,425 for the grant program.
Question. Will the aggregate requested program level be adequate
for the fiscal year 2008 demand?
Answer. The aggregated requested program level will be adequate to
meet our highest priorities in fiscal year 2008.
Question. How will small, low income communities, who in the past
relied on grant assistance, finance the community infrastructure they
need?
Answer. There are a number of Federal community development
programs and State and local economic development agencies designed to
serve low-income and rural communities. A recent GAO report highlighted
73 Federal agencies which serve the purpose of economic development,
with several of these specifically supporting the construction of
facilities in low-income rural communities.
Question. Has Rural Development estimated the impacts of this
proposal on communities by size, region and income level? What are the
results of that study?
Answer. No, RD has not estimated the impacts by size, region and
income level. However, as there are other Federal agencies providing
grant funding for low-income rural communities, the impacts of the
proposal will be ameliorated.
MUTUAL AND SELF-HELP HOUSING
Question. The Self Help Housing Program has been hugely successful
in assisting very low income households become successful homeowners.
With technical assistance provided by grantees, program participants
jointly contribute sweat equity as they construct their new homes. Long
term financing has been provided by the Sec. 502 direct program.
However, this Budget terminates the direct program, terminates the Sec.
523 Self-Help Land Development loan program, and reduces Self-Help
grants by 72 percent.
In the face of the success and long term support for the Self-Help
program, why is the Administration taking this action at this time?
Answer. Increasing cost in other Rural Housing Programs and fiscal
year 2008 budget constraints require program reductions. Rural
residents participating in the Self Help Housing program are encouraged
to seek financing using the Section 502 guaranteed program or obtain
financing from the private sector.
Question. What are the private sector funding sources that will
replace this program, and provide homeownership opportunities for these
very low income households?
Answer. Most Self-Help Housing grantees have been successful in
securing other financial assistance to operate their programs. We
anticipate that grantees can seek further funds from outside sources
and use the Habitat for Humanity model which does not rely upon Federal
financing.
RURAL RENTAL HOUSING
Question. Mr. Secretary, this Budget again proposes to terminate
direct rural rental housing loans (Sec. 515), to rely solely on the
Sec. 538 guaranteed loan program for affordable rural rental housing
construction. The direct program provides subsidized mortgage loans and
allows the opportunity for rental assistance for very low income
tenants. Subsidized financing, coupled with rental assistance that caps
certain tenants' rent payments at 30 percent of income, allows the
program to serve tenants with mean incomes under $10,000.
The bulk of Sec. 515 tenants are very low income, with a majority
female headed households, elderly and/or handicapped. Without the Sec.
515 program, what will be the source of new affordable rental housing
for these, most vulnerable, rural residents?
Answer. Section 538 guaranteed multi family rural rental housing
program has experienced great success and will be the primary source of
multi family units without Section 515 funding.
Question. Rental assistance is not available in Sec. 538 projects.
Without rental assistance, how can the Sec. 538 program reach the very
low income rural population now being served?
Answer. The section 538 program reaches very low income rural
population in two ways. Leveraged tax credit financing is present in
nearly 80 percent of section 538 projects. Nearly 7,000 units currently
enjoy tax credits. Additionally, savings incurred from interest credit
subsidies are passed on to the tenants through lower required rent
payments.
Question. Are there areas of the country where the Sec. 515
program, even without new rental assistance, could reach very low
income households that would not be served through the Sec. 538
program?
Answer. The section 538 program can provide rents that are
comparable to the rents created by the section 515 program without
rental assistance. This is because the section 538 is eligible to be
combined with 9 percent tax credits, as well as other affordable
funding sources. The 538 program also offers an interest credit which
buys down the interest rate of up to $1.5 million of the lender's loan
to the Applicable Federal Rate for the entire term of the loan and loan
amortizations of up to 40 years. These factors all aid in the creation
of units with affordable rents.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING REVITALIZATION
Question. Mr. Secretary, Rural Development has a direct loan
portfolio reflecting over 17,000 properties, containing over 460,000
affordable rental units. Many of these properties are in excess of 20
years old, in need of substantial repair and rehabilitation. A recent
study indicated that the portfolio could be segmented into three
components: 10 percent are in growing markets in which it is
economically feasible for owners to prepay, leave the program, and
raise rents; 10 percent are in declining markets where the costs of
maintaining the properties exceed the foreseeable benefits and need;
and the 80 percent balance of the portfolio that is appropriate for
revitalization and retention in the affordable housing program. Last
year the Administration proposed revitalization legislation, including
restructuring tools such as interest rate reductions, loan deferrals,
reamortizations, subordination, debt forgiveness, etc. Funds were
provided in fiscal year 2006 for a demonstration revitalization program
for rural rental housing properties.
Please provide a summary of actions taken under the fiscal year
2006 revitalization demonstration program.
Answer. Last year we were able to approve and obligate funding to
revitalize 78 properties with over 2,300 apartment units in 16 States,
using $8.9 million in budget authority provided to the demonstration
program.
Question. How much of the funds were utilized and in what manner?
Answer. We were able to obligate the following program level
amounts: $48 million in debt deferral, $4.5 million in soft ``bullet''
(any loan that requires a generous repayment term usually at the end of
the life of the loan and it is anticipated that the loan will be
refinanced) loans, $.28 million in zero percent loans and $.21 million
in grants.
Question. What is the status of a demonstration for fiscal year
2007?
Answer. With a similar level of budget authority this year, we
anticipate that the funding NOFA will be released during the month of
April. Our key demonstration goals this year are to fund revitalization
transactions in every State, fund an increased number of portfolio
level transactions and increase the use of leveraged funds.
Question. What is the status of the Administration's revitalization
legislation proposal?
Answer. Our legislative proposal is currently in the final stages
of review. We expect to transmit it to Congress shortly.
Question. What were the lessons learned under the fiscal year 2006
demonstration and have you revised the legislative proposal
accordingly?
Answer. We found last year that by using debt deferral and
carefully underwriting revitalization transactions, we were able to
approve transactions with very limited rent increases. We also found
last year that applications were received from approximately 4,100
properties or a quarter of the Section 515 properties in our portfolio.
The large number of applicants reflects the clear need to have new cost
effective revitalization tools to help preserve this valuable
portfolio.
MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING VOUCHERS
Question. In the face of loan prepayment demands by multi-family
housing property owners, raising the specter of increased rents for
very low income rural tenants, $16 million was provided in fiscal year
2006 for rental housing vouchers.
How many properties, containing how many units, prepaid in fiscal
year 2006?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006, owners of 151 properties containing
2,330 units went through the Rural Development prepayment process. In
addition, 58 properties containing about 1,000 units completed the
foreclosure process. This was a total of 209 properties containing
3,330 units.
Question. How many properties and units do you expect to prepay in
fiscal year 2007 and in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. We are currently forecasting a total of 225 properties
containing about 3,600 units to prepay or complete foreclosure
proceedings in fiscal year 2007. We are currently forecasting a total
of 275 properties containing about 4,400 units to prepay or complete
foreclosure proceedings in fiscal year 2008.
Question. How many vouchers, using how much of the funds, were
obligated in fiscal year 2006?
Answer. In fiscal year 2006, we offered vouchers to all tenants in
properties where the mortgage was prepaid after September 30, 2005. The
first voucher was issued in April, 2006. Three hundred and eight one-
year vouchers were obligated for a total of $601,000 which represents
12 months of payment.
Question. What are your forecasts for voucher utilization in fiscal
year 2007 and fiscal year 2008?
Answer. In the first 6 months of fiscal year 2007, approximately
600 vouchers were obligated for a total of $1.5 million. We are
estimating to obligate a total of 1,800 vouchers this fiscal year and
we estimate obligating about 2,200 vouchers in fiscal year 2008. Our
experience, somewhat limited at this point, is that about half of a
property's tenants accept the offer of a voucher, and of those about
half utilize the voucher. The majority of the tenants utilize the
voucher in the property where they were living at the time of
prepayment or foreclosure, although the voucher can be used in any
property where the owner will accept it.
RURAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
Question. Mr. Secretary, this Budget, again, terminates successful
grant programs that promote economic development and job creation in
rural America. Rural Business Enterprise Grants (RBEG) facilitate
development of small and emerging business enterprises, while Rural
Business Opportunity Grants (RBOG) provide technical assistance for
business development planning. Current funding levels would create or
save about 24,500 jobs, through 560 recipients, in rural areas
desperately needing development assistance.
On a cost per job basis, these grant programs are probably the most
effective in the Rural Development portfolio. Why is the Administration
proposing to terminate such successful programs?
Answer. Funding can be provided by other business loan and grant
programs within the Federal Government and rural development.
Question. This proposal was soundly rejected last year. What has
changed in the rural economy to make this proposal now more palatable?
Answer. Limited discretionary funding, higher priorities, and the
need to support other Departmental priorities all played into the
Administration's proposal. Rural Development intends to focus its
resources on programs with higher potential for encouraging private-
sector investments, and that would reach a broader range of rural
communities.
FINANCING NEW ELECTRIC GENERATION FACILITIES
Question. Mr. Secretary, we understand that there are about 66
electric Generation and Transmission (G&T) cooperatives and 864
distributional cooperatives, many of which rely on the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS) electric loan program for financing. These cooperatives
serve about 13 percent of U.S. electric customers, provide 11 percent
of electric sales, and own about 4 percent of total U.S. operational
capacity.
Cooperatives are entering a new wave of power plant investment to
increase capacity and replace aging infrastructure that dates from the
mid-1970's to mid 1980's. Planning for new construction takes several
years, followed by construction periods that can span 5 years or
longer. Cooperatives depend on the Federal Government for adequate, low
cost financing to accommodate the Nation's growing energy needs.
Financing is principally provided by Federal Financing Bank (FFB) loans
guaranteed by RUS, which is offered at Treasury interest rates plus \1/
8\ percent.
We are concerned that this Budget will not meet capital needs of
rural electric cooperatives. RUS currently has applications exceeding
$10 billion for generation and transmission purposes, scheduled for
funding in fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. About 80 percent of
this total is for construction of new baseload generation. This Budget
seeks only $4.1 billion in fiscal year 2008 funding, and, for the first
time, bars funding for new baseload generation.
Prohibiting new baseload generation will make many of these plants
less feasible economically at a time when electricity demand is growing
rapidly. Rural consumers already pay an average of 12 percent higher
electric rates than neighboring utilities. Terminating Federal funding
will force rural electric cooperatives to face higher interest rates,
shorter loan terms, and raise rates charged to rural customers.
In the face of demonstrated needs for extensive infrastructure
replacement and expansion, why is the Administration barring access to
financing for new baseload generation?
Answer. There are significant demands on RUS electric loan
resources. Needs for transmission and plant upgrades, including
environmental upgrades, as well as the need for new generation plans
are high. Due to the inherent risks associated with construction of
baseload generation, other significant demands on loan resources and
the ability to obtain commercial financing, the Administration
determined that restricting the use of electric loan funds made the
best use of taxpayer funds while still providing significant support
for rural electric needs.
However, understanding the concerns of Congress, the Administration
has committed to providing a generation only subsidy rate.
Question. What studies has the Administration performed that
indicate sufficient private financing is available to meet this
immediate need for baseload generation?
Answer. Though no studies have been conducted by the
Administration, there is significant liquidity in the capital markets
to absorb demand for this segment of the energy sector.
Question. Has the RUS estimated the impacts of this policy change
on electricity costs of rural consumers? What are the impacts?
Answer. The Administration has not estimated the impacts of this
proposal on electricity costs.
WATER AND WASTE PROGRAM
Question. Mr. Secretary, Rural Development's Water and Waste Water
program has provided loan and grant funds for years to small rural
communities to ensure adequate clean water and sanitary waste disposal
systems. This Budget again proposes to alter the method to determine
borrower interest rates. Poverty and intermediate interest rates would
float such that the poverty rate would be 60 percent of the market rate
and the intermediate rate would be 80 percent of market. In the current
interest rate environment, poverty and intermediate interest rates
would substantially fall. Projects would be financed with substantially
more debt and reduced grant funds, but with little change in
communities' debt burdens due to the dramatic interest rate reductions.
Will you provide assurance that small, poor communities will not be
left out of the program, and that debt burdens will not increase and
raise water and sewer rates?
Answer. The lower interest rate would allow a small community to
borrow more loan funds without an increase in their annual debt
repayment. While a community's total debt may increase, their annual
debt burden should not increase and will not raise water and sewer
rates. Our objective is to provide a funding mix of low interest loan
and grant funds to keep user rates reasonable and consistent with the
cost of similar systems in the area. It is still anticipated that grant
funds would be focused on helping the neediest communities. With lower
interest rates, we would be able to increase our reach to more
communities with lower incomes.
Question. Do regulations still allow borrowers with loan funds
obligated but not closed to receive the interest rate in effect at the
time of obligation or closing?
Answer. Yes.
Question. What is the magnitude of loan funds currently obligated
but not closed?
Answer. As of March 13, 2007, there were $2,482,693,545 in loan
funds obligated but not closed. This represents 1,813 unclosed loan
obligations.
Question. Please provide a distribution of unclosed obligations, by
year.
Answer. As of March 13, 2007, the unclosed obligations by year
were:
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year No. Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007.................................... 209 $270,506,775
2006.................................... 655 845,439,746
2005.................................... 399 569,531,323
2004.................................... 226 328,100,059
2003.................................... 116 164,029,838
2002.................................... 113 172,123,226
2001.................................... 25 37,473,080
2000.................................... 24 39,727,518
1999.................................... 19 21,932,140
1998.................................... 15 23,712,840
1997.................................... 5 4,201,300
1996.................................... 4 4,260,700
1995.................................... .............. ..............
1994.................................... 1 300,000
1993.................................... 2 1,355,000
-------------------------------
Total............................. 1,813 2,482,693,545
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ISSUES
Question. Mr. Secretary, it appears that automated systems for the
Farm Service Agency (FSA) are currently in an untenable situation. The
current spate of severe access and response problems emerged last
November, peaking in January with field offices experiencing only
sporadic, random access to program software. FSA program participants
faced substantial delays while FSA field staff endured long, erratic
periods of unresponsive software.
Please describe how this Budget addresses FSA IT needs.
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget provides sufficient
funding to maintain the IT system at its current level of operation.
USDA is working with the Office of Management and Budget to identify an
appropriate funding source for stabilization and modernization.
Question. Our understanding is that it will take hundreds of
millions to fully resolve the unstable IT situation. Please provide a
detailed plan, with associated costs, that generates a long-term,
sustainable, solution to this problem.
Answer. A business plan is being prepared to address the
requirements and resources necessary to stabilize the current system,
prepare it for implementation of a potential disaster bill and the new
farm bill, and replace the current system with a fully modernized and
integrated new system.
FSA's business plan includes the following major components:
--Network Stabilization (e.g., expand equipment capacity, purchase
monitoring tools and hire personnel to monitor the system)
--Stabilize Databases and Farm Program Payment Applications (e.g.,
establish proper test environment; employee training and
consultants to address database design, configuration and
problems; update applications; establish data warehouse for
queries and reporting)
--Disaster Bill (e.g., hardware, software development and testing)
--Farm Bill (e.g., hardware, software development and testing)
--Modernization (e.g., capital investments and incremental operating
costs)
--Field office system replacement (e.g. replacement of field office
servers)
The following table summarizes the estimated costs.
[The information follows:]
FSA IT SYSTEM STABILIZATION AND MODERNIZATION
[Preliminary Cost Estimate]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
---------------------------------------------------------------- Total Cost
2007 2008 2009 2010 Requirement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Requirements:
Network Stabilization....... 11,467,850 12,966,667 12,548,750 .............. 36,983,267
Database/Application 12,983,000 44,047,100 12,067,100 .............. 69,097,200
Stabilization..............
Disaster Bill............... 8,500,000 .............. .............. .............. 8,500,000
Farm Bill \1\............... 16,000,000 42,000,000 .............. .............. 58,000,000
Modernization............... 675,521 132,154,811 120,572,189 .............. 253,402,521
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 49,626,371 231,168,578 145,188,039 .............. 425,982,988
===============================================================================
Incremental Operating
Requirements:
Network Stabilization....... 4,949,286 5,307,077 6,798,435 1,556,275 18,611,072
Database/Application 8,120,857 7,245,800 8,864,800 .............. 24,231,457
Stabilization..............
Disaster Bill............... .............. 5,080,000 25,420,000 .............. 30,500,000
Farm Bill \1\............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
Modernization............... .............. 12,118,000 12,364,000 .............. 24,482,000
Field Office System .............. 19,200,000 9,600,000 .............. 28,800,000
Replacement \2\............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 13,070,143 48,950,877 63,047,235 1,556,275 126,624,530
===============================================================================
Total Cost:
Network Stabilization....... 16,417,136 18,273,743 19,347,185 1,556,275 55,594,339
Database/Application 21,103,857 51,292,900 20,931,900 .............. 93,328,657
Stabilization..............
Disaster Bill............... 8,500,000 5,080,000 25,420,000 .............. 39,000,000
Farm Bill \1\............... 16,000,000 42,000,000 .............. .............. 58,000,000
Modernization............... 675,521 144,272,811 132,936,189 .............. 277,884,521
Field Office System .............. 19,200,000 9,600,000 .............. 28,800,000
Replacement \2\............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 62,696,514 280,119,454 208,235,274 1,556,275 552,607,517
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Farm Bill estimate includes only IT related costs. Additional expenditures to deliver the 2007 Farm Bill
will be required. For example, temporary employee cost for the 2002 Farm Bill was approximately $26 million
for 1,100 temporary employees.
\2\ Includes only those costs necessary to upgrade network servers located in field office locations. Estimate
does not include normal replacement costs for other field office equipment (e.g. phone systems, printers,
workstations, mobile devices, GPS systems, etc.) which may also be approaching the end of their expected
useful life.
FSA FIELD STAFF AND OFFICE STRUCTURE
Question. Mr. Secretary, adequate FSA field staffing and office
locations have been issues for some time. Substantial concerns were
raised in the recent past in response to FSA plans to restructure.
What are current plans for altering FSA field staffing levels and
field office locations?
Answer. FSA has asked each State Executive Director (SED) to
conduct an independent local-level review of the efficiency and
effectiveness of FSA offices in their respective State. There is no
national plan or formula for closing or consolidating offices. SEDs and
State committees have been directed by the FSA Administrator to form a
review committee to identify what the optimum network of FSA
facilities, staffing, training and technology should be for their
State. Efficiencies will be based on each State's individual needs and
will be within existing budgetary resources and staffing ceilings. FSA
is also committed to coordinating with Congress, stakeholders, local
groups and customers to ensure the agency offers the best service
possible.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Question. The budget request includes an increase of $24.8 million
for the financial management system of the Chief Financial Officer.
What will the total cost for completion of this system be?
Answer. The estimated cost for implementation of USDA's new
financial management system is approximately $90 million.
Question. How many years will it take for this system to be
completed?
Answer. Our preliminary schedule shows completion of implementation
at the end of fiscal year 2011. USDA is presently in the acquisition
phase and has yet to award a contract for services or hosting.
Question. If no funds are provided for this, will work continue?
Answer. If appropriated funding is not provided, the project will
continue, but will do so at a pace that reflects the funding that would
be available, and this is likely to be at a much slower pace than
projected. Funding would be sought from other sources--the Working
Capital Fund, reimbursements from customer agencies, purchase card
rebate proceeds, and/or any funds that might be made available under
authority to transfer unobligated balances. By relying upon these
alternative sources, implementation timing will be affected as these
resources may also be needed for other important corporate investments.
To the extent that implementation is delayed, USDA will need to
maintain operation of the legacy financial system, adding additional
costs.
CAPITAL SECURITY COST SHARING PROGRAM
Question. The budget includes an increase of $5,241,000 under the
Foreign Agricultural Service for the Capital Security Cost Sharing
Program. Since fiscal year 2005, this program has increased
substantially.
When do you expect funding for this to plateau and then start to
decline?
Answer. The Capital Security Cost Sharing (CSCS) program is
designed to generate a total of $17.5 billion to fund 150 new
diplomatic facilities over a 14-year period. The FAS assessment
comprises approximately 70 percent of USDA's total annual contribution
to the program. In the case of FAS, its assessment started at $0.6
million in 2005 and increased to over $5.5 million in 2007. It is
estimated to increase annually until 2009, at which time the estimated
annual assessed level will total approximately $9 million. This level
is assumed to remain constant at that point for the next 9 years with
FAS payments totaling as much as $140 million over the life of the
program.
Question. What assurance have you received from the State
Department that FAS is paying for space that they actually occupy?
Answer. FAS Washington staff have worked closely with our field
offices and with the State Department's Office of Building Operations
to correctly identify positions that should be billed to FAS. Also,
according to Section 604 of the Secure Embassy Construction and
Counterterrorism Act of 1999, the funds collected under the CSCS
program are devoted entirely to the construction of new embassy and
consular compounds worldwide, regardless of presence.
Question. Is the agency currently paying for space in facilities
where they do not have a presence?
Answer. The CSCS program funds construction of new U.S. embassy
compounds by contributions from all agencies in proportion to their
overseas presence. Of the 80 planned security projects in the next
seven years, FAS will occupy space in 27 of the new facilities.
Question. Which agencies at USDA contribute to the Capital Security
Cost Share Program?
Answer. Other USDA agencies that contribute to the CSCS program
include the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Agricultural
Research Service, Rural Development, Natural Resources Conservation
Service, and Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
Question. Is this reflected in all of their budget justifications?
If not, why?
Answer. Like FAS, APHIS and ARS display their contributions to the
CSCS program in their explanatory notes. In the case of the other
agencies, the amounts involved are less than $60,000 for 2008, and the
agencies have not displayed them separately from other administrative
funding.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLES I AND II AND FOOD FOR PROGRESS
Question. Over the past several years, funds have been transferred
from Public Law 480 Title I to carry out activities under the Food for
Progress program. Please explain the impact of your request to
eliminate the Title I program will have on the Food for Progress
program.
Answer. Food for Progress programming in 2008 will continue to be
carried out through Commodity Credit Corporation funding. The 2008
President's budget projects that CCC-funded Food for Progress
programming will total approximately $163 million.
Public Law 480 Title I funding to carry out Food for Progress will
no longer be available in 2008. Although no funding was appropriated
for Public Law 480 Title I for 2007, approximately $39 million of Title
I funding that was carried over from prior years is being used to
support Food for Progress programs this year. No similar carry over
balances are expected to be available during 2008.
Question. Is it your anticipation that there will be increased
availability of funds in fiscal year 2008 for non-emergency programs
under Title II? If not, is the Title I elimination another overall
reduction in non-emergency food aid programs?
Answer. It is difficult to predict with certainty what the level of
emergency needs will be in 2008 and, therefore, difficult to state
whether funding for non-emergency programs will increase above this
year's level. When the 2007 budget recommended no further funding for
Public Law 480 Title I, a corresponding increase of $80 million was
requested for Public Law 480 Title II donations. That increase was
approved and remains in the base funding level for Title II and can,
therefore, be used to support either emergency or non-emergency Title
II programming.
AGRICULTURAL RECONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES
Question. The Department supports the use of Provincial
Reconstruction Teams as a way to assist, re-stabilize, and promote
agricultural production in certain areas of the world, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan. However, it seems that many of the developmental aspects
of these teams could also serve in developing countries, such as in
sub-Saharan Africa, where the ability to promote food security is
crucial.
Do you think that the use of a mechanism similar to the Provincial
Reconstruction Teams could serve a useful purpose as part of an overall
global food security strategy?
Answer. The PRTs were first established in Afghanistan for the
international community to provide improved security and to facilitate
reconstruction, along with economic development, throughout the
country. The PRTs are seen as transitional structures and operate in
high risk, unstable and difficult situations. The PRTs have a broad
mandate in bringing reconstruction to the local people and allow the
U.S. Government to engage with key government, military, tribal,
village, and religious leaders in the provinces, while monitoring and
reporting on important political, military and reconstruction
developments. They also provide protective services to experts
providing assistance.
USDA has found PRTs to be effective in allowing USDA agricultural
advisors to work and directly affect agriculture on a local level in
Afghanistan and Iraq. PRTs could serve a useful purpose as part of an
overall global food security strategy, especially in reconstruction and
stabilization situations. In other situations they might have
usefulness but, as transitional structures, they would need to be
modified considerably to make them relevant and cost effective.
Question. If not, then why do you think they will be successful in
Afghanistan and Iraq?
Answer. USDA believes that PRTs in Afghanistan and Iraq are
effective platforms from which our specialists can operate. USDA's PRT
advisors continue to make significant contributions to the training of
Ministry of Agriculture staff at the local level, and they provide
valuable expertise to local and international non-governmental
organizations, donors, and others working in agricultural development.
PRTs allow USDA to work in close collaboration with other agencies to
plan and implement projects that utilize a combination of resources.
Many of these projects would be beyond the capacity of USDA alone.
CONSERVATION OPERATIONS
Question. For Conservation Technical Assistance, there is an
increase of $1,000,000 for a stand-alone financial audit.
Why is this audit necessary?
Answer. The Conservation Technical Assistance program is the
foundation for all of USDA's conservation efforts. This makes it vital
for policy officials to have the most accurate information possible in
order to make the best programmatic and management decisions. An
independent financial audit will help the agency identify weaknesses in
program implementation and help institute improvements for program
management and accountability.
Question. What concerns were raised in order for these funds to be
needed?
Answer. During preparation of the 2008 President's budget request,
issues of program management and accountability were closely looked at.
It was determined that an independent financial audit would help
identify steps needed to address concerns regarding improper or
duplicate payments; large number of up(down)ward adjustments, proper
use of commitments and obligations; and validity of open obligations
and reimbursable accounts.
Question. The budget includes a decrease of $17,225,000 for the
Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative but retains $10,000,000 for a
competitive grants program.
Please explain the purpose and aspects of this program.
Answer. By Congressional directive in recent years, NRCS provided
technical assistance to owners and managers of private grazing lands to
improve long-term productivity and ecological health. In fiscal year
2006, Congress directed that $4,188,000 (of the $27,500,000 GLCI
earmark) be used on efforts to manage the spread of invasive species. A
nationwide competitive grants process was used to carry out the fiscal
year 2006 Congressional directive. The President's 2008 budget proposes
to continue the competitive grants program to control invasive species.
It is estimated that invasive plants infest over 100 million acres of
grazing land in the United States.
Question. How will these funds be awarded?
Answer. A nationwide announcement would be issued to attract viable
applications from eligible government and non-government organizations
and individuals to compete for the available funding. The grants would
be awarded based on various elements in the applications including
purpose and goals, soundness of approach, proposed project management,
and transferability (technology transfer). A matching contribution
would be required of the applicant. A portion of the funds would be set
aside for competition among limited resource farmers and ranchers and
Tribes.
Question. What are the goals and expected outcomes of this program?
Answer. The objective of the invasive species grants would be to
encourage and support the management and control of invasive species
affecting grazing lands. We will use the ``cooperative conservation''
approach to address invasive species concerns on a local, statewide, or
regional basis. The use of Integrated Pest Management techniques and
biological pest control methods would be encouraged.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Question. The budget includes a decrease of $37,717,000 for
Resource Conservation and Development program activities. Included in
this is a proposed consolidation of RC&D Coordinators, reducing the
number from 375 to 50.
Why is this consolidation necessary?
Answer. The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis found
the program to be duplicative of other conservation and rural
development programs and the program does not prioritize or target
funding effectively. Specifically, the purposes and services provided
by the RC&D program overlap with other similar resource conservation
planning, rural economic development, and community facilities/
amenities development services provided by other USDA agencies (such as
the Forest Service and Rural Development) and other Federal departments
(such as the Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration).
Question. What plans are currently in place should the Committee
decide to decrease funding for RC&D?
Answer. While the overall program budget will decrease, NRCS will
continue to provide support through a state-wide RC&D coordinator. The
coordinator's role will focus more on coordinating USDA assistance
toward the implementation of RC&D Area Plans rather than day-to-day
operations of RC&D councils. For several years, USDA has partnered with
the National Association of RC&D Councils, Inc. to increase the
capacity and sustainability of RC&D councils across the country. Many
councils have increased their partnerships and financial portfolios so
they are less reliant on NRCS direct technical and financial
assistance. The budget proposal reflects an expectation that more
councils will be able to take on the additional responsibility.
Question. Will staff be folded into other agencies within the
Department?
Answer. The majority of RC&D coordinators are classified in such a
way that they will fit well within other jobs and activities of NRCS.
Most RC&D Coordinators were previously NRCS Soil Conservationists prior
to becoming RC&D Coordinators. The majority would easily adjust to soil
conservationist type work at the field level.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
Question. How does AMS intend to protect the organic standard in
light of current FDA proposals to approve food from cloned animals,
with no requirement for labeling?
Answer. In response to the FDA announcement regarding cloned
animals, AMS issued a notice to the industry that, pursuant to the
National Organic Program (NOP) regulations, cloning is a prohibited
practice in organic production. AMS also consulted the National Organic
Standards Board (NOSB) and received a recommendation to prohibit not
only cloning as a production method, but the use of their progeny in
organic production as well. AMS intends to develop rulemaking or
guidance related to clones and their progeny in organic production.
Question. What actions has AMS taken in response to the audits
performed by the American National Standards Institute in 2004 and by
the USDA Office of Inspector General in 2005, which made strong
recommendations about changes needed in the administration of the
National Organic Program?
Answer. The audit conducted by the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI) found that there were many procedures, required by an
ISO Guide 61 system (since revised by ISO and reissued as ISO 17011),
that the ANSI auditors were not able to identify during the onsite
audit. In response, AMS assigned a task force of experienced quality
system specialists to work on the NOP quality management system. Those
processes were completed by the September 2005 target date agreed to by
AMS. Some processes that require participation by certifying agents or
certified operations, such as our reinstatement procedures, have been
posted on the NOP website. Some additional procedures have been posted
as they were approved by the Office of the Inspector General, who
conducted a separate but similar review at about the same time. The OIG
audit found similar deficiencies as the ANSI audit and identified 10
action items to be completed by the NOP. All of the OIG action items
have been completed.
NATIONAL ORGANIC CERTIFICATION COST SHARE PROGRAM
Question. Of the $5 million provided in the fiscal year 2002 Farm
Bill for the National Organic Certification Cost Share Program, how
much remains unobligated and/or unspent? Please provide a breakdown of
the States with remaining unobligated and/or unspent funds, as well as
a list of States that have spent all of their funds.
Answer. The information is provided for the record. As of March 20,
2007, $148,340 is unobligated and unspent funds total $247,100 for the
24 States with funds remaining.
Eighteen States have exhausted all of their allotted funds:
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Seven States that have spent more than 90 percent of program
allotted funds: California, Maine, Michigan, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Dakota, and Vermont.
Seventeen States have more than 10 percent of program allotted
funds remaining: Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico,
Ohio, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
Eight States chose not to participate in this program: Alabama,
Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Nevada, Rhode Island, and
West Virginia.
Question. If funding for the National Organic Certification Cost
Share Program remains unobligated and/or unspent in some States at the
end of fiscal year 2007, does USDA have the authority to make that
funding available to other States? Does USDA plan to do so?
Answer. Within each AMS-State cooperative agreement, there is a
provision that gives AMS the authority to terminate agreements and
redistribute unspent funds to other States that have exhausted funds.
If States are not actively obligating funds and large balances remain
unspent at the end of fiscal year 2007, AMS will exercise this
authority.
Question. What is the total funding provided in the fiscal year
2008 budget for the National Organic Program?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 request for Organic Standards is $3.18
million.
EMERGING PESTS
Question. How does APHIS work to prevent things such as Emerald Ash
Borers and Asian Longhorn Beetles from entering the United States? What
improvements need to be made at the borders to prevent these incredibly
expensive pests from entering and causing these problems?
Answer. The Agriculture Quarantine and Inspection program protects
the United States from the risks associated with the introduction of
invasive agricultural pests and diseases. APHIS and the Department of
Homeland Security cooperate to carry out this program, and fund the
programs through a combination of appropriations and user fees. The
Pest Detection program supports APHIS' goal of safeguarding U.S.
agricultural and environmental resources by ensuring that new
introductions of harmful plant pests and diseases are detected as soon
as possible, before they cause significant damage. USDA is requesting a
$15 million increase in the Pest Detection program for fiscal year
2008.
Exotic wood boring and bark beetles such as EAB and Asian
longhorned beetle (ALB) likely entered the United States through
infested solid wood packing materials such as pallets, crates, and
other materials used in international shipping. These materials are
often reused and reshipped many times throughout the world. Many
countries have recognized the need to deal with the pest risk. APHIS
worked with its international counterparts to develop standards for
safely moving solid wood packing materials and implemented regulations
based on the developed standards. While APHIS and affected States are
still dealing with the effects of EAB and ALB and several other exotic
forest pests already in the United States, we believe that the new
regulation of wood packaging materials should help prevent future
infestations of this type.
Question. At what point do you make a determination that the
eradication of a disease isn't possible, such as in the case of citrus
canker? What are the next steps once that determination has been made?
Answer. Although each pest or disease situation must be analyzed
separately, there are several factors we consider when determining
whether or not eradication is feasible. Among these are: the
availability of adequate funding and active participation from Federal,
State, and industry cooperators; weather and any other environmental
constraints; the potential of the pest to do significant economic
damage to agricultural or forest resources; the extent to which the
pest or disease has spread; the availability of effective detection,
diagnostic, and control technology; the availability of acceptable
alternatives to eradication; public support for an eradication program;
the disease's public health significance; and the vectors associated
with a disease (e.g., mosquitoes, ticks, etc.).
Federal officials take all of these and other factors into
consideration as they determine whether the eradication of a pest or
disease is possible. If one or more of these factors change
considerably during the course of an eradication effort, the planned
course of action will be reevaluated. Prior to making any major
decisions about discontinuing an eradication effort, Federal officials
will consult with their State and industry cooperators, then update
policies and regulations as appropriate.
Question. Specifically for Chronic Wasting Disease, how will the
requirements for the States change with the proposal for a match in
which the Federal Government will pay for 60 percent of anticipated
program needs, and the State will fund the rest? Will the State funding
level need to increase?
Answer. The 2008 budget proposes a reduction of about $4 million.
The program requirements for the chronic wasting disease (CWD) herd
certification program (HCP) will not change with the funding reduction.
At the requested funding level, USDA anticipates the States and
cooperators would contribute additional resources to support the
efforts at current levels.
Question. More broadly, what amount does APHIS anticipate saving by
requiring increased State matches for APHIS activities? Is there
currently a mandated match level for States, or is this an entirely new
proposal? If a State can't or does not provide the requested match
amount, what will APHIS do then?
Answer. The following table is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Line Item Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Wasting Disease................................. $4,400
Emerging Plant Pests--Citrus Health Response Program 2,300
(Florida)..............................................
Emerging Plant Pests--Asian Longhorned Beetle (NJ & NY). 1,691
Emerging Plant Pests--Glassy-Winged Sharp Shooter 1,001
(California)...........................................
Johne's Disease......................................... 5,005
Noxious Weeds........................................... 300
---------------
Total............................................. 14,697
------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is currently no mandated match level for States, nor is USDA
proposing a mandated level. It is our goal to leverage increased
participation from the States to maximize the benefits received from
Federal dollars.
If a State is unable to contribute the estimated amount for a
particular program, USDA will evaluate the overall impact to program
efforts and adjust future funding requests accordingly.
APHIS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
Question. Please provide a chart showing all cooperative agreements
with States and other organizations to be carried out in fiscal year
2007, including total funding provided by Congress, and funding
retained by APHIS.
Answer. Given the timing of the full-year fiscal year 2007
appropriation, APHIS is currently in the process of negotiating with
States and other organizations in the development of work plans and
agreements for this year. Therefore, the requested information is not
available at this time. This information will be provided when
available, but not later than August 1, 2007.
Question. Was there any input gathered from those whose
responsibilities will be increased before this proposal was put forth
to decrease funding for Johne's disease? Are these activities that the
States, etc. are currently undertaking, or would have to pick up?
Answer. USDA has consulted with our partners in the Voluntary
Bovine Johne's Disease Control Program (VBJDCP), and they are aware of
our request. From its inception, the VBJDCP has been a cooperative
effort among APHIS, State departments of agriculture, and industry.
States have been the main driving force of the VBJDCP. A large part of
the Johne's disease funds not requested in the President's Budget has
been used by the States to pay for producer testing and risk assessment
fees. With a reduction in Federal funding, these costs will need to be
covered by producers who benefit from this program. In addition, State
and University partners would assume responsibility for continuation of
the Johne's disease demonstration herd projects implemented in each
region. These projects focus on new and current testing schemes and
control methods to determine the most effective cost management
practice options.
APHIS will continue to provide oversight to the VBJDCP and support
analysis of the national demonstration projects, along with continuing
laboratory approval and licensing diagnostic tests and vaccines for
commercial use.
COMMON COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
Question. Why is the budget for CCE decreasing this year, when
needs are certainly not?
Answer. Funding for the CCE has been comprised of Service Center
Agency (FSA, NRCS, RD) information technology (IT) purchases through
their own appropriations, in addition to funding provided through the
CCE direct appropriation. This funding has been used to develop an
infrastructure to support the business delivery functions of the
Service Center Agency (SCA) field offices located across the country.
The 2008 budget requests that $78.5 million with an additional $12
million for CCE activities that are specific to FSA be included in the
SCA salaries and expenses appropriations to meet the ongoing business
delivery needs. This funding will support the continued IT activities
of the SCAs as they jointly maintain the CCE infrastructure. In
addition, the SCAs will continue to work with the Information
Technology Services (ITS) division of the Office of the Chief
Information Officer in USDA. ITS is funded through reimbursable
agreements with the SCAs and delivers staffing and services to the
agencies in support of the CCE. In coordination with ITS, the agencies
will be able to ensure that the necessary services and staffing are
available to maintain the infrastructure and program delivery.
Question. Please provide a chart showing the total CCE funding,
either within the CCE account or at the Agencies, over the past 5
years.
Answer. A chart has been provided for the record showing the
funding for the CCE for fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2006. This
chart includes funding from the CCE direct appropriation, agency direct
purchases of IT equipment and services for the CCE, and agency
reimbursements of the OCIO-Information Technology Services (ITS)
through the Working Capital Fund (WCF). These amounts paid for ITS
operating expenses for the CCE and other IT activities, such as
Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
[The information follows:]
CCE FUNDING
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding Source:
CCE Direct Appropriation.... $59,369,000 $133,155,000 $118,585,000 $121,577,300 $108,971,000
Service Center Agency IT 29,174,241 30,924,733 30,748,000 55,413,000 30,265,009
purchases for CCE (paid
directly to vendors; did
not go through WCF)........
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 88,543,241 164,079,733 149,333,000 176,990,300 139,236,009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Does the USDA have a solid budget estimate of the cost to
replace the current outdated FSA computer system?
Answer. FSA is planning to implement a long-term modernization
effort known as MIDAS to replace its obsolete equipment. FSA
anticipates submitting a business case for this investment to the
Office of Management and Budget during March 2007. Preliminary cost
estimates indicate that this planned transition would require about
$278 million over fiscal years 2007 through 2009. It would also have a
total 10-year lifecycle cost of $463 million unadjusted for risk and an
estimated cost of $617 million when adjusted for risk.
In addition to this modernization effort, further costs must be
incurred to stabilize the FSA IT system components at field offices in
the short term. These additional costs are estimated to be about $150
million to bring the Kansas City web-based system up to at least
moderate reliability; about $97 million to implement likely disaster
assistance and Farm Bill legislation; and nearly $29 million to replace
obsolete field office components. Thus, estimated total costs of nearly
$553 million over fiscal years 2007 through 2010 will be required to
bring the current system up reasonable operating capability and to
transition to a modernized system. However, the actual modernization
component as noted above is estimated to cost about $278 million.
Question. Is an FSA replacement system part of the Farm Bill
proposals submitted? If not, where will this funding come from, since
it is not in the President's budget?
Answer. Funding for modernization of FSA's information technology
systems is not included in the Administration's Farm Bill proposal.
USDA is working with the Office of Management and Budget to identify an
appropriate funding source for this investment.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
Question. How many people currently on CSFP do you estimate will
lose all benefits, either by not deciding to participate in Food
Stamps, or receiving fewer benefits under Food Stamps?
Answer. We do not know how many current CSFP participants would not
participate or potentially receive a food stamp benefit lower than the
value of the CSFP package. We estimate that CSFP participants who opt
to transition to food stamps will receive an average monthly benefit of
$54 per person. In contrast, we project that the average CSFP food
package for elderly people would have a retail value of about $44 in
fiscal year 2007.
PROPOSED LIMIT ON WIC ADMINISTRATIVE FUNDING
Question. Please explain how the proposed limit on WIC
administrative funding will affect the activities that WIC providers
are required to carry out, including nutrition education, referral
services, and other important services?
Answer. We appreciate the hard work that WIC professionals have
done to create and operate one of our premier nutrition assistance
programs. However, nutrition services and administration (NSA) funding
continues to require a greater and greater proportion of the annual WIC
appropriation. In every other sector of government--Federal, State and
local--we have all had to learn to become more efficient within tighter
administrative budgets. We believe WIC can, too. WIC State agencies
have achieved remarkable success in controlling food costs; we have no
doubt that the same creativity can be applied to the NSA costs without
compromising important client services and program operations.
Our proposal would provide NSA funds at the fiscal year 2006 per-
person level. This would allow for a greater proportion of appropriated
funds to be used for food benefits and to ensure that funding continues
to be adequate to serve all eligible individuals who wish to
participate. It is anticipated that the total appropriation needed for
fiscal year 2008 would be reduced by approximately $145 million through
this redirection of NSA funds to food funds.
Question. Please outline how this proposal is different from the
fiscal year 2007 budget request.
Answer. The current proposal is intended to provide a reduction in
WIC NSA funding to slow its growth rather than to ``cap'' the funds
available for NSA at 25 percent as proposed in the fiscal year 2007
budget.
Current legislation provides an amount for State agency NSA grants
sufficient to guarantee a national administrative grant per participant
(AGP). The guaranteed national AGP for each fiscal year is based on the
prior year's AGP, inflated by the State and Local Purchase Index, as
required by legislation. The WIC AGP inflation rate from fiscal year
2006 to fiscal year 2007 was 6 percent.
Our current proposal would reduce the AGP used to determine the
proportion of funds made available for NSA in fiscal year 2008 rather
than using the inflated fiscal year 2007 AGP level.
Question. If this proposal is not adopted, will your request level
for WIC still be adequate?
Answer. USDA estimates that setting the fiscal year 2008
administrative grant per participant at the fiscal year 2006 level will
save approximately $145 million through redirection of NSA funds to
food funds. If this proposal is not adopted, then an additional $145
million would be needed in the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the
WIC Program in order to support average monthly participation at the
anticipated level of 8.28 million.
Question. Will the proposal regarding income limits actually save
any money? Will this proposal, if included, require States to re-check
the eligibility of all of their participants?
Answer. USDA estimates that approximately $2 million per year will
be saved by the proposal to limit income eligibility based on
participation in Medicaid to those individuals whose incomes are below
250 percent of the Federal poverty guidelines. This will help ensure
that WIC benefits are targeted to those most in need. The proposal
would not require States to re-check the eligibility of all of their
current participants. Rather, affected States will need to ask new WIC
applicants and applicants whose prior certification has expired to show
documentation of eligibility in a means-tested program other than
Medicaid, such as the Food Stamp Program or Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families, or to show documentation of their income to determine
eligibility.
Question. How many States will be affected by the income
eligibility proposal, and how much will it cost them to re-certify all
WIC participants? How many people do you think will have to be re-
certified, and how many ineligible participants will be identified?
Answer. Based on current Medicaid income eligibility levels, seven
States would be affected: Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont. The proposal would not require
these States to re-certify current participants. Rather, these seven
States will need to ask new WIC applicants and applicants whose prior
certification has expired to show documentation of eligibility in a
means-tested program other than Medicaid, such as the Food Stamp
Program or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or to show
documentation of their income to determine eligibility. We estimate
that approximately 3,000 applicants who are on Medicaid in these States
will have incomes above the 250 percent threshold and therefore no
longer be eligible for benefits.
FOOD STAMP PROGRAM LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Question. How does the legislative proposal in the Food Stamp
Program work to streamline Federal assistance programs?
Answer. Many of the proposals work together to streamline the
administration of the Food Stamp Program by simplifying complex
policies, while at the same time supporting low-income working
families. For example, we are proposing to exclude all retirement
accounts and certain educational savings accounts from resources when
determining eligibility. This simplifies the eligibility determination
on the part of the State agencies while encouraging low-income families
to save for retirement and their children's future even if they
experience a temporary need for food stamps. We are proposing to
exclude combat related pay for military personnel. This proposal would
make permanent a policy that has been enacted on a yearly basis through
the budget process. This proposal makes it easier for State agencies to
determine eligibility while supporting the families of service
personnel fighting overseas by ensuring that they do not lose food
stamps as a result of the additional deployment income. Taken as a
whole, these proposals would have a significant affect on streamlining
the administration of the Food Stamp Program.
CENTER FOR NUTRITION POLICY AND PROMOTION
Question. Please list all cooperative agreements or contracts
entered into by CNPP in regard to My Pyramid, including funding levels
and recipients.
Answer. Current contracts are for hosting and maintenance
operations, evaluation, customer service, and refinement of tools
already developed for the MyPyramid.gov Web site. Three cooperative
agreements exist for educational purposes in support of MyPyramid and
the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. No funds are exchanged
between parties for these cooperative agreements. A list will be
provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hosting and Maintenance Contracts (for support of
website and associated databases):
National Information Technology Center, Kansas City, $181,000
KS.................................................
American Systems Corporation, Chantilly, VA......... 90,000
Akamai Technologies, Cambridge, MA.................. 120,000
Evaluation (for 12 month American Customer Satisfaction
Index):
ForSee Results, Ann Arbor, MI....................... 25,000
Customer Service (for customer support specialist):
Network Management Resources Consulting, Inc., 79,451
Annapolis, MD......................................
Refinement of Tools (to increase usability of existing
interactive tools):
Porter Novelli, Washington, DC...................... 102,052
Cooperative Agreements (To promote MyPyramid and the
2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans):
Tufts University, Boston, MA and Safeway, Inc., ( \1\ )
Pleasanton, CA.....................................
Naturally Nutrient Rich Coalition (NNRC), Chicago, ( \1\ )
IL.................................................
Hispanic Communication Network (HNC), Washington, DC ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No funds were exchanged for Cooperative Agreements.
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Question. Will States receive the full funding level they requested
in fiscal year 2007 with the additional funding that we provided in the
Joint Resolution?
Answer. Funding levels for the States are reviewed in order to
determine the amounts they require to perform their inspection tasks
and may at times vary from the amount requested. However, adequate
funds are available for States.
Question. Is the President's budget for fiscal year 2008 sufficient
to provide the States with their full funding request in fiscal year
2008 for their State meat inspection programs?
Answer. FSIS requests an increase of nearly $1 million for State
MPI programs in fiscal year 2008, as stated in the amended budget
explanatory notes. The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget provides
full funding for the State MPI programs based on estimated needs when
the budget was proposed. FSIS will know the funding request from the
States sometime after August 2007, when the States provide updated
funding needs.
Question. Please provide information regarding any long-term
contracts FSIS has regarding public meeting space, including funding
spent on these contracts.
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service has no long-term
contracts for public meeting space.
Question. Please provide information on employee performance
bonuses at FSIS in fiscal year 2006, including the total amount of
bonuses provided to GS employees, and the total amount of bonuses
provided to SES employees.
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service's Senior Executive
Service (SES) performance awards for fiscal year 2006 totaled $269,362,
and were paid in fiscal year 2007 using fiscal year 2007 funds. For
fiscal year 2006, all other employees received a total of $2,774,926 in
bonuses.
Question. How often do processing inspectors working in combination
slaughter/processing plants have to perform slaughter duties because of
an absence of a slaughter inspector due to vacancies, illness,
vacations, etc.? Please describe the type of records the Agency keeps
in such instances provide those records for the past 2 years.
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service utilizes a variety
of strategies to staff critical slaughter positions when absences occur
due to vacancies, illnesses, and vacations. These strategies include
utilization of relief inspectors and relief public health
veterinarians, other-than-permanent employees, higher graded slaughter
inspection personnel, and processing inspection personnel. The use of
processing inspectors to cover the absence of slaughter inspectors has
been policy for several decades, and is the best use of staff, as the
presence of inspectors at slaughter facilities must be continuous.
Documentation of the daily staffing strategies utilized at each plant
is not maintained. Thus, records on the use of these staffing
strategies are not available.
Question. What is the current career ladder for FSIS inspection
personnel? For the years 1996-2006, please identify the number of
Agency employees by GS level that worked in Agency headquarters; that
worked in field locations. How will the Agency's implementation of RBI
affect the numbers of employees in each GS level?
Answer. FSIS' inspection program personnel include the following
primary occupations:
--Food Inspection (slaughter), GS-5, career ladder GS-7
--Consumer Safety Inspectors (processing), GS-8, career ladder GS-9
--Consumer Safety Inspectors (relief positions), GS-10
--Public Health Veterinary Medical Officers, GS-11, career ladder GS-
12
Under a more robust risk-based inspection system for meat and
poultry processing, USDA will continue using the same number of
inspection program personnel, spending the same amount of overall time
conducting inspections. Risk-based inspection is about working smarter
to protect public health by having inspection personnel spend more time
in the processing plants that need assistance and expertise.
A chart identifying the number of Food Safety and Inspection
Service positions at headquarters and in field positions (1996-2006)
follows:
[The information follows:]
FOOD SAFETY AND INSPECTION SERVICE
Actual Headquarters and Field Positions for 1996-2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grade Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash Wash
DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field DC Field
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Executive Service.............. 16 5 23 1 20 1 21 ...... 21 ...... 19 2 19 2 21 ...... 26 ...... 25 1 25 1
GS-15................................. 44 9 45 30 45 30 57 25 51 25 52 25 51 26 59 27 60 26 59 32 58 32
GS-14................................. 89 44 100 48 100 48 102 49 93 46 94 46 103 58 107 72 98 72 130 87 128 85
GS-13................................. 212 246 215 347 215 347 248 297 232 283 248 301 221 331 228 351 208 369 293 406 240 394
GS-12................................. 91 956 148 939 148 939 106 935 81 874 91 883 93 889 108 960 97 1,027 117 1,058 97 1,027
GS-11................................. 67 387 28 463 28 463 36 406 35 345 42 329 34 384 44 304 32 280 53 260 45 253
GS-10................................. .... 176 .... 195 1 345 .... 471 2 510 .... 515 1 516 1 494 2 459 1 409 1 403
GS-9.................................. 60 2,195 104 ,264 109 2,168 42 2,017 41 1,826 45 1,859 49 1,951 43 1,878 57 1,971 49 1,959 42 1,892
GS-8.................................. 25 1,235 8 1,220 8 1,171 13 986 11 1,023 12 1,046 11 1,068 14 1,101 31 965 14 959 12 930
GS-7.................................. 86 3,492 84 3,265 84 3,267 75 3,551 70 3,647 64 3,630 54 3,348 57 3,234 74 3,278 60 3,223 55 3,120
GS-6.................................. 73 63 38 70 38 70 34 55 37 47 27 47 17 43 14 42 11 50 14 48 11 46
GS-5.................................. 68 460 46 341 44 341 16 284 18 656 19 676 11 317 12 401 14 313 11 240 8 232
GS-4.................................. 20 84 38 49 38 49 7 54 2 34 .... 36 1 32 3 24 3 51 8 38 6 36
GS-3.................................. 2 17 3 6 3 6 1 ...... .... ...... .... 21 1 20 2 19 1 1 .... ...... .... ......
GS-2.................................. 2 2 .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... 1 .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ......
GS-1.................................. 2 1 .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... ....
Ungraded Positions.................... 2 19 2 24 1 22 1 23 .... 23 .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ...... .... ......
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Permanent Positions....... 859 9,391 882 9,262 882 9,267 759 9,153 694 9,339 713 9,417 666 8,985 713 8,907 720 8,863 834 8,720 728 8,451
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. In late October 2006, 493 beef carcasses at the Swift &
Company plant located in Grand Island, Nebraska were inadvertently
sprayed with sewage water. Instead of condemning the carcasses
according to the provisions of 9 CFR 318.14, FSIS management officials
instead approved a ``rework'' of the contaminated carcasses. Please
explain the justification for this action.
Answer. Under 9 CFR 318.2(d), USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) has historically considered offers to recondition
product if it believes that an establishment can make the product safe
for human consumption. I will provide more information on this
particular action for the record.
[The information follows:]
In this case, the establishment developed an aggressive
reconditioning plan based on relevant science, in close consultation
with FSIS officials, and approved by FSIS. After reconditioning,
extensive testing showed that, microbiologically, these carcasses had
testing results equal to or better than carcasses normally processed at
the facility.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 budget proposal calls for the
imposition of a licensing fee on all meat, poultry and egg production
facilities within FSIS jurisdiction. Will the approximately 1000
foreign establishments that are eligible to export to the United States
also be subject to such a licensing fee?
Answer. No, foreign establishments eligible to export to the United
States would not be subject to the proposed fee. USDA is recommending a
fee for each Federally inspected establishment or official plant to
partially cover the costs of USDA inspection services.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 calls for the imposition of
reinspection fees for all firms that are subject to failure of
performance standards and/or recalls. Will foreign establishments that
export to the United States be subject to reinspection fees when FSIS
auditors find violations of U.S. standards?
Answer. No. The proposal would not provide for charging fees to
foreign establishments that export meat, poultry or egg products to the
United States. FSIS may decertify foreign establishments, i.e.,
prohibit them from exporting meat, poultry or egg products to the
United States, if it finds that they do not meet the requirements set
forth in its regulations for imports.
Question. What is the status of the study being conducted in Canada
to justify less than daily inspection of processed meat and poultry
products that are exported to the United States?
Answer. The Canadians are continuing their study of less-than-daily
inspection, and nothing has been submitted to USDA at this time. Once a
study is completed, it will need to be peer reviewed and the data
assessed by USDA. The Canadians will maintain daily inspection for any
product exported to the United States until the study is completed and
reviewed and a decision is made on how to proceed.
Question. What is the Meat Safety Enhancement Program as it applies
to meat imports from Australia? How does it differ from traditional
inspection procedures? Have there been any Australian establishments
approved to export meat products to the United States using MSEP? Are
there any pending applications from any Australian meat establishments
to use MSEP to export to the United States? If there are, what is the
status of those applications? What criteria will FSIS use to make its
final determination on the viability of those applications?
Answer. Australia's Meat Safety Enhancement Program (MSEP) is an
alternative inspection program to Australia's traditional slaughter
inspection procedures, which rely solely on government-paid inspectors.
MSEP differs from Australia's traditional inspection approach by using
both company inspectors and government-paid inspectors. It was
developed by the Australian government patterned after the United
States' HACCP-Based Inspection Model Project (HIMP). USDA's Food Safety
and Inspection Service determined MSEP to be equivalent in 1999. While
one MSEP establishment in Australia has applied for the ability to
export its product to the United States, FSIS has not given approval
until it completes its assessment of a pilot study carried out by the
establishment and the Australian government and concurs that the food
safety conditions established as part of the 1999 equivalence decision
are being achieved.
FSIS RISK BASED INSPECTION
Question. Please provide us an update on the FSIS announcement
regarding its change to risk-based inspection. What is the ultimate
goal of this change, and do you believe that FSIS has the right science
and testing capabilities at this time, to do this safely?
Answer. A risk-based inspection system will help USDA improve the
safety of meat and poultry products from USDA-inspected processing
establishments, and therefore decrease the incidence of illness and
deaths caused by foodborne pathogens.
Since USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) inspection
program personnel are in each plant every day, FSIS has the necessary
scientific and testing data to institute a risk-based inspection system
in processing establishments. In addition to considering the inherent
risk of product, as well as its volume, FSIS will use seven key factors
to specifically determine a plant's ability to control risk: food
safety recalls; verified food safety consumer complaints; noncompliance
records that are significant to public health, enforcement actions FSIS
has taken against establishments, ready-to-eat and E. coli O157:H7
sampling results, ready-to-eat Listeria monocytogenes control
alternatives, and a plant's Salmonella verification category. For more
information on how FSIS will measure risk in 30 prototype processing
establishments, visit the agency's Web site at: http://
www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/RBI_Meeting_040207/index.asp.
Question. Do you currently have enough data on E. coli, Salmonella
and Listeria testing, for example, to make sure that you are targeting
the right plants, or are you still collecting it?
Answer. The USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has
sufficient data to establish the plants' ability to control risk, but
the agency will continue to collect data on a daily basis. The data
already on hand is historical, and the last 12 months data can be used
to calculate ability to control risk. The data the agency will collect
in the future will give FSIS a snapshot of current conditions in
establishments, as well as provide the agency with a measure of
establishments' ability to control risk that particular day. The data
will allow FSIS to adjust plant inspection intensity in real-time,
based on current data, thereby being more proactive instead of reactive
by, for instance, increasing intensity after a recall.
Specifically with regard to E. coli O157:H7, Listeria
monocytogenes, and Salmonella sampling analysis, in calendar year 2003,
FSIS conducted over 80,000 analyses of samples, and that number grew to
almost 100,000 in CY 2006. These sampling data, particularly when
combined with the other risk-based factors, provide FSIS with a very
good picture of the food safety controls within regulated
establishments.
Question. Will risk-based inspection result in fewer food
inspectors at processing facilities?
Answer. Under a more robust risk-based inspection system for meat
and poultry processing, USDA will continue using the same number of
inspection program personnel, spending the same amount of overall time
conducting inspections. Risk-based inspection is about working smarter
to protect public health by having inspection personnel spend more time
in the processing plants that need assistance and expertise.
Question. What level of funding has been used so far to develop
this program?
Answer. FSIS has not dedicated a specific funding level for the
risk-based inspection initiative. However, some of the recent
expenditures for this effort include public meetings and technical
summits, employee meetings, meetings with the National Advisory
Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, a contract with Resolve Inc.,
and other miscellaneous items.
Question. Please provide a detailed explanation of the evaluation
FSIS will undertake of the pilot risk-based inspection program before
expanding it to further plants. How will you measure success or
failure, and what are the parameters of that determination?
Answer. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) intends to
implement and review risk-based inspection for processing in a careful
and deliberative manner. The perfect report card for the long-term
would be a measured decrease of food borne disease and death. While
FSIS is still in the process of developing how we intend to evaluate
RBIS, in the near-term, FSIS will compare such measures as verified
consumer food safety complaints, product recalls, and changes in the
effectiveness of establishment risk controls between RBIS and
traditionally-inspected establishments. In addition, FSIS will be
interviewing inspection program personnel, and the USDA's Office of
Inspector General will be continuing to audit the development and
implementation of RBIS.
Question. What role is turning off the PBIS inspection task
scheduler playing in risk-based inspection in processing? Have there
been circumstances when the PBIS scheduler has been turned off within
the past 5 years, and if so, please identify those circumstances and
the reasons for them.
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) will no
longer use the Performance Based Inspection System (PBIS) database
scheduler in the initial 30 prototype processing locations under risk-
based inspection. However, at that time, the agency will not
discontinue the use of PBIS as a whole--only the scheduler. Processing
inspectors at the prototype processing locations will continue to
report their findings into the PBIS system, and these data will be
analyzed on an on-going basis.
In 2000, FSIS allowed District Offices the option of not scheduling
the inspection procedures to be performed in a plant on a specific day.
This change recognized that some establishments operate seasonally,
such as plants that specialize in seasonal or holiday meats; some
operate infrequently, such as one day per week; and some prepare
products for inspection by FSIS and by the Department of Health and
Human Services' Food and Drug Administration on different days. This
policy saves inspection program personnel time, since they do not have
to check a ``not performed'' box for a day when an establishment is
simply not producing FSIS-inspected product.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 budget proposal calls for the
expenditure of funds during the last quarter of the fiscal year to
cover the costs of training and relocation of staff when risk-based
inspection in slaughter is implemented. How did the Agency arrive at
those figures? Does the Agency anticipate reductions in staff when
risk-based inspection in slaughter is implemented?
Answer. The agency's goal is to begin to implement risk-based
inspection for young chickens at slaughter plants during the last
quarter of fiscal year 2008. For that to happen, FSIS will need to have
a final rule in place.
Implementation of risk-based inspection in slaughter facilities is
projected to require two weeks of training for Food Inspectors and one
week for Consumer Safety Inspectors. Cost considerations include
travel, per diem, supplies, and materials as well as backfill of
frontline inspection personnel while employees are in training. These
costs also include post-training meetings conducted by FSIS' Technical
Service Center employees to ensure consistent policy application. Other
cost considerations include employee relocation expenses in accordance
with Federal travel regulations.
Risk-based inspection in processing establishments will not lead to
reductions in the inspection program personnel workforce. Once it is
implemented in the future, risk-based inspection for slaughter may
result in a redistribution of the inspection workforce.
Question. Does the Agency anticipate reductions in the overall
inspection workforce as it implements both risk-based inspection in
processing and slaughter? If it does, what role will attrition play in
those reductions? Will the Agency be forced to reduce staffing through
layoffs?
Answer. Under a more robust risk-based inspection system for meat
and poultry processing, USDA will continue using the same number of
inspection program personnel, spending the same amount of overall time
conducting inspections.
Risk-based inspection for slaughter will likely result in a
redistribution of the inspection workforce. Anyone who is employed by
FSIS when risk-based inspection for slaughter is implemented and
desires to keep working for the agency will continue to do so. Risk-
based inspection is about working smarter to protect public health by
having inspection personnel spend more time in the plants that need
assistance and expertise.
Question. What Notices and Directives has the Agency issued in
preparation for the implementation of risk-based inspection in
processing? What is the legal justification for implementing risk-based
inspection in processing without the need for formal rulemaking or a
change in existing statutes?
Answer. As of February 27, 2007, USDA's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) has not issued any directives, but will issue a
directive to personnel regarding the implementation of risk-based
inspection at the thirty prototype processing locations in order to
instruct employees on how they are to perform daily tasks. In addition,
before implementing the nationwide risk-based inspection system for
processing, the agency will issue either an updated or new directive
for personnel. I will have FSIS provide additional information
explaining this rationale more thoroughly.
[The information follows:]
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 511-599) is the
law under which regulatory agencies, including FSIS create the rules
and regulations necessary to implement and enforce the statute such as
the Federal Meat Inspection Act, the Poultry Products Inspection Act,
and the Egg Products Inspection Act. Section 553 of the APA, titled
``Rule making'' defines the procedures and specifies exemptions from
rulemaking. Section 553(a) of the APA States that matters relating to
agency management or personnel are not subject to rule making. Risk-
based inspection does not place new regulatory requirements on
establishments that will be subject to this new inspection management
strategy. What risk-based inspection does is determine which inspection
tasks are to be completed by FSIS inspectors for specific
establishments. This is a matter of agency management, and so is not
subject to rule making.
Even though rule making is not required, FSIS has engaged in, and
plans to continue to engage in, a public, transparent development
process in devising its new management strategy. The agency believes
that public involvement by its stakeholders will yield the best results
and the best positive effects on public health in the end. As FSIS
gains practical insights from prototyping risk-based inspection, the
agency plans to adapt the system to changing circumstances and its
evolving understanding as to how best to manage inspection staff.
Some of FSIS' public participation activities used in the
development of risk-based inspection include a two-day public listening
session in October 2006, and three public sessions with the National
Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection to gather input. In
addition, on April 2, 2007, FSIS will hold a public meeting to gather
feedback on the proposed methodology to determine plant ability to
control risk, and specifically how best to utilize noncompliance
records. The agency will also hold another public meeting on April 5,
2007, to determine to how to improve attribution data. Public meetings
are scheduled for April 25 and 30, 2007, to discuss how best to use
establishment volume and establishment reported data, respectively, in
the formulas for risk determination.
Question. What is the status of the installation of the FSIS
Automated Technology Suite (FACTS)? How is FACTS being used in the data
collection for plants involved in the risk-based inspection in
processing program? Please specify all the types of recorded data
available to the Agency that will be considered in making decisions for
risk-based inspection. For example, the Agency plans to use information
on Noncompliance Records (NRs)--what specific information is available
on a NR that will be factored into RBI decisions?
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service's (FSIS) Automated
Technology Suite (FACTS) applications have been incorporated into the
Public Health Data Consolidation business case. When fully funded, this
will allow FSIS to continue building an information technology system
that is modernized to consolidate data into one data warehouse system
and process and analyze this data through transactional systems. With
this initiative FSIS will be able to gather data efficiently, increase
data integrity and security, and expedite analysis of all FSIS data.
The data from the processing plants that has already been gathered,
along with risk-based inspection data to be gathered, will be stored
and utilized through the data warehouse system described above.
Since FSIS inspection program personnel are in each plant every
day, the agency has the necessary data to institute an enhanced risk-
based inspection system in processing establishments. In addition to
considering the inherent risk of product, as well as its volume, FSIS
will use seven key factors to specifically determine a plant's ability
to control risk: food safety recalls; verified food safety consumer
complaints; noncompliance records that are significant to public
health, enforcement actions FSIS has taken against establishments,
ready-to-eat and E. coli O157:H7 sampling results, ready-to-eat
Listeria monocytogenes control alternatives, and a plant's Salmonella
verification category. For more information on how FSIS will measure
risk in 30 prototype processing establishments, visit the agency's Web
site at http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Regulations_&_Policies/
RBI_Meeting_040207/index.asp.
FSIS FOOD INSPECTORS
Question. Please provide vacancy rates for food inspectors by
district. Please provide a breakdown of FSIS inspectors and plant
responsibility over the past 5 years.
Answer. As of February 27, 2007, the inspection work force has
increased by 139 positions since the end of fiscal year 2006. These are
potential new employees who have passed background checks, had
satisfactory interviews, and have agreed to a start date. At any given
time, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) shows a vacancy
rate due to a lag in hiring, attrition, difficulty in recruiting in
some remote areas, difficulty in recruiting in some high income
locations, and retirement. To meet current demand, FSIS projects that
we would have 7,500 in-plant personnel by the end of the fiscal year.
The information is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
IN-PLANT OFF-LINE VACANCY DATA \1\
[As of February 27, 2007]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Value
District Positions Employment Rate (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda......................................................... 275.00 229.00 16.73
Denver.......................................................... 278.00 253.00 8.99
Minneapolis..................................................... 185.00 167.00 9.730
Des Moines...................................................... 259.00 236.00 8.88
Lawrence........................................................ 227.00 206.00 \1\ 9.25
Springdale...................................................... 313.00 286.00 8.63
Dallas.......................................................... 229.00 183.00 20.09
Madison......................................................... 148.00 140.00 5.41
Chicago......................................................... 278.00 234.00 15.83
Philadelphia.................................................... 281.00 259.00 7.83
Albany.......................................................... 254.00 214.00 15.75
Beltsville...................................................... 190.00 170.00 10.53
Raleigh......................................................... 261.00 233.00 10.73
Atlanta......................................................... 333.00 297.00 10.81
Jackson......................................................... 317.00 296.00 6.6296
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 3,828.00 3,403.00 11.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Talmadge/Aiken (T/A) plants are not included.
ON-LINE (SLAUGHTER) VACANCY DATA
[As of February 27, 2007]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current
District Positions Employment Vacancy Rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda......................................................... 209.00 175.00 16.27
Denver.......................................................... 220.00 187.00 15.00
Minneapolis..................................................... 164.00 141.00 14.02
Des Moines...................................................... 413.00 373.00 9.69
Lawrence........................................................ 334.00 313.00 6.29
Springdale...................................................... 453.00 431.00 4.86
Dallas.......................................................... 337.00 309.00 8.31
Madison......................................................... 104.00 90.00 13.46
Chicago......................................................... 169.00 141.00 16.57
Philadelphia.................................................... 142.00 126.00 11.27
Albany.......................................................... 33.00 25.00 24.24
Beltsville...................................................... 275.00 255.00 7.270
Raleigh......................................................... 504.00 456.00 9.52
Atlanta......................................................... 509.00 450.00 11.59
Jackson......................................................... 612.00 576.00 5.88
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 4,478.00 4,048.00 9.60
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: It is important to note that the total number of field inspection staff identified above cannot be
compared with the total number of ``field staff'' in an exhibit of FSIS' fiscal year 2008 Explanatory Notes
entitled: ``Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff Year Summary -2006 Actual and Estimated 2007 and 2008.''
The field staff identified above relate to the inspection personnel whereas the ``field staff'' in the
``Permanent Positions by Grade and Staff Year Summary--2006 Actual and Estimated 2007 and 2008'' exhibit
relate to all FSIS staff outside of the Washington, D.C. area (e.g., Technical Service Center staff in Omaha,
Nebraska, Financial Processing Center in Urbandale, IA, lab personnel in the three FSIS laboratories, etc.)
INPLANT POSITION AND EMPLOYMENT FIVE YEAR HISTORY \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Line Off-Line Enforcement, Public Health
-------------------------------- Investigation Veterinariian/
Analysis Veterinarian
Officer/ Medical
Compliance Officer \2\ Total
Sla-07 CSI 08-10 Officer ----------------
----------------
GS 12-13 GS 11-13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Available Positions
Fiscal Year 03.................. 3,952 3,491 189 992 8,624
Fiscal Year 2004................ 3,652 3,749 195 983 8,579
Fiscal Year 05.................. 3,547 3,608 212 995 8,362
Fiscal Year 06.................. 3,509 3,556 215 966 8,246
Fiscal Year 07 \2\.............. 3,518 3,610 202 964 8,294
Employment
Fiscal Year 03.................. 3,310 3,226 189 838 7,563
Fiscal Year 2004................ 3,302 3,090 195 850 7,437
Fiscal Year 2005................ 3,217 3,150 188 831 7,386
Fiscal Year 2006................ 3,158 3,183 185 793 7,319
Fiscal Year 20071A\3\........... 3,147 3,181 183 772 7,283
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ T/Apositions are not included.
\2\ Includes VMS.
\3\ Current as of 2/27/2007. The end of fiscal year projected employment is 7,500.
OTHER THAN PERMANENT--STAFF YEARS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Years Usage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003.................................................... 438
2004.................................................... 377
2005.................................................... 310
2006.................................................... 298
\1\ 2007................................................ 360
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Planned OTP usage.
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Question. Is RMA developing any new products to serve regions of
the country that currently have few, if any, options for risk
management? If so, please explain them.
Answer. The Risk Management Agency (RMA) has undertaken an
evaluation of its product portfolio to identify gaps in availability,
particularly with respect to underserved crops and/or regions. This
evaluation found that, with few exceptions, crop insurance coverage is
generally available for the most economically significant crops in the
underserved regions. This result is consistent with the conclusions of
a recent independent evaluation of RMA's product portfolio. This
suggests that RMA should place greater emphasis on improving currently
available products to provide more effective risk management
protection, and target efforts on the development of new products
towards filling the few remaining gaps. RMA is currently conducting
comprehensive evaluations of several crop programs to identify areas
for improvement, particularly among underserved regions.
In addition, RMA has implemented several new products, most notably
Adjusted Gross Revenue (AGR), Adjusted Gross Revenue-Lite (AGR-Lite),
and two Pasture, Rangeland and Forage (PRF) pilot programs. The AGR,
AGR-Lite and PRF programs are particularly oriented to producers for
whom traditional crop insurance products were either impractical, or
did not provide effective risk management protection. In addition, over
twenty pilot programs are currently active that pertain to specialty
crops, including pilot programs for processing chili peppers, Hawaii
Tropical Fruit, and Florida Fruit Trees. RMA also has ongoing
development efforts for a revenue insurance product for certain
specialty crops, as well as an umbrella weather-peril product that
could provide effective coverage for certain crops with relatively
limited market value. Additional risk management tools are developed
through partnership agreements that impact underserved producers. These
partnership agreements deal with a wide range of topics including the
development and understanding of markets, pest and disease control, and
water management.
The Crop Insurance Board also accepts private sector submissions
that allows persons to develop and submit for approval their own
products targeted to specific risk management needs.
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Question. What is the status of the development of a National
Animal Identification System?
Answer. The National Animal Identification System is composed of
three components: premises registration, animal identification, and
animal tracing. Premises registration is the foundation of the program.
As of March 12, 2007, all 50 States, 60 Tribes, and 2 U.S. Territories
are capable of registering premises according to USDA standards, and
approximately 378,000 locations have been registered.
Significant progress has also been made on the second component of
NAIS, animal identification. As of March 12, 2007, approximately 1
million Animal Identification Number devices have been distributed.
The third component of the NAIS, animal tracing, is currently under
development with the help of USDA's industry and State partners.
Industry, through private systems, and States will manage the animal
tracing databases that maintain the movement records of animals. Full
deployment of the Animal Trace Processing System is planned for the
near future.
Question. If such an animal identification system is made
voluntary, what effect does APHIS anticipate that will have on
participation? What efforts will be made to encourage participation?
Answer. Participation in the NAIS is voluntary. The USDA remains
committed to building upon our strong partnership with the States and
industry to meet producers' needs and establish a versatile system that
makes sense for everyone.
Moving forward with this voluntary approach has allowed producers
the opportunity to test the program and recommend the most practical
solutions for a more effective system. In this sense, producers
themselves are playing an active role in helping to shape the NAIS
program so that it works well for their particular needs. Additionally,
a voluntary NAIS allows for the best price competition between service
providers (identification device manufacturers, database providers,
etc.) and leaves room for market applications (such as age/source/
process verification) to help drive the system.
To encourage participation, USDA has provided funding to facilitate
development and implementation of an efficient system, and flexibility
to adapt to producers' operations and needs. On February 2, 2007, USDA
published a request for proposals from nonprofit organizations that
wish to enter into cooperative agreements with USDA to advance premises
registration. USDA will make up to $6 million available, subject to the
availability of funding, for the cooperative agreements. These
cooperative agreements will support the efforts of such organizations
to promote the NAIS and, specifically, increase participation in
premises registration--the foundation of the program.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Question. Please provide a list of current plant and animal
invasive species, ranked by their threat level. What is APHIS' short
and long-term plans to deal with these?
Answer. The Administration has not ranked invasive species by
threat level. Invasive species that APHIS addresses include, but are
not limited to, the programs focused on cattle fever tick,
Mediterranean fruit fly, emerald ash borer, potato cyst nematode,
sudden oak death, citrus diseases, brucellosis, pseudorabies, and
chronic wasting disease. APHIS addresses each of these threats as
resources allow.
Over the long term, APHIS develops response plans for exotic pests
and diseases that have the potential to cause significant economic or
environmental damage and uses its safeguarding system, which involves
prevention, detection, and management components, to protect U.S.
agriculture. Under the Pest and Disease Exclusion mission area, APHIS
works to prevent exotic pests such as cattle fever tick and
Mediterranean fruit fly from entering the United States. These and
other pests have direct pathways into the United States. APHIS takes
action at U.S. borders or in other countries to mitigate the risks
associated with them.
Under the Monitoring and Surveillance mission area, APHIS conducts
plant pest surveys, animal health surveillance, and other activities
designed to detect exotic plant pests and foreign animal diseases if
they are present so that we can deal with them quickly if needed. These
programs target a changing list of high-risk plant pests depending on
trade and travel pattern and outbreaks in other countries. These
programs also conduct intensive monitoring and emergency preparedness
efforts. APHIS analysts follow animal and plant health situations
around the world and frequently adjust monitoring and surveillance
efforts and pest and disease exclusion priorities to safeguard U.S.
agriculture and natural resources from high-risk pests and diseases.
APHIS also works to control or eradicate high priority invasive
species through programs in the Pest and Disease Management area,
including, but not limited to, emerald ash borer, potato cyst nematode,
sudden oak death, several citrus diseases, brucellosis, pseudorabies,
and chronic wasting disease.
AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE
Question. We have heard several reports of genetically modified
material getting into crops intended for commercial sales, the most
well-known being rice. What has the economic effect been of instances
such as this?
Answer. The economic effect can be reductions in seed available for
planting and potential trade restrictions. For example, two popular
long grain rice varieties can no longer be planted for commercial
production due to the presence of genetically modified material. The
value of certified seed of these varieties produced in 2006 for
planting in 2007 is estimated to be $39 million.
GENETICALLY MODIFIED MATERIALS IN COMMERCIAL CROPS
Question. How is AMS, and USDA overall, working to prevent the
introduction of genetically modified materials into crops intended for
commercial sales?
Answer. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is
involved in regulation of the biotechnology industry. Various measures
are used in authorized field tests to ensure that genetically
engineered organisms are confined to the test site. The measures
include isolation distances to mitigate cross pollination with other
crops and weedy relatives, cleaning of farm equipment to mitigate the
inadvertent spread of seed, timely disposition of the field test, and
post-harvest monitoring for volunteers. To ensure compliance,
inspections of the test site, facilities, and records are conducted.
Once a crop is deregulated, that crop is considered no different than
conventional crops and may be planted without restrictions from APHIS.
For organic products, regulations of AMS' National Organic Program
prohibit the use of genetically modified organisms in organic
production. Accredited certifying agents review organic production and
handling plans before certified organic production begins to ensure
that no genetically modified organisms are used in production and that
handling procedures protect organic products from contact with
genetically engineered materials. Penalties are in place for
intentional disregard of the regulations.
VALUE-ADDED GRANTS
Question. Funding has been provided for Value-Added Agricultural
Product Market Development Grants since the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000. Ample time has elapsed to evaluate the
effectiveness of this program.
Please describe the types of products that have been funded.
Answer. A wide variety of projects are funded, including value
added products made from meat, dairy products, grains, fruits and
vegetables, oilseeds, and renewable energy sources. Grant funds
totaling $150,000 were used as working capital for the start up phase
of a new tilapia production facility where the fish will be raised and
processed into fillets. Other types of products include wine, compost
made from diary waste, wind energy, soy-flour, identity-preserved
yogurt, dehydrated apple slices, and branded cuts of beef.
Question. Are these products becoming marketable and sustainable?
Answer. Information about the long-term sustainability became
available early this year from a study that the University of Missouri
has done. The study indicates that approximately 60 percent of the
projects funded resulted in a marketable product.
Question. What are the outcome measures that are being used to
determine the success of this program?
Answer. Several measures evaluating the program are in place,
including the number of jobs created, the increase in producer revenue
due to the project, the increase in customer base due to the project,
and the sustainability of the business receiving the grant.
Question. How many grants and how much funding has been provided to
energy-related projects?
Answer. Since 2001, 155 grants have been made for energy-related
projects, totaling $25.2 million.
Question. How successful are these energy-related projects and how
do you define success?
Answer. We define the success of energy-related projects in the
same way as for other project types--we consider any project that
resulted in a marketable product to be successful. We estimate that
approximately 48 percent of energy related projects resulted in a
marketable product. This compares to 60 percent success in projects
over all for the value added program.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
AGRICULTURE QUARANTINE AND INSPECTION
Question. In 2002, agriculture inspectors who protect our Nation
from invasive species and pests at ports of entry were transferred from
USDA to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Consequently, now
USDA is responsible for creating the policy for agriculture inspections
at ports of entry but DHS is responsible for the implementation of that
policy.
Secretary Johanns, can you tell me how much control USDA still has
over the agriculture inspectors at ports of entry?
Answer. In order to fulfill the requirements of the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, USDA and DHS entered into a memorandum of
agreement (MOA) which specified the roles of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Customs and Border Protection
(CBP). Through this MOA, CBP conducts the majority of the front line
activities. APHIS provides training, risk assessment, and technical
support.
Question. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report that came
out last year noted that agriculture inspectors' morale is low, their
rates of interception of potentially harmful material is low, and that
there are fewer canine units performing inspections. Can USDA do
anything to improve these problems, or is this responsibility now
entirely in the hands of DHS?
Answer. After the issues were highlighted by GAO, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service within USDA and the Customs and Border
Protection within DHS instituted quarterly face-to-face meetings. These
meetings occur at both the technical level and managerial level. These
meetings ensure transparency and are a forum for addressing present and
future issues.
Question. What would be the positive and negative impacts in
transferring these inspectors back to USDA from DHS?
Answer. The USDA supports the President's decision to transfer
inspectors from the USDA to DHS. This decision allowed for the creation
of a consolidated border inspection organization which provides
information sharing, streamlined services, cross-training among
specialists, and innovative techniques that were not possible when
border inspection was the responsibility of three separate agencies.
Rather than limiting agricultural inspection to a relatively small
cadre of specialized inspectors, DHS greatly expanded the number of
inspectors who can screen air passengers and vehicles at land border
crossings for prohibited agricultural products.
U.S. FOREIGN FOOD ASSISTANCE
Question. As a result of continuing food crises in Africa and
elsewhere, Congress has been obliged to provide additional emergency
funding for Title II international food aid above and beyond
appropriated levels for the last several years.
Why has the Administration been unwilling to acknowledge that
increased demand for emergency food assistance has persisted, and not
requested funding above the recent levels of $1.2 billion for Title II
in the fiscal 2008 budget proposal?
Answer. The 2008 budget request reflects a careful prioritization
among the competing demands for international humanitarian assistance.
It is also important to understand that emergency food needs are
difficult to predict in advance, especially given the complex nature of
evolving, rapidly changing conflicts and the unpredictability of rainy
seasons in drought-prone areas.
Nevertheless, the 2008 budget does support our commitment to
addressing the most severe and critical emergency food aid needs. And
should unanticipated needs arise, the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
is available to ensure we can respond to them.
Question. The USDA policy with respect to the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust, at least as indicated in the budget summary
document for fiscal 2008, is that up to 500,000 tons of food is
available annually for unanticipated emergency food assistance. Since
the Emerson Trust now has commodity reserves of about 800,000 tons,
that would last less than 2 years. When does the Administration plan to
ask for funds to replenish the Trust?
Answer. The Trust currently holds 915,000 metric tons of wheat and
$107 million of cash. Based on a current price of hard red winter wheat
of about $216 per metric ton, that cash equates to approximately
495,000 metric tons of wheat. That amount, combined with the 915,000
metric tons of wheat held in the Trust, provides a total tonnage of
just over 1.4 million metric tons. Wheat is not the only commodity that
might be needed in an emergency, of course, but because it is used so
frequently in overseas feeding programs, it provides a good
illustration of the level of the Trust's resources.
At this time, the Administration is not planning to request funds
to replenish the Trust. However, in 2 recent years, $20 million was
transferred annually from the Public Law 480 program to the Commodity
Credit Corporation as reimbursement for commodities previously released
from the Trust, and those funds were, in turn, assigned to the Trust.
The Administration may consider future transfers of Public Law 480
funds that can be used to replenish the Trust, but current statutory
authorities preclude annual reimbursement and replenishment above the
$20 million level.
CROP INSURANCE
Question. Wouldn't the Department's request to utilize mandatory
funds to cover data mining and computer hardware costs cover some of
the same costs that the user fee proposal would pay for?
Answer. No. The data mining operation is conducted on separate IT
systems than those that would be funded through the user fee proposal.
The existing IT system used by the Risk Management Agency (RMA) is
outdated and is not capable of conducting the data mining activities.
Consequently, RMA contracts with Tarleton State University to perform
the data warehousing and data mining activities mandated by Congress.
NATIONAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT
Question. In 2003 Congress passed the National Veterinary Medical
Services Act to address the shortage of large animal veterinarians
across the country. Four years later the regulations have yet to be
issued for this program even though Congress has appropriated $1
million for the program. At last year's agriculture appropriations
hearing, you said the regulations would be done in 18 months.
When can we expect to see USDA release the regulations for this
program?
Answer. We plan to publish a Final Rule delegating the National
Veterinary Medical Services Act program to CSREES in the Federal
Register on March 19, 2007. Although there are additional
administrative steps that must be completed prior to the distribution
of funds, a framework for the program has been developed by CSREES.
CONSERVATION SECURITY PROGRAM
Question. As part of the Continuing Resolution for fiscal year
2007, it is my understanding that the CSP includes a funding cap that
will result in farmers and ranchers receiving a pro-rated reduced
payment for contract modifications, which they are required to complete
despite reduced payment.
How much of a reduction from the contract level will producers have
to accept? Is there consideration of giving farmers the option of
delaying their compliance with the modified contract if the Federal
Government is not living up to its side of the bargain to make payment?
If a farmer receives a partial CSP payment this year, will USDA pay the
rest of the balance next year (or out of any supplemental funding
provided in fiscal year 2007)?
Answer. Unmodified contracts and those that were modified but did
not exceed their 2006 payment level, are fully funded in 2007.
Participants with 2007 contract obligations that exceeded their 2006
level will receive just over half of the amount above what they
received in 2006.
If the producer is not in compliance with the modified contract,
the State Conservationist has the flexibility, on a case by case basis,
to make adjustments to the participant's contract.
CSP is annually funded and payments will be made up to the level of
funding made available by Congress.
APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER FOR RURAL AREAS
Question. In 1985, Congress authorized the implementation of a
sustainable agriculture information service, Appropriate Technology
Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA), to provide technical assistance and
information to farmers, ranchers, extension agents, educators and
others involved in sustainable agriculture. ATTRA now supports more
than 20 agricultural specialists working in six locations across the
Nation. I strongly urge USDA to not consider ATTRA an earmark given it
was authorized in the 1985 farm bill.
What will USDA do to ensure ATTRA's funding level remains intact
for fiscal year 2007?
Answer. Under the first Continuing Resolution $936,000 was
obligated in 2007 for ATTRA compared to about $2.5 million that was
provided in 2006. The revised Continuing Resolution reduced funding for
rural cooperative development grants and no further funding was
provided for ATTRA. No funding is included in the 2008 budget request
for ATTRA, although the budget request does include funding for similar
competitive grants.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
ARS RESEARCH FUNDING
Question. Secretary Johanns, in your statement you describe how the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for USDA meets the
challenges of the agricultural community by ``funding our highest, most
important priorities.'' That is why I was disappointed to see harsh
cuts to important agricultural research across the country,
particularly in North Dakota.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget cuts research at the Fargo
and Mandan ARS Centers. These cuts include research into wheat and
barley scab, sclerotinia--a white mold disease that wilts or rots
broadleaf crops, and precision agriculture.
Can you please explain why these research programs are singled out
for cuts in the fiscal year 2008 budget?
Answer. The 2008 Budget for ARS proposes to discontinue funding for
a number of research projects added by Congress that provide mostly
localized benefits and do not have a nationwide impact. Doing so will
enable the Department to focus limited resources on higher priority
research and on addressing important national goals such as emerging
and exotic diseases of plants and animals, renewable energy and
obesity.
NATIONAL ANIMAL HEALTH LABORATORY NETWORK FUNDING
Question. The National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN) was
established to create a greater infrastructure that enabled a rapid and
adequate response to animal health emergencies. In addition to
protecting animal health and the agriculture industries, these labs
also play an important role in protecting public health.
The Network was started with 12 ``pilot labs'' around the country,
and has since been expanded to include diagnostic labs from virtually
every State. My State of North Dakota is a full partner in the network
and is certified to respond in four areas, including avian influenza
(AI), exotic Newcastle disease (END), foot and mouth disease (FMD), and
classical swine fever (CSF).
Of the funding provided for the NAHLN, some goes to maintain the 12
pilot labs, and the rest is distributed to some of the remaining
diagnostic labs. It appears that there are inadequate resources going
into the NAHLN to adequately fund all participating labs or support the
infrastructure that was created.
Will the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for NAHLN
support some operating or structural costs of each participating
diagnostic lab (as supported by the American Veterinary Medical
Association, the American Association of Veterinary Laboratory
Diagnosticians, and the National Institute for Animal Agriculture)?
Answer. The NAHLN is a cooperative effort between the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) and the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). CSREES provides
infrastructure support to the 12 NAHLN pilot labs, while APHIS provides
infrastructure support to other laboratories in the network as funds
become available.
APHIS' fiscal year 2008 budget request will support upgrading three
laboratories to biosafety level (BSL)-3 requirements. The agency is
currently conducting disease risk assessments to determine the highest
priority labs for the upgrade. The assessment will determine those
areas that have the greatest risk of the introduction of a disease for
which diagnostics would require this level of bio-security.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
FRESH FRUIT AND VEGETABLE PROGRAM IN SCHOOLS
Question. With the President's Budget request, how many new States
will be able to join the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Snack Program this
year?
Answer. The Department is not proposing to expand the Fresh Fruit
and Vegetable Program. Instead, our Farm Bill proposal would increase
mandatory spending for fruits and vegetables in the National School
Lunch and School Breakfast Programs by $500 million over 10 years. In
addition, the Farm Bill proposal would increase section 32 spending on
fruits and vegetables by $2.75 billion over 10 years, some of which
would likely go to schools. The Department considered a range of
approaches to increase the availability of fruits and vegetables in
schools, and ultimately selected this approach because it has the
potential to increase fruit and vegetable access to the greatest number
of school children.
The Administration is committed to increasing fruit and vegetable
consumption, given their importance to health and the specific
recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Increased
funding for fruits and vegetables in the school programs will help
support the Administration's implementation of the 2005 Dietary
Guidelines for Americans in the more than 31 million lunches served
every school day.
Question. Is there a set of selection criteria at USDA for
admittance to the program?
Answer. Almost all of the States currently participating in the
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program were designated by Congress. Since
the Department is not proposing to expand the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program, we have not developed selection criteria for additional
States.
Question. Which States are poised to be accepted to the program
soonest?
Answer. The Department is aware that a number of additional States
have expressed interest in participating in the Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program. The program has been well received by students and
by State and local school administrators in those places where it
currently operates. However, we believe that the policy emphasis is
best placed on our Farm Bill proposals. The Administration's Farm Bill
proposals have the potential to increase fruit and vegetable access to
school children in every State.
BROADBAND AND DISTANCE LEARNING AND TELEMEDICINE FUNDING
Question. The President's Budget decreases funding for the set of
broadband programs housed at USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS). The
budget proposes to cut the Distance Learning, Telemedicine, and
Broadband Program from $85 million in 2006 (actual) to $31 million
(fiscal year 2008 Budget). Grants are cut from $70 million in fiscal
year 2006 (actual) to $25 million (fiscal year 2008 Budget). Total
direct loan levels are decreased from $1.155 billion in fiscal year
2007 (estimated) to $300 million (fiscal year 2008 Budget). Direct
loans for distance learning and telemedicine are eliminated entirely,
from a level of $156 million in fiscal year 2007 (estimated).
Can you explain the reasons why funding levels for these programs
were decreased?
Answer. The distance learning and telemedicine program has received
only a few applications for loans since the program was established a
number of years ago. The 2008 budget maintains the grant portion of the
program at its current level of about $25 million although it does not
include funding for other broadband grant programs for which about $20
million is available for 2007. The 2008 budget also includes funding
for $300 million in broadband loans which is expected to be enough to
meet the needs of those rural communities that have no or only limited
access to broadband services.
Question. How do these decreases fit within the President's stated
policy objective of making broadband universal and affordable by 2007?
Answer. USDA is providing a sufficient level of funding to meet the
expected demand for loans. Moreover, program regulations are being
revised to focus on areas that do not already have existing broadband
providers. These revisions are expected to improve the performance of
meeting the President's goal of universal and affordable service
budget.
Question. Are there alternative funding streams or mechanisms in
the President's Budget that make up for these decreased funding levels?
Answer. Currently the USDA's telecommunication loan programs
finance technology that supports Broadband ready capabilities. Further,
the Administration's 2007 Farm Bill proposal addresses the need for
enhancing rural infrastructure by providing an additional $500 million
over 10 years. Both the broadband access and the distance learning and
telemedicine programs are included among the programs that would be
eligible for this funding.
Question. Last, have you heard of Connect Kentucky's work mapping
broadband networks and increasing build out and demand in rural areas,
and would you be interested in looking at ways the Department could
work to facilitate similar work in other States and regions?
Answer. I understand that Connect Kentucky was recently recognized
by the Economic Development Agency for excellence in innovation. It is
a model for State-wide commitment for using technology to address
economic opportunities and quality of life. Most importantly, it has an
advisory board consisting of a wide range of public and private sector
partners. I would encourage anyone with an interest in rural
development to visit its website for more information.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT HOUSING PROGRAMS
Question. The President's Budget contains significant modifications
to the rural housing programs run through USDA Rural Development (RD).
Can you please provide detailed information to assure me that USDA
RD's overall loan activity in the area of housing would not decrease if
these policy proposals were enacted into law?
Answer. The 2008 budget provides for over $5 billion in housing
loans, which is slightly higher than the amount available for 2007. In
2007 the total single family housing homeownership lending available
was $4.7 billion ($1.1 billion for direct loans and $3.6 billion for
guarantees). Historically, RHS has offered both direct and guaranteed
homeownership loans. Beginning in 2008 however, RHS will only offer
guaranteed loans. The budget provides no funding for the 502 direct
single family housing loan program, but total lending for single family
housing homeownership loans will be $1 million higher then in 2007 at
$4.8 billion. The direction of Rural Development's single family
housing mortgage assistance over the last two decades has been towards
guaranteed loans. Solely utilizing guarantees for single family housing
mortgage is consistent with the other Federal homeownership programs.
In fact, there are no Federal single family direct loan homeownership
programs for urban areas.
Furthermore, financial markets have become more efficient and
increased the reach of mortgage credit to lower credit qualities and
incomes. While there are still rural areas with ``pockets of need'',
these areas are shrinking as improvements and innovations in the
banking industry take hold, use of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grows,
and lending through the internet have become more prevalent. Therefore,
utilizing the private banking industry to provide this service, with a
guarantee from the Federal Government, is a more efficient way to
deliver that assistance.
The demand for Rural Development's single family housing guaranteed
loan program has been consistently strong both among borrowers and
private lenders. We have no reason to expect a change to this in 2008
and are confident that with the requested level of funding for
guaranteed loans, RHS will be able to facilitate the dream of
homeownership to more rural residents than we did in 2007.
Question. What motivated the policy proposal of decreasing direct
loan activity to the area of guaranteed loans--are there differentials
in default rates or other operational aspects that inspired the
policies?
Answer. No other Federal agency offers direct loans for single
family housing. So the decision was made to conform to a consistent
Federal policy on the type of assistance to provide in promoting
homeownership. Further, guaranteed loans have accounted for almost all
the growth in our program activity since the mid 1990's and borrowers
with very low and low incomes account for 30 percent of this activity.
Default rates for both direct and guaranteed loans have been relatively
low, although this was not a factor in the decision.
Question. Currently, what is the difference in the terms and rates
offered to applicants on average through the direct loan versus the
loan guarantee program, and would the President's policies negatively
affect RD housing loan applicants?
Answer. In short, the difference is that interest rates on direct
loans may be subsidized down to 1 percent and there are no fees, while
the interest rates on guaranteed loans reflect the market rate and
there is a one-time fee which is currently set at 2 percent and
proposed to be increased to 3 percent in the 2008 budget.
USDA recognizes that guaranteed loans are more costly to borrowers
than direct loans and is examining alternatives for proposed
legislation to provide a subsidy to soften the difference. Specifically
to help replace the loss of assistance for mortgage credit from the
direct loan program, the Administration expects to propose legislation
to authorize a subsidized guaranteed single family housing program.
CONSERVATION RESERVE PROGRAM
Question. In terms of conservation, the Budget proposes to
eliminate new enrollments in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) in
2007 and 2008. The economics of high commodity prices will play a
significant role in landowner decisions to re-enroll in the program.
Given these higher prices and higher motivation not to participate
in CRP as well as the Administration's 2007 Farm Bill conservation
recommendations, why is the Administration proposing no new sign ups in
2007 and 2008?
Answer. As you point out, higher commodity prices will probably
dissuade many landowners from participating in the CRP. For this
reason, the Administration's budget baseline does not assume a general
sign-up for 2007 or 2008. However, continuous sign-up of high-priority
buffers, wetlands and other initiatives, as well as the Conservation
Reserve Enhancement Program, will continue and USDA encourages farmers
and ranchers to consider these opportunities. We are closely monitoring
interest in CRP re-enrollment, planting projections, and supply-demand
situations for various commodities to determine the most appropriate
future actions in administering the CRP.
NRCS TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNDING
Question. Also, I have been concerned to see USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) technical assistance (TA) funding decrease.
The fiscal year 2008 Budget proposes to cut TA from $708 million in
fiscal year 2007 (estimated) and $727 million in fiscal year 2006
(actual) to $689 million in fiscal year 2008 (proposed).
How is NRCS supposed to support higher program activities when its
TA allocation is being cut?
Answer. Higher priority program activities within NRCS will
continue to be supported in 2008. The decrease in conservation
technical assistance (CTA) that you reference in your question
represents amounts for Congressional earmarks in the CTA account and
reflects the realignment of the Administration's conservation
priorities.
It should be noted that NRCS also provides technical assistance to
producers through other discretionary programs as well as through
mandatory programs authorized in the current Farm Bill. Our 2007 Farm
Bill proposals significantly increase funding for conservation programs
and include the technical assistance component needed to implement
these programs.
BSE SURVEILLANCE
Question. In 2004, USDA boosted BSE testing. Over a period of 18-
months, a total of 759,000 cattle were tested and two additional cases
of BSE were detected. USDA has relied on this data to prove that BSE is
rare in the United States; however, USDA's Inspector General criticized
the expanded testing program. The IG noted that because the expanded
program was voluntary, the testing might not have captured a
representative sample of the Nation's herd.
Last year, USDA announced plans to scale back BSE testing by 90
percent and based its decision on the results of the expanded testing
program.
With 35 million cattle slaughtered for the U.S. food supply each
year, how can testing only 40,000 cattle each year be sufficient to
detect BSE?
Answer. The expanded surveillance effort, which was biased toward
finding the disease, was designed to estimate the level of disease
presence in the United States and provide input for designing a long-
term surveillance plan. USDA has now developed such a plan. USDA has
the ability to detect BSE at 1 infected animal per 1,000,000 adult
cattle with a high degree of confidence. This ability far exceeds the
international standards set by the World Organization for Animal Health
(OIE).
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Question. The Administration has worked to block each and every
emergency disaster assistance funding legislation we have attempted in
the Senate and it has consistently argued against the need for such
assistance. As I look through the President's budget proposal and the
USDA budget justifications I am struck by two things: first, that there
is practically no funding for drought and disaster assistance; and
second, there is no funding for efforts to mitigate the devastating
impacts of droughts and disasters.
As such, I have to ask what the Administration proposes to do, or
expects to see happen, with regard to the many farmers and ranchers
that continue to suffer from drought?
Answer. The Federal crop insurance program is intended to be, and
should remain, our foremost tool to assist farmers and ranchers
impacted by natural disasters of all types. The Administration's budget
request fully funds the Federal crop insurance program.
In addition, this Administration has responded, with appropriate
forms of assistance, to mitigate losses resulting from drought and
other forms of disaster. However, this assistance has been crafted to
specifically target producers directly impacted by adverse weather
conditions. For example, the Administration developed the Livestock
Assistance Grant Program (LAGP) which provided $50 million in State
block grants to help livestock producers recover forage production
losses due to drought conditions during 2006. Furthermore, I would note
that the assistance provided by this Administration has been provided
within our available resources. Accordingly, this Administration would
strongly urge Congress to fully offset the cost of any ad hoc disaster
assistance with commensurate reductions in other agricultural spending.
Question. And, if the Administration is so opposed to providing
emergency disaster aid why does it completely fail to provide funding
to help mitigate the impacts from droughts and natural disasters?
Answer. The President's budget request for 2008 was prepared on a
parallel track with the Administration's 2007 Farm Bill proposals.
Taken together, these two documents provide for both disaster
assistance and disaster mitigation. The 2008 budget request fully funds
the Federal crop insurance program which is intended to be the primary
tool for providing disaster assistance. In addition, a key farm bill
proposal would improve the counter-cyclical payment (CCP) program by
basing payments on revenue rather than price. Crop prices tend to be at
their highest following a disaster. Under the current design of the CCP
program high commodity prices means that producers are not eligible to
receive a CCP payment. However, this is precisely the time when
producers need the payments the most. Producers cannot benefit from
high commodity prices if they have no commodity to sell. Our farm bill
proposal would correct this situation by providing an effective means
of mitigating the financial effects of a disaster.
USDA RENEWABLE ENERGY AND BIOFUELS INVESTMENT
Question. I applaud the Administration's multiple investments in
renewable fuels and biofuels in the fiscal year 2008 budget, but I am
concerned that we are not doing enough to help this important industry
progress as expeditiously as possible.
Can you explain what the goals are for the renewable energy and
biofuels investments in this budget?
Answer. The energy goals of this budget are to expand research and
development of potential bioenergy sources and to encourage
commercialization of production facilities and infrastructure by
increasing the production of renewable energy, particularly biofuels
from cellulosic feedstocks. USDA will focus primarily on research and
development of innovative processes that are cost-effective and energy
efficient, and financial support aimed at advancing commercial
applications to facilitate sufficient amounts of private sector
investment.
Question. What achievements can we expect to see and when can we
expect to see them?
Answer. Ultimately, we expect to develop and encourage the adoption
of technologies for commercially viable, low cost and energy efficient
production of cellulosic ethanol. This includes the development of
commercially-viable, value-added co-products. This achievement will be
reached when cellulosic energy is a vital component of the Nation's
energy production as was highlighted by the ``20 in 10'' initiative in
the President's State of the Union address. Even though commercial
viability of cellulosic ethanol may be several years off, the
Department has already achieved numerous advances that will contribute
to this ultimate goal. Included in these advancements are innovations
in cellulosic feedstock development and research into energy conversion
techniques.
Question. In what ways do the various proposals for renewable fuels
complement each other--both within the USDA budget and across budgets
with other agencies such as the Department of Energy?
Answer. USDA has the scientific expertise for conducting and
administering research programs relating to all aspects of crop
production, including post harvest usage of crops. Consequently, it is
ideally suited to address these aspects of advancing the Nation's
biofuel industry. Moreover, USDA's Rural Development mission area has
the experience and capacity to provide financial support for a wide
range of business and infrastructure projects that will be needed to
encourage private sector investments in the industry. There are a
number of other Federal agencies that have expertise to offer, most
notably the Department of Energy (DOE) for its research capacities. To
avoid duplication and ensure coordination, USDA, DOE and other Federal
agencies are participating in the statutorily established Biomass
Research and Development Board to coordinate activities.
Question. Can you further explain how the USDA and DOE budgets work
together to make sure we are advancing our biofuels industry in the
most efficient and timely manner, without unnecessary duplication or
conflict?
Answer. USDA and DOE are working together through the Biomass
Research and Development Board and the USDA Energy Council. The
Administration's Farm Bill proposes that this relationship be
strengthened by moving the authority for USDA's existing renewable
energy and energy efficiency loan and grant program, which is a stand
alone authority contained in the 2002 Farm Bill, into the Biomass
Research and Development Act of 2000, which established the Biomass
Research and Development Board and contains the authority for the
Biomass Research and Development program that received funding under
Section 9008 of the 2002 Farm Bill.
Additionally, DOE and USDA will lead an interagency effort to
prepare a detailed multi-year interagency coordination plan (MYICP).
The MYICP will aim to improve the efficient use of resources by
minimizing duplication of effort and defining clear roles and
responsibilities for each agency and program. The MYICP will define a
realistic long-term vision for achieving public policy goals through
biomass utilization.
Question. With regard to the production of cellulosic ethanol: do
you feel that we (both Congress and the Administration) are doing
enough to make sure that not only are we advancing the production of
cellulosic ethanol, but that we are also keeping up on a parallel track
the advancement of the on-farm production of a diverse range of biomass
feedstocks--such as, developing the infrastructure and logistical
components for harvesting, transporting, storing and handling these
potentially bulky feedstocks?
Answer. Production of cellulosic ethanol is at an early stage of
development. New technologies will have a significant influence on the
types of infrastructure and other related needs for commercial
production. These technologies will likely affect even the location of
production facilities. Consequently, while USDA is aware of various
infrastructure and environmental issues relating to ethanol production,
it is too early to know what the funding needs to address these issues
may be. However, USDA does have research activities underway that are
looking into the issues of harvesting, transportation, and storage of
the feedstocks.
Question. Where in this budget are the Administration's investments
in this important part of the cellulosic ethanol production chain?
Answer. There are a number of USDA programs that are available to
support a cellulosic energy industry. Possible programs include The
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficient loan and grant program, Business
and Industry guaranteed loan program, and the Value Added Producer
Grant program can be used to finance renewable energy related
activities. In most cases, these programs serve a multitude of purposes
and funding for celluloic industry needs is not specifically targeted
for this purpose.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT GUARANTEED LENDING
Question. Can you further explain the Administration's focus for
rural development funding on guaranteed business and industry loans
versus other programs such as the rural business grants, etc.?
Answer. In general, loans and loan guarantees are effective in
providing support for rural infrastructure and they are less costly to
the Government than grants. Rural Development intends to re-focus its
limited resources on programs that have more potential for encouraging
private sector investments and that would reach a broader range of
rural communities. However, there is a role for the limited use of
grants for such things as market surveys and technical assistance as
well as demonstration projects.
Question. Do you have any data or other information that supports
concentrating funding on the loans instead of the grants?
Answer. The 2008 budget contains information on the Government's
cost for various loan programs. For example, it shows that the $43.2
million in budget authority for business and industry loan guarantees
will support about $1 billion in private sector financing. Further, the
Administration's 2007 Farm Bill proposal indicates that $210 million in
budget authority will support $2.17 billion in guaranteed loans. It
also indicates that the Administration proposes that the loan limit for
renewable energy loans for cellulosic facilities be increased to $100
million. If the same amount of budget authority were used to finance
such facilities, only a small fraction of projects could be financed
unless the grant funds are used only for specific purposes that
encourage private sector financing.
Question. Certainly many of the witnesses at a recent rural
development hearing before the Senate Ag Committee raised concerns
about an over-emphasis on loans instead of grants for rural
communities, especially when compared with how we provide funding to
urban communities. Do you have any information or explanation for this
discrepancy?
Answer. There is no denying the fact that certain needs for both
rural and urban communities require mostly Federal funding, for example
roads or rental housing projects. Minimizing the use of grant funds
allows Rural Development to provide funding to more communities. For
example, the 2008 budget proposes to reduce the interest rate on Water
and Waste Disposal loans and reducing the amount of grants. This
proposal is expected to provide more assistance to most rural
communities at no additional cost to the Government.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
Question. The Administration again proposes cutting the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) this year because it has concluded
that the CSFP program is duplicative of other nutrition programs. This
is the exact opposite of what I am hearing from folks in Nebraska,
specifically as it relates to elderly recipients and the supplemental
nature of the products this program provides.
What support do you have for the conclusion that this is a
duplicative program?
Answer. The CSFP does not duplicate other programs in every
respect. However, there is significant overlap between the CSFP
eligible populations of women, infants and pre school children and
those of the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children (WIC). There is also significant overlap between the CSFP
eligible elderly population and that of the Food Stamp Program. In
addition, low-income elderly persons have access to the Emergency Food
Assistance Program and programs administered by the Administration on
Aging. Our priority is to fund the Food Stamp Program, WIC, and the
Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) because they are nationally
available, including in the communities served by CSFP. I will ask the
agency to provide some additional details on this.
[The information follows:]
CSFP was created in January 1969 to assist nutritionally at-risk
women, infants, and pre school children by providing commodities in
specific amounts judged necessary for their health. WIC was enacted in
September 1972 serving a very similar purpose through provision of
coupons that could be redeemed at food retailers for supplemental food.
WIC soon became the preeminent program serving this population,
currently reaching over 8 million participants in an average month in
fiscal year 2006, while CSFP WIC-type participation is about 40,000.
WIC provides eligible participants better nutrition education, more
active referrals to needed health care resources, and higher
supplemental food benefits than the CSFP.
The Food Stamp Program is the Nation's primary domestic nutrition
assistance program for low-income households including the elderly. The
Food Stamp Program is a mandatory program available in all
jurisdictions. It is designed to provide low-income households with
adequate resources to buy a nutritious, low-cost diet. Because the CSFP
operates in limited areas, some low-income elderly have access to
nutrition assistance through commodities and/or Food Stamps, while most
others must rely on Food Stamps, TEFAP and Administration on Aging
programs for such help.
Ensuring adequate funding for programs that have the scope and
reach necessary to provide access to eligible people wherever they may
reside is a better and more equitable use of scarce resources than to
allocate them to programs that cannot provide access to many areas of
the country. For this reason, the Administration has placed a priority
on funding the Food Stamp Program, WIC, and other nationally-available
programs, such as the Administration on Aging programs for seniors and
the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), which provide benefits
to eligible people wherever they may live, including communities
currently served by CSFP. All seniors over age 60 are eligible for both
congregate and home-delivered nutrition assistance provided by one of
655 Area Agencies on Aging, which are funded through the Administration
on Aging in the Department of Health and Human Services. In addition to
the Administration on Aging programs for seniors, low-income
individuals of any age have access to TEFAP.
Question. How is it duplicative, particularly with regard to the
specific components of CSFP compared to Food Stamps and WIC; i.e. where
do those programs provide the food packages and items to needy and
elderly people?
Answer. It is duplicative in that there are other, nationally
available nutrition assistance programs that serve the same or similar
demographics. In the few areas where CSFP is available, there is
significant overlap between the eligible populations and areas of
operation of CSFP and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program (WIC),
and for elderly eligibles, CSFP and the Food Stamp Program. Both the
Food Stamp Program and WIC are available nationwide. Benefits in the
Food Stamp Program provide low-income households with adequate
resources to buy a nutritious, low-cost diet.
Question. Does the Administration have any idea of how many people
will not be served or by how much they will lose support?
Answer. Most of the current CSFP participants will be able to
switch over to food stamps and/or WIC. Spending for WIC food benefits
would be as much, or more, than CSFP benefits; and for the elderly, the
average elderly food stamp benefit purchases about 50 percent more than
the retail value of the CSFP benefit. There would be some current CSFP
recipients who would not qualify for either of these programs and who
would need to go to TEFAP and/or the Agency on Aging programs. I have
asked staff to provide more specifics.
[The information follows:]
Recent program reporting data show that about 463,000 individuals
participated in CSFP in 2006--40,000 women, infants, and pre school
children, and 423,000 elderly, persons 60 years of age or older. The
Department estimates that a substantial portion of the women, infants
and children who participate in CSFP will be eligible for WIC. The two
groups of CSFP participants that are not eligible for the WIC program
are children between the ages of 5 and 6 and certain women who are 6 to
12 months post-partum.
Based on the circumstances and experiences of all low-income
elderly, we believe about two-thirds of the projected 423,000 elderly
CSFP participants will be eligible for food stamps. Compared to CSFP
benefits, food stamp benefits are more advantageous for elderly persons
because they often have medical conditions that limit their food
choices. Also, food stamps allow them to select foods appropriate to
their preparation abilities and cultural preferences, both a challenge
to meet via commodity distribution, where food selection is more
limited than at food stamp retailers.
In addition to food stamps, all seniors over age 60 are eligible
for both congregate and home-delivered nutrition assistance provided by
one of 655 Area Agencies on Aging, which are funded through the
Administration on Aging in the Department of Health and Human Services.
Low-income individuals of any age also have access to the Emergency
Food Assistance Program and other government and private non-profit
programs that offer nutrition assistance.
U.S. AGRICULTURAL TRADE
Question. Finally, below are two common assumptions or perceptions
that many believe help drive farm policy development. I have a few
questions that correspond to these assumptions, and I would welcome
answers to the questions that include any information or compilation of
information (reports, charts, graphs, etc.) that address each:
Increased net agricultural exports through trade agreements
focusing on greater market access are assumed to have been successful
and that they hold the greatest promise for U.S. agriculture.
Has USDA developed a year-by-year analysis for the U.S.
agricultural net balance of trade for the years 1975-2006--including
the trade balance in both nominal terms, and in inflation adjusted 2006
dollar terms, as well as highlighting specific years when significant
agricultural trade agreements have been passed? Please provide.
Answer. A table showing the U.S. agricultural trade balance from
fiscal year 1975 to fiscal year 2006 will be submitted for the record.
The trade balance is shown in nominal terms and real terms, using the
GDP deflator based on 2000, as reported in the 2007 Economic Report of
the President. In general, the agricultural trade balance has reflected
the U.S. exchange rate, growing when the dollar was weak, such as in
the early 1980s and early 1990s, but shrinking when the dollar
appreciated, such as in the mid-1980s and in the early 2000s. Imports
have been growing rapidly over the past decade, and do not seem to be
strongly influenced by the value of the dollar. Exports have increased
significantly the past few years, reflecting higher commodity prices
and a weaker dollar.
The change in the agricultural trade surplus does not correspond
with the implementation of a particular free trade agreement (FTA) for
several reasons. FTAs are, by design, implemented slowly over a
transition period to expressly avoid major trade disruptions. The U.S.-
Canada FTA began in 1989, and U.S. exports increased by $4 billion that
year. But the NAFTA with Mexico began in 1994, and U.S. exports stayed
about the same as in 1993. However, when viewed over the longer term,
data show that the value of U.S. agricultural exports to Canada have
increased by 119 percent and to Mexico by 181 percent since
implementation of NAFTA. In addition, Canada and Mexico are now more
important markets for U.S. agriculture than they were before NAFTA. In
1993, Canada and Mexico combined accounted for about 21 percent of
total U.S. agricultural exports. By 2006, that percentage had risen to
32 percent.
Exports in any 1 year are more influenced by changes in world
commodity prices and global economic growth than by FTAs. Imports are
more influenced by economic growth in the United States, which
translates into greater purchasing power for U.S. consumers and greater
demand for imported goods.
[The information follows:]
VALUE OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL TRADE BY FISCAL YEAR
[In billions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GDP deflator Trade Balance
Year Exports Imports Trade Balance 2000=100 in 2000 $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1975............................ 21.82 9.44 12.38 38.0 32.58
1976............................ 22.74 10.49 12.25 40.2 30.48
1977............................ 23.97 13.36 10.61 42.8 24.80
1978............................ 27.29 13.89 13.40 45.8 29.27
1979............................ 31.98 16.19 15.79 49.5 31.91
1980............................ 40.47 17.29 23.18 54.0 42.92
1981............................ 43.78 17.34 26.44 59.1 44.75
1982............................ 39.10 15.46 23.64 62.7 37.70
1983............................ 34.77 16.28 18.49 65.2 28.36
1984............................ 38.03 18.91 19.12 67.7 28.24
1985............................ 31.20 19.74 11.46 69.7 16.44
1986............................ 26.31 20.88 5.43 71.3 7.61
1987............................ 27.88 20.65 7.23 73.2 9.87
1988............................ 35.32 21.01 14.30 75.7 18.89
1989............................ 39.67 21.57 18.10 78.6 23.03
1990............................ 40.35 22.71 17.64 81.6 21.62
1991............................ 37.86 22.74 15.13 84.4 17.93
1992............................ 42.55 24.50 18.05 86.4 20.89
1993............................ 43.06 24.60 18.46 88.4 20.88
1994............................ 43.89 26.56 17.33 90.3 19.19
1995............................ 54.61 29.79 24.82 92.1 26.95
1996............................ 59.79 32.44 27.34 93.9 29.12
1997............................ 57.31 35.65 21.65 95.4 22.70
1998............................ 53.66 36.83 16.83 96.5 17.44
1999............................ 49.12 37.29 11.83 97.9 12.08
2000............................ 50.76 38.86 11.90 100.0 11.90
2001............................ 52.72 39.03 13.69 102.4 13.37
2002............................ 53.32 40.95 12.37 104.2 11.87
2003............................ 56.01 45.68 10.33 106.4 9.71
2004............................ 62.41 52.66 9.75 109.4 8.91
2005............................ 62.52 57.74 4.78 112.7 4.24
2006............................ 68.72 64.03 4.70 115.8 4.06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October-September fiscal year.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Economic Report of the President for GDP deflator
Question. Has USDA developed an equivalent analysis and graph for
only the food portion of the U.S. agricultural balance of trade, since
the commonly published agricultural trade balance includes forest and
other non-food items. Please provide.
Answer. There is no commonly accepted definition of ``food'' for
purposes of analyzing U.S. agricultural trade. For example, the
Department of Commerce includes fish and fish products in its
definition of food trade, but USDA does not include fish in its
official U.S. agricultural trade figures.
Tables will be provided for the record that show one breakdown of
food trade, including fish. In general, practically all U.S.
agricultural imports are food, under this definition. The share of food
in U.S. agricultural exports has been growing, as exports have
diversified into many more products such as fruits, vegetables, meats,
and processed foods.
[The information follows:]
U.S. AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal. yrs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All processed foods............................................. 19.304 20.399 20.426 21.557 21.630 23.588 24.768 27.556
Grain mill products......................................... 1.217 1.240 1.328 1.658 1.608 1.962 2.194 2.666
Sugar & confections......................................... 1.862 2.188 2.091 2.142 2.059 2.088 2.330 3.101
Preserved fruits & vegetables............................... 2.326 2.589 2.404 2.623 2.414 2.597 2.658 3.118
Dairy products.............................................. .740 .783 .702 .782 .768 .855 1.060 1.227
Meat products............................................... 2.597 3.016 2.999 2.758 2.915 2.799 2.486 2.474
Fish and seafood............................................ 5.381 5.169 5.604 5.617 5.761 6.545 6.691 6.607
Bakery products............................................. .343 .347 .381 .422 .473 .546 .603 .660
Miscellaneous foods......................................... 1.337 1.358 1.488 1.622 1.781 1.967 2.150 2.395
Beverages................................................... 3.501 3.708 3.429 3.934 3.852 4.229 4.595 5.308
Unprocessed foods............................................... 2.843 3.341 3.472 3.449 3.795 4.027 4.460 5.032
Fruits, nuts, vegetables.................................... 72.795 73.286 73.425 73.395 73.665 73.921 4.405 4.961
Fish and seafood............................................ .048 .055 .047 .054 .130 .106 .055 .072
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FOOD IMPORTS........................................ 22.146 23.740 23.899 25.006 25.424 27.615 29.228 32.589
===============================================================================================================================
TOTAL NONFOOD IMPORTS..................................... 5.161 4.403 4.628 5.458 5.598 6.060 7.773 7.602
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS--CONTINUED
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal. yrs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All processed foods............................. 30.072 31.858 34.549 36.600 37.024 37.807 42.465 47.067 51.029
Grain mill products......................... 2.768 2.715 2.546 2.557 2.369 2.275 2.577 3.298 3.408
Sugar & confections......................... 3.119 3.189 2.947 2.818 2.982 3.378 4.283 4.450 5.027
Preserved fruits & vegetables............... 3.279 3.250 3.852 3.834 3.624 3.219 3.740 4.068 4.487
Dairy products.............................. 1.164 1.398 1.456 1.529 1.642 1.575 1.740 2.027 2.224
Meat products............................... 2.825 3.044 3.477 3.992 4.447 4.443 4.618 5.858 5.895
Fish and seafood............................ 7.626 8.025 8.872 9.593 9.268 9.356 9.914 10.056 10.625
Bakery products............................. .711 .799 .921 1.032 1.124 .821 .878 .929 1.007
Miscellaneous foods......................... 2.650 2.998 3.160 3.189 3.098 3.295 3.521 4.114 4.578
Beverages................................... 5.929 6.441 7.318 8.056 8.472 9.445 11.194 12.265 13.780
Unprocessed foods............................... 5.173 5.878 6.289 6.631 7.351 8.775 9.968 11.235 12.444
Fruits, nuts, vegetables.................... 5.093 5.808 6.239 6.279 6.880 8.074 8.928 10.070 11.097
Fish and seafood............................ .080 .071 .050 .351 .470 .700 1.040 1.165 1.347
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FOOD IMPORTS........................ 35.246 37.737 40.838 43.231 44.375 46.581 52.433 58.302 63.473
===============================================================================================================================================
TOTAL NONFOOD IMPORTS..................... 8.609 7.254 5.756 5.688 4.730 5.384 5.897 6.895 7.780
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS
[In billions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal.yrs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All processed foods............................................. 15.546 17.133 18.906 21.460 22.129 24.726 27.643 28.441
Grain mill products......................................... 5.163 4.782 5.081 5.633 5.724 6.101 6.775 6.930
Sugar & confections......................................... .521 .649 .682 ,726 .822 .871 .891 .890
Preserved fruits & vegetables............................... 1.423 1.771 1.966 2.210 2.294 2.580 2.869 2.960
Dairy products.............................................. .493 .439 .553 .832 .951 .867 ,872 .827
Meatproducts................................................ 2.864 3.270 3.780 4.376 4.504 5.315 6.572 7.067
Fish and seafood............................................ 2.288 2.785 3.041 3.358 2.964 3.010 3.145 2.909
Bakery products............................................. .110 .190 .233 .306 .358 .389 .382 .407
Miscellaneous foods......................................... 1.684 1.912 2.167 2.470 2.762 3.318 3.590 3.935
Beverages................................................... 1.000 1.335 1.405 1.549 1.751 2.276 2.545 2.517
Unprocessed food................................................ 2.861 3.877 4.131 4.462 4.788 5.517 5.579 5.884
Fruits, nuts, vegetables.................................... 2.815 3.810 4.031 4.368 4.709 5.436 5.478 5.779
Fish and seafood............................................ .047 ,067 .100 .094 .080 .081 .101 .105
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FOOD EXPORTS........................................ 18.407 21.010 23.037 25.922 26.918 30.244 33.222 34.324
===============================================================================================================================
TOTAL NONFOOD EXPORTS..................................... 24.030 21.334 19.453 20.631 18,989 19.040 26275 28.998
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. AGRICULTURAL EXPORTS--CONTINUED
[In Billions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cal. yrs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ali processed foods............................. 29.654 28.150 27.655 28.245 30.112 26.565 28.652 28.525 32.076
Grain mill products......................... 8.063 7.807 6.600 6.454 7.081 6,871 6.852 6.969 7.534
Sugar & confections......................... .929 .849 .884 1.041 1.230 1.052 1.119 1.238 1.307
Preserved fruits & vegetables............... 3.163 3.105 3.209 3.243 3.243 2.783 2.906 2.994 3.160
Dairy products.............................. 1.048 1.008 1.029 1.076 1.192 1.047 1.131 1.642 1.788
Meatproducts................................ 7.021 6.552 6.644 7.202 7.533 5,096 6.034 3.937 5,400
Fish and seafood............................ 2.029 2.642 2.651 2.894 2.606 2.629 2.898 3.112 2.909
Bakery products............................. .446 .459 .456 .466 .489 .386 .385 .429 .478
Miscellaneous foods......................... 3.762 3.912 3.799 3.662 3.717 4.018 4.501 5,111 6.029
Beverages................................... 2.613 2.429 2.394 2.451 2.732 2.705 3.097 3.306 3.270
Unprocessed food................................ 6.007 5.951 5.790 6.238 6.261 7.257 7.894 9.149 10.633
Fruits, nuts, vegetables.................... 5.878 5.676 5.544 5.984 5.973 6.763 7.328 8.405 9.744
Fish and seafood............................ .130 .275 .246 .254 .288 .494 .566 .744 .889
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL FOOD EXPORTS........................ 35.662 34.101 33.445 34.483 36.373 33.822 36.547 37.674 42.709
===============================================================================================================================================
TOTAL NONFOOD EXPORTS..................... 24.228 19.956 17.821 19.668 20.467 22.392 26.012 27.352 24.249
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: U.S. Census Bureau.
Question. It is generally assumed that approximately one-third of
all U.S. farm production is exported. According to some analysts,
however, 8 percent of the farm value of U.S. agricultural production is
exported, and the ``one-third'' figure is largely based on processed
food value at the export/import points, not farm-gate value, which
arguably skews the data.
Has USDA analyzed and tabulated data showing the proportion of
total farm cash receipts ($239.0 billion in 2005) that have been
exported, based on farm value for the years 1975 to 2006? Please
provide.
Answer. There are several ways to measure the importance of trade
to the agricultural sector, and none is perfect. A typical approach is
to compare the value of exports to the value of agricultural
production, or to farm cash receipts. One shortcoming of this method is
that exports are valued at the point of export, which includes the
value of farm-to-port transportation and other costs. It is also
difficult to measure the value of processed products at the farm gate,
which account for a large share of U.S. agricultural exports. Another
factor affecting export share that is not captured in this measure is
the increasing amount of corn, soybeans, and other feeds that are
exported indirectly in the form of meat rather than directly.
USDA's Economic Research Service uses two methods to examine the
share of production that is exported. One approach is based on volume
weights, and the other is based on dollar values.
Information reported by ERS using these two methods, will be
supplied for the record. Data are not available before 1980.
[The information follows:]
EXPORT SHARES OF U.S. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measure 1980-84 1990-94 1999 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of production:
Volume-based................................ 29.2 23.1 22.8 21.9
Value-based................................. 21.9 16.8 16.7 17.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Both the volume and value measures include primary livestock and
crop commodities as well as major processed food products. Each measure
has advantages. The volume-based measure reduces the variations due to
product prices, while the value measure better reflects product
quality, such as differences between a pound of steak and a pound of
hamburger.
To make volume- and value-based export shares comparable, the
measures include only products for which both production and export
volumes are available. Products excluded for this reason are mostly
minor and include greenhouse and nursery products, seeds, cattle, hides
and skins, and animal fats.
The export share of U.S. agricultural production, based on volume,
has averaged 22 percent since 1996, reflecting the high weight of
exported food and feed grains, oilseeds and oilseed products, cotton,
and tobacco relative to their total harvested weight. However, this
overall export share masks differences in trends between livestock
products and crops and crop products. The export share of U.S.
livestock products rose from 3 percent in the 1980s to more than 10
percent in recent years, while the export share of crops and crop
products fell from over 30 percent to 23 percent during the same
period. Behind these contrasting trends has been the increase in U.S.
livestock and poultry production and the corresponding feed
requirements that have diminished feed grains available for export.
The export share of U.S. agricultural products, based on values,
averaged 17 percent from 1998 to 2002, 5 percentage points lower than
the volume-based average. The lower value-based measure reflects the
lower aggregate value of livestock exports relative to their farm
production value. The historical movement of the two export share
measures shows no consistent pattern--about half the time they move in
the same direction and the other half not. For example, the volume-
based share declined from 23 percent in 2001 to 22 percent in 2002,
while the value-based share rose from 17 to 18 percent.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
PROGRESS IMPLEMENTING LOCAL FOOD PURCHASE PROVISION
Question. Section 4303 of the 2002 Farm Bill allows school
districts to pursue a local food purchasing preference.
Can you tell me about USDA's progress in implementing the
provision?
Answer. This Farm Bill provision authorized funds to be requested
to encourage schools to purchase locally produced foods and to provide
grants and technical assistance for projects that improve access to
local foods from small farmers and support school garden programs. This
provision has not been funded. Nonetheless, I know that the Food and
Nutrition Service has done quite a bit to encourage local purchases
anyway. I will ask staff to provide more details on this.
[The information follows:]
Regarding implementation of section 4303 of the 2002 Farm Bill, the
Conference Report that accompanied the Farm Bill indicated that this
provision was not intended to permit State or local geographic
preferences, or to circumvent Federal procurement requirements. School
districts participating in the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs are prohibited by government-wide regulation from
applying a geographic preference in their procurements.
Although no funds have been appropriated to carry out Section 4303,
USDA has supported farm to school initiatives. In 1997, the Food and
Nutrition Service established a ``farm to school'' initiative which is
based on the cooperation of Federal, State, and local governments, as
well as local farm and educational organizations. The initiative
encourages schools to purchase locally grown fruits and vegetables. As
part of this initiative, USDA has created two publications, which are
posted on our web site, called Eat Smart-Farm Fresh! A Guide to Buying
and Serving Locally-Grown Produce in School Meals and Small Farms/
School Meals Initiative: a Step-by-Step Guide on How to Bring Small
Farms and Local Schools Together. These publications provide practical
tips in a handbook format on how school food service personnel can
purchase products from local farmers.
Questions. If it is USDA's position that Congress's guidance in
Section 4303 is inadequate to authorize farm to school initiatives and
other local food purchasing programs, what language would you recommend
that Congress include in the next Farm Bill to make clear its intent to
authorize and encourage programs?
Answer. Current statutory authority does not unduly restrict farm
to school and local food purchasing initiatives. Although school
districts participating in the National School Lunch and School
Breakfast Programs are prohibited by government-wide regulation from
applying a geographic preference in their procurements, school
districts may tailor their procurement specifications to maximize full
and open competition and obtain high quality fresh produce for their
school meal programs, in many instances from local producers.
Consequently, we do not believe any change to current law is necessary
to further authorize or encourage farm to school initiatives.
The Department is supportive of farm to school initiatives, and
believes that these initiatives can be successful within the framework
of current law and regulations and free and open competition for
contracts.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Question. Mr. Secretary, the budget proposes changing the length of
rental assistance contracts to a term of 1 year. Prior to fiscal 2007,
those contracts were generally longer in length. The fiscal 2007 budget
proposed a reduction to 2 years, and now the fiscal 2008 budget
proposes renewing contracts for 1 year.
Can you please explain the rationale behind this change?
Answer. Other Federal housing programs offering rental assistance
provide annual renewals, for instance the Department is aware of
similar assistance offered by the department of Housing and Urban
Development. The budget change will not affect the cost of the program,
but the change in contract terms will impact the distribution of budget
authority during the transition period.
Question. Would this change improve the ability of USDA to estimate
the number of contracts expiring in a given year?
Answer. USDA has several tools available to assist in estimating
the number of contracts expiring in a given year. However, contract
costs are subject to many variables, including tenant income
variations, increases in operating costs (particularly insurance and
energy costs) that result in rent increases that increase the use of
rental assistance, and rental assistance utilization rates that vary by
property. The effects of these variables may be more prominent on
contracts with a one-year term than contracts with multiple years,
which could spread the impact of such variables across a longer period
of time. USDA intends to monitor closely the performance of these one-
year contracts and is developing an analysis of these variables on
rental assistance.
Question. If this proposal is adopted, there would be a significant
amount of contracts expiring in 2008, ranging from 5-year contracts
signed in 2003 to some one-year contracts signed in 2007.
How will this affect the budget for fiscal 2009?
Answer. Current estimates for fiscal year 2009 indicate
approximately 231,000 rental assistance units will be up for renewal.
This is 84 percent of all rental assistance units. These consist of
units obligated prior to fiscal year 2004 and units obligated under
contract term limits in fiscal year 2005, fiscal year 2007 and fiscal
year 2008.
Question. Do you feel a significant amount of additional funding
will be necessary to renew this extreme volume of contracts?
Answer. There would be additional costs of continuing the same
terms and conditions of contracts.
Question. Do you feel that adequate funding to cover all of these
contracts will appear in your budget proposal for next year?
Answer. No decisions have been made for the President's 2009
Budget.
Question. Do you feel that Rural Development has the staff and
resources needed to renew such a high volume of contracts in 1 year?
Answer. The majority of the tasks associated with renewing
contracts are already automated, and we are currently modifying
documents to require minimal manual intervention for renewals. We
believe that Rural Development has the staff and resources needed for
this renewal process.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT--DIRECT LOANS
Question. Funding for both Single Family and Multi-Family Direct
Loans has been eliminated in your budget proposal.
Can you please explain the basis for eliminating these programs?
Answer. The other major Federal single family housing guarantee
programs, including those operated by HUD and VA, rely on guaranteed
loans. Direct loan programs are more costly to taxpayers. Based upon
the fiscal year 2008 budget, the taxpayer's cost for providing a direct
subsidized housing loan of $100,000 would be $9,357. With a 3 percent
guarantee fee, a guaranteed housing loan of $100,000 costs the taxpayer
only $200. With the same cost, taxpayers can provide one direct housing
loan or almost 50 guaranteed loans. For this reason, guaranteed loans
have accounted for virtually all the growth in our Single Family
Housing program since the mid 1990s.
With regard to Multifamily Housing program, the primary reason for
not requesting funds for direct loans is to concentrate on
revitalization of existing portfolio. Direct loans for section 515 new
construction have a subsidy rate of 45.67 percent and these projects
also regenerate additional costs for rental assistance payments.
Question. If adopted, what effect will these changes have on the
make-up of the participants in single family and multi-family housing
programs? Will there be people who participate in these programs now
who will no longer be eligible?
Answer. We anticipate that many customers once served by the direct
housing loan program will be able to be served by the guaranteed
program. Moreover, directing resources to our existing multifamily
portfolio will protect the rent of existing tenants.
RISK MANAGEMENT AGENCY CROP INSURANCE USER FEE
Question. The budget proposes the collection of a user fee from
participants in the crop insurance program to fund the Risk Management
Agency's IT modernization beginning in fiscal 2009.
Please explain how the user fee would function and who would pay
the fee?
Answer. The fee would be payable by the private sector insurance
companies who participate in the Federal crop insurance program. The
fee would be capped at $15 million annually and would be based on a
percentage of the premium written by the companies during the prior
crop year. In this way, the companies that are the primary
beneficiaries of the IT system would pay the larger portion of the fee.
Based on current projections of total premiums, the fee is expected to
be about one-quarter cent per dollar of premium.
Question. How would this proposal, if adopted, affect future RMA IT
appropriations requests? Did I understand your testimony correctly that
this fee would replace the need for appropriated IT funds entirely?
Answer. It is anticipated that the fee would eventually replace the
need for appropriated funding. However, the budget proposal is designed
such that the fee would initially supplement the annual appropriation
for information technology (IT). This funding would be used to
modernize the IT system currently in use by the Risk Management Agency
(RMA). However, once modernization is complete, the funding would be
used for IT maintenance and would replace the need for appropriated
funding. We anticipate that the modernization process will take about 2
years to complete.
RENEWABLE ENERGY--COMMODITY PRICES
Question. The recent boom in biofuel production has caused some
commodity prices to spike. While this has a positive effect on many
agricultural economic aspects, such as farmers earning more of their
income from the market, these price increases have also caused negative
results for some. Livestock feed prices have climbed dramatically,
putting a strain on many ranchers across the country. Also, higher
commodity prices have had a negative impact on food aid, since fewer
commodities can be purchased for the same dollar amount.
With such a strong focus on renewable energy in both this budget
and your farm bill proposal, how do you propose to combat the negative
aspects of these new policies?
Answer. The extraordinary price run-up that started last fall has
raised costs for the livestock and poultry industry, along with other
users of corn. The spillover has also led to higher prices for most
other commodities and is straining fixed budgets for food aid. However,
as often noted, the best cure for high prices is high prices. That is,
the market is responding to the incentive of high prices by a dramatic
expansion in corn acreage that will boost supplies and lead to
substantial moderation in prices.
There is no denying that this transition period before adjustments
have occurred will be painful, but it should also be noted that grain
prices have been very low for many years. In real terms, these prices
have been extremely low and have made it difficult for farmers to cover
costs without support from the Government. Consumers pay a record low
share of their incomes for food in this country. Because of the
expansion of biofuels, we do not project grain prices to fall back to
very low levels, like the $2.00 per bushel corn of recent years. Rising
productivity and response to market incentives will bring prices down
in the next few years from the highs seen last winter. Any
breakthroughs in the production of ethanol from cellulosic materials
would also contribute to easing pressure on grain supplies. Given huge
interest and new investments in research, the ability to use cellulosic
feedstocks, in a cost-effective way, for ethanol production may not be
far away.
In the current environment, there are other adjustments taking
place to reduce pressure on the livestock industry. Cattle and dairy
producers are increasingly feeding distillers grains, a by-product of
ethanol production. Research is underway to make these by-products more
useable to pork and poultry feeders, as only limited amounts can be fed
to these animals given current formulations.
On the food aid side, higher prices are not all negative. Many, if
not all, farmers in developing countries face low prices, frequently
reflecting an urban bias. These farmers respond to market incentives
too. The well publicized case of Mexico, where corn-based tortilla
prices have risen sharply, also offers an encouraging lesson. Mexican
farmers are expanding corn production, and this will help contribute
greatly to rural development as much as to increasing local food
supplies.
We will continue to coordinate closely with the program agencies,
USAID, FAS, to review commodities requested and complete market
research to identify the most economical and effective products.
Contracts are awarded based on lowest landed cost, so FSA must evaluate
the combined commodity cost and the freight cost. The new award system
implemented in February 2007 should help achieve some cost savings in
all international food aid purchases.
AGRICULTURAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
Question. There have been many efforts in Congress to pass
comprehensive disaster assistance for the nation's farmers and ranchers
dating back to 2005. I fully expect attempts by Members to include an
agriculture disaster package in the supplemental appropriations bill
Congress will soon be considering.
In your opinion, is there a need for ag disaster, and if so, where
is it needed the most?
Answer. This Administration does not deny there have been times it
has been necessary to provide relief to farmers and ranchers harmed by
natural disasters. In fact, since 2005, this Administration has
developed numerous ad hoc disaster assistance programs to aid producers
impacted by adverse weather. However, these programs have been targeted
to producers directly impacted by these extraordinary weather events.
What this Administration has not supported are Congressional efforts to
provide a multi-billion dollar, broad based, non-targeted disaster
assistance package covering a time period when producers have seen
record or near record production and/or farm income levels and crop
insurance losses have been at record or near record lows. The
Administration would not support a broad disaster bill unless it is
fully offset from other agricultural spending.
While individual producers in certain regions of the nation have
experienced crop losses due to adverse weather, the farm economy
overall has been financially strong. For calendar year 2005, total crop
cash receipts were $114 billion, the second highest ever. Preliminary
estimates for calendar year 2006 are that total crop cash receipts will
reach a record $122 billion. However, that record is expected to be
short-lived as calendar year 2007 crop cash receipts are forecasted to
reach nearly $134 billion.
For the period 2003-2005 the crop insurance loss ratio has averaged
just 0.77, including a record low of 0.60 in 2005. This means that, on
average, only 77 cents have been paid out in indemnities for each $1 of
premium. And, while the loss ratio for the 2006 crop year is not yet
finalized, current estimates place it at about 0.8. By comparison,
during the early 1990's the loss ratio averaged nearly 1.5.
Question. What has USDA done to address disaster needs since the
start of 2005? Has the money that has been obligated by the department
actually made its way to producers?
Answer. Throughout this period, assistance has been available under
Federal Crop Insurance and the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance
Program.
In addition, in October 2005, USDA authorized the use of $250
million from Section 32 funds for crop disaster, livestock, tree, and
aquaculture assistance. These funds are being distributed by way of
five new programs; the Tree Indemnity Program (TIP), the Hurricane
Indemnity Program (HIP), the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), and the
Feed Indemnity Program (FIP); and an Aquaculture Grant Program.
Producers in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, North
Carolina and Texas counties declared primary presidential or
secretarial disaster areas in 2005 because of hurricanes were eligible
to apply for assistance under the new programs. In general, funds under
these programs have been distributed to producers. However, for some
programs it has been necessary to delay payments until it could be
determined if there would be a need to prorate the available funding.
I will provide a list of further measures taken by USDA to assist
farmers and ranchers in 2006.
[The information follows:]
Sign-up for programs authorized by the Emergency Agricultural
Disaster Assistance Act of 2006 began on December 11, 2006.
In August 2006, USDA authorized $780 million in assistance to help
farmers and ranchers manage drought and weather related production
challenges. This funding included a $50 million Livestock Assistance
Grant Program for States which had counties which were designated as D3
or D4 on the Drought Monitor anytime between March 7 and August 31,
2006.
In fiscal year 2006, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) provided $48
million in Emergency (EM) loan assistance.
On July 13, 2006, USDA announced the expansion of Conservation
Reserve Program (CRP) acreage eligible for emergency haying and grazing
for livestock producers hit hard by drought. The expansion allows
livestock producers from eligible counties to obtain needed hay or
forage. The expanded area radiates 150 miles out from any county
approved for emergency haying and grazing.
USDA also reduced producers' CRP rental payments by 10 percent,
instead of the standard 25 percent, on CRP lands that are hayed or
grazed under emergency authority in 2006.
On July 14, 2006 USDA announced sign-up for the Emergency
Forestry--Conservation Reserve Program.
On June 29, 2006, USDA announced $11.8 million in Emergency
Conservation Program (ECP) funding for 18 States to help producers
rehabilitate land damaged by drought and other natural disasters.
On June 9, 2006, USDA announced the availability of $75.7 million
in Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) funds for victims of the 2005
hurricanes.
On March 24, 2006, USDA announced that agricultural producers in 16
Texas counties adversely affected by wildfires would be eligible to
receive $8.1 million in ECP funds.
On March 21 2006, USDA announced that agricultural producers in six
Oklahoma counties and 27 north Texas counties affected by wildfires
could remove dry grass on and move cattle to CRP acreage, without
facing charges for grazing value or the baled value of removed forage.
On March 15, 2006, USDA announced the allocation of more than $20
million in ECP funds to 26 states affected by drought, wildfires and
other natural disasters.
On March 3, 2006, USDA announced the allocation of $63 million in
ECP funds to assist agricultural producers struck by hurricanes in the
Gulf of Mexico region during calendar year 2005.
USER FEE PROPOSALS
Question. The budget proposes user fees totaling $149 million for
the Food Safety and Inspection Service, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards
Administration and Risk Management Agency. In previous fiscal years,
USDA assumed savings for these fee requests. I am pleased to see that
this budget request does not assume savings. However, I understand that
USDA expects to realize savings from these fees in fiscal 2009.
Realizing this savings requires USDA to actively engage the Congress
and affected industry to pass this legislation.
Please describe, in detail, USDA's plan for getting each user fee
passed including discussions with industry and the authorizing
committees.
Answer. Although the budgetary treatment of proposed user fees has
changed this year, procedures for implementing new user fees would
remain the same. Generally, the steps for user fee implementation
consist of: submitting proposed legislation to Congress; participating
in special hearings or answering Congressional inquiries about the
proposed fees; and engaging in the Federal rule-making process after
enactment. Statutory prohibitions prevent us from lobbying for passage
of new user fee legislation outside our communication with Congress.
The rule-making process provides an opportunity for public input on any
proposed rule. All public comments are evaluated and considered before
a final rule is promulgated.
GREENBOOK CHARGES
Question. I am concerned that the charges assessed to the agencies
by USDA, known commonly as greenbook charges, have grown excessively
over the last few years.
Please provide, for the record, greenbook charges by category for
each agency for fiscal year 2006, 2007, and 2008. For each category,
provide an explanation of how the charges were assessed.
Answer. The actual funding for fiscal year 2006 and estimated 2007
funding by category for greenbook charges, including an explanation of
how the charges were assessed, is provided for the record. Estimates
for fiscal year 2008 greenbook charges have not been decided.
The cost breakout by agency for the greenbook charges is also
provided for the record. The actual costs by agency for fiscal year
2007 are not yet known.
[The information follows:]
Department Wide Reimbursable Programs
[USDA Agencies fiscal year 2006 Allowance and fiscal year 2007 Estimated
Cost Shares]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
2006 allowance 2007 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agricultural Marketing Service.......... $1,291,169 $1,392,694
Agricultural Research Service.......... 4,378,636 4,915,646
Animal and Plant Health Inspection 4,563,266 5,020,820
Service................................
Cooperative State Research, Education 493,847 313,085
and Extension Service..................
Departmental Administration............ 181,779 250,226
Economic Research Service.............. 278,897 235,454
Farm Service Agency.................... 5,293,884 8,175,512
Food and Nutrition Service............. 1,604,131 1,103,188
Food Safety and Inspection Service..... 4,584,996 4,890,378
Foreign Agricultural Service........... 1,125,309 993,690
Forest Service......................... 20,141,973 21,221,635
Grain Inspection, Packers and 364,035 409,168
Stockyards Administration..............
National Agricultural Statistics 789,616 632,371
Service................................
National Appeals Division.............. 80,711 49,284
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 5,555,459 5,583,986
Office of Budget and Program Analysis.. 33,508 30,091
Office of Chief Economist.............. 114,940 99,493
Office of Civil Rights................. 94,242 92,852
Office of Communications............... 66,883 49,916
Office of Executive Secretariat........ 10,749 9,316
Office of General Counsel.............. 151,143 164,899
Office of the Chief Financial Officer.. 735,596 1,096,120
Office of the Chief Information Officer 5,969,036 2,832,153
Office of the Inspector General........ 448,138 457,316
Office of the Secretary................ 65,775 13,314
Risk Management Agency................. 452,737 263,383
Rural Development...................... 4,312,387 3,547,010
-------------------------------
TOTAL............................. 63,182,838 63,843,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Question. The budget proposal requests an increase of almost $25
million for the development of a new financial management system.
Implementing new IT systems is often very costly, especially replacing
a financial system as large as USDA's.
How much does USDA plan to spend on the financial system
implementation in fiscal 2007? Did this funding come from annual
appropriations or from the working capital fund?
Answer. USDA intends to spend $4.5 million in fiscal year 2007 for
implementation activities. These funds would come from reimbursements
received from USDA customer agencies to continue the planning and
initial implementation of the Financial Management Modernization
Initiative.
Question. Does USDA plan to fund any part of the financial system
in fiscal 2008 from the working capital fund?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2008 budget includes an
estimate of $5.5 million in operating support for this project, to be
recovered via reimbursements from USDA customer agencies under the
Working Capital Fund. This estimate is subject to change as the
implementation schedule and requirements gathering move forward.
Question. Does the fiscal 2008 budget request any funding for the
financial system from the interior appropriations subcommittee for the
Forest Service?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget for the Forest Service does not
request any funds for the financial system from the Interior
Appropriations Subcommittee. We do not expect to begin implementation
of the Forest Service into the new system until after fiscal year 2008.
Question. Has USDA entered into a contract with a private company
for the implementation of the new financial system? If so, please
explain the terms of the contract. For example, what constitutes
satisfactory completion of the system implementation by the contractor?
Answer. USDA is currently in the acquisition process and has not
entered into a contract.
Question. What is the estimated total cost for development and
implementation of the new financial system?
Answer. The estimated cost for implementation of USDA's new
financial management system is approximately $90 million.
Question. How much of the total development and implementation
costs will be requested through the agriculture appropriations
subcommittee?
Answer. At this time, no final decision has been made as to the
allocation of funding needed for Financial Management Modernization
Initiative implementation between the Agriculture and Interior
appropriations subcommittees.
Question. How much of the total development and implementation
costs will be requested through the interior appropriations
subcommittee for the Forest Service?
Answer. At this time, no final decision has been made as to the
allocation of funding needed for Financial Management Modernization
Initiative implementation between the Agriculture and Interior
appropriations subcommittees.
Question. How much of the total development and implementation
costs will be funded through the working capital fund?
Answer. We do not expect that development and implementation costs
will be funded through the Working Capital Fund (WCF). We have a small
amount of operating funds budgeted for the system through the WCF, but
it is our aim that development and implementation funds be made
available through appropriations and Departmental Reimbursable Program
authority, if appropriate.
Question. Once the system is implemented, how much will operations
and maintenance of the financial system cost annually?
Answer. The estimated average annual operations and maintenance
cost for the expected life of the system, for the period fiscal year
2012 through fiscal year 2021, is approximately $50 million.
Question. Will annual appropriations or the working capital fund
pay for operations and maintenance costs?
Answer. Historically USDA has used the working capital fund
reimbursement mechanism to pay for USDA's financial management system
operations and maintenance costs.
FSIS FUNDING
Question. The Food Safety and Inspection Service received a
significant funding increase of more than $57 million in the fiscal
2007 joint resolution. How does FSIS plan to spend the additional
funding?
Answer. FSIS allocated the fiscal year 2007 increase of $62.1
million by funding pay costs, employee benefits and activities to
strengthen the Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative.
Question. How many staff will FSIS be able to hire as a result of
the additional funding?
Answer. FSIS is actively recruiting and hiring for positions in all
of its 15 Districts and intends on filling 98 positions for slaughter
services and 86 positions for in-plant processing in fiscal year 2007.
In addition, the agency is recruiting to fill new positions resulting
from industry growth and vacancies resulting from attrition.
RISK BASED INSPECTION
Question. Mr. Secretary, recently the Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced a plan and time table for implementing risk based
inspection in meat and poultry plants.
Please explain this proposal.
Answer. Under a risk-based inspection system, the type and
intensity of inspection activity at each establishment will be
determined by the relative inherent risk of product, the volume
processed, and the ability of each establishment to control risk. Risk-
based inspection will allow USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) to more effectively allocate inspection resources to those
processing plants that need them the most and carry out less intense
inspection at plants with better risk control, while continuing daily
inspection at all processing facilities. The public health goal of
risk-based inspection is to target FSIS resources more directly at the
greatest risks and reduce overall risks found in meat, poultry and egg
products under agency jurisdiction.
Question. How have industry and consumer groups reacted to this
proposal?
Answer. Most of the industry and consumer groups with whom FSIS has
met believe the concept of risk-based inspection can achieve the
desired goal of using FSIS resources more effectively.
Question. Does FSIS have an IT system for collecting and analyzing
data for risk based inspection? If not, why not?
Answer. In fiscal year 2008, FSIS will use base funds to help move
forward with information technology hardware and software improvements.
The improvements are necessary to build a public health data
infrastructure that will allow for real-time data analysis--a key
element of the enhanced risk-based inspection system. FSIS efforts to
upgrade its information technology infrastructure are expected to be
completed in the first quarter of fiscal year 2008. The IT system will
improve data by incorporating new inspection data generated as a
consequence of planned enhancements to inspection activity. In
addition, the agency will design an external-USDA peer-reviewed, risk
assessment to model the implementation of risk-based inspection in
processing plants such that we can predict and respond to the public
health outcomes of inspection activity nationwide.
Question. How does FSIS expect risk based inspection will make meat
safer for consumers?
Answer. RBI will make meat safer for consumers by targeting
inspection resources to high risk activities and establishments. This
will help ensure that meat and poultry products are being more
effectively inspected using state-of-the-art data collection techniques
and analysis.
Question. How will FSIS measure the success of the program?
Answer. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) intends to
implement and review risk-based inspection for processing in a careful
and deliberative manner. The perfect report card for the long-term
would be a measured decrease of food borne disease and death. While
FSIS is still in the process of developing how we intend to evaluate
RBIS, in the near-term, FSIS will compare such measures as verified
consumer food safety complaints, product recalls, and changes in the
effectiveness of establishment risk controls between RBIS and
traditionally-inspected establishments. In addition, FSIS will be
interviewing inspection program personnel, and the USDA's Office of
Inspector General will be continuing to audit the development and
implementation of RBIS.
Question. Will total inspection hours or inspection staff be
reduced as a result of this proposal?
Answer. Under a more robust risk-based inspection system for meat
and poultry processing, USDA will continue using the same number of
inspection program personnel, spending the same amount of time
conducting inspections. Risk-based inspection is about working smarter
to protect public health by having inspection personnel spend more time
in the processing plants that need assistance and expertise.
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM
Question. Mr. Secretary, the Congress has provided over $99 million
for the implementation of an animal identification system. I understand
that an additional $18.7 million has been transferred from the
Commodity Credit Corporation for this purpose as well. The fiscal 2008
budget request proposes an additional $33 million to continue this
project. If this funding is provided in fiscal 2008, the total amount
spent on the animal identification system will be in excess of $150
million by the end of 2008. Unfortunately, the direction USDA plans to
go with this system is still not clear.
What has all this funding accomplished?
Answer. The National Animal Identification System is composed of
three components: premises registration, animal identification, and
animal tracing. Premises registration is the foundation of the program.
As of March 12, 2007, all 50 States, 60 Tribes, and 2 U.S. Territories
are capable of registering premises according to USDA standards, and
approximately 378,000 locations have been registered.
Significant progress has also been made on the second component of
NAIS, animal identification. As of March 12, 2007, approximately 1
million AIN devices have been distributed.
The third component of the NAIS, animal tracing, is currently under
development with the help of USDA's industry and State partners.
Industry, through private systems, and States will manage the animal
tracing databases that maintain the movement records of animals. Full
deployment of the Animal Trace Processing System is planned for the
near future.
Question. In USDA's opinion, how does a comprehensive animal
identification system work from identification of an animal disease
outbreak to resolution of the problem?
Answer. The NAIS includes three components: premises registration,
animal identification, and animal tracing. When the system is fully
operational, all three of the NAIS components would be used together to
provide a streamlined system of information in a disease situation.
This information would be available to help investigate the source of a
disease outbreak and identify any animals and/or locations in the
United States that may be at risk of spreading disease.
An example will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
A diseased animal is detected at a slaughterhouse; authorized
animal health officials enter the animal's identification number (AIN)
into the National Animal Identification System (NAIS) Animal Trace
Processing System (ATPS); the search will provide information on AIN
devices distributed to a premises and animal movement records for that
animal from the private/State animal tracing database; authorized
animal health officials then have a listing of locations associated
with the animal; the search will also provide the other animal
identification numbers that were present on the premises during the
time the animal in question was there. This helps officials identify
animals that may have been exposed to the disease. Animal health
officials can then begin an epidemiologic investigation and take
precise actions to address the situation, minimize its impact on
producers, and speed disease response efforts.
While NAIS will not ``prevent'' the initial occurrence of a
disease, it can reduce or prevent the spread of disease. Without this
system of information, it can take days, weeks, and too often, months
of manual searching to complete a disease investigation. Moreover, the
inability to quickly address an emerging animal disease can have
negative economic and domestic/international trade implications for the
livestock industry and governments. Having NAIS--a streamlined, modern
information system--in place will not only speed up disease response
but also ensure that these efforts are comprehensive and accurate.
Question. How much does USDA estimate the animal identification
system will cost when completed? Is there an end in sight to continual
$33 million funding requests?
Answer. It is projected that, once NAIS has been fully implemented,
the funding necessary to maintain the system will be less than the
funding necessary to create the supporting infrastructure in all
States, participating Tribes, and Territories. However, premises
information will need to be updated as changes occur throughout the
country. Participants in the private sector will require ongoing
administrative support and the technologies that enhance NAIS.
Therefore, funding will still be necessary to maintain the system, to
preserve security, to make any necessary upgrades, and to ensure that
producers are well-informed regarding the system.
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM (CSFP) ELIMINATION
Question. Mr. Secretary, for the second year in a row the budget
request eliminates the Commodity Supplemental Food Program, which
serves the elderly and young women and their children in 32 States, 2
Indian reservations, and the District of Columbia. The elimination of
this program results in a $107 million reduction from the fiscal 2007
joint resolution rate. Please explain why USDA chose to eliminate this
program.
Answer. In the Administration's view, ensuring adequate funding for
programs that have the scope and reach necessary to provide access to
eligible people wherever they may reside is a better and more equitable
use of scarce resources than to allocate them to programs that cannot
provide access to many areas of the country. For this reason, the
Administration has placed a priority on funding the Food Stamp Program,
WIC, and other nationally-available programs which provide benefits to
eligible people wherever they may live, including communities currently
served by CSFP.
Question. Does the budget proposal provide an alternative for all
CSFP participants?
Answer. In the Administration's view, ensuring adequate funding for
programs that have the scope and reach necessary to provide access to
eligible people wherever they may reside is a better and more equitable
use of scarce resources than to allocate them to programs that cannot
provide access to many areas of the country. For this reason, the
Administration has placed a priority on funding FSP, WIC, and other
nationally-available programs which provide benefits to eligible people
wherever they may live, including communities currently served by CSFP.
Included in these programs are Federal nutrition assistance
programs targeted specifically to seniors. These programs, administered
by the Administration on Aging and authorized by the Older Americans
Act of 1965, include congregate nutrition services and home-delivered
nutrition services and are available nationwide to all seniors aged 60
and older. The Administration's 2008 budget request includes $383
million and $181 million for these two programs, respectively. In
addition, the 2008 budget request includes $147 million for the
Nutrition Services Incentive Program. Combined, the Older Americans
Nutrition Programs serve about 250 million congregate and in-home meals
to about 2.6 million older adults annually. In addition to the
Administration on Aging programs for seniors, low-income individuals of
any age have access to TEFAP.
Question. What percentage of elderly CSFP participants are
currently enrolled in food stamps and receive CSFP as a supplement to
their monthly food stamp allotment?
Answer. We estimate that about 20 percent of elderly CSFP
participants are currently enrolled in food stamps, based on data on
low-income elderly individuals we have used in our budget estimates.
WIC LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Question. Mr. Secretary, the budget includes a proposal to reduce
state nutrition services and administration grants in the WIC program.
Specifically, the proposal reduces the per participant nutrition
services and administration amount paid to states in fiscal 2008 back
to the fiscal 2006 rate. The proposal is accompanied by a $145 million
reduction to the WIC program in the budget. Please explain why USDA
chose to reduce the NSA grant to states.
Answer. The current proposal is intended to provide a reduction in
WIC NSA funding to slow its growth. Further cost containment is needed
to maintain the Program's ability to serve all eligible persons
expected to seek services in fiscal year 2008, which is estimated to be
approximately 8.28 million persons. WIC State agencies have been
extremely successful in containing food costs. We therefore believe WIC
State agencies can achieve similar success in containing NSA costs.
Question. Why did USDA choose to go back to 2006 as the base year
instead of keeping costs flat at the 2007 rate?
Answer. The administrative expenditure per participant (AGP) is
determined each year by inflating the prior year's AGP by the State and
Local Expenditure Index (SLEI). From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal
year 2006, the SLEI increased 32 percent, or an average of 4.5 percent
per year. The SLEI increase from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2007
is even higher at 6 percent. Over the same period, some broader
measures of inflation (e.g., the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage
Earners and Clerical Workers and the Gross Domestic Product Price
Index) have risen more slowly (21 percent and 18 percent respectively).
Given that these other measures reflect a significantly lower rate of
inflation than the SLEI, using 2006 as the base year will reduce the
AGP so that it is more consistent with what would have occurred if it
had grown at a rate comparable to those broader inflation indicators.
Question. Why did USDA choose to use the budget as a vehicle for
changing the NSA grant amount instead of asking for the change as a
part of farm bill discussions with the authorizing committees?
Answer. For the proposed NSA cost containment initiative to be
effective for fiscal year 2008, the proposal had to be included in the
fiscal year 2008 budget request.
Question. How will this reduction impact the states ability to
implement new WIC programs such as the revised food packages that are
to be implemented at the end of this year?
Answer. State agencies will be encouraged to work with Federal
program staff to seek efficiencies in the administration of the
requirements so that the reduction in NSA funding does not negatively
impact program operations. FNS does not believe that the food package
rule will necessitate increased staff or any other action that would
result in major, additional administrative expenditures over the long
term. FNS does not expect the reduction in NSA will affect the States'
ability to implement the revisions to the food packages.
WIC MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEM FUNDING
Question. The budget request does not include funding for
Management Information Systems. Please describe the current state of
Management Information Systems in the WIC program including a
discussion of states that still use paper systems to manage WIC
caseload.
Answer. Currently, all State agencies use automated systems to
manage caseload and support daily operations. While the vast majority
of WIC systems are electronic rather than paper-based, many clinics
have insufficient computers to accommodate every workstation. Thus, in
some cases participant data may be collected manually and later entered
into a centralized system.
Question. Why does the budget not include funding for Management
Information Systems?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget does not request additional
funding for implementation of WIC EBT. In fiscal years 2006 and 2007,
$19.8 million was available for management information systems and
technology needs. Assuming these funds are not needed to support
caseload in fiscal year 2007, current funding is sufficient through
fiscal year 2008 for system development and EBT initiatives.
WIC $200 MILLION CONTINGENCY FUND
Question. The budget request proposes to increase the WIC
contingency fund to $200 million from $125 million. Why does the
contingency fund need to be increased?
Answer. Increasing the amount of funds available in the contingency
fund will allow the Department to ensure that adequate funds are
available to support expected participation should food costs exceed
projections. The Department is concerned about the potential of
increased food costs in fiscal year 2008. Infant formula rebate savings
are a significant and integral part of the WIC Program and are
estimated to support the participation of over 2 million women, infants
and children. Any erosion of these savings has serious implications for
funding needs to support projected participation. In the past 2 to 3
years, the Department has observed a reduction in the percent discount
on infant formula received by some WIC State agencies, which has led to
increased formula costs. For example, twenty-seven geographic State
agencies have recently awarded contracts that have started in fiscal
year 2007 or fiscal year 2008 and all but one of these State agencies
received a rebate that yields a significant decrease in the discount on
the wholesale cost from that received in its prior contract.
WIC FOOD PACKAGE
Question. The updated WIC food package is supposed to be finalized
and implemented at the end of this year. Is the Department on-time to
implement the food package?
Answer. Over 46,000 comments that were received on the proposed
changes to the WIC food packages published for comment August 7, 2006
and are currently being analyzed. We anticipate issuing an interim
final rule updating the WIC food packages in September 2007.
RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND ECONOMICS REORGANIZATION
Question. One of the administration's farm bill proposals would
make significant changes to the Research, Education, and Economics
mission area within USDA. Specifically, CSREES and ARS would be folded
into one agency. The thrust of the argument for this change is that it
will lead to better coordinated research and end redundancies.
Is that not the job of the Under Secretary?
Answer. While the Under Secretary has a role in coordinating the
efforts of the four REE agencies, it is important to institutionalize
this coordination within the agencies themselves. This can best be
accomplished by merging ARS and CSREES into a single agency with a
single national program staff.
This will help ensure that resources will be maximized and that the
comparative strengths of our intramural and extramural system are
better utilized to tackle critical problems facing agriculture. This
merger will also strengthen the tie between USDA's intramural research
programs and the extension service. This will facilitate a broader
dissemination of science-based technologies to farmers and ranchers.
Question. Does he not have the authority to make ARS and CSREES
operate more efficiently?
Answer. While the Under Secretary has the authority to help make
REE agencies more efficient, the current organizational structure of
the mission area is a limiting factor. By having separate agencies with
separate national program staffs, there are some inefficiencies that
cannot be fully addressed without bringing the agencies together. The
merger of ARS and CSREES will better enable the Under Secretary to
overcome these inefficiencies.
Question. Why don't you use the budget process to better coordinate
research?
Answer. The REE budget process promotes research coordination
across the REE agencies. As part of the budget formulation process,
each year the Under Secretary, in consultation with the agency
Administrators, identifies high priority issues for which coordinated
budget requests are developed. The proposals take into consideration
the current research program within each agency and identify program
enhancements that are responsive to research needs and agency
strengths. For example, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
proposes complementary budget increases in bioenergy for CSREES, ARS,
and ERS. Merging ARS and CSREES would result in one National Program
staff and a single planning process for each program that would result
in an integrated plan for the core program that capitalizes on the
strengths of intramural and extramural research and minimizes any
undesirable redundancies.
Question. What steps have you taken in the fiscal 2008 budget to
eliminate redundancies and better coordinate research among ARS and
CSREES?
Answer. For the REE fiscal 2008 budget, similar to previous years,
the Under Secretary, in consultations with the agency Administrators,
identified high priority issues for which coordinated budget requests
were developed, thus promoting cross-agency coordination. The Under
Secretary also oversaw the development of the agency proposed budgets
to ensure an appropriate balance across programs and agencies. In some
cases, this involved reprogramming within the core budget.
Throughout the fiscal year, the agencies frequently coordinate
efforts on a range of research issues. For example, ARS and CSREES have
recently developed a joint plan to address the Colony Collapse Disorder
threatening the honey bee industry and production of many crops. Were
ARS and CSREES to merge, there would be one national program staff that
would routinely develop integrated program plans with intramural and
extramural components. Such plans would inherently promote coordination
and avoid redundancy.
Question. What specific direction has been provided to Under
Secretary Buchanan to make certain that redundancies are eliminated and
research is better coordinated?
Answer. USDA is continually striving to maximize the efficiency and
effectiveness of its programs. Likewise, Under Secretary Buchanan is
looking for ways to make REE agencies more efficient and effective.
Merging ARS and CSREES will help reduce redundancies and better
coordinate research, thus furthering this objective.
APHIS PROGRAM COST SHARE
Question. The President's budget for the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service requests decreases for numerous programs such as
Agricultural Quarantine Inspection, Boll Weevil, Brucellosis, Chronic
Wasting Disease, Asian Longhorned Beetle, Glassy-winged Sharpshooter,
Johne's Disease, Pink Bollworm, Wildlife Services Operations and
Wildlife Services Methods Development. The justification for the
funding reductions is the assumption that States or other cooperators/
beneficiaries will begin paying more toward efforts to fight such plant
and animal pests and diseases. In some cases, specific cost-share rates
are indicated.
For the record, please provide the funding contributions and cost-
share rates for Federal vs. State/Local/Other for fiscal year 2006, and
estimates for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008. for all programs
in the budget that request decreases to allow others to assume a larger
funding portion of the program. In addition, please indicate what
process and/or policies the Department uses to determine appropriate
cost-share rates for these programs, and provide information on what
indication you have that other State/cooperator/beneficiaries will
begin paying the additional costs when Federal contributions are
reduced.
Answer. The following table depicts the funding contributions and
cost-share rates for fiscal year 2006. In addition, we have provided
estimates for fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008.
[The information follows:]
TOTAL FUNDING: ALL SOURCES (ANNUAL)
[Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Federal Cooperator Total Federal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chronic Wasting Disease:
Fiscal year 2006 actual..................... $15.163 $4.473 $19.636 77.22
Fiscal year 2007 (estimated)................ 13.746 9.164 22.910 60.00
fiscal year 2008 (estimated)................ 10.009 11.141 21.150 47.32
EPP-Asian Longhorned Beetle:
Fiscal year 2006 actual..................... 27.322 10.434 37.756 72.36
Fiscal year 2007 (estimated)................ 19.904 13.713 33.617 59.21
Fiscal year 2008 (estimated)................ 18.316 15.404 33.720 54.32
EPP-Citrus Health:
Fiscal year 2006 actual..................... 21.191 39.884 61.075 34.70
Fiscal year 2007 (estimated)................ 36.455 29.022 65.477 55.68
Fiscal year 2008 (estimated)................ 34.409 33.368 67.777 50.77
EPP-Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter:
Fiscal year 2006 actual..................... 27.311 25.443 52.754 51.77
Fiscal year 2007 (estimated)................ 24.130 25.000 49.130 49.11
Fiscal year 2008 (estimated)................ 23.174 27.133 50.307 46.07
Johne's Disease:
Fiscal year 2006 actual..................... 13.057 6.900 19.957 65.43
Fiscal year 2007 (estimated)................ 12.080 7.877 19.957 60.53
Fiscal year 2008 (estimated)................ 3.266 16.691 19.957 16.37
Noxious Weeds:
Fiscal year 2006 actual..................... 1.875 0.121 1.996 93.94
Fiscal year 2007 (estimated)................ 1.441 0.121 1.562 92.25
Fiscal year 2008 (estimated)................ 1.146 0.716 1.862 61.55
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency program costs generally have been shared by APHIS and the
State(s). These arrangements may also include local governments,
industries, organizations, and groups that benefit from or are affected
by animal and plant protection.
Long-standing relationships between APHIS and State and industry
cooperators usually enable an effective programmatic response to
serious outbreaks. While cooperator contributions are frequently in-
kind or intangible in the early stages of a program, after several
years USDA expects that funding would be requested at both the Federal
and State levels, as appropriate, to ensure continued progress in
controlling and/or managing the pest or disease. When requested funding
is not provided, USDA evaluates the overall impact to program efforts
and adjusts future funding requests accordingly.
USDA believes that increased participation by all parties will
facilitate improved planning and funding decisions by the Federal
Government and its cooperators regarding plant and animal pest and
disease programs. However, USDA has no pre-determined rates.
In planning with our partners, we consider factors such as the
availability of funding to program participants; weather and any other
environmental constraints; the potential of the pest to cause
significant economic damage to agricultural or natural resources; the
extent to which the pest or disease has spread; the availability of
effective detection and control technology or availability of
diagnostic tests; and, the availability of acceptable alternatives for
controlling and managing the pest or disease.
CROSS-CUTTING TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Question. What is the basis for the funding increase proposed for
fiscal year 2008?
Answer. As the usage of biotechnology, both domestically and
internationally, has expanded in recent years, the Department has
recognized the need to increase its oversight and regulatory activities
in this area. The requested funding increase would allow for the
expansion of regulatory and trade strategies for specialty crops and
transgenic animals, and improved communication materials for both
domestic and international markets.
Question. Specifically, how will the funds for ``cross-cutting
trade negotiations and biotechnology resources'' be used?
Answer. Cross-cutting trade and biotechnology funding would be used
to conduct: quantitative analyses and studies needed to support
increasingly complex compliance activities; expand a project to develop
a regulatory and trade strategy for specialty crops; increase
regulatory activity in the area of transgenic animals--domestically, in
international markets, and in international standard setting
organizations; and increase outreach activities for both domestic and
international markets. These projects would involve multiple USDA
agencies.
Question. Please discuss specific results achieved using these
funds in the past?
Answer. The Foreign Agricultural Service has used this funding to
support U.S. trade policy objectives for agricultural biotechnology
that include expanding market access through negotiation and coalition
building initiatives. The funds support USDA bilateral and multi-
lateral negotiating efforts by providing the means to sponsor technical
and policy level exchanges (e.g., during the Korea and Malaysia FTA
negotiations, Vietnam WTO accession negotiations, etc.), and to support
the U.S. WTO challenge of the EU moratorium on agricultural
biotechnology approvals. The funds also have helped to support U.S.
coalition building efforts to address overly restrictive
interpretations of the Cartagena Protocol. U.S. outreach efforts center
around an array of USDA sponsored workshops hosted in multiple foras,
including the Asia Pacific Economic Council and North American
Biotechnology Initiative, to raise awareness of the importance of sound
regulatory systems. Initiatives undertaken using these funds are aimed
at increasing market access for U.S. agricultural trade and fostering
implementation of policies that are transparent and based on sound
science through coalition building, global public diplomacy, the
advancement of science-based regulation and in accordance with
international obligations.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has used the funds
to focus on two areas. First, to strengthen Federal-State partnerships,
APHIS' Biotechnology Regulatory Services supported the pilot State
inspection project, designed and began developing an on-line
biotechnology training module for State regulatory officials and
others, and conducted outreach to State regulators. Second, APHIS
implemented recommendations from the Office of the Inspector General to
enhance compliance and inspection activities, and funded select
biotechnology inspections.
The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
used the funds to support the initial phases of the Specialty Crops
Regulatory Initiative (SCRI), an effort by a diverse group of public
and private-sector stakeholders to establish an entity that can assist
developers of biotechnology-derived specialty crops to complete the
existing regulatory process. During 2006-2007, a consultant for the
SCRI planning group began development of a business plan and structure
for SCRI, as well as a roadmap for phased implementation of the SCRI
program.
Question. Why should the funds be appropriated to the Office of the
Secretary instead to specific agencies?
Answer. Because of the cross-cutting nature of these activities,
which can involve a number of different USDA agencies, the Department
proposed several years ago that the funding be provided to the Office
of the Secretary. This approach allows the funding to be allocated in
response to emerging issues to whatever agency or agencies have the
appropriate expertise and knowledge to address them. In addition,
having a central fund helps in the coordination of these activities
within the Department and avoids duplication in agencies' efforts.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, PROVINCIAL RECONSTRUCTION TEAMS
Question. How would the funding be allocated between Iraq and
Afghanistan?
Answer. USDA estimates that $5.3 million will be used to support
PRT activities in Afghanistan and $7.2 million will be used to support
PRT activities and related technical assistance in Iraq. These
estimates are subject to change as conditions and opportunities
dictate.
Question. For each country, please explain what activities the
members of the PRT will be involved in.
Answer. In Iraq, USDA's advisors serving with the PRTs will work to
support a market-based approach to agribusiness; improve livestock
health and animal production; improve the production of dryland
agriculture, especially wheat yields and crop diversification; and
increase the production and processing of horticultural crops.
In Afghanistan, USDA will address many of the same issues, and will
also continue efforts to improve irrigation and farm water use
efficiency; promote post-harvest storage for improved nutrition;
stimulate tree production, reforestation, and re-vegetation; and
reestablish production of high-value horticultural crops.
Question. How will you measure success?
Answer. USDA's PRT advisors rely on funding from USAID and the
military to carry out specific reconstruction projects. In designing
projects, each advisor will establish metrics to measure success. In
the long-term, success will be evident in improved crop yields,
increased irrigated land under cultivation, and greater food stores in
periods of seasonal need.
Question. How will you ensure these funds are used effectively?
Answer. USDA has instituted programmatic and administrative
controls in field offices as well as Washington-based offices. USDA
coordinated closely with other U.S. Government, Iraqi, and Afghan
agencies to ensure that programs are designed to meet the specific
needs of the end users.
Question. How much of the requested funding will go into the field?
Answer. USDA estimates that of the $12.5 million requested for
these activities in Iraq and Afghanistan, 76 percent or approximately
$9.5 million will be used to cover in-country staff salaries,
operations, and technical assistance/capacity building activities.
Funding that is not used in country covers items that are essential
for the administration and conduct of these activities. They include
the costs for such things as recruitment and selection, medical and
security clearances, supplies and equipment (e.g., satellite phones),
travel for both recruitment interviews and deployment to the countries,
and associated administrative costs of FAS, which administers these
activities on behalf of the Department.
Question. Will any of the requested funding go to the State
Department and/or Defense Department? Is so, for what?
Answer. USDA anticipates that approximately $200,000 will be
transferred to the State Department to cover fiscal year 2008
International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS)
charges related to USDA activities in Afghanistan. However, we do not
anticipate that USDA will be assessed fiscal year 2008 ICASS charges
for USDA activities in Iraq.
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE, BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Question. How much will the new facility in Athens, Georgia cost to
construct, furnish, and equip?
Answer. The latest design and construction estimate is $207
million--$16 million for design in fiscal year 2008 and $191 million
for construction. Equipment necessary for the facility is included in
the total construction cost.
Question. Please describe the process used to determine that this
facility is necessary?
Answer. Avian Influenza is a continuing problem in Asia where
millions of poultry have been killed to protect both the industry and
the consumers, and where over 150 humans have died from infection after
direct contact with sick birds. Avian influenza and other viral
diseases of poultry, such as NewCastle disease that recently devastated
the poultry industry in the Southwest require new technologies to
understand the origin and spread of the disease, their rapid detection
and their control through vaccines and novel management approaches. A
leading laboratory in the world to conduct research on such poultry
diseases is the USDA Southeast Poultry Research Laboratory in Athens,
Georgia. The high containment laboratory is housed in outdated
facilities that make it difficult to meet the needs of a modern bio-
containment facility. Clearly, a new facility is critical to the
protection of humans as well as poultry. The proposed new, modernized
facility will meet the long term needs for bio-containment laboratory
and animal space. It will enable scientists to more adequately address
the emerging/exotic poultry diseases which threaten not only the
Nation's poultry industry but potentially the health of hundreds of
thousands of Americans. This new facility would consolidate existing
facilities in Athens, Georgia, and East Lansing, Michigan, some of
which were constructed as early as 1939.
Question. How will ARS manage this construction project to make
sure it is on budget and on time?
Answer. ARS has experience managing projects of this complexity and
scope as evidenced by the successful implementation of the Ames
Modernization Project. The engineering and contract management
responsibilities and oversight will be handled by the ARS Facilities
Division (FD). All detailed planning, design, scheduling and day-to-day
construction inspection will be achieved through contracts with
architect-engineering firms with oversight provided by the FD. Rigorous
quality assurance measures will be instituted and lessons learned from
the Ames Modernization Project related to bio- containment construction
will be incorporated into the management strategy to ensure budget,
schedule, and quality issues are adequately addressed.
Question. Are all ARS facilities currently in good repair? Do they
meet all applicable state and Federal codes? Do they pose any threat to
human health or safety? Please provide information, including an
estimated cost, for each location where repairs are necessary to bring
the facility into compliance.
Answer. In response to Executive Order 13327, Real Property Asset
Management, ARS is in the process of implementing a Facility Asset
Management program that will capture accurate repair and modernization
needs--information not currently available. A private firm specializing
in documenting facility condition was hired to support our efforts by
sampling facility condition, analyzing ARS replacement values, and
providing estimates of repair needs based upon sampling results and
industry metrics. Based upon this analysis it has been determined that
the ARS facility portfolio is considered to be in ``fair'' condition
with an average condition index of 0.90 out of 1.0, and total deferred
maintenance needs estimated at $317 million.
All human health or safety issues are handled immediately utilizing
existing funding resources. All non-threatening code issues are
addressed as funds become available.
Question. Please provide an update on the status of the Anacostia
Waterfront Corporation's Riverwalk project along the perimeter of the
U.S. National Arboretum.
Answer. The U.S. National Arboretum (USNA) has contracted with a
landscape architecture firm to develop a conceptual plan for
improvements to and development of the USNA property adjacent to the
Anacostia River water front. The plan includes access to the Anacostia
River, a tram stop on the flood plain area, and considerable
improvements to the entire Asian Collections. Portions of this area
will become accessible and a new parking lot, as well as orientation
and restroom facilities are planned. The USNA has met with the National
Park Service to coordinate long-range plans which were then
incorporated into a revised USNA Master Plan that was approved by the
National Capital Planning Commission and the U. S. Commission on Fine
Arts.
USDA OVERSEAS ACTIVITIES
Question. Please provide information on the activities of USDA in
the Middle East, Southwest Asia, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and East
Africa.
Answer. The requested information will be provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
Middle East and Southwest Asia.--With funding from the Department
of State under the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), USDA is
implementing projects supporting Free Trade Agreements (FTAs), Trade
and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), and WTO Accession for
selected countries in the North Africa and the Gulf Region. Activities
include technical assistance in food safety and food defense, animal
health, plant health, and environmental considerations in these areas.
In Egypt, USDA and USAID are actively engaged in capacity building
programs in cooperation with Egyptian Ministries. A main effort is to
develop a biosafety regulatory system. Other U.S.-Egyptian capacity
building efforts include U.S. inter-agency and Egyptian science and
technology collaboration and training on sanitary and phytosanitary
(SPS) standards.
The Cochran Fellowship Program has trained 163 fellows from
Southwest Asia and Middle Eastern countries since 1999. Recent programs
include training in food safety, agricultural extension, grain
procurement and poultry management. The Norman E. Borlaug International
Agricultural Science and Technology Fellows Program (Borlaug Fellows
Program) conducts faculty and scientist exchange programs with
developing countries. During fiscal years 2004-2007, the Borlaug
Fellows program included eight participants from the Middle East and 12
from Southwest Asia.
India.--USDA is the lead agency on the U.S.-India Agricultural
Knowledge Initiative (AKI), a 3-year public/private sector Presidential
Initiative. Support for this initiative comes from USDA and across the
U.S. Government, resulting in a large number of successful activities
in four focus areas: (1) university capacity building; (2)
biotechnology; (3) food processing and marketing; and (4) water
resource management. For example, USDA is currently supporting four
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) technicians in India
working on pre-clearance of mangoes. USDA is hosting two workshops on
food safety regulations in Mumbai and Bangalore, with an upcoming
workshop on biotechnology for the public and private sector and
scientists. In addition, USDA worked with the National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges to fund small seed grants to
foster university-to-university collaboration.
With funds from USAID, USDA is providing training and technical
assistance to the Government of India on rural electrification and
alternative financing models. The Cochran Fellowship Program has
trained 97 Indians since 2000. Under the India-U.S. Agriculture
Knowledge Initiative, the Cochran Program will train 12 individuals per
year from 2006 through 2008.
Afghanistan.--USDA's primary technical assistance initiatives in
Afghanistan address a range of issues, including livestock health, SPS
standards, agricultural extension, conservation of biodiversity,
rangelands and watersheds management, and capacity building in
information technology and communications. Under the Provincial
Reconstruction Team (PRT) program, USDA has deployed and supported 36
agricultural advisors from nine USDA agencies on 9-month assignments.
The advisors' activities focus on projects that rehabilitate a
province's agricultural infrastructure, both physical and
institutional. In 2007, USDA is providing seven advisors for PRTs.
The Cochran Fellowship Program has trained 14 Afghans since 2004 in
the areas of small business entrepreneurship and animal disease
diagnosis. The Cochran Program is currently planning programs for
fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 in the areas of animal health and
agricultural extension.
Pakistan.--Under a reimbursable agreement, since 2006 USDA has had
two staff members detailed to USAID/Pakistan, working on the 4-year,
$200 million Pakistan Earthquake Reconstruction Program. USDA staff
lead a 10-person team spread across four locations in Pakistan. The
teams focus on construction, training, capacity building, and the
rehabilitation of livelihoods (agriculture and markets). The Cochran
Program has trained 20 Fellows from Pakistan since 2000 in the areas of
feed manufacturing, grain procurement, cotton classification,
cooperative development, biotechnology and wheat milling.
East Africa.--In 2007, USDA led an Agribusiness Trade and
Investment Mission to East Africa. Participant countries included
Burundi, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia. The
Mission's objectives were to promote U.S.-Africa agribusiness
cooperation, trade, and investment. Under the Africa Growth and
Opportunities Act (AGOA) USDA is implementing an SPS program that
includes capacity building in plant and animal health and food safety
systems for the East Africa region. This program specifically helps the
following East African countries: Kenya, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, and
Tanzania. The Cochran Fellowship Program has trained 207 fellows from
East Africa; Cochran expects to train a total of 20-25 participants
from these countries in fiscal year 2007. The Borlaug Fellows program
on Women in Science has supported six scholars from Kenya and five from
Uganda.
USDA has also provided food assistance to various countries in
these regions as follows:
USDA FOOD AID ACTIVITIES IN SELECTED COUNTRIES IN FISCAL YEAR 2006 AND
FISCAL YEAR 2007
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Country Activity Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afghanistan........................ School feeding........ $26.2
Afghanistan........................ Agricultural 12.7
development.
Afghanistan........................ Agricultural and rural 10.4
development.
Afghanistan........................ Agricultural and rural 9.5
development.
Bangladesh......................... School feeding and 4.4
food processing
improvements.
Bangladesh......................... School feeding........ 7.4
Ethiopia........................... Support for poverty 6.3
alleviation programs.
Jordan............................. Agricultural 20.0
development, natural
resource management,
and income
supplements for the
poor.
Kenya.............................. School feeding........ 18.1
Kenya.............................. Dairy development..... 7.8
Kenya.............................. Rural development and 9.1
improvement in
financing system.
Lebanon............................ Agricultural 9.2
development and food
security.
Mozambique......................... Agricultural 12.7
development.
Mozambique......................... School feeding........ 4.4
Mozambique......................... Rural development and 8.4
HIV/AIDS education
and prevention.
Pakistan........................... School feeding and 8.1
food processing
improvement.
Pakistan........................... School feeding........ 7.0
Pakistan........................... Relief for earthquake 11.9
victims.
Sri Lanka.......................... School feeding........ 0.2
Sri Lanka.......................... Agricultural 10.7
development and de-
mining.
Tanzania........................... Agricultural 6.8
development.
Yemen.............................. Rural development..... 11.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOOD SAFETY RESEARCH
Question. Please provide an overview on all food safety research
being conducted through ARS and CSREES.
Answer. The information is submitted for the record.
[The information follows:]
ARS food safety research focuses on finding ways to assess and
control potentially harmful food contaminants. These activities are
conducted through 4 program components: microbial pathogens; chemical
contaminants; mycotoxins and plant toxins. Research is designed to
yield science-based knowledge on the safe production, storage,
processing and handling of plant and animal products, and on the
detection and control of toxin-producing and/or pathogenic bacteria and
fungi, parasites, chemical contaminants, mycotoxins, plant toxins and
biosecurity. This knowledge will assist regulatory agencies and the
food industry in reducing the incidence of foodborne illnesses. ARS
research also assists defense related agencies.
The research program is directed towards improving public health,
which is in-line with other countries. Research accomplishments are
measured by the development, transfer and implementation of new
technologies to Federal agencies and the private sector. Since food-
safety and -security are global issues, research also involves both
national and international collaborations.
The program's role in bioterrorism related research is to establish
methods to protect ``at-risk'' foods; strengthen and expand laboratory
preparedness; and develop rapid and confirmatory laboratory methods to
analyze suspect foods for ``select agents,'' toxins and chemical
contaminants.
Research is coordinated to meet the needs of USDA-FSIS; DHHS-FDA
and the CDC, EPA and the DHS. The Program collaborates with the FDA,
CDC, DHS, and fellow USDA agencies CSREES, ERS and FSIS on a wide
variety of issues.
A detailed 2006-2010 Action Plan outlining the ARS Food Safety
Research Program is available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/
programs/programs.htm?np_code=108&docid=278
The Food Safety Program has a long history of accomplishments for
its major stakeholders and customers. The 5-year Accomplishment Report
is available at: http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/programs/
programs.htm?np_code=108&docid=7589
Recent areas of accomplishment include:
--Sensing technologies that enable detection of fecal contamination
on animal carcasses and produce, helping lower the incidence of
E. coli 0157:H7.
--Giving cattle an oral dose of sodium chlorate prior to slaughter
holds promise as an effective intervention to kill E. coli in
live cattle.
--Rapid, sensitive and inexpensive assays for detecting pathogens and
chemical residues, for example dioxins in food.
Among the food safety research goals for the coming 5-years are:
--Understanding the epidemiology and ecology of pathogens in the farm
environment through production and processing.
--Development of intervention strategies to control pathogens in
animal and produce production and processing.
--Identification of factors responsible for mediating antibiotic
resistance in foodborne and other bacteria.
--Genomics to understand the differences between pathogens and non-
pathogens, and identify factors that encode for variations in
virulence.
--Development and validation of methodologies and rapid screening
tests, including on-line methods, to detect fungal and plant
toxins.
The Food Safety Program involves 10 major laboratories and
approximately 250 scientists. The total budget for fiscal year 2007 is
$105.2 million.
CSREES' competitively funded food safety research programs are
presently focusing on a few areas of interest to U.S. agriculture and
consumers, including microbial contamination of fresh produce which is
minimally processed prior to consumption. Bacterial pathogens E. coli
and Salmonella are emphasized in this area as they have been
particularly problematic. Contamination of seafood with viruses and
Vibrio bacteria, Campylobacter and Salmonella bacteria in poultry and
swine, and epidemiological approaches to development of on-farm
mitigation measures and analysis of critical control points are also
focus areas for the Agency this year. Also funded are competitively
awarded projects which couple research, education, and extension
activities with focus on education, certification, and training of
industry, retail personnel, and consumers. Integrated food safety
projects also include emphasis in analysis of microbial contamination
of fruits, vegetables, dairy, meat and poultry with subsequent
information exchange through formal and informal educational settings.
Funded projects cover a wide variety of food safety issues;
however, all maintain a scope of funding that relies on producing real-
world answers to problems facing the food production, processing,
distribution and regulatory communities as well as consumers. Priority
areas align with CSREES mission and relevant goals, and demonstrate
relevance to U.S. agriculture. Priorities are assessed annually to
ensure food safety programs are able to respond to emerging issues. It
is estimated that $23 million of CSREES funds in fiscal year 2006,
fiscal year 2007, and fiscal year 2008 support food safety research.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE
Question. Could you please provide the committee with information
regarding plans by the Department to close agency field offices across
the country, including the possible reorganization of these offices
within each State? The committee is aware that some States are
currently operating with a deficit in funding and one of the options
apparently being discussed to address these deficits is the
reorganization of field offices in these states. I have been informed
that NRCS in West Virginia, for example, could have a loss in workforce
to address the deficit in our state. I have heard concerns from my
constituents that a NRCS office in Hamlin, West Virginia, could be
closed which will result in a loss of services to constituents in
southern West Virginia.
Answer. In the face of constrained discretionary funding levels,
NRCS has taken appropriate management steps to ensure that NRCS
operates within its budget. As part of this effort, a central point of
focus has been to ensure that there is the right number of offices in
the right places. NRCS has not prescribed specific office moves or
consolidation from Washington, DC. Instead, NRCS leadership believes
that local agency staff, including the State Conservationist, know the
State and local needs better than anyone. State Conservationists have
to manage and work within a budget allocation each year. As a result,
states are working with local partners, stakeholders, and constituents
to develop plans that work to the betterment of each locale. Consistent
with the Department's policy of keeping Congress informed of its
activities, NRCS will notify Congress of office closures as
appropriate.
RURAL DEVELOPMENT
Question. Could you please provide the committee with information
regarding plans by the Department to close agency field offices across
the country, including the possible reorganization of these offices
within each State? The committee is aware that some states are
currently operating with a deficit in funding and one of the options
apparently being discussed to address these deficits is the
reorganization of field offices in these states. I have heard concerns
from my constituents that it is possible that Rural Development offices
could be closed or reorganized in West Virginia which will result in a
loss of services to my constituents.
Answer. The Rural Development State Directors have developed their
reorganization plans for National Office consideration. While some
employees will be working at a different office location, we are making
every effort to minimize the disruption to staff. Rural Development is
not proposing a Reduction-in-Force and all employees will be offered a
position at their current grade and pay level. We are also seeking
Voluntary Early Retirement Authority which could be of interest to
those employees who are several years short of being eligible for
regular retirement.
Since the State plans are currently being reviewed, we do not know
the number of offices to be closed or that will operate on a part-time
basis. RD will keep the committee informed of its plans. It is RD's
intent that the reorganization be completed by March, 2008.
Our intent is to train staff so that they are knowledgeable in all
Rural Development programs in order to provide better customer. We
anticipate no reduction in services and plan to continue to provide
comprehensive access to our programs.
FARM SERVICE AGENCY
Question. Could you please provide the committee with information
regarding plans by the Department to close agency field offices across
the country, including the possible reorganization of these offices
within each State? The committee is aware that some states are
currently operating with a deficit in funding and one of the options
apparently being discussed to address these deficits is the
reorganization of field offices in these States. I have heard concerns
from my constituents that it is possible that Farm Service Agency
offices could be closed or reorganized in West Virginia which will
result in a loss of services to my constituents.
Answer. As competition and accountability for limited resources
continue to increase, we want to ensure we are still providing our
customers with the efficient, accurate and timely service they deserve.
Our FSA State Executive Directors (SEDs) are conducting independent,
local-level reviews of the efficiency and effectiveness of the FSA
office structure in their State. In each State, the SED and State
Committee have formed a review committee to develop proposals for the
optimum network of FSA facilities, staffing, training, and technology
for their State within existing budgetary resources and staffing
ceilings. FSA is committed to meeting the needs of farmers and ranchers
in the 21st century, and our hope is to wisely invest in our employees,
technology and equipment.
There is no comprehensive national plan or formula for identifying
the optimum network of FSA offices. Each State will submit
recommendations to FSA's Deputy Administrator for Field Operations for
review. If a State's plan proposes office closures or consolidations,
we will strictly and faithfully follow the congressional and public
notification procedures as required and outlined in Public Law 110-5.
If a State recommends that any of our offices be closed or
consolidated, we will hold public meetings in that county with area
farmers, ranchers, and stakeholders within 30 days of headquarters
concurrence with the plan. We will notify Congress of the Agency's
intent to close offices 120 days prior to closure.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
COMMODITY SUPPLEMENTAL FOOD PROGRAM
Question. The Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP) provides
6.4 million food packages to over 500,000 mothers, infants, children,
and primarily low-income seniors--in fiscal year 2005, 15,575
households in PA received CSFP packages. CSFP food packages are
delivered monthly, and provide $20 worth of food including cheese,
milk, and canned fruits and vegetables. In his fiscal year 2008 budget
request, as in his fiscal year 2007 request, the President eliminated
this program, stating that Food Stamps and the WIC program could meet
the needs of CSFP recipients. Congress provided $112 million in fiscal
year 2006 and has maintained that level in the fiscal year 2007
Continuing Resolution. Seniors, who represent 90 percent of CSFP
recipients, are not eligible for the WIC program, and many of these
seniors are also not eligible for food stamps, or are only eligible to
receive $10 per month in food stamp benefits. Additionally, for seniors
with disabilities, the CSFP program meets a vital need by bringing food
directly to their homes. How does the Department plan to meet the needs
of many of these seniors who depend on the CSFP program and who will
not be eligible to receive any benefits, or will receive reduced
benefits, from the Food Stamp program?
Answer. Elderly participants who are leaving the CSFP upon
termination of its funding and who are not already receiving food stamp
benefits would be eligible to receive a transitional benefit worth $20
per month, ending in the first month following enrollment in the Food
Stamp Program under normal program rules, or 6 months, whichever occurs
first. Based on the information we have about the characteristics of
all elderly food stamp participants, the average monthly food stamp
benefit for an elderly person living alone was $70 per month in 2005.
The percentage of food stamp households with elderly that received the
maximum benefit (14.1 percent) was nearly as large as the percentage
that received the minimum benefit of $10 (15.5 percent). Using
information on the financial circumstances of low-income elderly, we
estimate that CSFP participants transitioning to food stamps will
receive an average monthly benefit of $54 per person.
Elderly CSFP participants who are ineligible for food stamps will
be treated no differently than anyone else living in similar
circumstances who is currently unable to participate in the CSFP due to
its limited availability. Former CSFP participants will have access to
the Emergency Food Assistance Program and other government and private
non-profit programs that offer community-based food assistance
opportunities.
Included in these programs are Federal nutrition assistance
programs targeted specifically to seniors. These programs, administered
by the Administration on Aging and authorized by the Older Americans
Act of 1965, include congregate nutrition services and home-delivered
nutrition services. The Administration's 2008 budget request includes
$383 million and $181 million for these two programs, respectively. In
addition, the 2008 budget request includes $147 million for the
Nutrition Services Incentive Program. Combined, the Older Americans
Nutrition Programs serve about 250 million congregate and in-home meals
to about 2.6 million older adults annually.
FSIS IT INFRASTRUCTURE
Question. It is my understanding that USDA's Food Safety and
Inspection Service is initiating a major change in its inspection
program in order to allocate Agency resources according to risk. In
order to determine risk on an ongoing basis, the Agency will need to
analyze a significant amount of data from a wide variety of diverse
sources. Please detail the level of funding for information technology
infrastructure for FSIS for fiscal year 2008 and compare this funding
to 1) previous funding for information technology for FSIS for the past
3 fiscal years, and 2) information technology infrastructure funding
for other agencies in the Department.
Answer. A chart detailing the funding for information technology
infrastructure for USDA by mission area, for the previous 3 fiscal
years, is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS BY AGENCY
[Dollars in Millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year
Agency ---------------------------------------------------------------
2002 Actual 2006 Actual 2007 Estimate 2008 Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services:
Foreign Agricultural Service................ $23.3 $23.1 $29.9 $26.2
Farm Service Agency......................... 237.6 263.6 270.4 303.0
Risk Management Agency...................... 17.6 20.4 21.7 30.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, FFAS............................ 278.5 307.2 322.0 359.9
===============================================================
Food Nutrition and Consumer Services: Food and 52.2 593.8 605.3 641.2
Nutrition Service..............................
Food Safety: Food Safety and Inspection Service. 39.6 43.4 40.2 38.2
Natural Resources and Environment:
Natural Resources Conservation Service...... 71.8 102.3 104.4 71.6
Forest Service.............................. 411.2 396.7 410.0 407.1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, NRE............................. 483.0 499.0 514.3 478.7
===============================================================
Research, Education and Economics:
Agricultural Research Service............... 37.4 52.2 59.1 39.3
Cooperative State Research, Education & 10.0 9.7 10.8 10.8
Extension Service..........................
Economic Research Service................... 7.1 7.3 6.1 6.3
National Agricultural Statistics Service.... 23.5 24.1 24.3 24.8
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, REE............................. 78.0 93.2 100.3 81.3
===============================================================
Rural Development: Rural Development............ 108.5 119.9 137.5 138.1
Marketing and Regulatory Programs:
Agricultural Marketing Service.............. 18.1 35.8 35.2 48.3
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.. 75.1 81.7 73,7 76.2
Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards 6.9 12.6 12.3 10.7
Administration.............................
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, MRP............................. 100.0 130.0 121.2 135.2
===============================================================
Office of the Chief Financial Officer: Office of 83.4 99.5 188.7 118.8
the Chief Financial Officer....................
Office of the Chief Information Officer:
Office of the Chief Information Officer..... 145.0 62.2 54.0 30.2
Common Computing Environment................ 179.9 128.3 217.8 ( /1/ )
---------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, OCIO............................ 324.9 190.4 271.8 30.2
===============================================================
Staff Offices................................... 45.7 44.7 56.5 69.7
---------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Information Technology Investments... 1,593.9 2,121.0 ,357.9 2,091.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2008 President's Budget includes funding for CCE in FSA, RD, and NRCS.
Question. Is the current level of funding sufficient for FSIS' data
analysis needs for the Agency's new risk-based inspection initiative?
Answer. The Food Safety and Inspection Service's fiscal year 2008
budget request includes sufficient funding for hardware and software
application needs, which includes the agency's needs for risk-based
inspection in processing.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Christopher S. Bond
LOAN PROGRAM DELINQUENCY RATES
Question. For the geopolitical districts (States, Congressional
districts) involved in each Federally declared disaster during the past
5 years, please provide a table showing the delinquency rates of
participants in all USDA loan programs for each of the past 5 years.
Please clearly indicate in which of the past 5 years the disaster
affecting that district was declared and what the nature of the
disaster was.
Answer. I have asked my staff to prepare the available data.
[The information follows:]
EMERGENCY DISASTER DESIGNATIONS APPROVED/PROCESSED BY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH, PECD
[Final totals for fiscal year 2002]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Abbrev Name PRE-Primary PRE-Contiguous ADM-Primary ADM-Contiguous SEC-Primary SEC-Contiguous PRE ADM SEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................ Alabama......... 19 35 .............. .............. .............. 7 54 .............. 7
AK............................ Alaska.......... 6 15 .............. .............. .............. .............. 21 .............. ..............
AZ............................ Arizona......... 4 11 .............. .............. 20 10 15 .............. 30
AR............................ Arkansas........ 20 69 9 29 6 26 89 38 32
CA............................ California...... .............. 1 .............. .............. 10 49 1 .............. 59
CO............................ Colorado........ 59 9 .............. .............. 62 61 68 .............. 123
CT............................ Connecticut..... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 10 .............. .............. 10
DE............................ Delaware........ .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 1 .............. .............. 1
FL............................ Florida......... 4 3 .............. .............. .............. .............. 7 .............. ..............
GA............................ Georgia......... .............. 5 2 10 25 86 5 12 111
HI............................ Hawaii.......... .............. .............. 1 .............. .............. .............. .............. 1 ..............
ID............................ Idaho........... .............. .............. .............. .............. 10 47 .............. .............. 57
IL............................ Illinois........ 106 129 .............. .............. .............. 9 235 .............. 9
IN............................ Indiana......... 72 112 5 22 6 34 184 27 40
IA............................ Iowa............ 21 26 .............. .............. 8 29 47 .............. 37
KS............................ Kansas.......... 35 40 .............. 6 75 135 75 6 210
KY............................ Kentucky........ 86 157 .............. 2 .............. 19 243 2 19
LA............................ Louisiana....... 15 15 .............. 2 32 26 30 2 58
ME............................ Maine........... .............. .............. 1 .............. 27 5 .............. 1 32
MD............................ Maryland........ 3 7 1 .............. .............. 8 10 1 8
MA............................ Massachusetts... .............. .............. .............. .............. 7 12 .............. .............. 19
MI............................ Michigan........ 7 14 .............. 1 107 59 21 1 166
MN............................ Minnesota....... 26 70 .............. .............. 15 36 96 .............. 51
MS............................ Mississippi..... 21 38 6 15 21 43 59 21 64
MO............................ Missouri........ 142 283 .............. 1 14 51 425 1 65
MT............................ Montana......... 5 10 .............. .............. 56 24 15 .............. 80
NE............................ Nebraska........ 1 5 9 35 104 125 6 44 229
NV............................ Nevada.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1 15 .............. .............. 16
NH............................ New Hampshire... .............. 2 .............. .............. .............. 11 2 .............. 11
NJ............................ New Jersey...... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NM............................ New Mexico...... .............. 10 .............. .............. 38 24 10 .............. 62
NY............................ New York........ 56 15 1 4 54 106 71 5 160
NC............................ North Carolina.. .............. 8 .............. .............. 60 53 8 .............. 113
ND............................ North Dakota.... 10 35 .............. .............. 83 39 45 .............. 122
OH............................ Ohio............ .............. 10 .............. 2 43 95 10 2 138
OK............................ Oklahoma........ 48 37 1 4 105 28 85 5 133
OR............................ Oregon.......... 5 9 .............. .............. 7 26 14 .............. 33
PA............................ Pennsylvania.... .............. 7 .............. .............. 46 36 7 .............. 82
RI............................ Rhode Island.... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 4 .............. .............. 4
SC............................ South Carolina.. .............. .............. .............. .............. 46 11 .............. .............. 57
SD............................ South Dakota.... .............. 1 .............. .............. 55 54 1 .............. 109
TN............................ Tennessee....... 36 72 7 20 27 77 108 27 104
TX............................ Texas........... 67 215 6 34 69 300 282 40 369
UT............................ Utah............ .............. 7 .............. .............. 53 11 7 .............. 64
VT............................ Vermont......... 4 15 .............. .............. 11 16 19 .............. 27
VA............................ Virginia........ 25 86 .............. .............. 14 80 111 .............. 94
WA............................ Washington...... .............. .............. 1 6 17 43 .............. 7 60
WV............................ West Virginia... 11 41 .............. .............. .............. 7 52 .............. 7
WI............................ Wisconsin....... 27 51 9 34 .............. 6 78 43 6
WY............................ Wyoming......... .............. 4 .............. .............. 29 41 4 .............. 70
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................. ................ 941 1,679 59 227 1,363 1,995 2,620 286 3,358
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................. 6,264
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE=Presidental, ADM=FSA Administrator, SEC=Sectretarial.
EMERGENCY DISASTER DESIGNATIONS APPROVED/PROCESSED BY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH, PECD
[Preliminary totals for fiscal year 2003]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Abbrev Name PRE-Primary PRE-Contiguous ADM-Primary ADM-Contiguous SEC-Primary SEC-Contiguous PRE ADM SEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................ Alabama......... 69 68 .............. 4 67 49 137 4 116
AK............................ Alaska.......... 11 18 .............. .............. .............. .............. 29 .............. ..............
AZ............................ Arizona......... 1 6 .............. .............. 16 9 7 .............. 25
AR............................ Arkansas........ 41 75 28 72 93 48 116 100 141
CA............................ California...... .............. .............. .............. .............. 52 74 .............. .............. 126
CO............................ Colorado........ 29 28 .............. 3 6 26 57 3 32
CT............................ Connecticut..... 8 7 .............. 8 8 13 15 8 21
DE............................ Delaware........ 7 8 .............. 1 3 7 15 1 10
FL............................ Florida......... 10 20 .............. 2 12 23 30 2 35
GA............................ Georgia......... .............. 32 4 13 270 67 32 17 337
HI............................ Hawaii.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1 .............. .............. .............. 1
ID............................ Idaho........... .............. .............. .............. .............. 24 35 .............. .............. 59
IL............................ Illinois........ 16 46 .............. 4 65 66 62 4 131
IN............................ Indiana......... 67 87 .............. .............. 74 51 154 .............. 125
IA............................ Iowa............ .............. 4 2 11 21 34 4 13 55
KS............................ Kansas.......... 15 50 .............. 5 63 66 65 5 129
KY............................ Kentucky........ 119 157 .............. 6 120 61 276 6 181
LA............................ Louisiana....... 86 118 2 11 63 51 204 13 114
ME............................ Maine........... 12 11 .............. .............. 16 2 23 .............. 18
MD............................ Maryland........ 44 52 .............. .............. 21 12 96 .............. 33
MA............................ Massachusetts... 14 14 10 3 12 12 28 13 24
MI............................ Michigan........ 14 14 2 11 33 25 28 13 58
MN............................ Minnesota....... .............. .............. 10 31 6 22 .............. 41 28
MS............................ Mississippi..... 57 114 .............. 6 82 50 171 6 132
MO............................ Missouri........ 75 73 .............. 9 29 59 148 9 88
MT............................ Montana......... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2 3 .............. .............. 5
NE............................ Nebraska........ 19 52 21 62 53 17 71 83 70
NV............................ Nevada.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. 34 6 .............. .............. 40
NH............................ New Hampshire... 7 15 .............. 3 10 .............. 22 3 10
NJ............................ New Jersey...... 26 22 8 12 19 20 48 20 39
NM............................ New Mexico...... .............. 3 .............. .............. .............. 17 3 .............. 17
NY............................ New York........ 133 95 9 39 81 82 228 48 163
NC............................ North Carolina.. 76 76 1 5 44 79 152 6 123
ND............................ North Dakota.... 1 6 .............. .............. .............. .............. 7 .............. ..............
OH............................ Ohio............ 76 181 21 28 158 24 257 49 182
OK............................ Oklahoma........ 41 77 1 5 75 47 118 6 122
OR............................ Oregon.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. 14 38 .............. .............. 52
PA............................ Pennsylvania.... 50 111 .............. 6 59 49 161 6 108
RI............................ Rhode Island.... 2 6 .............. 3 5 .............. 8 3 5
SC............................ South Carolina.. 6 15 .............. .............. 46 25 21 .............. 71
SD............................ South Dakota.... .............. 5 9 18 8 31 5 27 39
TN............................ Tennessee....... 120 179 3 9 108 149 299 12 257
TX............................ Texas........... 91 212 1 9 163 222 303 10 385
UT............................ Utah............ .............. .............. .............. .............. 29 8 .............. .............. 37
VT............................ Vermont......... 4 16 .............. 2 6 20 20 2 26
VA............................ Virginia........ 139 166 15 48 105 144 305 63 249
WA............................ Washington...... .............. .............. .............. .............. 34 86 .............. .............. 120
WV............................ West Virginia... 79 119 .............. 12 51 54 198 12 105
WI............................ Wisconsin....... .............. .............. 4 16 41 35 .............. 20 76
WY............................ Wyoming......... .............. 3 .............. .............. 7 11 3 .............. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................. ................ 1,565 2,361 151 477 2,309 2,029 3,926 628 4,338
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............. 8,892
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE=Presidental, ADM=FSA Administrator, SEC=Sectretarial.
EMERGENCY DISASTER DESIGNATIONS APPROVED/PROCESSED BY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH, PECD
[Preliminary totals for fiscal year 2004]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Abbrev Name PRE-Primary PRE-Contiguous ADM-Primary ADM-Contiguous SEC-Primary SEC-Contiguous PRE ADM SEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................ Alabama......... 67 44 .............. .............. .............. 5 111 .............. 5
AK............................ Alaska.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
AZ............................ Arizona......... .............. 2 .............. .............. .............. 9 2 .............. 9
AR............................ Arkansas........ 28 35 14 29 55 83 63 43 138
CA............................ California...... 8 18 .............. .............. 40 181 26 .............. 221
CO............................ Colorado........ .............. 2 .............. 2 49 71 2 2 120
CT............................ Connecticut..... 7 8 .............. .............. 8 9 15 .............. 17
DE............................ Delaware........ .............. 2 .............. .............. .............. 3 2 .............. 3
FL............................ Florida......... 174 117 .............. .............. .............. 9 291 .............. 9
GA............................ Georgia......... 124 157 .............. .............. 87 37 281 .............. 124
HI............................ Hawaii.......... .............. .............. 3 .............. 7 2 .............. 3 9
ID............................ Idaho........... .............. 7 .............. .............. 33 63 7 .............. 96
IL............................ Illinois........ 4 40 .............. 5 42 53 44 5 95
IN............................ Indiana......... 89 104 .............. .............. 30 34 193 .............. 64
IA............................ Iowa............ 77 83 .............. 9 72 74 160 9 146
KS............................ Kansas.......... 31 77 .............. 2 129 103 108 2 232
KY............................ Kentucky........ 105 92 1 6 .............. 23 197 7 23
LA............................ Louisiana....... 17 30 1 6 49 38 47 7 87
ME............................ Maine........... 25 23 .............. .............. 4 9 48 .............. 13
MD............................ Maryland........ .............. 11 .............. .............. .............. .............. 11 .............. ..............
MA............................ Massachusetts... 17 15 .............. .............. 10 13 32 .............. 23
MI............................ Michigan........ 23 31 1 5 126 90 54 6 216
MN............................ Minnesota....... .............. 15 5 25 65 59 15 30 124
MS............................ Mississippi..... 23 35 3 10 .............. 11 58 13 11
MO............................ Missouri........ 37 43 .............. 5 78 81 80 5 159
MT............................ Montana......... .............. 4 .............. .............. 46 45 4 .............. 91
NE............................ Nebraska........ 39 61 17 50 61 99 100 67 160
NV............................ Nevada.......... 1 7 .............. .............. 17 13 8 .............. 30
NH............................ New Hampshire... 8 15 .............. .............. .............. 6 23 .............. 6
NJ............................ New Jersey...... 2 12 .............. .............. 16 3 14 .............. 19
NM............................ New Mexico...... .............. .............. .............. .............. 32 20 .............. .............. 52
NY............................ New York........ 18 62 7 20 55 101 80 27 156
NC............................ North Carolina.. 86 79 .............. 1 6 29 165 1 35
ND............................ North Dakota.... 27 32 .............. 4 82 44 59 4 126
OH............................ Ohio............ 72 130 .............. .............. 46 77 202 .............. 123
OK............................ Oklahoma........ .............. 7 .............. 1 .............. 34 7 1 34
OR............................ Oregon.......... 30 10 .............. .............. 12 44 40 .............. 56
PA............................ Pennsylvania.... 70 102 2 14 1 19 172 16 20
RI............................ Rhode Island.... .............. 7 .............. .............. .............. 6 7 .............. 6
SC............................ South Carolina.. 22 57 .............. .............. 8 20 79 .............. 28
SD............................ South Dakota.... 9 21 .............. 6 74 70 30 6 144
TN............................ Tennessee....... .............. 35 .............. .............. 12 32 35 .............. 44
TX............................ Texas........... .............. 5 6 41 82 432 5 47 514
UT............................ Utah............ .............. .............. .............. .............. 20 30 .............. .............. 50
VT............................ Vermont......... 7 17 .............. .............. .............. 4 24 .............. 4
VA............................ Virginia........ 22 64 2 6 9 50 86 8 59
WA............................ Washington...... 15 18 .............. .............. 29 45 33 .............. 74
WV............................ West Virginia... 84 124 .............. 2 .............. 4 208 2 4
WI............................ Wisconsin....... 44 44 39 161 59 38 88 200 97
WY............................ Wyoming......... .............. .............. .............. 2 14 37 .............. 2 51
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................. ................ 1,412 1,904 101 412 1,565 2,362 3,316 513 3,927
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............. 7,756
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE=Presidental, ADM=FSA Administrator, SEC=Sectretarial.
EMERGENCY DISASTER DESIGNATIONS APPROVED/PROCESSED BY EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH, PECD
[Final totals for fiscal year 2005]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Abbrev Name PRE-Primary PRE-Contiguous ADM-Primary ADM-Contiguous SEC-Primary SEC-Contiguous PRE ADM SEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................ Alabama......... 53 95 .............. 10 .............. 21 148 10 21
AK............................ Alaska.......... 3 5 .............. .............. .............. .............. 8 .............. ..............
AZ............................ Arizona......... 15 18 3 6 .............. 3 33 9 3
AR............................ Arkansas........ 0 6 .............. 2 40 56 6 2 96
CA............................ California...... 15 18 1 5 49 146 33 6 195
CO............................ Colorado........ 0 5 .............. .............. 5 23 5 .............. 28
CT............................ Connecticut..... 0 4 .............. .............. 4 9 4 .............. 13
DE............................ Delaware........ 1 2 .............. .............. .............. .............. 3 .............. ..............
FL............................ Florida......... 30 62 .............. 1 .............. 4 92 1 4
GA............................ Georgia......... 0 27 22 77 32 49 27 99 81
HI............................ Hawaii.......... 1 .............. 4 .............. .............. .............. 1 4 ..............
ID............................ Idaho........... 1 6 .............. .............. 11 37 7 .............. 48
IL............................ Illinois........ 16 24 .............. .............. 93 27 40 .............. 120
IN............................ Indiana......... 136 45 20 16 .............. 24 181 36 24
IA............................ Iowa............ 0 6 .............. 1 16 27 6 1 43
KS............................ Kansas.......... 41 35 .............. 3 19 101 76 3 120
KY............................ Kentucky........ 30 82 .............. 10 .............. 24 112 10 24
LA............................ Louisiana....... 54 83 1 6 .............. 20 137 7 20
ME............................ Maine........... 13 11 .............. .............. 2 6 24 .............. 8
MD............................ Maryland........ 0 2 .............. .............. .............. .............. 2 .............. ..............
MA............................ Massachusetts... 0 3 3 5 2 8 3 8 10
MI............................ Michigan........ 0 3 27 25 94 41 3 52 135
MN............................ Minnesota....... 7 19 .............. .............. 65 82 26 .............. 147
MS............................ Mississippi..... 74 70 11 44 69 49 144 55 118
MO............................ Missouri........ 0 13 .............. 1 112 20 13 1 132
MT............................ Montana......... 0 1 .............. .............. 43 49 1 .............. 92
NE............................ Nebraska........ 11 26 12 32 30 54 37 44 84
NV............................ Nevada.......... 2 12 .............. 3 19 13 14 3 32
NH............................ New Hampshire... 0 5 .............. 2 .............. .............. 5 2 ..............
NJ............................ New Jersey...... 14 30 .............. .............. 4 11 44 .............. 15
NM............................ New Mexico...... 0 10 .............. .............. 1 14 10 .............. 15
NY............................ New York........ 48 113 7 23 65 105 161 30 170
NC............................ North Carolina.. 0 26 .............. .............. .............. 7 26 .............. 7
ND............................ North Dakota.... 26 49 .............. .............. 14 23 75 .............. 37
OH............................ Ohio............ 79 59 6 24 108 82 138 30 190
OK............................ Oklahoma........ 0 10 .............. .............. 60 41 10 .............. 101
OR............................ Oregon.......... 0 1 .............. .............. 5 26 1 .............. 31
PA............................ Pennsylvania.... 11 50 .............. 2 .............. 18 61 2 18
RI............................ Rhode Island.... 0 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 0 .............. ..............
SC............................ South Carolina.. 28 12 .............. .............. .............. 1 40 .............. 1
SD............................ South Dakota.... 7 22 .............. 3 3 26 29 3 29
TN............................ Tennessee....... 15 47 1 4 30 69 62 5 99
TX............................ Texas........... 22 35 3 21 96 579 57 24 675
UT............................ Utah............ 10 31 1 5 2 17 41 6 19
VT............................ Vermont......... .............. 1 .............. .............. .............. 6 1 .............. 6
VA............................ Virginia........ 10 13 .............. .............. 2 8 23 .............. 10
WA............................ Washington...... 0 2 .............. .............. 9 27 2 .............. 36
WV............................ West Virginia... 6 20 .............. 4 .............. 19 26 4 19
WI............................ Wisconsin....... 0 .............. .............. .............. 16 58 0 .............. 74
WY............................ Wyoming......... 1 5 .............. 3 5 12 6 3 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................. ................ 780 1,224 122 338 1,125 2,042 2,004 460 3,167
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............. 5,631
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE=Presidental, ADM=FSA Administrator, SEC=Sectretarial.
EMERGENCY DISASTER DESIGNATIONS APPROVED/PROCESSED BY THE DISASTER ASSISTANCE BRANCH/EMERGENCIES SECTION (DAB/ES), PECD
[Final totals for fiscal year 2006]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Abbrev Name PRE-Primary PRE-Contiguous ADM-Primary ADM-Contiguous SEC-Primary SEC-Contiguous PRE ADM SEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL............................ Alabama......... .............. .............. .............. 2 67 103 .............. 2 170
AK............................ Alaska.......... 1 3 .............. .............. .............. .............. 4 .............. ..............
AZ............................ Arizona......... 6 14 .............. .............. 14 10 20 .............. 24
AR............................ Arkansas........ 7 29 23 72 98 113 36 95 211
CA............................ California...... 48 54 .............. .............. 55 97 102 .............. 152
CO............................ Colorado........ .............. 5 .............. .............. 79 187 5 .............. 266
CT............................ Connecticut..... 5 14 1 5 16 17 19 6 33
DE............................ Delaware........ 1 4 .............. .............. .............. 2 5 .............. 2
FL............................ Florida......... 17 35 .............. .............. .............. 15 52 .............. 15
GA............................ Georgia......... .............. 6 7 36 267 57 6 43 324
HI............................ Hawaii.......... 2 .............. 2 .............. 2 .............. 2 2 2
ID............................ Idaho........... 1 9 .............. .............. .............. 12 10 .............. 12
IL............................ Illinois........ 6 22 .............. .............. 5 33 28 .............. 38
IN............................ Indiana......... 2 5 5 15 24 47 7 20 71
IA............................ Iowa............ .............. 2 2 12 24 68 2 14 92
KS............................ Kansas.......... 24 48 .............. .............. 12 109 72 .............. 121
KY............................ Kentucky........ 2 23 .............. .............. 109 43 25 .............. 152
LA............................ Louisiana....... 8 32 .............. .............. 40 41 40 .............. 81
ME............................ Maine........... 1 4 .............. .............. .............. 2 5 .............. 2
MD............................ Maryland........ 3 24 .............. .............. .............. 6 27 .............. 6
MA............................ Massachusetts... 12 17 1 3 13 27 29 4 40
MI............................ Michigan........ .............. 2 .............. .............. 74 79 2 .............. 153
MN............................ Minnesota....... 18 40 1 6 36 37 58 7 73
MS............................ Mississippi..... .............. 4 .............. .............. 166 28 4 .............. 194
MO............................ Missouri........ 48 155 .............. 12 .............. 17 203 12 17
MT............................ Montana......... .............. 7 4 18 3 25 7 22 28
NE............................ Nebraska........ 29 35 .............. .............. 98 136 64 .............. 234
NV............................ Nevada.......... 6 16 .............. .............. .............. 13 22 .............. 13
NH............................ New Hampshire... 13 20 .............. .............. 10 7 33 .............. 17
NJ............................ New Jersey...... 3 15 .............. .............. 36 12 18 .............. 48
NM............................ New Mexico...... 15 34 .............. .............. 31 31 49 .............. 62
NY............................ New York........ 21 59 3 18 93 267 80 21 360
NC............................ North Carolina.. 10 22 .............. .............. .............. 33 32 .............. 33
ND............................ North Dakota.... 35 50 .............. 4 90 38 85 4 128
OH............................ Ohio............ 9 24 .............. .............. .............. 19 33 .............. 19
OK............................ Oklahoma........ 29 73 1 11 154 55 102 12 209
OR............................ Oregon.......... 20 26 .............. .............. 10 61 46 .............. 71
PA............................ Pennsylvania.... 28 96 .............. .............. 23 60 124 .............. 83
RI............................ Rhode Island.... .............. 6 .............. .............. 5 12 6 .............. 17
SC............................ South Carolina.. 7 7 .............. 4 .............. 18 14 4 18
SD............................ South Dakota.... 32 44 3 13 94 156 76 16 250
TN............................ Tennessee....... 15 51 2 15 42 153 66 17 195
TX............................ Texas........... 33 123 2 9 342 1,252 156 11 1,594
UT............................ Utah............ .............. 1 .............. .............. 1 12 1 .............. 13
VT............................ Vermont......... .............. 12 .............. .............. 14 25 12 .............. 39
VA............................ Virginia........ 37 68 .............. .............. 51 142 105 .............. 193
WA............................ Washington...... 11 13 .............. .............. 28 42 24 .............. 70
WV............................ West Virginia... .............. 5 .............. .............. 29 30 5 .............. 59
WI............................ Wisconsin....... .............. .............. 3 12 46 98 .............. 15 144
WY............................ Wyoming......... .............. 1 .............. .............. .............. 14 1 .............. 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................. ................ 565 1,359 60 267 2,301 3,861 1,924 327 6,162
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL............. 8,413
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRE=Presidental, ADM=FSA Administrator, SEC=Sectretarial.
This data represents the dollar delinquency rate for all geographic
counties, whether or not there was any loan activity in those counties.
Data is as of December 31 in order to correspond to calendar year
Presidential and Secretarial disaster declarations. For the year of the
disaster declaration, primary counties are highlighted in red and
contiguous counties in yellow. This data represents a snapshot on a
particular day. In some instances, the delinquencies identified may be
resolved within days as producers sell their crop and apply the
proceeds to their loans
DIRECT LOAN PROGRAM DELINQUENCIES (ALL LOAN TYPES)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELQ RATE 12/ DELQ RATE 12/ DELQ RATE 12/ DELQ RATE 12/ DELQ RATE 12/
STATE NAME COUNTY NAME 31/06 31/05 31/04 31/03 31/02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA................................... AUTAUGA..................... .............. .............. .............. .01 .08
ALABAMA................................... BALDWIN..................... .............. .36 2.89 3.02 .99
ALABAMA................................... BARBOUR..................... .............. .............. .............. 1.47 .04
ALABAMA................................... BIBB........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 13.38
ALABAMA................................... BLOUNT...................... 2.55 1.47 1.65 1.15 9.29
ALABAMA................................... BULLOCK..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 12.85
ALABAMA................................... BUTLER...................... .............. .76 5.90 3.25 ..............
ALABAMA................................... CALHOUN..................... .............. .............. .............. 1.34 .70
ALABAMA................................... CHAMBERS.................... .............. .............. 1.17 .92 ..............
ALABAMA................................... CHEROKEE.................... .12 2.29 .84 .............. 1.04
ALABAMA................................... CHILTON..................... .............. .............. 2.30 1.98 16.72
ALABAMA................................... CHOCTAW..................... 100.00 62.66 33.12 25.45 8.34
ALABAMA................................... CLARKE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... CLAY........................ .77 .98 2.99 .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... CLEBURNE.................... 36.33 4.77 7.68 4.76 2.88
ALABAMA................................... COFFEE...................... .............. .68 1.35 .33 .27
ALABAMA................................... COLBERT..................... .28 .............. .............. 3.50 2.42
ALABAMA................................... CONECUH..................... 4.33 3.79 1.14 5.13 ..............
ALABAMA................................... COOSA....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... COVINGTON................... .............. .............. .............. .29 ..............
ALABAMA................................... CRENSHAW.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... CULLMAN..................... .............. 8.60 4.18 1.99 1.72
ALABAMA................................... DALE........................ .............. 2.96 .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... DALLAS...................... 1.01 1.05 4.01 .62 .65
ALABAMA................................... DE KALB..................... 7.15 2.33 5.49 3.86 2.80
ALABAMA................................... ELMORE...................... .............. 10.38 1.49 1.20 .64
ALABAMA................................... ESCAMBIA.................... 1.72 .38 .............. 4.17 4.00
ALABAMA................................... ETOWAH...................... 2.22 2.18 .93 14.89 7.83
ALABAMA................................... FAYETTE..................... .............. .............. .............. 3.08 3.75
ALABAMA................................... FRANKLIN.................... 1.01 .92 .84 .94 1.18
ALABAMA................................... GENEVA...................... 2.81 4.15 3.73 3.77 3.58
ALABAMA................................... GREENE...................... 1.86 .94 1.28 1.89 5.83
ALABAMA................................... HALE........................ 7.16 15.01 7.92 6.29 .73
ALABAMA................................... HENRY....................... .............. .............. 2.58 4.29 1.61
ALABAMA................................... HOUSTON..................... .............. 7.73 5.22 4.10 2.63
ALABAMA................................... JACKSON..................... 5.22 7.37 9.79 8.19 5.49
ALABAMA................................... JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. 10.86 .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... LAMAR....................... .............. .............. .............. 3.30 2.91
ALABAMA................................... LAUDERDALE.................. 1.25 .81 12.12 11.75 8.91
ALABAMA................................... LAWRENCE.................... 11.42 9.59 7.31 5.25 4.20
ALABAMA................................... LEE......................... .............. .............. 15.54 .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... LIMESTONE................... 2.51 1.05 .66 2.30 .10
ALABAMA................................... LOWNDES..................... 15.00 17.36 16.71 14.30 14.66
ALABAMA................................... MACON....................... 4.93 .............. 8.92 .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... MADISON..................... 2.39 .65 1.40 2.13 .17
ALABAMA................................... MARENGO..................... 3.21 3.78 2.87 1.73 1.57
ALABAMA................................... MARION...................... .............. .............. 5.36 .............. .57
ALABAMA................................... MARSHALL.................... .02 .97 2.42 .03 8.02
ALABAMA................................... MOBILE...................... .............. 1.32 .............. 14.97 ..............
ALABAMA................................... MONROE...................... 1.49 1.39 2.23 1.49 1.13
ALABAMA................................... MONTGOMERY.................. .13 .20 2.30 .............. 4.37
ALABAMA................................... MORGAN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .29
ALABAMA................................... PERRY....................... 11.51 10.92 3.92 5.46 1.29
ALABAMA................................... PICKENS..................... 3.79 3.76 1.60 1.93 .59
ALABAMA................................... PIKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 18.73
ALABAMA................................... RANDOLPH.................... .28 .12 .33 .07 ..............
ALABAMA................................... RUSSELL..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... SHELBY...................... .............. .............. .............. 8.48 6.54
ALABAMA................................... ST. CLAIR................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... SUMTER...................... 10.43 4.20 4.93 8.01 8.21
ALABAMA................................... TALLADEGA................... 1.83 .............. .............. .............. 2.14
ALABAMA................................... TALLAPOOSA.................. .............. 2.24 .............. .............. 2.44
ALABAMA................................... TUSCALOOSA.................. 1.08 .62 3.82 .18 ..............
ALABAMA................................... WALKER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALABAMA................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 3.16
ALABAMA................................... WILCOX...................... 2.12 .............. 1.93 .31 ..............
ALABAMA................................... WINSTON..................... .............. .............. .27 1.79 1.76
ALASKA.................................... ALEUTIANS E BOROUGH......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... ALEUTIANS W CENSUS A........ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... ANCHORAGE BOROUGH........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... BETHEL CENSUS AREA.......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... BRISTOL BAY BOROUGH......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... DENALI BOROUGH.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... DILLINGHAM CENSUS A......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR........ 11.75 10.74 8.53 11.32 5.82
ALASKA.................................... HAINES BOROUGH.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... JUNEAU...................... .17 1.33 1.40 8.95 5.50
ALASKA.................................... KENAI PENINSULA............. 4.12 .............. .............. .............. 15.99
ALASKA.................................... KETCHIKAN GATEWAY........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... KODIAK ISL. BOROUGH......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... LAKE & PENINSULA............ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... MATANUSKA-SUSITNA........... 14.53 10.61 7.19 4.15 3.89
ALASKA.................................... NOME CENSUS AREA............ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... NORTHWEST ARCTIC............ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... PRINCE OF WALES............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... SITKA BOROUGH............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... SKAGWAY-YAKUTAT-ANGO........ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... SOUTHEAST FAIRBANKS......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... VALDEZ-CORDOVA.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... WADE-HAMPTON................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... WRANGELL-PETERSBURG......... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... YAKUTAT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ALASKA.................................... YUKON-KOYUKUK............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ARIZONA................................... APACHE,S.................... 38.25 32.21 23.82 10.62 8.74
ARIZONA................................... COCHISE..................... 19.73 20.85 20.15 14.46 22.17
ARIZONA................................... COCONINO.................... .............. .............. 11.99 10.45 15.54
ARIZONA................................... GILA........................ 86.80 72.30 63.01 44.74 ..............
ARIZONA................................... GRAHAM...................... 18.78 8.77 5.11 33.36 31.82
ARIZONA................................... GREENLEE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 19.31
ARIZONA................................... LA PAZ...................... .............. .............. 4.61 .............. 19.71
ARIZONA................................... MARICOPA.................... 21.63 48.43 39.07 66.94 62.73
ARIZONA................................... MOHAVE...................... 9.17 1.49 9.28 8.05 9.44
ARIZONA................................... NAVAJO,S.................... 70.65 32.30 80.77 76.52 58.92
ARIZONA................................... PIMA........................ 54.40 100.00 47.09 43.44 45.98
ARIZONA................................... PINAL....................... 24.87 23.21 3.46 19.13 13.15
ARIZONA................................... SANTA CRUZ.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ARIZONA................................... YAVAPAI..................... .............. 80.69 78.00 76.27 71.46
ARIZONA................................... YUMA........................ .............. .............. .............. .13 11.30
ARKANSAS.................................. ARKANSAS.................... 6.38 8.46 5.92 7.33 8.45
ARKANSAS.................................. ASHLEY...................... 15.50 26.88 22.61 30.67 32.25
ARKANSAS.................................. BAXTER...................... .04 .03 .18 .07 ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. BENTON...................... 5.16 9.05 6.22 4.90 8.93
ARKANSAS.................................. BOONE....................... .............. .............. .10 .01 .03
ARKANSAS.................................. BRADLEY..................... 44.57 44.07 48.42 51.24 39.29
ARKANSAS.................................. CALHOUN..................... 57.07 53.37 46.60 38.11 23.28
ARKANSAS.................................. CARROLL..................... 1.74 1.67 1.52 .96 .50
ARKANSAS.................................. CHICOT...................... 30.48 25.83 24.66 20.40 26.57
ARKANSAS.................................. CLARK....................... .14 15.56 14.32 1.39 3.03
ARKANSAS.................................. CLAY........................ .57 7.53 2.66 3.22 .04
ARKANSAS.................................. CLEBURNE.................... 1.50 .83 .88 1.12 1.88
ARKANSAS.................................. CLEVELAND................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. COLUMBIA.................... .............. .............. .............. 25.19 20.54
ARKANSAS.................................. CONWAY...................... 3.72 4.01 4.60 3.33 3.10
ARKANSAS.................................. CRAIGHEAD................... 2.18 3.06 .88 6.90 4.34
ARKANSAS.................................. CRAWFORD.................... 2.36 .76 3.86 2.48 2.53
ARKANSAS.................................. CRITTENDEN.................. 25.94 35.00 37.17 30.91 31.61
ARKANSAS.................................. CROSS....................... 22.11 10.77 20.66 11.07 9.75
ARKANSAS.................................. DALLAS...................... 9.09 .............. .............. .38 6.19
ARKANSAS.................................. DESHA....................... 4.25 2.69 5.72 7.53 4.99
ARKANSAS.................................. DREW........................ 19.45 4.28 2.29 14.55 10.97
ARKANSAS.................................. FAULKNER.................... 26.65 20.50 14.94 1.10 4.57
ARKANSAS.................................. FRANKLIN.................... .85 .76 .37 2.40 2.24
ARKANSAS.................................. FULTON...................... 4.65 1.70 2.57 1.38 1.41
ARKANSAS.................................. GARLAND..................... 19.47 .............. .............. .25 ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. GRANT....................... .............. 6.00 57.29 57.50 59.97
ARKANSAS.................................. GREENE...................... .............. .18 3.20 9.74 16.34
ARKANSAS.................................. HEMPSTEAD................... .42 2.88 4.13 2.72 1.18
ARKANSAS.................................. HOT SPRING.................. 2.45 .............. .............. .21 .04
ARKANSAS.................................. HOWARD...................... 21.67 21.65 18.48 15.12 13.28
ARKANSAS.................................. INDEPENDENCE................ 4.49 3.47 4.46 1.74 2.08
ARKANSAS.................................. IZARD....................... .78 1.12 .89 8.44 7.17
ARKANSAS.................................. JACKSON..................... 8.03 5.39 4.12 12.11 18.23
ARKANSAS.................................. JEFFERSON................... 17.66 17.57 18.59 20.55 15.71
ARKANSAS.................................. JOHNSON..................... .73 .33 .34 .21 .22
ARKANSAS.................................. LAFAYETTE................... 7.14 6.68 8.55 10.98 8.83
ARKANSAS.................................. LAWRENCE.................... .27 .25 .............. .02 13.38
ARKANSAS.................................. LEE......................... 21.15 21.84 20.10 24.83 25.61
ARKANSAS.................................. LINCOLN..................... 44.89 44.62 33.82 25.54 20.05
ARKANSAS.................................. LITTLE RIVER................ 5.63 15.13 21.42 19.06 15.89
ARKANSAS.................................. LOGAN....................... 8.47 5.33 5.11 .29 1.15
ARKANSAS.................................. LONOKE...................... 8.93 7.39 5.63 4.52 5.72
ARKANSAS.................................. MADISON..................... .14 .13 5.67 13.10 10.00
ARKANSAS.................................. MARION...................... .............. .............. 10.70 11.33 9.53
ARKANSAS.................................. MILLER...................... 3.55 1.89 5.62 3.94 3.58
ARKANSAS.................................. MISSISSIPPI................. 2.31 2.45 4.66 3.31 5.75
ARKANSAS.................................. MONROE...................... 12.17 11.97 20.02 22.42 29.36
ARKANSAS.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. 8.29 6.87 6.85 5.95 2.79
ARKANSAS.................................. NEVADA...................... 23.13 24.92 19.65 17.26 17.57
ARKANSAS.................................. NEWTON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. OUACHITA.................... 1.26 41.07 19.28 10.29 5.70
ARKANSAS.................................. PERRY....................... .............. .............. .93 .............. ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. PHILLIPS.................... 36.77 35.21 33.13 34.06 33.43
ARKANSAS.................................. PIKE........................ 1.71 12.05 11.79 6.83 12.35
ARKANSAS.................................. POINSETT.................... 2.14 3.80 7.08 10.69 10.39
ARKANSAS.................................. POLK........................ 2.38 1.79 1.26 .64 2.02
ARKANSAS.................................. POPE........................ 5.60 4.28 2.38 .69 .32
ARKANSAS.................................. PRAIRIE..................... 11.70 10.77 6.50 5.63 2.71
ARKANSAS.................................. PULASKI..................... 1.91 1.79 1.54 3.08 19.15
ARKANSAS.................................. RANDOLPH.................... 6.76 8.20 7.49 4.69 3.96
ARKANSAS.................................. SALINE...................... .............. 5.45 2.74 .............. ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. SCOTT....................... 2.38 1.68 .05 .............. ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. SEARCY...................... 3.40 2.42 2.58 4.63 .22
ARKANSAS.................................. SEBASTIAN................... .............. 2.04 1.19 .24 ..............
ARKANSAS.................................. SEVIER...................... 2.82 1.94 4.65 4.53 3.72
ARKANSAS.................................. SHARP....................... .11 .87 1.43 1.45 1.39
ARKANSAS.................................. ST. FRANCIS................. 15.12 5.17 5.64 5.14 5.17
ARKANSAS.................................. STONE....................... .80 .60 1.78 1.56 .40
ARKANSAS.................................. UNION....................... 18.71 12.14 9.31 8.02 6.78
ARKANSAS.................................. VAN BUREN................... 2.48 8.03 6.57 6.09 5.76
ARKANSAS.................................. WASHINGTON.................. 3.63 2.05 1.07 1.12 9.48
ARKANSAS.................................. WHITE....................... 4.47 4.63 7.18 9.68 9.84
ARKANSAS.................................. WOODRUFF.................... 21.91 21.26 21.96 18.11 17.66
ARKANSAS.................................. YELL........................ .14 .16 .28 .11 .42
CALIFORNIA................................ ALAMEDA..................... .............. .............. .............. 12.00 53.62
CALIFORNIA................................ ALPINE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ AMADOR...................... 2.63 2.72 .31 .............. 4.39
CALIFORNIA................................ BUTTE....................... 10.64 18.08 12.49 20.14 17.14
CALIFORNIA................................ CALAVERAS................... 63.73 94.84 14.25 5.74 ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ COLUSA...................... 34.86 4.66 4.29 4.30 6.96
CALIFORNIA................................ CONTRA COSTA................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ DEL NORTE................... .............. 3.49 .27 2.07 5.24
CALIFORNIA................................ EL DORADO................... .............. 42.31 39.25 17.24 25.00
CALIFORNIA................................ FRESNO...................... 17.78 15.64 28.52 26.82 24.26
CALIFORNIA................................ GLENN....................... 3.77 5.26 8.07 9.15 7.96
CALIFORNIA................................ HUMBOLDT.................... 5.93 6.53 13.11 21.56 35.17
CALIFORNIA................................ IMPERIAL.................... .............. 1.06 24.81 26.92 15.59
CALIFORNIA................................ INYO........................ .............. .............. .............. .60 .91
CALIFORNIA................................ KERN........................ 1.47 59.46 65.12 61.27 56.85
CALIFORNIA................................ KINGS....................... .............. .12 11.20 7.33 4.63
CALIFORNIA................................ LAKE........................ 8.81 6.83 15.08 22.35 29.56
CALIFORNIA................................ LASSEN...................... 67.08 70.99 65.40 60.13 60.49
CALIFORNIA................................ LOS ANGELES................. .............. .............. 100.00 .............. 86.33
CALIFORNIA................................ MADERA...................... 19.78 19.90 18.28 19.58 22.25
CALIFORNIA................................ MARIN....................... 1.33 10.56 10.65 10.19 1.93
CALIFORNIA................................ MARIPOSA.................... 4.80 .............. .............. 41.10 37.81
CALIFORNIA................................ MENDOCINO................... 30.00 22.87 23.54 24.44 14.60
CALIFORNIA................................ MERCED...................... 47.89 44.13 38.33 35.29 34.20
CALIFORNIA................................ MODOC....................... 15.23 15.67 13.55 13.22 12.67
CALIFORNIA................................ MONO........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ MONTEREY.................... 17.58 10.66 8.86 23.70 25.28
CALIFORNIA................................ NAPA........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ NEVADA...................... 19.56 16.30 9.44 .............. 8.21
CALIFORNIA................................ ORANGE...................... 88.96 77.59 18.78 17.18 ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ PLACER...................... 7.03 15.72 19.99 23.63 21.49
CALIFORNIA................................ PLUMAS...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ RIVERSIDE................... 6.20 2.32 3.89 21.51 54.80
CALIFORNIA................................ SACRAMENTO.................. 37.68 32.57 23.28 21.42 12.25
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN BENITO.................. 93.48 91.52 90.98 90.90 93.89
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN BERNARDINO.............. 76.77 24.07 32.32 30.76 28.85
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN DIEGO................... 20.95 20.23 57.61 53.98 60.50
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN FRANCISCO............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN JOAQUIN................. 12.16 13.75 18.73 18.16 20.46
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN LUIS OBISPO............. 45.47 42.65 29.58 27.78 25.90
CALIFORNIA................................ SAN MATEO................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ SANTA BARBARA............... 20.12 8.14 15.11 .............. 3.62
CALIFORNIA................................ SANTA CLARA................. 82.53 78.46 79.50 78.30 77.80
CALIFORNIA................................ SANTA CRUZ.................. 7.83 13.98 9.94 9.32 7.10
CALIFORNIA................................ SHASTA...................... .............. .............. .70 .............. .70
CALIFORNIA................................ SIERRA...................... .............. .............. .............. .41 ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ SISKIYOU.................... 1.97 1.95 11.05 9.46 7.22
CALIFORNIA................................ SOLANO...................... 6.57 .............. .............. .............. 1.64
CALIFORNIA................................ SONOMA...................... 18.00 62.28 74.25 64.65 39.72
CALIFORNIA................................ STANISLAUS.................. 2.20 2.66 6.76 6.08 5.67
CALIFORNIA................................ SUTTER...................... 2.94 3.06 2.04 5.92 5.82
CALIFORNIA................................ TEHAMA...................... 13.24 11.06 11.88 14.10 7.58
CALIFORNIA................................ TRINITY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ TULARE...................... 4.65 7.12 9.56 11.84 10.82
CALIFORNIA................................ TUOLUMNE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
CALIFORNIA................................ VENTURA..................... 72.04 75.51 74.61 73.49 70.47
CALIFORNIA................................ YOLO........................ 1.13 .21 8.95 6.90 3.98
CALIFORNIA................................ YUBA........................ .45 .04 1.46 .77 2.28
COLORADO.................................. ADAMS....................... 4.76 6.91 11.81 3.56 3.57
COLORADO.................................. ALAMOSA..................... 1.75 2.68 3.68 9.87 6.29
COLORADO.................................. ARAPAHOE.................... 6.87 16.63 17.91 18.69 ..............
COLORADO.................................. ARCHULETA................... 4.05 1.60 2.45 1.05 .55
COLORADO.................................. BACA........................ 10.15 15.86 15.64 9.69 26.44
COLORADO.................................. BENT........................ .32 19.41 23.31 14.88 11.26
COLORADO.................................. BOULDER..................... 3.87 .............. 1.43 7.54 ..............
COLORADO.................................. BROOMFIELD.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. CHAFFEE..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. CHEYENNE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. CLEAR CREEK................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. CONEJOS..................... 7.54 9.09 5.98 7.20 21.36
COLORADO.................................. COSTILLA.................... 3.35 3.33 2.12 1.07 7.88
COLORADO.................................. CROWLEY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 15.82
COLORADO.................................. CUSTER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 34.64
COLORADO.................................. DELTA....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. DENVER...................... 99.61 99.81 100.00 3.88 ..............
COLORADO.................................. DOLORES..................... .............. 2.32 .26 .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. DOUGLAS..................... 14.10 .80 2.25 .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. EAGLE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. EL PASO..................... 18.70 15.84 12.11 9.83 12.27
COLORADO.................................. ELBERT...................... .83 2.87 2.54 1.57 3.12
COLORADO.................................. FREMONT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. GARFIELD.................... 9.61 .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. GILPIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. GRAND....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. GUNNISON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. HINSDALE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. HUERFANO.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. JACKSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 8.57
COLORADO.................................. JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. 15.04 7.82 ..............
COLORADO.................................. KIOWA....................... 2.81 1.48 .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. KIT CARSON.................. .98 1.07 1.75 .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. LA PLATA.................... 6.13 .31 .............. .15 1.83
COLORADO.................................. LAKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. LARIMER..................... .............. .............. .............. 11.69 13.31
COLORADO.................................. LAS ANIMAS.................. 12.68 12.23 16.56 15.52 4.72
COLORADO.................................. LINCOLN..................... 1.43 .27 .49 .06 1.28
COLORADO.................................. LOGAN....................... 7.90 10.79 6.67 10.08 4.62
COLORADO.................................. MESA........................ 2.69 .............. 1.06 20.00 10.50
COLORADO.................................. MINERAL..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. MOFFAT...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. MONTEZUMA................... 3.45 .89 .91 1.69 3.76
COLORADO.................................. MONTROSE.................... .............. .............. .............. 2.22 1.21
COLORADO.................................. MORGAN...................... 10.75 13.76 16.19 15.85 12.72
COLORADO.................................. OTERO....................... 3.49 .93 .94 37.90 39.62
COLORADO.................................. OURAY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. PARK........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .29
COLORADO.................................. PHILLIPS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. PITKIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. PROWERS..................... 22.38 21.52 19.77 22.56 29.61
COLORADO.................................. PUEBLO...................... .33 .............. .............. .01 5.74
COLORADO.................................. RIO BLANCO.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. RIO GRANDE.................. .............. .22 .95 2.40 .50
COLORADO.................................. ROUTT....................... .............. .............. 8.97 .............. 8.95
COLORADO.................................. SAGUACHE.................... .83 8.63 8.11 12.61 8.01
COLORADO.................................. SAN JUAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. SAN MIGUEL.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. SEDGWICK.................... .............. 3.85 3.71 4.46 9.29
COLORADO.................................. SUMMIT...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. TELLER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
COLORADO.................................. WASHINGTON.................. 6.53 4.31 3.00 4.12 6.35
COLORADO.................................. WELD........................ 17.81 13.03 15.04 12.70 14.09
COLORADO.................................. YUMA........................ .06 16.40 13.01 13.12 9.98
CONNECTICUT............................... FAIRFIELD................... .............. .............. 59.10 38.25 19.18
CONNECTICUT............................... HARTFORD, PT................ 1.87 .............. .............. 9.54 28.30
CONNECTICUT............................... LITCHFIELD.................. .09 .............. 17.49 12.73 12.07
CONNECTICUT............................... MIDDLESEX,S................. .............. .............. 33.81 32.51 38.51
CONNECTICUT............................... NEW HAVEN, NE............... .............. .............. 100.00 .............. ..............
CONNECTICUT............................... NEW LONDON.................. .............. .68 30.59 25.51 23.40
CONNECTICUT............................... TOLLAND..................... 15.02 26.65 27.26 23.94 18.46
CONNECTICUT............................... WINDHAM..................... 7.56 3.39 2.72 5.89 2.23
DELAWARE.................................. KENT........................ .............. .............. 10.54 3.89 1.30
DELAWARE.................................. NEW CASTLE.................. 45.75 45.23 43.45 35.88 17.07
DELAWARE.................................. SUSSEX...................... 66.24 75.39 41.44 37.24 32.17
FLORIDA................................... ALACHUA..................... .............. .............. .51 .............. 7.50
FLORIDA................................... BAKER....................... 91.38 90.51 89.90 62.60 38.06
FLORIDA................................... BAY......................... .............. .............. .............. 89.94 2.00
FLORIDA................................... BRADFORD.................... .............. .............. 23.64 .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... BREVARD..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 4.32
FLORIDA................................... BROWARD..................... .............. .............. .............. .58 .28
FLORIDA................................... CALHOUN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... CHARLOTTE................... 82.38 83.18 84.04 66.58 48.92
FLORIDA................................... CITRUS...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... CLAY........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... COLLIER..................... .............. .............. 14.15 .............. 38.59
FLORIDA................................... COLUMBIA.................... .23 .............. 6.00 8.14 4.04
FLORIDA................................... DADE........................ 3.16 6.02 4.35 5.67 10.85
FLORIDA................................... DE SOTO..................... .............. .............. .13 .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... DIXIE....................... .............. 22.24 11.78 11.13 10.33
FLORIDA................................... DUVAL....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... ESCAMBIA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 8.93
FLORIDA................................... FLAGLER..................... .............. .............. .............. 1.74 2.80
FLORIDA................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... GADSDEN..................... 25.89 .06 .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... GILCHRIST................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... GLADES...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... GULF........................ .............. .02 .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... HAMILTON.................... .............. 2.61 22.96 24.19 30.87
FLORIDA................................... HARDEE...................... .............. .............. 3.87 26.75 78.32
FLORIDA................................... HENDRY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 100.00
FLORIDA................................... HERNANDO.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... HIGHLANDS................... .50 8.05 .41 25.94 24.27
FLORIDA................................... HILLSBOROUGH................ 13.54 11.52 17.24 17.60 14.79
FLORIDA................................... HOLMES...................... .47 1.31 3.94 4.30 7.79
FLORIDA................................... INDIAN RIVER................ 8.04 6.59 7.15 32.98 21.50
FLORIDA................................... JACKSON..................... .40 .15 .95 16.95 45.45
FLORIDA................................... JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. .............. 2.16 ..............
FLORIDA................................... LAFAYETTE................... .............. .............. .............. .03 .03
FLORIDA................................... LAKE........................ 2.34 .19 46.71 48.20 8.04
FLORIDA................................... LEE......................... .............. .............. .............. 30.00 34.64
FLORIDA................................... LEON........................ .............. 12.42 .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... LEVY........................ 6.22 6.20 4.54 1.84 2.12
FLORIDA................................... LIBERTY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... MADISON..................... 28.22 25.02 17.62 14.66 27.68
FLORIDA................................... MANATEE..................... 10.77 9.21 67.33 31.69 18.33
FLORIDA................................... MARION...................... .............. 77.13 67.14 89.48 92.16
FLORIDA................................... MARTIN...................... .............. 7.94 15.46 6.03 ..............
FLORIDA................................... MONROE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... NASSAU...................... .............. .............. 100.00 85.72 52.93
FLORIDA................................... OKALOOSA.................... .............. .............. .............. 9.41 8.85
FLORIDA................................... OKEECHOBEE.................. 8.56 7.86 8.48 2.76 1.35
FLORIDA................................... ORANGE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... OSCEOLA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... PALM BEACH.................. 45.43 38.52 44.41 38.49 31.62
FLORIDA................................... PASCO....................... .............. .............. .............. 51.76 48.64
FLORIDA................................... PINELLAS.................... .............. 14.34 .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... POLK........................ 9.55 15.82 15.42 15.47 10.72
FLORIDA................................... PUTNAM...................... .............. .08 .92 15.48 9.97
FLORIDA................................... SANTA ROSA.................. .57 .............. .............. .............. 4.40
FLORIDA................................... SARASOTA.................... .............. 99.43 85.87 82.99 79.72
FLORIDA................................... SEMINOLE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... ST. JOHNS................... .............. .............. 1.01 2.44 ..............
FLORIDA................................... ST. LUCIE................... .............. .............. .............. 50.18 67.13
FLORIDA................................... SUMTER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .32
FLORIDA................................... SUWANNEE.................... 58.17 18.15 13.07 6.70 6.07
FLORIDA................................... TAYLOR...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... UNION....................... 16.91 15.15 13.98 14.67 84.13
FLORIDA................................... VOLUSIA..................... .08 3.31 11.61 11.79 7.76
FLORIDA................................... WAKULLA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
FLORIDA................................... WALTON...................... .22 22.30 20.02 17.83 21.76
FLORIDA................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .42 25.12
GEORGIA................................... APPLING..................... 1.43 6.62 2.38 .23 .35
GEORGIA................................... ATKINSON.................... .............. .............. .43 11.44 18.75
GEORGIA................................... BACON....................... 2.68 4.16 5.55 10.59 15.18
GEORGIA................................... BAKER....................... 3.84 3.09 2.28 2.26 20.79
GEORGIA................................... BALDWIN..................... 49.10 52.55 46.90 24.18 19.74
GEORGIA................................... BANKS....................... 63.49 69.48 65.46 40.84 31.57
GEORGIA................................... BARROW...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... BARTOW...................... .............. .............. .............. 3.90 10.17
GEORGIA................................... BEN HILL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... BERRIEN..................... 4.12 1.99 3.22 4.29 5.20
GEORGIA................................... BIBB........................ .............. .47 .............. 4.51 ..............
GEORGIA................................... BLECKLEY.................... 30.33 6.91 15.89 7.97 9.54
GEORGIA................................... BRANTLEY.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... BROOKS...................... 19.91 18.07 17.73 12.57 10.22
GEORGIA................................... BRYAN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... BULLOCH..................... 4.59 8.67 5.20 3.52 1.55
GEORGIA................................... BURKE....................... 11.45 11.05 8.60 5.34 4.12
GEORGIA................................... BUTTS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CALHOUN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CAMDEN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CANDLER..................... .............. .............. 50.19 .............. 66.70
GEORGIA................................... CARROLL..................... .05 57.07 56.06 54.55 54.25
GEORGIA................................... CATOOSA..................... .............. 14.93 .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CHARLTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CHATHAM..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CHATTAHOOCHEE............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CHATTOOGA................... 1.14 6.12 14.44 5.96 6.46
GEORGIA................................... CHEROKEE.................... 21.68 .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CLARKE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CLAY........................ 100.00 25.14 14.24 22.93 11.21
GEORGIA................................... CLAYTON..................... .............. .............. .............. 100.00 ..............
GEORGIA................................... CLINCH...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... COBB........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... COFFEE...................... 15.54 12.15 8.45 6.68 5.46
GEORGIA................................... COLQUITT.................... 16.99 10.43 17.56 13.89 22.68
GEORGIA................................... COLUMBIA.................... .............. .............. 5.97 .45 ..............
GEORGIA................................... COOK........................ 10.93 6.37 6.97 5.96 10.60
GEORGIA................................... COWETA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... CRISP....................... 2.38 3.56 1.82 .87 ..............
GEORGIA................................... DADE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... DAWSON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... DECATUR..................... 11.88 16.67 12.67 28.27 19.58
GEORGIA................................... DEKALB...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... DODGE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... DOOLY....................... 1.11 .72 4.03 5.44 3.53
GEORGIA................................... DOUGHERTY................... .............. .............. 45.24 28.54 ..............
GEORGIA................................... DOUGLAS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... EARLY....................... 7.21 .06 .37 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... ECHOLS...................... 6.03 2.84 11.93 9.51 ..............
GEORGIA................................... EFFINGHAM................... .............. .............. 26.70 24.03 ..............
GEORGIA................................... ELBERT...................... .............. .............. .............. .03 5.38
GEORGIA................................... EMANUEL..................... .............. .............. .94 .79 .42
GEORGIA................................... EVANS....................... .............. .............. 53.79 4.56 ..............
GEORGIA................................... FANNIN...................... .............. 12.89 10.23 1.91 ..............
GEORGIA................................... FAYETTE..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... FLOYD....................... 3.62 3.27 .............. 8.99 3.27
GEORGIA................................... FORSYTH..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. .33 9.65 5.86
GEORGIA................................... FULTON...................... 98.52 98.87 99.15 99.35 99.52
GEORGIA................................... GILMER...................... .63 .24 3.23 8.21 3.55
GEORGIA................................... GLASCOCK.................... .............. 26.52 .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... GLYNN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... GORDON...................... .16 .36 3.23 1.40 11.72
GEORGIA................................... GRADY....................... .............. 15.24 23.35 21.85 50.79
GEORGIA................................... GREENE...................... 13.02 10.61 7.33 6.48 6.89
GEORGIA................................... GWINNETT.................... .............. 98.62 97.55 96.35 95.03
GEORGIA................................... HABERSHAM................... .............. .............. 1.35 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... HALL........................ 8.30 10.01 7.97 11.21 4.66
GEORGIA................................... HANCOCK..................... 21.80 4.02 3.14 2.21 .36
GEORGIA................................... HARALSON.................... .90 .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... HARRIS...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... HART........................ .............. .............. .90 .51 1.35
GEORGIA................................... HEARD....................... .............. .............. .............. 14.57 12.28
GEORGIA................................... HENRY....................... .............. .42 3.27 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... HOUSTON..................... 32.71 23.83 22.09 25.46 19.14
GEORGIA................................... IRWIN....................... 14.60 22.38 21.54 23.70 23.42
GEORGIA................................... JACKSON..................... .............. .............. 7.05 20.92 16.96
GEORGIA................................... JASPER...................... .............. .............. .............. 3.83 ..............
GEORGIA................................... JEFF DAVIS.................. 11.80 9.50 6.16 2.56 4.19
GEORGIA................................... JEFFERSON................... 9.97 10.15 9.07 7.38 6.82
GEORGIA................................... JENKINS..................... .............. 1.55 .45 4.69 ..............
GEORGIA................................... JOHNSON..................... .96 .53 .77 .20 .17
GEORGIA................................... JONES....................... .............. .............. 2.09 7.31 ..............
GEORGIA................................... LAMAR....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... LANIER...................... .............. 2.24 31.23 13.44 .78
GEORGIA................................... LAURENS..................... 17.10 22.00 5.21 18.69 14.73
GEORGIA................................... LEE......................... 14.98 12.72 16.89 21.29 12.65
GEORGIA................................... LIBERTY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. .............. .01 1.28
GEORGIA................................... LONG........................ 31.53 26.81 22.15 17.41 16.69
GEORGIA................................... LOWNDES..................... 48.04 46.15 40.30 41.42 26.99
GEORGIA................................... LUMPKIN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... MACON....................... 11.05 9.07 20.71 18.11 17.20
GEORGIA................................... MADISON..................... 3.20 1.58 .13 .25 1.59
GEORGIA................................... MARION...................... .............. .............. 3.97 .............. 1.87
GEORGIA................................... MCDUFFIE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... MCINTOSH.................... .............. .............. .............. 100.00 100.00
GEORGIA................................... MERIWETHER.................. .............. .............. 2.79 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... MILLER...................... .............. 1.60 1.49 1.32 10.11
GEORGIA................................... MITCHELL.................... 10.23 12.08 11.79 6.76 6.49
GEORGIA................................... MONROE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... MONTGOMERY.................. .............. 39.77 1.88 8.51 ..............
GEORGIA................................... MORGAN...................... .............. .............. .60 .21 4.25
GEORGIA................................... MURRAY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 16.05
GEORGIA................................... MUSCOGEE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... NEWTON...................... .............. .............. 4.38 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... OCONEE...................... 1.46 1.42 1.84 1.37 3.97
GEORGIA................................... OGLETHORPE.................. .............. .............. .............. 3.99 1.39
GEORGIA................................... PAULDING.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... PEACH....................... .............. .............. 12.08 13.97 15.25
GEORGIA................................... PICKENS..................... 53.92 64.55 61.68 46.72 44.07
GEORGIA................................... PIERCE...................... 10.71 18.52 16.41 18.53 24.41
GEORGIA................................... PIKE........................ 52.89 46.56 39.13 35.93 29.41
GEORGIA................................... POLK........................ .............. 33.01 24.02 24.27 15.33
GEORGIA................................... PULASKI..................... .87 2.81 7.25 6.21 8.12
GEORGIA................................... PUTNAM...................... 7.54 5.69 3.44 3.77 10.80
GEORGIA................................... QUITMAN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... RABUN....................... 3.96 3.07 2.82 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... RANDOLPH.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... RICHMOND.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... ROCKDALE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 100.00
GEORGIA................................... SCHLEY...................... 42.67 64.10 46.02 39.05 32.36
GEORGIA................................... SCREVEN..................... 9.25 15.38 14.77 14.02 9.09
GEORGIA................................... SEMINOLE.................... 6.30 4.79 7.89 39.12 55.39
GEORGIA................................... SPALDING.................... .............. .89 1.18 1.12 .93
GEORGIA................................... STEPHENS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... STEWART..................... .............. .............. .............. 20.27 ..............
GEORGIA................................... SUMTER...................... 23.77 25.12 25.06 22.57 25.58
GEORGIA................................... TALBOT...................... 76.12 51.52 24.65 .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... TALIAFERRO.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... TATTNALL.................... 4.62 7.65 7.55 33.24 38.38
GEORGIA................................... TAYLOR...................... 7.47 4.83 3.86 3.70 7.00
GEORGIA................................... TELFAIR..................... 4.73 3.80 2.97 3.53 2.77
GEORGIA................................... TERRELL..................... 8.93 6.81 3.29 6.10 3.62
GEORGIA................................... THOMAS...................... 20.58 21.90 19.49 15.46 13.48
GEORGIA................................... TIFT........................ 22.67 22.13 22.20 29.22 27.01
GEORGIA................................... TOOMBS...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .19
GEORGIA................................... TOWNS....................... .............. .............. .............. 4.80 ..............
GEORGIA................................... TREUTLEN.................... 35.50 22.44 22.01 15.71 7.18
GEORGIA................................... TROUP....................... 6.91 8.24 8.16 .............. 3.03
GEORGIA................................... TURNER...................... 1.13 1.19 8.89 11.63 11.82
GEORGIA................................... TWIGGS...................... 1.14 .............. .............. .............. 4.41
GEORGIA................................... UNION....................... .10 8.36 .25 .17 8.67
GEORGIA................................... UPSON....................... .............. .............. 27.54 13.85 ..............
GEORGIA................................... WALKER...................... 7.39 3.42 9.45 1.22 .10
GEORGIA................................... WALTON...................... .............. 8.54 .............. 39.05 40.38
GEORGIA................................... WARE........................ 2.05 1.16 1.71 .07 5.60
GEORGIA................................... WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WAYNE....................... 12.41 9.07 9.21 8.38 5.82
GEORGIA................................... WEBSTER..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WHEELER..................... 1.59 .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WHITE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WHITFIELD................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WILCOX...................... 5.39 2.20 .69 1.52 1.15
GEORGIA................................... WILKES...................... 7.17 28.99 10.94 61.06 46.06
GEORGIA................................... WILKINSON................... .............. 25.63 .............. .............. ..............
GEORGIA................................... WORTH....................... 36.87 33.03 29.62 25.26 23.94
GUAM...................................... AGANA....................... 3.27 2.16 14.54 20.50 21.57
HAWAII.................................... AMERICAN SAMOA.............. 2.10 1.23 .............. .............. ..............
HAWAII.................................... HAWAII, E. (HILO)........... 13.25 10.53 6.28 8.08 6.72
HAWAII.................................... HONOLULU.................... 39.48 32.20 30.25 29.07 23.75
HAWAII.................................... KALAWAO..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
HAWAII.................................... KAUAI....................... 4.93 8.88 7.60 9.31 7.30
HAWAII.................................... MAUI........................ 1.23 6.87 7.40 8.34 5.79
IDAHO..................................... ADA......................... 4.66 6.10 6.40 8.43 4.99
IDAHO..................................... ADAMS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... BANNOCK..................... .73 .46 .52 .............. 2.72
IDAHO..................................... BEAR LAKE................... 1.37 .42 .............. .22 .25
IDAHO..................................... BENEWAH..................... 4.19 .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... BINGHAM..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... BLAINE...................... .............. .............. .............. 2.58 1.32
IDAHO..................................... BOISE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... BONNER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.59
IDAHO..................................... BONNEVILLE.................. 4.06 2.86 7.71 3.52 3.01
IDAHO..................................... BOUNDARY.................... .............. .............. 3.68 2.92 1.57
IDAHO..................................... BUTTE....................... 1.13 .33 5.69 6.95 3.78
IDAHO..................................... CAMAS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... CANYON...................... 3.74 8.78 5.06 7.86 8.69
IDAHO..................................... CARIBOU..................... 4.57 2.37 2.20 1.03 .18
IDAHO..................................... CASSIA...................... 4.37 2.29 1.62 1.89 4.03
IDAHO..................................... CLARK....................... .............. .............. .............. 23.47 15.30
IDAHO..................................... CLEARWATER.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... ELMORE...................... 1.43 .13 11.21 4.54 3.04
IDAHO..................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .39 .24 .65 .52
IDAHO..................................... FREMONT..................... 3.03 .33 33.61 22.54 48.12
IDAHO..................................... GEM......................... .73 1.30 .87 6.40 4.53
IDAHO..................................... GOODING..................... 1.10 .77 .............. 14.49 13.69
IDAHO..................................... IDAHO....................... 30.46 28.86 12.02 9.75 6.98
IDAHO..................................... JEFFERSON................... 3.56 1.16 2.08 1.24 1.84
IDAHO..................................... JEROME...................... 2.48 .............. 2.15 1.05 1.64
IDAHO..................................... KOOTENAI.................... .01 .............. 3.74 .07 ..............
IDAHO..................................... LATAH....................... 2.87 .............. 7.16 30.93 42.19
IDAHO..................................... LEMHI....................... 19.91 24.18 19.33 9.17 4.82
IDAHO..................................... LEWIS....................... 14.85 13.49 12.55 13.71 20.62
IDAHO..................................... LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. .60 1.59 .88
IDAHO..................................... MADISON..................... 3.50 4.06 14.15 13.08 2.71
IDAHO..................................... MINIDOKA.................... 14.28 13.96 11.21 9.37 13.80
IDAHO..................................... NEZ PERCE................... .............. 2.00 .10 .48 .43
IDAHO..................................... NORTH CUSTER................ .............. 6.14 2.78 .58 1.23
IDAHO..................................... ONEIDA...................... .73 .16 1.16 25.53 27.09
IDAHO..................................... OWYHEE...................... 11.47 7.72 8.11 12.97 8.28
IDAHO..................................... PAYETTE..................... .............. .52 32.41 24.66 8.36
IDAHO..................................... POWER....................... .07 2.88 6.48 4.98 .51
IDAHO..................................... SHOSHONE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... TETON....................... 5.31 .............. .............. .............. ..............
IDAHO..................................... TWIN FALLS.................. 1.21 .63 .46 .13 .66
IDAHO..................................... VALLEY...................... .............. .............. .............. 45.81 11.76
IDAHO..................................... WASHINGTON.................. 1.10 2.37 1.11 3.85 2.01
ILLINOIS.................................. ADAMS....................... .28 .............. 1.13 3.86 2.99
ILLINOIS.................................. ALEXANDER................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. BOND........................ .21 .14 .12 .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. BOONE....................... .............. .............. .............. 7.32 6.91
ILLINOIS.................................. BROWN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. BUREAU...................... .............. .............. .69 1.06 4.03
ILLINOIS.................................. CALHOUN..................... 6.44 6.02 .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. CARROLL..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. CASS........................ 5.16 4.73 .............. 23.87 16.04
ILLINOIS.................................. CHAMPAIGN................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. CHRISTIAN................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. CLARK....................... 5.82 5.86 6.35 3.36 2.38
ILLINOIS.................................. CLAY........................ .............. .............. .............. .22 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. CLINTON..................... .............. .............. .63 1.25 .92
ILLINOIS.................................. COLES....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. COOK........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. 3.97 .96
ILLINOIS.................................. CUMBERLAND.................. .............. 6.31 4.95 4.01 1.27
ILLINOIS.................................. DEKALB...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. DEWITT...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. DOUGLAS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. DUPAGE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. EDGAR....................... .54 .51 .21 .17 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. EDWARDS..................... .............. .47 1.08 .79 .75
ILLINOIS.................................. EFFINGHAM................... 12.56 11.73 11.01 8.40 7.85
ILLINOIS.................................. FAYETTE..................... .26 .............. .07 4.27 4.62
ILLINOIS.................................. FORD........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. FRANKLIN.................... .............. 7.85 4.11 14.89 14.87
ILLINOIS.................................. FULTON...................... .72 2.98 12.62 13.09 9.99
ILLINOIS.................................. GALLATIN.................... 10.00 8.92 6.84 8.97 8.50
ILLINOIS.................................. GREENE...................... 2.46 2.53 2.83 .71 .91
ILLINOIS.................................. GRUNDY...................... .............. .............. .............. .78 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. HAMILTON.................... .89 .04 .22 .30 .31
ILLINOIS.................................. HANCOCK..................... .............. .86 .33 .13 .03
ILLINOIS.................................. HARDIN...................... 8.94 .............. 2.35 5.44 7.12
ILLINOIS.................................. HENDERSON................... .............. .............. .............. 3.51 4.60
ILLINOIS.................................. HENRY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.00
ILLINOIS.................................. IR0QUOIS.................... 1.44 .64 .87 .45 .48
ILLINOIS.................................. JACKSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. JASPER...................... .............. .............. .............. 3.12 2.52
ILLINOIS.................................. JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. JERSEY...................... .............. 1.82 1.22 .15 4.64
ILLINOIS.................................. JO DAVIESS.................. .13 .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. JOHNSON..................... .26 7.40 .56 .76 2.60
ILLINOIS.................................. KANE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. KANKAKEE.................... .86 .77 .16 .87 .14
ILLINOIS.................................. KENDALL..................... 4.32 .75 .40 4.94 13.20
ILLINOIS.................................. KNOX........................ .56 .28 .85 .76 1.52
ILLINOIS.................................. LA SALLE.................... .03 .............. .07 .04 .05
ILLINOIS.................................. LAKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. LAWRENCE.................... 1.24 1.26 1.17 4.21 1.05
ILLINOIS.................................. LEE......................... .............. .............. 1.74 1.12 .42
ILLINOIS.................................. LIVINGSTON.................. .22 .25 .47 .48 .40
ILLINOIS.................................. LOGAN....................... .............. .............. .13 .18 1.46
ILLINOIS.................................. MACON....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MACOUPIN.................... .18 1.78 .60 .59 .92
ILLINOIS.................................. MADISON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MARION...................... .37 1.80 1.52 1.32 1.00
ILLINOIS.................................. MARSHALL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MASON....................... .............. .............. .63 .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MASSAC...................... 4.13 8.45 5.32 3.19 9.47
ILLINOIS.................................. MCDONOUGH................... 1.42 1.45 1.43 1.25 2.06
ILLINOIS.................................. MCHENRY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MCLEAN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MENARD...................... .............. .............. .............. 14.57 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MERCER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MONROE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. 6.88 6.80 6.21 5.52 31.88
ILLINOIS.................................. MORGAN...................... .............. .............. .............. .34 .31
ILLINOIS.................................. MOULTRIE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. OGLE........................ 8.25 7.11 6.97 11.93 10.32
ILLINOIS.................................. PEORIA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. PERRY....................... 2.78 3.14 1.80 .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. PIATT....................... .............. .............. .............. 4.38 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. PIKE........................ .............. .............. .............. 1.61 1.55
ILLINOIS.................................. POPE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. PULASKI..................... 3.09 5.63 3.88 1.83 1.38
ILLINOIS.................................. PUTNAM...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .47
ILLINOIS.................................. RANDOLPH.................... .............. 2.40 2.04 .............. 4.51
ILLINOIS.................................. RICHLAND.................... 1.05 .71 .76 .83 1.01
ILLINOIS.................................. ROCK ISLAND................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. SALINE...................... 4.33 4.76 3.78 4.96 7.00
ILLINOIS.................................. SANGAMON.................... .............. .............. 3.08 7.74 6.52
ILLINOIS.................................. SCHUYLER.................... .............. .............. .............. 4.70 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. SCOTT....................... .............. 60.17 57.25 38.54 29.62
ILLINOIS.................................. SHELBY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. ST. CLAIR................... .............. .............. .............. 8.25 9.10
ILLINOIS.................................. STARK....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. STEPHENSON.................. .23 .76 1.11 1.09 .70
ILLINOIS.................................. TAZEWELL.................... .............. .............. .............. 1.21 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. UNION....................... 10.11 11.83 7.76 4.80 3.67
ILLINOIS.................................. VERMILION................... 2.04 1.96 1.80 1.33 1.24
ILLINOIS.................................. WABASH...................... 1.66 1.43 1.59 .36 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. .05 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .02 .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. WAYNE....................... .46 .16 .06 .............. 1.41
ILLINOIS.................................. WHITE....................... .............. 3.41 5.02 3.51 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. WHITESIDE................... .............. .............. .............. 2.29 1.70
ILLINOIS.................................. WILL........................ 10.67 8.83 7.84 7.21 6.62
ILLINOIS.................................. WILLIAMSON.................. .............. 3.67 .98 1.22 ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. WINNEBAGO................... .............. .............. 30.31 .............. ..............
ILLINOIS.................................. WOODFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... ADAMS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 5.95
INDIANA................................... ALLEN....................... .............. .............. 3.52 4.88 17.24
INDIANA................................... BARTHOLOMEW................. .79 .34 .42 .............. .51
INDIANA................................... BENTON...................... .............. .............. .............. 9.25 11.57
INDIANA................................... BLACKFORD................... .............. .19 .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... BOONE....................... .............. 9.82 7.19 8.48 11.60
INDIANA................................... BROWN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... CARROLL..................... .05 .............. .13 .49 .15
INDIANA................................... CASS........................ .13 .73 .............. .............. .83
INDIANA................................... CLARK....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... CLAY........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... CLINTON..................... 2.71 5.09 3.25 8.94 33.67
INDIANA................................... CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 71.69
INDIANA................................... DAVIESS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .06
INDIANA................................... DEARBORN.................... .............. .............. 8.39 60.49 57.14
INDIANA................................... DECATUR..................... .81 2.79 2.65 1.41 1.87
INDIANA................................... DEKALB...................... .25 .13 3.63 .33 9.60
INDIANA................................... DELAWARE.................... 1.69 .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... DUBOIS...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 13.21
INDIANA................................... ELKHART..................... 2.05 .............. 21.49 20.58 19.71
INDIANA................................... FAYETTE..................... 9.19 10.12 14.66 13.58 11.25
INDIANA................................... FLOYD....................... .............. .............. 41.47 34.85 30.94
INDIANA................................... FOUNTAIN.................... 7.06 5.35 4.77 26.61 22.59
INDIANA................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. .............. 49.50 36.17
INDIANA................................... FULTON...................... 1.98 2.37 1.14 .35 2.14
INDIANA................................... GIBSON...................... .............. 11.25 1.58 .24 55.09
INDIANA................................... GRANT....................... .............. .............. .............. .24 .23
INDIANA................................... GREENE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... HAMILTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... HANCOCK..................... 5.08 7.38 6.32 6.37 .24
INDIANA................................... HARRISON.................... .50 .69 .59 .63 .28
INDIANA................................... HENDRICKS................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.01
INDIANA................................... HENRY....................... 6.22 5.47 5.48 11.98 14.43
INDIANA................................... HOWARD...................... .............. .............. .............. 19.37 16.74
INDIANA................................... HUNTINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .03
INDIANA................................... JACKSON..................... 1.48 1.63 .90 7.22 6.65
INDIANA................................... JASPER...................... .51 2.26 4.14 8.02 2.69
INDIANA................................... JAY......................... 13.78 10.19 7.81 4.62 1.33
INDIANA................................... JEFFERSON................... 8.93 11.21 10.76 11.91 11.53
INDIANA................................... JENNINGS.................... 5.87 5.07 4.65 27.66 24.23
INDIANA................................... JOHNSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... KNOX........................ 3.50 .............. .01 .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... KOSCIUSKO................... 2.63 2.45 3.80 2.92 2.77
INDIANA................................... LAGRANGE.................... .18 .............. .............. .............. 1.45
INDIANA................................... LAKE........................ 11.66 7.03 6.08 3.00 2.73
INDIANA................................... LAPORTE..................... 10.63 14.47 8.01 8.01 5.82
INDIANA................................... LAWRENCE.................... .28 .31 .20 6.83 5.59
INDIANA................................... MADISON..................... .............. .............. .............. 9.88 8.14
INDIANA................................... MARION...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... MARSHALL.................... 2.71 14.33 11.08 11.09 10.18
INDIANA................................... MARTIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... MIAMI....................... 3.33 2.79 2.48 1.52 5.36
INDIANA................................... MONROE...................... .............. 100.00 .............. 100.00 100.00
INDIANA................................... MONTGOMERY.................. 1.28 .87 3.07 6.25 3.66
INDIANA................................... MORGAN...................... .............. .............. .............. 2.18 ..............
INDIANA................................... NEWTON...................... 4.77 1.85 5.47 2.43 3.34
INDIANA................................... NOBLE....................... 2.98 .75 .13 3.34 ..............
INDIANA................................... OHIO........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... ORANGE...................... .............. .............. .............. 8.62 63.76
INDIANA................................... OWEN........................ .............. .............. .92 35.60 41.18
INDIANA................................... PARKE....................... 14.40 5.34 4.15 2.62 12.94
INDIANA................................... PERRY....................... .............. .38 .............. 8.17 ..............
INDIANA................................... PIKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... PORTER...................... .............. .20 6.22 14.10 8.36
INDIANA................................... POSEY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... PULASKI..................... 6.16 8.12 7.12 11.70 8.71
INDIANA................................... PUTNAM...................... 2.71 .............. .............. 45.38 49.07
INDIANA................................... RANDOLPH.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .87
INDIANA................................... RIPLEY...................... .............. 1.14 15.32 3.41 .89
INDIANA................................... RUSH........................ .20 14.84 12.99 7.99 7.44
INDIANA................................... SCOTT....................... 49.49 48.17 .............. .07 .18
INDIANA................................... SHELBY...................... .............. .............. .30 .60 .12
INDIANA................................... SPENCER..................... .90 .12 .36 .............. .14
INDIANA................................... ST. JOSEPH.................. 2.11 13.88 11.22 12.28 14.48
INDIANA................................... STARKE...................... 1.54 6.60 4.23 8.38 9.01
INDIANA................................... STEUBEN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.92
INDIANA................................... SULLIVAN.................... 2.51 1.45 .73 .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... SWITZERLAND................. 22.38 17.80 14.81 13.70 34.26
INDIANA................................... TIPPECANOE.................. 3.89 2.84 21.70 12.16 23.34
INDIANA................................... TIPTON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 28.35
INDIANA................................... UNION....................... .............. .............. .30 .............. 3.20
INDIANA................................... VANDERBURGH................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... VERMILLION.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... VIGO........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... WABASH...................... .............. .74 .87 1.29 1.11
INDIANA................................... WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. 1.01 ..............
INDIANA................................... WARRICK..................... 35.82 35.33 47.95 43.27 40.09
INDIANA................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .31 2.25 1.79
INDIANA................................... WAYNE....................... 20.70 .............. .............. 4.54 34.66
INDIANA................................... WELLS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
INDIANA................................... WHITE....................... .............. .............. .............. 15.39 13.91
INDIANA................................... WHITLEY..................... 1.62 1.13 .............. 1.02 .17
IOWA...................................... ADAIR....................... 2.60 2.78 2.56 .............. 5.23
IOWA...................................... ADAMS....................... .............. .18 .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... ALLAMAKEE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... APPANOOSE................... .14 .16 .............. .28 7.53
IOWA...................................... AUDUBON..................... .............. .............. .08 .............. .02
IOWA...................................... BENTON...................... 4.61 3.52 2.51 2.83 3.17
IOWA...................................... BLACK HAWK.................. .............. 12.18 7.91 .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... BOONE....................... .............. .70 1.09 .96 .57
IOWA...................................... BREMER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .30
IOWA...................................... BUCHANAN.................... 3.06 2.91 3.17 3.14 2.98
IOWA...................................... BUENA VISTA................. 3.56 1.51 2.59 1.22 1.09
IOWA...................................... BUTLER...................... 1.55 1.66 1.65 1.43 2.47
IOWA...................................... CALHOUN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... CARROLL..................... .07 .06 .09 .17 .36
IOWA...................................... CASS........................ 12.49 11.46 12.53 12.75 10.59
IOWA...................................... CEDAR....................... 1.11 1.32 .87 .69 .41
IOWA...................................... CERRO GORDO................. 8.96 9.21 4.81 4.39 4.62
IOWA...................................... CHEROKEE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .83
IOWA...................................... CHICKASAW................... 3.72 3.84 5.34 3.50 4.49
IOWA...................................... CLARKE...................... .02 .02 .01 .02 .44
IOWA...................................... CLAY........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... CLAYTON..................... .............. 1.08 .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... CLINTON..................... .01 .............. .............. .02 .18
IOWA...................................... CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... DALLAS...................... .............. 6.07 4.21 2.35 ..............
IOWA...................................... DAVIS....................... .49 1.96 3.66 2.25 1.29
IOWA...................................... DECATUR..................... .07 .06 .05 .14 .13
IOWA...................................... DELAWARE.................... .............. .............. .37 .02 .25
IOWA...................................... DES MOINES.................. .66 .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... DICKINSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... DUBUQUE..................... .10 1.04 1.00 3.36 3.62
IOWA...................................... EMMET....................... .35 .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... FAYETTE..................... .89 1.19 .88 .94 1.06
IOWA...................................... FLOYD....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. 1.23 12.54 .27
IOWA...................................... FREMONT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... GREENE...................... 14.16 13.12 10.23 7.75 5.73
IOWA...................................... GRUNDY...................... 2.16 1.74 .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... GUTHRIE..................... .............. .29 .38 .24 1.66
IOWA...................................... HAMILTON.................... 45.51 40.07 29.90 32.63 28.80
IOWA...................................... HANCOCK..................... .............. 3.73 2.83 2.47 1.93
IOWA...................................... HARDIN...................... .............. .............. 3.42 1.95 .46
IOWA...................................... HARRISON.................... .............. .21 1.59 1.33 1.55
IOWA...................................... HENRY....................... 8.39 11.46 2.23 2.22 5.69
IOWA...................................... HOWARD...................... .............. .............. .............. .05 .27
IOWA...................................... HUMBOLDT.................... .35 .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... IDA......................... .01 .03 .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... IOWA........................ .85 2.25 1.45 1.95 1.36
IOWA...................................... JACKSON..................... .78 3.69 3.84 3.59 3.05
IOWA...................................... JASPER...................... .28 .............. .............. .06 ..............
IOWA...................................... JEFFERSON................... 1.49 1.41 1.29 .68 1.73
IOWA...................................... JOHNSON..................... 3.91 3.78 2.88 .03 15.34
IOWA...................................... JONES....................... 2.00 2.37 1.58 .78 .14
IOWA...................................... KEOKUK...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .18
IOWA...................................... KOSSUTH..................... .75 .............. .............. .............. 1.10
IOWA...................................... LEE......................... .............. .............. .72 .07 10.65
IOWA...................................... LINN........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... LOUISA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .02
IOWA...................................... LUCAS....................... 3.06 3.03 2.79 3.11 2.57
IOWA...................................... LYON........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... MADISON..................... 7.52 40.71 32.88 29.41 18.51
IOWA...................................... MAHASKA..................... .............. 1.32 1.16 .93 .83
IOWA...................................... MARION...................... .............. .12 2.22 .13 .09
IOWA...................................... MARSHALL.................... .............. .............. .............. .05 5.01
IOWA...................................... MILLS....................... 6.76 5.44 3.66 1.34 1.95
IOWA...................................... MITCHELL.................... 1.82 2.57 1.30 9.44 5.67
IOWA...................................... MONONA...................... .13 .............. .10 .............. .85
IOWA...................................... MONROE...................... .02 .13 1.31 .37 .39
IOWA...................................... MONTGOMERY.................. 1.92 6.87 1.91 1.75 1.71
IOWA...................................... MUSCATINE................... .............. .69 .............. .26 .14
IOWA...................................... O'BRIEN..................... 1.50 .............. 4.87 .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... OSCEOLA..................... .31 .78 .88 1.08 1.21
IOWA...................................... PAGE........................ .65 .49 .61 .75 1.38
IOWA...................................... PALO ALTO................... .05 .............. .............. .04 ..............
IOWA...................................... PLYMOUTH.................... .02 .58 .79 4.59 3.84
IOWA...................................... POCAHONTAS.................. .............. .............. .............. .03 3.48
IOWA...................................... POLK........................ 17.55 15.65 17.04 5.45 2.57
IOWA...................................... POTTAWATTAMIE............... 4.57 4.39 5.44 4.77 2.97
IOWA...................................... POWESHIEK................... .............. .............. .............. 1.23 1.00
IOWA...................................... RINGGOLD.................... .............. .............. .............. .02 .46
IOWA...................................... SAC......................... .55 .61 .96 1.06 5.40
IOWA...................................... SCOTT....................... .............. .............. .............. .19 ..............
IOWA...................................... SHELBY...................... .55 .............. .11 .............. .21
IOWA...................................... SIOUX....................... .............. .74 .............. .............. .94
IOWA...................................... STORY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... TAMA........................ 3.10 3.19 1.51 1.96 .68
IOWA...................................... TAYLOR...................... 22.04 25.04 25.46 22.78 28.09
IOWA...................................... UNION....................... 8.41 6.66 6.18 5.75 5.43
IOWA...................................... VAN BUREN................... .36 .33 .37 .75 .74
IOWA...................................... WAPELLO..................... .28 .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 3.44
IOWA...................................... WASHINGTON.................. .79 .11 .15 4.30 .67
IOWA...................................... WAYNE....................... .............. .............. .23 .............. 2.59
IOWA...................................... WEBSTER..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... WINNEBAGO................... 1.22 1.10 4.05 2.45 1.48
IOWA...................................... WINNESHIEK.................. .............. .............. .............. 2.19 1.09
IOWA...................................... WOODBURY.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.65
IOWA...................................... WORTH....................... .56 .............. .24 .............. ..............
IOWA...................................... WRIGHT...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.00
KANSAS.................................... ALLEN....................... .............. 2.57 7.08 22.93 35.46
KANSAS.................................... ANDERSON.................... 1.11 .............. .............. .07 ..............
KANSAS.................................... ATCHISON.................... 1.37 1.15 1.39 3.36 2.86
KANSAS.................................... BARBER...................... .05 .92 1.50 1.10 .48
KANSAS.................................... BARTON...................... .70 .27 .54 .75 .54
KANSAS.................................... BOURBON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... BROWN....................... .15 .............. .18 .............. 1.01
KANSAS.................................... BUTLER...................... .............. .............. .............. .18 .32
KANSAS.................................... CHASE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... CHAUTAUQUA.................. 2.75 1.87 .43 .............. .99
KANSAS.................................... CHEROKEE.................... .............. 3.57 3.16 .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... CHEYENNE.................... 6.41 4.80 4.92 3.22 2.40
KANSAS.................................... CLARK....................... .............. .............. .............. 2.40 ..............
KANSAS.................................... CLAY........................ .14 .16 .37 .15 .01
KANSAS.................................... CLOUD....................... 1.55 2.30 7.39 7.74 7.42
KANSAS.................................... COFFEY...................... 20.01 17.26 3.51 2.64 3.12
KANSAS.................................... COMANCHE.................... .84 2.02 1.06 2.74 3.71
KANSAS.................................... COWLEY...................... .............. .............. .............. 2.99 .01
KANSAS.................................... CRAWFORD.................... .49 .............. .............. .73 .38
KANSAS.................................... DECATUR..................... 4.43 3.99 3.12 2.45 2.27
KANSAS.................................... DICKINSON................... 3.15 1.90 5.32 3.67 3.13
KANSAS.................................... DONIPHAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .92 ..............
KANSAS.................................... DOUGLAS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.34
KANSAS.................................... EDWARDS..................... 1.65 1.78 2.31 1.81 4.78
KANSAS.................................... ELK......................... 1.26 3.26 2.15 2.88 2.24
KANSAS.................................... ELLIS....................... .74 .25 1.37 1.32 .94
KANSAS.................................... ELLSWORTH................... .42 .42 .29 .27 .09
KANSAS.................................... FINNEY...................... 1.27 1.99 2.38 .60 .84
KANSAS.................................... FORD........................ 3.03 3.79 2.78 1.34 3.55
KANSAS.................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .33 1.19 5.15 3.33
KANSAS.................................... GEARY....................... 1.97 .............. .............. .............. .64
KANSAS.................................... GOVE........................ 6.15 6.20 5.36 15.28 12.10
KANSAS.................................... GRAHAM...................... .45 .89 .54 .49 .33
KANSAS.................................... GRANT....................... .............. .22 11.29 8.45 16.01
KANSAS.................................... GRAY........................ .25 .41 .10 3.36 1.14
KANSAS.................................... GREELEY..................... 2.40 2.14 3.44 1.78 1.75
KANSAS.................................... GREENWOOD................... .............. .............. 14.56 29.21 27.27
KANSAS.................................... HAMILTON.................... .93 .............. .............. .............. .10
KANSAS.................................... HARPER...................... .37 .93 .97 1.25 1.07
KANSAS.................................... HARVEY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.24
KANSAS.................................... HASKELL..................... 4.48 3.83 3.50 19.58 2.60
KANSAS.................................... HODGEMAN.................... .36 .27 2.71 3.98 2.12
KANSAS.................................... JACKSON..................... .............. 1.07 .............. 1.20 ..............
KANSAS.................................... JEFFERSON................... .45 .............. .............. .............. .16
KANSAS.................................... JEWELL...................... 2.43 2.30 2.49 2.24 2.36
KANSAS.................................... JOHNSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... KEARNY...................... 1.47 1.06 .98 1.25 1.11
KANSAS.................................... KINGMAN..................... 3.31 2.55 3.81 5.39 4.74
KANSAS.................................... KIOWA....................... 2.33 .............. 2.13 1.15 1.36
KANSAS.................................... LABETTE..................... .72 .87 1.01 .95 .82
KANSAS.................................... LANE........................ .39 .84 .90 .75 .85
KANSAS.................................... LEAVENWORTH................. 23.78 18.46 15.55 12.73 9.82
KANSAS.................................... LINCOLN..................... .10 .47 .77 1.18 1.48
KANSAS.................................... LINN........................ .............. .............. .18 18.21 15.95
KANSAS.................................... LOGAN....................... 2.91 .69 2.15 2.73 .61
KANSAS.................................... LYON........................ .............. .............. .............. .52 .18
KANSAS.................................... MARION...................... .............. 2.23 1.07 1.52 .37
KANSAS.................................... MARSHALL.................... 1.13 1.85 1.21 1.78 2.08
KANSAS.................................... MCPHERSON................... 2.91 3.19 2.56 4.04 5.57
KANSAS.................................... MEADE....................... .32 .86 .72 .79 2.27
KANSAS.................................... MIAMI....................... 9.28 10.80 8.66 6.62 6.56
KANSAS.................................... MITCHELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .53
KANSAS.................................... MONTGOMERY.................. .46 1.09 6.43 7.64 7.74
KANSAS.................................... MORRIS...................... .............. .............. 5.18 5.19 5.52
KANSAS.................................... MORTON...................... 1.68 1.05 1.76 1.09 .03
KANSAS.................................... NEMAHA...................... .05 .06 .06 .06 .15
KANSAS.................................... NEOSHO...................... .............. .90 19.53 13.85 1.57
KANSAS.................................... NESS........................ 1.82 .80 .63 .74 .79
KANSAS.................................... NORTON...................... 1.12 .96 .99 1.03 1.12
KANSAS.................................... OSAGE....................... .............. .............. .............. 32.62 31.65
KANSAS.................................... OSBORNE..................... .30 .32 2.33 .95 .82
KANSAS.................................... OTTAWA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... PAWNEE...................... .32 .85 .............. .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... PHILLIPS.................... .63 .18 .70 .56 .57
KANSAS.................................... POTTAWATOMIE................ .28 1.15 .99 1.92 2.11
KANSAS.................................... PRATT....................... .91 .39 2.97 1.59 2.90
KANSAS.................................... RAWLINS..................... .............. .............. 3.55 1.61 1.66
KANSAS.................................... RENO........................ .60 .35 .33 1.02 5.37
KANSAS.................................... REPUBLIC.................... 2.12 2.34 1.92 2.13 1.56
KANSAS.................................... RICE........................ .51 1.57 2.00 2.71 2.41
KANSAS.................................... RILEY....................... .............. .74 9.64 12.09 9.53
KANSAS.................................... ROOKS....................... 3.21 3.33 3.76 1.62 3.44
KANSAS.................................... RUSH........................ 2.61 .18 .27 .............. .32
KANSAS.................................... RUSSELL..................... 2.95 .22 .10 .92 1.14
KANSAS.................................... SALINE...................... 8.89 9.11 .............. 7.88 7.50
KANSAS.................................... SCOTT....................... .68 2.62 2.60 .74 .07
KANSAS.................................... SEDGWICK.................... .16 .86 .51 .24 1.19
KANSAS.................................... SEWARD...................... 4.57 2.49 10.64 34.22 34.73
KANSAS.................................... SHAWNEE..................... .............. .............. 2.52 .............. ..............
KANSAS.................................... SHERIDAN.................... .47 .65 .79 1.14 1.24
KANSAS.................................... SHERMAN..................... 5.73 4.45 11.27 6.33 6.99
KANSAS.................................... SMITH....................... .35 .76 .33 .48 .32
KANSAS.................................... STAFFORD.................... 4.70 1.36 1.07 .40 2.77
KANSAS.................................... STANTON..................... 1.37 .63 .82 3.98 .81
KANSAS.................................... STEVENS..................... 1.57 5.29 2.75 8.67 3.74
KANSAS.................................... SUMNER...................... 1.18 1.97 3.65 3.94 5.10
KANSAS.................................... THOMAS...................... 2.82 2.94 3.40 .28 .15
KANSAS.................................... TREGO....................... 5.06 6.49 1.44 1.38 .41
KANSAS.................................... WABAUNSEE................... .............. .............. .............. .75 .77
KANSAS.................................... WALLACE..................... .17 .............. .66 5.85 3.33
KANSAS.................................... WASHINGTON.................. 2.42 1.93 2.75 2.60 1.97
KANSAS.................................... WICHITA..................... 5.52 3.74 3.26 3.88 3.62
KANSAS.................................... WILSON...................... 1.97 1.02 .32 5.90 6.18
KANSAS.................................... WOODSON..................... .............. .............. .............. 4.54 2.48
KANSAS.................................... WYANDOTTE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. ADAIR....................... .03 .11 .39 .10 .16
KENTUCKY.................................. ALLEN....................... .63 .55 .10 .16 .02
KENTUCKY.................................. ANDERSON.................... .............. .51 .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. BALLARD..................... .............. .48 .33 4.39 1.99
KENTUCKY.................................. BARREN...................... 7.01 7.16 6.65 6.71 3.91
KENTUCKY.................................. BATH........................ 3.47 3.45 3.25 3.06 .95
KENTUCKY.................................. BELL........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. BOONE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. BOURBON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. BOYD........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. BOYLE....................... .25 .23 .............. .80 .19
KENTUCKY.................................. BRACKEN..................... .............. .............. .16 5.13 3.22
KENTUCKY.................................. BREATHITT................... 3.30 .............. 15.87 4.37 3.38
KENTUCKY.................................. BRECKINRIDGE................ .10 .11 .39 .51 .37
KENTUCKY.................................. BULLITT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. BUTLER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .21
KENTUCKY.................................. CALDWELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .27 3.16
KENTUCKY.................................. CALLOWAY.................... 1.62 .10 2.51 .15 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. CAMPBELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. CARLISLE.................... .15 .............. .............. .............. 1.43
KENTUCKY.................................. CARROLL..................... 26.22 23.52 24.66 21.13 17.81
KENTUCKY.................................. CARTER...................... 3.38 .14 .............. .............. 1.79
KENTUCKY.................................. CASEY....................... 34.07 29.06 26.41 30.61 17.18
KENTUCKY.................................. CHRISTIAN................... 2.92 2.44 2.19 .87 1.04
KENTUCKY.................................. CLARK....................... .11 .............. .............. .47 .35
KENTUCKY.................................. CLAY........................ 10.10 7.56 10.91 8.72 16.83
KENTUCKY.................................. CLINTON..................... .34 2.59 2.41 2.19 7.95
KENTUCKY.................................. CRITTENDEN.................. .45 3.03 2.18 .18 36.71
KENTUCKY.................................. CUMBERLAND.................. 16.22 19.38 18.40 14.34 11.44
KENTUCKY.................................. DAVIESS..................... .............. 29.99 29.32 35.96 35.57
KENTUCKY.................................. EDMONSON.................... 4.71 .87 .01 2.31 3.19
KENTUCKY.................................. ELLIOTT..................... .............. 22.40 20.76 14.57 7.74
KENTUCKY.................................. ESTILL...................... .17 .29 .............. .............. 3.97
KENTUCKY.................................. FAYETTE..................... 1.25 .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. FLEMING..................... 1.40 1.17 .94 .70 1.00
KENTUCKY.................................. FLOYD....................... .............. .............. .............. 9.26 21.44
KENTUCKY.................................. FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. .............. .03 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. FULTON...................... .............. 2.60 2.85 1.14 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. GALLATIN.................... 20.52 17.35 15.70 13.72 12.31
KENTUCKY.................................. GARRARD..................... .08 .............. .............. .............. .92
KENTUCKY.................................. GRANT....................... 2.22 1.09 .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. GRAVES...................... .61 .26 .24 .28 4.01
KENTUCKY.................................. GRAYSON..................... .............. .84 .54 .61 .32
KENTUCKY.................................. GREEN....................... .............. .78 .............. .04 1.59
KENTUCKY.................................. GREENUP..................... 1.80 4.05 1.49 4.37 2.15
KENTUCKY.................................. HANCOCK..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. HARDIN...................... .............. .27 .............. .09 .27
KENTUCKY.................................. HARLAN...................... 100.00 100.00 100.00 77.76 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. HARRISON.................... 1.40 1.21 1.64 1.65 1.51
KENTUCKY.................................. HART........................ 1.00 .97 .96 1.00 .67
KENTUCKY.................................. HENDERSON................... .............. .............. .............. 2.68 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. HENRY....................... 5.73 7.97 6.99 5.82 6.46
KENTUCKY.................................. HICKMAN..................... .............. .59 .............. .............. 1.28
KENTUCKY.................................. HOPKINS..................... .............. 10.92 7.94 .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. JACKSON..................... .05 2.10 2.24 2.40 .57
KENTUCKY.................................. JEFFERSON................... .18 .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. JESSAMINE................... 5.55 1.88 .18 .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. JOHNSON..................... 1.52 .96 1.82 1.13 .89
KENTUCKY.................................. KENTON...................... 3.41 .............. .............. 4.05 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. KNOTT....................... .............. .............. .............. .50 35.41
KENTUCKY.................................. KNOX........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.50
KENTUCKY.................................. LARUE....................... .............. 14.05 15.79 16.53 13.70
KENTUCKY.................................. LAUREL...................... .............. .............. 1.32 2.17 1.20
KENTUCKY.................................. LAWRENCE.................... 3.27 1.81 1.03 .............. 17.97
KENTUCKY.................................. LEE......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .77
KENTUCKY.................................. LESLIE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. LETCHER..................... .............. .............. 17.19 52.76 17.20
KENTUCKY.................................. LEWIS....................... .14 1.54 .86 .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. LINCOLN..................... 3.01 2.48 4.73 3.79 12.35
KENTUCKY.................................. LIVINGSTON.................. .............. .74 .60 4.14 3.96
KENTUCKY.................................. LOGAN....................... 1.74 2.75 1.65 .78 .53
KENTUCKY.................................. LYON........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 6.06
KENTUCKY.................................. MADISON..................... .92 .............. .............. .72 2.91
KENTUCKY.................................. MAGOFFIN.................... .............. 7.88 16.78 10.57 6.09
KENTUCKY.................................. MARION...................... .22 .03 .30 .............. 1.98
KENTUCKY.................................. MARSHALL.................... .............. 26.70 11.32 6.50 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. MARTIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. MASON....................... 4.58 3.05 1.54 6.32 6.00
KENTUCKY.................................. MCCRACKEN................... .............. .............. .............. .33 .14
KENTUCKY.................................. MCCREARY.................... 13.59 7.38 .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. MCLEAN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. MEADE....................... .............. 1.21 .20 .07 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. MENIFEE..................... .11 5.53 5.54 3.79 3.82
KENTUCKY.................................. MERCER...................... .............. .............. 1.84 1.08 1.70
KENTUCKY.................................. METCALFE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 5.79
KENTUCKY.................................. MONROE...................... .............. 2.57 3.23 1.88 1.51
KENTUCKY.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. .............. 1.30 1.16 2.49 .40
KENTUCKY.................................. MORGAN...................... .16 .30 .60 .68 9.20
KENTUCKY.................................. MUHLENBERG.................. .............. 3.37 .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. NELSON...................... 2.31 2.54 2.27 20.61 20.92
KENTUCKY.................................. NICHOLAS.................... .33 3.27 2.97 2.84 1.82
KENTUCKY.................................. OHIO........................ .............. .............. .............. .03 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. OLDHAM...................... .............. .............. 1.48 .88 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. OWEN........................ 27.76 20.59 15.15 11.82 10.09
KENTUCKY.................................. OWSLEY...................... 3.11 .............. 35.67 27.86 22.70
KENTUCKY.................................. PENDLETON................... 5.61 4.87 2.40 .90 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. PERRY....................... 50.62 15.53 10.13 17.77 13.61
KENTUCKY.................................. PIKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. POWELL...................... .............. .01 .58 .14 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. PULASKI..................... .79 .49 .65 1.05 .40
KENTUCKY.................................. ROBERTSON................... 6.17 5.29 10.34 8.36 8.22
KENTUCKY.................................. ROCKCASTLE.................. 2.32 1.80 1.33 1.16 1.01
KENTUCKY.................................. ROWAN....................... .33 3.49 .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. RUSSELL..................... 6.13 4.77 4.31 3.45 3.14
KENTUCKY.................................. SCOTT....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 6.30
KENTUCKY.................................. SHELBY...................... .40 .48 .64 2.05 14.96
KENTUCKY.................................. SIMPSON..................... 8.13 11.20 3.43 11.23 9.54
KENTUCKY.................................. SPENCER..................... .............. 3.98 5.31 .83 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. TAYLOR...................... .............. .............. .73 .62 1.05
KENTUCKY.................................. TODD........................ .66 .48 .29 .18 .39
KENTUCKY.................................. TRIGG....................... 15.17 32.97 32.54 30.58 1.05
KENTUCKY.................................. TRIMBLE..................... .............. .............. .61 .04 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. UNION....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.53
KENTUCKY.................................. WARREN...................... 6.99 7.14 7.17 5.32 3.59
KENTUCKY.................................. WASHINGTON.................. 3.99 4.96 4.28 4.27 3.68
KENTUCKY.................................. WAYNE....................... .40 .04 .06 .09 ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. WEBSTER..................... .............. .............. .............. 8.61 1.59
KENTUCKY.................................. WHITLEY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
KENTUCKY.................................. WOLFE....................... 2.76 2.85 2.32 1.14 .72
KENTUCKY.................................. WOODFORD.................... .............. 3.86 2.66 1.67 1.84
LOUISIANA................................. ACADIA...................... 25.99 36.66 24.63 14.01 15.20
LOUISIANA................................. ALLEN....................... 25.86 18.36 16.26 11.41 7.05
LOUISIANA................................. ASCENSION................... .............. .............. .............. 79.45 78.82
LOUISIANA................................. ASSUMPTION.................. .............. .............. .69 .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. AVOYELLES................... 15.16 19.11 10.01 12.75 11.09
LOUISIANA................................. BEAUREGARD.................. .............. .............. 7.94 3.81 66.56
LOUISIANA................................. BIENVILLE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. BOSSIER..................... 9.13 9.66 27.68 15.89 19.41
LOUISIANA................................. CADDO....................... .60 5.61 20.13 19.70 17.89
LOUISIANA................................. CALCASIEU................... 63.06 52.62 59.44 45.12 52.20
LOUISIANA................................. CALDWELL.................... .16 1.78 1.62 1.18 3.26
LOUISIANA................................. CAMERON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. CATAHOULA................... 11.54 12.34 10.28 11.03 11.07
LOUISIANA................................. CLAIBORNE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 9.08
LOUISIANA................................. CONCORDIA................... 17.62 17.90 17.72 16.00 17.79
LOUISIANA................................. DE SOTO..................... 35.54 31.87 29.26 22.72 16.34
LOUISIANA................................. EAST BATON ROUGE............ .............. .............. 37.10 29.84 23.11
LOUISIANA................................. EAST CARROLL................ 15.81 21.92 20.87 19.07 15.71
LOUISIANA................................. EAST FELICIANA.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. EVANGELINE.................. .49 2.69 .49 44.67 59.04
LOUISIANA................................. FRANKLIN.................... 21.38 22.94 25.74 26.39 28.61
LOUISIANA................................. GRANT....................... 8.78 7.41 6.61 6.98 61.45
LOUISIANA................................. IBERIA...................... 19.46 19.57 19.72 27.57 31.92
LOUISIANA................................. IBERVILLE................... 17.74 15.44 19.66 23.98 18.03
LOUISIANA................................. JACKSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. JEFFERSON DAVIS............. 5.12 5.16 2.20 2.16 1.27
LOUISIANA................................. LA SALLE.................... .............. 71.56 53.22 22.51 70.55
LOUISIANA................................. LAFAYETTE................... .............. .............. 12.78 16.65 11.12
LOUISIANA................................. LAFOURCHE................... .............. .............. 6.40 16.06 25.44
LOUISIANA................................. LINCOLN..................... .............. .65 1.34 3.66 ..............
LOUISIANA................................. LIVINGSTON.................. .21 3.22 .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. MADISON..................... 13.32 9.59 6.62 6.76 5.13
LOUISIANA................................. MOREHOUSE................... 15.31 14.39 15.09 14.07 12.06
LOUISIANA................................. NATCHITOCHES................ 8.62 9.53 8.21 26.06 88.68
LOUISIANA................................. ORLEANS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. OUACHITA.................... 47.64 43.12 42.41 17.52 37.71
LOUISIANA................................. PLAQUEMINES................. .11 .19 .............. 1.20 20.90
LOUISIANA................................. POINTE COUPEE............... 16.14 17.21 20.79 16.72 26.96
LOUISIANA................................. RAPIDES..................... 13.27 18.28 21.95 28.31 28.89
LOUISIANA................................. RED RIVER................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 25.11
LOUISIANA................................. RICHLAND.................... 25.48 26.91 27.74 27.03 33.13
LOUISIANA................................. SABINE...................... 4.59 5.55 5.09 27.05 52.37
LOUISIANA................................. ST. BERNARD................. .............. .............. 6.11 2.27 1.41
LOUISIANA................................. ST. CHARLES................. .............. 8.29 .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. ST. HELENA.................. 22.98 46.15 24.14 19.24 22.41
LOUISIANA................................. ST. JAMES................... 6.18 7.47 .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST........ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. ST. LANDRY.................. 8.94 13.93 13.10 21.90 17.72
LOUISIANA................................. ST. MARTIN.................. 2.29 6.78 10.21 11.82 20.14
LOUISIANA................................. ST. MARY.................... 25.47 7.71 3.13 .84 7.10
LOUISIANA................................. ST. TAMMANY................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. TANGIPAHOA.................. 11.16 13.28 11.80 10.15 7.81
LOUISIANA................................. TENSAS...................... 38.51 35.93 31.49 31.20 26.90
LOUISIANA................................. TERREBONNE.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. UNION....................... .16 1.86 1.70 1.72 6.02
LOUISIANA................................. VERMILION................... 9.45 11.92 9.61 16.97 17.69
LOUISIANA................................. VERNON...................... 31.16 6.35 35.00 4.14 29.59
LOUISIANA................................. WASHINGTON.................. .17 1.10 2.09 4.39 .85
LOUISIANA................................. WEBSTER..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. WEST BATON ROUGE............ .............. .............. .54 .53 ..............
LOUISIANA................................. WEST CARROLL................ 20.00 18.17 19.49 20.37 18.54
LOUISIANA................................. WEST FELICIANA.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
LOUISIANA................................. WINN........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MAINE..................................... ANDROSCOGGIN................ 1.51 1.76 2.00 .............. ..............
MAINE..................................... AROOSTOOK, PT............... 17.81 18.33 15.98 15.32 20.08
MAINE..................................... CUMBERLAND, PT.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MAINE..................................... FRANKLIN.................... 2.79 .............. 21.15 20.10 14.09
MAINE..................................... HANCOCK, PT................. .84 2.07 4.59 7.82 7.02
MAINE..................................... KENNEBEC, PT................ 4.66 4.18 3.69 9.55 12.96
MAINE..................................... KNOX........................ 26.50 15.58 11.13 16.53 12.56
MAINE..................................... LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. 3.69 4.25 29.51
MAINE..................................... OXFORD...................... 11.11 8.52 8.53 6.02 5.09
MAINE..................................... PENOBSCOT, PT............... 12.81 14.06 11.72 12.09 10.20
MAINE..................................... PISCATAQUIS................. .............. .............. .............. 10.13 8.89
MAINE..................................... SAGADAHOC................... .............. .............. 1.12 2.13 ..............
MAINE..................................... SOMERSET.................... 2.11 1.71 2.16 3.14 1.41
MAINE..................................... WALDO, PT................... .............. 15.76 .............. .............. 5.82
MAINE..................................... WASHINGTON, PT.............. 8.21 31.97 18.56 11.35 15.79
MAINE..................................... YORK........................ 11.18 6.49 3.12 1.78 ..............
MARYLAND.................................. ALLEGANY.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MARYLAND.................................. ANNE ARUNDEL................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MARYLAND.................................. BALTIMORE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MARYLAND.................................. BALTIMORE CITY.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MARYLAND.................................. CALVERT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MARYLAND.................................. CAROLINE.................... .............. 4.47 3.31 8.26 9.26
MARYLAND.................................. CARROLL..................... .81 .16 3.05 .75 1.26
MARYLAND.................................. CECIL....................... .............. 1.53 .............. .............. ..............
MARYLAND.................................. CHARLES..................... 24.08 20.03 18.60 15.89 15.01
MARYLAND.................................. DORCHESTER.................. .............. .............. 25.21 15.76 10.71
MARYLAND.................................. FREDERICK................... 31.03 21.14 20.05 13.63 13.31
MARYLAND.................................. GARRETT..................... 2.78 2.37 4.57 3.76 1.69
MARYLAND.................................. HARFORD..................... .............. 5.58 4.96 2.29 2.23
MARYLAND.................................. HOWARD...................... .............. .............. 8.74 5.50 5.59
MARYLAND.................................. KENT........................ 9.31 13.07 2.95 5.42 2.62
MARYLAND.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. 21.51 16.75 10.98 10.45 8.77
MARYLAND.................................. PRINCE GEORGE'S............. 30.65 28.06 25.35 23.64 21.96
MARYLAND.................................. QUEEN ANNE'S................ 56.91 5.46 4.04 1.30 ..............
MARYLAND.................................. SOMERSET.................... 25.28 15.70 38.89 34.76 38.54
MARYLAND.................................. ST. MARY'S.................. .............. .............. 21.45 10.97 5.23
MARYLAND.................................. TALBOT...................... .............. .............. 22.00 8.23 19.21
MARYLAND.................................. WASHINGTON.................. 1.32 .98 6.14 7.27 8.65
MARYLAND.................................. WICOMICO.................... 2.57 .............. 38.30 42.74 29.85
MARYLAND.................................. WORCESTER................... 36.13 49.04 39.25 33.72 31.81
MASSACHUSETTS............................. BARNSTABLE.................. 13.50 10.40 8.42 6.83 5.65
MASSACHUSETTS............................. BERKSHIRE................... 8.88 9.73 10.30 10.24 13.20
MASSACHUSETTS............................. BRISTOL..................... 11.75 8.40 7.64 9.76 12.54
MASSACHUSETTS............................. DUKES....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 8.77
MASSACHUSETTS............................. ESSEX....................... 24.58 19.91 18.38 19.66 19.19
MASSACHUSETTS............................. FRANKLIN, PT................ 11.68 17.14 18.80 16.18 16.34
MASSACHUSETTS............................. HAMPDEN, PT................. 4.41 4.96 2.21 1.87 3.59
MASSACHUSETTS............................. HAMPSHIRE................... 35.99 36.23 34.86 33.76 29.96
MASSACHUSETTS............................. MIDDLESEX................... 26.85 27.18 24.75 18.47 17.95
MASSACHUSETTS............................. NANTUCKET................... .............. .............. 13.89 .............. ..............
MASSACHUSETTS............................. NORFOLK..................... 25.61 34.21 18.64 7.81 4.73
MASSACHUSETTS............................. PLYMOUTH, PT................ 9.30 8.78 9.11 6.85 5.15
MASSACHUSETTS............................. SUFFOLK..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MASSACHUSETTS............................. WORCESTER, PT............... 16.42 24.50 24.11 24.76 21.57
MICHIGAN.................................. ALCONA...................... 2.58 .65 .55 .............. .82
MICHIGAN.................................. ALGER....................... 1.40 .95 .............. .............. 1.80
MICHIGAN.................................. ALLEGAN..................... 1.19 .............. 6.53 .............. .31
MICHIGAN.................................. ALPENA...................... 1.84 1.37 .55 1.39 1.95
MICHIGAN.................................. ANTRIM...................... .............. .12 .............. .24 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. ARENAC...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. BARAGA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. BARRY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. BAY......................... 8.97 9.65 13.41 8.94 8.89
MICHIGAN.................................. BENZIE...................... .............. .............. .............. 20.40 21.77
MICHIGAN.................................. BERRIEN..................... 4.35 3.79 2.76 1.34 3.34
MICHIGAN.................................. BRANCH...................... 2.81 .77 3.50 .80 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. CALHOUN..................... 11.55 6.77 5.13 3.75 11.15
MICHIGAN.................................. CASS........................ 5.78 5.23 7.22 1.78 1.22
MICHIGAN.................................. CHARLEVOIX.................. .............. 79.34 77.04 65.98 52.52
MICHIGAN.................................. CHEBOYGAN................... 1.51 1.70 .93 .03 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. CHIPPEWA.................... .54 .57 1.25 .54 1.06
MICHIGAN.................................. CLARE....................... .............. 1.13 .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. CLINTON..................... .............. .............. .............. .19 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. DELTA....................... .76 14.97 15.57 12.46 10.36
MICHIGAN.................................. DICKINSON................... .............. .............. 5.02 .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. EATON....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. EMMET....................... .............. .............. 38.71 29.93 26.63
MICHIGAN.................................. GENESEE..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. GLADWIN..................... 15.11 10.98 10.47 8.33 7.47
MICHIGAN.................................. GOGEBIC..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. GRAND TRAVERSE.............. 2.01 .............. 1.18 .............. 1.73
MICHIGAN.................................. GRATIOT..................... 2.47 2.54 3.29 2.85 3.50
MICHIGAN.................................. HILLSDALE................... 1.86 6.44 5.60 4.38 4.26
MICHIGAN.................................. HOUGHTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. HURON....................... .............. .............. .55 .13 .31
MICHIGAN.................................. INGHAM...................... 8.56 7.29 2.29 2.00 42.89
MICHIGAN.................................. IONIA....................... 6.29 1.55 2.00 .............. .64
MICHIGAN.................................. IOSCO....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. IRON........................ 4.85 1.55 36.38 61.81 22.52
MICHIGAN.................................. ISABELLA.................... .64 .............. .15 1.17 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. JACKSON..................... 5.38 3.61 3.31 .82 1.02
MICHIGAN.................................. KALAMAZOO................... 11.95 4.27 2.18 2.22 .15
MICHIGAN.................................. KALKASKA.................... .............. .............. .............. .82 6.16
MICHIGAN.................................. KENT........................ .25 7.26 9.33 2.66 70.03
MICHIGAN.................................. KEWEENAW.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. LAKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. LAPEER...................... 4.61 7.78 5.15 4.58 4.25
MICHIGAN.................................. LEELANAU.................... .30 .42 .............. .............. .56
MICHIGAN.................................. LENAWEE..................... 7.30 6.97 6.38 6.89 4.92
MICHIGAN.................................. LIVINGSTON.................. .............. .............. 4.84 .30 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. LUCE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MACKINAC.................... 2.40 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MACOMB...................... .............. .............. 6.77 .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MANISTEE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MARQUETTE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MASON....................... 1.36 1.59 1.63 1.55 1.88
MICHIGAN.................................. MECOSTA..................... 6.72 6.64 .37 .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MENOMINEE................... .15 2.58 5.32 3.69 2.34
MICHIGAN.................................. MIDLAND..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. MISSAUKEE................... .............. 22.87 21.02 20.24 17.76
MICHIGAN.................................. MONROE...................... .............. .............. .............. .06 39.39
MICHIGAN.................................. MONTCALM.................... 2.70 2.81 1.43 1.20 1.87
MICHIGAN.................................. MONTMORENCY................. 1.66 2.24 .............. .............. .39
MICHIGAN.................................. MUSKEGON.................... .............. .............. .............. 3.52 1.11
MICHIGAN.................................. NEWAYGO..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. OAKLAND..................... 7.95 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. OCEANA...................... 8.98 16.79 14.20 10.08 15.24
MICHIGAN.................................. OGEMAW...................... .............. .07 .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. ONTONAGON................... 7.46 5.66 1.00 26.06 24.56
MICHIGAN.................................. OSCEOLA..................... 3.56 2.04 1.27 .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. OSCODA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. OTSEGO...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. OTTAWA...................... .............. 1.69 .66 .58 .53
MICHIGAN.................................. PRESQUE ISLE................ 7.70 3.69 4.60 5.18 4.84
MICHIGAN.................................. ROSCOMMON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. SAGINAW..................... .16 .............. .04 2.36 2.21
MICHIGAN.................................. SANILAC..................... 4.68 4.47 4.32 4.03 4.19
MICHIGAN.................................. SCHOOLCRAFT................. .73 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. SHIAWASSEE.................. 5.65 5.30 5.86 1.21 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. ST. CLAIR................... .............. .............. .............. 30.78 28.40
MICHIGAN.................................. ST. JOSEPH.................. 2.49 2.94 2.12 2.43 3.63
MICHIGAN.................................. TUSCOLA..................... 4.02 4.04 3.95 4.29 4.59
MICHIGAN.................................. VAN BUREN................... .............. .............. .76 2.03 5.99
MICHIGAN.................................. WASHTENAW................... 2.59 2.91 2.89 2.45 1.53
MICHIGAN.................................. WAYNE....................... .55 .52 .44 .32 ..............
MICHIGAN.................................. WEXFORD..................... .............. .............. .............. 25.85 51.85
MINNESOTA................................. AITKIN...................... 6.78 6.30 10.32 9.88 22.35
MINNESOTA................................. ANOKA....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. BECKER...................... .61 .80 .59 11.26 10.95
MINNESOTA................................. BELTRAMI.................... 4.25 .16 .............. .38 4.80
MINNESOTA................................. BENTON...................... .64 .66 2.54 1.55 1.23
MINNESOTA................................. BIG STONE................... .............. .............. 2.03 .............. .58
MINNESOTA................................. BLUE EARTH.................. .15 .20 .............. .............. .07
MINNESOTA................................. BROWN....................... .96 .92 1.84 1.54 1.54
MINNESOTA................................. CARLTON..................... 3.05 3.08 3.14 2.26 ..............
MINNESOTA................................. CARVER...................... .51 .............. .61 .01 .85
MINNESOTA................................. CASS........................ 8.79 4.55 6.14 8.55 10.30
MINNESOTA................................. CHIPPEWA.................... .............. .............. .78 2.73 2.25
MINNESOTA................................. CHISAGO..................... .............. .............. .71 24.58 32.28
MINNESOTA................................. CLAY........................ 3.03 5.44 4.51 3.88 8.01
MINNESOTA................................. CLEARWATER.................. .68 .28 2.38 3.42 5.62
MINNESOTA................................. COOK........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. COTTONWOOD.................. 3.16 3.39 5.32 2.77 2.18
MINNESOTA................................. CROW WING................... .............. 2.34 4.86 1.51 5.85
MINNESOTA................................. DAKOTA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. DODGE....................... 1.10 .01 .07 .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. DOUGLAS..................... 3.38 3.08 3.88 1.07 2.53
MINNESOTA................................. FARIBAULT................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .09
MINNESOTA................................. FILLMORE.................... .24 .11 .06 .77 3.50
MINNESOTA................................. FREEBORN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.20
MINNESOTA................................. GOODHUE..................... .............. 3.83 3.25 1.80 .99
MINNESOTA................................. GRANT....................... .47 .44 11.19 .09 1.11
MINNESOTA................................. HENNEPIN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. HOUSTON..................... .............. .............. .25 1.01 16.03
MINNESOTA................................. HUBBARD..................... .............. .............. 10.51 2.87 2.17
MINNESOTA................................. ISANTI...................... 2.63 2.70 .............. 3.08 ..............
MINNESOTA................................. ITASCA...................... .............. .............. .............. 1.59 13.49
MINNESOTA................................. JACKSON..................... 2.45 2.36 2.48 1.77 .39
MINNESOTA................................. KANABEC..................... .26 .06 1.92 2.17 28.92
MINNESOTA................................. KANDIYOHI................... .............. .39 .97 4.95 4.59
MINNESOTA................................. KITTSON..................... .36 .17 .14 1.45 6.70
MINNESOTA................................. KOOCHICHING................. 1.56 .72 1.37 1.09 .58
MINNESOTA................................. LAC QUI PARLE............... 1.26 .............. .01 .11 .86
MINNESOTA................................. LAKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. LAKE OF THE WOODS........... 6.11 8.25 7.90 11.78 11.00
MINNESOTA................................. LE SUEUR.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. LINCOLN..................... .87 .64 .10 1.97 2.49
MINNESOTA................................. LYON........................ 4.42 5.01 6.87 6.88 4.66
MINNESOTA................................. MAHNOMEN, S................. .11 .60 3.82 4.20 4.38
MINNESOTA................................. MARSHALL,W.................. .33 .42 1.13 1.13 2.63
MINNESOTA................................. MARTIN...................... .28 .03 .20 .32 .59
MINNESOTA................................. MCLEOD...................... .55 .36 .65 .20 4.93
MINNESOTA................................. MEEKER...................... 10.10 7.44 6.93 6.52 5.68
MINNESOTA................................. MILLE LACS.................. .............. .............. .............. .99 2.71
MINNESOTA................................. MORRISON.................... 3.09 1.96 6.00 4.44 6.29
MINNESOTA................................. MOWER....................... .............. .............. .............. 3.93 5.92
MINNESOTA................................. MURRAY...................... 1.33 1.20 2.11 1.81 2.44
MINNESOTA................................. NICOLLET.................... .43 .41 .49 .53 .42
MINNESOTA................................. NOBLES...................... 2.73 2.73 3.73 4.31 4.19
MINNESOTA................................. NORMAN...................... .21 .............. .28 .43 2.40
MINNESOTA................................. OLMSTED..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. PENNINGTON.................. .32 .86 1.20 1.14 1.80
MINNESOTA................................. PINE........................ 5.82 7.36 3.33 1.29 .39
MINNESOTA................................. PIPESTONE................... 1.28 1.34 1.39 2.89 3.70
MINNESOTA................................. POPE........................ 1.28 .94 .60 13.95 12.36
MINNESOTA................................. RAMSEY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. RED LAKE.................... .72 .54 .18 .11 .88
MINNESOTA................................. REDWOOD..................... 1.47 2.09 1.87 1.40 1.42
MINNESOTA................................. RENVILLE.................... 6.42 6.70 9.08 10.10 8.57
MINNESOTA................................. RICE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. .37
MINNESOTA................................. ROCK........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 3.46
MINNESOTA................................. ROSEAU...................... 3.48 4.31 5.99 7.01 8.65
MINNESOTA................................. SCOTT....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. SHERBURNE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. SIBLEY...................... 2.18 1.58 3.00 3.83 4.42
MINNESOTA................................. ST. LOUIS, S................ .18 .............. 1.06 .82 .57
MINNESOTA................................. STEARNS..................... .14 .68 .07 .26 .33
MINNESOTA................................. STEELE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. STEVENS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. SWIFT....................... .63 .62 1.39 1.31 1.83
MINNESOTA................................. TODD........................ .74 .53 4.74 3.79 3.03
MINNESOTA................................. TRAVERSE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. WABASHA..................... 1.98 2.86 2.89 1.99 .51
MINNESOTA................................. WADENA...................... .84 5.55 6.31 19.55 21.18
MINNESOTA................................. WASECA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. WASHINGTON.................. 22.76 7.86 .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. WATONWAN.................... .85 .41 .............. .07 ..............
MINNESOTA................................. WEST OTTER TAIL............. .83 .43 1.41 2.50 2.12
MINNESOTA................................. WEST POLK................... .06 .81 .92 .91 1.39
MINNESOTA................................. WILKIN...................... .............. .01 .02 .............. .02
MINNESOTA................................. WINONA...................... .98 .08 5.15 7.52 7.37
MINNESOTA................................. WRIGHT...................... .26 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MINNESOTA................................. YELLOW MEDICINE............. .03 .05 1.31 .49 1.10
MISSISSIPPI............................... ADAMS....................... .............. .............. 4.15 10.99 10.71
MISSISSIPPI............................... ALCORN...................... .23 .38 .16 .13 1.25
MISSISSIPPI............................... AMITE....................... 18.85 19.52 14.11 7.96 9.83
MISSISSIPPI............................... ATTALA...................... .............. .68 7.75 8.64 5.90
MISSISSIPPI............................... BENTON...................... 24.12 18.35 16.33 25.70 30.75
MISSISSIPPI............................... BOLIVAR..................... 54.54 61.68 61.76 57.79 56.13
MISSISSIPPI............................... CALHOUN..................... .64 6.09 9.04 8.10 8.71
MISSISSIPPI............................... CARROLL..................... .............. .27 .44 6.90 34.08
MISSISSIPPI............................... CHICKASAW................... 11.33 11.69 12.10 12.22 9.59
MISSISSIPPI............................... CHOCTAW..................... 21.55 17.82 14.35 10.74 5.58
MISSISSIPPI............................... CLAIBORNE................... 9.00 8.88 13.45 11.64 25.27
MISSISSIPPI............................... CLARKE...................... .............. .............. 1.05 3.23 .65
MISSISSIPPI............................... CLAY........................ 26.91 25.88 23.45 12.83 8.46
MISSISSIPPI............................... COAHOMA..................... 42.43 44.60 50.31 44.68 38.84
MISSISSIPPI............................... COPIAH...................... .............. .............. 23.45 20.20 16.73
MISSISSIPPI............................... COVINGTON................... .............. 7.19 5.78 4.35 5.54
MISSISSIPPI............................... DESOTO...................... 29.20 73.04 67.61 60.75 61.15
MISSISSIPPI............................... FOREST...................... .............. .............. .............. 49.45 45.67
MISSISSIPPI............................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. 1.19 .............. 6.78
MISSISSIPPI............................... GEORGE...................... .............. 78.65 82.44 85.35 84.61
MISSISSIPPI............................... GREENE...................... .............. 2.39 2.32 2.90 4.00
MISSISSIPPI............................... GRENADA..................... 12.92 .63 .60 .54 .43
MISSISSIPPI............................... HANCOCK..................... .............. 5.46 .............. 7.93 20.95
MISSISSIPPI............................... HARRISON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 54.70
MISSISSIPPI............................... HINDS....................... .............. .95 15.65 17.22 7.05
MISSISSIPPI............................... HOLMES...................... 23.32 28.84 29.61 26.42 22.83
MISSISSIPPI............................... HUMPHREYS................... 27.74 28.93 36.34 56.13 59.23
MISSISSIPPI............................... ISSAQUENA................... 21.64 19.49 36.02 38.65 29.16
MISSISSIPPI............................... ITAWAMBA.................... .............. .............. 34.45 31.14 45.42
MISSISSIPPI............................... JACKSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSISSIPPI............................... JASPER...................... .17 .53 1.89 2.91 1.31
MISSISSIPPI............................... JEFFERSON................... .............. .44 4.31 2.98 2.67
MISSISSIPPI............................... JEFFERSON DAVIS............. 15.64 30.19 36.39 38.96 35.29
MISSISSIPPI............................... JONES....................... 3.40 3.95 6.48 2.96 22.73
MISSISSIPPI............................... KEMPER...................... 2.58 3.17 3.48 3.13 4.58
MISSISSIPPI............................... LAFAYETTE................... .............. .............. 1.87 37.11 24.23
MISSISSIPPI............................... LAMAR....................... 23.99 23.89 21.55 24.79 27.74
MISSISSIPPI............................... LAUDERDALE.................. 45.03 43.37 43.43 35.08 49.68
MISSISSIPPI............................... LAWRENCE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .04
MISSISSIPPI............................... LEAKE....................... 29.19 26.36 26.77 37.45 41.38
MISSISSIPPI............................... LEE......................... .11 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSISSIPPI............................... LEFLORE..................... 76.86 75.74 70.95 67.95 64.77
MISSISSIPPI............................... LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. 3.14 2.55 18.28
MISSISSIPPI............................... LOWNDES..................... 2.58 3.29 2.74 1.50 .77
MISSISSIPPI............................... MADISON..................... 4.83 7.14 20.99 19.08 15.00
MISSISSIPPI............................... MARION...................... 30.58 23.88 23.59 23.17 17.91
MISSISSIPPI............................... MARSHALL.................... 62.67 60.50 68.86 63.73 55.63
MISSISSIPPI............................... MONROE...................... 11.51 12.96 11.17 15.91 13.37
MISSISSIPPI............................... MONTGOMERY.................. .............. .89 2.09 3.71 3.32
MISSISSIPPI............................... NESHOBA..................... .............. .07 .............. 1.31 1.25
MISSISSIPPI............................... NEWTON...................... 6.78 .05 2.79 5.66 13.07
MISSISSIPPI............................... NOXUBEE..................... 26.94 28.75 23.83 24.78 20.83
MISSISSIPPI............................... OKTIBBEHA................... 11.17 6.54 5.45 3.24 1.19
MISSISSIPPI............................... PANOLA...................... 11.21 12.82 50.82 47.23 43.01
MISSISSIPPI............................... PEARL RIVER................. 39.53 46.29 51.06 55.69 62.82
MISSISSIPPI............................... PERRY....................... .............. .14 .18 1.02 ..............
MISSISSIPPI............................... PIKE........................ 38.10 44.52 45.87 42.44 40.89
MISSISSIPPI............................... PONTOTOC.................... .21 .14 1.91 9.42 15.39
MISSISSIPPI............................... PRENTISS.................... .............. 6.66 5.58 4.38 3.97
MISSISSIPPI............................... QUITMAN..................... 52.65 48.94 50.07 44.71 39.25
MISSISSIPPI............................... RANKIN...................... 67.35 65.85 54.37 51.65 54.04
MISSISSIPPI............................... SCOTT....................... 6.57 5.90 7.09 4.90 21.02
MISSISSIPPI............................... SHARKEY..................... 72.34 78.58 78.90 70.64 70.95
MISSISSIPPI............................... SIMPSON..................... 53.02 48.00 51.34 54.39 50.89
MISSISSIPPI............................... SMITH....................... 10.31 15.64 10.88 8.96 8.90
MISSISSIPPI............................... STONE....................... 2.37 62.82 59.21 58.47 58.94
MISSISSIPPI............................... SUNFLOWER................... 58.82 61.08 57.47 50.55 56.04
MISSISSIPPI............................... TALLAHATCHIE................ 26.90 28.06 23.92 21.89 22.51
MISSISSIPPI............................... TATE........................ 29.10 37.93 51.55 47.39 51.07
MISSISSIPPI............................... TIPPAH...................... 10.25 8.51 8.60 16.31 12.47
MISSISSIPPI............................... TISHOMINGO.................. 45.32 50.16 41.78 33.36 29.77
MISSISSIPPI............................... TUNICA...................... 55.31 57.64 52.72 48.74 49.60
MISSISSIPPI............................... UNION....................... 8.98 8.63 7.91 7.14 6.01
MISSISSIPPI............................... WALTHALL.................... 5.38 23.08 23.30 24.17 26.76
MISSISSIPPI............................... WARREN...................... 22.83 21.01 20.20 27.98 21.97
MISSISSIPPI............................... WASHINGTON.................. 55.50 56.92 47.24 63.73 60.91
MISSISSIPPI............................... WAYNE....................... .............. .51 2.01 1.00 2.62
MISSISSIPPI............................... WEBSTER..................... .90 .58 .01 1.67 ..............
MISSISSIPPI............................... WILKINSON................... .49 .............. .............. 3.33 14.58
MISSISSIPPI............................... WINSTON..................... .............. .08 2.34 1.91 1.12
MISSISSIPPI............................... YALOBUSHA................... 5.98 7.15 6.51 4.01 3.66
MISSISSIPPI............................... YAZOO....................... 15.67 16.37 21.37 30.08 32.13
MISSOURI.................................. ADAIR....................... .67 .............. .06 .............. .20
MISSOURI.................................. ANDREW...................... .............. .............. .16 2.08 2.06
MISSOURI.................................. ATCHISON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. AUDRAIN..................... .............. .............. .............. .22 1.13
MISSOURI.................................. BARRY....................... .44 .21 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. BARTON...................... .24 .06 .01 .60 .80
MISSOURI.................................. BATES....................... 11.69 9.86 8.58 6.23 5.00
MISSOURI.................................. BENTON...................... .............. .............. .............. .67 1.04
MISSOURI.................................. BOLLINGER................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. BOONE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. BUCHANAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. BUTLER...................... 8.89 7.96 8.01 12.41 9.86
MISSOURI.................................. CALDWELL.................... .............. .............. .19 .13 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CALLAWAY.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CAMDEN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CAPE GIRARDEAU.............. .39 .25 .............. 1.34 .29
MISSOURI.................................. CARROLL..................... .............. .35 .03 .............. 1.48
MISSOURI.................................. CARTER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CASS........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CEDAR....................... .............. 13.99 15.20 7.57 9.97
MISSOURI.................................. CHARITON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .11
MISSOURI.................................. CHRISTIAN................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CLARK....................... 1.26 1.96 .90 1.30 .45
MISSOURI.................................. CLAY........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CLINTON..................... .............. 1.27 .............. .82 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. COLE........................ .98 .87 1.15 2.36 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. COOPER...................... .07 .............. .10 .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. .75 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. DADE........................ .............. .41 .............. .............. .66
MISSOURI.................................. DALLAS...................... 12.82 8.40 6.31 5.90 24.55
MISSOURI.................................. DAVIESS..................... .............. .............. 9.14 7.29 6.19
MISSOURI.................................. DEKALB...................... 1.13 1.17 1.76 .72 .15
MISSOURI.................................. DENT........................ .............. .............. .............. 1.57 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. DOUGLAS..................... 1.91 .80 .10 .04 1.05
MISSOURI.................................. DUNKLIN..................... .32 .02 1.02 1.93 .72
MISSOURI.................................. FRANKLIN.................... .28 .33 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. GASCONADE................... .50 .26 2.61 .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. GENTRY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. GREENE...................... .41 .31 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. GRUNDY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .39
MISSOURI.................................. HARRISON.................... .............. .............. .............. 7.51 5.06
MISSOURI.................................. HENRY....................... 5.63 21.55 12.92 12.36 10.55
MISSOURI.................................. HICKORY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. HOLT........................ 1.02 1.02 1.09 .25 1.28
MISSOURI.................................. HOWARD...................... .30 .09 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. HOWELL...................... 9.34 .20 .20 .............. .20
MISSOURI.................................. IRON........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. JACKSON..................... .............. .............. 23.38 22.15 11.85
MISSOURI.................................. JASPER...................... .............. .............. .............. .43 .22
MISSOURI.................................. JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. JOHNSON..................... 23.09 23.23 23.32 19.78 16.14
MISSOURI.................................. KNOX........................ 7.88 2.63 3.31 1.70 6.81
MISSOURI.................................. LACLEDE..................... 2.20 2.17 4.68 8.28 5.21
MISSOURI.................................. LAFAYETTE................... .25 .27 .............. .52 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. LAWRENCE.................... .............. .30 .42 .14 7.99
MISSOURI.................................. LEWIS....................... .43 4.33 7.09 5.64 3.52
MISSOURI.................................. LINCOLN..................... 1.35 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. LINN........................ .04 .03 .46 .39 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. LIVINGSTON.................. 3.86 3.04 3.10 3.18 2.58
MISSOURI.................................. MACON....................... 1.20 .95 .41 1.86 .57
MISSOURI.................................. MADISON..................... .............. .............. .............. .02 5.86
MISSOURI.................................. MARIES...................... .62 1.10 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. MARION...................... .............. 2.62 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. MCDONALD.................... .............. .............. .............. 12.72 9.54
MISSOURI.................................. MERCER...................... .............. .............. .............. .01 2.98
MISSOURI.................................. MILLER...................... 1.35 2.15 2.83 1.78 9.40
MISSOURI.................................. MISSISSIPPI................. 5.39 5.64 7.74 12.63 6.17
MISSOURI.................................. MONITEAU.................... 9.44 .............. 2.19 13.69 10.81
MISSOURI.................................. MONROE...................... 1.47 1.33 .48 3.76 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. MORGAN...................... .............. .59 .58 .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. NEW MADRID.................. .33 .20 5.73 6.40 5.61
MISSOURI.................................. NEWTON...................... 2.64 .............. 2.45 1.55 .43
MISSOURI.................................. NODAWAY..................... .04 .............. .03 .40 .27
MISSOURI.................................. OREGON...................... 1.78 .63 .............. .24 5.41
MISSOURI.................................. OSAGE....................... 1.74 1.22 .70 .79 1.28
MISSOURI.................................. OZARK....................... 1.47 1.96 9.54 7.79 7.36
MISSOURI.................................. PEMISCOT.................... 12.97 13.35 11.36 12.77 9.35
MISSOURI.................................. PERRY....................... 2.34 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. PETTIS...................... .............. .............. .15 .17 .06
MISSOURI.................................. PHELPS...................... .55 .............. .............. .01 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. PIKE........................ .............. .29 .............. 1.16 .17
MISSOURI.................................. PLATTE...................... .............. .............. .............. 3.43 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. POLK........................ 1.08 .17 .............. .............. 1.50
MISSOURI.................................. PULASKI..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. PUTNAM...................... 4.62 .30 .25 .55 11.98
MISSOURI.................................. RALLS....................... .............. .............. .25 .30 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. RANDOLPH.................... .01 .............. .............. .............. 1.52
MISSOURI.................................. RAY......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. REYNOLDS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. RIPLEY...................... .74 .70 .54 .28 .08
MISSOURI.................................. SALINE...................... .02 .12 .64 .90 1.26
MISSOURI.................................. SCHUYLER.................... .13 .............. .74 1.06 8.55
MISSOURI.................................. SCOTLAND.................... .............. 2.89 .............. .37 .12
MISSOURI.................................. SCOTT....................... .............. .19 32.64 .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. SHANNON..................... 3.59 .............. 9.00 .40 .41
MISSOURI.................................. SHELBY...................... .22 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. ST LOUIS CITY............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. ST. CHARLES................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. ST. CLAIR................... 3.61 5.73 5.96 7.69 7.08
MISSOURI.................................. ST. FRANCOIS................ .............. .20 .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. ST. LOUIS................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. STE. GENEVIEVE.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. STODDARD.................... 1.30 1.19 .86 .66 1.18
MISSOURI.................................. STONE....................... .............. .28 .27 1.38 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. SULLIVAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .15
MISSOURI.................................. TANEY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. TEXAS....................... .04 .20 .20 .18 .78
MISSOURI.................................. VERNON...................... .21 31.45 24.13 14.72 12.03
MISSOURI.................................. WARREN...................... 3.81 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MISSOURI.................................. WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. 2.14 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. WAYNE....................... .............. .............. .............. 13.91 3.66
MISSOURI.................................. WEBSTER..................... 1.22 .35 .11 14.84 13.38
MISSOURI.................................. WORTH....................... .............. .............. .............. .86 ..............
MISSOURI.................................. WRIGHT...................... 4.06 2.69 1.44 1.16 .05
MONTANA................................... BEAVERHEAD.................. .............. .............. .............. 1.67 1.45
MONTANA................................... BIG HORN.................... 15.98 18.39 22.98 24.15 20.84
MONTANA................................... BLAINE...................... 40.00 38.09 37.02 37.85 32.28
MONTANA................................... BROADWATER.................. 1.95 .............. 62.56 58.47 53.05
MONTANA................................... CARBON...................... 43.20 12.63 11.52 18.21 18.47
MONTANA................................... CARTER...................... 4.96 5.58 18.72 14.03 12.52
MONTANA................................... CASCADE..................... .54 .............. .76 .30 .22
MONTANA................................... CHOUTEAU.................... .94 .66 .55 1.26 1.41
MONTANA................................... CUSTER...................... .08 .09 .33 .97 .27
MONTANA................................... DANIELS..................... 5.01 4.43 6.77 7.18 7.05
MONTANA................................... DAWSON...................... .14 4.85 3.45 1.76 1.36
MONTANA................................... DEER LODGE.................. .07 .............. .............. .14 .51
MONTANA................................... FALLON...................... 1.69 1.50 1.47 .95 1.32
MONTANA................................... FERGUS...................... 1.58 .35 1.70 2.30 2.88
MONTANA................................... FLATHEAD.................... .............. 7.14 9.81 23.99 21.19
MONTANA................................... GALLATIN.................... .81 .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... GARFIELD.................... 35.40 19.14 50.87 44.82 35.03
MONTANA................................... GLACIER..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 11.63
MONTANA................................... GOLDEN VALLEY............... .............. .............. .............. .86 ..............
MONTANA................................... GRANITE..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.11
MONTANA................................... HILL........................ 1.09 1.19 .............. 1.58 2.72
MONTANA................................... JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... JUDITH BASIN................ .............. .22 .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... LAKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... LEWIS AND CLARK............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... LIBERTY..................... 1.30 3.32 .............. .............. 5.07
MONTANA................................... LINCOLN..................... 9.25 8.83 8.25 7.96 6.99
MONTANA................................... MADISON..................... .............. .............. .............. .23 1.24
MONTANA................................... MCCONE...................... .96 1.39 1.16 1.62 2.52
MONTANA................................... MEAGHER..................... .............. .............. .55 .............. 1.72
MONTANA................................... MINERAL..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... MISSOULA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .55
MONTANA................................... MUSSELSHELL................. .............. .............. 32.28 3.02 1.22
MONTANA................................... PARK........................ 21.11 18.82 13.87 12.10 10.47
MONTANA................................... PETROLEUM................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... PHILLIPS.................... 10.84 9.07 6.54 6.00 9.33
MONTANA................................... PONDERA..................... 3.86 2.93 2.67 1.92 1.12
MONTANA................................... POWDER RIVER................ .............. 2.68 1.76 3.47 .51
MONTANA................................... POWELL...................... .51 5.27 5.22 2.88 2.94
MONTANA................................... PRAIRIE..................... .............. .............. .............. 6.82 1.93
MONTANA................................... RAVALLI..................... 12.09 5.59 .............. 6.84 2.20
MONTANA................................... RICHLAND.................... 1.96 5.61 11.20 12.69 7.92
MONTANA................................... ROOSEVELT................... .27 .............. .............. .............. 7.22
MONTANA................................... ROSEBUD..................... .69 .............. 1.18 .20 2.03
MONTANA................................... SANDERS..................... 9.31 7.13 22.95 12.48 7.97
MONTANA................................... SHERIDAN.................... .............. .27 .06 .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... SILVER BOW.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
MONTANA................................... STILLWATER.................. 6.02 15.91 15.15 14.07 10.75
MONTANA................................... SWEET GRASS................. 3.54 1.01 2.93 2.14 .28
MONTANA................................... TETON....................... 15.20 25.81 24.27 4.10 4.06
MONTANA................................... TOOLE....................... .23 .30 .35 .43 .22
MONTANA................................... TREASURE.................... .............. 26.91 24.22 11.38 ..............
MONTANA................................... VALLEY...................... 17.32 19.80 20.87 19.95 17.15
MONTANA................................... WHEATLAND................... .............. .............. .............. 1.76 ..............
MONTANA................................... WIBAUX...................... .04 .............. .62 1.24 .14
MONTANA................................... YELLOWSTONE................. 21.61 20.18 16.67 13.40 9.39
NEBRASKA.................................. ADAMS....................... .42 .47 .52 .76 .50
NEBRASKA.................................. ANTELOPE.................... .............. .............. .............. .29 .25
NEBRASKA.................................. ARTHUR...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. BANNER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. BLAINE...................... 11.81 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. BOONE....................... .05 .............. .............. 1.01 3.62
NEBRASKA.................................. BOX BUTTE................... .............. .............. .09 .............. .23
NEBRASKA.................................. BOYD........................ 1.15 1.20 2.52 1.64 2.57
NEBRASKA.................................. BROWN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .12
NEBRASKA.................................. BUFFALO..................... 1.36 2.77 15.84 14.24 19.72
NEBRASKA.................................. BURT........................ .39 .39 9.33 12.06 7.38
NEBRASKA.................................. BUTLER...................... .13 4.60 .09 .03 .63
NEBRASKA.................................. CASS........................ .............. .............. .25 .79 .39
NEBRASKA.................................. CEDAR....................... .67 .30 .20 .02 .04
NEBRASKA.................................. CHASE....................... 7.44 .68 .32 2.35 2.03
NEBRASKA.................................. CHERRY...................... .55 .84 .49 .38 1.02
NEBRASKA.................................. CHEYENNE.................... 1.59 2.98 1.50 5.19 4.90
NEBRASKA.................................. CLAY........................ 1.00 1.25 .27 .92 14.32
NEBRASKA.................................. COLFAX...................... .10 .31 .57 6.96 2.53
NEBRASKA.................................. CUMING...................... .33 .30 .30 .34 .33
NEBRASKA.................................. CUSTER...................... 5.99 5.20 .34 2.32 2.10
NEBRASKA.................................. DAKOTA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. DAWES....................... .............. 1.58 .42 .............. .47
NEBRASKA.................................. DAWSON...................... .04 .05 1.50 .79 1.03
NEBRASKA.................................. DEUEL....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. DIXON....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .39
NEBRASKA.................................. DODGE....................... .51 .45 3.16 2.83 2.65
NEBRASKA.................................. DOUGLAS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. DUNDY....................... .............. .............. 4.11 17.06 5.79
NEBRASKA.................................. FILLMORE.................... .79 .............. .............. .............. .77
NEBRASKA.................................. FRANKLIN.................... 1.36 .............. .07 .66 5.90
NEBRASKA.................................. FRONTIER.................... 1.14 .95 2.01 4.21 2.02
NEBRASKA.................................. FURNAS...................... .56 3.49 3.42 3.46 3.63
NEBRASKA.................................. GAGE........................ .13 .07 .07 .67 .38
NEBRASKA.................................. GARDEN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. GARFIELD.................... 1.11 .............. 4.02 30.23 31.15
NEBRASKA.................................. GOSPER...................... .............. .............. .............. 1.28 .41
NEBRASKA.................................. GRANT....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. GREELEY..................... .87 .77 .75 .69 11.38
NEBRASKA.................................. HALL........................ .............. .27 1.10 13.11 11.59
NEBRASKA.................................. HAMILTON.................... .24 .............. .70 .49 .16
NEBRASKA.................................. HARLAN...................... .70 .............. .57 7.66 2.10
NEBRASKA.................................. HAYES....................... 16.68 15.19 14.26 8.22 7.15
NEBRASKA.................................. HITCHCOCK................... .............. 9.03 16.46 14.05 12.63
NEBRASKA.................................. HOLT........................ .12 .............. .45 .09 .06
NEBRASKA.................................. HOOKER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. HOWARD...................... 1.88 .29 .46 3.24 1.01
NEBRASKA.................................. JEFFERSON................... .............. .36 13.10 14.09 16.90
NEBRASKA.................................. JOHNSON..................... 1.08 .33 1.31 1.14 .51
NEBRASKA.................................. KEARNEY..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.66
NEBRASKA.................................. KEITH....................... .............. .............. .............. 4.64 ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. KEYA PAHA................... .49 .............. 4.06 6.90 3.02
NEBRASKA.................................. KIMBALL..................... .............. .79 .49 13.56 .60
NEBRASKA.................................. KNOX........................ 1.89 1.38 1.13 1.10 2.90
NEBRASKA.................................. LANCASTER................... .............. .06 .............. .41 .33
NEBRASKA.................................. LINCOLN..................... 1.72 1.40 .70 1.55 3.33
NEBRASKA.................................. LOGAN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.03
NEBRASKA.................................. LOUP........................ 2.19 .15 .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. MADISON..................... .............. .............. .15 .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. MCPHERSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEBRASKA.................................. MERRICK..................... 3.09 3.64 4.89 8.04 6.56
NEBRASKA.................................. MORRILL..................... 21.95 18.30 17.96 15.57 14.30
NEBRASKA.................................. NANCE....................... .68 .10 .24 .25 .23
NEBRASKA.................................. NEMAHA...................... .79 .68 .84 .83 2.84
NEBRASKA.................................. NUCKOLLS.................... 2.59 2.32 6.45 6.12 11.10
NEBRASKA.................................. OTOE........................ .76 .79 .73 .82 9.64
NEBRASKA.................................. PAWNEE...................... .35 2.27 .89 .88 2.25
NEBRASKA.................................. PERKINS..................... .............. .............. .11 .04 .12
NEBRASKA.................................. PHELPS...................... 1.53 2.38 3.99 6.57 8.44
NEBRASKA.................................. PIERCE...................... .64 1.19 .60 1.67 .90
NEBRASKA.................................. PLATTE...................... .72 .70 .89 1.02 .09
NEBRASKA.................................. POLK........................ .06 .............. .............. .65 3.44
NEBRASKA.................................. RED WILLOW.................. 3.03 1.97 .95 1.68 2.26
NEBRASKA.................................. RICHARDSON.................. .49 .54 1.79 .97 1.55
NEBRASKA.................................. ROCK........................ 1.58 2.10 1.64 4.60 16.59
NEBRASKA.................................. SALINE...................... .52 .52 .98 .89 1.25
NEBRASKA.................................. SARPY....................... .............. .............. .............. .45 .35
NEBRASKA.................................. SAUNDERS.................... .28 .22 .............. .82 .69
NEBRASKA.................................. SCOTTS BLUFF................ 16.20 18.17 16.03 16.82 15.09
NEBRASKA.................................. SEWARD...................... .............. .16 .14 .............. 1.07
NEBRASKA.................................. SHERIDAN.................... 4.40 1.73 1.26 .87 .07
NEBRASKA.................................. SHERMAN..................... 3.12 1.51 1.01 .94 16.82
NEBRASKA.................................. SIOUX, S1/2................. 1.92 .35 .............. .32 1.39
NEBRASKA.................................. STANTON..................... 2.68 .21 8.93 6.62 6.33
NEBRASKA.................................. THAYER...................... .51 .50 4.62 5.42 3.46
NEBRASKA.................................. THOMAS...................... .............. 5.42 4.65 19.72 34.47
NEBRASKA.................................. THURSTON.................... .28 .............. 10.10 6.31 6.64
NEBRASKA.................................. VALLEY...................... 3.59 2.79 .42 .40 .60
NEBRASKA.................................. WASHINGTON.................. .03 .01 .11 .93 2.47
NEBRASKA.................................. WAYNE....................... 1.65 14.61 14.73 16.56 12.93
NEBRASKA.................................. WEBSTER..................... .............. .............. .35 .22 1.46
NEBRASKA.................................. WHEELER..................... .08 .............. .............. .............. .96
NEBRASKA.................................. YORK........................ 5.39 3.81 3.39 3.56 7.07
NEVADA.................................... CARSON CITY................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... CHURCHILL................... 2.13 14.53 .............. .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... CLARK....................... .............. .01 .81 .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... DOUGLAS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... ELKO........................ 20.36 7.29 13.63 6.27 6.41
NEVADA.................................... ESMERALDA................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... EUREKA...................... .20 24.81 17.02 12.39 11.28
NEVADA.................................... HUMBOLDT.................... 15.59 19.47 6.83 9.72 6.05
NEVADA.................................... LANDER...................... 2.06 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... LINCOLN..................... 24.31 .............. .............. .............. 74.44
NEVADA.................................... LYON........................ .............. .............. 3.55 .98 ..............
NEVADA.................................... MINERAL..................... .............. .............. 22.34 6.29 ..............
NEVADA.................................... NYE,NW...................... .............. .53 .............. 30.90 28.93
NEVADA.................................... PERSHING.................... .54 .............. .............. .33 ..............
NEVADA.................................... STOREY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEVADA.................................... WASHOE...................... 70.07 68.04 63.04 58.07 54.38
NEVADA.................................... WHITE PINE.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. BELKNAP..................... 2.68 .88 .91 1.59 2.67
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. CARROLL..................... 2.61 .............. .............. 3.03 ..............
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. CHESHIRE.................... .............. .07 .............. .06 ..............
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. COOS........................ 4.40 6.40 6.46 8.17 7.54
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. GRAFTON..................... .............. 3.59 4.04 4.72 3.95
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. HILLSBOROUGH................ .89 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. MERRIMACK................... .29 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. ROCKINGHAM.................. .04 .............. .............. .02 .52
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. STRAFFORD................... 4.61 4.19 4.38 3.73 3.58
NEW HAMPSHIRE............................. SULLIVAN.................... .............. .35 .............. 4.43 1.56
NEW JERSEY................................ ATLANTIC.................... 8.36 25.38 30.29 31.23 28.26
NEW JERSEY................................ BERGEN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ BURLINGTON.................. 34.19 29.72 25.86 24.93 26.37
NEW JERSEY................................ CAMDEN...................... .............. 43.62 43.43 29.95 26.95
NEW JERSEY................................ CAPE MAY.................... .............. 16.01 80.06 79.93 79.95
NEW JERSEY................................ CUMBERLAND.................. 37.81 35.00 40.14 38.70 42.37
NEW JERSEY................................ ESSEX....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ GLOUCESTER.................. 58.84 67.47 57.78 55.76 53.93
NEW JERSEY................................ HUDSON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ HUNTERDON................... 2.46 4.89 11.12 9.30 13.31
NEW JERSEY................................ MERCER...................... .............. .............. .............. 100.00 ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ MIDDLESEX................... 82.88 82.86 82.68 82.66 56.49
NEW JERSEY................................ MONMOUTH.................... 56.77 75.28 74.72 74.00 59.26
NEW JERSEY................................ MORRIS...................... .............. 1.98 .............. .............. 10.28
NEW JERSEY................................ OCEAN....................... .............. 90.95 .............. .............. 9.43
NEW JERSEY................................ PASSAIC..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ SALEM....................... 48.91 49.26 53.50 46.95 49.33
NEW JERSEY................................ SOMERSET.................... .............. .74 40.11 35.87 25.40
NEW JERSEY................................ SUSSEX...................... 3.77 1.71 .............. .............. ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ UNION....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW JERSEY................................ WARREN...................... 5.11 4.41 4.24 5.28 4.12
NEW MEXICO................................ BERNALILLO WEST............. 41.39 27.29 15.81 1.20 ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ CATRON...................... 7.28 5.13 6.78 3.70 3.15
NEW MEXICO................................ CHAVES...................... 31.80 26.59 21.63 18.16 17.87
NEW MEXICO................................ CIBOLA...................... 47.44 74.12 72.48 68.32 65.66
NEW MEXICO................................ COLFAX...................... .............. 1.99 .............. .............. ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ CURRY....................... 4.45 4.19 7.58 11.91 10.09
NEW MEXICO................................ DEBACA...................... .............. .............. .............. .96 ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ DONA ANA.................... 9.27 9.11 7.80 5.96 .65
NEW MEXICO................................ EDDY........................ 28.85 19.77 13.65 14.74 9.74
NEW MEXICO................................ GRANT....................... 28.41 23.42 18.45 18.04 10.15
NEW MEXICO................................ GUADALUPE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ HARDING, PT................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ HIDALGO..................... 16.29 17.69 22.09 23.80 8.57
NEW MEXICO................................ LEA......................... 17.67 15.88 14.62 8.52 8.12
NEW MEXICO................................ LINCOLN..................... 1.76 2.52 14.11 13.10 11.09
NEW MEXICO................................ LOS ALAMOS.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ LUNA........................ 3.87 6.65 6.84 3.84 2.51
NEW MEXICO................................ MCKINLEY.................... 8.99 11.57 15.15 26.61 20.31
NEW MEXICO................................ MORA........................ .............. .26 .17 .87 1.40
NEW MEXICO................................ OTERO, PT................... 27.20 23.35 25.27 13.59 13.43
NEW MEXICO................................ QUAY........................ .............. .34 2.08 2.21 1.73
NEW MEXICO................................ RIO ARRIBA.................. 9.39 17.54 15.79 12.09 10.74
NEW MEXICO................................ ROOSEVELT................... 21.77 22.28 26.80 21.02 18.83
NEW MEXICO................................ SAN JUAN.................... 45.80 42.09 33.05 9.10 3.37
NEW MEXICO................................ SAN MIGUEL.................. .15 44.63 32.06 37.85 45.32
NEW MEXICO................................ SANDOVAL.................... 6.49 7.84 4.99 .37 .11
NEW MEXICO................................ SANTA FE, N................. 9.56 21.99 11.72 7.26 ..............
NEW MEXICO................................ SIERRA...................... 27.37 19.38 17.14 16.70 14.75
NEW MEXICO................................ SOCORRO..................... 30.24 31.48 24.60 20.72 19.54
NEW MEXICO................................ TAOS........................ .............. .............. 2.75 4.02 3.15
NEW MEXICO................................ TORRANCE.................... 2.33 25.76 22.26 21.53 21.58
NEW MEXICO................................ UNION....................... 4.21 2.79 1.51 .............. 11.38
NEW MEXICO................................ VALENCIA, WEST.............. 8.20 6.63 9.57 2.27 2.06
NEW YORK.................................. ALBANY...................... 1.62 2.82 8.40 .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. ALLEGANY.................... 12.98 11.53 10.78 9.24 4.83
NEW YORK.................................. BRONX....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. BROOME...................... .............. .............. 2.65 1.62 .03
NEW YORK.................................. CATTARAUGUS................. .89 5.00 10.69 12.42 21.44
NEW YORK.................................. CAYUGA...................... 17.87 15.49 16.56 18.46 16.03
NEW YORK.................................. CHAUTAUQUA.................. 5.96 9.56 7.83 8.59 8.62
NEW YORK.................................. CHEMUNG..................... .............. 1.69 6.35 .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. CHENANGO.................... 6.18 5.41 4.45 12.21 20.02
NEW YORK.................................. CLINTON..................... 4.35 .............. 27.49 39.16 31.95
NEW YORK.................................. COLUMBIA.................... 3.49 7.00 5.12 5.88 6.96
NEW YORK.................................. CORTLAND.................... 2.26 1.51 2.26 .93 1.18
NEW YORK.................................. DELAWARE.................... 14.31 14.68 15.85 17.22 26.81
NEW YORK.................................. DUTCHESS.................... .............. 26.31 32.60 45.68 50.85
NEW YORK.................................. ERIE........................ 7.06 7.08 9.73 13.82 16.84
NEW YORK.................................. ESSEX....................... .............. .............. .............. 7.99 ..............
NEW YORK.................................. FRANKLIN.................... 21.37 27.43 25.49 27.46 26.41
NEW YORK.................................. FULTON...................... .............. .43 .45 1.15 .33
NEW YORK.................................. GENESEE..................... 10.59 27.01 22.99 14.99 13.03
NEW YORK.................................. GREENE...................... 7.40 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. HAMILTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. HERKIMER.................... 4.12 4.91 4.99 5.98 4.76
NEW YORK.................................. JEFFERSON................... 4.68 6.41 7.75 7.55 16.84
NEW YORK.................................. KINGS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. LEWIS....................... 11.05 9.29 8.62 9.91 26.21
NEW YORK.................................. LIVINGSTON.................. 32.63 34.53 36.79 36.03 36.47
NEW YORK.................................. MADISON..................... 10.01 11.85 12.42 10.81 7.55
NEW YORK.................................. MONROE...................... 4.09 11.20 11.13 14.80 24.48
NEW YORK.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. 2.28 2.93 1.41 5.95 5.01
NEW YORK.................................. NASSAU...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. NEW YORK.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. NIAGARA..................... 2.08 2.50 1.83 8.02 13.21
NEW YORK.................................. ONEIDA...................... 1.23 5.77 6.12 19.98 17.48
NEW YORK.................................. ONONDAGA.................... 10.50 19.57 10.99 14.55 11.22
NEW YORK.................................. ONTARIO..................... 12.78 14.43 19.41 24.70 26.16
NEW YORK.................................. ORANGE...................... 14.63 10.60 33.45 35.43 44.92
NEW YORK.................................. ORLEANS..................... 29.28 27.80 27.84 19.57 26.08
NEW YORK.................................. OSWEGO...................... 44.08 29.59 24.34 22.63 21.86
NEW YORK.................................. OTSEGO...................... 1.99 2.54 6.26 6.01 10.50
NEW YORK.................................. PUTNAM...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. QUEENS...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. RENSSELAER.................. .............. 5.76 5.22 15.09 10.58
NEW YORK.................................. RICHMOND.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. ROCKLAND.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. SARATOGA.................... 45.25 25.64 23.63 21.92 19.44
NEW YORK.................................. SCHENECTADY................. .............. 19.34 .51 .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. SCHOHARIE................... 1.84 2.36 5.47 4.83 3.95
NEW YORK.................................. SCHUYLER.................... .24 .............. 1.21 2.07 11.63
NEW YORK.................................. SENECA...................... 2.07 2.68 5.46 3.99 2.41
NEW YORK.................................. ST. LAWRENCE................ 13.13 13.57 13.70 14.19 14.31
NEW YORK.................................. STEUBEN..................... 5.06 8.08 6.14 23.87 26.88
NEW YORK.................................. SUFFOLK..................... 1.13 .............. .............. .............. 2.94
NEW YORK.................................. SULLIVAN.................... 2.52 1.73 .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. TIOGA....................... 15.93 13.11 8.66 6.97 7.63
NEW YORK.................................. TOMPKINS.................... 11.80 10.05 19.50 8.86 8.20
NEW YORK.................................. ULSTER...................... 33.51 40.62 43.30 37.21 37.05
NEW YORK.................................. WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NEW YORK.................................. WASHINGTON.................. 16.95 12.25 21.58 20.32 21.81
NEW YORK.................................. WAYNE....................... 15.42 13.07 11.53 14.13 10.98
NEW YORK.................................. WESTCHESTER................. 48.51 49.68 54.19 60.25 67.02
NEW YORK.................................. WYOMING..................... 5.72 6.48 6.59 6.61 19.97
NEW YORK.................................. YATES....................... 10.87 9.81 8.01 7.92 8.44
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ALAMANCE.................... .............. .............. 1.76 2.55 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ALEXANDER................... .............. .............. .............. 2.88 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ALLEGHANY................... 19.48 19.37 20.35 17.24 14.44
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ANSON....................... .............. 4.49 2.71 18.84 15.56
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ASHE........................ 19.84 17.74 9.33 8.39 2.97
NORTH CAROLINA............................ AVERY....................... 4.18 3.63 3.63 5.92 5.48
NORTH CAROLINA............................ BEAUFORT.................... 5.23 6.59 8.54 6.89 14.71
NORTH CAROLINA............................ BERTIE...................... .40 .............. 3.12 5.47 12.50
NORTH CAROLINA............................ BLADEN...................... 19.96 26.55 24.50 21.61 23.95
NORTH CAROLINA............................ BRUNSWICK................... .............. .............. 21.28 12.44 12.33
NORTH CAROLINA............................ BUNCOMBE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ BURKE....................... .............. 5.06 .............. 36.56 31.82
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CABARRUS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CALDWELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CAMDEN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CARTERET.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 45.63
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CASWELL..................... 22.78 26.68 27.53 23.50 22.43
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CATAWBA..................... 64.17 61.04 .............. 1.69 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CHATHAM..................... 1.04 .41 .96 7.23 3.43
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CHEROKEE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CHOWAN...................... .33 .............. 3.99 .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CLAY........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CLEVELAND................... 1.18 .15 2.86 .............. .91
NORTH CAROLINA............................ COLUMBUS.................... 8.57 9.51 6.02 2.75 2.33
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CRAVEN...................... 13.86 16.78 11.51 20.12 19.10
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CUMBERLAND.................. .............. 5.91 23.90 11.36 32.80
NORTH CAROLINA............................ CURRITUCK................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 7.62
NORTH CAROLINA............................ DARE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ DAVIDSON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ DAVIE....................... .............. 23.14 .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ DUPLIN...................... 2.07 2.01 3.44 2.84 2.49
NORTH CAROLINA............................ DURHAM...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ EDGECOMBE................... 7.20 8.25 10.58 10.74 15.96
NORTH CAROLINA............................ FORSYTH..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. 3.13 .............. 12.98
NORTH CAROLINA............................ GASTON...................... .............. .............. 99.41 100.00 100.00
NORTH CAROLINA............................ GATES....................... 4.02 7.73 6.89 6.24 7.98
NORTH CAROLINA............................ GRAHAM...................... .............. .............. .............. 98.17 97.97
NORTH CAROLINA............................ GRANVILLE................... .............. 56.27 57.08 41.42 41.78
NORTH CAROLINA............................ GREENE...................... 10.28 14.61 14.52 11.20 9.73
NORTH CAROLINA............................ GUILFORD.................... .............. .............. .............. 1.08 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HALIFAX..................... 30.11 26.19 24.47 38.17 43.81
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HARNETT..................... .............. .............. .............. 25.76 28.24
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HAYWOOD..................... .61 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HENDERSON................... 62.67 60.55 52.17 44.97 35.67
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HERTFORD.................... 23.37 20.01 16.94 16.40 18.74
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HOKE........................ .............. .............. .............. 11.56 11.63
NORTH CAROLINA............................ HYDE........................ 17.32 11.51 9.02 2.69 3.34
NORTH CAROLINA............................ IREDELL..................... .............. .............. .............. .89 .14
NORTH CAROLINA............................ JACKSON..................... .............. 1.70 .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ JOHNSTON.................... 7.61 11.13 13.08 17.13 21.65
NORTH CAROLINA............................ JONES....................... 4.55 16.72 9.39 .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ LEE......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ LENOIR...................... 5.16 4.53 5.27 2.52 1.55
NORTH CAROLINA............................ LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 18.22
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MACON....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MADISON..................... 7.78 15.24 13.19 9.55 9.91
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MARTIN...................... 8.92 8.38 7.77 7.18 12.18
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MCDOWELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MECKLENBURG................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MITCHELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MONTGOMERY.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ MOORE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ NASH........................ 2.36 1.04 1.53 7.34 6.45
NORTH CAROLINA............................ NEW HANOVER................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ NORTHAMPTON................. 17.11 14.57 21.63 26.68 31.55
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ONSLOW...................... 6.50 7.58 9.05 53.65 53.67
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ORANGE...................... 82.77 69.64 69.25 67.44 56.28
NORTH CAROLINA............................ PAMLICO..................... .91 32.13 6.56 11.73 11.04
NORTH CAROLINA............................ PASQUOTANK.................. .81 .68 7.21 .86 .69
NORTH CAROLINA............................ PENDER...................... 72.13 73.16 71.62 74.00 70.98
NORTH CAROLINA............................ PERQUIMANS.................. .32 .71 .97 .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ PERSON...................... 31.78 29.28 29.14 25.31 23.54
NORTH CAROLINA............................ PITT........................ 49.09 45.86 40.08 40.08 39.76
NORTH CAROLINA............................ POLK........................ 8.52 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ RANDOLPH.................... .............. .............. 5.15 2.55 2.54
NORTH CAROLINA............................ RICHMOND.................... .............. .............. .............. .03 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ROBESON..................... 30.76 54.99 49.62 45.28 42.21
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ROCKINGHAM.................. 6.33 8.13 .75 .37 28.84
NORTH CAROLINA............................ ROWAN....................... 10.09 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ RUTHERFORD.................. .............. .............. .............. 3.05 ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ SAMPSON..................... 12.67 9.76 9.26 42.47 47.85
NORTH CAROLINA............................ SCOTLAND.................... .............. .............. 84.80 69.78 36.99
NORTH CAROLINA............................ STANLY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 4.37
NORTH CAROLINA............................ STOKES...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ SURRY....................... .47 .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ SWAIN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ TRANSYLVANIA................ 72.66 71.39 71.38 70.37 69.91
NORTH CAROLINA............................ TYRRELL..................... 10.26 3.74 9.79 56.96 55.82
NORTH CAROLINA............................ UNION....................... 25.12 57.71 20.36 16.83 28.02
NORTH CAROLINA............................ VANCE....................... .............. .............. 17.09 14.02 15.30
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WAKE........................ .............. 27.46 32.17 25.91 32.42
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WARREN...................... 22.33 29.11 23.04 24.36 53.96
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WASHINGTON.................. 14.61 17.52 6.66 3.41 7.43
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WATAUGA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WAYNE....................... .............. 5.08 3.55 6.77 8.29
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WILKES...................... 1.78 1.60 2.27 2.22 2.63
NORTH CAROLINA............................ WILSON...................... 7.63 7.36 .18 .32 1.33
NORTH CAROLINA............................ YADKIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
NORTH CAROLINA............................ YANCEY...................... .............. .48 1.35 .............. 1.12
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. ADAMS....................... 6.20 5.65 4.26 4.30 4.64
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BARNES...................... .............. .............. 3.97 2.98 2.36
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BENSON...................... 1.53 3.18 2.75 4.24 4.44
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BILLINGS.................... 4.37 .63 .14 1.75 1.29
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BOTTINEAU................... 2.04 1.63 2.75 2.68 3.25
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BOWMAN...................... .............. .............. .85 .20 .58
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BURKE....................... .............. .............. .50 .............. .45
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. BURLEIGH.................... .31 3.06 1.93 1.51 2.14
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. CASS........................ 2.24 .86 .............. .11 .57
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. CAVALIER.................... .34 .37 .08 .08 .30
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. CORSON SD, PT............... .09 .............. .............. .28 3.56
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. DICKEY...................... .............. .............. .............. 1.88 .45
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. DIVIDE...................... .58 .16 .53 .33 1.50
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. DUNN, PT.................... 51.09 48.57 43.23 39.54 36.15
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. EDDY........................ .18 5.97 4.09 2.13 3.16
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. EMMONS...................... .88 1.35 1.06 1.07 3.06
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. FOSTER...................... .............. .............. 10.74 8.71 7.48
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. GOLDEN VALLEY............... 1.92 .54 1.04 .12 1.14
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. GRAND FORKS................. .37 .............. .54 3.45 2.94
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. GRANT....................... 1.86 1.00 1.04 1.74 1.59
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. GRIGGS...................... .............. .............. 2.49 .53 2.76
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. HETTINGER................... .35 1.49 .74 1.89 3.45
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. KIDDER...................... .69 3.00 4.09 1.90 4.81
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. LAMOURE..................... .............. .............. .............. .53 .20
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. LOGAN....................... .37 1.34 .45 .56 .64
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MCHENRY..................... 1.54 1.62 2.29 2.23 1.78
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MCINTOSH.................... 1.19 .63 .49 1.01 1.72
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MCKENZIE, PT................ 23.90 22.20 20.71 19.44 17.73
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MCLEAN, PT.................. 22.21 19.26 16.05 12.37 13.14
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MERCER, PT.................. 56.65 52.20 45.12 37.57 32.15
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MORTON...................... 2.09 1.83 1.76 1.66 2.81
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. MOUNTRAIL, PT............... 41.43 42.29 42.97 39.96 35.83
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. NELSON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .53
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. OLIVER...................... 2.53 8.08 6.22 6.07 1.95
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. PEMBINA..................... 5.29 6.43 5.87 6.87 6.74
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. PIERCE...................... 1.47 1.11 1.22 .88 .37
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. RAMSEY...................... .............. .............. .12 .09 4.61
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. RANSOM...................... .............. .............. .............. .10 .72
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. RENVILLE.................... .............. .05 .02 2.31 1.62
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. RICHLAND.................... .38 .............. .............. 3.13 4.18
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. ROLETTE..................... 3.42 1.56 6.09 3.98 21.21
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. SARGENT..................... 1.55 .54 .46 .27 1.92
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. SHERIDAN.................... 14.57 15.73 11.29 12.88 7.01
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. SIOUX....................... 20.53 24.96 26.89 26.74 33.27
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. SLOPE....................... .02 .............. .51 .............. .36
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. STARK....................... 2.56 .59 3.82 2.52 2.73
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. STEELE...................... .............. .............. .............. .13 .18
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. STUTSMAN.................... 1.18 2.33 7.43 3.45 2.19
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. TOWNER...................... 5.25 4.72 3.34 4.17 8.69
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. TRAILL...................... .56 .25 .............. .05 4.60
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. WALSH....................... 3.51 2.85 2.77 3.70 3.93
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. WARD........................ 2.54 2.45 3.70 6.02 3.70
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. WELLS....................... .82 .38 .............. 5.43 4.97
NORTH DAKOTA.............................. WILLIAMS.................... 5.83 5.37 8.36 8.66 9.58
OHIO...................................... ADAMS....................... .39 .96 1.58 1.39 1.92
OHIO...................................... ALLEN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... ASHLAND..................... .99 1.59 1.91 .91 3.03
OHIO...................................... ASHTABULA................... 14.35 8.09 6.89 9.02 2.40
OHIO...................................... ATHENS...................... .............. .............. 18.03 6.20 1.52
OHIO...................................... AUGLAIZE.................... .............. 1.16 29.35 23.07 21.58
OHIO...................................... BELMONT..................... 17.86 17.73 18.38 18.85 20.79
OHIO...................................... BROWN....................... 7.74 .31 7.88 .71 .22
OHIO...................................... BUTLER...................... .............. .............. .............. 19.36 17.59
OHIO...................................... CARROLL..................... 8.14 7.13 6.97 6.42 2.79
OHIO...................................... CHAMPAIGN................... .55 .04 .............. .............. .97
OHIO...................................... CLARK....................... 1.14 1.06 1.08 1.24 1.35
OHIO...................................... CLERMONT.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... CLINTON..................... 1.14 .27 2.54 .82 .29
OHIO...................................... COLUMBIANA.................. .19 .04 .37 4.29 3.30
OHIO...................................... COSHOCTON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .85
OHIO...................................... CRAWFORD.................... .............. .............. .61 .............. 41.02
OHIO...................................... CUYAHOGA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... DARKE....................... 5.21 4.71 10.05 17.04 15.07
OHIO...................................... DEFIANCE.................... .23 .36 .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... DELAWARE.................... 42.59 39.65 29.84 44.80 37.91
OHIO...................................... ERIE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... FAIRFIELD................... 1.49 5.05 5.23 7.54 11.16
OHIO...................................... FAYETTE..................... 9.43 9.13 7.55 8.14 4.14
OHIO...................................... FRANKLIN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... FULTON...................... .............. .............. .............. 2.20 1.56
OHIO...................................... GALLIA...................... 47.94 72.71 21.20 42.88 39.03
OHIO...................................... GEAUGA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... GREENE...................... 7.58 5.53 8.02 15.31 12.55
OHIO...................................... GUERNSEY.................... .84 .............. .............. .............. .06
OHIO...................................... HAMILTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... HANCOCK..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... HARDIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .56
OHIO...................................... HARRISON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... HENRY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... HIGHLAND.................... .............. .............. .11 .08 .08
OHIO...................................... HOCKING..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... HOLMES...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 3.60
OHIO...................................... HURON....................... .............. 4.54 4.48 13.43 10.01
OHIO...................................... JACKSON..................... .............. .............. 40.48 32.43 32.67
OHIO...................................... JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. 11.33 5.17 ..............
OHIO...................................... KNOX........................ 6.23 4.63 6.57 4.78 5.46
OHIO...................................... LAKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... LAWRENCE.................... .30 .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... LICKING..................... .............. .............. 1.21 7.19 4.60
OHIO...................................... LOGAN....................... 1.11 56.54 42.11 38.42 38.54
OHIO...................................... LORAIN...................... .35 1.79 1.27 12.47 11.49
OHIO...................................... LUCAS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... MADISON..................... .............. .............. .............. .15 .09
OHIO...................................... MAHONING.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... MARION...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... MEDINA...................... 19.43 .75 .67 .58 .60
OHIO...................................... MEIGS....................... 19.79 19.80 20.15 8.77 8.13
OHIO...................................... MERCER...................... 26.96 33.16 50.46 42.32 40.86
OHIO...................................... MIAMI....................... .............. 2.72 2.62 1.69 3.99
OHIO...................................... MONROE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... MONTGOMERY.................. .............. .............. 19.11 13.76 9.16
OHIO...................................... MORGAN...................... 18.49 11.58 8.28 3.25 2.36
OHIO...................................... MORROW...................... .29 .74 .92 1.78 .44
OHIO...................................... MUSKINGUM................... 9.47 .............. .............. .07 .45
OHIO...................................... NOBLE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... OTTAWA...................... .88 .96 .59 .86 .36
OHIO...................................... PAULDING.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... PERRY....................... .............. .............. 5.19 8.97 1.58
OHIO...................................... PICKAWAY.................... 27.21 25.00 23.90 23.09 35.35
OHIO...................................... PIKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... PORTAGE..................... .............. .............. 3.31 3.07 .33
OHIO...................................... PREBLE...................... 1.28 .96 1.56 11.30 11.93
OHIO...................................... PUTNAM...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... RICHLAND.................... .37 .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... ROSS........................ .............. .............. .............. 9.91 9.36
OHIO...................................... SANDUSKY.................... .............. .............. .95 19.59 18.18
OHIO...................................... SCIOTO...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... SENECA...................... .72 .07 .08 .08 .07
OHIO...................................... SHELBY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... STARK....................... .............. .............. .............. 7.61 13.89
OHIO...................................... SUMMIT...................... .............. .............. 4.67 .............. 17.39
OHIO...................................... TRUMBULL.................... 2.05 .88 1.62 2.21 1.95
OHIO...................................... TUSCARAWAS.................. .93 .............. 12.65 28.39 46.16
OHIO...................................... UNION....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 58.35
OHIO...................................... VAN WERT.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... VINTON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. 35.66 13.06 8.06 47.60
OHIO...................................... WAYNE....................... 1.38 .............. .63 .............. 5.52
OHIO...................................... WILLIAMS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 2.93
OHIO...................................... WOOD........................ 5.22 5.93 8.55 .............. ..............
OHIO...................................... WYANDOT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OKLAHOMA.................................. ADAIR....................... 1.13 6.57 4.90 2.79 2.13
OKLAHOMA.................................. ALFALFA..................... .............. .43 .23 8.50 6.62
OKLAHOMA.................................. ATOKA....................... 1.99 10.84 11.11 10.21 64.02
OKLAHOMA.................................. BEAVER...................... 1.13 2.00 3.92 8.36 8.10
OKLAHOMA.................................. BECKHAM..................... 5.89 7.31 6.57 4.99 5.81
OKLAHOMA.................................. BLAINE...................... 7.43 6.46 6.62 6.12 9.42
OKLAHOMA.................................. BRYAN....................... 4.01 5.96 9.22 10.34 15.21
OKLAHOMA.................................. CADDO....................... 4.97 4.71 6.70 14.94 13.66
OKLAHOMA.................................. CANADIAN.................... 4.81 .50 1.64 1.86 6.11
OKLAHOMA.................................. CARTER...................... 1.13 .13 2.89 1.33 .57
OKLAHOMA.................................. CHEROKEE.................... 1.08 1.24 1.60 2.92 2.01
OKLAHOMA.................................. CHOCTAW..................... 16.45 11.87 11.11 26.33 26.90
OKLAHOMA.................................. CIMARRON.................... 6.54 4.55 3.88 4.46 3.40
OKLAHOMA.................................. CLEVELAND................... 33.81 25.05 16.25 5.86 4.76
OKLAHOMA.................................. COAL........................ 1.64 .84 2.15 17.12 16.06
OKLAHOMA.................................. COMANCHE.................... 2.42 .75 1.10 7.56 9.06
OKLAHOMA.................................. COTTON...................... 5.65 1.77 3.15 25.87 28.04
OKLAHOMA.................................. CRAIG....................... .19 15.06 14.74 12.33 12.71
OKLAHOMA.................................. CREEK....................... 1.14 .48 .............. .91 ..............
OKLAHOMA.................................. CUSTER...................... 9.77 4.80 5.12 4.64 2.63
OKLAHOMA.................................. DELAWARE.................... 7.25 5.69 5.23 13.23 12.47
OKLAHOMA.................................. DEWEY....................... 8.78 7.93 7.25 5.85 5.34
OKLAHOMA.................................. ELLIS....................... 8.99 7.63 3.82 4.01 2.89
OKLAHOMA.................................. GARFIELD.................... 1.49 2.98 2.25 .91 2.50
OKLAHOMA.................................. GARVIN...................... 7.44 2.77 5.40 4.86 7.83
OKLAHOMA.................................. GRADY....................... 2.07 2.60 3.09 3.25 2.36
OKLAHOMA.................................. GRANT....................... 2.76 3.31 8.90 10.30 9.06
OKLAHOMA.................................. GREER....................... 5.65 7.94 11.10 5.49 6.13
OKLAHOMA.................................. HARMON...................... 4.74 4.07 4.68 4.89 3.83
OKLAHOMA.................................. HARPER...................... 14.81 10.95 7.11 3.38 1.93
OKLAHOMA.................................. HASKELL..................... .42 .27 1.40 2.09 2.28
OKLAHOMA.................................. HUGHES...................... 15.62 20.21 23.58 33.96 31.70
OKLAHOMA.................................. JACKSON..................... 5.49 4.27 5.13 4.07 3.96
OKLAHOMA.................................. JEFFERSON................... 4.59 13.05 16.28 17.55 11.63
OKLAHOMA.................................. JOHNSTON.................... 5.80 5.68 5.97 7.89 10.48
OKLAHOMA.................................. KAY......................... 1.49 1.40 4.28 2.80 3.65
OKLAHOMA.................................. KINGFISHER.................. 4.35 3.97 4.14 7.16 6.71
OKLAHOMA.................................. KIOWA....................... 7.72 5.06 5.14 5.52 11.07
OKLAHOMA.................................. LATIMER..................... .91 .12 18.81 20.40 14.81
OKLAHOMA.................................. LE FLORE.................... 6.82 6.23 4.50 6.12 7.86
OKLAHOMA.................................. LINCOLN..................... 12.61 10.43 7.66 5.37 7.46
OKLAHOMA.................................. LOGAN....................... 2.74 7.83 6.43 6.51 8.46
OKLAHOMA.................................. LOVE........................ 2.44 .75 3.13 4.51 3.95
OKLAHOMA.................................. MAJOR....................... 1.85 1.91 1.26 2.00 5.73
OKLAHOMA.................................. MARSHALL.................... 5.97 5.85 6.54 7.35 59.81
OKLAHOMA.................................. MAYES....................... 8.37 8.78 10.76 10.65 9.74
OKLAHOMA.................................. MCCLAIN..................... 7.90 5.02 19.72 20.89 28.12
OKLAHOMA.................................. MCCURTAIN................... 3.61 3.48 1.60 4.97 20.27
OKLAHOMA.................................. MCINTOSH.................... 3.62 4.54 3.83 4.43 3.44
OKLAHOMA.................................. MURRAY...................... 3.72 3.52 15.78 5.31 12.68
OKLAHOMA.................................. MUSKOGEE.................... 12.03 11.28 12.42 11.88 18.79
OKLAHOMA.................................. NOBLE....................... .75 .66 1.37 1.11 .82
OKLAHOMA.................................. NOWATA...................... .77 .48 5.67 2.74 1.60
OKLAHOMA.................................. OKFUSKEE.................... 4.65 14.32 14.52 28.27 30.72
OKLAHOMA.................................. OKLAHOMA.................... 28.45 26.88 21.71 20.80 49.90
OKLAHOMA.................................. OKMULGEE.................... 9.62 8.78 6.66 7.10 5.09
OKLAHOMA.................................. OSAGE....................... 4.60 8.00 9.55 11.18 12.26
OKLAHOMA.................................. OTTAWA...................... 4.86 5.81 11.63 11.32 10.88
OKLAHOMA.................................. PAWNEE...................... 22.19 23.28 10.45 11.16 8.38
OKLAHOMA.................................. PAYNE....................... 13.94 20.18 22.05 29.37 23.08
OKLAHOMA.................................. PITTSBURG................... 3.63 6.85 6.90 5.91 6.92
OKLAHOMA.................................. PONTOTOC.................... 2.47 4.68 7.90 16.31 16.78
OKLAHOMA.................................. POTTAWATOMIE................ .50 9.57 16.40 17.94 17.07
OKLAHOMA.................................. PUSHMATAHA.................. 29.48 31.94 33.57 30.18 34.34
OKLAHOMA.................................. ROGER MILLS................. .............. 1.65 2.45 1.52 2.33
OKLAHOMA.................................. ROGERS...................... 10.27 11.75 15.84 14.89 16.82
OKLAHOMA.................................. SEMINOLE.................... .72 1.03 1.66 5.07 2.79
OKLAHOMA.................................. SEQUOYAH.................... 5.45 5.97 5.35 6.40 7.16
OKLAHOMA.................................. STEPHENS.................... .50 .70 4.35 3.91 4.62
OKLAHOMA.................................. TEXAS....................... 8.91 15.36 11.51 9.29 14.75
OKLAHOMA.................................. TILLMAN..................... 3.04 3.61 2.02 2.41 3.61
OKLAHOMA.................................. TULSA....................... 8.46 12.40 12.70 13.81 8.01
OKLAHOMA.................................. WAGONER..................... 15.27 11.78 10.46 16.72 14.33
OKLAHOMA.................................. WASHINGTON.................. .25 1.18 .15 .............. ..............
OKLAHOMA.................................. WASHITA..................... 12.23 3.45 2.78 3.31 10.97
OKLAHOMA.................................. WOODS....................... .18 3.11 3.68 4.80 8.51
OKLAHOMA.................................. WOODWARD.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 42.50
OREGON.................................... BAKER....................... 5.41 4.17 3.92 1.90 3.65
OREGON.................................... BENTON...................... 4.47 6.76 3.26 1.73 2.73
OREGON.................................... CLACKAMAS................... 7.67 9.05 13.39 4.19 3.33
OREGON.................................... CLATSOP..................... 56.61 52.21 36.87 29.98 24.91
OREGON.................................... COLUMBIA.................... 9.91 7.41 7.01 10.21 8.79
OREGON.................................... COOS........................ 2.28 2.01 2.32 5.64 7.90
OREGON.................................... CROOK....................... 11.86 4.57 .............. .............. 4.29
OREGON.................................... CURRY....................... 4.41 1.49 1.09 2.32 2.60
OREGON.................................... DESCHUTES................... 6.46 .............. 6.79 5.73 .77
OREGON.................................... DOUGLAS..................... .79 1.15 .85 4.13 3.02
OREGON.................................... GILLIAM..................... 7.47 9.53 3.70 8.74 9.11
OREGON.................................... GRANT....................... .05 .47 .13 .............. 3.69
OREGON.................................... HARNEY...................... 4.07 6.11 7.56 4.59 4.29
OREGON.................................... HOOD RIVER.................. .44 .43 9.39 23.38 20.31
OREGON.................................... JACKSON..................... 3.03 4.40 3.02 19.39 15.32
OREGON.................................... JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. 11.12 10.12 8.78
OREGON.................................... JOSEPHINE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OREGON.................................... KLAMATH..................... .07 .50 10.22 9.30 6.65
OREGON.................................... LAKE........................ .45 1.31 3.79 4.00 .41
OREGON.................................... LANE........................ 1.88 2.63 1.96 11.74 10.68
OREGON.................................... LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OREGON.................................... LINN........................ 4.72 5.63 5.52 3.24 3.90
OREGON.................................... MALHEUR..................... 5.69 4.62 4.13 4.48 5.31
OREGON.................................... MARION...................... 5.83 3.12 2.58 2.89 3.95
OREGON.................................... MORROW...................... .............. 2.66 .............. .............. ..............
OREGON.................................... MULTNOMAH................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OREGON.................................... POLK........................ 1.61 .80 .87 3.00 1.51
OREGON.................................... SHERMAN..................... 4.28 1.75 21.84 16.45 14.88
OREGON.................................... TILLAMOOK................... .............. .............. .............. .47 .50
OREGON.................................... UMATILLA.................... 1.76 2.25 3.25 3.37 4.49
OREGON.................................... UNION....................... 16.18 13.93 2.71 2.07 2.81
OREGON.................................... WALLOWA..................... .41 3.03 1.75 1.97 3.77
OREGON.................................... WASCO....................... .............. .11 .............. .76 .05
OREGON.................................... WASHINGTON.................. .59 .75 .71 .74 .77
OREGON.................................... WHEELER..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
OREGON.................................... YAMHILL..................... 26.59 33.67 22.97 17.20 12.51
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. ADAMS....................... .55 1.64 3.07 19.39 2.53
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. ALLEGHENY................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. ARMSTRONG................... 17.64 23.54 38.84 6.95 4.60
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BEAVER...................... .............. .............. 8.33 .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BEDFORD..................... .19 .20 .21 .18 .34
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BERKS....................... 7.34 10.54 11.05 15.82 12.61
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BLAIR....................... .67 .............. .............. 1.07 .07
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BRADFORD.................... .25 .34 .55 1.44 1.96
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BUCKS....................... .............. .............. 10.04 15.11 8.29
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. BUTLER...................... .08 4.33 3.21 1.17 1.53
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CAMBRIA..................... 2.50 3.09 2.86 5.97 7.93
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CAMERON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CARBON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CENTRE...................... .13 .15 .07 .43 .91
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CHESTER..................... 11.27 8.46 9.56 11.30 11.22
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CLARION..................... 4.67 6.15 5.71 11.55 7.92
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CLEARFIELD.................. 3.90 3.06 5.58 1.64 2.25
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CLINTON..................... .27 .............. 1.40 .54 .79
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. COLUMBIA.................... 13.89 19.78 11.96 11.39 13.72
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CRAWFORD.................... 4.22 2.61 .88 .25 4.41
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. CUMBERLAND.................. 4.40 2.29 4.25 2.78 2.14
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. DAUPHIN..................... .............. .42 .............. .43 2.69
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. DELAWARE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. ELK......................... 92.80 90.74 89.88 88.51 86.62
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. ERIE........................ .29 .19 1.99 2.36 2.26
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. FAYETTE..................... 1.19 .............. .08 .............. 3.68
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. FOREST...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. FRANKLIN.................... .70 .75 21.02 11.97 14.58
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. FULTON...................... .33 .38 .31 5.98 6.04
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. GREENE...................... .............. .............. 7.06 5.18 4.26
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. HUNTINGDON.................. .53 .31 .87 .91 1.69
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. INDIANA..................... .............. 3.41 12.39 10.16 12.30
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. 1.02 1.47 ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. JUNIATA..................... 2.23 5.33 1.67 1.35 .55
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LACKAWANNA.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LANCASTER................... 1.43 .95 3.16 3.45 2.80
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LAWRENCE.................... 13.75 9.96 10.89 10.10 14.42
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LEBANON..................... 15.25 13.01 5.75 3.65 9.15
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LEHIGH...................... 1.15 .............. .............. .01 ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LUZERNE..................... .............. 10.85 5.90 21.20 17.29
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. LYCOMING.................... 2.83 7.15 1.13 .48 2.27
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. MCKEAN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .03
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. MERCER...................... 6.65 6.40 5.15 8.10 3.01
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. MIFFLIN..................... 1.66 .67 5.64 4.95 4.54
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. MONROE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. MONTGOMERY.................. 28.67 30.01 32.24 28.30 33.57
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. MONTOUR..................... .............. .............. 2.48 .80 1.58
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. NORTHAMPTON................. 72.55 73.70 84.03 48.17 42.22
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. NORTHUMBERLAND.............. 3.97 3.17 1.05 .58 4.80
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. PERRY....................... 5.23 4.53 1.19 .............. .58
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. PHILADELPHIA................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. PIKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. POTTER...................... .04 .............. .............. 1.23 1.99
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. SCHUYLKILL.................. 2.57 1.56 1.27 2.86 .17
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. SNYDER...................... 2.63 2.85 4.95 4.72 3.47
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. SOMERSET.................... 1.78 .55 .09 .............. .02
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. SULLIVAN.................... .............. 2.66 .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. SUSQUEHANNA................. .............. .29 .31 9.23 7.06
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. TIOGA....................... .21 .66 6.07 5.25 7.24
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. UNION....................... .............. 2.00 1.52 1.53 1.99
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. VENANGO..................... 5.49 3.86 2.47 .40 ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. WARREN...................... .01 .............. .............. .............. 2.89
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. WASHINGTON.................. 8.13 5.13 8.51 1.92 .99
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. WAYNE....................... 1.34 34.98 19.69 15.77 19.82
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. WESTMORELAND................ 17.19 19.44 15.13 11.07 8.10
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. WYOMING..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
PENNSYLVANIA.............................. YORK........................ .06 .............. 4.83 4.33 16.28
PUERTO RICO............................... ADJUNTAS.................... 27.19 25.23 23.03 20.81 18.03
PUERTO RICO............................... AGUADILLA................... 82.23 80.72 75.99 66.63 60.99
PUERTO RICO............................... BARRANQUITAS................ 16.12 13.82 15.33 15.35 14.34
PUERTO RICO............................... BAYAMON..................... 67.93 62.64 60.00 57.92 59.70
PUERTO RICO............................... CAGUAS...................... 30.39 26.63 20.94 15.71 14.91
PUERTO RICO............................... CAMUY....................... 45.93 37.67 31.24 24.49 23.60
PUERTO RICO............................... CIALES...................... 48.26 45.99 38.05 32.76 24.59
PUERTO RICO............................... COAMO....................... 28.66 24.99 21.65 17.19 12.28
PUERTO RICO............................... COROZAL..................... 22.12 17.24 14.77 13.37 17.01
PUERTO RICO............................... FAJARDO..................... 47.25 50.10 44.53 39.49 36.05
PUERTO RICO............................... GUAYAMA..................... 48.71 48.91 46.65 44.69 43.21
PUERTO RICO............................... HUMACAO..................... 28.15 23.76 22.62 22.91 20.16
PUERTO RICO............................... JAYUYA...................... 7.08 8.25 7.47 7.61 9.90
PUERTO RICO............................... JUANA DIAZ.................. 20.75 18.93 21.95 27.88 26.87
PUERTO RICO............................... LARES....................... 25.14 23.69 21.38 20.04 17.21
PUERTO RICO............................... MAYAGUEZ.................... 13.88 12.57 12.07 12.03 12.05
PUERTO RICO............................... MOROVIS..................... 43.02 39.79 38.43 31.53 25.85
PUERTO RICO............................... RIO GRANDE.................. 22.78 20.71 15.63 12.24 9.76
PUERTO RICO............................... SAN GERMAN.................. 41.89 37.19 34.89 33.26 31.61
PUERTO RICO............................... SAN LORENZO................. 19.95 26.07 17.89 11.34 9.17
PUERTO RICO............................... SAN SEBASTIAN............... 24.51 22.49 21.44 21.47 24.55
PUERTO RICO............................... UTUADO...................... 15.45 13.16 11.66 10.28 10.85
PUERTO RICO............................... YAUCO....................... 35.83 31.87 26.73 22.77 17.73
RHODE ISLAND.............................. BRISTOL..................... 38.13 2.96 .............. 11.20 ..............
RHODE ISLAND.............................. KENT........................ 34.74 29.11 25.94 22.42 19.75
RHODE ISLAND.............................. NEWPORT..................... 30.40 25.20 22.76 23.11 24.62
RHODE ISLAND.............................. PROVIDENCE.................. 7.70 5.64 4.20 2.26 8.40
RHODE ISLAND.............................. WASHINGTON.................. 1.67 5.20 1.58 1.97 8.34
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ ABBEVILLE................... .............. 1.82 1.76 1.41 ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ AIKEN....................... .............. .............. 6.75 9.81 4.90
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ ALLENDALE................... .............. .............. 1.66 1.75 4.21
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ ANDERSON.................... 10.74 33.49 20.30 1.41 1.21
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ BAMBERG..................... .............. .72 .............. .46 1.79
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ BARNWELL.................... 47.59 52.40 48.94 49.41 48.54
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ BEAUFORT.................... 58.85 98.22 98.17 98.16 98.10
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ BERKELEY.................... .............. .............. 10.70 5.70 4.56
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ CALHOUN..................... 24.53 20.48 16.97 13.62 14.31
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ CHARLESTON.................. 21.55 28.16 15.76 19.03 14.25
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ CHEROKEE.................... 5.61 .............. 4.64 .............. ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ CHESTER..................... .............. .............. 3.47 .............. 11.34
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ CHESTERFIELD................ .32 .............. .68 .72 1.43
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ CLARENDON................... 4.76 19.57 16.33 14.60 12.91
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ COLLETON.................... 21.81 19.87 17.73 17.72 14.46
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ DARLINGTON.................. 4.23 4.60 3.60 3.02 3.83
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ DILLON...................... 1.69 1.16 1.43 1.38 1.15
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ DORCHESTER.................. .94 1.08 16.02 9.73 9.48
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ EDGEFIELD................... .............. 72.07 67.44 71.54 73.57
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ FAIRFIELD................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ FLORENCE.................... 21.28 20.73 28.95 27.39 25.67
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ GEORGETOWN.................. 5.65 .............. 3.54 3.07 6.09
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ GREENVILLE.................. .............. .............. 2.03 .............. ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ GREENWOOD................... 14.47 11.76 10.16 9.46 5.07
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ HAMPTON..................... .............. .............. 14.95 55.76 66.83
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ HORRY....................... .............. .13 .18 .09 1.21
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ JASPER...................... 64.42 80.66 79.83 79.36 74.86
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ KERSHAW..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ LANCASTER................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ LAURENS..................... .............. 11.08 19.07 10.73 13.37
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ LEE......................... 1.13 1.55 9.39 7.89 6.58
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ LEXINGTON................... 1.80 1.93 3.36 1.26 4.09
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ MARION...................... 16.65 16.55 24.16 21.06 14.25
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ MARLBORO.................... 5.35 5.23 4.60 2.99 9.00
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ MCCORMICK................... .............. .............. .............. 12.75 ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ NEWBERRY.................... 1.10 .60 6.56 3.21 1.97
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ OCONEE...................... 8.39 12.57 23.55 45.06 43.43
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ ORANGEBURG.................. 5.13 8.43 7.06 4.91 4.25
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ PICKENS..................... .............. .............. .............. .14 ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ RICHLAND.................... .............. 10.35 .............. 1.79 18.54
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ SALUDA...................... 1.80 1.23 2.51 1.92 3.18
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ SPARTANBURG................. 23.15 20.69 5.13 3.22 1.90
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ SUMTER...................... 7.83 6.16 4.10 4.56 6.65
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ UNION....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ WILLIAMSBURG................ 15.95 17.11 19.87 17.91 15.60
SOUTH CAROLINA............................ YORK........................ .54 .45 .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. AURORA...................... 3.05 2.37 1.81 1.60 1.24
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BEADLE...................... .56 .80 .87 7.14 13.03
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BENNETT..................... .39 .53 .49 .06 .43
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BON HOMME................... 2.20 1.59 3.03 .86 .18
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BROOKINGS................... .27 .66 .19 .34 .17
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BROWN....................... .07 .08 .07 .07 .24
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BRULE....................... .............. .............. .56 .01 .68
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BUFFALO..................... .............. .............. .11 .46 .08
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. BUTTE....................... .............. .03 .............. .06 1.74
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. CAMPBELL.................... .13 .13 .09 .08 8.74
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. CHARLES MIX................. 2.46 2.71 2.68 2.48 2.82
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. CLARK....................... .............. .02 .01 .63 2.48
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. CLAY........................ .12 .14 .12 .............. .74
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. CODINGTON................... 1.24 1.63 1.59 .51 4.25
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. CUSTER...................... .36 .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. DAVISON..................... 18.27 15.31 26.96 23.40 19.72
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. DAY......................... 1.08 .33 6.58 2.52 .90
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. DEUEL....................... 1.91 .31 .24 .65 .20
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. DEWEY....................... 5.45 6.77 4.99 4.76 4.12
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. DOUGLAS..................... .05 .38 .09 .01 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. EDMUNDS..................... .17 .............. .02 1.37 1.40
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. FALL RIVER.................. .24 .............. .............. .............. .39
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. FAULK....................... .04 .06 .............. .06 .03
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. GRANT....................... .42 .44 .11 .............. .93
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. GREGORY..................... .82 .86 .78 .72 3.29
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HAAKON...................... .67 .47 .25 1.06 .30
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HAMLIN...................... .93 .94 .79 .64 1.82
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HAND........................ .18 .50 .23 1.05 1.78
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HANSON...................... .............. .............. .10 .............. .47
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HARDING..................... .36 .............. .............. .............. 3.49
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HUGHES...................... .............. .03 .............. .............. .01
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HUTCHINSON.................. .............. .02 .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. HYDE........................ .26 .............. .24 .39 1.31
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. JACKSON..................... 1.31 1.21 1.05 .57 .70
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. JERAULD..................... .05 .06 .04 .32 .10
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. JONES....................... .61 .71 .60 .70 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. KINGSBURY................... .82 .34 .13 .03 1.87
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. LAKE........................ .............. .47 .40 .40 .28
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. LAWRENCE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. LYMAN....................... .77 .............. .............. .............. 4.41
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MARSHALL.................... .11 1.39 1.02 .83 1.25
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MCCOOK...................... .............. 15.58 3.88 2.72 1.72
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MCPHERSON................... .............. .............. .93 1.07 .71
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MEADE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MELLETTE,W.................. .............. 1.62 1.70 1.69 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MINER....................... .............. .18 .26 6.22 3.97
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MINNEHAHA................... .............. .............. .............. .54 .37
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. MOODY....................... .04 .............. .............. .22 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. PENNINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .09 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. PERKINS..................... .27 .15 .22 .66 1.17
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. POTTER...................... 1.01 .90 .68 .51 .16
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. ROBERTS..................... .18 .............. .............. .31 1.03
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. SANBORN..................... .............. .............. .71 .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. SHANNON, PT WEST............ .............. .............. .............. .10 .10
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. SPINK....................... 2.83 .73 .71 4.47 4.03
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. STANLEY..................... .21 .............. .43 .............. ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. SULLY....................... .59 .............. .............. .............. 39.81
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. TODD........................ .............. .94 .82 .77 .68
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. TRIPP....................... 2.05 2.30 2.73 4.82 3.46
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. TURNER...................... .03 .............. .47 .............. .12
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. UNION....................... .57 1.24 1.73 .21 ..............
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. WALWORTH.................... 16.12 13.62 10.14 10.01 13.28
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. YANKTON..................... .08 .14 .08 2.42 1.76
SOUTH DAKOTA.............................. ZIEBACH..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 19.65
TENNESSEE................................. ANDERSON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. BEDFORD..................... 5.06 .73 .68 .67 6.97
TENNESSEE................................. BENTON...................... .............. .............. 3.55 .87 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. BLEDSOE..................... 12.10 10.76 9.02 6.96 7.20
TENNESSEE................................. BLOUNT...................... .............. .............. 8.55 9.96 1.30
TENNESSEE................................. BRADLEY..................... 13.65 9.96 8.70 14.16 10.29
TENNESSEE................................. CAMPBELL.................... .............. .............. .............. 5.04 6.10
TENNESSEE................................. CANNON...................... 5.00 1.80 .85 .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. CARROLL..................... .07 4.31 6.99 4.39 20.45
TENNESSEE................................. CARTER...................... 43.56 .............. .............. .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. CHEATHAM.................... 21.19 15.92 34.26 25.99 43.80
TENNESSEE................................. CHESTER..................... 3.75 2.44 1.55 .80 .66
TENNESSEE................................. CLAIBORNE................... 1.99 18.28 22.10 21.90 20.40
TENNESSEE................................. CLAY........................ .............. .............. .26 1.64 .95
TENNESSEE................................. COCKE....................... .............. 7.44 3.37 .10 7.00
TENNESSEE................................. COFFEE...................... 6.24 4.79 3.99 5.43 3.62
TENNESSEE................................. CROCKETT.................... 6.59 6.12 5.36 4.75 4.94
TENNESSEE................................. CUMBERLAND.................. 8.91 14.43 4.67 6.02 1.75
TENNESSEE................................. DAVIDSON.................... .............. .............. 100.00 .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. DECATUR..................... 1.86 1.92 4.39 4.62 3.46
TENNESSEE................................. DEKALB...................... 1.95 11.01 9.42 7.66 6.99
TENNESSEE................................. DICKSON..................... 5.27 4.66 7.66 12.14 3.62
TENNESSEE................................. DYER........................ 1.31 5.56 6.76 6.07 4.76
TENNESSEE................................. FAYETTE..................... 2.21 2.92 3.90 4.10 6.11
TENNESSEE................................. FENTRESS.................... 20.51 20.06 22.24 14.34 9.48
TENNESSEE................................. FRANKLIN.................... 8.10 6.41 5.50 3.80 3.53
TENNESSEE................................. GIBSON...................... .59 .86 .01 .01 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. GILES....................... 7.57 5.06 6.41 9.43 3.34
TENNESSEE................................. GRAINGER.................... 1.35 .............. 6.52 4.16 1.37
TENNESSEE................................. GREENE...................... 10.25 15.03 24.69 24.69 20.52
TENNESSEE................................. GRUNDY...................... 4.94 4.11 3.37 2.54 9.59
TENNESSEE................................. HAMBLEN..................... 7.39 .............. .............. .............. 34.92
TENNESSEE................................. HAMILTON.................... 57.11 49.55 21.85 6.52 39.20
TENNESSEE................................. HANCOCK..................... .............. 13.40 13.37 10.33 10.71
TENNESSEE................................. HARDEMAN.................... 1.91 .01 .58 2.71 3.23
TENNESSEE................................. HARDIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .42 2.24
TENNESSEE................................. HAWKINS..................... 9.81 .04 .13 .05 .09
TENNESSEE................................. HAYWOOD..................... 5.40 5.82 11.03 15.19 11.73
TENNESSEE................................. HENDERSON................... 10.27 11.06 5.05 1.80 7.87
TENNESSEE................................. HENRY....................... 4.90 6.00 10.17 5.47 11.26
TENNESSEE................................. HICKMAN..................... 2.95 .............. 6.71 3.30 .12
TENNESSEE................................. HOUSTON..................... .24 .............. .55 .49 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. HUMPHREYS................... 9.19 6.83 .87 2.08 1.71
TENNESSEE................................. JACKSON..................... 7.82 7.66 .23 .19 5.83
TENNESSEE................................. JEFFERSON................... 3.68 3.36 2.57 6.12 7.16
TENNESSEE................................. JOHNSON..................... .............. 1.88 .............. .03 .64
TENNESSEE................................. KNOX........................ 15.79 13.89 .31 .30 .46
TENNESSEE................................. LAKE........................ .............. .............. 3.34 3.17 2.81
TENNESSEE................................. LAUDERDALE.................. 8.65 6.41 4.88 7.17 9.67
TENNESSEE................................. LAWRENCE.................... 5.58 6.65 2.59 2.40 5.08
TENNESSEE................................. LEWIS....................... .............. .12 .08 .04 .04
TENNESSEE................................. LINCOLN..................... 1.73 8.36 5.78 4.01 2.74
TENNESSEE................................. LOUDON...................... .............. .25 14.68 9.47 5.75
TENNESSEE................................. MACON....................... .............. .60 .80 .53 .59
TENNESSEE................................. MADISON..................... 7.28 10.27 8.02 5.08 4.70
TENNESSEE................................. MARION...................... 3.21 1.29 1.57 1.04 4.58
TENNESSEE................................. MARSHALL.................... 20.32 18.48 14.78 12.91 5.67
TENNESSEE................................. MAURY....................... 6.95 7.40 9.09 6.41 4.45
TENNESSEE................................. MCMINN...................... 26.67 22.99 7.09 5.28 20.76
TENNESSEE................................. MCNAIRY..................... .53 6.19 4.04 2.88 3.08
TENNESSEE................................. MEIGS....................... .............. .............. .............. .59 2.73
TENNESSEE................................. MONROE...................... 4.93 1.61 1.00 4.50 11.18
TENNESSEE................................. MONTGOMERY.................. 3.51 4.18 5.76 15.52 12.88
TENNESSEE................................. MOORE....................... .............. .............. .............. 1.85 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. MORGAN...................... 1.60 18.03 9.97 6.59 2.35
TENNESSEE................................. OBION....................... .37 .36 .............. .32 .23
TENNESSEE................................. OVERTON..................... 13.91 12.13 9.58 8.26 8.29
TENNESSEE................................. PERRY....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. PICKETT..................... 1.31 8.64 1.28 .21 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. POLK........................ 4.01 2.33 .82 .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. PUTNAM...................... .............. 2.81 65.22 64.18 61.32
TENNESSEE................................. RHEA........................ 1.26 1.23 2.96 1.89 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. ROANE....................... 8.55 6.06 5.82 6.27 3.18
TENNESSEE................................. ROBERTSON................... 6.41 8.13 8.74 8.28 4.83
TENNESSEE................................. RUTHERFORD.................. .41 .21 .65 2.51 9.70
TENNESSEE................................. SCOTT....................... .............. .............. .............. 1.92 2.24
TENNESSEE................................. SEQUATCHIE.................. .............. .............. .............. 17.16 16.69
TENNESSEE................................. SEVIER...................... .............. .............. .............. 3.36 ..............
TENNESSEE................................. SHELBY...................... 4.12 3.89 4.40 3.85 7.47
TENNESSEE................................. SMITH....................... 2.05 .............. 2.35 2.35 1.71
TENNESSEE................................. STEWART..................... 2.73 1.94 2.44 2.01 2.59
TENNESSEE................................. SULLIVAN.................... 32.40 25.75 22.98 18.37 14.99
TENNESSEE................................. SUMNER...................... 7.75 4.99 2.44 1.44 1.45
TENNESSEE................................. TIPTON...................... .............. 3.97 2.31 3.84 5.89
TENNESSEE................................. TROUSDALE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. UNICOI...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TENNESSEE................................. UNION....................... .............. .............. 2.64 .36 1.06
TENNESSEE................................. VAN BUREN................... 2.62 2.44 1.12 2.10 72.06
TENNESSEE................................. WARREN...................... 4.65 3.93 4.51 2.52 7.05
TENNESSEE................................. WASHINGTON.................. 4.75 4.00 1.82 .68 .55
TENNESSEE................................. WAYNE....................... .09 1.02 1.21 .06 2.06
TENNESSEE................................. WEAKLEY..................... 2.74 2.13 .87 2.00 3.07
TENNESSEE................................. WHITE....................... .90 2.66 3.79 1.49 1.43
TENNESSEE................................. WILLIAMSON.................. 2.53 3.00 3.89 1.99 1.26
TENNESSEE................................. WILSON...................... .............. .09 3.44 1.95 2.16
TEXAS..................................... ANDERSON.................... 40.46 42.48 38.24 39.01 22.33
TEXAS..................................... ANDREWS..................... .............. .............. 64.50 77.41 65.46
TEXAS..................................... ANGELINA.................... 22.56 4.85 5.59 3.50 76.24
TEXAS..................................... ARANSAS..................... 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00
TEXAS..................................... ARCHER...................... 3.26 3.60 6.07 1.76 7.13
TEXAS..................................... ARMSTRONG................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... ATASCOSA.................... .45 .37 38.04 31.00 35.68
TEXAS..................................... AUSTIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... BAILEY...................... 7.69 13.47 13.84 24.04 26.00
TEXAS..................................... BANDERA..................... .............. .............. 96.81 74.62 70.47
TEXAS..................................... BASTROP..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... BAYLOR...................... 10.15 .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... BEE......................... 22.76 31.12 38.52 41.03 36.51
TEXAS..................................... BELL........................ 37.60 10.68 59.72 55.38 43.71
TEXAS..................................... BEXAR....................... .............. 7.37 9.55 26.53 13.06
TEXAS..................................... BLANCO...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... BORDEN...................... .01 1.13 3.52 2.47 2.00
TEXAS..................................... BOSQUE...................... .............. 1.26 .............. .............. 27.83
TEXAS..................................... BOWIE....................... 1.65 2.63 4.12 2.20 2.03
TEXAS..................................... BRAZORIA.................... 42.03 67.46 33.71 55.82 60.22
TEXAS..................................... BRAZOS...................... 73.25 81.70 99.55 97.54 95.36
TEXAS..................................... BREWSTER.................... .............. .............. .............. 39.23 17.21
TEXAS..................................... BRISCOE..................... .............. 1.02 .11 .............. 7.39
TEXAS..................................... BROOKS...................... 17.07 16.28 41.66 59.75 50.39
TEXAS..................................... BROWN....................... .............. 22.29 21.34 18.59 27.51
TEXAS..................................... BURLESON.................... .............. .54 .............. 5.49 ..............
TEXAS..................................... BURNET...................... .............. .............. .............. 99.99 100.00
TEXAS..................................... CALDWELL.................... .............. 33.10 25.34 52.02 48.78
TEXAS..................................... CALHOUN..................... 31.39 33.33 31.55 32.77 30.14
TEXAS..................................... CALLAHAN.................... 2.98 2.92 .24 4.36 3.33
TEXAS..................................... CAMERON..................... 38.59 49.93 56.50 65.93 63.10
TEXAS..................................... CAMP........................ .............. .............. 17.40 10.58 12.05
TEXAS..................................... CARSON...................... .............. .............. 27.86 38.54 23.64
TEXAS..................................... CASS........................ .67 .14 .15 .............. .20
TEXAS..................................... CASTRO...................... 10.91 31.06 44.72 39.96 42.84
TEXAS..................................... CHAMBERS.................... 64.40 58.70 60.40 89.81 81.48
TEXAS..................................... CHEROKEE.................... 3.99 28.21 25.54 32.76 37.21
TEXAS..................................... CHILDRESS................... 24.31 20.08 16.16 14.79 16.51
TEXAS..................................... CLAY........................ 2.25 1.07 4.10 7.18 8.80
TEXAS..................................... COCHRAN..................... 19.75 37.43 34.17 33.93 29.05
TEXAS..................................... COKE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... COLEMAN..................... 80.53 74.72 74.34 62.35 60.90
TEXAS..................................... COLLIN...................... 4.76 4.65 .80 .65 3.99
TEXAS..................................... COLLINGSWORTH............... 22.57 16.82 12.46 10.21 6.33
TEXAS..................................... COLORADO.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 16.94
TEXAS..................................... COMAL....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... COMANCHE.................... 52.33 63.18 62.11 56.87 49.95
TEXAS..................................... CONCHO...................... .............. .............. .............. 25.81 43.42
TEXAS..................................... COOKE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 41.59
TEXAS..................................... CORYELL..................... 10.88 59.99 57.20 66.72 59.84
TEXAS..................................... COTTLE...................... 35.29 33.76 33.56 33.61 31.43
TEXAS..................................... CRANE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... CROCKETT.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... CROSBY...................... 13.41 20.71 21.81 21.16 20.42
TEXAS..................................... CULBERSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 62.15
TEXAS..................................... DALLAM...................... 3.14 2.45 8.04 6.51 3.28
TEXAS..................................... DALLAS...................... .............. 4.35 .............. 17.46 15.63
TEXAS..................................... DAWSON...................... 14.72 27.05 36.64 47.28 51.79
TEXAS..................................... DEAF SMITH.................. .............. 3.71 7.91 13.09 28.31
TEXAS..................................... DELTA....................... 6.18 4.06 2.39 5.49 5.33
TEXAS..................................... DENTON...................... .............. .............. 71.01 68.13 49.36
TEXAS..................................... DEWITT...................... .............. .............. 4.00 24.69 30.21
TEXAS..................................... DICKENS..................... 34.01 33.91 35.10 37.23 50.97
TEXAS..................................... DIMMIT...................... 95.24 94.05 65.45 61.16 64.74
TEXAS..................................... DONLEY...................... .............. 3.44 5.20 5.20 13.78
TEXAS..................................... DUVAL....................... 17.71 21.60 24.99 32.58 19.98
TEXAS..................................... EASTLAND.................... 38.53 37.27 31.22 32.52 24.37
TEXAS..................................... ECTOR....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... EDWARDS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... EL PASO..................... 36.27 45.16 46.78 46.96 45.39
TEXAS..................................... ELLIS....................... 7.27 26.14 47.05 42.37 39.77
TEXAS..................................... ERATH....................... 40.03 48.82 44.12 39.49 37.00
TEXAS..................................... FALLS....................... 24.72 26.44 36.14 50.05 61.25
TEXAS..................................... FANNIN...................... 7.11 9.77 13.98 31.68 32.18
TEXAS..................................... FAYETTE..................... .............. .............. .............. 65.69 34.85
TEXAS..................................... FISHER...................... 1.12 3.74 4.58 12.90 13.70
TEXAS..................................... FLOYD....................... 9.43 7.04 11.87 16.39 15.79
TEXAS..................................... FOARD....................... 30.72 34.26 43.43 48.08 48.51
TEXAS..................................... FORT BEND................... .............. 2.30 3.93 .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... FRANKLIN.................... 2.57 1.17 2.24 1.24 5.75
TEXAS..................................... FREESTONE................... 10.55 11.60 17.96 33.73 40.06
TEXAS..................................... FRIO........................ 66.56 70.09 63.32 66.32 64.85
TEXAS..................................... GAINES...................... 1.33 2.05 5.16 13.75 15.07
TEXAS..................................... GALVESTON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... GARZA....................... .51 .............. .14 3.22 .29
TEXAS..................................... GILLESPIE................... .............. .............. .............. 1.08 10.03
TEXAS..................................... GLASSCOCK................... 18.32 15.40 13.81 11.48 13.26
TEXAS..................................... GOLIAD...................... .............. .............. 64.24 80.19 47.58
TEXAS..................................... GONZALES.................... .05 3.86 11.91 18.30 30.41
TEXAS..................................... GRAY........................ .............. 3.10 .............. .............. .73
TEXAS..................................... GRAYSON..................... .............. 44.36 35.21 38.81 27.93
TEXAS..................................... GREGG....................... 28.04 21.67 3.63 2.22 2.39
TEXAS..................................... GRIMES...................... 5.37 .............. .............. .03 2.17
TEXAS..................................... GUADALUPE................... .30 .94 3.01 3.37 2.06
TEXAS..................................... HALE........................ 2.15 14.31 16.18 23.58 24.31
TEXAS..................................... HALL........................ 2.46 6.51 4.80 7.22 5.31
TEXAS..................................... HAMILTON.................... .............. 23.36 16.12 21.51 40.02
TEXAS..................................... HANSFORD.................... .............. .............. 21.23 13.93 4.41
TEXAS..................................... HARDEMAN.................... 14.68 20.18 20.63 18.11 14.03
TEXAS..................................... HARDIN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... HARRIS...................... .............. 14.79 14.78 11.52 10.82
TEXAS..................................... HARRISON.................... 28.32 16.28 10.68 2.17 25.18
TEXAS..................................... HARTLEY..................... .............. 12.51 12.60 6.02 4.97
TEXAS..................................... HASKELL..................... 13.34 9.29 24.13 34.22 32.38
TEXAS..................................... HAYS........................ 34.03 39.83 35.54 31.99 28.04
TEXAS..................................... HEMPHILL.................... .............. .............. .57 4.09 ..............
TEXAS..................................... HENDERSON................... 39.34 33.15 30.24 29.68 24.58
TEXAS..................................... HIDALGO..................... 34.44 49.30 59.09 57.00 53.27
TEXAS..................................... HILL........................ 1.75 6.26 13.55 18.84 17.31
TEXAS..................................... HOCKLEY..................... 15.47 29.09 37.91 35.76 34.53
TEXAS..................................... HOOD........................ .............. 31.54 34.90 81.74 81.56
TEXAS..................................... HOPKINS..................... .21 4.28 4.18 12.89 13.61
TEXAS..................................... HOUSTON..................... 65.09 52.43 63.44 64.72 61.69
TEXAS..................................... HOWARD...................... 21.34 28.71 29.59 25.88 29.17
TEXAS..................................... HUDSPETH.................... 16.27 45.67 38.02 37.10 38.82
TEXAS..................................... HUNT........................ .82 1.61 .72 .52 ..............
TEXAS..................................... HUTCHINSON.................. .............. 2.06 .............. 21.37 ..............
TEXAS..................................... IRION....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... JACK........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 97.01
TEXAS..................................... JACKSON..................... 17.78 21.02 23.58 28.14 34.50
TEXAS..................................... JASPER...................... .40 11.89 78.13 78.14 69.37
TEXAS..................................... JEFF DAVIS.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... JEFFERSON................... 27.30 81.72 76.04 69.32 78.38
TEXAS..................................... JIM HOGG.................... 95.59 91.55 90.22 84.79 62.29
TEXAS..................................... JIM WELLS................... 14.30 24.02 30.25 24.66 22.56
TEXAS..................................... JOHNSON..................... 2.71 25.30 22.05 25.60 23.21
TEXAS..................................... JONES....................... 14.62 14.26 20.66 22.03 21.84
TEXAS..................................... KARNES...................... 7.28 22.04 18.88 19.44 27.45
TEXAS..................................... KAUFMAN..................... 21.96 30.57 30.83 47.37 44.00
TEXAS..................................... KENDALL..................... .............. .............. .............. 44.34 44.17
TEXAS..................................... KENEDY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... KENT........................ 13.72 10.23 14.80 37.78 17.36
TEXAS..................................... KERR........................ .............. 23.72 66.30 100.00 100.00
TEXAS..................................... KIMBLE...................... .............. 1.54 2.77 .84 1.69
TEXAS..................................... KING........................ 8.43 6.46 .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... KINNEY...................... 4.58 .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... KLEBERG..................... 47.29 61.82 55.74 56.88 53.05
TEXAS..................................... KNOX........................ .48 10.41 11.13 8.10 14.53
TEXAS..................................... LA SALLE.................... .............. .............. .............. 34.39 36.12
TEXAS..................................... LAMAR....................... .92 2.78 3.07 8.36 10.36
TEXAS..................................... LAMB........................ 12.88 41.98 46.54 55.04 60.54
TEXAS..................................... LAMPASAS.................... .............. 44.95 38.58 34.71 29.70
TEXAS..................................... LAVACA...................... .............. .............. 40.22 35.26 92.16
TEXAS..................................... LEE......................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... LEON........................ .............. 33.17 41.82 52.02 64.37
TEXAS..................................... LIBERTY..................... .............. 19.39 13.84 11.20 47.24
TEXAS..................................... LIMESTONE................... 32.70 36.71 41.62 35.58 39.12
TEXAS..................................... LIPSCOMB.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... LIVE OAK.................... 20.64 16.69 24.17 21.51 21.03
TEXAS..................................... LLANO....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... LOVING...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... LUBBOCK..................... .43 5.98 7.80 14.60 13.72
TEXAS..................................... LYNN........................ .38 1.21 5.47 9.51 8.84
TEXAS..................................... MADISON..................... 76.09 .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... MARION...................... 22.95 27.47 21.73 18.47 16.61
TEXAS..................................... MARTIN...................... 6.67 20.48 26.28 29.88 47.24
TEXAS..................................... MASON....................... 44.31 40.97 32.75 40.35 34.68
TEXAS..................................... MATAGORDA................... 17.97 23.69 16.90 17.67 17.64
TEXAS..................................... MAVERICK.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... MCCULLOCH................... .............. 8.23 4.73 10.30 17.20
TEXAS..................................... MCLENNAN.................... .............. 4.92 3.30 11.19 11.21
TEXAS..................................... MCMULLEN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... MEDINA...................... .............. .............. 19.75 51.30 41.71
TEXAS..................................... MENARD...................... .............. 16.87 20.61 13.73 30.59
TEXAS..................................... MIDLAND..................... 19.53 22.33 17.83 28.02 26.38
TEXAS..................................... MILAM....................... 6.39 18.48 31.72 26.87 32.20
TEXAS..................................... MILLS....................... 97.12 97.56 67.92 69.82 66.43
TEXAS..................................... MITCHELL.................... 2.86 3.25 8.08 20.16 16.17
TEXAS..................................... MONTAGUE.................... 26.86 9.52 4.68 12.02 5.65
TEXAS..................................... MONTGOMERY.................. 29.73 28.25 6.68 86.92 37.36
TEXAS..................................... MOORE....................... 44.71 28.06 24.56 9.49 18.05
TEXAS..................................... MORRIS...................... 37.70 22.23 11.28 7.88 ..............
TEXAS..................................... MOTLEY...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 13.39
TEXAS..................................... NACOGDOCHES................. 29.94 33.24 34.25 33.33 33.30
TEXAS..................................... NAVARRO..................... 55.20 43.68 59.73 32.31 51.08
TEXAS..................................... NEWTON...................... 54.30 54.38 48.23 40.69 36.06
TEXAS..................................... NOLAN....................... 8.71 5.74 19.48 31.23 27.88
TEXAS..................................... NUECES...................... 17.21 19.71 16.38 24.20 21.53
TEXAS..................................... OCHILTREE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... OLDHAM...................... .............. 22.37 21.58 20.07 23.34
TEXAS..................................... ORANGE...................... 31.06 8.09 9.37 21.93 .68
TEXAS..................................... PALO PINTO.................. .............. 97.64 97.54 70.26 61.54
TEXAS..................................... PANOLA...................... 49.64 35.62 35.60 33.34 31.61
TEXAS..................................... PARKER...................... 27.80 15.93 15.27 5.97 29.53
TEXAS..................................... PARMER...................... 1.24 2.23 14.28 15.69 14.80
TEXAS..................................... PECOS....................... .............. 2.83 1.46 18.97 18.45
TEXAS..................................... POLK........................ 43.71 45.33 42.63 39.55 55.69
TEXAS..................................... POTTER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... PRESIDIO.................... 43.37 35.14 28.08 17.18 38.90
TEXAS..................................... RAINS....................... .............. 1.39 9.25 6.99 31.62
TEXAS..................................... RANDALL..................... .............. .............. .............. 18.87 28.88
TEXAS..................................... REAGAN...................... 24.84 24.99 26.01 31.87 30.62
TEXAS..................................... REAL........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... RED RIVER................... 8.68 8.17 9.29 22.46 18.69
TEXAS..................................... REEVES...................... 22.29 31.03 23.89 21.63 40.08
TEXAS..................................... REFUGIO..................... 6.74 14.18 11.17 10.47 9.77
TEXAS..................................... ROBERTS..................... .............. .............. 24.22 14.88 13.65
TEXAS..................................... ROBERTSON................... 3.97 17.47 21.59 27.45 26.48
TEXAS..................................... ROCKWALL.................... 31.20 37.40 57.82 59.18 53.32
TEXAS..................................... RUNNELS..................... 5.38 14.83 23.18 28.89 28.01
TEXAS..................................... RUSK........................ 3.26 20.15 34.57 30.62 29.82
TEXAS..................................... SABINE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... SAN AUGUSTINE............... .............. 1.17 .87 14.46 13.01
TEXAS..................................... SAN JACINTO................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... SAN PATRICIO................ 13.01 12.91 24.38 17.91 14.56
TEXAS..................................... SAN SABA.................... 47.77 35.39 28.28 33.45 23.72
TEXAS..................................... SCHLEICHER.................. .82 18.01 15.36 11.75 12.95
TEXAS..................................... SCURRY...................... .............. 3.58 8.69 5.54 3.46
TEXAS..................................... SHACKELFORD................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... SHELBY...................... 19.56 24.00 20.77 22.37 17.91
TEXAS..................................... SHERMAN..................... 2.25 .............. 54.85 32.83 35.45
TEXAS..................................... SMITH....................... .............. .............. 27.61 27.99 52.67
TEXAS..................................... SOMERVELL................... .............. .............. 3.00 .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... STARR....................... 29.20 53.83 36.97 36.39 35.95
TEXAS..................................... STEPHENS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... STERLING.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... STONEWALL................... 1.84 2.14 .95 12.04 12.18
TEXAS..................................... SUTTON...................... 20.31 20.59 13.82 9.71 10.32
TEXAS..................................... SWISHER..................... 1.83 2.59 3.83 4.21 8.06
TEXAS..................................... TARRANT..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... TAYLOR...................... .23 1.27 .15 .10 .07
TEXAS..................................... TERRELL..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 14.25
TEXAS..................................... TERRY....................... 6.22 5.92 6.77 12.24 11.69
TEXAS..................................... THROCKMORTON................ .............. 41.43 35.93 30.39 14.63
TEXAS..................................... TITUS....................... .............. .............. .............. .70 .43
TEXAS..................................... TOM GREEN................... 16.22 10.26 14.25 12.17 13.77
TEXAS..................................... TRAVIS...................... .............. .............. 99.57 91.45 88.31
TEXAS..................................... TRINITY..................... 40.71 42.22 46.99 41.74 38.02
TEXAS..................................... TYLER....................... 27.70 24.35 20.29 16.41 14.35
TEXAS..................................... UPSHUR...................... .............. .47 .............. .............. 26.27
TEXAS..................................... UPTON....................... 5.13 2.19 9.09 12.91 25.42
TEXAS..................................... UVALDE...................... 1.06 .............. 22.36 24.62 35.92
TEXAS..................................... VAL VERDE................... .............. 5.68 .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... VAN ZANDT................... 2.81 31.40 25.37 41.51 43.15
TEXAS..................................... VICTORIA.................... 40.58 30.21 21.97 38.73 30.34
TEXAS..................................... WALKER...................... .............. .............. 2.78 2.75 .76
TEXAS..................................... WALLER...................... .95 .............. .............. 99.29 24.85
TEXAS..................................... WARD........................ .............. .............. .44 .53 ..............
TEXAS..................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... WEBB........................ .............. .............. 35.76 34.50 33.55
TEXAS..................................... WHARTON..................... 12.15 16.91 15.20 22.47 23.36
TEXAS..................................... WHEELER..................... .............. 31.49 28.03 20.67 27.88
TEXAS..................................... WICHITA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... WILBARGER................... 6.58 9.23 14.66 13.72 14.49
TEXAS..................................... WILLACY..................... 53.11 47.35 37.49 32.25 33.08
TEXAS..................................... WILLIAMSON.................. 68.13 69.02 63.64 70.94 54.50
TEXAS..................................... WILSON...................... 27.75 43.71 54.61 55.44 51.59
TEXAS..................................... WINKLER..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
TEXAS..................................... WISE........................ .............. .............. 59.90 14.39 75.05
TEXAS..................................... WOOD........................ 3.35 1.49 2.61 4.67 58.36
TEXAS..................................... YOAKUM...................... 7.26 9.36 9.94 19.08 17.62
TEXAS..................................... YOUNG....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 39.62
TEXAS..................................... ZAPATA...................... .............. 38.30 42.45 36.44 30.93
TEXAS..................................... ZAVALA...................... 10.79 .............. 29.48 62.95 54.87
UTAH...................................... BEAVER...................... .23 .............. .............. 1.47 .80
UTAH...................................... BOX ELDER................... 5.58 1.60 9.87 10.85 12.25
UTAH...................................... CACHE....................... 4.61 2.03 2.34 3.36 1.64
UTAH...................................... CARBON...................... .............. .29 .............. .............. ..............
UTAH...................................... DAGGETT..................... .............. .28 8.48 5.77 3.64
UTAH...................................... DAVIS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
UTAH...................................... DUCHESNE.................... .............. 2.77 .18 .02 .14
UTAH...................................... EMERY....................... .............. .35 .69 .33 ..............
UTAH...................................... GARFIELD.................... .17 .12 .98 1.61 1.62
UTAH...................................... GRAND,E..................... .............. 3.75 2.70 3.44 ..............
UTAH...................................... IRON........................ 4.88 .............. 1.68 .75 ..............
UTAH...................................... JUAB........................ .84 .81 .57 .64 .56
UTAH...................................... KANE........................ .............. 2.18 1.52 2.60 2.17
UTAH...................................... MILLARD..................... .90 .73 2.20 5.97 6.01
UTAH...................................... MORGAN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
UTAH...................................... PIUTE....................... .71 .13 1.78 2.07 3.78
UTAH...................................... RICH........................ .............. .............. 1.94 2.16 1.71
UTAH...................................... SALT LAKE................... .............. .............. .59 .............. ..............
UTAH...................................... SAN JUAN.................... .11 .10 .03 .............. .04
UTAH...................................... SANPETE..................... .65 1.26 1.25 .69 1.39
UTAH...................................... SEVIER...................... 2.61 2.08 .46 1.25 3.45
UTAH...................................... SUMMIT...................... .12 .24 .............. .............. 1.33
UTAH...................................... TOOELE...................... 2.18 1.25 .............. .............. ..............
UTAH...................................... UINTAH...................... .49 .03 .50 .18 .15
UTAH...................................... UTAH........................ 2.39 .16 .32 1.41 .91
UTAH...................................... WASATCH..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
UTAH...................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. 1.61 3.08
UTAH...................................... WAYNE....................... .91 .77 4.27 4.02 4.36
UTAH...................................... WEBER....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VERMONT................................... ADDISON..................... 4.00 6.23 8.61 9.57 8.24
VERMONT................................... BENNINGTON.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. 22.65
VERMONT................................... CALEDONIA................... 13.93 12.49 13.63 11.62 12.33
VERMONT................................... CHITTENDEN.................. .............. .98 .............. .............. 1.33
VERMONT................................... ESSEX....................... .............. .............. .............. 1.78 .98
VERMONT................................... FRANKLIN.................... 1.87 6.05 6.40 5.92 6.79
VERMONT................................... GRAND ISLE.................. .............. .............. .............. 1.20 1.63
VERMONT................................... LAMOILLE.................... .............. 2.73 .............. 7.43 8.28
VERMONT................................... ORANGE...................... .............. .............. 3.73 3.22 2.95
VERMONT................................... ORLEANS..................... .02 .13 .............. .............. .05
VERMONT................................... RUTLAND..................... 2.26 2.93 .33 2.22 4.85
VERMONT................................... WASHINGTON.................. .............. 4.66 2.18 .............. ..............
VERMONT................................... WINDHAM..................... .39 4.48 2.45 4.32 3.48
VERMONT................................... WINDSOR..................... 23.76 20.36 22.63 16.35 18.89
VIRGIN ISLANDS............................ ST. CROIX................... 37.62 32.24 26.64 21.58 18.75
VIRGIN ISLANDS............................ ST. JOHN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGIN ISLANDS............................ ST. THOMAS.................. .............. .............. .53 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ACCOMACK.................... 3.31 2.36 5.05 11.24 7.93
VIRGINIA.................................. ALBEMARLE................... 1.73 .............. 3.68 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ALEXANDRIA CITY............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ALLEGHANY................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. AMELIA...................... 4.09 8.93 6.81 11.27 5.86
VIRGINIA.................................. AMHERST..................... 2.96 5.14 2.59 .67 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. APPOMATTOX.................. 6.01 3.33 35.11 31.30 26.85
VIRGINIA.................................. ARLINGTON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. AUGUSTA..................... 1.26 .36 6.06 8.74 20.50
VIRGINIA.................................. BATH........................ .............. .............. 100.00 87.63 76.36
VIRGINIA.................................. BEDFORD..................... 1.90 .............. 1.39 1.58 10.00
VIRGINIA.................................. BEDFORD CITY................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. BLAND....................... .............. .............. .............. 2.02 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. BOTETOURT................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. BRISTOL..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. BRUNSWICK................... .83 .44 1.84 2.24 11.75
VIRGINIA.................................. BUCHANAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. BUCKINGHAM.................. .18 .............. 10.04 .85 .44
VIRGINIA.................................. BUENA VISTA................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. CAMPBELL.................... .20 3.14 .34 .84 4.47
VIRGINIA.................................. CAROLINE.................... .............. 2.29 2.15 20.64 19.29
VIRGINIA.................................. CARROLL..................... .............. .............. .............. .96 1.95
VIRGINIA.................................. CHARLES CITY................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. CHARLOTTE................... 1.62 1.52 .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY........ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. CHESAPEAKE.................. 63.71 61.72 56.41 48.77 46.53
VIRGINIA.................................. CHESTERFIELD................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. CLARKE...................... .............. .............. 2.60 1.32 10.38
VIRGINIA.................................. COLONIAL HEIGHTS............ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. COURTLAND................... 14.07 15.34 16.64 18.29 19.52
VIRGINIA.................................. COVINGTON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. CRAIG....................... 9.82 .............. 5.48 6.21 5.95
VIRGINIA.................................. CULPEPER.................... 28.72 24.06 17.24 14.64 10.60
VIRGINIA.................................. CUMBERLAND.................. .57 .31 1.24 2.17 5.48
VIRGINIA.................................. DANVILLE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. DICKENSON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. DINWIDDIE................... 67.18 76.61 72.65 71.87 71.01
VIRGINIA.................................. EMPORIA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ESSEX....................... 1.15 4.61 2.76 1.98 1.47
VIRGINIA.................................. FAIRFAX..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. FAIRFAX CITY................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. FALLS CHURCH................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. FAUQUIER.................... 2.36 .18 .17 8.25 4.89
VIRGINIA.................................. FLOYD....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. FLUVANNA.................... .............. .............. 3.41 3.97 15.29
VIRGINIA.................................. FRANKLIN.................... 6.03 9.81 11.81 10.54 24.45
VIRGINIA.................................. FRANKLIN CITY............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. FREDERICK................... 2.19 7.53 7.06 6.52 5.00
VIRGINIA.................................. FREDERICKSBURG.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GALAX....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GILES....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GLOUCESTER.................. 10.27 8.81 11.80 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GOOCHLAND................... .30 .35 .61 .79 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GRAYSON..................... 5.80 3.56 1.77 .28 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GREENE...................... 3.10 .............. .............. 9.05 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. GREENSVILLE................. .............. 12.82 1.72 .............. 5.89
VIRGINIA.................................. HALIFAX..................... 4.45 3.84 5.76 7.27 18.31
VIRGINIA.................................. HAMPTON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. HANOVER..................... 2.98 1.63 2.03 8.15 6.48
VIRGINIA.................................. HARRISONBURG................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. HENRICO..................... 8.13 .............. 9.34 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. HENRY....................... 24.81 20.54 17.03 13.13 13.56
VIRGINIA.................................. HIGHLAND.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. HOPEWELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ISLE OF WIGHT............... 1.85 7.32 10.33 4.57 11.68
VIRGINIA.................................. JAMES CITY.................. 21.38 20.65 19.63 18.81 18.13
VIRGINIA.................................. KING AND QUEEN.............. 8.40 6.37 5.10 20.22 16.10
VIRGINIA.................................. KING GEORGE................. .............. 1.01 18.53 9.26 11.30
VIRGINIA.................................. KING WILLIAM................ .............. .............. 4.89 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. LANCASTER................... .............. .............. .............. 44.04 68.26
VIRGINIA.................................. LEE......................... .58 .............. .13 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. LEXINGTON................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. LOUDOUN..................... 4.78 .............. .............. 14.22 16.94
VIRGINIA.................................. LOUISA...................... 2.80 .............. .............. 5.73 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. LUNENBURG................... .............. .67 .71 .55 1.18
VIRGINIA.................................. LYNCHBURG................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. MADISON..................... 11.76 7.78 14.81 4.80 8.34
VIRGINIA.................................. MANASSA PARK CITY........... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. MANASSAS.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. MARTINSVILLE................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. MATHEWS..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. MECKLENBURG................. .69 12.73 12.12 9.78 8.26
VIRGINIA.................................. MIDDLESEX................... 16.15 7.61 6.73 6.07 .06
VIRGINIA.................................. MONTGOMERY.................. .............. .............. .............. 2.15 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. NELSON...................... .............. .............. 1.76 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. NEW KENT.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. NEWPORT NEWS................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. NORFOLK CITY................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. NORTHAMPTON................. 7.22 15.64 19.20 12.02 1.99
VIRGINIA.................................. NORTHUMBERLAND.............. 90.62 90.22 90.22 89.72 88.58
VIRGINIA.................................. NORTON...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. NOTTOWAY.................... .79 .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ORANGE...................... 1.65 .............. .............. .............. 8.17
VIRGINIA.................................. PAGE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. PATRICK..................... 4.32 .37 .............. .76 .78
VIRGINIA.................................. PETERSBURG.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. PITTSYLVANIA................ 5.84 6.05 5.89 3.79 1.14
VIRGINIA.................................. POQUASON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. PORTSMOUTH CITY............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. POWHATAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. PRINCE EDWARD............... .............. 8.51 2.91 .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. PRINCE GEORGE............... 3.03 19.99 5.02 2.94 3.67
VIRGINIA.................................. PRINCE WILLIAM.............. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. PULASKI..................... 71.12 72.07 70.96 69.47 48.43
VIRGINIA.................................. RADFORD..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. RAPPAHANNOCK................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. RICHMOND.................... 8.44 5.56 1.12 10.91 16.45
VIRGINIA.................................. RICHMOND CITY............... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ROANOKE..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ROANOKE CITY................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. ROCKBRIDGE.................. .89 2.29 .45 .96 5.18
VIRGINIA.................................. ROCKINGHAM.................. 1.38 1.29 .57 .............. 3.08
VIRGINIA.................................. RUSSELL..................... .............. .............. 1.06 1.25 .40
VIRGINIA.................................. SALEM....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. SCOTT....................... 31.38 29.03 21.91 21.64 18.60
VIRGINIA.................................. SHENANDOAH.................. 1.02 1.28 2.46 4.30 1.22
VIRGINIA.................................. SMYTH....................... .............. 38.87 34.67 31.11 22.97
VIRGINIA.................................. SPOTSYLVANIA................ 45.60 32.38 25.52 2.66 2.80
VIRGINIA.................................. STAFFORD.................... .............. .............. 2.01 2.66 ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. STAUNTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. SUFFOLK..................... 7.04 2.08 2.31 9.47 8.24
VIRGINIA.................................. SURRY....................... 9.50 4.73 5.72 5.06 .07
VIRGINIA.................................. SUSSEX...................... 11.71 11.49 3.87 6.40 3.36
VIRGINIA.................................. TAZEWELL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. VIRGINIA BEACH (CITY........ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. WARREN...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. WASHINGTON.................. .............. 3.83 3.25 4.71 2.14
VIRGINIA.................................. WAYNESBORO.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. WESTMORELAND................ 13.10 7.58 19.94 1.26 8.60
VIRGINIA.................................. WILLIAMSBURG................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. WINCHESTER.................. .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. WISE........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
VIRGINIA.................................. WYTHE....................... 36.09 29.32 27.37 21.51 18.52
VIRGINIA.................................. YORK........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ ADAMS....................... 7.30 11.35 15.57 18.73 10.65
WASHINGTON................................ ASOTIN...................... .............. .............. 100.00 .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ BENTON...................... 1.68 2.32 4.27 5.39 3.68
WASHINGTON................................ CHELAN...................... 2.42 3.47 3.07 2.56 6.03
WASHINGTON................................ CLALLAM..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ CLARK....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ COLUMBIA.................... .............. .............. 2.94 .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ COWLITZ..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ DOUGLAS..................... 1.60 3.41 4.09 4.43 4.20
WASHINGTON................................ FERRY....................... 35.65 34.59 36.55 32.98 41.27
WASHINGTON................................ FRANKLIN.................... 4.19 17.04 10.24 10.86 6.74
WASHINGTON................................ GARFIELD.................... 1.18 4.77 .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ GRANT, N.................... 1.00 2.00 2.21 2.33 2.09
WASHINGTON................................ GRAYS HARBOR................ .............. .15 .............. .............. .93
WASHINGTON................................ ISLAND...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ JEFFERSON................... .............. .............. 25.25 .............. .35
WASHINGTON................................ KING........................ .............. .............. 8.35 .............. 4.04
WASHINGTON................................ KITSAP...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ KITTITAS.................... .03 .64 .63 9.99 9.62
WASHINGTON................................ KLICKITAT................... .21 .40 .29 .29 15.28
WASHINGTON................................ LEWIS....................... 21.84 19.92 34.06 28.02 21.59
WASHINGTON................................ LINCOLN..................... 1.54 1.78 .93 .66 .22
WASHINGTON................................ MASON....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ OKANOGAN.................... 14.55 13.39 15.21 12.62 12.77
WASHINGTON................................ PACIFIC..................... 3.54 2.16 1.75 1.31 .98
WASHINGTON................................ PEND OREILLE................ .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ PIERCE...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ SAN JUAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ SKAGIT...................... 14.22 13.15 19.79 21.50 19.50
WASHINGTON................................ SKAMANIA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ SNOHOMISH................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .69
WASHINGTON................................ SPOKANE..................... 6.01 1.99 2.29 8.09 5.34
WASHINGTON................................ STEVENS..................... 3.62 .64 11.65 9.28 10.21
WASHINGTON................................ THURSTON.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WASHINGTON................................ WAHKIAKUM................... .............. .............. 17.21 13.77 10.96
WASHINGTON................................ WALLA WALLA................. 4.32 3.42 2.92 4.62 7.06
WASHINGTON................................ WHATCOM..................... 4.30 2.42 3.43 2.45 3.71
WASHINGTON................................ WHITMAN..................... 1.91 1.54 6.51 4.54 2.86
WASHINGTON................................ YAKIMA...................... 6.28 8.04 6.78 6.70 5.05
WEST VIRGINIA............................. BARBOUR..................... .20 .12 4.77 4.25 8.04
WEST VIRGINIA............................. BERKELEY.................... 6.35 42.59 37.20 41.43 22.99
WEST VIRGINIA............................. BOONE....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. BRAXTON..................... 1.01 1.58 1.77 14.37 12.31
WEST VIRGINIA............................. BROOKE...................... 4.12 13.19 .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. CABELL...................... 4.24 1.21 9.68 8.65 6.08
WEST VIRGINIA............................. CALHOUN..................... .93 1.02 .65 1.05 2.37
WEST VIRGINIA............................. CLAY........................ 1.86 .54 .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. DODDRIDGE................... .29 10.23 7.24 8.40 4.99
WEST VIRGINIA............................. FAYETTE..................... 3.65 12.96 29.85 31.48 11.83
WEST VIRGINIA............................. GILMER...................... 1.84 .77 2.08 2.93 18.68
WEST VIRGINIA............................. GRANT....................... 1.44 1.88 1.01 .36 .03
WEST VIRGINIA............................. GREENBRIER.................. 11.65 12.61 10.12 8.75 6.99
WEST VIRGINIA............................. HAMPSHIRE................... 9.69 9.54 7.27 7.10 1.96
WEST VIRGINIA............................. HANCOCK..................... 16.16 9.42 .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. HARDY....................... 1.26 .24 .04 1.79 2.96
WEST VIRGINIA............................. HARRISON.................... 5.81 6.06 9.81 7.79 7.55
WEST VIRGINIA............................. JACKSON..................... 1.23 .69 .24 .07 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. JEFFERSON................... 10.24 8.26 6.36 10.29 3.37
WEST VIRGINIA............................. KANAWHA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. LEWIS....................... .51 18.01 14.41 16.15 22.58
WEST VIRGINIA............................. LINCOLN..................... 4.11 1.64 6.69 8.65 3.67
WEST VIRGINIA............................. LOGAN....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MARION...................... 1.48 8.86 4.81 2.45 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MARSHALL.................... 10.11 12.10 9.53 8.49 8.20
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MARSHALL.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MASON....................... 3.33 6.00 9.15 10.39 8.78
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MCDOWELL.................... 28.81 24.36 18.97 13.37 7.47
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MERCER...................... 8.92 10.65 10.32 9.32 6.70
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MINERAL..................... 1.84 .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MINGO....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MONONGALIA.................. .............. .20 .22 .12 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MONROE...................... 13.21 14.04 9.98 8.84 7.78
WEST VIRGINIA............................. MORGAN...................... 6.83 2.91 6.49 2.43 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. NICHOLAS.................... 3.30 1.02 .17 .36 1.45
WEST VIRGINIA............................. PENDLETON................... 1.90 .76 1.13 1.25 .02
WEST VIRGINIA............................. PLEASANTS................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. POCAHONTAS.................. .............. .09 .55 1.12 1.26
WEST VIRGINIA............................. PRESTON..................... 1.22 5.47 1.94 9.33 8.96
WEST VIRGINIA............................. PUTNAM...................... .18 3.47 5.09 5.87 4.04
WEST VIRGINIA............................. RALEIGH..................... 25.55 22.09 20.78 20.47 17.08
WEST VIRGINIA............................. RANDOLPH.................... .19 .............. 3.49 .15 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. RITCHIE..................... 1.72 .67 14.10 1.31 9.21
WEST VIRGINIA............................. ROANE....................... 1.12 1.00 1.06 1.26 6.30
WEST VIRGINIA............................. SUMMERS..................... 15.57 9.47 7.77 6.25 7.00
WEST VIRGINIA............................. TAYLOR...................... .............. 1.15 .94 2.91 .87
WEST VIRGINIA............................. TUCKER...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. TYLER....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. .09
WEST VIRGINIA............................. UPSHUR...................... 5.84 14.17 11.22 10.22 15.91
WEST VIRGINIA............................. WAYNE....................... .............. .............. .............. 4.70 ..............
WEST VIRGINIA............................. WEBSTER..................... 2.01 1.41 .............. 3.49 2.44
WEST VIRGINIA............................. WETZEL...................... .............. .............. .............. 4.01 2.93
WEST VIRGINIA............................. WIRT........................ .............. .70 2.09 3.05 5.28
WEST VIRGINIA............................. WOOD........................ .............. 17.00 15.91 35.87 29.28
WEST VIRGINIA............................. WYOMING..................... 20.44 22.44 10.96 4.80 ..............
WISCONSIN................................. ADAMS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. ASHLAND..................... .20 3.10 3.74 3.47 7.27
WISCONSIN................................. BARRON...................... 2.16 .............. .24 2.09 .35
WISCONSIN................................. BAYFIELD.................... .31 .28 1.75 .94 2.94
WISCONSIN................................. BROWN....................... .20 .21 3.22 3.76 1.74
WISCONSIN................................. BUFFALO..................... .............. .42 .51 .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. BURNETT..................... .............. .38 1.34 .48 ..............
WISCONSIN................................. CALUMET..................... 1.05 .............. .............. 4.41 1.16
WISCONSIN................................. CHIPPEWA.................... 1.35 .71 5.69 6.09 3.92
WISCONSIN................................. CLARK....................... .55 .51 .84 1.06 .85
WISCONSIN................................. COLUMBIA.................... 4.11 1.58 2.54 1.70 2.91
WISCONSIN................................. CRAWFORD.................... .31 .............. .............. .30 .16
WISCONSIN................................. DANE........................ .............. .82 .71 1.35 9.23
WISCONSIN................................. DODGE....................... 3.84 3.47 3.49 6.21 3.37
WISCONSIN................................. DOOR........................ .............. .............. .............. 1.43 .61
WISCONSIN................................. DOUGLAS..................... .36 .............. .41 5.50 2.31
WISCONSIN................................. DUNN........................ 1.09 4.13 5.26 9.56 8.23
WISCONSIN................................. EAU CLAIRE.................. 8.31 .............. 2.21 1.12 2.31
WISCONSIN................................. FLORENCE.................... 11.97 7.08 1.41 .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. FOND DU LAC................. 1.79 2.30 3.56 6.26 4.65
WISCONSIN................................. FOREST...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. GRANT....................... .07 .88 1.07 2.28 1.03
WISCONSIN................................. GREEN....................... .37 1.67 4.27 3.71 4.35
WISCONSIN................................. GREEN LAKE.................. .39 .28 .20 1.37 .98
WISCONSIN................................. IOWA........................ .61 .01 .............. .50 1.97
WISCONSIN................................. IRON........................ .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.01
WISCONSIN................................. JACKSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. JEFFERSON................... .19 .06 .............. .12 1.12
WISCONSIN................................. JUNEAU...................... 1.56 .18 .18 .97 ..............
WISCONSIN................................. KENOSHA..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. KEWAUNEE.................... 2.85 2.96 2.69 2.44 3.60
WISCONSIN................................. LA CROSSE................... .............. .............. .............. .41 1.42
WISCONSIN................................. LAFAYETTE................... .47 .34 .57 .42 .64
WISCONSIN................................. LANGLADE.................... .65 4.62 2.65 3.45 2.62
WISCONSIN................................. LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. 1.99 .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. MANITOWOC................... .04 .34 .28 .12 .15
WISCONSIN................................. MARATHON.................... .14 2.14 1.04 2.74 7.32
WISCONSIN................................. MARINETTE................... 5.84 5.46 3.94 3.52 4.03
WISCONSIN................................. MARQUETTE................... 2.77 .............. .............. 11.20 2.25
WISCONSIN................................. MENOMINEE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. MILWAUKEE................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. MONROE...................... .03 .91 1.48 .56 .27
WISCONSIN................................. OCONTO...................... 1.69 2.07 .66 1.38 1.20
WISCONSIN................................. ONEIDA...................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. OUTAGAMIE................... .85 1.37 2.40 .94 .69
WISCONSIN................................. OZAUKEE..................... .............. .............. 6.58 2.42 ..............
WISCONSIN................................. PEPIN....................... .58 .............. .............. .............. 6.28
WISCONSIN................................. PIERCE...................... 2.44 2.28 1.11 .............. .29
WISCONSIN................................. POLK........................ 1.78 .69 .52 .21 .35
WISCONSIN................................. PORTAGE..................... 1.46 1.44 .63 .40 1.68
WISCONSIN................................. PRICE....................... .24 1.02 1.41 .43 ..............
WISCONSIN................................. RACINE...................... 3.55 .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. RICHLAND.................... 1.47 .75 1.15 .76 1.00
WISCONSIN................................. ROCK........................ .40 4.61 7.76 5.99 8.24
WISCONSIN................................. RUSK........................ .54 .............. 2.63 1.59 7.86
WISCONSIN................................. SAUK........................ 1.55 2.74 3.22 2.23 4.12
WISCONSIN................................. SAWYER...................... .............. .............. 1.27 .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. SHAWANO..................... 2.21 1.95 1.96 2.47 .60
WISCONSIN................................. SHEBOYGAN................... .............. 4.56 3.46 1.11 1.02
WISCONSIN................................. ST. CROIX................... .01 .28 .............. .95 .50
WISCONSIN................................. TAYLOR...................... .............. .03 .71 .77 .69
WISCONSIN................................. TREMPEALEAU................. 2.29 2.29 1.90 1.74 1.88
WISCONSIN................................. VERNON...................... .17 .41 .34 .47 1.34
WISCONSIN................................. VILAS....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 5.67
WISCONSIN................................. WALWORTH.................... .............. .............. 1.08 1.61 .27
WISCONSIN................................. WASHBURN.................... .22 .............. .33 .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. WASHINGTON.................. .03 .............. .............. 7.00 5.56
WISCONSIN................................. WAUKESHA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WISCONSIN................................. WAUPACA..................... .............. .............. .............. .96 1.98
WISCONSIN................................. WAUSHARA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. 1.00
WISCONSIN................................. WINNEBAGO................... .............. .............. .82 .............. 12.93
WISCONSIN................................. WOOD........................ 1.44 1.06 .84 .33 3.32
WYOMING................................... ALBANY...................... .............. .30 .............. .............. 7.86
WYOMING................................... BIG HORN, SOUTHERN.......... 2.82 8.53 7.08 6.89 18.84
WYOMING................................... CAMPBELL.................... 43.00 25.88 21.15 4.87 ..............
WYOMING................................... CARBON...................... 1.23 .............. .48 7.38 5.93
WYOMING................................... CONVERSE.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... CROOK....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... FREMONT..................... 10.62 14.63 13.63 14.11 12.15
WYOMING................................... GOSHEN...................... 6.54 11.37 9.51 7.25 5.40
WYOMING................................... HOT SPRINGS................. 16.64 14.96 12.87 10.20 9.51
WYOMING................................... JOHNSON..................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... LARAMIE..................... 13.77 18.56 15.62 14.36 10.50
WYOMING................................... LINCOLN..................... .............. .............. 1.87 .............. 4.13
WYOMING................................... NATRONA..................... .33 .19 .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... NIOBRARA.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... PARK........................ .............. .............. .21 2.00 2.27
WYOMING................................... PLATTE...................... 5.94 6.06 4.54 8.68 7.66
WYOMING................................... SHERIDAN.................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... SUBLETTE.................... 100.00 65.30 70.56 .............. 6.48
WYOMING................................... SWEETWATER.................. 5.59 .............. 12.60 .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... TETON....................... .............. .............. .............. .............. ..............
WYOMING................................... UINTA....................... 20.12 13.49 7.44 1.96 1.99
WYOMING................................... WASHAKIE.................... 2.12 1.42 2.35 .............. 3.95
WYOMING................................... WESTON...................... .............. .............. .............. 8.37 ..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESIDENTIAL DISASTER DECLARATIONS WITH INDIVIDUAL ASSISTANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year State County Date FEMA No Incident Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Barbour.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Bibb............. 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Blount........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Calhoun.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Cherokee......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Cleburne......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Cullman.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Dale............. 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... DeKalb........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Etowah........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Fayette.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Franklin......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Greene........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Hale............. 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Henry............ 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Houston.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Jefferson........ 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Lamar............ 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Lawrence......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Marion........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Marshall......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Morgan........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Pickens.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Shelby........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... St. Clair........ 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Talladega........ 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Tuscaloosa....... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Walker........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alabama.......... Winston.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1442-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Alaska........... Aniak, Crooked 6/26/02......... FEMA-1423-DR........ Flooding
Creek.
2002.......................... Alaska........... Chignik Bay area. 12/04/02........ FEMA-1445-DR........ Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Coastal
Erosion and Tidal Surge
2002.......................... Alaska........... Delta Greely 11/08/02........ FEMA-1440-DR........ Earthquake
Regional
Educational
Attendance Area.
2002.......................... Alaska........... Ekwok and New 6/26/02......... FEMA-1423-DR........ Flooding
Stuyahok in the
Southwest Region
REAA.
2002.......................... Alaska........... Fairbanks North 6/26/02......... FEMA-1423-DR........ Flooding
Star Borough.
2002.......................... Alaska........... Fairbanks North 11/08/02........ FEMA-1440-DR........ Earthquake
Star Borough.
2002.......................... Alaska........... Kenai Peninsula 12/04/02........ FEMA-1445-DR........ Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Coastal
Borough. Erosion and Tidal Surge
2002.......................... Alaska........... Kodiak Island 12/04/02........ FEMA-1445-DR........ Severe Winter Storms, Flooding, Coastal
Borough. Erosion and Tidal Surge
2002.......................... Alaska........... Kwethluk in the 6/26/02......... FEMA-1423-DR........ Flooding
Lower Kuskokwim
REAA.
2002.......................... Alaska........... McGrath and Lime 6/26/02......... FEMA-1423-DR........ Flooding
Village in the
Iditarod REAA.
2002.......................... Alaska........... Red Devil and 6/26/02......... FEMA-1423-DR........ Flooding
Sleetmute in the
Kuspuk REAA.
2002.......................... Arizona.......... Apache........... 6/25/02......... FEMA-1422-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Arizona.......... Coconino......... 6/25/02......... FEMA-1422-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Arizona.......... Fort Apache 6/25/02......... FEMA-1422-DR........ Wildfires
Indian
Reservation.
2002.......................... Arizona.......... Gila............. 6/25/02......... FEMA-1422-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Arizona.......... Navajo........... 6/25/02......... FEMA-1422-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Adams............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Alamosa.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Arapahoe......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Archuleta........ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Baca............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Bent............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Boulder.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Broomfield City 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
and County.
2002.......................... Colorado......... Chaffee.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Cheyenne......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Clear Creek...... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Conejos.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Costilla......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Crowley.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Custer........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Delta............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Denver City and 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
County.
2002.......................... Colorado......... Dolores.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Douglas.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Eagle............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... El Paso.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Elbert........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Fremont.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Garfield......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Gilpin........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Grand............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Gunnison......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Hinsdale......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Huerfano......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Jackson.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Jefferson........ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Kiowa............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Kit Carson....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... La Plata......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Lake............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Larimer.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Las Animas....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Lincoln.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Mesa............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Mineral.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Moffat........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Montezuma........ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Montrose......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Otero............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Ouray............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Park............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Pitkin........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Pueblo........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Rio Blanco....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Rio Grande....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Routt............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Saguache......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... San Juan......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... San Miguel....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Southern Ute 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
Reservation.
2002.......................... Colorado......... Summit........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Teller........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Ute Mountain 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
Reservation.
2002.......................... Colorado......... Washington....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Weld............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Colorado......... Yuma............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1421-DR........ Wildfires
2002.......................... Federated States Chuuk State...... 7/11/02......... FEMA-1427........... Tropical Storm Chata'an, including
of Micronesia. flooding, mudslides and landslides
2002.......................... Guam............. Territory of Guam 7/06/02......... FEMA-1426-DR........ Typhoon Chata'an
2002.......................... Guam............. Territory of Guam 12/08/02........ FEMA-1446-DR........ Super Typhoon Pongsona
2002.......................... Illinois......... Adams............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Alexander........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Bond............. 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Brown............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Calhoun.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Cass............. 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Champaign........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Christian........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Clark............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Clay............. 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Clinton.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Coles............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Crawford......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Cumberland....... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... De Witt.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Douglas.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Edgar............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Edwards.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Effingham........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Fayette.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Ford............. 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Franklin......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Fulton........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Gallatin......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Greene........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Hamilton......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Hancock.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Hardin........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Iroquois......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Jackson.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Jasper........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Jefferson........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Jersey........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Johnson.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Lawrence......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Logan............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Macon............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Macoupin......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Madison.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Marion........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Mason............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Massac........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... McDonough........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Menard........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Monroe........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Montgomery....... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Morgan........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Moultrie......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Perry............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Piatt............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Pike............. 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Pope............. 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Pulaski.......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Randolph......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Richland......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Saline........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Sangamon......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Schuyler......... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Scott............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Shelby........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... St. Clair........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Union............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Vermilion........ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Wabash........... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Washington,...... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Wayne............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... White............ 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Illinois......... Williamson....... 5/21/02......... FEMA-1416-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Martin........... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Bartholomew...... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Blackford........ 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Brown............ 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Daviess.......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Dearborn......... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Dearborn......... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Decatur.......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Delaware......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Fayette.......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Franklin......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Gibson........... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Gibson........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Grant............ 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Greene........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Hamilton......... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Hamilton......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Hancock.......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Hendricks........ 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Henry............ 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Jay.............. 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Johnson.......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Knox............. 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Lawrence......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Madison.......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Marion........... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Marion........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Monroe........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Morgan........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Orange........... 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Owen............. 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Pike............. 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Pike............. 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Posey............ 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Posey............ 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Randolph......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Rush............. 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Shelby........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Sullivan......... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Tipton........... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Vanderburg....... 9/25/02......... FEMA-1433-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Indiana.......... Vigo............. 6/13/02......... FEMA-1418-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Allamakee........ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Benton........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Buchanan......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Cedar............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Clayton.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Clinton.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Delaware......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Des Moines....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Dubuque.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Fayette.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Henry............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Iowa............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Jackson.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Johnson.......... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Jones............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Lee.............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Linn............. 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Louisa........... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Muscatine........ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Scott............ 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Iowa............. Winneshiek....... 6/19/02......... FEMA-1420-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kansas........... Allen............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Anderson......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Barber........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Bourbon.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Butler........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Chautauqua....... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Coffey........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Cowley........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Crawford......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Douglas.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Elk.............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Franklin......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Greenwood........ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Labette.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Linn............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Miami............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Montgomery....... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Neosho........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Osage............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Sumner........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Wilson........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kansas........... Woodson.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1402-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Bath............. 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Bell............. 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Bourbon.......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Boyd............. 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Breckinridge..... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Carter........... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Clay............. 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Crittenden....... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Fleming.......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Floyd............ 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Grayson.......... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Greenup.......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Hancock.......... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Hardin........... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Harlan........... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Henderson........ 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Hopkins.......... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Knox............. 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Laurel........... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Laurel........... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Lawrence......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Leslie........... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Letcher.......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Letcher.......... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Lewis............ 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Marion........... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Martin........... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... McCreary......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... McLean........... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Meade............ 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Menifee.......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Montgomery....... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Morgan........... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Nicholas......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Ohio............. 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Perry............ 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Pike............. 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Rockcastle....... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Rowan............ 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Union............ 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Webster.......... 5/07/02......... FEMA-1414-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Kentucky......... Whitley.......... 4/04/02......... FEMA-1407-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Acadia........... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Allen............ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Ascension........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Assumption....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Avoyelles........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Beauregard....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Calcasieu........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Cameron.......... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ East Baton Rouge. 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ East Feliciana... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Evangeline....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Iberia........... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Iberia........... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Iberville........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson........ 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson Davis.. 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Lafayette........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Lafourche........ 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Lafourche........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Livingston....... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Livingston....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Orleans.......... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Orleans,......... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Plaquemines...... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Plaquemines...... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Pointe Coupee.... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Rapides.......... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Bernard...... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Bernard...... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Charles...... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Charles...... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Helena....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. James........ 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. John the 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
Baptist.
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. John the 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
Baptist.
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Landry....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Martin....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Mary......... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St. Tammany...... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ St.Tammany....... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Tangipahoa....... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Tangipahoa....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Terrebonne....... 9/27/02......... FEMA-1435-DR........ Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Terrebonne....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Vermillion....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ Washington....... 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Louisiana........ West Baton Rouge. 10/03/02........ FEMA-1437-DR........ Hurricane Lili
2002.......................... Maryland......... Calvert.......... 5/01/02......... FEMA-1409-DR........ Tornado
2002.......................... Maryland......... Charles.......... 5/01/02......... FEMA-1409-DR........ Tornado
2002.......................... Maryland......... Dorchester....... 5/01/02......... FEMA-1409-DR........ Tornado
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Becker........... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Beltrami......... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Clay............. 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Clearwater....... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Itasca........... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Kittson.......... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ McLeod........... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Pennington....... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Polk............. 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Roseau........... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Minnesota........ Wright........... 6/14/02......... FEMA-1419-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Amite............ 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Clay............. 11/14/02........ FEMA-1443-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Hancock.......... 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Harrison......... 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Jackson.......... 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Lowndes.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1443-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Monroe........... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1443-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Noxubee.......... 11/14/02........ FEMA-1443-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Oktibbeha........ 11/14/02........ FEMA-1443-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Pearl River...... 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Pike............. 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Mississippi...... Stone............ 10/01/02........ FEMA-1436........... Tropical Storm Isidore
2002.......................... Missouri......... Adair............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Audrain.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Barton........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Bates............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Benton........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Bollinger........ 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Boone............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Buchanan......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Butler........... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Caldwell......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Cape Girardeau... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Carroll.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Carter........... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Cass............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Cedar............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Chariton......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Clair............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Clark............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Clay............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Clinton.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Cooper........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Crawford......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Daviess.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Dent............. 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Douglas.......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Dunklin.......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Grundy........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Henry............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Howard........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Howell........... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Iron............. 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Jackson.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Jefferson........ 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Johnson.......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Knox............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Lafayette........ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Lewis............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Linn............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Livingston....... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Macon............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Madison.......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Marion........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Monroe........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Morgan........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Oregon........... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Ozark............ 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Perry............ 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Pettis........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Platte........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Ralls............ 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Randolph......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Ray.............. 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Reynolds......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Ripley........... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Saline........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Scotland......... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Shannon.......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Shelby........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... St Francois...... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... St Geneieve...... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... St. Sullivan..... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Stoddard......... 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Texas............ 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Missouri......... Vernon........... 2/06/02......... FEMA-1403-DR........ Severe Winter Ice Storm
2002.......................... Missouri......... Wayne............ 5/06/02......... FEMA-1412-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... New York......... Clinton.......... 5/16/02......... FEMA-1415-DR........ Earthquake
2002.......................... New York......... Essex............ 5/16/02......... FEMA-1415-DR........ Earthquake
2002.......................... Northern Mariana Island of Rota... 12/11/02........ FEMA-1447-DR........ Super Typhoon Pongsona
Islands.
2002.......................... Ohio............. Cuyahoga......... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Hancock.......... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Ottawa........... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Paulding......... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Putnam........... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Seneca........... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Summit........... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Ohio............. Van Wert......... 11/18/02........ FEMA-1444-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Alfalfa.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Beaver........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Beckham.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Blaine........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Caddo............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Canadian......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Cimarron......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Cleveland........ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Comanche......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Creek............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Custer........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Dewey............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Ellis............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Garfield......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Garvin........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Grady............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Grant............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Greer............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Harmon........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Harper........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Jackson.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Kay.............. 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Kingfisher....... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Kiowa............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Lincoln.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Logan............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Major............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... McClain.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Mills............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Noble............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Nowata........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Oklahoma......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Osage............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Pawnee........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Payne............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Pottawatomie..... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Roger............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Rogers........... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Stephens......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Texas............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Tillman.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Tulsa............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Washington....... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Washita.......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Woods............ 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Oklahoma......... Woodward......... 2/01/02......... FEMA-1401-DR........ Ice Storm
2002.......................... Tennessee........ and.............. 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Anderson......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Bedford.......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Bledsoe.......... 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Bledsoe.......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Blount........... 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Carroll.......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Claiborne........ 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Cocke............ 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Coffee........... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Crockett......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Cumberland....... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Fentress......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Gibson........... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Hancock.......... 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Hawkins.......... 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Henderson........ 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Loudon........... 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Madison.......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Marshall......... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Montgomery....... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Morgan........... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Roane............ 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Rutherford....... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Scott............ 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Sevier........... 4/05/02......... FEMA-1408-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Sumner........... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Tipton........... 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Tennessee........ Van Buren........ 11/13/02........ FEMA-1441-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Bexar............ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Aransas.......... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Atascosa......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Bandera.......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Bee.............. 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Blanco........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Brazoria......... 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Brazoria......... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Brown............ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Burnet........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Caldwell......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Calhoun.......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Callahan......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Cameron.......... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Coleman.......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Comal............ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ DeWitt........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Dimmit........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Duval............ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Eastland......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Fort Bend........ 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Frio............. 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Frio............. 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Galveston........ 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Gillespie........ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Goliad........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Gonzales......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Guadalupe........ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Hardin........... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Harris........... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Hays............. 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Jasper........... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Jefferson........ 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Jim Wells........ 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Jim Wells........ 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Jim Wells........ 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Karnes........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Kendall.......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Kerr............. 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Kleberg.......... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ La Salle......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ La Salle......... 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Liberty.......... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Live Oak......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Live Oak......... 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Matagorda........ 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ McMullen......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Medina........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Montgomery....... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Nueces........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Nueces........... 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Nueces........... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Orange........... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Real............. 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ San Jacinto...... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ San Patricio..... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ San Patricio..... 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ San Patricio..... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Taylor........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Travis........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Uvalde........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Victoria......... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Walker........... 11/05/02........ FEMA-1439-DR........ severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Webb............. 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Wharton.......... 9/26/02......... FEMA-1434-DR........ Tropical Storm Fay
2002.......................... Texas............ Wilson........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Texas............ Zavala........... 7/04/02......... FEMA-1425-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Vermont.......... Caledonia........ 7/12/02......... FEMA-1428-DR........ Severe storms and flooding
2002.......................... Vermont.......... Franklin......... 7/12/02......... FEMA-1428-DR........ Severe storms and flooding
2002.......................... Vermont.......... Lamoille......... 7/12/02......... FEMA-1428-DR........ Severe storms and flooding
2002.......................... Vermont.......... Orleans.......... 7/12/02......... FEMA-1428-DR........ Severe storms and flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Buchanan......... 5/05/02......... FEMA-1411-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornado
2002.......................... Virginia......... city of Norton... 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Dickenson........ 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Lee.............. 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Russell.......... 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Scott............ 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Smyth............ 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Tazewell......... 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Tazewell......... 5/05/02......... FEMA-1411-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornado
2002.......................... Virginia......... Washington....... 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... Virginia......... Wise............. 4/02/02......... FEMA-1406-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2002.......................... West Virginia.... McDowell......... 5/05/02......... FEMA-1410-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2002.......................... West Virginia.... Mercer........... 5/05/02......... FEMA-1410-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2002.......................... West Virginia.... Mingo............ 5/05/02......... FEMA-1410-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2002.......................... West Virginia.... Wyoming.......... 5/05/02......... FEMA-1410-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Barron........... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Burnett.......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Chippewa......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Clark............ 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Dunn............. 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Langlade......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Lincoln.......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Marathon......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Polk............. 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Portage.......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Price............ 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Rusk............. 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Sawyer........... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Shawano.......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ St. Croix........ 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Taylor........... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Washburn......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Waupaca.......... 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2002.......................... Wisconsin........ Wood............. 9/10/02......... FEMA-1432-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Baldwin.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Bibb............. 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Blount........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Calhoun.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Clarke........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Colbert.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Cullman.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... DeKalb........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Escambia......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Etowah........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Jackson.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Jefferson........ 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Madison.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Marshall......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Mobile........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Monroe........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Morgan........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Shelby........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... St.Clair......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Talladega........ 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Tuscaloosa....... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Walker........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alabama.......... Washington....... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1466-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Alaska........... Kenai Peninsula 4/26/03......... FEMA-1461-DR........ Severe winter storm, including high winds
Borough. and freezing temperatures
2003.......................... Alaska........... Matanuska-Susitna 4/26/03......... FEMA-1461-DR........ Severe winter storm, including high winds
Borough. and freezing temperatures
2003.......................... Alaska........... Municipality of 4/26/03......... FEMA-1461-DR........ Severe winter storm, including high winds
Anchorage. and freezing temperatures
2003.......................... American Samoa... The Island of 6/06/03......... FEMA-1473-DR........ Heavy Rainfall, Flooding, Landslides, and
Tutuila. Mudslides
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Benton........... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Chicot........... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Cleburne......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Columbia......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Conway........... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Craighead........ 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Crittenden....... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Cross............ 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Faulkner......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Fulton........... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Jackson.......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Lonoke........... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Nevada........... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Perry............ 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Phillips......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Poinsett......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... St. Francis...... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... White............ 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Arkansas......... Woodruff......... 6/06/03......... FEMA-1472-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... California....... Los Angeles...... 10/27/03........ FEMA-1498-DR........ Wildfires
2003.......................... California....... Riverside........ 10/27/03........ FEMA-1498-DR........ Wildfires
2003.......................... California....... San Bernardino... 10/27/03........ FEMA-1498-DR........ Wildfires
2003.......................... California....... San Diego........ 10/27/03........ FEMA-1498-DR........ Wildfires
2003.......................... California....... Ventura.......... 10/27/03........ FEMA-1498-DR........ Wildfires
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Aibonito......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Arroyo........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Cabo Rojo........ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Can?vanas........ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Fajardo.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Gunica........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Guayama.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Juana Diaz....... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Lajas............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Loiza............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Luquillo......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Maunabo.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Naguabo.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Naranjito........ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Patillas......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Ro Grande........ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Salinas.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Santa Isabel..... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Toa Baja......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Yabucoa.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Commonwealth of Yauco............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1501-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Puerto Rico. Landslides
2003.......................... Delaware......... New Castle....... 9/23/03......... FEMA-1495-DR........ Tropical Storm Henri
2003.......................... Delware.......... Kent............. 9/20/03......... FEMA-1494-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Delware.......... New Castle....... 9/20/03......... FEMA-1494-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Delware.......... Sussex........... 9/20/03......... FEMA-1494-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... District of District of 9/20/03......... FEMA-1493-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Columbia. Columbia.
2003.......................... Federated States Island of 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia. Eauripik.
2003.......................... Federated States Island of Elato.. 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Island of Fais... 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Island of 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia. Faraulap.
2003.......................... Federated States Island of Ifalik. 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Lamotrek......... 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Namonuito Atoll.. 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Satawal.......... 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States the Hall Islands. 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Ulithi........... 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia.
2003.......................... Federated States Western Islands 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia. within Chuuk
State.
2003.......................... Federated States Woleai within Yap 12/19/03........ FEMA-1504-DR........ Typhoon Lupit
of Micronesia. State.
2003.......................... Florida.......... Miami-Dade County 4/25/03......... FEMA-1460-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Illinois......... Adams............ 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Alexander........ 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Brown............ 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Fulton........... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Hancock.......... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Mason............ 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Massac........... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Pope............. 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Pulaski.......... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Schuyler......... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Tazewell......... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Union............ 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Illinois......... Woodford......... 5/15/03......... FEMA-1469-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Adams............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Allen............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Benton........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Blackford........ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Blackford........ 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Boone............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Boone............ 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Carroll.......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Cass............. 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Clay............. 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Clay............. 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Clinton.......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Delaware......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Delaware......... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Fountain......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Fulton........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Grant............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Grant............ 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Greene........... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Hamilton......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Hamilton......... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Hancock.......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Hancock.......... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Hendricks........ 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Henry............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Henry............ 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Howard........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Huntington....... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Jasper........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Jay.............. 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Jay.............. 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Johnson.......... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Kosciusko........ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Lake............. 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Madison.......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Madison.......... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Marion........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Marion........... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Miami............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Monroe........... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Montgomery....... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Montgomery....... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Morgan........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Morgan........... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Newton........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Noble............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Owen............. 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Parke............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Porter........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Pulaski.......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Putnam........... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Randolph......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Randolph......... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Shelby........... 9/05/03......... FEMA-1487-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Tippecanoe....... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Tipton........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Vanderburgh...... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Vigo............. 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Wabash........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Warren........... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Wayne............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Wells............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... White............ 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Indiana.......... Whitley.......... 7/11/03......... FEMA-1476-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Allen............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Cherokee......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Crawford......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Haskell.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Labette.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Leavenworth...... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Meade............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Miami............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Neosho........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Seward........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kansas........... Wyandotte........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1462-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Anderson......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Boyd............. 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Boyd............. 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Boyle............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Breathitt........ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Breathitt........ 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Breckenridge..... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Bullitt.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Caldwell......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Carter........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Carter........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Carter........... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Clarke........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Clay............. 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Crittenden....... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Elliott.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Elliott.......... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Estill........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Fayette.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Fleming.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Floyd............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Floyd............ 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Garrard.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Graves........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Grayson.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Greenup.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Greenup.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Greenup.......... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Hardin........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Harlan........... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Hart............. 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Henderson........ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Hopkins.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Jefferson........ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Jessamine........ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Johnson.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Johnson.......... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Knott............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Knott............ 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Knox............. 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Knox............. 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Larue............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Lawrence......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Lawrence......... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Leslie........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Leslie........... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Letcher.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Letcher.......... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Lewis............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Lewis............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Lewis............ 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Madison.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Magoffin......... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Martin........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Martin........... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Mason............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... McLean........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Meade............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Mercer........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Nelson........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Owsley........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Owsley........... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Owsley........... 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Perry............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Perry............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Perry............ 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Pike............. 3/14/03......... FEMA-1454-DR........ Severe winter ice and snow storms, heavy
rain, flooding, tornadoes, and mud and
rock slides
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Pike............. 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Rowan............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Rowan............ 7/02/03......... FEMA-1475-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mud and Rock
Slides, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Union............ 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Washington....... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Webster.......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Kentucky......... Woodford......... 6/03/03......... FEMA-1471-DR........ Severe storms, flooding, mud and rock
slides, and tornadoes
2003.......................... Maryland......... Allegany......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Anne............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Anne's........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Arundel.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Baltimore........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Calvert.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Caroline......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Carroll.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Cecil............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Charles.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... City of Baltimore 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Dorchester....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Frederick........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Garrett.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... George's......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Harford.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Howard........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Kent............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Mary's........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Montgomery....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Prince........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Queen............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Somerset......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... St............... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Talbot........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Washington....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Wicomico......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Maryland......... Worcester........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1492-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Amite............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Attala........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Calhoun.......... 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Chickasaw........ 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Claiborne........ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Clarke........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Clay............. 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Copiah........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Davis............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Franklin......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Hinds............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Holmes........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Issaquena........ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Itawamba......... 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Jasper........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Jefferson........ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Jefferson........ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Kemper........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Lauderdale....... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Lawrence......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Leake............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Lee.............. 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Lincoln.......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Lowndes.......... 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Madison.......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Marion........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Monroe........... 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Neshoba.......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Newton........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Pearl............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Pike............. 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Pontotoc......... 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Rankin........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... River............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Scott............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Simpson.......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Smith............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Walthall......... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Warren........... 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Wayne............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Webster.......... 5/23/03......... FEMA-1470-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes and High Winds
2003.......................... Mississippi...... Yazoo............ 4/23/03......... FEMA-1459-DR........ Severe Storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Barry............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Barton........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Bates............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Benton........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Bollinger........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Buchanan......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Camden........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Cape............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Cass............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Cedar............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Christian........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Clair............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Clay............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Clinton.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Cooper........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Crawford......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Dade............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Dallas........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Dent............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Douglas.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Francois......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Franklin......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Gasconade........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Genevieve........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Girardeau........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Greene........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Henry............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Hickory.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Iron............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Jackson.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Jasper........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Jefferson........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Johnson.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Knox............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Laclede.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Lafayette........ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Lawrence......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Louis............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Marion........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... McDonald......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Miller........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Monroe........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Morgan........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Newton........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Osage............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Perry............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Pettis........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Phelps........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Platte........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Polk............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Pulaski.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Ray.............. 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Saint............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Saint............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Sainte........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Saline........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Scott............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... St............... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Stoddard......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Stone............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Taney............ 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Vernon........... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Washington....... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Missouri......... Webster.......... 5/06/03......... FEMA-1463-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... New York......... Allegany......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Cattaraugus...... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Cayuga........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Chemung.......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Columbia......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Delaware......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Fulton........... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Greene........... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Livingston....... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Monroe........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Montgomery....... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Oneida........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Onondaga......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Ontario.......... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Ontario.......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Oswego........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Rensselaer....... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Schuyler......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Seneca........... 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Steuben.......... 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... New York......... Wayne............ 5/12/03......... FEMA-1467-DR........ Ice Storm
2003.......................... New York......... Yates............ 8/29/03......... FEMA-1486-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2003.......................... North Carolina... Beaufort......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Bertie........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Bladen........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Brunswick........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Camden........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Carteret......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Chowan........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Columbus......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Craven........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Cumberland....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Currituck........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Dare............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Davidson......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Duplin........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Durham........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Edgecombe........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Franklin......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Gates............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Granville........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Greene........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Halifax.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Hanover.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Harnett.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Hertford......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Hyde............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Johnston......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Jones............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Lenoir........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Martin........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Nash............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... New.............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Northampton...... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Onslow........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Pamlico.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Pasquotank....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Pender........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Perquimans....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Person........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Pitt............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Robeson.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Sampson.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Tyrrell.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Vance............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Wake............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Warren........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Washington....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Wayne............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... North Carolina... Wilson........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1490-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Ohio............. Adams............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1453-DR........ Severe Winter Storm
2003.......................... Ohio............. Auglaize......... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Carroll.......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Columbiana....... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Columbiana....... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Crawford......... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Cuyahoga......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Darke............ 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Franklin......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Jackson.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1453-DR........ Severe Winter Storm
2003.......................... Ohio............. Jefferson........ 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Lawrence......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1453-DR........ Severe Winter Storm
2003.......................... Ohio............. Logan............ 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Mahoning......... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Mahoning......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Medina........... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Mercer........... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Pike............. 3/14/03......... FEMA-1453-DR........ Severe Winter Storm
2003.......................... Ohio............. Pike............. 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Portage.......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Richland......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Scioto........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1453-DR........ Severe Winter Storm
2003.......................... Ohio............. Shelby........... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Ohio............. Stark............ 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Summit........... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Trumbull......... 8/01/03......... FEMA-1484-DR........ Tornadoes, Flooding, Severe Storms, and
High Winds
2003.......................... Ohio............. Van Wert......... 7/15/03......... FEMA-1478-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Canadian......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Carter........... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Cherokee......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Cleveland........ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Creek............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Delaware......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Garvin........... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Grady............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Kay.............. 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Kingfisher....... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Lincoln.......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Logan............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... McClain.......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Mills............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Muskogee......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Nowata........... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Okfuskee......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Oklahoma......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Okmulgee......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Osage............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Pontotoc......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Pottawatomie..... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Roger............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Seminole......... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Texas............ 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Oklahoma......... Washington....... 5/10/03......... FEMA-1465-DR........ Severe storms and tornadoes
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Blair............ 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Chester.......... 9/26/03......... FEMA-1497-DR........ Tropical Storms Henri and Isabel, and
related severe storms and flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Crawford......... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lackawanna....... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lawrence......... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... McKean........... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Mercer........... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Potter........... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Tioga............ 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Venango.......... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Warren........... 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wayne............ 8/23/03......... FEMA-1485-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Anderson......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Bedford.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Benton........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Bledsoe.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Blount........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Bradley.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Cannon........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Carroll.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Cheatham......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Chester.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Cocke............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Coffee........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Crockett......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Cumberland....... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Davidson......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Decatur.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ DeKalb........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Dickson.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Dyer............. 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Fayette.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Fayette.......... 7/29/03......... FEMA-1482-DR........ Severe storms, high winds, and heavy rain
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Gibson........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Giles............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Hamilton......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Hardeman......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Hardin........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Haywood.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Henderson........ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Henry............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Hickman.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Houston.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Humphreys........ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Jefferson........ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Knox............. 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Lake............. 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Lauderdale....... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Lawrence......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Lewis............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Lincoln.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Loudon........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Macon............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Madison.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Marion........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Marshall......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Maury............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ McMinn........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Meigs............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Monroe........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Montgomery....... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Obion............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Perry............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Polk............. 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Rhea............. 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Roane............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Robertson........ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Rutherford....... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Sequatchie....... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Sevier........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Shelby........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Shelby........... 7/29/03......... FEMA-1482-DR........ Severe storms, high winds, and heavy rain
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Smith............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Stewart.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Tipton........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Trousdale........ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Warren........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Wayne............ 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Weakley.......... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Williamson....... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Tennessee........ Wilson........... 5/08/03......... FEMA-1464-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2003.......................... Texas............ Aransas.......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Atascosa......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Bee.............. 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Brazoria......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Calhoun.......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ DeWitt........... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Frio............. 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Galveston........ 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Goliad........... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Jackson.......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Karnes........... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Live Oak......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Matagorda........ 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ McMullen......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Refugio.......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ San Patricio..... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Victoria......... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Texas............ Zavala........... 7/17/03......... FEMA-1479-DR........ Hurricane Claudette
2003.......................... Virginia......... Accomack......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Albemarle........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Amelia........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Amherst.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Appomattox....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Arlington........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Augusta.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Bedford.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Bland............ 12/09/03........ FEMA-1502-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Virginia......... Brunswick........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Buchanan......... 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... Buchanan......... 12/09/03........ FEMA-1502-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Virginia......... Buckingham....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Campbell......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Caroline......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Charles City..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Charlotte........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Chesterfield..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Alexandria.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Bedford.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Buena.... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Charlottesville.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Chesapeake.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Colonial 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Heights.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Danville. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Emporia.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Fairfax.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Falls 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Church.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Franklin. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Fredericksburg.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Galax.... 12/09/03........ FEMA-1502-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Hampton.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Harrisonburg.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Hopewell. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Lynchburg 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Manassas. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Manassas 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Park.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Newport.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of News..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Norfolk.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Norton... 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Petersburg.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Poquoson. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Portsmouth.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Richmond. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Roanoke.. 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Salem.... 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Staunton. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Suffolk.. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Virginia 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Beach.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of Vista.... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Waynesboro.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Williamsburg.
2003.......................... Virginia......... City of 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
Winchester.
2003.......................... Virginia......... Clarke........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Culpeper......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Cumberland....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Dickenson........ 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... Dinwiddie........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Essex............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Fairfax.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Fauquier......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Fluvanna......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Frederick........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Giles............ 12/09/03........ FEMA-1502-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Virginia......... Gloucester....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Goochland........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Greene........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Greensville...... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Halifax.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Hanover.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Henrico.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Isle of Wight.... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... James City....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... King and Queen... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... King George...... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... King William..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Lancaster........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Loudoun.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Louisa........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Lunenburg........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Madison.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Mathews.......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Mecklenburg...... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Middlesex........ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Montgomery....... 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... Nelson........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... New Kent......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Northampton...... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Northumberland... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Nottoway......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Orange........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Page............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Pittsylvania..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Powhatan......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Prince Edward.... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Prince George.... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Prince William... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Rappahannock..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Richmond......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Rockbridge....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Rockingham....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Russell.......... 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... Shenandoah....... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Smyth............ 12/09/03........ FEMA-1502-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Virginia......... Southampton...... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Spotsylvania..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Stafford......... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Surry............ 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Sussex........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Tazewell......... 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... Tazewell......... 12/09/03........ FEMA-1502-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Virginia......... Warren........... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Westmoreland..... 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Virginia......... Wise............. 3/27/03......... FEMA-1458-DR........ Severe winter storm, record/near-record
snowfall, heavy rain, flooding, and
mudslides
2003.......................... Virginia......... York............. 9/18/03......... FEMA-1491-DR........ Hurricane Isabel
2003.......................... Washington....... Chelan........... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Clallam.......... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Grays............ 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Harbor........... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Island........... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Jefferson........ 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Juan............. 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... King............. 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Kitsap........... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Mason............ 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Okanogan......... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Pierce........... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... San.............. 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Skagit........... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Snohomish........ 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Thurston......... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... Washington....... Whatcom.......... 11/07/03........ FEMA-1499-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Berkeley......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Boone............ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Boone............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Braxton.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Cabel............ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Cabell........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Cabell........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Calhoun.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Calhoun.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Clay............. 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Doddridge........ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Fayette.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Fayette.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Gilmer........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Greenbrier....... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Greenbrier....... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Harrison......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Jackson.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Kanawha.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Kanawha.......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Kanawha.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Lewis............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Lincoln.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Lincoln.......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Lincoln.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Logan............ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Logan............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Marion........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Mason............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Mason............ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... McDowell......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... McDowell......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... McDowell......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Mercer........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Mercer........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Mingo............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Mingo............ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Monongalia....... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Monroe........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Nicholas......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Nicholas......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Nicholas......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Preston.......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Putman........... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Putnam........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Raleigh.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Raleigh.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Roane............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Summers.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Taylor........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Upshur........... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wayne............ 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wayne............ 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wayne............ 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Webster.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Webster.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wetzel........... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wyoming.......... 3/14/03......... FEMA-1455-DR........ Severe Winter Storm, Record/Near Record
Snow, Heavy Rains, Flooding and
Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wyoming.......... 6/21/03......... FEMA-1474-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2003.......................... West Virginia.... Wyoming.......... 11/21/03........ FEMA-1500-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Landslides
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Autauga.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Baldwin.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Barbour.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Bibb............. 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Blount........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Bullock.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Butler........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Calhoun.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Chambers......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Chilton.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Choctaw.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Clarke........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Clay............. 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Coffee........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Colbert.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Coosa............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Conecuh.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Covington........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Crenshaw......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Cullman.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Dale............. 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Dallas........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... DeKalb........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Elmore........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Escambia......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Etowah........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Fayette.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Franklin......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Geneva........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Greene........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Hale............. 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Henry............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Houston.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Jackson.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Jefferson........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Lamar............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Lauderdale....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Lawrence......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Lee.............. 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Limestone........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Lowndes.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Macon............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Madison.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Marengo.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Marshall......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Marion........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Mobile........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Monroe........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Montgomery....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Morgan........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Perry............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Pickens.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Pike............. 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Randolph......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Russell.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Shelby........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... St. Clair........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Sumter........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Talladega........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Tallapoosa....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Tuscaloosa....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Walker........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Washington....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Wilcox........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Alabama.......... Winston.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1549-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... American Samoa... Island of Tutuila 1/13/04......... FEMA-1506-DR........ High Winds, High Surf and Heavy Rainfall
Associated With Tropical Cyclone Heta
2004.......................... American Samoa... The Manu'a 1/13/04......... FEMA-1506-DR........ High Winds, High Surf and Heavy Rainfall
Islands. Associated With Tropical Cyclone Heta
2004.......................... California....... San Luis Obispo.. 1/13/04......... FEMA-1505-DR........ Earthquake
2004.......................... Florida.......... Alachua.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Baker............ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Bradford......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Brevard.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Charlotte........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Citrus........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Clay............. 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Columbia......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... DeSoto........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Dixie............ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Duval............ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Flagler.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Gilchrist........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Glades........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hamilton......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hardee........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hendry........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hernando......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Highlands........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hillsborough..... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Indian River..... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Jefferson........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lafayette........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lake............. 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Levy............. 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Madison.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Manatee.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Marion........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Martin........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Nassau........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Okeechobee....... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Orange........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Osceola.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Palm Beach....... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Pasco............ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Pinellas......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Polk............. 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Putnam........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Johns........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Lucie........ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Sarasota......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Seminole......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Sumter........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Suwannee......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Taylor........... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Union............ 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Volusia.......... 9/26/04......... FEMA-1561-DR........ Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Florida.......... Bay.............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Brevard.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Calhoun.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Clay............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Citrus........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Duval............ 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Escambia......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Flagler.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Franklin......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Gadsden.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Gulf............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Highlands........ 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Holmes........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Indian River..... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Jackson.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lake............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lee.............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Leon............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Liberty.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Manatee.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Marion........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Martin........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Okaloosa......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Okeechobee....... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Osceola.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Orange........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Palm Beach....... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Pasco............ 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Polk............. 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Santa Rosa....... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Seminole......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Johns........ 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Lucie........ 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Taylor........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Volusia.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Wakulla.......... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Walton........... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Washington....... 9/16/04......... FEMA-1551-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Florida.......... Alachua.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Baker............ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Bradford......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Brevard.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Broward.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Charlotte........ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Citrus........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Clay............. 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Columbia......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... DeSoto........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Dixie............ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Duval............ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Flagler.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Gilchrist........ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Glades........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hardee........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hendry........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hernando......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Highlands........ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hillsborough..... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Indian River..... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lake............. 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lee.............. 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Levy............. 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Manatee.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Marion........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Martin........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Miami-Dade....... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Nassau........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Okeechobee....... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Orange........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Osceola.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Palm Beach....... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Pasco............ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Pinellas......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Polk............. 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Putnam........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Sarasota......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Seminole......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Johns........ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Lucie........ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Sumter........... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Suwannee......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Union............ 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Volusia.......... 9/04/04......... FEMA-1545-DR........ Hurricane Frances
2004.......................... Florida.......... Brevard.......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Charlotte........ 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Collier.......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... DeSoto........... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Dixie............ 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Duval............ 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Flagler.......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Glades........... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hardee........... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Hendry........... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Highlands........ 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Indian River..... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lake............. 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Lee.............. 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Levy............. 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Manatee.......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Monroe........... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Okeechobee....... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Orange........... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Osceola.......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Pasco............ 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Polk............. 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... St. Johns........ 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Sarasota......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Seminole......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Florida.......... Volusia.......... 8/13/04......... FEMA-1539-DR........ Tropical Storm Bonnie and Hurricane
Charley
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Carroll.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Cherokee......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Clayton.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Cobb............. 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Dade............. 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Dawson........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... DeKalb........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Early............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Forsyth.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Franklin......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Fulton........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Gilmer........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Heard............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Madison.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Miller........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Pickens.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Rabun............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Towns............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Union............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... White............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Georgia.......... Wilkes........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1554-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Illinois......... Kankakee......... 4/23/04......... FEMA-1513-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2004.......................... Illinois......... LaSalle.......... 4/23/04......... FEMA-1513-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2004.......................... Illinois......... Putnam........... 4/23/04......... FEMA-1513-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2004.......................... Illinois......... Will............. 4/23/04......... FEMA-1513-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Adams............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Allen............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Benton........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Boone............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Brown............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Carroll.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Cass............. 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Clark............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Clay............. 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Clinton.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Crawford......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Dearborn......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Decatur.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... DeKalb........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Delaware......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Dubois........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Floyd............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Fountain......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Franklin......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Fulton........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Gibson........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Grant............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Greene........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Hamilton......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Hancock.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Harrison......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Hendricks........ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Henry............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Howard........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Huntington....... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Jackson.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Jasper........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Jefferson........ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Jennings......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Johnson.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Kosciusko........ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Lake............. 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Lawrence......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Madison.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Marion........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Martin........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Miami............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Monroe........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Montgomery....... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Morgan........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Newton........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Noble............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Ohio............. 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Orange........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Owen............. 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Perry............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Pike............. 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Putnam........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Ripley........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Scott............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Shelby........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Spencer.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Switzerland...... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Tippecanoe....... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Tipton........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Vanderburgh...... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Wabash........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Warren........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Warrick.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Washington....... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Wells............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... White............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Indiana.......... Whitley.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1520-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Adair............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Adams............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Allamakee........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Appanoose........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Audubon.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Benton........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Black Hawk....... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Boone............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Bremer........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Buchanan......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Buena Vista...... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Butler........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Calhoun.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Cass............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Cedar............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Cerro Gordo...... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Chickasaw........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Clay............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Clayton.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Clinton.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Dallas........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Davis............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Delaware......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Des Moines....... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Dubuque.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Fayette.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Floyd............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Franklin......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Greene........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Grundy........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Guthrie.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Hamilton......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Hancock.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Henry............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Hardin........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Howard........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Humboldt......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Iowa............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Jackson.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Jasper........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Jones............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Johnson.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Kossuth.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Linn............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Louisa........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Lucas............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Madison.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Marshall......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Mitchell......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Monroe........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Montgomery....... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Muscatine........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Palo Alto........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Pocahontas....... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Polk............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Pottawattamie.... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Poweshiek........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Sac.............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Scott............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Shelby........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Story............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Tama............. 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Wapello.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Warren........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Washington....... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Wayne............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Webster.......... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Winnebago........ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Winneshiek....... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Worth............ 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Iowa............. Wright........... 5/25/04......... FEMA-1518-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Bell............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Bourbon.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Boyd............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Boyle............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Breathitt........ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Breckinridge..... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Bullitt.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Butler........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Caldwell......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Carroll.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Carter........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Casey............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Christian........ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Clark............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Clay............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Crittenden....... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Edmonson......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Elliott.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Estill........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Fayette.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Floyd............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Franklin......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Garrard.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Grayson.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Greenup.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Hardin........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Harlan........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Hart............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Henderson........ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Henry............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Hopkins.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Jackson.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Jefferson........ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Jessamine........ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Johnson.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Knott............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Knox............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Laurel........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Lawrence......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Lee.............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Leslie........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Letcher.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Lincoln.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Madison.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Magoffin......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Martin........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... McLean........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Menifee.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Montgomery....... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Morgan........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Muhlenberg....... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Ohio............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Oldham........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Owen............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Owsley........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Perry............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Pike............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Powell........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Pulaski.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Rockcastle....... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Rowan............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Scott............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Shelby........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Spencer.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Trimble.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Union............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Webster.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Whitely.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Wolfe............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Kentucky......... Woodford......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1523-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Flooding, and
Mudslides
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Lafourche........ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Orleans.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Plaquemines...... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ St. Bernard...... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ St. Charles...... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ St. Tammany...... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Terrebonne....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1548-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Acadia........... 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Iberville........ 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson Davis.. 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Lafayette........ 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Livingston....... 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ Pointe Coupee.... 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ St. Landry....... 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ St. Martin....... 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Louisiana........ West Baton Rouge. 6/08/04......... FEMA-1521-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Massachusetts.... Essex............ 4/21/04......... FEMA-1512-DR........ Severe Winter Storms
2004.......................... Massachusetts.... Middlesex........ 4/21/04......... FEMA-1512-DR........ Severe Winter Storms
2004.......................... Massachusetts.... Norfolk.......... 4/21/04......... FEMA-1512-DR........ Severe Winter Storms
2004.......................... Massachusetts.... Suffolk.......... 4/21/04......... FEMA-1512-DR........ Severe Winter Storms
2004.......................... Massachusetts.... Worcester........ 4/21/04......... FEMA-1512-DR........ Severe Winter Storms
2004.......................... Michigan......... Barry............ 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Berrien.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Cass............. 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Eaton............ 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Genesee.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Gladwin.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Ingham........... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Ionia............ 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Jackson.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Kent............. 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Livingston....... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Macomb........... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Mecosta.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Muskegon......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Oakland.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Ottawa........... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Saginaw.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Sanilac.......... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Shiawassee....... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... St. Clair........ 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... St. Joseph....... 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Washtenaw........ 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Michigan......... Wayne............ 6/30/04......... FEMA-1527-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Dodge............ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Faribault........ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Freeborn......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Martin........... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Mower............ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Olmsted.......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Minnesota........ Steele........... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1569-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Clarke........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... George........... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Hancock.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Harrison......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Jackson.......... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Lauderdale....... 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Perry............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Stone............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Mississippi...... Wayne............ 9/15/04......... FEMA-1550-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... Missouri......... Adair............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Andrew........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Bates............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Benton........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Buchanan......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Caldwell......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Carroll.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Cass............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Cedar............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Chariton......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Clay............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Clinton.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Daviess.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... DeKalb........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Gentry........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Grundy........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Harrison......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Henry............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Hickory.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Jackson.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Johnson.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Knox............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Linn............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Livingston....... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Macon............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Mercer........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Monroe........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Nodaway.......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Platte........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Polk............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Randolph......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Ray.............. 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Shelby........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... St.-Clair........ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Sullivan......... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Vernon........... 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Missouri......... Worth............ 6/10/04......... FEMA-1524-DR........ Severe storms, tornadoes, and flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Adams............ 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Buffalo.......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Butler........... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Cass............. 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Clay............. 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Dodge............ 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Douglas.......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Fillmore......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Franklin......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Gage............. 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Hall............. 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Hamilton......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Jefferson........ 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Johnson.......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Kearney.......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Lancaster........ 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Nuckolls......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Otoe............. 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Pawnee........... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Saline........... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Sarpy............ 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Saunders......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Seward........... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Thayer........... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Washington....... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... Webster.......... 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Nebraska......... York............. 5/23/04......... FEMA-1517-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... New Jersey....... Hunterdon........ 10/01/04........ FEMA-1563-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New Jersey....... Mercer........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1563-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New Jersey....... Sussex........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1563-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New Jersey....... Warren........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1563-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New Jersey....... Burlington....... 7/16/04......... FEMA-1530-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New Jersey....... Camden........... 7/16/04......... FEMA-1530-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Broome........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1565-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New York......... Chenango......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1565-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New York......... Delaware......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1565-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New York......... Orange........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1565-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New York......... Sullivan......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1565-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New York......... Ulster........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1565-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... New York......... Allegany......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Broome........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Cattaraugus...... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Madison.......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Monroe........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Niagara.......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Oneida........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Onondaga......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Orange........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Orleans.......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Steuben.......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Sullivan......... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Ulster........... 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... New York......... Wayne............ 10/01/04........ FEMA-1564-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... North Carolina... Alamance......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Alleghany........ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Ashe............. 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Avery............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Buncombe......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Burke............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Caldwell......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Caswell.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Davidson......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Forsyth.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Graham........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Guilford......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Haywood.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Henderson........ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Jackson.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Macon............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Madison.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... McDowell......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Mitchell......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Polk............. 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Randolph......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Rockingham....... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Rutherford....... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Stokes........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Swain............ 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Transylvania..... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Watauga.......... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Wilkes........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Yancey........... 9/18/04......... FEMA-1553-DR........ Hurricane Ivan
2004.......................... North Carolina... Alleghany........ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Alexander........ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Ashe............. 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Avery............ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Bladen........... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Buncombe......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Burke............ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Cabarrus......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Caldwell......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Catawba.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Cleveland........ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Columbus......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Cumberland....... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Gaston........... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Haywood.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Henderson........ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Jackson.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Hoke............. 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Iredell.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Lincoln.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Madison.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... McDowell......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Mecklenburg...... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Mitchell......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Polk............. 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Robeson.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Rutherford....... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Scotland......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Transylvania..... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Union............ 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Watauga.......... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Wilkes........... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... North Carolina... Yancey........... 9/10/04......... FEMA-1546-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... Northern Mariana Rota............. 8/26/04......... FEMA-1541-DR........ Flooding, High Surf, Storm Surge, and High
Islands. Winds as a result of Super Typhoon Chaba
2004.......................... Northern Mariana Saipan........... 8/26/04......... FEMA-1541-DR........ Flooding, High Surf, Storm Surge, and High
Islands. Winds as a result of Super Typhoon Chaba
2004.......................... Northern Mariana Tinian........... 8/26/04......... FEMA-1541-DR........ Flooding, High Surf, Storm Surge, and High
Islands. Winds as a result of Super Typhoon Chaba
2004.......................... Northern Mariana Rota............. 7/29/04......... FEMA-1532-DR........ Flooding, High Surf, High Winds, and Wind-
Islands. DRiven Rain associated with Typhoon
Tingting
2004.......................... Northern Mariana Saipan........... 7/29/04......... FEMA-1532-DR........ Flooding, High Surf, High Winds, and Wind-
Islands. DRiven Rain associated with Typhoon
Tingting
2004.......................... Northern Mariana Tinian........... 7/29/04......... FEMA-1532-DR........ Flooding, High Surf, High Winds, and Wind-
Islands. DRiven Rain associated with Typhoon
Tingting
2004.......................... Ohio............. Athens........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Belmont.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Carroll.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Columbiana....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Gallia........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Guernsey......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Harrison......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Jefferson........ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Lawrence......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Mahoning......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Meigs............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Monroe........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Morgan........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Muskingum........ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Noble............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Perry............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Stark............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Trumbull......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Tuscarawas....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Vinton........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Washington....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1556-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Athens........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Carroll.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Columbiana....... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Crawford......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Cuyahoga......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Delaware......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Geauga........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Guernsey......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Harrison......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Hocking.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Holmes........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Licking.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Logan............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Lorain........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Mahoning......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Medina........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Noble............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Perry............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Portage.......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Richland......... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Stark............ 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Summit........... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Tuscarawas....... 6/03/04......... FEMA-1519-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Ohio............. Belmont.......... 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Franklin......... 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Jefferson........ 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Licking.......... 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Morgan........... 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Ross............. 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Tuscarawas....... 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Ohio............. Washington....... 1/26/04......... FEMA-1507-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Allegheny........ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Armstrong........ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Beaver........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bedford.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Blair............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bradford......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bucks............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Butler........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Cameron.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Carbon........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Centre........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Chester.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Clarion.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Clearfield....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Clinton.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Columbia......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Crawford......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Cumberland....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Dauphin.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Delaware......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Elk.............. 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Franklin......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Fulton........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Green............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Huntingdon....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Indiana.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Jefferson........ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Juniata.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lackawanna....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lawrence......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lebanon.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lehigh........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Luzerne.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lycoming......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Mifflin.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Monroe........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Montgomery....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Montour.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Northampton...... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Northumberland... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Perry............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Philadelphia..... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Pike............. 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Potter........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Schuylkill....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Snyder........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Somerset......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Sullivan......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Susquehanna...... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Tioga............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Union............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Washington....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wayne............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Westmoreland..... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wyoming.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... York............. 9/19/04......... FEMA-1557-DR........ Tropical Depression Ivan
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Beaver........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bedford.......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Blair............ 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Butler........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Crawford......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Erie............. 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Huntingdon....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lawrence......... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Warren........... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Washington....... 9/19/04......... FEMA-1555-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding associated with
Tropical Depression Frances
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Delaware......... 8/06/04......... FEMA-1538-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Montgomery....... 8/06/04......... FEMA-1538-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Pennsylvania..... Philadelphia..... 8/06/04......... FEMA-1538-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Aguada........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Aguadilla........ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Aguas............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Buenas........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Aibonito......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Aoasco........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Arecibo.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Arroyo........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Barceloneta...... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Barranquitas..... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Bayamon.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Caguas........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Camuy............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Canovanas........ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Carolina......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Cataoo........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Cayey............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Ceiba............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Ciales........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Cidra............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Coamo............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Comeroo.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Corozal.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Dorado........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Fajardo.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Florida.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Guayama.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Gurabo........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Hatillo.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Humacao.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Isabela.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Juana Doaz....... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Juncos........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Lares............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Las Piedras...... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Looza............ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Manato........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Maunabo.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Moca............. 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Morovis.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Naguabo.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Naranjito........ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Orocovis......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Patillas......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Quebradillas..... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Rincon........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Roo Grande....... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Salinas.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... San Lorenzo...... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... San Sebastian.... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Santa Isabel..... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Toa Alta......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Toa Baja......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Utuado........... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Vega Alta........ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Vega Baja........ 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Villalba......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Vieques.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... Puerto Rico...... Yabucoa.......... 9/17/04......... FEMA-1552-DR........ Tropical Storm Jeanne and resulting
landslides and mudslides
2004.......................... South Carolina... Berkeley......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Calhoun.......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Charleston....... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Cherokee......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Chester.......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Chesterfield..... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Clarendon........ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Darlington....... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Dillon........... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Fairfield........ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Florence......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Georgetown....... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Greenville....... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Horry............ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Kershaw.......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Lancaster........ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Lee.............. 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Lexington........ 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Marion........... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Marlboro......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Newberry......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Oconee........... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Pickens.......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Richland......... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Spartanburg...... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Sumter........... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... Williamsburg..... 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... South Carolina... York............. 10/07/04........ FEMA-1566-DR........ Tropical Storm Frances
2004.......................... Virginia......... Alleghany........ 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Botetourt........ 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Craig............ 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Floyd............ 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Giles............ 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Montgomery....... 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Patrick.......... 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Roanoke.......... 10/18/04........ FEMA-1570-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding from the
remnants of Hurricane Jeanne
2004.......................... Virginia......... Chesterfield..... 9/03/04......... FEMA-1544-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
associated with Tropical Depression
Gaston
2004.......................... Virginia......... Dinwiddie........ 9/03/04......... FEMA-1544-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
associated with Tropical Depression
Gaston
2004.......................... Virginia......... Hanover.......... 9/03/04......... FEMA-1544-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
associated with Tropical Depression
Gaston
2004.......................... Virginia......... Henrico.......... 9/03/04......... FEMA-1544-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
associated with Tropical Depression
Gaston
2004.......................... Virginia......... Prince George.... 9/03/04......... FEMA-1544-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Tornadoes
associated with Tropical Depression
Gaston
2004.......................... Virginia......... Buchanan......... 6/15/04......... FEMA-1525-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Virginia......... Lee.............. 6/15/04......... FEMA-1525-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Virginia......... Russell.......... 6/15/04......... FEMA-1525-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... Virginia......... Tazewell......... 6/15/04......... FEMA-1525-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Berkeley......... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Brooke........... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Cabell........... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Hancock.......... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Jackson.......... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Kanawha.......... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Lincoln.......... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Logan............ 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Marshall......... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Mason............ 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Mingo............ 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Morgan........... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Ohio............. 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Pleasants........ 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Tyler............ 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wayne............ 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wetzel........... 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wirt............. 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wood............. 9/20/04......... FEMA-1558-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Fayette.......... 8/06/04......... FEMA-1536-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Lincoln.......... 8/06/04......... FEMA-1536-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Logan............ 8/06/04......... FEMA-1536-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Mingo............ 8/06/04......... FEMA-1536-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Boone............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Braxton.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Cabell........... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Calhoun.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Clay............. 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Fayette.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Gilmer........... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Jackson.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Kanawha.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Lewis............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Lincoln.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Logan............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Mason............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... McDowell......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Mercer........... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Mingo............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Nicholas......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Putnam........... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Raleigh.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Roane............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wayne............ 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Webster.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wirt............. 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... West Virginia.... Wyoming.......... 6/07/04......... FEMA-1522-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding and Landslides
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Clark............ 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Columbia......... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Crawford......... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Dodge............ 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Fond du Lac...... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Grant............ 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Green Lake....... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Jefferson........ 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Kenosha.......... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Ozaukee.......... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Vernon........... 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2004.......................... Wisconsin........ Winnebago........ 6/19/04......... FEMA-1526-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Baldwin.......... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1593-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Baldwin.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Escambia......... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1593-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Greene........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Hale............. 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Marengo.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Mobile........... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1593-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Mobile........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Pickens.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Tuscaloosa....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Alabama.......... Washington....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1605-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... California....... Kern............. 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... Los Angeles...... 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... Orange........... 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... Riverside........ 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... San Bernardino... 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... San Diego,....... 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... Santa Barbara.... 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... California....... Ventura.......... 2/04/05......... FEMA-1577........... Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Florida.......... Bay.............. 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Brevard.......... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Broward.......... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Collier.......... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Dixie............ 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Escambia......... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Franklin......... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Glades........... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Gulf............. 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Hendry........... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Indian River..... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Lee.............. 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Martin........... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Miami-Dade....... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Monroe........... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Okaloosa......... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Okeechobee....... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Palm Beach....... 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Santa Rosa....... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... St. Lucie........ 10/24/05........ FEMA-1609-DR........ Hurricane Wilma
2005.......................... Florida.......... Taylor........... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Wakulla.......... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Florida.......... Walton........... 7/10/05......... FEMA-1595-DR........ Hurricane Dennis
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Adams............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Allen............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Bartholomew...... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Benton........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Blackford........ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Boone............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Brown............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Carroll.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Cass............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Clark............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Clay............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Clinton.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Crawford......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Daviess.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Dearborn......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Decatur.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... DeKalb........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Delaware......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Dubois........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Elkhart.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Fayette.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Floyd............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Fountain......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Franklin......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Fulton........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Gibson........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Grant............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Greene........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Hamilton......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Hancock.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Harrison......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Hendricks........ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Henry............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Howard........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Huntington....... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Jackson.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Jasper........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Jay.............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Jennings......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Johnson.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Knox............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Kosciusko........ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Lake............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Laporte.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Lawrence......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Madison.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Marion........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Marshall......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Martin........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Miami............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Monroe........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Montgomery....... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Morgan........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Newton........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Noble............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Orange........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Owen............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Parke............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Pike............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Porter........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Posey............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Pulaski.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Putnam........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Randolph......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Ripley........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Rush............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Scott............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Shelby........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... St. Joseph....... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Starke........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Sullivan......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Tippecanoe....... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Tipton........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Union............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Vanderburgh...... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Vanderburgh...... 11/08/05........ FEMA-1612-DR........ Tornado and Severe Storms
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Vermillion....... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Vigo............. 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Wabash........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Warren........... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Warrick.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Warrick.......... 11/08/05........ FEMA-1612-DR........ Tornado and Severe Storms
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Washington....... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Wayne............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Wells............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... White............ 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Indiana.......... Whitley.......... 1/21/05......... FEMA-1573........... Severe Winter Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Kentucky......... Hopkins.......... 12/01/05........ FEMA-1617-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2005.......................... Kentucky......... Marshall......... 12/01/05........ FEMA-1617-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Acadia........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Acadia........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Allen............ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Ascension........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Ascension........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Assumption....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Beauregard....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Calcasieu........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Calcasieu........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Cameron.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Cameron.......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ East Baton Rouge. 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ East Feliciana... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Evangeline....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Iberia........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Iberia........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Iberville........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson Davies. 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson Davis.. 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Lafayette........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Lafayette........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Lafourche........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Lafourche........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Livingston....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Livingston....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Orleans.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Plaquemines...... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Plaquemines...... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Pointe Coupee.... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Sabine........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Bernard...... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Charles...... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Helena....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. James........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. John......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Landry....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Martin....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Martin....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Mary......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Mary......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ St. Tammany...... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Tangipahoa, 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
Terrebonne,
Vermilion,
Washington, West
Baton Rouge, and
West Feliciana.
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Terrebonne....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Terrebonne....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Vermilion........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Vermilion........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Vernon........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ Washington....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ West Baton Rouge. 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Louisiana........ West Baton Rouge. 9/24/05......... FEMA-1607-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Louisiana........ West Feliciana... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1603-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Berkshire........ 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Bristol.......... 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Franklin......... 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Hampden.......... 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Hampshire........ 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Middlesex........ 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Norfolk.......... 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Plymouth......... 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Massachusetts.... Worcester........ 11/10/05........ FEMA-1614-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Adams............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Amite............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Attala........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Choctaw.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Claiborne........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Clarke........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Copiah........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Covington........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Forrest.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Franklin......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... George........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Greene........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Hancock.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Harrison......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Hinds............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Holmes........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Humphreys........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Jackson.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Jasper........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Jefferson........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Jefferson Davis.. 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Jones............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Kemper........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Lamar............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Lauderdale....... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Lawrence......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Leake............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Lincoln.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Lowndes.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Madison.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Marion........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Neshoba.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Newton........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Noxubee.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Oktibbeha........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Pearl River...... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Perry............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Pike............. 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Rankin........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Scott............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Simpson.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Smith............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Stone............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Walthall......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Warren........... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Wayne............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Wilkinson........ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Winston.......... 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... Mississippi...... Yazoo............ 8/29/05......... FEMA-1604-DR........ Hurricane Katrina
2005.......................... New Hampshire.... Cheshire......... 10/26/05........ FEMA-1610-DR........ Severe Storms and Floodign
2005.......................... New Hampshire.... Grafton.......... 10/26/05........ FEMA-1610-DR........ Severe Storms and Floodign
2005.......................... New Hampshire.... Hillsborough..... 10/26/05........ FEMA-1610-DR........ Severe Storms and Floodign
2005.......................... New Hampshire.... Merrimack........ 10/26/05........ FEMA-1610-DR........ Severe Storms and Floodign
2005.......................... New Hampshire.... Sullivan......... 10/26/05........ FEMA-1610-DR........ Severe Storms and Floodign
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Bergen........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Essex............ 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Gloucester....... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Hunterdon........ 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Mercer........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Morris........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Passaic.......... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Sussex........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New Jersey....... Warren........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1588-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Broome........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Chenango......... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Cortland......... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Delaware......... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Orange........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Rensselaer....... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Schenectady...... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Schoharie........ 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Sullivan......... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Tioga............ 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... New York......... Ulster........... 4/19/05......... FEMA-1589-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Ashland.......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Athens........... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Auglaize......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Belmont.......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Clark............ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Coshocton........ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Crawford......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Delaware......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Franklin......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Henry............ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Huron............ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Jefferson........ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Logan............ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Miami............ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Morgan........... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Muskingum........ 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Pickaway......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Pike............. 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Ross............. 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Scioto........... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Warren........... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Washington....... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Ohio............. Wyandot.......... 2/15/05......... FEMA-1580........... Severe Winter Storms, Heavy Rains, and
Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bradford......... 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bucks............ 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Columbia......... 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Luzerne.......... 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Monroe........... 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Northampton...... 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Pike............. 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wayne............ 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wyoming.......... 4/14/05......... FEMA-1587-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2005.......................... Texas............ Angelina......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Brazoria......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Chambers......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Fort Bend........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Galveston........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Hardin........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Harris........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Jasper........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Jefferson........ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Liberty.......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Montgomery....... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Nacogdoches...... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Newton........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Orange........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Polk............. 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Sabine........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ San Augustine.... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ San Jacinto...... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Shelby........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Trinity.......... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Tyler............ 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Texas............ Walker........... 9/24/05......... FEMA-1606-DR........ Hurricane Rita
2005.......................... Wyoming.......... Campbell......... 8/12/05......... FEMA-1599-DR........ Tornado
2006.......................... Arkansas......... Conway........... 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Arkansas......... Cross............ 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Arkansas......... Fulton........... 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Arkansas......... Greene........... 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Arkansas......... Lawrence......... 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Arkansas......... Randolph......... 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Arkansas......... White............ 4/13/06......... FEMA-1636-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... California....... Contra Costa..... 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Del Norte........ 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Lake............. 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Marin............ 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Mendocino........ 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Napa............. 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Sacramento....... 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Siskiyou......... 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Solano........... 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... California....... Sonoma........... 2/03/06......... FEMA-1628-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and
Landslides
2006.......................... Hawaii........... Hawaii........... 10/17/06........ FEMA-1664-DR........ Earthquake
2006.......................... Hawaii........... Honolulu......... 5/02/06......... FEMA-1640-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Hawaii........... Kauai............ 5/02/06......... FEMA-1640-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Illinois......... Sangamon......... 3/28/06......... FEMA-1633-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Indiana.......... Lake............. 10/06/06........ FEMA-1662-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Indiana.......... Vanderburgh...... 10/06/06........ FEMA-1662-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Indiana.......... Warrick.......... 10/06/06........ FEMA-1662-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Allen............ 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Beauregard....... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Calcasieu........ 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Caldwell......... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Franklin......... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Grant............ 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Jefferson Davis.. 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ LaSalle.......... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Madison.......... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Morehouse........ 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Natchitoches..... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Richland......... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Sabine........... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ St. Helena....... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ St. Landry....... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Vernon........... 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Louisiana........ Winn............. 11/02/06........ FEMA-1668-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Maine............ York............. 5/25/06......... FEMA-1644-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Massachusetts.... Essex............ 5/25/06......... FEMA-1642-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Massachusetts.... Middlesex........ 5/25/06......... FEMA-1642-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Massachusetts.... Suffolk.......... 5/25/06......... FEMA-1642-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Andrew........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Benton........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Boone............ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Butler........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Carroll.......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Cass............. 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Cedar............ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Christian........ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Cooper........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Dunklin.......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Greene........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Henry............ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Hickory.......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Iron............. 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Johnson.......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Lawrence......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Lincoln.......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Mississippi...... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Monroe........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Morgan........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... New Madrid....... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Newton........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Pemiscot......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Perry............ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Pettis........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Pettis........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Phelps........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Putnam........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Randolph......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Saline........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Scott............ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... St. Clair........ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... St. Francois..... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Ste. Genevieve... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Stoddard......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1635-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Taney............ 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Vernon........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Webster.......... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... Missouri......... Wright........... 3/16/06......... FEMA-1631-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, and Flooding
2006.......................... New Hampshire.... Belknap.......... 5/25/06......... FEMA-1643-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Hampshire.... Carroll.......... 5/25/06......... FEMA-1643-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Hampshire.... Hillsborough..... 5/25/06......... FEMA-1643-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Hampshire.... Merrimack........ 5/25/06......... FEMA-1643-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Hampshire.... Rockingham....... 5/25/06......... FEMA-1643-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Hampshire.... Strafford........ 5/25/06......... FEMA-1643-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Jersey....... Hunterdon........ 7/07/06......... FEMA-1653-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Jersey....... Mercer........... 7/07/06......... FEMA-1653-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Jersey....... Warren........... 7/07/06......... FEMA-1653-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Mexico....... Dona Ana......... 8/30/06......... FEMA-1659-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New Mexico....... Otero............ 8/30/06......... FEMA-1659-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Broome........... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Chenango......... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Delaware......... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Erie............. 10/24/06........ FEMA-1665-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Genesee.......... 10/24/06........ FEMA-1665-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Herkimer......... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Montgomery....... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Niagara.......... 10/24/06........ FEMA-1665-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Oneida........... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Orange........... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Orleans.......... 10/24/06........ FEMA-1665-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Otsego........... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Schoharie........ 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Sullivan......... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Tioga............ 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... New York......... Ulster........... 7/01/06......... FEMA-1650-DR........ Severe Storms and Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Ashtabula........ 8/01/06......... FEMA-1656-DR........ Severe Storms, Straight Line Winds, and
Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Cuyahoga......... 7/02/06......... FEMA-1651-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line
Winds, and Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Erie............. 7/02/06......... FEMA-1651-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line
Winds, and Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Geauga........... 8/01/06......... FEMA-1656-DR........ Severe Storms, Straight Line Winds, and
Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Huron............ 7/02/06......... FEMA-1651-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line
Winds, and Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Lake............. 8/01/06......... FEMA-1656-DR........ Severe Storms, Straight Line Winds, and
Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Lucas............ 7/02/06......... FEMA-1651-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line
Winds, and Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Sandusky......... 7/02/06......... FEMA-1651-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line
Winds, and Flooding
2006.......................... Ohio............. Stark............ 7/02/06......... FEMA-1651-DR........ Severe Storms, Tornadoes, Straight Line
Winds, and Flooding
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Canadian......... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Cotton........... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Delaware......... 4/13/06......... FEMA-1637-DR........ Severe Storms and Tornadoes
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Garvin........... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Hughes........... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Lincoln.......... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Logan............ 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Mayes............ 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Okfuskee......... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Oklahoma......... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Pottawatomie..... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Seminole......... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Oklahoma......... Stephens......... 1/10/06......... FEMA-1623-DR........ Severe Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Berks............ 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Bradford......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Carbon........... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Chester.......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Dauphin.......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Franklin......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lackawanna....... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lancaster........ 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Lebanon.......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Luzerne.......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Monroe........... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Montgomery....... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Montour.......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Pike............. 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Schuylkill....... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Susquehanna...... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wayne............ 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Pennsylvania..... Wyoming.......... 6/30/06......... FEMA-1649-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, and Mudslides
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Benton........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Cannon........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Carroll.......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Cheatham......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Cumberland....... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Davidson......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Dickson.......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Dyer............. 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Fayette.......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Gibson........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Haywood.......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Maury............ 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Sumner........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Warren........... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Tennessee........ Weakley.......... 4/05/06......... FEMA-1634-DR........ Tornadoes and Severe Storms
2006.......................... Texas............ Callahan......... 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Cooke............ 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Eastland......... 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Erath............ 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Hood............. 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Kerr............. 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Montague......... 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Palo Pinto....... 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Potter........... 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Tarrant.......... 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ Wise............. 1/11/06......... FEMA-1624-DR........ Extreme Wildfire Threat
2006.......................... Texas............ El Paso.......... 8/15/06......... FEMA-1658-DR........ Flooding
2006.......................... Washington....... Clark............ 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Cowlitz.......... 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Grays Harbor..... 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... King............. 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Lewis............ 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Pierce........... 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Skagit........... 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Skamania......... 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Snohomish........ 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Thurston......... 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
2006.......................... Washington....... Wahkiakum........ 12/12/06........ FEMA-1671-DR........ Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and
Mudslides
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH (EPPB) DISASTER DESIGNATION REQUESTS: SECRETARIAL
[Fiscal Year 2002--Secretarial Designations for Production Losses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning date Ending date of Approved by Termination Designation
State Counties requested of disaster disaster secretary date number Description of disaster Primary Contiguous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY............................. Albany, Columbia, 4-15-2001....... 6-20-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1564........ Albany: Hail, excessive rain; 6 12
Dutchess, Columbia: Hail, high winds;
Niagara, Orange, Dutchess: Hail; Niagara:
Ulster. Flooding, hail; Orange: Drought;
Ulster: Hail; Ulster: Hail, high
winds.
CT............................. .................. 6-03-2001....... 6-03-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1564........ Hail.............................. ....... 2
MA............................. .................. 5-28-2001....... 6-20-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1564........ Hail, high winds.................. ....... 1
OR............................. Jackson........... 9-01-2000....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 12-18-2001..... S1565........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
OR............................. Josephine......... 9-01-2000....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 2-14-2002...... S1565........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
OR............................. Union............. 9-01-2000....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1565........ Drought........................... 1 4
TN............................. Anderson, 1-01-2001....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, excessive heat, insect 13 28
Campbell, infestation, hail, excessive
Carroll, Carter, rain, freezing conditions.
Crockett, Dyer,
Giles, Greene,
Hancock, Johnson,
Maury, Obion,
Weakley.
AL............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 2
AR............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 1
KY............................. .................. 3-15-2001....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, insect infestation, ....... 5
excessive heat.
MO............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 1
NC............................. .................. 3-15-2001....... 6-15-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 4
VA............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-16-2002...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1566........ Drought, excessive heat, hail, ....... 5
excessive rain.
WA............................. Chelan............ 6-26-2001....... 6-27-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1567........ Severe storms with damaging wind, 1 3
rain, hail.
WA............................. Douglas, 6-26-2001....... 6-27-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 4-23-2002...... S1567........ Severe storms with damaging wind, 3 ..........
Klickitat, Walla rain, hail.
Walla.
OR............................. .................. 6-26-2001....... 6-27-2001...... 10-16-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1567........ Severe storms with damaging wind, ....... 4
rain, hail.
CA............................. Madera............ 4-04-2001....... 4-20-2001...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1568........ Freezing temperatures, hailstorms. 1 5
CA............................. Mendocino......... 1-01-2001....... 7-30-2001...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1569........ (1) Freezing temperatures;....... 1 4
(2) severe heat;..................
(3) Unseasonable rainfall;........
(4) Drought.......................
CO............................. Eagle,Garfield, 7-09-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1570........ Drought........................... 3 8
Pitkin.
UT............................. .................. 7-09-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1570........ Drought........................... ....... 2
KS............................. Atchison, Greeley, 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1571........ Drought, excessive rains, flash 13 28
Hamilton, flooding, tornadoes, hail,
Jefferson, repeated excessive winds.
Jewell, Kearny,
Kingman, Lane,
Leavenworth,
Logan, Morton,
Scott, Wichita.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1571........ Drought, excessive rains, flash ....... 4
flooding, tornadoes, hail,
repeated excessive winds.
MO............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1571........ Drought, excessive rains, flash ....... 2
flooding, tornadoes, hail,
repeated excessive winds.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1571........ Drought, excessive rains, flash ....... 2
flooding, tornadoes, hail,
repeated excessive winds.
NE............................. Holt.............. 7-03-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1572........ Storms, hail...................... 1 8
OK............................. All counties 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... 75 2
except Choctaw,
McCurtain.
AR............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... ....... 6
CO............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... ....... 1
KS............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... ....... 14
MO............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... ....... 2
NM............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1573........ Drought........................... ....... 18
OR............................. Baker............. 9-01-2000....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-17-2002...... S1574........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
OR............................. Gilliam........... 9-01-2000....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1574........ Drought........................... 1 2
ID............................. .................. 9-01-2000....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1574........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. Cottle............ 7-23-2001....... 7-23-2001...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1575........ Fire, excessive temperatures...... 1 7
UT............................. Beaver, Box Elder, 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and 23 6
Cache, Carbon, Mormon Cricket infestation;.
Davis, Emery, (2) Freezing temperatures, high
Iron, Juab, Kane, winds.
Millard, Morgan,
Piute, Rich, San
Juan, Sanpete,
Sevier, Summit,
Tooele, Utah,
Wasatch,
Washington,
Wayne, Weber.
AZ............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and ....... 4
Mormon Cricket infestation;.
(2) Freezing temperatures, high
winds.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and ....... 5
Mormon Cricket infestation;
Freezing temperatures, high winds.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and ....... 1
Mormon Cricket infestation;
Freezing temperatures, high winds.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and ....... 1
Mormon Cricket infestation;
Freezing temperatures, high winds.
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and ....... 3
Mormon Cricket infestation;
Freezing temperatures, high winds.
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 4-25-2002...... 10-25-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1576........ (1) Drought, Grasshopper and ....... 3
Mormon Cricket infestation;.
(2) Freezing temperatures, high
winds.
OR............................. Morrow............ 9-01-2000....... 4-29-2002...... 10-29-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1577........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
WA............................. .................. 9-01-2000....... 4-29-2002...... 10-29-2001..... 6-29-2002...... S1577........ Drought........................... ....... 1
NY............................. Saratoga.......... 4-01-2001....... 5-28-2001...... 10-29-2001..... 6-29-2002...... S1578........ Low rainfall (Drought), hail, 1 8
lightning.
WY............................. Lincoln, 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... 2 1
Sweetwater.
WY............................. Big Horn, 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 1-29-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... 4 2
Campbell, Park,
Sheridan.
WY............................. Fremont, Hot 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 7-01-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... 6 4
Springs, Johnson,
Natrona,
Sublette,
Washakie, Wind
River Indian
Reservation.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 7-01-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... ....... 1
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... ....... 1
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 7-01-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... ....... 2
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 1-29-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... ....... 4
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-01-2002...... 11-01-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1579........ Drought, wildfire conditions...... ....... 3
OH............................. Brown, Clermont, 5-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2002...... S1580........ Extreme weather conditions with 12 24
Defiance, Fulton, excessive rain, flooding,
Gallia, Hancock, armyworms.
Jackson, Ottawa,
Paulding, Putnam,
Vinton, Wyandot.
IN............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2002...... S1580........ Extreme weather conditions with ....... 2
excessive rain, flooding,
armyworms.
KY............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2002...... S1580........ Extreme weather conditions with ....... 4
excessive rain, flooding,
armyworms.
WV............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2002...... S1580........ Extreme weather conditions with ....... 2
excessive rain, flooding,
armyworms.
LA............................. Acadia, Avoyelles, 8-27-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1581........ Excessive rainfall, high humidity. 32 17
Beauregard,
Bossier, Caddo,
Caldwell,
Cameron,
Catahoula,
Concordia, De
Soto, East
Carroll,
Evangeline,
Franklin, Grant,
Iberville,
Jefferson Davis,
La Salle,
Madison,
Morehouse,
Natchitoches,
Ouachita, Pointe
Coupee, Rapides,
Red River,
Richland, St.
Landry, St.
Martin, Tensas,
Vermilion,
Vernon, West
Baton Rouge, West
Carroll.
AR............................. .................. 8-27-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1581........ Excessive rainfall, high humidity. ....... 5
MS............................. .................. 8-27-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1581........ Excessive rainfall, high humidity. ....... 6
TX............................. .................. 8-27-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1581........ Excessive rainfall, high humidity. ....... 8
TX............................. Bee, San Patricio. 5-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1582........ Drought........................... 2 7
WA............................. Chelan............ 6-08-2001....... 6-08-2001...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1583........ Hailstorm......................... 1 6
WA............................. Lincoln........... 5-21-2001....... 5-24-2001...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1583........ Freeze............................ 1 7
WA............................. Asotin, Benton, 1-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1583........ Drought........................... 6 14
Douglas,
Klickitat,
Lincoln, Stevens.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1583........ Drought........................... ....... 1
OR............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-02-2002...... 11-02-2001..... 7-02-2001...... S1583........ Drought........................... ....... 7
MI............................. Jackson, Lake, 5-15-2001....... 5-17-2001...... 11-09-2001..... 7-09-2002...... S1584........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 4 13
Mason, Oceana. hail.
MI............................. Allegan, Berrien, 5-12-2001....... 5-31-2001...... 11-09-2001..... 7-09-2002...... S1584........ Frost, freezing temperatures, 5 6
Cass, Kalamazoo, cooler than normal temperatures.
Van Buren.
IN............................. .................. 5-12-2001....... 5-31-2001...... 11-09-2001..... 7-09-2002...... S1584........ Frost, freezing temperatures, ....... 3
cooler than normal temperatures.
TX............................. Borden, Brown, 1-01-2001....... 5-26-2002...... 11-26-2001..... 7-26-2002...... S1585........ Drought........................... 10 40
Concho, Dimmit,
Duval, Gaines,
Mitchell,
Runnels, Tom
Green, Wilbarger.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-26-2002...... 11-26-2001..... 7-26-2002...... S1585........ Drought........................... ....... 1
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 5-26-2002...... 11-26-2001..... 7-26-2002...... S1585........ Drought........................... ....... 2
CA............................. Lassen............ 1-01-2001....... 5-29-2002...... 11-29-2001..... 7-29-2002...... S1586........ Drought, excessive temperatures... 1 1
MI............................. Alcona, Alger, 6-12-2001....... 8-17-2001...... 11-29-2001..... 7-29-2002...... S1587........ Drought........................... 72 10
Alpena, Antrim,
Arenac, Bay,
Benzie, Berrien,
Cass, Charlevoix,
Cheboygan,
Chippewa, Clare,
Clinton, Delta,
Dickinson, Emmet,
Genesee, Gladwin,
Grand Traverse,
Gratiot,
Hillsdale, Huron,
Ingham, Ionia,
Iosco, Iron,
Isabella,
Jackson,
Kalamazoo,
Kalkaska, Kent,
Lake, Lapeer,
Leelanau,
Lenawee,
Livingston, Luce,
Mackinac, Macomb,
Manistee,
Marquette, Mason,
Mecosta,
Menominee,
Midland,
Missaukee,
Monroe, Montcalm,
Montmorency,
Muskegon,
Newaygo, Oakland,
Oceana, Ogemaw,
Osceola, Oscoda,
Otsego, Ottawa,
Presque Isle,
Roscommon,
Saginaw, Sanilac,
Schoolcraft,
Shiawassee, St.
Clair, St.
Joseph, Tuscola,
Van Buren,
Washtenaw, Wayne,
Wexford.
IN............................. .................. 6-12-2001....... 8-17-2001...... 11-29-2001..... 7-29-2002...... S1587........ Drought........................... ....... 5
OH............................. .................. 6-12-2001....... 8-17-2001...... 11-29-2001..... 7-29-2002...... S1587........ Drought........................... ....... 4
WI............................. .................. 6-12-2001....... 8-17-2001...... 11-29-2001..... 7-29-2002...... S1587........ Drought........................... ....... 4
TX............................. Glasscock, Howard, 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1588........ Drought, excessive temperatures 5 16
Jim Hogg, (heat), high winds, low humidity.
Kleberg, Zapata.
TX............................. Collingsworth..... 6-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1589........ Drought; Lightning, wildfires..... 1 5
OK............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1589........ Drought; Lightning, wildfires..... ....... 2
TX............................. Hardeman, Maverick 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 7-26-2002...... S1590........ .................................. 2 10
TX............................. Childress, Cottle, 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1590........ Drought, excessive heat........... 5 15
Hidalgo, Kent,
Starr.
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1590........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 2
PA............................. Adams, Allegheny, 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1591........ Drought........................... 44 14
Armstrong,
Beaver, Bedford,
Berks, Blair,
Butler, Cambria,
Centre, Clinton,
Chester, Clarion,
Clearfield,
Columbia,
Cumberland,
Dauphin, Elk,
Erie, Forest,
Franklin, Fulton,
Huntingdon,
Indiana,
Jefferson,
Juniata,
Lancaster,
Lawrence,
Lebanon,
Lycoming, Mercer,
Mifflin, Montour,
Northumberland,
Perry,
Schuylkill,
Snyder, Somerset,
Union, Venango,
Warren,
Washington,
Westmoreland,
York.
DE............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1591........ Drought........................... ....... 1
MD............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1591........ Drought........................... ....... 8
NY............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1591........ Drought........................... ....... 2
OH............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1591........ Drought........................... ....... 4
WV............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 6-05-2002...... 12-05-2001..... 8-05-2002...... S1591........ Drought........................... ....... 4
TX............................. Austin, Burleson, 8-20-2001....... 9-19-2001...... 12-13-2001..... 8-13-2002...... S1592........ Excessive rain, flooding, flash 9 21
Chambers, flooding.
Colorado, Fort
Bend, Goliad,
Jefferson,
Matagorda,
Wharton.
LA............................. .................. 8-20-2001....... 9-19-2001...... 12-13-2001..... 8-13-2002...... S1592........ Excessive rain, flooding, flash ....... 1
flooding.
TX............................. Cottle............ 9-20-2001....... 9-20-2001...... 12-13-2001..... 8-13-2002...... S1593........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
hail, high winds.
TX............................. Floyd............. 6-01-2001....... 6-05-2001...... 12-13-2001..... 8-13-2002...... S1594........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
flooding, high winds, hail,
lightning, tornado.
TX............................. Uvalde............ 5-24-2001....... 5-24-2001...... 12-13-2001..... 8-13-2002...... S1595........ High wind, hail................... 1 8
TX............................. Wilson............ 5-20-2001....... 5-20-2001...... 12-13-2001..... 8-13-2002...... S1596........ Extreme amount of hail, high winds 1 5
ID............................. Franklin, Oneida.. 1-01-2001....... 6-18-2002...... 12-18-2001..... 6-25-2002...... S1597........ Drought, heat..................... 2 ..........
ID............................. Camas, Power...... 1-01-2001....... 6-18-2002...... 12-18-2001..... 8-19-2002...... S1597........ Drought, heat..................... 2 6
ME............................. Androscoggin, 6-01-2001....... 9-10-2001...... 12-20-2001..... 8-20-2002...... S1598........ Armyworm infestation.............. 12 4
Cumberland,
Kennebec,
Lincoln, Oxford,
Penobscot,
Piscataquis,
Sagadahoc,
Somerset, Waldo,
Washington, York.
NH............................. .................. 6-01-2001....... 9-10-2001...... 12-20-2001..... 8-20-2002...... S1598........ Armyworm infestation.............. ....... 4
PA............................. Erie.............. 7-04-2001....... 7-03-2002...... 1-03-2002...... 9-03-2002...... S1599........ Storms with high winds, excessive 1 2
hail.
NY............................. .................. 7-04-2001....... 7-03-2002...... 1-03-2002...... 9-03-2002...... S1599........ Storms with high winds, excessive ....... 1
hail.
OH............................. .................. 7-04-2001....... 7-03-2002...... 1-03-2002...... 9-03-2002...... S1599........ Storms with high winds, excessive ....... 1
hail.
NM............................. Chaves, Eddy, 1-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1600........ Drought........................... 3 5
Otero.
TX............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1600........ Drought........................... ....... 5
AR............................. Ashley, Chicot, 8-31-2001....... 9-07-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1601........ Excessive rain.................... 6 10
Columbia, Desha,
Drew, Lafayette.
LA............................. .................. 8-31-2001....... 9-07-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1601........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 8
MS............................. .................. 8-31-2001....... 9-07-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1601........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 4
TN............................. Cocke............. 6-26-2001....... 6-26-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1602........ Hail, wind, flash flooding........ 1 4
TN............................. Rutherford........ 4-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1602........ Drought, insect infestation....... 1 5
TN............................. Morgan, Scott..... 3-15-2001....... 6-15-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 6-17-2002...... S1602........ Drought, excessive heat........... 2 ..........
TN............................. .................. 3-15-2001....... 6-15-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1602........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 3
KY............................. .................. 3-15-2001....... 6-15-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1602........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 1
NC............................. .................. 6-26-2001....... 6-26-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1602........ Hail, wind, flash flooding........ ....... 2
MN............................. Cass, Crow Wing... 11-15-2000...... 6-28-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1603........ Heavier than normal precip, 2 8
followed by severe cold.
NE............................. Buffalo, Butler, 5-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1604........ Drought, severe heat.............. 10 26
Cass, Dundy,
Nance, Platte,
Polk, Saunders,
Seward, Sherman.
CO............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1604........ Drought, severe heat.............. ....... 1
IA............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1604........ Drought, severe heat.............. ....... 2
KS............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1604........ Drought, severe heat.............. ....... 2
NY............................. Broome, Columbia, 4-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1605........ Columbia: Drought; Dutchess: Hail, 11 22
Dutchess, Greene, High Winds; Greene: Drought+
Jefferson, Lewis, Hail, High Winds, Rain;
Livingston, Jefferson: Drought; Lewis: Flash
Onondaga, Flooding, Excessive rain &
Sullivan, Ulster, Drought; Livingston: Drought;
Wyoming. Onondaga: Hail; Sullivan: Army
Cut Worms; Ulster: Hail High
Winds; Wyoming: Drought.
CT............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 7-01-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1605........ Hail, hign winds.................. ....... 2
MA............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1605........ Hail, high winds: 07/01/01; ....... 1
Drought: 04/01/01--continuing.
PA............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 7-09-2002...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1605........ Drought: 04/01/01-05/31/01; ....... 3
Armyworm infestation: 07/01/01--
continuing.
NV............................. Washoe............ 5-01-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1606........ Drought, extreme fires............ 1 6
CA............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1606........ Drought, extreme fires............ ....... 5
OR............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 1-08-2002...... 9-09-2002...... S1606........ Drought, extreme fires............ ....... 2
NY............................. Allegany, 4-01-2001....... 7-22-2002...... 1-22-2002...... 9-23-2002...... S1607........ Drought, army cut worms, hail..... 12 13
Cattaraugus,
Chautauqua,
Clinton, Essex,
Niagara, Orleans,
Putnam, Schuyler,
Seneca, Wayne,
Westchester.
NY............................. Dutchess, Erie, 4-01-2001....... 7-22-2002...... 1-22-2002...... 9-23-2002...... S1607........ Drought, army cut worms, hail..... 4 ..........
Genesee, Ulster.
PA............................. .................. 5-01-2001....... 7-22-2002...... 1-22-2002...... 9-23-2002...... S1607........ Drought........................... ....... 2
VT............................. .................. 7-09-2001....... 7-22-2002...... 1-22-2002...... 9-23-2002...... S1607........ Drought, Army Cut worms, hail..... ....... 3
IN............................. Lagrange, Perry... 6-15-2001....... 9-09-2001...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1608........ Drought........................... 2 5
IN............................. Benton, Clay, 10-24-2001...... 10-25-2001..... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1608........ Severe storms, high winds, 4 16
Elkhart, St. tornadoes, hail, excessive rain.
Joseph.
IL............................. .................. 10-24-2001...... 10-25-2001..... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1608........ Severe storms, high winds, ....... 2
tornadoes, hail, excessive rain.
KY............................. .................. 6-15-2001....... 9-09-2001...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1608........ Drought........................... ....... 3
MI............................. .................. 10-24-2001...... 10-25-2001..... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1608........ Severe storms, high winds, ....... 3
tornadoes, hail, excessive rain.
OH............................. Ashland, 5-01-2002....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1609........ Severe drought, high temperatures. 22 26
Ashtabula, Brown,
Carroll,
Columbiana,
Cuyahoga, Fulton,
Geauga, Hancock,
Holmes, Knox,
Lake, Lucas,
Mahoning, Medina,
Sandusky, Seneca,
Stark,
Tuscarawas,
Wayne, Wood,
Wyandot.
KY............................. .................. 5-01-2002....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1609........ Severe drought, high temperatures. ....... 2
MI............................. .................. 5-01-2002....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1609........ Severe drought, high temperatures. ....... 3
PA............................. .................. 5-01-2002....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1609........ Severe drought, high temperatures. ....... 5
WV............................. .................. 5-01-2002....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1609........ Severe drought, high temperatures. ....... 1
GA............................. Banks, Butts, 1-01-2001....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1610........ Drought........................... 19 50
Candler, Clayton,
Elbert, Emanuel,
Fayette,
Glascock, Henry,
Jackson,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Laurens,
Madison,
Oglethorpe,
Tattnall, Taylor,
Washington,
Wilkinson.
SC............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 8-07-2002...... 2-07-2002...... 10-07-2002..... S1610........ Drought........................... ....... 3
KS............................. Chautauqua, Elk, 1-01-2001....... 8-19-2002...... 2-19-2002...... 10-21-2002..... S1611........ Drought, excessive rains, flash 5 14
Montgomery, flooding, tornadoes, hail,
Sumner, Reno. repeatedly excessive winds.
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 8-19-2002...... 2-19-2002...... 10-21-2002..... S1611........ Drought, excessive rains, flash ....... 5
flooding, tornadoes, hail,
repeatedly excessive winds.
ND............................. Barnes, Benson, 3-01-2001....... 8-21-2002...... 2-21-2002...... 10-21-2002..... S1612........ Flooding, ground saturation, 32 18
Bottineau, subsidence, storms, wind
Bowman, Burke, tornadoes, drought, high
Cass, Cavalier, humidity, severe temperatures
Divide, Eddy, during the growing season.
Emmons, Foster,
Grand Forks,
Kidder, Logan,
Mountrail,
Nelson, Pembina,
Pierce, Ramsey,
Ransom, Renville,
Richland,
Rolette, Sargent,
Slope, Stutsman,
Towner, Traill,
Walsh, Ward,
Wells, Williams.
MN............................. .................. 3-01-2001....... 8-21-2002...... 2-21-2002...... 10-21-2002..... S1612........ Flooding, ground saturation, ....... 7
subsidence, storms, wind
tornadoes, drought, high
humidity, severe temperatures
during the growing season.
MT............................. .................. 3-01-2001....... 8-21-2002...... 2-21-2002...... 10-21-2002..... S1612........ Flooding, ground saturation, ....... 4
subsidence, storms, wind
tornadoes, drought, high
humidity, severe temperatures
during the growing season.
SD............................. .................. 3-01-2001....... 8-21-2002...... 2-21-2002...... 10-21-2002..... S1612........ Flooding, ground saturation, ....... 6
subsidence, storms, wind
tornadoes, drought, high
humidity, severe temperatures
during the growing season.
ID............................. Butte, Custer, 1-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1613........ Drought, heat, low snow pack 3 5
Lemhi. conditions.
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1613........ Drought, heat, low snow pack ....... 2
conditions.
CA............................. Tehama............ 4-08-2001....... 4-08-2001...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1614........ Freezing temperatures............. 1 3
NY............................. Chemung, Tioga.... 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1615........ Drought........................... 2 4
PA............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1615........ Drought........................... ....... 3
NY............................. Seneca............ 10-21-2001...... 10-21-2001..... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1615........ Hail, high winds.................. 1 6
SC............................. Entire State...... 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1616........ Drought........................... 46 ..........
GA............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1616........ Drought........................... ....... 13
NC............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1616........ Drought........................... ....... 16
TN............................. Claiborne, Union.. 7-01-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1617........ Excessive rain.................... 2 5
KY............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1617........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 2
TN............................. Hamblen........... 8-05-2001....... 8-05-2001...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1617........ Flooding.......................... 1 5
TN............................. Jefferson......... 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1617........ Drought........................... 1 5
VA............................. Goochland......... 10-01-2000...... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1618........ Drought, excessive heat........... 1 7
WY............................. Albany............ 1-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1619........ Drought, late frosts, untime rain, 1 2
hail.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1619........ Drought, late frosts, untime rain, ....... 2
hail.
VT............................. Addison, 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1620........ Drought........................... 8 6
Bennington,
Caledonia,
Chittenden,
Orange, Orleans,
Rutland,
Washington.
MA............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1620........ Drought........................... ....... 2
NH............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1620........ Drought........................... ....... 1
NY............................. .................. 4-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1620........ Drought........................... ....... 4
WA............................. Yakima............ 1-01-2001....... 9-01-2002...... 3-01-2002...... 11-01-2002..... S1621........ Drought........................... 1 3
ME............................. Androscoggin, 6-01-2002....... 9-11-2002...... 3-11-2002...... 11-11-2002..... S1622........ Drought........................... 15 1
Aroostook,
Cumberland,
Hancock,
Kennebec, Knox,
Lincoln, Oxford,
Penobscot,
Piscataquis,
Sagadahoc,
Somerset, Waldo,
Washington, York.
NH............................. .................. 6-01-2002....... 9-11-2002...... 3-11-2002...... 11-11-2002..... S1622........ Drought........................... ....... 4
MA............................. Franklin, Hampden, 5-01-2000....... 9-22-2002...... 3-22-2002...... 11-22-2002..... S1623........ Excessive rainfall, limited 4 3
Hampshire, sunshine, below-average
Worcester. temperatures.
CT............................. .................. 5-01-2000....... 9-22-2002...... 3-22-2002...... 11-22-2002..... S1623........ Excessive rainfall, limited ....... 4
sunshine, below-average
temperatures.
NH............................. .................. 5-01-2000....... 9-22-2002...... 3-22-2002...... 11-22-2002..... S1623........ Excessive rainfall, limited ....... 2
sunshine, below-average
temperatures.
RI............................. .................. 5-01-2000....... 9-22-2002...... 3-22-2002...... 11-22-2002..... S1623........ Excessive rainfall, limited ....... 1
sunshine, below-average
temperatures.
VT............................. .................. 5-01-2000....... 9-22-2002...... 3-22-2002...... 11-22-2002..... S1623........ Excessive rainfall, limited ....... 2
sunshine, below-average
temperatures.
MT............................. Entire State...... 1-01-2002....... 9-27-2002...... 3-27-2002...... 11-27-2002..... S1624........ Drought........................... 56 ..........
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 9-27-2002...... 3-27-2002...... 11-27-2002..... S1624........ Drought........................... ....... 8
ND............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 9-27-2002...... 3-27-2002...... 11-27-2002..... S1624........ Drought........................... ....... 6
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 9-27-2002...... 3-27-2002...... 11-27-2002..... S1624........ Drought........................... ....... 2
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 9-27-2002...... 3-27-2002...... 11-27-2002..... S1624........ Drought........................... ....... 6
KS............................. Cowley............ 6-01-2001....... 10-04-2002..... 4-04-2002...... 6-25-2002...... S1625........ Drought, excessive rains, flash 1 ..........
flooding, tornadoes, hail,
repeatedly excessive winds.
KS............................. Edwards, Ford..... 6-01-2001....... 10-04-2002..... 4-04-2002...... 12-04-2002..... S1625........ Drought, excessive rains, flash 2 4
flooding, tornadoes, hail,
repeatedly excessive winds.
VA............................. Prince Edward..... 8-01-2001....... 12-10-2001..... 4-04-2002...... 12-04-2002..... S1626........ Drought........................... 1 7
MA............................. Barnstable, 3-01-2001....... 10-04-2002..... 4-04-2002...... 12-04-2002..... S1627........ Erratic weather pattern: Record 3 4
Bristol, Plymouth. high temp. early spring-low rain;
high temp.--June w/above ave.
rain; Below normal temp.--Jul,
Aug. w/normal rain; Normal temp.--
Sep. w/below norm. rain.
RI............................. .................. 3-01-2001....... 10-04-2002..... 4-04-2002...... 12-04-2002..... S1627........ Erratic weather pattern: Record ....... 3
high temp. early spring-low rain;
high temp.--June w/above ave.
rain; Below normal temp.-Jul,
Aug. w/normal rain; Normal temp.--
Sep. w/below norm. rain.
GA............................. Dooly............. 1-01-2001....... 10-05-2002..... 4-05-2002...... 12-05-2002..... S1628........ Drought........................... 1 5
SD............................. Haakon, Meade, 6-01-2001....... 10-05-2002..... 4-05-2002...... 12-05-2002..... S1629........ Drought, extreme heat............. 3 10
Pennington.
CA............................. Calaveras......... 8-19-2001....... 9-05-2001...... 4-05-2002...... 12-05-2002..... S1630........ High winds, drought, two separate 1 5
fires.
ID............................. Cassia............ 10-01-2001...... 12-31-2001..... 4-19-2002...... 6-25-2002...... S1631........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
ID............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 12-31-2001..... 4-19-2002...... 12-19-2002..... S1631........ Drought........................... ....... 3
MS............................. Bolivar, Calhoun, 8-15-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 4-19-2002...... 12-19-2002..... S1632........ Excessive moisture, high humidity. 19 31
Carroll,
Chickasaw, Hinds,
Holmes, Itawamba,
Jefferson Davis,
Lee, Leflore,
Marshall, Monroe,
Noxubee, Panola,
Pontotoc,
Sunflower,
Tallahatchie,
Union, Washington.
MS............................. Claiborne, Warren. 8-15-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 4-19-2002...... 7-02-2002...... S1632........ Excessive moisture, high humidity. 2 ..........
AL............................. .................. 8-15-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 4-19-2002...... 12-19-2002..... S1632........ Excessive moisture, high humidity. ....... 5
AR............................. .................. 8-15-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 4-19-2002...... 12-19-2002..... S1632........ Excessive moisture, high humidity. ....... 2
TN............................. .................. 8-15-2001....... 9-30-2001...... 4-19-2002...... 12-19-2002..... S1632........ Excessive moisture, high humidity. ....... 2
IA............................. Lucas............. 10-22-2001...... 11-01-2001..... 4-23-2002...... 12-23-2002..... S1633........ High winds, heavy rains, flooding. 1 7
IA............................. Guthrie........... 6-01-2001....... 10-23-2002..... 4-23-2002...... 12-23-2002..... S1634........ Drought........................... 1 6
CO............................. Kit Carson, 9-01-2000....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1635........ Drought........................... 2 5
Phillips.
KS............................. .................. 9-01-2000....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1635........ Drought........................... ....... 1
NE............................. .................. 9-01-2000....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1635........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Schleicher, 1-01-2001....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1636........ Drought, excessive heat........... 3 5
Sutton, Zavala.
TX............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1636........ Excessive heat.................... ....... 6
TX............................. Garza, Lubbock, 1-01-2001....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1637........ Drought........................... 5 9
Menard, Nolan,
Terry.
TX............................. Brooks, Callahan, 1-01-2001....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1638........ Drought, high winds, high 7 20
Eastland, Jim temperatures.
Wells, Presidio,
Stephens, Webb.
TX............................. Loving, Pecos, 1-01-2001....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1639........ Drought, high winds............... 3 8
Reeves.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 11-02-2002..... 5-02-2002...... 1-02-2003...... S1639........ Drought, high winds............... ....... 2
ID............................. Elmore............ 10-01-2000...... 11-10-2002..... 5-10-2002...... 1-10-2003...... S1640........ Drought, insect losses (Mormon 1 8
Crickets).
ID............................. Twin Falls........ 11-01-2000...... 9-30-2001...... 5-10-2002...... 1-10-2003...... S1640........ Drought, excessive heat........... 1 2
NV............................. .................. 11-01-2000...... 9-30-2001...... 5-10-2002...... 1-10-2003...... S1640........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 1
AZ............................. All counties, 1-01-2001....... 11-17-2002..... 5-17-2002...... 1-17-2003...... S1641........ Drought........................... 14 1
except Yuma.
CA............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 11-17-2002..... 5-17-2002...... 1-17-2003...... S1641........ Drought........................... ....... 3
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 11-17-2002..... 5-17-2002...... 1-17-2003...... S1641........ Drought........................... ....... 2
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 11-17-2002..... 5-17-2002...... 1-17-2003...... S1641........ Drought........................... ....... 5
TX............................. Comanche.......... 5-01-2001....... 11-24-2002..... 5-24-2002...... 1-24-2003...... S1642........ Drought, heat, insects............ 1 5
CO............................. Adams, Alamosa, 5-15-2001....... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1643........ Drought........................... 44 16
Archuleta, Baca,
Bent, Boulder,
Chaffee, Conejos,
Costilla,
Crowley, Custer,
Dolores, Douglas,
Eagle, El Paso,
Elbert, Fremont,
Garfield, Grand,
Hinsdale,
Huerfano,
Jackson,
Jefferson, Kiowa,
La Plata, Lake,
Larimer, Las
Animas, Logan,
Mesa, Mineral,
Montezuma,
Morgan, Otero,
Pitkin, Prowers,
Pueblo, Rio
Grande, Routt,
Saguache, San
Miguel, Sedgwick,
Summit,
Washington.
KS............................. .................. 5-15-2001....... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1643........ Drought........................... ....... 4
NE............................. .................. 5-15-2001....... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1643........ Drought........................... ....... 5
NM............................. .................. 5-15-2001....... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1643........ Drought........................... ....... 4
OK............................. .................. 5-15-2001....... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1643........ Drought........................... ....... 1
NE............................. Banner, Chase, 10-01-2001...... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1644........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring 16 17
Cheyenne, Custer, temperatures, high winds, frost.
Dawson, Deuel,
Dundy, Frontier,
Hayes, Hitchcock,
Keith, Kimball,
Perkins, Red
Willow, Scotts
Bluff, Sioux.
CO............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1644........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring ....... 5
temperatures, high winds, frost.
KS............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1644........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring ....... 3
temperatures, high winds, frost.
SD............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1644........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring ....... 1
temperatures, high winds, frost.
WY............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 11-30-2002..... 5-30-2002...... 1-30-2003...... S1644........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring ....... 3
temperatures, high winds, frost.
WY............................. Albany, Big Horn, 1-01-2002....... 12-01-2002..... 5-31-2002...... 1-31-2003...... S1645........ Drought........................... 13 7
Campbell, Carbon,
Crook, Fremont,
Hot Springs,
Johnson, Laramie,
Natrona, Park,
Sheridan,
Washakie.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 12-01-2002..... 5-31-2002...... 1-31-2003...... S1645........ Drought........................... ....... 5
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 12-01-2002..... 5-31-2002...... 1-31-2003...... S1645........ Drought........................... ....... 6
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 12-01-2002..... 5-31-2002...... 1-31-2003...... S1645........ Drought........................... ....... 2
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 12-01-2002..... 5-31-2002...... 1-31-2003...... S1645........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Haskell........... 1-01-2002....... 12-04-2002..... 6-04-2002...... 2-04-2003...... S1646........ Drought, high winds, excessive 1 7
heat (temperatures).
GA............................. Evans, Montgomery, 2-28-2002....... 2-28-2002...... 6-17-2002...... 2-18-2003...... S1647........ Freezing weather.................. 4 11
Tattnall, Toombs.
NM............................. Bernalillo, 1-01-2002....... 12-18-2002..... 6-17-2002...... 2-18-2003...... S1648........ Drought........................... 29 4
Catron, Cibola,
Colfax, Curry, De
Baca, Dona Ana,
Grant, Guadalupe,
Harding, Hidalgo,
Lea, Lincoln,
Luna, McKinley,
Mora, Quay, Rio
Arriba,
Roosevelt, San
Juan, San Miguel,
Sandoval, Santa
Fe, Sierra,
Socorro, Taos,
Torrance, Union,
Valencia.
WY............................. Campbell.......... 1-01-2001....... 12-18-2002..... 6-17-2002...... 2-18-2003...... S1649........ Drought........................... 1 5
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2001....... 12-18-2002..... 6-17-2002...... 2-18-2003...... S1649........ Drought........................... ....... 1
NE............................. Arthur, Box Butte, 10-01-2001...... 12-20-2003..... 6-20-2002...... 2-20-2003...... S1650........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring 10 22
Franklin, Garden, temperatures, high winds, frost.
Harlan, Kearney,
Lincoln, Logan,
McPherson,
Morrill.
KS............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 12-20-2003..... 6-20-2002...... 2-20-2003...... S1650........ Drought, unseasonably cold spring ....... 3
temperatures, high winds, frost.
UT............................. Entire State...... 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, 29 ..........
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
AZ............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 4
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 8
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 4
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 1
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 3
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1651........ Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 3
grasshoppers, frost, hail, high
winds.
AZ............................. Tohono O'Odham 1-01-2001....... 1-12-2003...... 7-12-2002...... 3-12-2003...... S1652........ Drought........................... 3 ..........
Nation (located
in 3 southern AZ
counties).
VA............................. Brunswick, 4-15-2001....... 1-13-2003...... 7-12-2002...... 3-12-2003...... S1653........ Drought........................... 5 15
Buckingham,
Cumberland,
Fluvanna, Louisa.
NC............................. .................. 4-15-2001....... 1-13-2003...... 7-12-2002...... 3-12-2003...... S1653........ Drought........................... ....... 2
CA............................. San Diego......... 1-30-2002....... 3-04-2002...... 7-12-2002...... 3-12-2003...... S1654........ Fire, wind, drought, freezing 1 3
conditions.
TX............................. Willacy........... 1-01-2002....... 1-12-2003...... 7-12-2002...... 3-12-2003...... S1655........ Drought, high winds, heat......... 1 3
MI............................. Allegan, Antrim, 4-21-2002....... 5-31-2002...... 7-15-2002...... 3-17-2003...... S1656........ (1) Frost, freezing temperatures, 26 24
Benzie, Berrien, wind.
Cass, Genesee, (2) Cold temperatures, hail, wet
Grand Traverse, weather.
Ingham, Ionia, (3) Frost, freezing temperatures..
Jackson,
Kalamazoo, Kent,
Lapeer, Leelanau,
Livingston,
Macomb, Manistee,
Mason, Muskegon,
Newaygo, Oakland,
Oceana, Ottawa,
St. Clair,
Shiawassee, Van
Buren.
IN............................. .................. 4-21-2002....... 5-31-2002...... 7-15-2002...... 3-17-2003...... S1656........ (1) Frost, freezing temperatures, ....... 3
wind.
(2) Cold temperatures, hail, wet
weather.
(3) Frost, freezing temperatures..
CA............................. Glenn............. 3-08-2002....... 3-24-2002...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1657........ Freeze followed by hail........... 1 5
AZ............................. Navajo Nation 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-02-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1658........ Drought........................... 3 ..........
(located in
several NE AZ, NW
NM, and SE UT
counties.
NM............................. Navajo Nation 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-02-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1658........ Drought........................... 6 ..........
(located in
several NE AZ, NW
NM, and SE UT
counties.
UT............................. Navajo Nation 1-01-2002....... 1-02-2003...... 7-02-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1658........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
(located in
several NE AZ, NW
NM, and SE UT
counties.
CA............................. Colusa............ 3-08-2002....... 3-08-2002...... 7-01-2002...... 3-03-2003...... S1659........ Freeze, frost..................... 1 5
NC............................. Alleghany, Ashe, 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1660........ Abnormally low temperatures; 6 7
Avery, Mitchell, freezes.
Watauga, Yancey.
TN............................. .................. 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1660........ Abnormally low temperatures; ....... 3
freezes.
VA............................. .................. 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1660........ Abnormally low temperatures; ....... 1
freezes.
NC............................. Alamance, 1-01-2002....... 1-23-2003...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1661........ Drought........................... 54 18
Alexander,
Alleghany, Anson,
Ashe, Burke,
Cabarrus,
Caldwell,
Caswell, Catawba,
Chatham,
Cleveland,
Cumberland,
Davidson, Davie,
Durham, Forsyth,
Franklin, Gaston,
Granville,
Guilford,
Halifax, Harnett,
Hoke, Iredell,
Johnston, Lee,
Lincoln,
McDowell,
Mecklenburg,
Montgomery,
Moore, Nash,
Northampton,
Orange, Person,
Randolph,
Richmond,
Robeson,
Rockingham,
Rowan,
Rutherford,
Scotland, Stanly,
Stokes, Surry,
Union, Vance,
Wake, Warren,
Wayne, Wilkes,
Wilson, Yadkin.
SC............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-23-2003...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1661........ Drought........................... ....... 8
TN............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-23-2003...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1661........ Drought........................... ....... 1
VA............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 1-23-2003...... 7-23-2002...... 3-24-2003...... S1661........ Drought........................... ....... 11
GA............................. Mitchell.......... 4-03-2002....... 4-03-2002...... 8-02-2002...... 4-02-2003...... S1662........ Hailstorm......................... 1 7
PA............................. Erie.............. 5-20-2002....... 5-22-2002...... 8-07-2002...... 4-07-2003...... S1663........ Severe frost, freezing conditions. 1 2
NY............................. .................. 5-20-2002....... 5-22-2002...... 8-07-2002...... 4-07-2003...... S1663........ Severe frost, freezing conditions. ....... 1
OH............................. .................. 5-20-2002....... 5-22-2002...... 8-07-2002...... 4-07-2003...... S1663........ Severe frost, freezing conditions. ....... 1
MN............................. Beltrami, Kittson, 6-28-2002....... 2-07-2003...... 8-07-2002...... 4-07-2003...... S1664........ Excessive rainfall, flash 13 11
Koochiching, Lake flooding, hail.
of the Woods,
Mahnomen,
Marshall, Norman,
Pennington, Polk,
Red Lake, Roseau.
ND............................. .................. 6-28-2002....... 2-07-2003...... 8-07-2002...... 4-07-2003...... S1664........ Excessive rainfall, flash ....... 5
flooding, hail.
VA............................. Bedford, Orange, 1-01-2001....... 2-08-2003...... 8-08-2002...... 4-08-2003...... S1665........ Drought, excessive heat........... 3 20
Rockbridge.
SD............................. Aurora, Brule, 7-01-2001....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1666........ Extreme heat, wind, late frosts, 52 12
Buffalo, Butte, drought, fire.
Campbell, Dewey,
Edmunds, Faulk,
Hand, Hughes,
Hyde, Lyman,
Pennington,
Perkins, Potter,
Stanley, Sully,
Ziebach, Beadle.
Bennett, Brown,
Charles Mix,
Davison, Day,
Deuel, Fall
River, Gregory,
Hamlin, Hanson,
Hutchinson,
Jerauld, Jones,
Marshall,
Mellette,
Shannon, Spink,
Todd, Tripp,
Yankton, Bon
Homme, Clark,
Corson, Douglas,
Lake, McPherson,
Miner, Sanborn,
Walworth,
Harding,
Kingsbury,
McCook, Meade.
MN............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1666........ Extreme heat, wind, late frosts, ....... 3
drought, fire.
MT............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1666........ Extreme heat, wind, late frosts, ....... 2
drought, fire.
NE............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1666........ Extreme heat, wind, late frosts, ....... 8
drought, fire.
ND............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1666........ Extreme heat, wind, late frosts, ....... 8
drought, fire.
WY............................. .................. 7-01-2001....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1666........ Extreme heat, wind, late frosts, ....... 3
drought, fire.
KS............................. Barber, Cheyenne, 1-01-2002....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1667........ Drought, frost, excessive winds... 40 18
Comanche,
Decatur, Edwards,
Ellsworth,
Finney, Ford,
Gove, Graham,
Grant, Gray,
Greeley,
Hamilton,
Hodgeman, Jewell,
Kearny, Lane,
Lincoln, Logan,
Meade, Morton,
Norton, Osborne,
Pawnee, Phillips,
Rawlins, Rooks,
Russell, Scott,
Seward, Sheridan,
Sherman, Smith,
Stanton, Stevens,
Thomas, Trego,
Wallace, Wichita.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1667........ Drought, frost, excessive winds... ....... 3
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1667........ Drought, frost, excessive winds... ....... 5
NE............................. Blaine, Buffalo, 10-01-2001...... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1668........ Unseasonably cold spring 11 21
Cherry, Dawes, temperatures, drought, high
Furnas, Gosper, winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
Grant, Hooker, grasshopper infestation.
Phelps, Sheridan,
Thomas.
KS............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1668........ Unseasonably cold spring ....... 3
temperatures, drought, high
winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
grasshopper infestation.
SD............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 2-14-2003...... 8-14-2002...... 4-14-2003...... S1668........ Unseasonably cold spring ....... 5
temperatures, drought, high
winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
grasshopper infestation.
CA............................. Riverside......... 2-01-2002....... 2-28-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1669........ Freezing conditions, followed by 1 4
Santa Ana winds.
AZ............................. La Paz............ 2-01-2002....... 2-28-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1669........ Freezing conditions, followed by ....... 1
Santa Ana winds.
CA............................. Solano............ 3-06-2002....... 3-10-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1670........ Hail, extreme freezing conditions. 1 6
CO............................. Arapahoe, 5-15-2001....... 2-16-2003...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1643, Drought........................... 13 ..........
Cheyenne, Delta, Amendment 1.
Gunnison,
Lincoln, Moffat,
Montrose, Ouray,
Park, Rio Blanco,
Teller, Weld,
Yuma.
KS............................. Wallace........... 5-15-2001....... 2-16-2003...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1643, Drought........................... ....... 1
Amendment 1.
NE............................. Dundy............. 5-15-2001....... 2-16-2003...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1643, Drought........................... ....... 1
Amendment 1.
NY............................. Chautauqua, 4-06-2002....... 5-27-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1671........ Various disasters for each county 14 24
Columbia, including: Excessive rain,
Dutchess, Essex, freeze, frost, hail, high winds,
Greene, Orange, snow, wet weather.
Rensselaer,
Saratoga,
Schenectady,
Schoharie,
Steuben, Ulster,
Wayne, Yates.
CT............................. Fairfield......... 4-06-2002....... 5-27-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1671........ Excessive rain, freeze, frost, ....... 2
hail, high winds, snow, wet
weather.
MA............................. Litchfield........ 4-06-2002....... 5-27-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1671........ Excessive rain, freeze, frost, ....... 1
hail, high winds, snow, wet
weather.
PA............................. Erie, Potter, 4-06-2002....... 5-27-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1671........ Excessive rain, freeze, frost, ....... 5
Pike, Tioga, hail, high winds, snow, wet
Warren. weather.
VT............................. Addison, 4-06-2002....... 5-27-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1671........ Excessive rain, freeze, frost, ....... 3
Bennington, hail, high winds, snow, wet
Chittenden. weather.
TX............................. Duval, Live Oak... 12-01-2001...... 2-16-2003...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1672........ Drought, high winds............... 2 10
TX............................. Jim Wells, Kleberg 12-11-2001...... 2-16-2003...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1673........ Drought, high winds, excessive 2 6
heat (temperatures).
VA............................. Grayson, Smyth, 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1674........ Freeze............................ 3 8
Washington.
NC............................. Alleghany, Ashe, 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1674........ Freeze............................ ....... 3
Surry.
TN............................. Johnson, Sullivan. 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 8-16-2002...... 4-16-2003...... S1674........ Freeze............................ ....... 2
TX............................. Gillespie, Karnes. 1-01-2002....... 2-21-2003...... 8-20-2002...... 4-21-2003...... S1675........ Drought........................... 2 13
IA............................. Clayton, Clinton, 6-03-2002....... 6-07-2002...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1676........ Severe storms, heavy rains, 6 8
Delaware, flooding, flash flooding.
Jackson, Jones,
Scott.
IL............................. .................. 6-03-2002....... 6-07-2002...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1676........ Severe storms, heavy rains, ....... 4
flooding, flash flooding.
WI............................. .................. 6-03-2002....... 6-07-2002...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1676........ Severe storms, heavy rains, ....... 2
flooding, flash flooding.
ND............................. Adams, Barnes, 4-01-2002....... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1677........ Drought, fire, insects, above and 51 2
Benson, Billings, below normal temperatures, frost,
Bottineau, severe storms, hail, flooding,
Bowman, Burke, wind, crop disease.
Burleigh, Cass,
Cavalier, Dickey,
Divide, Dunn,
Eddy, Emmons,
Foster, Golden
Valley, Grand
Forks, Grant,
Griggs,
Hettinger,
Kidder, La Moure,
Logan, McHenry,
McIntosh,
McKenzie, McLean,
Mercer, Morton,
Nelson, Oliver,
Pembina, Pierce,
Ramsey, Ransom,
Renville,
Richland,
Rolette, Sargent,
Sheridan, Sioux,
Slope, Stark,
Steele, Stutsman,
Towner, Traill,
Walsh, Ward,
Wells.
MN............................. .................. 4-01-2002....... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1677........ Drought, fire, insects, above and ....... 7
below normal temperatures, frost,
severe storms, hail, flooding,
wind, crop disease.
MT............................. .................. 4-01-2002....... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1677........ Drought, fire, insects, above and ....... 5
below normal temperatures, frost,
severe storms, hail, flooding,
wind, crop disease.
SD............................. .................. 4-01-2002....... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1677........ Drought, fire, insects, above and ....... 8
below normal temperatures, frost,
severe storms, hail, flooding,
wind, crop disease.
NE............................. Adams, Antelope, 10-01-2001...... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1678........ Unseasonably cold spring 56 6
Boone, Boyd, temperatures, high winds, frost,
Brown, Burt, extreme heat, hail, grasshopper
Butler, Cass, infestation, drought.
Cedar, Clay,
Colfax, Cuming,
Dakota, Dixon,
Dodge, Douglas,
Fillmore, Gage,
Garfield,
Greeley, Hall,
Hamilton, Holt,
Howard,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Keya
Paha, Knox,
Lancaster, Loup,
Madison, Merrick,
Nance, Nemaha,
Nuckolls, Otoe,
Pawnee, Pierce,
Platte, Polk,
Richardson, Rock,
Saline, Sarpy,
Saunders, Seward,
Sherman, Stanton,
Thayer, Thurston,
Valley,
Washington,
Wayne, Webster,
Wheeler, York.
IA............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1678........ Unseasonably cold spring ....... 6
temperatures, drought, high
winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
grasshopper infestation.
KS............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1678........ Unseasonably cold spring ....... 8
temperatures, drought, high
winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
grasshopper infestation.
MO............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1678........ Unseasonably cold spring ....... 2
temperatures, drought, high
winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
grasshopper infestation.
SD............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 2-22-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1678........ Unseasonably cold spring ....... 8
temperatures, drought, high
winds, frost, extreme heat, hail,
grasshopper infestation.
OK............................. Alfalfa, Beaver, 8-01-2001....... 2-23-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1679........ Drought........................... 30 9
Beckham, Blaine,
Caddo, Canadian,
Cimarron,
Comanche, Cotton,
Custer, Dewey,
Ellis, Garfield,
Grady, Grant,
Greer, Harmon,
Harper, Jackson,
Jefferson, Kiowa,
Kingfisher,
Major, Roger
Mills, Stephens,
Texas, Tillman,
Washita, Woods,
Woodward.
KS............................. .................. 8-01-2001....... 2-23-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1679........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. .................. 8-01-2001....... 2-23-2003...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1679........ Drought........................... ....... 13
KS............................. Crawford, Ford, 5-07-2002....... 5-26-2002...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1680........ Severe storms including, hail, 6 22
Jewell, Kiowa, high winds, tornadoes, excessive
Neosho, Pratt. rain, flash flooding, flooding,
lightning.
MO............................. .................. 5-07-2002....... 5-26-2002...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1680........ Severe storms including, hail, ....... 3
high winds, tornadoes, excessive
rain, flash flooding, flooding,
lightning.
NE............................. .................. 5-07-2002....... 5-26-2002...... 8-22-2002...... 4-22-2003...... S1680........ Severe storms including, hail, ....... 2
high winds, tornadoes, excessive
rain, flash flooding, flooding,
lightning.
WY............................. Lincoln, Uinta.... 1-01-2002....... 3-11-2003...... 9-11-2002...... 5-12-2003...... S1681........ Drought........................... 2 2
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2002....... 3-11-2003...... 9-11-2002...... 5-12-2003...... S1681........ Drought........................... ....... 2
MO............................. Adair, 3-01-2002....... 3-20-2003...... 9-20-2002...... 5-20-2003...... S1682........ Hail, tornadoes, high winds, 14 41
Bollinger,Cape flooding, unseasonably cool
Girardeau, temperatures.
Charlton, Howard,
Knox, Laclede,
Lafayette,
Lincoln, Macon,
Madison,
Moniteau, Scott,
Wayne.
IL............................. .................. 3-01-2002....... 3-20-2003...... 9-20-2002...... 5-20-2003...... S1682........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 3
OH............................. Auglaize, 3-01-2002....... 5-31-2002...... 9-20-2002...... 5-20-2003...... S1683........ Frost, freeze, hail, tornado...... 9 35
Fairfield,
Morgan,
Muskingum, Perry,
Portage, Ross,
Summit, Wood.
VA............................. Carroll........... 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 9-20-2002...... 5-20-2003...... S1684........ Freeze, frost conditions.......... 1 6
NC............................. .................. 5-19-2002....... 5-23-2002...... 9-20-2002...... 5-20-2003...... S1684........ Freeze, frost conditions.......... ....... 1
WA............................. Chelan, Douglas, 4-23-2002....... 5-07-2002...... 9-20-2002...... 5-20-2003...... S1685........ Freezing temperatures............. 3 8
Okanogan.
KS............................. Clark, Clay, 1-01-2002....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1686........ Drought........................... 8 9
Geary, Mitchell,
Pottawatomie,
Riley, Rush,
Saline.
OR............................. Wasco............. 9-01-2001....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1687........ Drought........................... 1 7
WA............................. .................. 9-01-2001....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1687........ Drought........................... 1 1
NY............................. Albany, Clinton, 4-15-2002....... 5-22-2002...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1688........ Albany: Freeze, frost, excessive 3 9
Erie. rain; Clinton: freeze; Erie:
Freeze, frost.
VT............................. Albany, Clinton, 4-15-2002....... 5-22-2002...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1688........ Albany: Freeze, frost, excessive 3 2
Erie. rain; Clinton: freeze; Erie:
Freeze, frost.
TN............................. Carter, Johnson, 4-01-2002....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1689........ Flooding, frost, freeze, cold 6 14
Lauderdale, wind, low temperatures, drought,
Morgan, Scott, high temperatures.
Shelby.
AR............................. .................. 4-01-2002....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1689........ Flooding, frost, freeze, cold ....... 2
wind, low temperatures, drought,
high temperatures.
KY............................. .................. 4-01-2002....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1689........ Flooding, frost, freeze, cold ....... 2
wind, low temperatures, drought,
high temperatures.
MS............................. .................. 4-01-2002....... 3-18-2003...... 9-18-2002...... 5-19-2003...... S1689........ Flooding, frost, freeze, cold ....... 2
wind, low temperatures, drought,
high temperatures.
TX............................. Matagorda......... 2-01-2002....... 6-20-2002...... 9-26-2002...... 5-26-2003...... S1690........ Drought........................... 1 4
TX............................. Jim Hogg.......... 1-01-2002....... 3-26-2003...... 9-26-2002...... 5-26-2003...... S1691........ Drought, high temperatures, high 1 5
winds.
TX............................. Edwards........... 1-01-2002....... 3-26-2003...... 9-26-2002...... 5-26-2003...... S1692........ Drought, excessive temperatures... 1 7
--------------------
TOTAL ACTIVE............. .................. ................ ............... ............... ............... ............. .................................. 1363 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH (EPPB) DISASTER DESIGNATION REQUESTS: FINAL TOTAL--SECRETARIAL
[Fiscal Year 2003--Secretarial Designations for Production Losses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Date Ending Date of Approved by Termination Designation
State Counties requested of disaster disaster Secretary Date Number Description of disaster Primary Contiguous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT.............................. Essex, Franklin, 4-01-2001...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1620, Drought.......................... 6 6
Grand Isle, Amendment 1.
Lamoille, Windham,
Windsor.
TN.............................. Dyer............... 5-10-2002...... 5-25-2002...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1689, Flooding......................... 1 3
Amendment 1.
MO.............................. ................... 5-10-2002...... 5-25-2002...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1689, ................................. ....... 1
Amendment 1.
OH.............................. ENTIRE STATE....... 3-01-2002...... 4-09-2003...... 10-09-2002..... 6-09-2003..... S1693......... Drought.......................... 88 ..........
IN.............................. ................... 3-01-2002...... 4-09-2003...... 10-09-2002..... 6-09-2003..... S1693......... Drought.......................... ....... 10
KY.............................. ................... 3-01-2002...... 4-09-2003...... 10-09-2002..... 6-09-2003..... S1693......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
MI.............................. ................... 3-01-2002...... 4-09-2003...... 10-09-2002..... 6-09-2003..... S1693......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
PA.............................. ................... 3-01-2002...... 4-09-2003...... 10-09-2002..... 6-09-2003..... S1693......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
WV.............................. ................... 3-01-2002...... 4-09-2003...... 10-09-2002..... 6-09-2003..... S1693......... Drought.......................... ....... 12
PA.............................. Adams, Allegheny, 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... 54 11
Armstrong, Beaver,
Bedford, Berks,
Blair, Bradford,
Bucks, Butler,
Cambria, Cameron,
Carbon, Centre,
Chester,
Clearfield,
Clinton, Columbia,
Cumberland,
Dauphin, Elk,
Forest, Franklin,
Fulton,
Huntingdon,
Indiana, Juniata,
Lackawanna,
Lancaster,
Lawrence, Lebanon,
Lehigh, Luzerne,
Lycoming, McKean,
Mifflin, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Montour,
Northampton,
Northumberland,
Perry, Pike,
Potter,
Schuylkill,
Snyder, Somerset,
Sullivan,
Susquehanna,
Union, Venango,
Wayne, Wyoming,
York.
DE.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
MD.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
NJ.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
NY.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
OH.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
WV.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1694......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
GA.............................. Entire State except 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1695......... Drought.......................... 147 10
for Bibb, Camden,
Crawford, Early,
Evans, Glynn,
Liberty, Long,
McIntosh, Peach,
Tattnall, Wayne
counties.
AL.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1695......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
FL.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1695......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
NC.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1695......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
SC.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1695......... Drought.......................... ....... 10
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-11-2003...... 10-11-2002..... 6-11-2003..... S1695......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
GA.............................. Bibb, Crawford, 1-01-2002...... 4/31/03........ 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1695, Drought.......................... 4 ..........
Early, Peach. Amendment 1.
GA.............................. Evans.............. 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1695, Drought.......................... 1 ..........
Amendment 2.
OR.............................. Gilliam, Morrow.... 9-01-2000...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1696......... Drought.......................... 2 2
WA.............................. ................... 9-01-2000...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1696......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
AR.............................. Arkansas, Clay, 3-18-2002...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1697......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail... 17 18
Craighead,
Crittenden, Cross,
Greene,
Independence,
Jefferson,
Lawrence, Lee,
Mississippi,
Monroe, Poinsett,
Randolph, St.
Francis,
Sebastian,
Woodruff.
MO.............................. ................... 3-18-2002...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1697......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail... ....... 4
MS.............................. ................... 3-18-2002...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1697......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail... ....... 2
OK.............................. ................... 3-18-2002...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1697......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail... ....... 2
TN.............................. ................... 3-18-2002...... 4-16-2003...... 10-16-2002..... 6-16-2003..... S1697......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail... ....... 4
NJ.............................. Atlantic, Bergen, 3-04-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1698......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 19 2
Burlington,
Camden, Cape May,
Cumberland, Essex,
Gloucester,
Hunterdon, Mercer,
Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris,
Ocean, Passaic,
Salem, Somerset,
Sussex, Warren.
DE.............................. ................... 3-04-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1698......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. ....... 3
NY.............................. ................... 3-04-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1698......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. ....... 6
DE.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1699......... Drought, high temperatures....... 3 ..........
NJ.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1699......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 4
PA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1699......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
IL.............................. Alexander, Bond, 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1700......... Drought.......................... 58 22
Boone, Calhoun,
Clark, Clay,
Clinton, Coles,
Cook, Crawford,
Cumberland,
DeKalb, Dupage,
Edgar, Edwards,
Effingham,
Fayette, Franklin,
Gallatin, Greene,
Grundy, Hamilton,
Hardin, Jackson,
Jasper, Jefferson,
Jersey, Johnson,
Kane, Kendall,
Lake, LaSalle,
Lawrence, Lee,
Madison, Marion,
Massac, McHenry,
Monroe,
Montgomery, Ogle,
Perry, Piatt,
Pope, Pulaski,
Randolph,
Richland, Saline,
Scott, Shelby, St.
Clair, Union,
Wabash, Washington
, Wayne, White,
Will, Williamson.
IN.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1700......... Drought.......................... ....... 7
KY.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1700......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1700......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
WI.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1700......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
MD.............................. Anne Arundel, 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1701......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 21 2
Baltimore,
Calvert, Caroline,
Carroll, Cecil,
Charles,
Dorchester,
Frederick,
Harford, Howard,
Kent, Montgomery,
Prince George's,
Queen Anne's, St.
Mary's, Somerset,
Talbot,
Washington,
Wicomico,
Worchester.
DE.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1701......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 3
PA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1701......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 5
VA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1701......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 10
WV.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-17-2003...... 10-17-2002..... 6-17-2003..... S1701......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 3
IN.............................. Adams, Allen, 6-01-2002...... 8-25-2002...... 10-18-2002..... 6-18-2003..... S1702......... Drought.......................... 74 13
Bartholomew,
Blackford, Brown,
Clark, Clay,
Crawford, Daviess,
Dearborn, Decatur,
DeKalb, Delaware,
Dubois, Elkhart,
Fayette, Floyd,
Franklin, Fulton,
Gibson, Grant,
Greene, Hamilton,
Hancock, Harrison,
Henry, Huntington,
Jackson, Jay,
Jefferson,
Jennings, Johnson,
Knox, Kosciusko,
Lagrange, Lake,
LaPorte, Lawrence,
Madison, Marion,
Marshall, Martin,
Monroe, Morgan,
Noble, Ohio,
Orange, Owen,
Perry, Pike,
Porter, Posey,
Randolph, Ripley,
Rush, Scott,
Shelby, Spencer,
St. Joseph,
Starke, Steuben,
Sullivan ,
Switzerland,
Tipton, Union,
Vanderburg,
Vermillion, Vigo,
Wabash, Warrick,
Washington, Wayne,
Wells, Whitley.
IL.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-25-2002...... 10-18-2002..... 6-18-2003..... S1702......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
KY.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-25-2002...... 10-18-2002..... 6-18-2003..... S1702......... Drought.......................... ....... 12
MI.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-25-2002...... 10-18-2002..... 6-18-2003..... S1702......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
AL.............................. All counties 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1703......... Drought.......................... 59 7
except, Baldwin,
Clarke, Escambia,
Lamar, Marion,
Mobile,
Washington,
Winston.
FL.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1703......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
MS.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1703......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1703......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
AL.............................. Baldwin, Clarke, 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1703, Drought.......................... 8 ..........
Escambia, Lamar, Amendment 1.
Marion, Mobile,
Washington,
Winston.
LA.............................. Ascension, 4-02-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1704......... Drought.......................... 43 18
Avoyelles,
Beauregard,
Bienville,
Bossier, Caddo,
Caldwell,
Catahoula,
Claiborne,
Concordia, DeSoto,
East Baton Rouge,
East Feliciana,
Franklin, Grant,
Iberville,
Jackson,
Lafourche,
LaSalle, Lincoln,
Livingston,
Natchitoches,
Ouachita, Pointe
Coupee, Rapides,
Red River,
Richland, Sabine,
St. Helena, St.
James, St. Landry,
St. Tammany,
Tangipahoa,
Tensas,
Terrebonne, Union,
Vernon,
Washington,
Webster, West
Baton Rouge, West
Carroll, West
Feliciana, Winn.
AR.............................. ................... 4-02-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1704......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
MS.............................. ................... 4-02-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1704......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
TX.............................. ................... 4-02-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1704......... Drought.......................... ....... 7
IA.............................. Adams, Audubon, 9-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1705......... Drought, high winds, cold spring 18 19
Cass, Clay, temperatures, grasshopper
Decatur, infestation, extreme heat, hail.
Dickinson,
Fremont, Harrison,
Lyon, Mills,
Monona,
Montgomery,
O'Brien, Page,
Palo Alto,
Pottawattamie,
Shelby, Taylor.
MN.............................. ................... 9-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1705......... ................................. ....... 3
MO.............................. ................... 9-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1705......... ................................. ....... 4
SD.............................. ................... 9-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1705......... ................................. ....... 2
TX.............................. Andrews, Aransas, 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1706......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 122 58
Archer, Armstrong,
Atascosa, Bailey,
Bandera, Baylor,
Bee, Bexar.
Blanco, Bosque,
Brewster, Briscoe,
Burnet, Cameron,
Carson, Castro,
Clay, Cochran,
Coke, Coleman,
Comal, Coryell,
Cottle, Crane,
Crockett, Crosby,
Culberson, Dallam,
Dawson, Deaf
Smith, DeWitt,
Dickens, Dimmit,
Donley, Ector, El
Paso, Erath,
Fisher, Floyd,
Frio, Gaines,
Goliad, Gonzales,
Gray, Guadalupe,
Hale, Hall,
Hamilton,
Hansford, Hartley,
Hays, Hemphill,
Hockley, Hood,
Hudspeth,
Hutchinson, Irion,
Jack, Jeff Davis,
Johnson, Jones,
Kendall, Kenedy,
Kent, Kerr,
Kimble, King,
Kinney, Knox, La
Salle, Lamb,
Lampasas,
Lipscomb, Llano,
Lynn, Mason,
McCulloch,
McMullen, Medina,
Midland, Mills,
Montague, Moore,
Motley, Nueces,
Ochiltree, Oldham,
Palo Pinto,
Parker, Parmer,
Potter, Randall,
Reagan, Real,
Refugio, Roberts,
San Patricio, San
Saba, Scurry,
Shackelford,
Sherman,
Somervell,
Sterling,
Stonewall,
Swisher, Tarrant,
Taylor, Terrell,
Throckmorton,
Travis, Upton,
Uvalde, Val Verde,
Ward, Wichita,
Wilson, Winkler,
Wise, Yoakum,
Young.
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1706......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. ....... 8
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1706......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. ....... 9
VA.............................. Appomattox, 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1707......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 39 41
Augusta, Bedford,
Bland, Botetourt,
Buckingham,
Campbell,
Caroline, Craig,
Cumberland, Floyd,
Franklin,
Goochland, Greene,
Hanover, Henry,
King And Queen,
King George, King
William,
Lunenburg,
Madison,
Mecklenburg,
Middlesex,
Montgomery,
Nelson, New Kent,
Nottoway, Page,
Pittsylvania,
Powhatan, Prince
William, Richmond,
Rockingham,
Spotsylvania,
Stafford, Suffolk
city, Surry,
Westmoreland,
Wythe.
MD.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1707......... ................................. ....... 2
NC.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1707......... ................................. ....... 8
WV.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1707......... ................................. ....... 4
KS.............................. Clark, Finney, 6-09-2002...... 7-05-2002...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1708......... Hail, high winds, tornadoes, 7 21
Norton, Phillips, excessive rain, flash flooding,
Reno, Rice, Rooks. flooding, lightning.
NE.............................. ................... 6-09-2002...... 7-05-2002...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1708......... Hail, high winds, tornadoes, ....... 3
excessive rain, flash flooding,
flooding, lightning.
OK.............................. ................... 6-09-2002...... 7-05-2002...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1708......... Hail, high winds, tornadoes, ....... 2
excessive rain, flash flooding,
flooding, lightning.
NH.............................. Entire State....... 6-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1709......... Drought.......................... 10 ..........
MA.............................. ................... 6-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1709......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
ME.............................. ................... 6-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1709......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
VT.............................. ................... 6-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1709......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
RI.............................. Entire State....... 10-01-2001..... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1710......... Drought.......................... 5 ..........
CT.............................. ................... 10-01-2001..... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1710......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
MA.............................. ................... 10-01-2001..... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1710......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
KY.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... ..........
IL.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
IN.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... 13
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... 14
VA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
WV.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-24-2003...... 10-24-2002..... 6-24-2003..... S1711......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
SD.............................. Custer, Jackson, 7-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1712......... Drought, extreme heat, winds, 3 ..........
Lawrence. late frosts, fire.
NV.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1713......... Drought, Mormon crickets, 17 ..........
grasshoppers.
CA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1713......... Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 10
grasshoppers.
ID.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1713......... Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 2
grasshoppers.
OR.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1713......... Drought, Mormon crickets, ....... 3
grasshoppers.
NV.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2001...... 4-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1713, Severe Insect infestations....... 17 ..........
Amendment 1.
ID.............................. Adams, Bannock, 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1714......... Drought.......................... 13 12
Blaine, Boise,
Bonneville,
Caribou, Clark,
Fremont, Gem,
Lincoln, Owyhee,
Valley, Washington.
MT.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1714......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
NV.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1714......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
OR.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-21-2003...... 10-21-2002..... 6-23-2003..... S1714......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
ID.............................. Bingham, Jefferson, 1-01-2002...... 6-04-2003...... 12-04-2002..... 8-04-2003..... S1714, Drought.......................... 3 ..........
Madison. Amendment 1.
KS.............................. Allen, Anderson, 1-01-2002...... 4-25-2003...... 10-25-2002..... 6-25-2002..... S1715......... Drought.......................... 54 3
Atchison, Barton,
Bourbon, Brown,
Butler, Chase,
Cherokee, Cloud,
Coffey, Cowley,
Crawford,
Dickinson,
Doniphan, Douglas,
Ells, Ellis,
Franklin,
Greenwood, Harper,
Harvey, Haskell,
Jackson,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Kingman,
Kiowa, Labette,
Leavenworth, Line,
Lyon, Marion,
Marshall,
McPherson, Miami,
Morris, Nemaha,
Neosho, Ness,
Osage, Ottawa,
Pratt, Reno,
Republic, Rice,
Sedgwick, Shawnee,
Stafford,
Wabaunsee,
Washington,
Wilson, Woodson,
Wyandotte.
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-25-2003...... 10-25-2002..... 6-25-2002..... S1715......... Drought.......................... ....... 12
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-25-2003...... 10-25-2002..... 6-25-2002..... S1715......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
WY.............................. Converse, Goshen, 1-01-2002...... 4-28-2003...... 10-28-2002..... 6-30-2003..... S1716......... Drought.......................... 7 5
Niobrara, Platte,
Sublette,
Sweetwater, Weston.
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-28-2003...... 10-28-2002..... 6-30-2003..... S1716......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-28-2003...... 10-28-2002..... 6-30-2003..... S1716......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-28-2003...... 10-28-2002..... 6-30-2003..... S1716......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 4-28-2003...... 10-28-2002..... 6-30-2003..... S1716......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
WI.............................. Door............... 5-15-2002...... 5-20-2002...... 11-08-2002..... 7-08-2003..... S1717......... Frost, freezing temperatures..... 1 1
MN.............................. Benton, Crow Wing, 4-01-2002...... 7-10-2002...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1718......... Crow Wing, Jackson, Nobles, Rock: 6 12
Jackson, Mille Drought Benton, Mille Lacs:
Lacs, Nobles, Rock. Heavy rain, hail, flooding,
severe thunderstorms.
IA.............................. ................... 4-01-2002...... 7-10-2002...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1718......... Crow Wing, Jackson, Nobles, Rock: ....... 4
Drought Benton, Mille Lacs:
Heavy rain, hail, flooding,
severe thunderstorms.
SD.............................. ................... 4-01-2002...... 7-10-2002...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1718......... Crow Wing, Jackson, Nobles, Rock: ....... 2
Drought Benton, Mille Lacs:
Heavy rain, hail, flooding,
severe thunderstorms.
NY.............................. Albany, Allegany, 6-01-2002...... 5-15-2003...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1719......... Drought.......................... 41 15
Broome,
Cattaraugus,
Cayuga,
Chautauqua,
Chenango, Clinton,
Cortland,
Delaware, Erie,
Essex, Franklin,
Fulton, Genesee,
Herkimer,
Jefferson, Lewis,
Livingston,
Madison, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Niagara, Oneida,
Onondaga, Ontario,
Orleans, Oswego,
Otsego,
Rensselaer,
Rockland, St.
Lawrence,
Saratoga, Steuben,
Suffolk, Sullivan,
Warren,
Washington, Wayne,
Wyoming, Yates.
CT.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 5-15-2003...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1719......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
MA.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 5-15-2003...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1719......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NJ.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 5-15-2003...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1719......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
PA.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 5-15-2003...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1719......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
VT.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 5-15-2003...... 11-15-2002..... 7-15-2003..... S1719......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
CA.............................. Butte, Colusa, 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1720......... Drought.......................... 29 24
Fresno, Glenn,
Kern, Kings, Los
Angeles, Merced,
Monterey, Napa,
Orange, Plumas,
Riverside, San
Benito, San
Bernardino, San
Joaquin, San Luis
Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa
Clara, Shasta,
Sierra, Solano,
Sonoma,
Stanislaus,
Tehama, Tulare,
Tuolumne, Ventura,
Yolo.
AZ.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1720......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
NC.............................. Avery, Bladen, 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1721......... Drought.......................... 31 27
Brunswick,
Buncombe,
Cherokee, Clay,
Columbus, Craven,
Duplin, Edgecombe,
Gates, Graham,
Greene, Haywood,
Henderson,
Jackson, Jones,
Lenoir, Macon,
Madison, Martin,
Mitchell, Pender,
Pitt, Polk,
Sampson, Swain,
Transylvania,
Washington,
Watauga, Yancey.
GA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1721......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
SC.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1721......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1721......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
VA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1721......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
NC.............................. Bertie, Chowan, 1-01-2002...... 5-18-2003...... 11-18-2002..... 7-18-2003..... S1721, Drought.......................... 4 1
Hertford, Amendment 1.
Perquimans.
SD.............................. Codington, Turner.. 7-01-2001...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1722......... Drought.......................... 2 1
WA.............................. Adams.............. 5-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1723......... Drought.......................... 1 4
NY.............................. Orleans............ 4-14-2002...... 6-16-2002...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1724......... Excessive rain, freeze........... 1 3
NY.............................. Chemung, Columbia, 5-15-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1724......... Drought.......................... 14 17
Dutchess, Greene,
Orange, Orleans,
Putnam,
Schenectady,
Schoharie,
Schuyler, Seneca,
Tioga, Tompkins,
Ulster,
Westchester.
CT.............................. ................... 5-15-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1724......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
MA.............................. ................... 5-15-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1724......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NJ.............................. ................... 5-15-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1724......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
PA.............................. ................... 5-15-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1724......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
MA.............................. Barnstable, 10-01-2001..... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1725......... Drought.......................... 12 2
Berkshire,
Bristol, Dukes,
Essex, Franklin,
Hampden,
Hampshire,
Middlesex,
Norfolk, Plymouth,
Worcester.
CT.............................. ................... 10-01-2001..... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1725......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
NY.............................. ................... 10-01-2001..... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1725......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
VT.............................. ................... 10-01-2001..... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1725......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
OR.............................. Baker, Jefferson, 10-01-2000..... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1726......... Drought, colder than normal 3 11
Umatilla. weather, frosts.
WA.............................. ................... 10-01-2000..... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1726......... Drought, colder than normal ....... 5
weather, frosts.
TN.............................. Anderson, Bedford, 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1727......... Drought, high temperatures, high 72 23
Benton, Bledsoe, wind, hail.
Blount, Bradley,
Campbell, Cannon,
Carroll, Carter,
Chester,
Claiborne, Clay,
Coffee, Crockett,
Cumberland, De
Kalb, Dyer,
Fentress,
Franklin, Giles,
Greene, Grundy,
Hamilton, Hancock,
Hardeman, Hardin,
Hawkins, Haywood,
Houston, Jackson,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Knox,
Lake, Lauderdale,
Lawrence, Lincoln,
Loudon, McMinn,
McNairy, Macon,
Madison, Marshall,
Maury, Meigs,
Monroe, Moore,
Obion, Overton,
Pickett, Polk,
Putnam, Rhea,
Roane, Rutherford,
Sevier, Shelby,
Smith, Stewart,
Sullivan, Sumner,
Tipton, Trousdale,
Unicoi, Union,
Warren,
Washington, Wayne,
Weakley,
Williamson, Wilson.
AL.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1727......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 4
wind, hail.
AR.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1727......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 2
wind, hail.
GA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1727......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 6
wind, hail.
KY.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 5-21-2003...... 11-21-2002..... 7-21-2003..... S1727......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 15
wind, hail.
TN.............................. Cocke.............. 1-01-2002...... 10-18-2002..... 12-13-2002..... 8-13-2002..... S1727, Drought, high temperatures, high 1 ..........
Amendment 1. wind, hail, spring flooding,
late freezes.
WA.............................. Franklin........... 9-01-2001...... 5-27-2003...... 11-27-2002..... 7-28-2003..... S1728......... (1) Drought, High winds, 1 6
excessive rainfall, hailstorms.
(2) Freezing weather, high winds.
SD.............................. Kingsbury.......... 7-28-2002...... 7-28-2002...... 12-13-2002..... 8-13-2002..... S1729......... Hailstorm........................ 1 7
CT.............................. Entire State (8 10-01-2001..... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1730......... Drought.......................... 8 ..........
counties).
ID.............................. Bear Lake, Butte, 1-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1731......... Drought.......................... 8 2
Custer, Franklin,
Lemhi, Oneida,
Payette, Power.
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1731......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
KS.............................. Meade, Rice........ 8-12-2002...... 8-13-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1732......... Hail, high winds, excessive rain, 2 10
flash flooding, flooding.
OK.............................. ................... 8-12-2002...... 8-13-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1732......... Hail, high winds, excessive rain, ....... 1
flash flooding, flooding.
NY.............................. Allegany, Broome, 4-01-2002...... 6-30-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1733......... Various disasters: Excessive 25 29
Cattaraugus, Rain, Flash Flooding, Flooding,
Cayuga, Clinton, Freeze, Frost , Hail, High
Dutchess, Winds, Lightning, Tornado.
Franklin,
Jefferson,
Madison, Niagara,
Ontario, Orange,
Otsego, Putnam,
Rensselaer,
Schuyler, Seneca,
Steuben, Tioga,
Tompkins, Ulster,
Wayne,
Westchester,
Wyoming, Yates.
CT.............................. ................... 4-24-2002...... 5-31-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1733......... Various disasters: Excessive ....... 2
Rain, Freeze, Frost , Hail, High
Winds.
MA.............................. ................... 6-05-2002...... 6-05-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1733......... Various disasters: Excessive ....... 1
Rain, High Winds, Lightning.
NJ.............................. ................... 4-24-2002...... 5-20-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1733......... Various disasters: Excessive ....... 3
RainFreeze, Frost.
PA.............................. ................... 4-01-2002...... 6-30-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1733......... Various disasters: Excessive ....... 8
Rain, Flash Flooding, Frost,
Tornado.
VT.............................. ................... 5-23-2002...... 6-28-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1733......... Various disasters: Excessive ....... 3
Rain, Flash Flooding, High
Winds, Lightning.
OK.............................. Choctaw, Creek, 5-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1734......... Drought.......................... 16 14
Haskell, Hughes,
Latimer, LeFlore,
McCurtain,
McIntosh,
Okfuskee,
Okmulgee, Ottawa,
Pittsburg,
Pottawatomie,
Pushmataha,
Rogers, Tulsa.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1734......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
MO.............................. ................... 5-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1734......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. ................... 5-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1734......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
TX.............................. Runnels............ 1-01-2002...... 6-30-2003...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1735......... Drought.......................... 1 ..........
WA.............................. Spokane............ 4-23-2002...... 6-08-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1736......... Freezing weather................. 1 4
ID.............................. ................... 4-23-2002...... 6-08-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1736......... Freezing weather................. ....... 3
WA.............................. Whitman............ 4-24-2002...... 6-08-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1737......... Frost damage..................... 1 7
ID.............................. ................... 4-24-2002...... 6-08-2002...... 12-30-2002..... 9-01-2003..... S1737......... Frost damage..................... ....... 3
LA.............................. Beauregard, 9-16-2002...... 7-15-2003...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1738......... Excessive rainfall............... 20 19
Calcasieu,
Cameron,
Catahoula,
Concordia, DeSoto,
East Carroll,
Franklin, Grant,
LaSalle, Madison,
Morehouse,
Natchitoches,
Pointe Coupee, Red
River, Richland,
Tensas, Vernon,
West Carroll, Winn.
AR.............................. ................... 9-16-2002...... 7-15-2003...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1738......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 3
MS.............................. ................... 9-16-2002...... 7-15-2003...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1738......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 6
TX.............................. ................... 9-16-2002...... 7-15-2003...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1738......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 5
IA.............................. Clay, O'Brien, 9-30-2002...... 7-15-2003...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1739......... Severe storms, including, hail 3 9
Sioux. and high winds.
SD.............................. Clay, O'Brien, 9-30-2002...... 7-15-2003...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1739......... Severe storms, including, hail ....... 2
Sioux. and high winds.
MT.............................. BLACKFEET NATION-- 6-07-2002...... 6-12-2002...... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1740......... Heavy snow, wind, rain, blizzard 2 ..........
(Glacier, Pondera conditions, flooding,
Counties). unseasonably cold weather.
SC.............................. Entire State....... 4-01-2002...... 11-30-2002..... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1741......... Drought.......................... 46 ..........
NC.............................. Entire State....... 4-01-2002...... 11-30-2002..... 1-15-2003...... 9-15-2003..... S1741......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
VA.............................. Albemarle, Amelia, 1-01-2002...... 7-31-2003...... 1-31-2003...... 10-01-2003.... S1742......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 18 12
Amherst, Campbell,
Charlotte,
Chesterfield,
Culpeper,
Dinwiddie, Essex,
Fauquier, Halifax,
Henrico, Isle of
Wight, Louisa,
Prince George,
Pulaski, Scott,
Warren.
VA.............................. Accomack, 1-01-2002...... 7-31-2003...... 1-31-2003...... 10-01-2003.... S1743......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 28 9
Alleghany, Bath,
Buchanan, Carroll,
Charles City,
Clarke, Dickenson,
Giles, Gloucester,
Grayson,
Greensville, James
City, Lancaster,
Lee, Mathews,
Northampton,
Northumberland,
Orange, Patrick,
Rappahannock,
Roanoke, Russell,
Shenandoah, Smyth,
Southampton,
Tazewell, Wise.
NC.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 7-31-2003...... 1-31-2003...... 10-01-2003.... S1743......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 3
WV.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 7-31-2003...... 1-31-2003...... 10-01-2003.... S1743......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 4
TN.............................. Cheatham, Decatur, 8-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, drought, excessive 9 42
Gibson, Grainger, heat, excessive rain, moisture,
Hamblen, flooding.
Henderson,
Montgomery, Van
Buren, White.
TN.............................. Bradley, Chester, 5-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, excessive rain, 13 ..........
Haywood, moisture, flooding.
Lauderdale,
Madison, Marshall,
Maury, McNairy,
Obion, Polk,
Shelby, Tipton,
Weakley.
AR.............................. ................... 8-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, excessive rain, ....... 2
moisture, flooding.
GA.............................. ................... 8-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, excessive rain, ....... 4
moisture, flooding.
KY.............................. ................... 8-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, excessive rain, ....... 4
moisture, flooding.
KY.............................. ................... 5-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, drought, excessive ....... 1
heat, excessive rain, moisture,
flooding.
MS.............................. ................... 8-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, excessive rain, ....... 3
moisture, flooding.
NC.............................. ................... 8-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1744......... Armyworms, excessive rain, ....... 1
moisture, flooding.
MO.............................. Andrew, Atchison, 6-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1745......... Drought.......................... 29 13
Bates, Buchanan,
Caldwell, Carroll,
Cass, Cedar,
Clinton, Daviess,
DeKalb, Gentry,
Grundy, Harrison,
Henry, Holt,
Jackson, Johnson,
Linn, Livingston,
Mercer, Nodaway,
Platte, Putnam,
Ray, Schuyler,
Sullivan, Vernon,
Worth.
IA.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1745......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
KS.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1745......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
NE.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-07-2003...... 2-07-2003...... 10-07-2003.... S1745......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
PA.............................. Delaware, Fayette, 6-01-2002...... 8-11-2003...... 2-11-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1746......... Drought.......................... 5 ..........
Greene, Tioga,
Washington.
NJ.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-11-2003...... 2-11-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1746......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
WV.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 8-11-2003...... 2-11-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1746......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
WV.............................. Berkeley, Boone, 1-01-2002...... 11-19-2002..... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1747......... Drought.......................... 41 12
Braxton, Brooke,
Cabell, Calhoun,
Clay, Doddridge,
Gilmer, Grant,
Greenbrier,
Hampshire,
Hancock, Harrison,
Jackson, Kanawha,
Lewis, Lincoln,
Logan, Marshall,
Mason, Mercer,
Mineral, Mingo,
Monroe, Morgan,
Nicholas, Ohio,
Pendleton,
Pleasants,
Pocahontas,
Ritchie, Roane,
Taylor, Tyler,
Upshur, Wayne,
Webster, Wetzel,
Wirt, Wood.
KY.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 11-19-2002..... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1747......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
OH.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 11-19-2002..... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1747......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
PA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 11-19-2002..... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1747......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
VA.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 11-19-2002..... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1747......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
MS.............................. Adams, Alcorn, 9-26-2003...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1748......... Tropical Storm Isidore; Hurricane 71 11
Amite, Benton, Lili.
Bolivar, Calhoun,
Carroll,
Chickasaw,
Choctaw,
Claiborne, Clay,
Coahoma,
Covington, De
Soto, Forrest,
Franklin, George,
Greene, Grenada,
Hancock, Harrison,
Hinds, Holmes,
Humphreys,
Issaquena,
Itawamba, Jackson,
Jefferson,
Jefferson Davis,
Jones, Lafayette,
Lawrence, Lee,
Leflore, Lincoln,
Lowndes, Madison,
Marion, Marshall,
Monroe, Newton,
Noxubee,
Oktibbeha, Panola,
Pearl River,
Perry, Pike,
Pontotoc,
Prentiss, Quitman,
Rankin, Scott,
Sharkey, Simpson,
Stone, Sunflower,
Tallahatchie,
Tate, Tippah,
Tishomingo,
Tunica, Union,
Walthall, Warren,
Washington, Wayne,
Webster,
Wilkinson,
Winston,
Yalobusha, Yazoo.
AL.............................. ................... 9-26-2003...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1748......... Tropical Storm Isidore; Hurricane ....... 10
Lili.
AR.............................. ................... 9-26-2003...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1748......... Tropical Storm Isidore; Hurricane ....... 6
Lili.
LA.............................. ................... 9-26-2003...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1748......... Tropical Storm Isidore; Hurricane ....... 10
Lili.
TN.............................. ................... 9-26-2003...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1748......... Tropical Storm Isidore; Hurricane ....... 5
Lili.
MS.............................. Attala, Clarke, 9-26-2003...... 8-13-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1748, Tropical Storm Isidore; Hurricane 11 ..........
Copiah, Jasper, Amendment 1. Lili.
Kemper, Lamar,
Lauderdale, Leake,
Montgomery,
Neshoba.
CA.............................. Inyo, Mono......... 12-01-2001..... 11-25-2002..... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1749......... Drought, fires................... 2 ..........
MI.............................. (1) Alger, Baraga, 4-01-2002...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1750......... Excessive rainfall............... 14 3
Chippewa, Delta,
Dickinson,
Gogebic, Houghton,
Iron, Keweenaw,
Luce, Mackinaw,
Marquette,
Ontonagon,
Houghton,
Schoolcraft;.
MI.............................. (2) Barry, Berrien, 6-15-2002...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1750......... Drought.......................... 19 10
Branch, Calhoun,
Cass, Eaton,
Genesee,
Hillsdale, Ingham,
Jackson,
Kalamazoo,
Lenawee,
Livingston,
Monroe,
Shiawassee, St.
Joseph, Van Buren,
Washtenaw, Wayne.
WI.............................. ................... 6-15-2002...... 8-13-2003...... 2-13-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1750......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 5
CA.............................. Humboldt........... 1-01-2002...... 8-14-2003...... 2-14-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1751......... Drought.......................... 1 4
OR.............................. Coos, Crook, Curry, 9-01-2000...... 8-14-2003...... 2-14-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1752......... Drought.......................... 6 1
Grant, Union,
Wheeler.
CA.............................. ................... 9-01-2000...... 8-14-2003...... 2-14-2003...... 10-14-2003.... S1752......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
CA.............................. Lassen............. 1-01-2002...... 8-24-2003...... 2-24-2003...... 10-24-2003.... S1753......... Drought.......................... 1 ..........
OR.............................. Harney............. 10-01-2001..... 9-07-2003...... 3-07-2003...... 11-07-2003.... S1754......... Drought.......................... 1 ..........
WA.............................. Benton............. 1-01-2002...... 7-08-2002...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1755......... (1) Drought, freezing 1 2
temperatures, high winds.
(2) High winds, excessive
rainfall, hailstorms.
OR.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 7-08-2002...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1755......... (1) Drought, freezing ....... 2
temperatures, high winds.
(2) High winds, excessive
rainfall, hailstorms.
TX.............................. Uvalde............. 2-26-2002...... 3-04-2002...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1756......... Freeze, high winds............... 1 8
TX.............................. Lubbock............ 6-04-2002...... 6-04-2002...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1757......... Excessive rain, flash flooding,.. 1 8
flooding, hail, high winds.......
ME.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2002...... 9-12-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1758......... Drought.......................... 16 ..........
GA.............................. Bacon, Banks, 9-01-2002...... 1-14-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1759......... Wet, unseasonably cool fall 118 40
Barrow, Bartow, weather.
Ben Hill, Bibb,
Bleckley,
Brantley, Bryan,
Bulloch, Burke,
Butts, Calhoun,
Candler, Carroll,
Catoosa,
Chattooga, Clarke,
Clay, Clayton,
Colquitt, Cook,
Coweta, Crawford,
Crisp, Dade,
Dawson, De Kalb,
Decatur, Dodge,
Dooly, Dougherty,
Douglas, Early,
Echols, Effingham,
Elbert, Emanuel,
Evans, Fayette,
Floyd, Forsyth,
Franklin, Fulton,
Glascock, Gordon,
Gwinnett,
Habersham, Hall,
Haralson, Hart,
Henry, Houston,
Jackson, Jeff
Davis, Jefferson,
Jenkins, Johnson,
Lamar, Laurens,
Liberty, Long,
Lowndes, Lumpkin,
Macon, Madison,
Marion, McDuffie,
Miller, Mitchell,
Monroe,
Montgomery,
Morgan, Murray,
Oconee,
Oglethorpe,
Paulding, Peach,
Pierce, Pike,
Polk, Pulaski,
Quitman, Rabun,
Randolph,
Rockdale, Schley,
Screven, Seminole,
Spalding,
Stephens, Stewart,
Sumter, Tattnall,
Taylor, Telfair,
Terrell, Thomas,
Tift, Towns,
Treutlen, Troup,
Turner, Twiggs,
Upson, Walker,
Walton, Ware,
Warren,
Washington, Wayne,
Webster, Wheeler,
White, Whitfield,
Wilcox, Wilkinson,
Worth.
AL.............................. ................... 9-01-2002...... 1-14-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1759......... Wet, unseasonably cool fall ....... 10
weather.
FL.............................. ................... 9-01-2002...... 1-14-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1759......... Wet, unseasonably cool fall ....... 8
weather.
NC.............................. ................... 9-01-2002...... 1-14-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1759......... Wet, unseasonably cool fall ....... 3
weather.
SC.............................. ................... 9-01-2002...... 1-14-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1759......... Wet, unseasonably cool fall ....... 9
weather.
TN.............................. ................... 9-01-2002...... 1-14-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1759......... Wet, unseasonably cool fall ....... 4
weather.
TN.............................. Giles, Hardeman, 7-01-2002...... 2-05-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1760......... (1) Drought...................... 6 18
Lawrence, Marion, (2) Excessive rain...............
Sequatchie, Wayne.
AL.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 2-05-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1760......... Excessive rain................... ....... 2
MS.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 2-05-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1760......... Excessive rain................... ....... 3
AZ.............................. Yuma............... 1-01-2001...... 9-12-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1761......... Drought.......................... 1 3
CA.............................. ................... 1-01-2001...... 9-12-2003...... 3-12-2003...... 11-12-2003.... S1761......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
OR.............................. Lake, Malheur...... 9-01-2001...... 9-21-2003...... 3-21-2003...... 11-21-2003.... S1762......... Drought.......................... 2 2
SD.............................. Brookings, Clay.... 5-01-2002...... 12-31-2002..... 3-21-2003...... 11-21-2003.... S1763......... Drought.......................... 2 6
CA.............................. Del Norte, Marin... 1-01-2001...... 9-21-2003...... 3-21-2003...... 11-21-2003.... S1764......... Drought.......................... 2 ..........
VA.............................. Highland, 1-01-2002...... 9-26-2003...... 3-26-2003...... 11-26-2003.... S1765......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 2 ..........
Chesapeake city
(i).
AR.............................. (1) Baxter, Benton, 7-01-2002...... 12-31-2002..... 4-03-2003...... 12-03-2003.... S1766......... (1) Drought...................... 75 ..........
Boone, Calhoun, (2) Excessive rain...............
Carroll, Clark,
Clay, Cleburne,
Cleveland,
Columbia, Conway,
Crawford, Dallas,
Faulkner,
Franklin, Fulton,
Garland, Grant,
Hempstead, Hot
Spring, Howard,
Izard, Johnson,
Lafayette, Little
River, Logan,
Madison, Marion,
Miller,
Montgomery,
Nevada, Newton,
Perry, Pike, Polk,
Pope, Pulaski,
Saline, Scott,
Searcy, Sebastian,
Sevier, Sharp,
Stone, Union, Van
Buren, Washington,
Yell.
(2) Arkansas,
Ashley, Bradley,
Chicot, Craighead,
Crittenden, Cross,
Desha, Drew,
Greene,
Independence,
Jackson,
Jefferson,
Lawrence, Lee,
Lincoln, Lonoke,
Mississippi,
Monroe, Ouachita,
Phillips,
Poinsett, Prairie,
Randolph, St.
Francis, White,
Woodruff.
LA.............................. ................... 12-31-2002..... 4-03-2003...... 12-03-2003..... 12-03-2003.... S1766......... Excessive rain................... ....... 4
MO.............................. ................... 12-31-2002..... 4-03-2003...... 12-03-2003..... 12-03-2003.... S1766......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
MS.............................. ................... 12-31-2002..... 4-03-2003...... 12-03-2003..... 12-03-2003.... S1766......... Excessive rain................... ....... 4
OK.............................. ................... 12-31-2002..... 4-03-2003...... 12-03-2003..... 12-03-2003.... S1766......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. ................... 12-31-2002..... 4-03-2003...... 12-03-2003..... 12-03-2003.... S1766......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
IL.............................. Cass, De Witt, 6-01-2002...... 10-09-2003..... 4-09-2003...... 12-09-2003.... S1767......... Drought.......................... 7 23
Mason, Moultrie,
Pike, Stephenson,
Winnebago.
MO.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 10-09-2003..... 4-09-2003...... 12-09-2003.... S1767......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
WI.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 10-09-2003..... 4-09-2003...... 12-09-2003.... S1767......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
TX.............................. Bastrop, Brazos, 1-01-2002...... 10-24-2003..... 4-24-2003...... 12-26-2003.... S1768......... Drought, excessive rain, heat.... 21 49
Camp, Collin,
Dallas, Denton,
Ellis, Falls,
Fayette,
Freestone, Hill,
Jackson, Kaufman,
Lavaca, Lee,
Limestone, Milam,
Navarro, Rockwall,
Washington,
Williamson.
CA.............................. Alpine, Amador, 1-01-2001...... 12-31-2002..... 4-28-2003...... 12-29-2003.... S1769......... Drought.......................... 4 ..........
Sacramento, Yuba.
CA.............................. Lake............... 3-15-2002...... 12-31-2002..... 4-28-2003...... 12-29-2003.... S1770......... Drought.......................... 1 ..........
CA.............................. Tehama............. 12-13-2002..... 12-27-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1771......... Saturated ground, high wind...... 1 6
CA.............................. Sutter............. 12-13-2002..... 12-16-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1772......... Rain, wind....................... 1 6
CA.............................. El Dorado, Placer.. 1-01-2002...... 12-31-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1773......... Drought.......................... 2 ..........
FL.............................. Bay, Calhoun, 10-14-2002..... 10-29-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1774......... Exceptionally heavy rainfall from 12 3
Escambia, Gadsden, three frontal systems.
Gulf, Holmes,
Jackson, Liberty,
Okaloosa, Santa
Rosa, Walton,
Washington.
AL.............................. ................... 10-14-2002..... 10-29-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1774......... Exceptionally heavy rainfall from ....... 5
three frontal systems.
GA.............................. ................... 10-14-2002..... 10-29-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1774......... Exceptionally heavy rainfall from ....... 3
three frontal systems.
TN.............................. Fayette, Henry, 7-02-2002...... 2-14-2003...... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1775......... Drought, flooding, excessive rain 6 15
Humphreys,
Hickman, Lewis,
Perry.
KY.............................. ................... 7-02-2002...... 2-14-2003...... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1775......... Drought, flooding, excessive rain ....... 2
MS.............................. ................... 7-02-2002...... 2-14-2003...... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1775......... Drought, flooding, excessive rain ....... 2
WA.............................. Okanogan........... 5-01-2002...... 10-30-2003..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1776......... Drought.......................... 1 7
WA.............................. Grant, Yakima...... 10-01-2001..... 10-30-2002..... 4-30-2003...... 12-30-2003.... S1777......... Adverse weather conditions, 2 12
resulting in Western Yellow
Blight.
CA.............................. Alameda, Contra 1-01-2002...... 12-31-2002..... 5-01-2003...... 1-02-2004..... S1778......... Drought.......................... 3 ..........
Costa, Sutter.
WV.............................. Barbour, Fayette, 1-01-2002...... 11-19-2002..... 5-09-2003...... 1-09-2004..... S1779......... Drought.......................... 10 ..........
Hardy, Jefferson,
Marion,
Monongalia,
Putnam, Raleigh,
Summers, Wyoming.
NE.............................. Adams, Arthur, 7-01-2002...... 11-14-2003..... 5-14-2003...... 1-14-2004..... S1780......... Drought, extreme heat, 53 9
Banner, Blaine, grasshopper infestation, high
Box Butte, Boyd, winds.
Brown, Buffalo,
Chase, Cherry,
Cheyenne, Custer,
Dawes, Dawson,
Deuel, Dundy,
Franklin,
Frontier, Furnas,
Garden, Garfield,
Gosper, Grant,
Greeley, Hall,
Harlan, Hayes,
Hitchcock, Holt,
Hooker, Howard,
Kearney, Keith,
Keya Paha,
Kimball, Lincoln,
Logan, Loup,
McPherson,
Morrill, Nuckolls,
Perkins, Phelps,
Red Willow, Rock,
Scotts Bluff,
Sheridan, Sherman,
Sioux, Thomas,
Valley, Webster,
Wheeler.
CO.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 11-14-2003..... 5-14-2003...... 1-14-2004..... S1780......... Drought, extreme heat, ....... 5
grasshopper infestation, high
winds.
KS.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 11-14-2003..... 5-14-2003...... 1-14-2004..... S1780......... Drought, extreme heat, ....... 8
grasshopper infestation, high
winds.
SD.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 11-14-2003..... 5-14-2003...... 1-14-2004..... S1780......... Drought, extreme heat, ....... 7
grasshopper infestation, high
winds.
WY.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 11-14-2003..... 5-14-2003...... 1-14-2004..... S1780......... Drought, extreme heat, ....... 3
grasshopper infestation, high
winds.
TX.............................. Robertson, Van 1-01-2001...... 2-12-2003...... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1781......... Flooding, excessive temperatures. 2 3
Zandt.
WA.............................. Asotin, Chelan, 1-01-2002...... 11-22-2003..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1782......... Drought.......................... 14 17
Columbia, Douglas,
Garfield, Grant,
Klickitat, Lewis,
Lincoln, Pend
Oreille, Spokane,
Stevens, Walla
Walla, Whitman.
ID.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 11-22-2003..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1782......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
OR.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 11-22-2003..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1782......... Drought.......................... ....... 7
WA.............................. (1) Benton, 1-01-2002...... 11-22-2003..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1783......... (1) Severe cold temperatures;.... 8 17
Columbia, (2) Drought......................
Franklin, Spokane,
Walla Walla,
Whatcom, Yakima;.
(2) Ferry, Yakima..
ID.............................. ................... 10-12-2002..... 11-06-2002..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1783......... Severe cold...................... ....... 3
OR.............................. ................... 10-12-2002..... 11-06-2002..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1783......... Severe cold...................... ....... 3
WI.............................. Door, Kewaunee..... 4-01-2002...... 11-22-2003..... 5-22-2003...... 1-22-2004..... S1784......... Exceptionally cold, wet 2 2
conditions in spring, followed
by warmer and dryer conditions
through the growing season.
CA.............................. Trinity............ 1-01-2002...... 11-30-2002..... 6-03-2003...... 2-03-2004..... S1785......... Drought.......................... 1 2
NC.............................. Beaufort, Camden, 4-01-2002...... 12-03-2003..... 6-03-2003...... 2-03-2004..... S1786......... (1) Excessive rainfall........... 9 15
Cartaret, (2) Drought (New Hanover, Onslow
Currituck, Hyde, Only).
New Hanover,
Onslow, Pamlico,
Pasquotank.
VA.............................. ................... 4-01-2002...... 12-03-2003..... 6-03-2003...... 2-03-2004..... S1786......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 3
WI.............................. Kenosha, Racine, 6-01-2002...... 12-03-2003..... 6-03-2003...... 2-03-2004..... S1787......... Drought.......................... 4 5
Rock, Walworth.
IL.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 12-03-2003..... 6-03-2003...... 2-03-2004..... S1787......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
HI.............................. Hawaii............. 1-01-2001...... 12-31-2002..... 6-03-2003...... 2-03-2004..... S1788......... Drought.......................... 1 ..........
WA.............................. Clark, Cowlitz, 6-01-2002...... 11-30-2002..... 6-23-2003...... 2-23-2004..... S1789......... Cool, wet weather, followed by 4 4
Skamania, hot, dry weather.
Wahkiakum.
OR.............................. ................... 6-01-2002...... 11-30-2002..... 6-23-2003...... 2-23-2004..... S1789......... Cool, wet weather, followed by ....... 4
hot, dry weather.
AR.............................. Stone.............. 3-25-2003...... 3-25-2003...... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1790......... Hail............................. 1 6
UT.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack 29 ..........
combined with low soil moisture.
AZ.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack ....... 4
combined with low soil moisture.
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack ....... 8
combined with low soil moisture.
ID.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack ....... 4
combined with low soil moisture.
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack ....... 1
combined with low soil moisture.
NV.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack ....... 3
combined with low soil moisture.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1791......... Drought: Very low snow pack ....... 3
combined with low soil moisture.
TX.............................. Waller............. 10-01-2002..... 11-30-2002..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1792......... Excessive rain................... 1 6
TX.............................. San Saba........... 3-29-2003...... 3-29-2003...... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1793......... Freeze........................... 1 7
TX.............................. Calhoun, 1-01-2002...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1794......... Drought, low humidity............ 11 35
Collingsworth,
Concho, Glasscock,
Hardeman, Howard,
Jackson, Mitchell,
Tom Green,
Victoria,
Wilbarger.
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-2002...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1794......... Drought, low humidity............ ....... 4
TX.............................. Martin............. 1-01-2002...... 12-27-2003..... 6-27-2003...... 2-27-2004..... S1795......... Drought, high winds.............. 1 7
CA.............................. San Diego.......... 11-25-2002..... 1-08-2003...... 7-01-2003...... 3-01-2004..... S1796......... Damaging Santa Ana Winds......... 1 3
CO.............................. Baca, Bent, Elbert, 9-01-2000...... 1-15-2004...... 7-15-2003...... 3-15-2004..... S1797......... Drought.......................... 6 10
Kiowa, Lincoln,
Prowers.
KS.............................. ................... 9-01-2000...... 1-15-2004...... 7-15-2003...... 3-15-2004..... S1797......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
NM.............................. ................... 9-01-2000...... 1-15-2004...... 7-15-2003...... 3-15-2004..... S1797......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
OK.............................. ................... 9-01-2000...... 1-15-2004...... 7-15-2003...... 3-15-2004..... S1797......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Williamson......... 7-01-2002...... 12-31-2002..... 7-15-2003...... 3-15-2004..... S1798......... Excessive rain, flooding......... 1 6
CA.............................. Glenn.............. 12-13-2002..... 12-27-2002..... 8-01-2003...... 4-01-2004..... S1799......... Rain, saturated soil, high winds. 1 3
CA.............................. Contra Costa....... 3-16-2003...... 5-15-2003...... 8-06-2003...... 4-06-2004..... S1800......... (1) Hailstorm.................... 1
(2) Rain.........................
VA.............................. Amelia............. 5-09-2003...... 5-09-2003...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1801......... Tornado, excessive rain, large 1 6
hail.
OH.............................. Adams, Allen, 5-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1802......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail, 70 14
Ashland, high wind, tornado damage.
Ashtabula, Athens,
Auglaize, Brown,
Butler, Carroll,
Clark, Clermont,
Clinton,
Columbiana,
Coshocton,
Crawford,
Cuyahoga, Darke,
Delaware, Erie,
Fairfield,
Fayette, Franklin,
Gallia, Geauga,
Greene, Hamilton,
Hancock, Hardin,
Highland, Hocking,
Holmes, Huron,
Jackson, Knox,
Lake, Lawrence,
Licking, Logan,
Lorain, Mahoning,
Marion, Medina,
Meigs, Mercer,
Miami, Montgomery,
Morgan, Morrow,
Muskingum,
Paulding, Perry,
Pickaway, Pike,
Portage, Preble,
Putnam, Richland,
Ross, Sandusky,
Scioto, Shelby,
Summit, Trumbull,
Tuscarawas, Union,
Van Wert, Vinton,
Warren,
Washington,
Wyandot.
IN.............................. ................... 5-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1802......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail, ....... 8
high wind, tornado damage.
KY.............................. ................... 5-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1802......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail, ....... 9
high wind, tornado damage.
PA.............................. ................... 5-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1802......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail, ....... 5
high wind, tornado damage.
WV.............................. ................... 5-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1802......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail, ....... 8
high wind, tornado damage.
AZ.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1803......... Drought.......................... 15 ..........
CA.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1803......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1803......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1803......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
NV.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1803......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-2003...... 2-29-2004...... 8-29-2003...... 4-29-2004..... S1803......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
CA.............................. Merced............. 4-21-2003...... 4-21-2003...... 9-11-2003...... 5-11-2004..... S1804......... Hail............................. 1 7
VA.............................. Campbell, 1-01-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 9-22-2003...... 5-24-2004..... S1805......... Excessive rainfall............... 8 24
Charlotte,
Culpeper, Halifax,
Page,
Rappahannock,
Russell,
Shenandoah.
NC.............................. Campbell, 1-01-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 9-22-2003...... 5-24-2004..... S1805......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 3
Charlotte,
Culpeper, Halifax,
Page,
Rappahannock,
Russell,
Shenandoah.
WV.............................. Campbell, 1-01-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 9-22-2003...... 5-24-2004..... S1805......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 1
Charlotte,
Culpeper, Halifax,
Page,
Rappahannock,
Russell,
Shenandoah.
WI.............................. Barron, Brown, 7-01-2002...... 3-22-2004...... 9-22-2003...... 5-24-2004..... S1806......... Exceptionally cold temperatures, 34 16
Buffalo, Burnett, lack of snow, very deep frost,
Chippewa, Clark, drought.
Dunn, Eau Claire,
Forest, Florence,
Jackson, Langlade,
Lincoln, Marathon,
Marinette,
Marquette,
Menominee, Oconto,
Oneida, Outagamie,
Pepin, Pierce,
Polk, Portage,
Price, Rusk, St.
Croix, Sawyer,
Shawano, Taylor,
Vilas, Washburn,
Waupaca, Wood.
MI.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 3-22-2004...... 9-22-2003...... 5-24-2004..... S1806......... Exceptionally cold temperatures, ....... 4
lack of snow, very deep frost,
drought.
MN.............................. ................... 7-01-2002...... 3-22-2004...... 9-22-2003...... 5-24-2004..... S1806......... Exceptionally cold temperatures, ....... 7
lack of snow, very deep frost,
drought.
VA.............................. Appomattox, 2-01-2003...... 3-29-2004...... 9-29-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1807......... Excessive rainfall............... 7 21
Augusta,
Buckingham,
Nottoway, Patrick,
Pittsylvania,
Prince Edward.
NC.............................. ................... 2-01-2003...... 3-29-2004...... 9-29-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1807......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 4
WV.............................. ................... 2-01-2003...... 3-29-2004...... 9-29-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1807......... Excessive rainfall............... ....... 1
VA.............................. Virginia Beach (I), 7-01-2002...... 3-01-2003...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1808......... Drought.......................... 2 7
Washington.
NC.............................. Virginia Beach (I), 7-01-2002...... 3-01-2003...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1808......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
Washington.
TN.............................. Virginia Beach (I), 7-01-2002...... 3-01-2003...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1808......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
Washington.
OK.............................. Alfalfa, Atoka, 7-01-2003...... 3-30-2004...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1809......... Drought.......................... 59 10
Beaver, Beckham,
Blaine, Bryan,
Caddo, Canadian,
Carter, Cimarron,
Cleveland, Coal.,
Comanche, Cotton,
Creek, Custer,
Dewey, Ellis,
Garfield, Garvin,
Grady, Grant,
Greer, Harmon,
Harper, Hughes,
Jackson, Johnston,
Kay, Kingfisher,
Kiowa, L.
CO.............................. ................... 7-01-2003...... 3-30-2004...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1809......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
KS.............................. ................... 7-01-2003...... 3-30-2004...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1809......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
NM.............................. ................... 7-01-2003...... 3-30-2004...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1809......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. ................... 7-01-2003...... 3-30-2004...... 9-30-2003...... 6-01-2004..... S1809......... Drought.......................... ....... 18
--------------------
TOTAL ACTIVE.............. ................... ............... ............... ............... .............. .............. ................................. 2309 2029
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH (EPPB) DISASTER DESIGNATION REQUESTS: FINAL TOTALS SECRETARIAL
[Fiscal Year 2004--Secretarial Designations for Production Losses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Date Ending Date of Approved by Termination Designation
State Counties requested of disaster disaster Secretary Date Number Description of disaster Primary Contiguous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR............................. Arkansas, Ashley, 5-01-2003....... 5-01-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 36 27
Clay, Cleburne, hail, tornadoes.
Conway,
Craighead,
Crittenden,
Cross, Faulkner,
Greene,
Hempstead,
Independence,
Jackson,
Jefferson,
Lafayette,
Lawrence, Lee,
Little River,
Lonoke,
Mississippi,
Monroe, Nevada,
Perry, Phillips,
Poinsett, Polk,
Pope, Prairie,
Pulaski,
Randolph, Sevier,
Sharp, St.
Francis, Stone,
White, Woodruff.
LA............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 5
hail, tornadoes.
MS............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 4
hail, tornadoes.
MO............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 5
hail, tornadoes.
OK............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 2
hail, tornadoes.
TN............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 4
hail, tornadoes.
TX............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-10-2003..... 6-10-2004...... S1810........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 1
hail, tornadoes.
KS............................. (1) Dickinson, 1-01-2003....... 4-20-2004...... 10-20-2003..... 6-21-2004...... S1811........ (1) Tornado, hail, high winds, 3 14
Jewell, Republic. lightning, excessive rain, flash
(2) Morton........ flooding, flooding.
(2) Excessive heat, drought, high
winds.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-20-2004...... 10-20-2003..... 6-21-2004...... S1811........ (1) Tornado, hail, high winds, ....... 1
lightning, excessive rain, flash
flooding, flooding.
(2) Excessive heat, drought, high
winds.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-20-2004...... 10-20-2003..... 6-21-2004...... S1811........ (1) Tornado, hail, high winds, ....... 4
lightning, excessive rain, flash
flooding, flooding.
(2) Excessive heat, drought, high
winds.
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-20-2004...... 10-20-2003..... 6-21-2004...... S1811........ (1) Tornado, hail, high winds, ....... 2
lightning, excessive rain, flash
flooding, flooding.
(2) Excessive heat, drought, high
winds.
CA............................. Alameda, Contra 1-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1812........ Excessive rain, wheat stripe rust. 10 30
Costa, Fresno,
Glenn, Kern,
Madera,
Sacramento, San
Joaquin, Tulare,
Yuba.
NV............................. Entire State (17 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1813........ Drought, insect infestation....... 17 ..........
counties).
AZ............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1813........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 1
CA............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1813........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 10
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1813........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 3
OR............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1813........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 3
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1813........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 7
IA............................. Adair, Adams, 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ .................................. 68 31
Allamakee,
Audubon, Benton,
Black Hawk,
Bremer, Buchanan,
Buena Vista,
Calhoun, Carroll,
Cass, Cherokee,
Chickasaw,
Clarke, Clay,
Clayton, Clinton,
Crawford, Dallas,
Davis, Decatur,
Dickinson,
Dubuque, Floyd,
Franklin,
Fremont, Grundy,
Guthrie,
Harrison, Henry,
Howard, Humboldt,
Ida, Jefferson,
Johnson, Jones,
Keokuk, Lee,
Linn, Louisa,
Lucas, Lyon,
Madison, Marion,
Mitchell, Monona,
Monroe,
Montgomery,
O'Brien, Page,
Pocahontas, Polk,
Pottawattamie,
Ringgold, Sac,
Shelby, Story,
Taylor, Union,
Van Buren,
Wapello, Warren,
Washington,
Wayne, Winnebago,
Winneshiek, Worth.
IL............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ Drought, related impacts.......... ....... 7
MN............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ Drought, related impacts.......... ....... 8
MO............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ Drought, related impacts.......... ....... 9
NE............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ Drought, related impacts.......... ....... 7
SD............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ Drought, related impacts.......... ....... 2
WI............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1814........ Drought, related impacts.......... ....... 3
MN............................. Aitkin, Anoka, 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1815........ Drought........................... 62 21
Becker, Beltrami,
Benton, Big
Stone, Carlton,
Cass, Chippewa,
Chisago,
Clearwater, Cook,
Crow Wing,
Dakota, Dodge,
Douglas,
Faribault,
Fillmore,
Freeborn,
Goodhue,
Hennepin,
Houston, Hubbard,
Isanti, Itasca,
Kanabec,
Kandiyohi,
Kittson, Lac Qui
Parle, Lake,
Lincoln,
Mahnomen, Meeker,
Mille Lacs,
Morrison, Mower,
Nicollet,
Olmsted, Otter
Tail, Pine,
Pipestone, Pope,
Ramsey, Red Lake,
Renville, Rice,
St. Louis, Scott,
Sherburne,
Sibley, Stearns,
Steele, Swift,
Todd, Traverse,
Wabasha, Wadena,
Waseca,
Washington,
Winona, Wright,
Yellow Medicine.
IA............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1815........ Drought........................... ....... 7
ND............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1815........ Drought........................... ....... 3
SD............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1815........ Drought........................... ....... 6
WI............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1815........ Drought........................... ....... 10
WY............................. Lincoln, Sublette, 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1816........ Drought........................... 3 4
Sweetwater.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1816........ Drought........................... ....... 4
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1816........ Drought........................... ....... 3
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 4-23-2004...... 10-23-2003..... 6-23-2004...... S1816........ Drought........................... ....... 3
CA............................. El Dorado......... 4-01-2003....... 5-15-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1817........ Excessive rain, hail, freezing 1 3
temperatures.
CA............................. Nevada............ 3-01-2003....... 5-15-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1817........ Rain, hail, freezing temperatures. 1 3
CA............................. Sutter............ 4-04-2003....... 5-09-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1817........ Hail.............................. 1 2
CA............................. Yolo.............. 4-01-2003....... 5-15-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1817........ Freezing temperatures............. 1 3
NV............................. .................. 3-01-2003....... 5-15-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1817........ Rain, hail, freezing temperatures. ....... 1
NV............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 5-15-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1817........ Excessive rain, hail, freezing ....... 1
temperatures.
CA............................. Butte............. 3-01-2003....... 5-14-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1818........ Spring rains, wheat stripe rust... 1 6
CA............................. Merced............ 4-01-2003....... 5-14-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1818........ Spring rains, cool temperatures, 1 7
wheat stripe rust.
CA............................. Solano............ 4-01-2003....... 5-31-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1818........ Spring rains, wheat stripe rust... 1 5
CA............................. Stanislaus........ 4-01-2003....... 5-14-2003...... 10-30-2003..... 6-30-2004...... S1818........ Rains, wheat stripe rust.......... 1 3
IN............................. Union............. 6-11-2003....... 6-16-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1819........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 3
OH............................. .................. 6-11-2003....... 6-16-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1819........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 2
VA............................. Bedford, 1-01-2003....... 5-04-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1820........ Excessive rainfall................ 4 20
Mecklenburg,
Rockingham, Scott.
NC............................. Bedford, 1-01-2003....... 5-04-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1820........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 3
Mecklenburg,
Rockingham, Scott.
TN............................. Bedford, 1-01-2003....... 5-04-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1820........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 3
Mecklenburg,
Rockingham, Scott.
WV............................. Bedford, 1-01-2003....... 5-04-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1820........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 2
Mecklenburg,
Rockingham, Scott.
TX............................. Lamb.............. 6-05-2003....... 6-20-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1821........ (1) Excessive rain, hail, high 1 7
winds, sand, static electricity;.
(2) Excessive rain, hail, high
wind, tornado;.
TX............................. Calhoun, Coke, 1-01-2003....... 5-06-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1822........ Drought........................... 9 36
Foard, Gillespie,
Karnes,
Matagorda,
Runnels,
Sterling, Wharton.
TX............................. Bailey............ 6-03-2003....... 6-20-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1823........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
hail, high winds, lightning.
NM............................. .................. 6-03-2003....... 6-20-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1823........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 2
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Hale.............. 5-20-2003....... 6-25-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1824........ Flooding, hail, high winds........ 1 7
TX............................. Hall.............. 6-22-2003....... 6-22-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1825........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 6
lightning.
NM............................. Entire State 1-01-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1826........ Drought, excessive heat........... 32 1
(except Los
Alamos County).
AZ............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1826........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 3
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1826........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 7
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1826........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 1
TX............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1826........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 16
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1826........ Drought, excessive heat........... ....... 1
LA............................. Acadia, 6-01-2003....... 7-31-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1827........ Excessive rain.................... 9 13
Beauregard,
Calcasieu,
Cameron,
Evangeline,
Lafayette,
Rapides, St.
Landry, St.
Martin.
TX............................. .................. 6-01-2003....... 7-31-2003...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1827........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 2
OR............................. Baker, Gilliam.... 10-01-2001...... 5-06-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1828........ Drought........................... 2 8
ID............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 5-06-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1828........ Drought........................... ....... 2
WA............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... 5-06-2004...... 11-04-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1828........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. Hockley, Lubbock.. 6-01-2003....... 6-30-2003...... 11-05-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1829........ Excessive rain, hail, high wind... 2 10
TX............................. Bexar............. 3-01-2003....... 5-27-2003...... 11-05-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1830........ Drought, high temperatures........ 1 7
TX............................. Crosby............ 6-04-2003....... 6-20-2003...... 11-05-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1831........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 8
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Briscoe........... 6-01-2003....... 5-06-2004...... 11-06-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1832........ Drought, high winds, static 1 6
electricity, heat.
TX............................. Parmer............ 5-01-2003....... 6-30-2003...... 11-06-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1833........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 4
cool weather.
NM............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 6-30-2003...... 11-06-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1833........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, ....... 1
cool weather.
TX............................. Deaf Smith........ 6-01-2003....... 6-30-2003...... 11-06-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1834........ Hail, tornado..................... 1 5
NM............................. .................. 6-01-2003....... 6-30-2003...... 11-06-2003..... 7-06-2004...... S1834........ Hail, tornado..................... ....... 2
NY............................. Seneca............ 4-03-2003....... 4-04-2003...... 11-10-2003..... 7-12-2004...... S1835........ Excessive rain, ice, high winds... 1 6
NY............................. Wayne............. 4-04-2003....... 4-04-2003...... 11-10-2003..... 7-12-2004...... S1835........ Ice Storm......................... 1 1
IN............................. Bartholomew, 4-01-2003....... 7-15-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1836........ Excessive rainfall, cool 29 15
Brown, Clark, temperatures.
Daviess,
Dearborn,
Decatur, Dubois,
Franklin, Gibson,
Jackson,
Jefferson,
Jennings, Knox,
Martin, Monroe,
Morgan, Ohio,
Orange, Owen,
Perry, Pike,
Posey, Ripley,
Scott, Spencer,
Switzerland,
Vanderburgh,
Warrick,
Washington.
IL............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 7-15-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1836........ Excessive rainfall, cool ....... 5
temperatures.
KY............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 7-15-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1836........ Excessive rainfall, cool ....... 12
temperatures.
OH............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 7-15-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1836........ Excessive rainfall, cool ....... 2
temperatures.
MO............................. Andrew, Atchison, 1-01-2003....... 5-13-2004...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1837........ Drought........................... 39 13
Barton, Bates,
Benton, Buchanan,
Caldwell,
Carroll, Cass,
Cedar, Chariton,
Clay, Clinton,
Cooper, Daviess ,
DeKalb, Gentry,
Grundy, Harrison,
Henry, Hickory,
Holt, Jackson,
Johnson,
Lafayette, Linn,
Livingston,
Mercer, Morgan,
Nodaway, Pettis,
Platte, Putnam,
Ray, Saline, St.
Clair, Sullivan,
Vernon, Worth.
IA............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-13-2004...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1837........ Drought........................... ....... 7
KS............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-13-2004...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1837........ Drought........................... ....... 9
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 5-13-2004...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1837........ Drought........................... ....... 3
TX............................. Cochran........... 6-03-2003....... 6-23-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1838........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 5
lightning, tornado.
NM............................. .................. 6-03-2003....... 6-23-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1838........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, ....... 2
lightning, tornado.
TX............................. Motley............ 6-22-2003....... 6-22-2003...... 11-13-2003..... 7-13-2004...... S1839........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 7
static electricity.
AR............................. Lawrence.......... 9-01-2003....... 9-08-2003...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1840........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 5
CA............................. Kings............. 4-01-2003....... 5-14-2003...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1841........ Excessive rain, wheat stripe rust. 1 5
CA............................. Tehama............ 4-01-2003....... 5-09-2003...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1842........ (1) Storms........................ 1 6
(2) Storms with hail, extended wet
periods, below average
temperatures-causing wheat stripe
rust.
CO............................. Alamosa, 1-31-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1843........ Drought, insect infestation....... 26 17
Archuletta,
Chaffee, Conejos,
Costilla,
Crowley, Custer,
Dolores, Fremont,
Garfield,
Hinsdale,
Huerfano, Lake,
La Plata, Las
Animas Mesa,
Mineral, Moffat,
Montezuma, Otero,
Pueblo, Rio
Blanco, Rio
Grande, Routt,
Saguache, San
Miguel.
AZ............................. .................. 1-31-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1843........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 1
NM............................. .................. 1-31-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1843........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 5
UT............................. .................. 1-31-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1843........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 4
WY............................. .................. 1-31-2003....... 5-21-2004...... 11-21-2003..... 7-21-2004...... S1843........ Drought, insect infestation....... ....... 2
SD............................. Beadle, Bennett, 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1844........ Extreme heat, high winds, severe 33 22
Bon Homme, Brule, storms, significantly below
Buffalo, Butte, normal precipitation (drought)
Campbell, Charles resulting in numerous prairie and
Mix, Corson, forest fires.
Deuel, Dewey,
Grant, Gregory,
Haakon, Hamlin,
Hand, Harding,
Hughes, Hyde,
Jackson, Jones,
Meade, Mellette,
Perkins, Potter,
Shannon, Spink,
Stanley, Sully,
Todd, Tripp,
Walworth, Ziebach.
MN............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1844........ Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 4
storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1844........ Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 2
storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
ND............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1844........ Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 5
storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1844........ Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 6
storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1844........ Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 1
storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
SD............................. Brookings, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-11-2003..... 8-11-2004...... S1844, Extreme heat, high winds, severe 8 2
Codington, Amendment 1. storms, significantly below
Custer, Fall normal precipitation (drought)
River, Faulk, resulting in numerous prairie and
Jerauld, Lyman, forest fires.
Pennington.
MN............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-11-2003..... 8-11-2004...... S1844, Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 1
Amendment 1. storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-11-2003..... 8-11-2004...... S1844, Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 1
Amendment 1. storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-11-2003..... 8-11-2004...... S1844, Extreme heat, high winds, severe ....... 2
Amendment 1. storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
SD............................. Aurora, Clark..... 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1844, Extreme heat, high winds, severe 2 1
Amendment 2. storms, significantly below
normal precipitation (drought)
resulting in numerous prairie and
forest fires.
NE............................. (1) Antelope, 7-01-2002....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1845........ Drought, high temperatures, 11 3
Cedar, Cuming, grasshopper infestation.
Dixon, Madison, (2) Drought, high temperatures....
Stanton, Wayne. (3)(a) Drought; (b) Continuing
(2) Burt, Knox.... rain.
(3) Dakota........ (4)(a) Drought, high temperatures,
(4) Pierce........ grasshopper infestation; (b) High
winds.
IA............................. .................. 7-01-2002....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1845........ Drought, high temperatures, ....... 2
grasshopper infestation.
(2) Drought, high temperatures....
(3)(a) Drought; (b) Continuing
rain.
(4)(a) Drought, high temperatures,
grasshopper infestation; (b) High
winds.
OR............................. .................. 7-01-2002....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1845........ Drought, high temperatures, ....... 5
grasshopper infestation.
(2) Drought, high temperatures....
(3)(a) Drought; (b) Continuing
rain.
(4)(a) Drought, high temperatures,
grasshopper infestation; (b) High
winds.
ID............................. Bannock, Bear 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... 30 13
Lake, Benewah, (2) Frost/Freeze..................
Bingham, Blaine, (3) Inadequate moisture during
Bonneville, growing season.
Butte, Camas, (4) Excessive heat................
Caribou, Cassia, (5) Insect infestation............
Clark, (6) Hail..........................
Clearwater,
Custer, Elmore,
Franklin,
Fremont, Idaho,
Jefferson,
Kootenai, Lemhi,
Lewis, Lincoln,
Madison, Nez
Perce, Oneida,
Owyhee, Payette,
Power, Teton,
Twin Falls.
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 6
(2) Frost/Freeze..................
(3) Inadequate moisture during
growing season.
(4) Excessive heat................
(5) Insect infestation............
(6) Hail..........................
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 2
(2) Frost/Freeze..................
(3) Inadequate moisture during
growing season.
(4) Excessive heat................
(5) Insect infestation............
(6) Hail..........................
OR............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 2
(2) Frost/Freeze..................
(3) Inadequate moisture during
growing season.
(4) Excessive heat................
(5) Insect infestation............
(6) Hail..........................
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 3
(2) Frost/Freeze..................
(3) Inadequate moisture during
growing season.
(4) Excessive heat................
(5) Insect infestation............
(6) Hail..........................
WA............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 3
(2) Frost/Freeze..................
(3) Inadequate moisture during
growing season.
(4) Excessive heat................
(5) Insect infestation............
(6) Hail..........................
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1846........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 2
(2) Frost/Freeze..................
(3) Inadequate moisture during
growing season.
(4) Excessive heat................
(5) Insect infestation............
(6) Hail..........................
MO............................. Dunklin, New 5-04-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1847........ Excessive spring rainfall......... 4 6
Madrid, Pemiscot,
Stoddard.
AR............................. .................. 5-04-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1847........ Excessive spring rainfall......... ....... 4
KY............................. .................. 5-04-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1847........ Excessive spring rainfall......... ....... 1
TN............................. .................. 5-04-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1847........ Excessive spring rainfall......... ....... 2
VA............................. Amherst, 4-01-2003....... 8-31-2003...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1848........ Excessive rain.................... 2 11
Washington.
TN............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 8-31-2003...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1848........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 2
MT............................. Beaverhead, Big 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1849........ Drought........................... 35 21
Horn, Blaine,
Broadwater,
Carbon, Carter,
Cascade, Daniels,
Dawson, Fallon,
Fergus, Flathead,
Gallatin,
Glacier, Golden
Valley, Hill,
Jefferson, Judith
Basin, Lake,
Lewis and Clark,
Liberty, Madison,
Meagher,
Musselshell,
Park, Phillips,
Rosebud, Sanders,
Sheridan,
Stillwater,
Sweetgrass,
Teton, Toole,
Wheatland,
Yellowstone..
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1849........ Drought........................... ....... 5
ND............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1849........ Drought........................... ....... 5
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1849........ Drought........................... ....... 2
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1849........ Drought........................... ....... 5
ND............................. Adams, Barnes, 4-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1850........ Flooding, ground saturation, 47 6
Billings, storms, winds, tornadoes, high
Bottineau, humidity, dry conditions, severe
Bowman, Burke, temperatures.
Burleigh, Cass,
Cavalier, Dickey,
Divide, Dunn,
Emmons, Golden
Valley, Grand
Forks, Grant,
Griggs,
Hettinger,
Kidder, La Moure,
Logan, McHenry,
McIntosh,
McKenzie, McLean,
Mercer, Morton,
Mountrail,
Oliver, Pierce,
Ramsey, Ransom,
Renville,
Rolette, Sargent,
Sheridan, Sioux,
Slope, Stark,
Steele, Stutsman,
Towner, Traill,
Walsh, Ward,
Wells, Williams.
MN............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1850........ Flooding, ground saturation, ....... 5
storms, winds, tornadoes, high
humidity, dry conditions, severe
temperatures.
MT............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1850........ Flooding, ground saturation, ....... 5
storms, winds, tornadoes, high
humidity, dry conditions, severe
temperatures.
SD............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1850........ Flooding, ground saturation, ....... 8
storms, winds, tornadoes, high
humidity, dry conditions, severe
temperatures.
NE............................. Boone, Butler, 7-01-2002....... 5-14-2004...... 11-14-2003..... 7-14-2004...... S1851........ Drought, extreme heat, flooding, 28 12
Cass, Clay, grasshopper infestation, hail,
Colfax, Dodge, high winds, tornadoes.
Douglas,
Fillmore, Gage,
Hamilton,
Jefferson,
Johnson,
Lancaster,
Merrick, Nance,
Nemaha, Otoe,
Pawnee, Platte,
Polk, Richardson,
Saline, Sarpy,
Saunders, Seward,
Thayer,
Washington, York.
IA............................. .................. 7-01-2002....... 5-14-2004...... 11-14-2003..... 7-14-2004...... S1851........ Drought, extreme heat, flooding, ....... 4
grasshopper infestation, hail,
high winds, tornadoes.
MO............................. .................. 7-01-2002....... 5-14-2004...... 11-14-2003..... 7-14-2004...... S1851........ Drought, extreme heat, flooding, ....... 2
grasshopper infestation, hail,
high winds, tornadoes.
KS............................. .................. 7-01-2002....... 5-14-2004...... 11-14-2003..... 7-14-2004...... S1851........ Drought, extreme heat, flooding, ....... 6
grasshopper infestation, hail,
high winds, tornadoes.
SC............................. Allendale, 3-20-2003....... 11-07-2003..... 12-09-2003..... 8-09-2004...... S1852........ Excessive rainfall................ 8 16
Bamberg,
Cherokee,
Edgefield,
Greenville,
Pickens, Saluda,
Spartanburg.
GA............................. .................. 3-20-2003....... 11-07-2003..... 12-09-2003..... 8-09-2004...... S1852........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 4
NC............................. .................. 3-20-2003....... 11-07-2003..... 12-09-2003..... 8-09-2004...... S1852........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 5
NJ............................. Atlantic, 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... continuing..... 8-02-2004...... S1853........ Excessive precipitation, disease, 16 3
Burlington, insect infestation.
Camden, Cape May,
Cumberland,
Gloucester,
Hunterdon,
Mercer,
Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris,
Ocean, Salem,
Somerset, Sussex,
Warren.
DE............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1853........ Excessive precipitation........... ....... 3
NY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1853........ Excessive precipitation........... ....... 2
PA............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 6-02-2004...... 12-02-2003..... 8-02-2004...... S1853........ Excessive precipitation........... ....... 6
TX............................. Wheeler........... 1-01-2003....... 6-12-2004...... 12-12-2003..... 8-12-2004...... S1854........ Drought........................... 1 7
CA............................. Colusa, Sacramento 7-10-2003....... 8-26-2003...... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1855........ (1) Excessive rainfall........... 2 11
(2) Extreme heat, followed by
unseasonable rainfall.
IL............................. Boone, Bureau, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1856........ Drought........................... 42 28
Carroll, Clay,
Edwards, Fayette,
Franklin,
Gallatin,
Hamilton, Hardin,
Henderson, Henry,
Jackson,
Jefferson, Jo
Daviess, Johnson,
Knox, Lake, Lee,
Marion, Marshall,
Massac, McHenry,
Mercer, Ogle,
Perry, Pope,
Putnam, Randolph,
Saline, St.
Clair, Stark,
Stephenson,
Vermilion,
Wabash,
Washington,
Wayne, White,
Whiteside,
Williamson,
Winnebago,
Woodford.
KY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1856........ Drought........................... ....... 4
MO............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1856........ Drought........................... ....... 4
WI............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1856........ Drought........................... ....... 5
MO............................. Audrain, Boone, 6-01-2002....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1857........ Drought........................... 34 21
Callaway, Cape
Girardeau, Cole,
Crawford, Dade,
Franklin,
Gasconade,
Greene, Howard,
Jasper, Knox,
Laclede,
Lawrence,
Lincoln, Macon,
Maries, Marion,
McDonald, Miller,
Moniteau, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Osage, Perry,
Phelps, Pike,
Pulaski, Ralls,
Randolph,
Scotland, Shelby,
Warren.
AR............................. .................. 6-01-2002....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1857........ Drought........................... ....... 1
IL............................. .................. 6-01-2002....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1857........ Drought........................... ....... 7
IA............................. .................. 6-01-2002....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1857........ Drought........................... ....... 2
KS............................. .................. 6-01-2002....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1857........ Drought........................... ....... 1
OK............................. .................. 6-01-2002....... continuing..... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1857........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Floyd............. 5-31-2003....... 6-11-2003...... 12-19-2003..... 8-19-2004...... S1858........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. 1 7
AR............................. Randolph.......... 8-03-2003....... 8-03-2003...... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1859........ Hail.............................. 1 4
MO............................. .................. 8-03-2003....... 8-03-2003...... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1859........ Hail.............................. ....... 2
ID............................. Latah............. 7-01-2003....... 8-02-2003...... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1860........ Drought........................... 1 4
WA............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 8-02-2003...... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1860........ Drought........................... ....... 1
NY............................. Allegany, Cayuga, 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1861........ Excessive Rain, flash Flooding, 22 30
Columbia, cool temperatures.
Dutchess, Greene,
Herkimer,
Jefferson, Lewis,
Madison, Niagara,
Onondaga, Orange,
Oswego,
Rensselaer,
Saratoga,
Schuyler, Seneca,
St. Lawrence,
Suffolk,
Tompkins, Ulster,
Wayne.
CT............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1861........ Excessive Rain, flash Flooding, ....... 5
cool temperatures.
MA............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1861........ Excessive Rain, flash Flooding, ....... 1
cool temperatures.
PA............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1861........ Excessive Rain, flash Flooding, ....... 3
cool temperatures.
VT............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1861........ Excessive Rain, flash Flooding, ....... 1
cool temperatures.
OR............................. Union, Wheeler.... 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1862........ Drought........................... 2 3
VA............................. (1) Franklin, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1863........ (1) Excessive rain............... 3 13
Northampton, (2) Hurricane Isabel..............
Roanoke.
(2) Patrick.......
NC............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-09-2004...... 9-09-2004...... S1863........ (1) Excessive rain............... ....... 2
(2) Hurricane Isabel..............
TN............................. Carter, Hancock, 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1864........ Excessive rainfall................ 11 17
Hawkins,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Macon,
Montgomery,
Sullivan,
Trousdale,
Unicoi,
Washington.
KY............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1864........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 4
NC............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1864........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 6
VA............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1864........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 2
MI............................. Antrim, Calhoun, 8-01-2003....... 9-22-2003...... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1865........ Storms that produced hail, high 9 24
Ingham, Jackson, winds, heavy rains.
Kent, Mason,
Muskegon,
Newaygo, Ottawa.
MI............................. Alcona, Alger, 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1866........ Drought........................... 75 8
Allegan, Alpena,
Antrim, Arenac,
Baraga, Barry,
Bay, Benzie,
Berrien, Calhoun,
Cass, Charlevoix,
Cheboygan,
Chippewa, Clare,
Clinton, Delta,
Dickinson, Eaton,
Emmet, Genesee,
Gladwin, Gogebic,
Grand Traverse,
Gratiot,
Houghton, Huron,
Ingham, Ionia,
Iosco, Iron,
Isabella,
Jackson,
Kalamazoo,
Kalkaska, Kent,
Keweenaw, Lapeer,
Leelanau,
Livingston, Luce,
Mackinac, Macomb,
Manistee,
Marquette, Mason,
Mecosta,
Menominee,
Midland,
Missaukee,
Montcalm,
Montmorency,
Muskegon,
Newaygo, Oakland,
Oceana, Ogemaw,
Ontonagon,
Osceola, Otsego,
Ottawa, Presque
Isle, Saginaw,
Sanilac,
Schoolcraft,
Shiawassee, St.
Clair, St.
Joseph, Tuscola,
Van Buren,
Washtenaw, Wayne,
Wexford.
IN............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1866........ Drought........................... ....... 4
WI............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1866........ Drought........................... ....... 5
MI............................. Allegan, Antrim, (1) 02/28/03... (1) 07/21/03.. 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1867........ (1) Extreme temperature 32 36
Benzie, Berrien, (2) 05/07/03.... (2) 07/21/03... fluctuations; freezing rain;
Cass, Charlevoix, periods of abnormal warm weather
Dickinson, Grand followed by temperatures as low
Traverse, as 24 degrees with significant
Hillsdale, Huron, crop damage..
Ingham, Ionia, (2) Heavy rains, flooding, hail,
Iron, Isabella, high winds.
Kalamazoo, Kent,
Leelanau,
Livingston,
Macomb, Manistee,
Mason, Menominee,
Monroe, Montcalm,
Muskegon,
Newaygo, Oceana,
Otsego, Ottawa,
St. Clair, Van
Buren, Wexford.
IN............................. .................. (1) 02/28/03.... (2) 07/21/03... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1867........ (1) Extreme temperature ....... 4
(2) 05/07/03.... (2) 07/21/03... fluctuations; freezing rain;
periods of abnormal warm weather
followed by temperatures as low
as 24 degrees with significant
crop damage..
(2) Heavy rains, flooding, hail,
high winds.
OH............................. .................. (1) 02/28/03.... (1) 07/21/03... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1867........ (1) Extreme temperature ....... 3
(2)05/07/03..... (2)07/21/03.... fluctuations; freezing rain;
periods of abnormal warm weather
followed by temperatures as low
as 24 degrees with significant
crop damage..
(2) Heavy rains, flooding, hail,
high winds.
WI............................. .................. (1) 02/28/03... (1) 07/21/03.. 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1867........ (1) Extreme temperature ....... 4
(2) 05/07/03.... (2) 07/21/03... fluctuations; freezing rain;
periods of abnormal warm weather
followed by temperatures as low
as 24 degrees with significant
crop damage..
(2) Heavy rains, flooding, hail,
high winds.
KS............................. Allen, Anderson, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1868........ Drought, excessive wind, insect 81 24
Atchison, Barber, damage.
Barton, Bourbon,
Chautauqua,
Cheyenne, Clay,
Cloud, Coffey,
Crawford,
Decatur,
Dickinson,
Doniphan, Elk,
Ellsworth,
Finney, Ford,
Geary, Graham,
Grant, Gray,
Hamilton, Harper,
Haskell,
Hodgeman,
Jefferson,
Jewell, Johnson,
Kearny, Kingman,
Kiowa, Lane,
Leavenworth,
Lincoln, Linn,
Logan, McPherson,
Marshall, Meade,
Miami, Mitchell,
Nemaha, Neosho,
Ness, Norton,
Osage, Osborne,
Ottawa, Phillips,
Pottawatomie,
Rawlins, Reno,
Republic, Rice,
Riley, Rooks,
Rush, Russell,
Saline, Scott,
Sheridan,
Sherman, Smith,
Stafford,
Stanton, Thomas,
Trego, Wabaunsee,
Wallace,
Washington,
Wyandotte;
Douglas, Edwards,
Franklin, Gove,
Lyon, Morris,
Pawnee, Pratt.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1868........ Drought, excessive wind, insect ....... 4
damage.
MO............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1868........ Drought, excessive wind, insect ....... 11
damage.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1868........ Drought, excessive wind, insect ....... 13
damage.
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1868........ Drought, excessive wind, insect ....... 6
damage.
OR............................. Sherman, Wallowa.. 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1869........ Drought........................... 2 5
ID............................. Sherman, Wallowa.. 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1869........ Drought........................... ....... 3
WA............................. Sherman, Wallowa.. 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 1-23-2004...... 9-23-2004...... S1869........ Drought........................... ....... 4
TX............................. Brooks............ 10-10-2003...... 10-13-2003..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1870........ Flash flooding.................... 1 7
TX............................. Lavaca............ 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1871........ Excessive rain.................... 1 6
TX............................. Wilbarger......... 10-10-2003...... 10-13-2003..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1872........ Flash flooding.................... 1 5
OK............................. Jackson, Tillman.. 10-10-2003...... 10-13-2003..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1872........ Flash flooding.................... ....... 2
TX............................. Knox.............. 1-01-2003....... 12-08-2003..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1873........ Drought, high wind, excessive heat 1 6
TX............................. Young............. 4-05-2003....... 4-05-2003...... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1874........ Hail, tornado, excessive high 1 6
winds.
TX............................. Stephens.......... 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1875........ Drought, high winds............... 1 5
TX............................. Baylor............ 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1876........ Drought........................... 1 8
TX............................. Cottle, King...... 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1877........ Drought, excessive temperatures 1 10
(heat).
TX............................. Stonewall......... 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 2-10-2004...... 10-12-2004..... S1878........ Drought, excessive temperatures 1 7
(heat).
PA............................. Erie.............. 1-01-2003....... 12-31-2003..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1879........ Excessive rainfall, early frost... 1 2
NY............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 12-31-2003..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1879........ Excessive rainfall, early frost... ....... 1
OH............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... 12-31-2003..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1879........ Excessive rainfall, early frost... ....... 1
OR............................. Harney, Klamath, 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1880........ Drought........................... 3 4
Malheur.
CA............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1880........ Drought........................... ....... 1
ID............................. .................. 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1880........ Drought........................... ....... 1
MI............................. Berrien, 8-01-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1881........ Abnormally cool, cloudy weather 6 12
Kalamazoo, resulting in an increase in
Manistee, Mason, aphids, which caused mosaic virus
Ocean, Van Buren. (in vegetable crops.
IN............................. Berrien, 8-01-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1881........ .................................. ....... 2
Kalamazoo,
Manistee, Mason,
Ocean, Van Buren.
MI............................. Berrien, Cass, 3-01-2003....... 10-02-2003..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1882........ Late spring (cool spring weather), 4 5
Kalamazoo, Van combined with early freeze.
Buren.
IN............................. Berrien, Cass, 3-01-2003....... 10-02-2003..... 2-13-2004...... 10-13-2004..... S1882........ Late spring (cool spring weather), ....... 3
Kalamazoo, Van combined with early freeze.
Buren.
WI............................. Adams, Ashland, 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 2-27-2004...... 10-27-2004..... S1883........ Drought........................... 59 11
Barron, Bayfield,
Buffalo, Burnett,
Calumet,
Chippewa, Clark,
Columbia,
Crawford, Dane,
Dodge, Douglas,
Dunn, Eau Claire,
Florence, Fond du
Lac, Forest,
Grant, Green,
Green Lake, Iowa,
Iron, Jackson,
Jefferson,
Juneau, Kenosha,
LaCrosse,
Lafayette,
Langlade,
Lincoln,
Marquette,
Milwaukee,
Monroe, Oneida,
Ozaukee, Pepin,
Pierce, Polk,
Portage, Racine,
Richland, Rock,
Rusk, St. Croix,
Sauk, Sawyer,
Trempealeau,
Vernon, Vilas,
Walworth,
Washburn,
Washington,
Waukesha,
Waupaca,
Waushara,
Winnebago, Wood.
IL............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 2-27-2004...... 10-27-2004..... S1883........ Drought........................... ....... 6
IA............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 2-27-2004...... 10-27-2004..... S1883........ Drought........................... ....... 3
MI............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 2-27-2004...... 10-27-2004..... S1883........ Drought........................... ....... 3
MN............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 2-27-2004...... 10-27-2004..... S1883........ Drought........................... ....... 10
MA............................. Berkshire, 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1884........ Wet weather patterns.............. 7 4
Bristol,
Franklin,
Hampshire,
Hampden, Norfolk,
Plymouth.
CT............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1884........ Wet weather patterns.............. ....... 2
NH............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1884........ Wet weather patterns.............. ....... 1
RI............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1884........ Wet weather patterns.............. ....... 3
VT............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1884........ Wet weather patterns.............. ....... 1
CA............................. Fresno, Kern, 1-02-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1885........ Cool weather followed by extended 4 15
Merced, Tulare. period of hot weather.
NY............................. Albany, 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1886........ Various disasters for each county 11 12
Cattaraugus, including: Below normal
Chautauqua, Erie, temperatures, excessive rain,
Livingston, flash flooding, hail, high winds.
Oneida, Orleans,
Saratoga, Seneca,
Sullivan,
Tompkins.
PA............................. .................. 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1886........ Various disasters for each county ....... 3
including: Below normal
temperatures, excessive rain,
flash flooding, hail, high winds.
NY............................. Wayne............. 9-23-2003....... 9-23-2003...... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1887........ Hail.............................. 1 4
WA............................. (1) Clark, 5-01-2003....... 9-06-2003...... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1888........ (1) Drought, excessive heat...... 7 8
Cowlitz, (2) Drought.......................
Skamania,
Wahkiakum.
(2) Island, San
Juan, Skagit.
OR............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 9-06-2003...... 3-09-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1888........ (1) Drought, excessive heat...... .......
(2) Drought.......................
CA............................. Sutter, Yuba...... 8-22-2003....... 9-15-2003...... 3-11-2004...... 11-09-2004..... S1889........ Unseasonable late summer rainfall. 2 8
CO............................. Cheyenne, Logan, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1890........ Drought........................... 3 4
Phillips.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1890........ Drought........................... ....... 3
ME............................. Aroostook, 6-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1891........ Excessive rainfall................ 4 9
Franklin, Oxford,
Penobscot.
NH............................. .................. 6-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1891........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 2
TX............................. Hansford.......... 6-05-2003....... 6-09-2003...... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1892........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 5
hail, high winds, lightning,
tornado.
OK............................. .................. 6-05-2003....... 6-09-2003...... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1892........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 1
hail, high winds, lightning,
tornado.
WA............................. Asotin, Chelan, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1893........ Drought........................... 20 13
Columbia,
Douglas, Ferry,
Garfield, Grays
Harbor, King,
Kitsap, Lewis,
Lincoln, Mason,
Pacific, Pend
Oreille, Pierce,
Spokane, Stevens,
Thurston, Walla
Walla, Whitman.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1893........ Drought........................... ....... 6
OR............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-16-2004...... 11-16-2004..... S1893........ Drought........................... ....... 2
CT............................. Entire State...... 5-01-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1894........ Wet weather pattern; high 8 ..........
rainfall, insect problems.
MA............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1894........ Wet weather pattern; high ....... 2
rainfall, insect problems.
NY............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1894........ Wet weather pattern; high ....... 4
rainfall, insect problems.
RI............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 9-30-2003...... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1894........ Wet weather pattern; high ....... 3
rainfall, insect problems.
HI............................. Hawaii, Honolulu, 1-01-2003....... 12-31-2003..... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1895........ Drought........................... 4 1
Kauai, Maui.
OR............................. Wasco, Washington. 10-01-2001...... continuing..... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1896........ Drought........................... 2 8
TX............................. Hockley........... 6-30-2003....... continuing..... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1897........ Drought........................... 1 8
TX............................. Fisher............ 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 3-22-2004...... 11-22-2004..... S1898........ Drought, excessive temperatures 1 7
(heat).
TX............................. Lynn.............. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-05-2004...... 12-06-2004..... S1899........ (1) Hail, high winds............. 1 7
(2) Drought.......................
NY............................. Erie, Livingston, 10-14-2003...... continuing..... 4-09-2004...... 12-09-2004..... S1900........ Excessive rain, high winds........ 9 20
Monroe, Onondaga,
Ontario, Orleans,
Oswego, Schuyler,
Tompkins.
KS............................. Brown............. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-21-2004...... 12-21-2004..... S1901........ Drought, frost, excessive wind, 1 ..........
insect damage.
OR............................. Morrow............ 9-02-2002....... continuing..... 4-21-2004...... 12-21-2004..... S1902........ Drought........................... 1 ..........
WA............................. .................. 9-02-2002....... continuing..... 4-21-2004...... 12-21-2004..... S1902........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. Robertson......... 10-05-2003...... 10-09-2003..... 4-21-2004...... 12-21-2004..... S1903........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 7
TX............................. Martin............ 1-01-2003....... 12-31-2003..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1904........ Drought, high winds............... 1 7
TX............................. Motley............ 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1905........ Drought, high winds, static 1 7
electricity.
TX............................. San Saba.......... 10-15-2003...... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1906........ Drought........................... 1 7
TX............................. Mason............. 10-01-2003...... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1907........ Drought, high winds............... 1 6
TX............................. Palo Pinto........ 10-01-2003...... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1908........ Drought........................... 1 7
TX............................. Bastrop........... 3-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1909........ Drought........................... 1 6
TX............................. Dickens........... 8-01-2003....... 12-18-2003..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1910........ Drought, excessive temperatures 1 8
(heat).
TX............................. Caldwell.......... 3-15-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1911........ Drought........................... 1 6
TX............................. Kent.............. 8-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1912........ Drought, excessive temperatures 1 7
(heat).
TX............................. Montague.......... 4-15-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1913........ Drought........................... 1 4
OK............................. .................. 4-15-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1913........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Crane, Ector, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1914........ Drought, high winds, excessive 8 16
Haskell, Loving, heat.
Presidio, Reeves,
Ward, Winkler.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1914........ Drought, high winds, excessive ....... 2
heat.
CA............................. San Luis Obispo, 4-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1915........ (1) Insufficient winter chill 2 6
Santa Barbara. hours, rainfall, high heat.
(2) Insufficient winter chill
hours, cool/wet weather, extended
hot spell.
MT............................. Blackfeet Tribe 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1916........ Drought........................... 11 ..........
(Pondera Co.),
Confederated
Salish Kootenai
Tribe (Missoula
Co.), Ft. Peck
Assisiboine &
Sioux Tribe;
(Valley Co.),
Chouteau,
Garfield,
Granite, Mineral,
Prairie,
Petroleum,
Pondera, Treasure.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1916........ Drought........................... ....... 2
CA............................. Placer............ 8-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1917........ August rain, poor winter chill, 1 5
high heat-Pistachios.
NV............................. .................. 8-01-2003....... 10-31-2003..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1917........ August rain, poor winter chill, ....... 3
high heat-Pistachios.
TX............................. Crockett, 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1918........ Drought........................... 9 32
Glasscock,
Hardeman, Howard,
Irion, Jones,
Reagan, Upton,
Williamson.
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-23-2004...... 12-23-2004..... S1918........ Drought........................... ....... 2
NY............................. Fulton, 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-27-2004...... 12-27-2004..... S1919........ Excessive rain, cool temperatures. 4 6
Montgomery,
Ontario, Otsego.
TX............................. Andrews........... 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1920........ Drought, high winds............... 1 5
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1920........ Drought, high winds............... ....... 1
TX............................. Donley............ 9-15-2003....... 12-31-2003..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1921........ Drought........................... 1 7
TX............................. Shackelford, 1-01-2003....... 11-25-2003..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1922........ Drought, high winds............... 2 9
Throckmorton.
TX............................. Childress......... 8-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1923........ Drought, high winds............... 1 4
OK............................. .................. 8-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1923........ Drought, high winds............... ....... 1
TX............................. Clay.............. 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1924........ Drought........................... 1 4
OK............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1924........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Wise.............. 7-15-2003....... continuing..... 4-28-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1925........ Drought........................... 1 6
NY............................. Dutchess.......... 9-01-2003....... continuing..... 5-03-2004...... 12-28-2004..... S1926........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 4
CT............................. .................. 9-01-2003....... continuing..... 5-03-2004...... 1-03-2005...... S1926........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 2
MA............................. .................. 9-01-2003....... continuing..... 5-03-2004...... 1-03-2005...... S1926........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 1
CA............................. Placer, San Luis 5-01-2003....... 11-15-2003..... 5-17-2004...... 1-18-2005...... S1927........ (1) Unseasonable rainfall......... 2 9
Obispo. (2) Wheat stripe rust, resulting
from unseasonable rainfall.
NV............................. .................. 5-01-2003....... 11-15-2003..... 5-17-2004...... 1-18-2005...... S1927........ (1) Unseasonable rainfall......... ....... 3
(2) Wheat stripe rust, resulting
from unseasonable rainfall.
TX............................. Brooks............ 4-04-2004....... 4-04-2004...... 6-08-2004...... 2-08-2004...... S1928........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
flooding, hail, high winds.
HI............................. Hawaii, Honolulu, 12-07-2003...... 3-26-2004...... 6-21-2004...... 2-22-2004...... S1929........ High winds, rain, flooding........ 3 1
Maui.
TX............................. Robertson......... 4-10-2004....... 4-10-2004...... 6-21-2004...... 2-22-2004...... S1930........ Hail, high winds.................. 1 7
NE............................. Arthur, Banner, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 6-21-2004...... 2-22-2004...... S1931........ Drought........................... 19 11
Chase, Cheyenne,
Deuel, Dundy,
Frontier, Garden,
Hayes, Hitchcock,
Keith, Kimball,
Lincoln,
McPherson,
Morrill, Perkins,
Red Willow,
Scotts Bluff,
Sioux.
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 6-21-2004...... 2-22-2004...... S1931........ Drought........................... ....... 1
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 6-21-2004...... 2-22-2004...... S1931........ Drought........................... ....... 3
MA............................. Essex, Franklin, 1-05-2004....... 2-20-2004...... 7-09-2004...... 3-09-2004...... S1932........ Winter damage due to abnormally 3 5
Middlesex. cod weather patterns.
NH............................. .................. 1-05-2004....... 2-20-2004...... 7-09-2004...... 3-09-2004...... S1932........ Winter damage due to abnormally ....... 3
cod weather patterns.
VT............................. .................. 1-05-2004....... 2-20-2004...... 7-09-2004...... 3-09-2004...... S1932........ Winter damage due to abnormally ....... 2
cod weather patterns.
TX............................. Wilson............ 5-13-2004....... 5-13-2004...... 7-20-2004...... 3-21-2004...... S1933........ Excessive rain, high winds........ 1 5
MO............................. Linn.............. 5-24-2004....... 5-24-2004...... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1934........ Severe thunderstorms w/ high 1 6
winds, tornadoes, excessive rain,
flooding, lightning, large hail.
WA............................. Franklin.......... 1-04-2004....... 1-07-2004...... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1935........ Sub-zero freezing temperatures.... 1 6
WA............................. Yakima............ 10-29-2003...... 1-08-2004...... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1936........ Adverse weather conditions; sub- 1 8
zero freezing temperatures.
NE............................. Box Butte, Dawes.. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1937........ Drought........................... 2 3
NE............................. Sheridan.......... 5-13-2004....... 5-14-2004...... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1937........ Freeze............................ 1 6
SD............................. Fall River........ 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1937........ Drought........................... ....... 1
SD............................. Bennett, Shannon.. 5-13-2004....... 5-14-2004...... 7-29-2004...... 3-29-2005...... S1937........ Freeze............................ ....... 2
CA............................. Butte, Glenn, Yuba 3-12-2004....... 3-15-2004...... 8-02-2004...... 4-04-2005...... S1938........ Unseasonably high temperatures, 1 9
low humidity.
CA............................. Fresno............ 3-01-2004....... 3-31-2004...... 8-02-2004...... 4-04-2005...... S1938........ Unseasonably hot weather during 1 8
fruit bloom.
CA............................. Merced............ 3-25-2004....... 3-25-2004...... 8-02-2004...... 4-04-2005...... S1938........ Windy conditions, abnormally high 1 6
temperatures.
CA............................. Sutter............ 3-09-2004....... 3-22-2004...... 8-02-2004...... 4-04-2005...... S1938........ Severe high temperatures, low 1 6
humidity.
SD............................. Bennett, Brule, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-06-2004...... 4-06-2005...... S1939........ Drought, infestation of army 30 9
Buffalo, Butte, cutworms, weevils, and
Campbell, Corson, grasshoppers.
Custer, Dewey,
Fall River,
Gregory, Haakon,
Hand, Harding,
Hughes, Hyde,
Jackson, Jones,
Lawrence, Lyman,
Meade, Mellette,
Pennington,
Perkins, Shannon,
Stanley, Sully,
Todd, Tripp,
Walworth, Ziebach.
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-06-2004...... 4-06-2005...... S1939........ Drought, infestation of army ....... 2
cutworms, weevils, and
grasshoppers.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-06-2004...... 4-06-2005...... S1939........ Drought, infestation of army ....... 6
cutworms, weevils, and
grasshoppers.
ND............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-06-2004...... 4-06-2005...... S1939........ Drought, infestation of army ....... 5
cutworms, weevils, and
grasshoppers.
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-06-2004...... 4-06-2005...... S1939........ Drought, infestation of army ....... 3
cutworms, weevils, and
grasshoppers.
SD............................. Charles Mix....... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-23-2004..... 7-25-2005...... S1939, Late spring killing frost, extreme 1 3
Amendment 1. heat, high winds, hail, severe
storms, drought, insect
infestation.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-23-2004..... 7-25-2005...... S1939, Late spring killing frost, extreme ....... 1
Amendment 1. heat, high winds, hail, severe
storms, drought, insect
infestation.
ND............................. Adams, Billings, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-10-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1940........ Drought, late season frost, high 35 18
Bottineau, winds, flooding, ground
Bowman, Burke, saturation, storms, ice, snow,
Burleigh, severe temperatures.
Cavalier, Divide,
Dunn, Eddy,
Emmons, Foster,
Golden Valley,
Grand Forks,
Grant, Hettinger,
McHenry,
McKenzie, Mercer,
Morton,
Mountrail,
Nelson, Oliver,
Pembina, Pierce,
Ramsey, Ransom,
Renville,
Rolette, Sioux,
Slope, Stark,
Towner, Walsh,
Ward.
MN............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-10-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1940........ Drought, late season frost, high ....... 3
winds, flooding, ground
saturation, storms, ice, snow,
severe temperatures.
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-10-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1940........ Drought, late season frost, high ....... 5
winds, flooding, ground
saturation, storms, ice, snow,
severe temperatures.
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-10-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1940........ Drought, late season frost, high ....... 4
winds, flooding, ground
saturation, storms, ice, snow,
severe temperatures.
AR............................. Crawford, 4-21-2004....... 4-27-2004...... 8-11-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1941........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 13 29
Faulkner, Greene,
Independence,
Jackson,
Lawrence, Perry,
Pope, Prairie,
Pulaski, White,
Woodruff, Yell.
OK............................. Crawford, 4-21-2004....... 4-27-2004...... 8-11-2004...... 4-11-2004...... S1941........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 2
Faulkner, Greene,
Independence,
Jackson,
Lawrence, Perry,
Pope, Prairie,
Pulaski, White,
Woodruff, Yell.
CA............................. Madera............ 10-01-2003...... 5-31-2004...... 8-11-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1942........ (1) Drought....................... 1 5
(2)Windy conditions, abnormally
high temperatures.
CA............................. Colusa............ 3-12-2004....... 3-19-2004...... 8-11-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1943........ Unseasonably high temperatures.... 1 5
NY............................. Ontario, Seneca, 12-15-2003...... 2-17-2004...... 8-11-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1944........ Excessive cold, significant frost. 5 11
Steuben, Wayne,
Yates.
TX............................. Lipscomb.......... 4-11-2004....... 4-12-2004...... 8-11-2004...... 4-11-2005...... S1945........ Freeze............................ 1 3
CA............................. Alameda........... 3-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1946........ Drought, high winds, excessive 1 4
[record] temperatures.
CO............................. Baca, Chaffee, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Drought, hail, freeze............. 20 22
Cheyenne, Custer,
Eagle, Fremont,
Garfield, Grand,
Jackson, Kiowa,
Kit Carson, Lake,
Lincoln,
Phillips, Pitkin,
Prowers, Pueblo,
Routt, Summit,
Yuma.
KS............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Drought, hail, freeze............. ....... 7
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Freeze, hail...................... ....... 4
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Drought........................... ....... 1
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Drought........................... ....... 1
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Drought........................... ....... 2
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-18-2004...... 4-18-2005...... S1947........ Drought........................... ....... 2
KS............................. Barber, Cloud, 4-23-2004....... 5-29-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1948........ Hail, high winds, tornadoes, 10 29
Cowley, Decatur, excessive rain, flooding.
Geary, Gove,
Harper, Republic,
Scott, Sumner.
NE............................. .................. 4-23-2004....... 5-29-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1948........ Hail, high winds, tornadoes, ....... 5
excessive rain, flooding.
OK............................. .................. 4-23-2004....... 5-29-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1948........ Hail, high winds, tornadoes, ....... 5
excessive rain, flooding.
KS............................. Cheyenne, Decatur, 4-07-2004....... 5-15-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1949........ Freezing conditions, drought...... 34 13
Ellis, Finney,
Gove, Graham,
Grant, Greeley,
Hamilton,
Haskell, Hodgman,
Jewell, Kearny,
Lane, Logan,
Mitchell, Morton,
Ness, Norton,
Osborne,
Phillips,
Rawlins, Rooks,
Russell, Scott,
Seward, Sheridan,
Sherman, Stanton,
Stevens, Trego,
Thomas, Wallace,
Wichita.
CO............................. .................. 4-07-2004....... 5-15-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1949........ Freezing conditions, drought...... ....... 6
NE............................. .................. 4-07-2004....... 5-15-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1949........ Freezing conditions, drought...... ....... 8
OK............................. .................. 4-07-2004....... 5-15-2004...... 8-20-2004...... 4-20-2005...... S1949........ Freezing conditions, drought...... ....... 3
OH............................. Allen, Athens, 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-27-2004...... 4-27-2005...... S1950........ Excessive rain, high winds, 46 69
Carroll, flooding, hail, tornado--
Columbiana, Excessive moisture.
Coshocton,
Crawford,
Cuyahoga,
Fayette, Greene,
Guernsey,
Hancock, Henry,
Hocking, Holmes,
Jackson, Logan,
Mahoning, Medina,
Noble, Perry,
Tuscarawas,
Union, Wayne--
Ashtabula,
Defiance,
Delaware, Erie,
Fairfield,
Geauga, Lake,
Licking, Logan,
Lorain, Lucas,
Marion, Morgan,
Muskingum,
Ottawa, Paulding,
Portage,
Sandusky, Scioto,
Seneca, Summit,
Van Wert, Wood,
Wyandot.
IN............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-27-2004...... 4-27-2005...... S1950........ Excessive rain, high winds, ....... 3
flooding, hail, tornado--
Excessive moisture.
KY............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-27-2004...... 4-27-2005...... S1950........ Excessive rain, high winds, ....... 2
flooding, hail, tornado--
Excessive moisture.
MI............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-27-2004...... 4-27-2005...... S1950........ Excessive rain, high winds, ....... 2
flooding, hail, tornado--
Excessive moisture.
PA............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-27-2004...... 4-27-2005...... S1950........ Excessive rain, high winds, ....... 5
flooding, hail, tornado--
Excessive moisture.
WV............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 8-27-2004...... 4-27-2005...... S1950........ Excessive rain, high winds, ....... 2
flooding, hail, tornado--
Excessive moisture.
WY............................. Big Horn, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-07-2004...... 5-09-2005...... S1951........ Drought........................... 11 10
Campbell,
Converse, Crook,
Goshen, Johnson,
Lincoln,
Niobrara, Platte,
Sheridan, Weston.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-07-2004...... 5-09-2005...... S1951........ Drought........................... ....... 3
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-07-2004...... 5-09-2005...... S1951........ Drought........................... ....... 4
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-07-2004...... 5-09-2005...... S1951........ Drought........................... ....... 3
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-07-2004...... 5-09-2005...... S1951........ Drought........................... ....... 5
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-07-2004...... 5-09-2005...... S1951........ Drought........................... ....... 1
ID............................. Contra Costa, 3-01-2004....... 4-30-2004...... 9/14/04........ 5-16-2005...... S1952........ Drought........................... 2 14
Merced.
TX............................. Brazos, Burleson, 5-13-2004....... 5-13-2004...... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1953........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 3 8
Robertson. flooding, high winds, tornado.
UT............................. Box Elder, Cache, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, 20 9
Carbon, Emery, grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
Garfield, Grand,
Iron, Juab, Kane,
Millard, Piute,
Rich, Salt Lake,
San Juan,
Sanpete, Sevier,
Summit, Tooele,
Washington, Wayne.
AZ............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, ....... 4
grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, ....... 6
grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, ....... 4
grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, ....... 3
grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, ....... 1
grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-14-2004...... 5-16-2005...... S1954........ Drought, wind, hail, heat, ....... 3
grasshoppers, Mormon crickets.
TN............................. Lauderdale........ 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1955........ Tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, 1 4
strong winds, excessive rain,
flooding, hail.
AR............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1955........ Tornadoes, severe thunderstorms, ....... 1
strong winds, excessive rain,
flooding, hail.
LA............................. Acadia, Allen, 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1956........ Excessive rainfall................ 40 19
Avoyelles,
Beauregard,
Bienville,
Caldwell,
Catahoula,
Claiborne, East
Carroll, East
Feliciana,
Evangeline,
Franklin, Grant,
Iberville,
Jackson,
Jefferson Davis,
La Salle,
Lafayette,
Lincoln, Madison,
Morehouse,
Natchitoches,
Ouachita,
Plaquemines,
Pointe Coupee,
Rapides,
Richland, Sabine,
St. Bernard, St.
Charles, St.
James, St. John
the Baptist, St.
Landry, Tensas,
Union, Vermilion,
Vernon, Webster,
West Baton Rouge,
West Carroll.
AR............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1956........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 5
MS............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1956........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 7
TX............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1956........ Excessive rainfall................ ....... 3
IA............................. Jefferson, Lyon, 2-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1957........ Winter snow load, excessive 4 18
O'Brien, Taylor. rainfall, high winds, hail,
tornadoes.
MN............................. .................. 2-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1957........ Winter snow load, excessive ....... 2
rainfall, high winds, hail,
tornadoes.
MO............................. .................. 2-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1957........ Winter snow load, excessive ....... 2
rainfall, high winds, hail,
tornadoes.
SD............................. .................. 2-01-2004....... continuing..... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1957........ Winter snow load, excessive ....... 2
rainfall, high winds, hail,
tornadoes.
TX............................. Briscoe........... 6-21-2004....... 6-22-2004...... 9-17-2004...... 5-17-2005...... S1958........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 6
lightning, tornadoes.
AR............................. Ashley, Bradley, 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 9-21-2004...... 5-23-2005...... S1959........ Hail, high winds.................. 4 7
Calhoun, Drew.
LA............................. Ashley, Bradley, 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 9-21-2004...... 5-23-2005...... S1959........ Hail, high winds.................. ....... 1
Calhoun, Drew.
MN............................. Lake of the Woods, 5-11-2004....... continuing..... 9-21-2004...... 5-23-2005...... S1960........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 3 5
Marshall, Roseau.
ND............................. .................. 5-11-2004....... continuing..... 9-21-2004...... 5-23-2005...... S1960........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 2
GA............................. Appling, Atkinson, 9-04-2004....... 9-07-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1961........ Hurricane Frances................. 83 33
Bacon, Baker, Ben
Hill, Berrien,
Bibb, Bleckley,
Brantley, Brooks,
Bulloch, Burke,
Butts, Calhoun,
Camden, Charlton,
Chatham,
Chattahoochee,
Clinch, Coffee,
Colquitt,
Crawford,
Decatur, Dodge,
Dooly, Dougherty,
Echols, Emanuel,
Evans, Glascock,
Grady, Greene,
Hancock, Harris,
Henry, Houston,
Jeff Davis,
Jefferson,
Jenkins, Johnson,
Lamar, Lanier,
Laurens, Lee,
Long, Lowndes,
Macon, Marion,
Miller, Mitchell,
Monroe,
Montgomery,
Muscogee, Peach,
Pierce, Pike,
Pulaski, Schley,
Seminole,
Spalding,
Stewart, Sumter,
Talbot,
Taliaferro,
Tattnall, Taylor,
Telfair, Terrell,
Thomas, Tift,
Toombs, Treutlen,
Turner, Twiggs,
Upson, Ware,
Washington,
Wayne, Webster,
Wheeler, Wilcox,
Wilkinson, Worth.
AL............................. .................. 9-04-2004....... 9-07-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1961........ Hurricane Frances................. ....... 5
FL............................. .................. 9-04-2004....... 9-07-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1961........ Hurricane Frances................. ....... 9
SC............................. .................. 9-04-2004....... 9-07-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1961........ Hurricane Frances................. ....... 4
GA............................. Candler, Cook, 9-04-2004....... 9-07-2004...... 10-28-2004..... ............... S1961, Hurricane Frances................. 4 ..........
Crisp, Irwin. Amendment 1.
NC............................. Camden, Currituck, 8-14-2004....... 8-14-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1962........ Hurricane Charley................. 6 13
Hertford, New
Hanover, Pender,
Pasquotank.
VA............................. .................. 8-14-2004....... 8-14-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1962........ Hurricane Charley................. ....... 4
TX............................. Cameron........... 5-08-2004....... 5-08-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1963........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 2
TX............................. Bailey............ 6-16-2004....... 6-16-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1964........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
hail high winds, lightning.
NM............................. .................. 6-16-2004....... 6-16-2004...... 9-30-2004...... 6-01-2005...... S1964........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 2
hail high winds, lightning.
--------------------
TOTAL ACTIVE............. .................. ................ ............... ............... ............... ............. .................................. 1,565 2011
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND PROGRAMS BRANCH (EPPB) DISASTER DESIGNATION REQUESTS: FINAL TOTALS SECRETARIAL
[Fiscal Year 2005--Secretarial Designations for Production Losses]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Date Ending Date of Approved by Termination Designation
State Counties requested of disaster disaster Secretary Date Number Description of disaster Primary Contiguous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND............................. Barnes, Benson, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S1940, Drought, late season frost, high 14 ..........
Cass, Griggs, Amendment 1. winds, excessive rainfall,
Kidder, LaMoure, flooding, ground saturation,
Logan, McLean, early fall frost (August).
Sheridan, Steele,
Stutsman, Traill,
Wells, Williams.
MN............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S1940, .................................. ....... 2
Amendment 1.
TX............................. Zavala............ 4-04-2004....... 5-15-2004...... 10-01-2004..... 6-01-2005...... S1966........ Excessive rain, hail.............. 1 7
NV............................. Entire State...... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1967........ Drought, related insect 17 ..........
infestations.
AZ............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1967........ Drought, related insect ....... 1
infestations.
CA............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1967........ Drought, related insect ....... 10
infestations.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1967........ Drought, related insect ....... 3
infestations.
OR............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1967........ Drought, related insect ....... 3
infestations.
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1967........ Drought, related insect ....... 7
infestations.
MN............................. Aitkin, Becker, 8-19-2004....... 8-21-2004...... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1968........ Freezing temperatures............. 29 18
Beltrami,
Carlton, Cass,
Chippewa,
Chisago,
Clearwater, Cook,
Crow Wing,
Douglas, Hubbard,
Isanti, Itasca,
Kanabec, Kittson,
Koochiching,
Mahnomen,
Marshall, Norman,
Pennington, Pine,
Polk, Red Lake,
Roseau, St.
Louis, Swift,
Todd, Wadena.
ND............................. .................. 8-19-2004....... 8-21-2004...... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1968........ Freezing temperatures............. ....... 5
WI............................. .................. 8-19-2004....... 8-21-2004...... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1968........ Freezing temperatures............. ....... 3
TX............................. Swisher........... 4-01-2003....... continuing..... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1969........ Drought........................... 1 6
CA............................. El Dorado, Fresno, 7-01-2003....... 6-30-2004...... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1970........ Drought........................... 3 14
San Luis Obispo.
NV............................. .................. 7-01-2003....... 6-30-2004...... 10-12-2004..... 6-13-2005...... S1970........ Drought........................... ....... 1
KS............................. Meade............. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1971........ (1) Drought....................... 1 1
(2) Freezing conditions...........
MT............................. Beaverhead, Big 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1972........ Drought........................... 34 18
Horn, Broadwater,
Carbon, Carter,
Custer, Dawson,
Fallon, Glacier,
Golden Valley,
Jefferson, Judith
Basin, Lake,
Lewis & Clark ,
Liberty, Madison,
McCone, Meagher,
Mineral,
Musselshell,
Park, Powder
River, Powell,
Prairie, Rosebud,
Sanders, Silver
Bow, Stillwater,
Sweet Grass,
Teton, Treasure,
Wheatland,
Wibaux,
Yellowstone.
ID............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1972........ Drought........................... ....... 6
ND............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1972........ Drought........................... ....... 6
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1972........ Drought........................... ....... 2
WY............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1972........ Drought........................... ....... 5
MT............................. Garfield.......... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S1972, Drought........................... 1 1
Amendment 1.
NJ............................. Bergen, 6-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1973........ Hail, excessive rain.............. 4 7
Burlington,
Camden, Ocean.
NY............................. .................. 6-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1973........ Hail, excessive rain.............. ....... 2
PA............................. .................. 6-01-2004....... continuing..... 10-28-2004..... 6-28-2005...... S1973........ Hail, excessive rain.............. ....... 2
MT............................. Carter, Fallon, 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1974........ Late Spring Frosts; Frost......... 4 10
Liberty, Prairie.
ND............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1974........ Late Spring Frosts; Frost......... ....... 3
SD............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1974........ Late Spring Frosts; Frost......... ....... 2
WY............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1974........ Late Spring Frosts; Frost......... ....... 1
MT............................. Carter............ 4-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1975........ High Winds........................ 1 3
SD............................. .................. 4-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1975........ High Winds........................ ....... 2
WY............................. .................. 4-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1975........ High Winds........................ ....... 1
TX............................. Wilbarger......... 6-02-2004....... 6-08-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1976........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. 1 5
OK............................. .................. 6-02-2004....... 6-08-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1976........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. ....... 2
TX............................. Wise.............. 6-06-2004....... 6-11-2004...... 11-08-2004..... 7-08-2005...... S1977........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 6
flooding, high winds, lightning.
TN............................. Bradley, Cannon, 9-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1978........ Storm, including remnants of 22 35
Cocke, Giles, Hurricanes Frances and Ivan.
Greene, Hamblen,
Hamilton,
Lawrence,
Lincoln, Loudon,
Macon, Marion,
McMinn, Meigs,
Polk, Rhea,
Roane,
Rutherford,
Sequatchie,
Unicoi,
Washington, Wayne.
AL............................. .................. 9-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1978........ Storm, including remnants of ....... 4
Hurricanes Frances and Ivan.
GA............................. .................. 9-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1978........ Storm, including remnants of ....... 6
Hurricanes Frances and Ivan.
KY............................. .................. 9-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1978........ Storm, including remnants of ....... 2
Hurricanes Frances and Ivan.
NC............................. .................. 9-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1978........ Storm, including remnants of ....... 5
Hurricanes Frances and Ivan.
WA............................. Adams, Benton, 5-07-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1979........ Various disasters, including: 7 13
Franklin, Grant, Excessive rain, hail, high winds,
Spokane, Walla tornado, lightning, flash
Walla, Yakima. flooding,.
ID............................. .................. 5-07-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1979........ Various disasters, including: ....... 3
Excessive rain, hail, high winds,
tornado, lightning, flash
flooding,.
OR............................. .................. 5-07-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1979........ Various disasters, including: ....... 2
Excessive rain, hail, high winds,
tornado, lightning, flash
flooding,.
OK............................. Grant, Kay........ 4-21-2004....... 6-02-2004...... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1980........ Hail, high wind................... 2 4
KS............................. .................. 4-21-2004....... 6-02-2004...... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1980........ Hail, high wind................... ....... 3
NE............................. Boyd, Brown, Holt, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1981........ Drought........................... 5 7
Keya Paha, Rock.
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1981........ Drought........................... ....... 4
NE............................. Blaine, Cherry, (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1982........ (1) Drought....................... 1 15
Hayes, Hitchock, (2) 05/14/04.... (2) 05/22/04... (2) Frost.........................
Thomas.
KS............................. .................. (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1982........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 1
(2) 05/14/04.... (2) 05/22/04... (2) Frost.........................
SD............................. .................. (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 11-17-2004..... 7-18-2005...... S1982........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 4
(2) 05/14/04.... (2) 05/22/04... (2) Frost.........................
CA............................. Solano, Yolo...... 3-01-2004....... 4-30-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1983........ Record & severe, high 1 7
temperatures, high winds.
CA............................. Tulare............ 3-01-2004....... 8-31-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1984........ Excessive heat.................... 1 4
MT............................. Fallon, Liberty, 7-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1985........ Insects........................... 3 13
Sanders.
ID............................. .................. 7-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1985........ Insects........................... ....... 2
ND............................. .................. 7-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1985........ Insects........................... ....... 3
SD............................. .................. 7-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1985........ Insects........................... ....... 1
TN............................. Chester, McNairy, 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1986........ Excessive rain, flooding, high 4 10
Van Buren, White. winds, lightning, wet conditions.
MS............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1986........ Excessive rain, flooding, high ....... 1
winds, lightning, wet conditions.
WA............................. Spokane, Whitman.. 8-02-2004....... 8-02-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1987........ Adverse weather: Severe 2 8
thunderstorm with high winds,
hail, lightning.
ID............................. .................. 8-02-2004....... 8-02-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1987........ Adverse weather: Severe ....... 5
thunderstorm with high winds,
hail, lightning.
WI............................. Ashland, Bayfield, 3-01-2004....... 7-03-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1988........ Excessive rain, flooding, below 6 12
Door, Douglas, normal temperatures.
Iron, Oconto.
MI............................. .................. 3-01-2004....... 7-03-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1988........ Excessive rain, flooding, below ....... 1
normal temperatures.
MN............................. .................. 3-01-2004....... 7-03-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 7-22-2005...... S1988........ Excessive rain, flooding, below ....... 3
normal temperatures.
TX............................. Hall.............. 8-12-2004....... 8-12-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 7-25-2005...... S1989........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. 1 6
TX............................. Tarrant........... 6-01-2004....... 6-09-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 7-25-2005...... S1990........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 6
flooding, high winds, lightning.
OR............................. Umatilla.......... 5-01-2004....... 6-15-2004...... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1991........ Excessive rainfall, hail.......... 1 4
WA............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 6-15-2004...... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1991........ Excessive rainfall, hail.......... ....... 3
SD............................. Brookings, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1992........ Drought, cool growing season, 3 7
Codington, Hamlin. early frost.
MN............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1992........ Drought, cool growing season, ....... 2
early frost.
TX............................. Uvalde............ 6-18-2004....... 6-30-2004...... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1993........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 8
flooding, hail.
TX............................. Deaf Smith........ 8-12-2004....... 9-22-2004...... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1994........ (1) Hail.......................... 1 5
(2) Excessive rain, hail..........
NM............................. .................. 8-12-2004....... 9-22-2004...... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1994........ (1) Hail.......................... ....... 2
(2) Excessive rain, hail..........
TX............................. Austin, Washington 6-15-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1995........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 2 9
flooding, hail, high winds, wind
shear.
TX............................. Culberson......... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1996........ Drought........................... 1 3
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1996........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Bailey............ 10-05-2004...... 10-05-2004..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1997........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
flooding, hail, high winds,
lightning.
NM............................. .................. 10-05-2004...... 10-05-2004..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1997........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 2
flooding, hail, high winds,
lightning.
WY............................. Albany, Hot 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1998........ Drought........................... 4 1
Springs, Natrona,
Washakie.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-03-2004..... 8-03-2005...... S1998........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Jeff Davis........ 1-01-2003....... continuing..... 12-06-2004..... 8-08-2005...... S1999........ Drought, high winds, excessive 1 6
temperatures.
VA............................. Northampton....... 7/15/04......... continuing..... 12-15-2004..... 8-15-2005...... S2000........ Excessive Rain.................... 1 1
TX............................. Swisher........... 6-21-2004....... 6-25-2004...... 12-15-2004..... 8-15-2005...... S2001........ High winds, tornado............... 1 6
MI............................. Isabella, Mecosta, 8-19-2004....... 10-08-2004..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2002........ Freeze............................ 3 15
Otsego.
MI............................. Bay, Benzie, Grand 7-01-2004....... 8-17-2004...... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2003........ Drought........................... 15 13
Traverse,
Isabella,
Kalkaska, Lake,
Leelanau,
Manistee, Mason,
Mecosta, Midland,
Missaukee,
Oceana, Osceola,
Wexford.
MI............................. Alcona, Alger, 4-25-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2004........ Excessive rainfall, hail, high 76 7
Alpena, Antrim, winds, flooding.
Baraga, Bay,
Benzie, Berrien,
Cass, Charlevoix,
Cheboygan,
Chippewa, Clare,
Crawford, Delta,
Dickinson, Emmet,
Genesee, Gladwin,
Gogebic, Grand
Traverse,
Gratiot,
Hillsdale,
Houghton, Huron,
Ingham, Ionia,
Iosco, Iron,
Isabella,
Jackson,
Kalamazoo,
Kalkaska, Kent,
Keweenaw, Lake,
Lapeer, Leelanau,
Lenawee,
Livingston, Luce,
Mackinac, Macomb,
Manistee,
Marquette, Mason,
Mecosta,
Menominee,
Midland,
Missaukee,
Monroe, Montcalm,
Montmorency,
Muskegon,
Newaygo, Oakland,
Oceana, Ogemaw,
Ontonagon,
Osceola, Oscoda,
Otsego, Ottawa,
Presque Isle,
Roscommon,
Saginaw, Sanilac,
Schoolcraft,
Shiawassee, St.
Clair, St.
Joseph, Tuscola,
Van Buren,
Washtenaw, Wayne,
Wexford.
IN............................. .................. 4-25-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2004........ Excessive rainfall, hail, high ....... 5
winds, flooding.
OH............................. .................. 4-25-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2004........ Excessive rainfall, hail, high ....... 3
winds, flooding.
WI............................. .................. 4-25-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2004........ Excessive rainfall, hail, high ....... 5
winds, flooding.
NE............................. Adams, Boone, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2005........ Drought........................... 24 30
Buffalo, Custer,
Sherman, Dawson,
Fillmore,
Franklin, Furnas,
Garfield, Gosper,
Harlan, Kearney,
Knox, Logan,
Loup, Merrick,
Nance, Nuckolls,
Pawnee, Thayer,
Valley, Webster,
Wheeler.
KS............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2005........ Drought........................... ....... 9
SD............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2005........ Drought........................... ....... 3
TX............................. Presidio.......... 9-22-2004....... 9-22-2004...... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2006........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 3
high winds.
TX............................. Cochran........... 8-19-2004....... 8-19-2004...... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2007........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. 1 5
NM............................. .................. 8-19-2004....... 8-19-2004...... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2007........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. ....... 2
CA............................. Tehama............ 3-12-2004....... 3-31-2004...... 12-28-2004..... 8-29-2005...... S2008........ Hot, dry, windy, weather.......... 1 6
CO............................. Bent, Moffat...... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2009........ Bent: High winds, heavy rain 2 7
Moffat: Drought, freeze (part).
UT............................. .................. ................ ............... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2009........ Drought, freeze................... ....... 2
WY............................. .................. ................ ............... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2009........ Drought, freeze................... ....... 2
TX............................. Gonzales.......... 11-15-2004...... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2010........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 8
MS............................. Alcorn, Amite, 5-01-2004....... 9-20-2004...... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2011........ Excessive rainfall, deg.ooding, 38 39
Bolivar, Calhoun, flash flooding, high winds,
Carroll, tornadoes, hail and lightning
Chickasaw, that occurred from 05/01/04-07/31/
Clarke, Clay, 04 AND due to Hurricane Ivan 09/
Coahoma, 13/04-09/20/04.
Covington,
George, Grenada,
Hinds, Holmes,
Itawamba,
Jackson,
Jefferson Davis,
Jones, Lamar,
Lauderdale,
Lawrence, Lee,
Marion, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Oktibbeha, Perry,
Pike, Pontotoc,
Prentiss,
Quitman, Simpson,
Smith, Tunica,
Union, Walthall,
Webster,
Wilkinson.
AL............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 10-10-2004..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2011........ Excessive rainfall, flooding-- ....... 6
Hurricane Ivan.
AR............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 10-10-2004..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2011........ Excessive rainfall, flooding-- ....... 5
Hurricane Ivan.
LA............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 10-10-2004..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2011........ Excessive rainfall, flooding-- ....... 6
Hurricane Ivan.
TN............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... 10-10-2004..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2011........ Excessive rainfall, flooding-- ....... 3
Hurricane Ivan.
TX............................. Taylor............ 10-03-2004...... 11-18-2004..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2012........ Excessive rain.................... 1 6
TX............................. Martin............ 8-01-2004....... 8-31-2004...... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2013........ Record-breaking cool weather...... 1 7
TX............................. Bosque............ 4-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2014........ Excessive rain.................... 1 7
TX............................. Terrell........... 7-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2015........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
flooding.
TX............................. Caldwell.......... 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2016........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 6
TX............................. Castro............ 6-01-2004....... 8-31-2004...... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2017........ Hailstorms........................ 1 6
OR............................. Coos.............. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2018........ Drought........................... 1 2
OH............................. Athens, Belmont, 9-08-2004....... 9-26-2004...... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2019........ Excessive rain, severe flooding, 13 15
Guernsey, due to Hurricane remnants.
Harrison,
Hocking, Jackson,
Jefferson,
Monroe, Noble,
Perry, Scioto,
Vinton,
Washington.
KY............................. .................. 9-08-2004....... 9-26-2004...... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2019........ Excessive rain, severe flooding, ....... 2
due to Hurricane remnants.
WV............................. .................. 9-08-2004....... 9-26-2004...... 1-10-2005...... 9-12-2005...... S2019........ Excessive rain, severe flooding, ....... 8
due to Hurricane remnants.
CA............................. Alpine, Amador, 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2020........ Drought........................... 24 29
Calaveras, Inyo,
Kings, Lake,
Lassen, Mariposa,
Mendocino, Mono,
Monterey, Napa,
Nevada, Orange,
Plumas, San
Benito, Santa
Barbara, Santa
Clara, Sierra,
Sonoma, Tulare,
Tuolumne, Yolo,
Yuba.
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2020........ Drought........................... ....... 7
ID............................. Adams, Benewah, (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2021........ (1) Drought....................... 10 18
Blaine, Camas, (2) 07/15/04.... (2) 09/01/04... (2) Excessive Moisture,...........
Clearwater, (3) 08/01/04.... (3) 09/01/04... (3) High winds....................
Kootenai, Lewis,
Nez Perce, Twin
Falls, Washington.
MT............................. .................. (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2021........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 2
(2) 07/15/04.... (2) 09/01/04... (2) Excessive Moisture,...........
(3) 08/01/04.... (3) 09/01/04... (3) High winds....................
NV............................. .................. (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2021........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 1
(2) 07/15/04.... (2) 09/01/04... (2) Excessive Moisture,...........
(3) 08/01/04.... (3) 09/01/04... (3) High winds....................
OR............................. .................. (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2021........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 3
(2) 07/15/04.... (2) 09/01/04... (2) Excessive Moisture,...........
(3) 08/01/04.... (3) 09/01/04... (3) High winds....................
WA............................. .................. (1) 01/01/04.... (1) continuing. 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2021........ (1) Drought....................... ....... 3
(2) 07/15/04.... (2) 09/01/04... (2) Excessive Moisture,...........
(3) 08/01/04.... (3) 09/01/04... (3) High winds....................
ID............................. Lincoln........... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2021, Drought........................... 1 ..........
Amendment 1.
TX............................. Coleman........... 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2022........ Excessive rain, high winds........ 1 6
TX............................. Gaines............ 9-25-2004....... 9-30-2004...... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2023........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 5
high winds, lightning.
NM............................. .................. 9-25-2004....... 9-30-2004...... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2023........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 1
high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Robertson......... 11-23-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2024........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
flooding, hail, high winds,
tornado.
TX............................. Hays.............. 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2025........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 5
TX............................. Borden............ 9-01-2004....... 10-15-2004..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2026........ Excessive rain.................... 1 7
TX............................. Nolan............. 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2027........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 7
TX............................. Erath............. 2-24-2004....... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2028........ Excessive rain, flooding, flash 1 7
flooding, high winds, hail.
TX............................. Howard............ 10/22/04........ 10/22/04....... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2029........ (1) Hail.......................... 1 7
09/25/04........ continuing..... (2) Excessive rain................
TX............................. Dawson............ 5/04/04......... continuing..... 1-19-2005...... 9-19-2005...... S2030........ (1) Excessive rain................ 1 6
06/19/04........ 08/30/04....... (2) Hail..........................
CO............................. Huerfano, Las 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2031........ Drought........................... 3 11
Animas, Rio
Blanco.
NM............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2031........ Drought........................... ....... 2
UT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2031........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. Gray.............. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2032........ Excessive rain.................... 1 7
TX............................. Hamilton.......... 10-13-2004...... 10-24-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2033........ Excessive rain.................... 1 6
TX............................. Hardin............ 11-23-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2034........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 6
tornado.
TX............................. Bastrop........... 10-01-2004...... 11-24-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2035........ Excessive rain, flooding, tornado. 1 6
TX............................. Garza............. 10-09-2004...... 10-09-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2036........ Hail.............................. 1 7
TX............................. Coryell........... 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2037........ Excessive rain, flooding, hail.... 1 5
TX............................. Jackson........... 11-20-2004...... 111/21/04...... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2038........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 6
TX............................. Gillespie......... 11-01-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2039........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 6
TX............................. Guadalupe......... 11-22-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2040........ Excessive rain.................... 1 6
TX............................. Wharton........... 11-21-2004...... 11-28-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2041........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 6
flooding.
TX............................. Newton............ 11-23-2004...... 11-24-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2042........ Flash flooding, tornadoes......... 1 3
LA............................. .................. 11-23-2004...... 11-24-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2042........ Flash flooding, tornadoes......... ....... 4
TX............................. Terry............. 6-17-2004....... 10-05-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2043........ Hail.............................. 1 7
TX............................. Wilson............ 11-18-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2044........ Excessive rain.................... 1 5
TX............................. Yoakum............ 10-05-2004...... 10-05-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2045........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
hail.
NM............................. .................. 10-05-2004...... 10-05-2004..... 2-02-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2045........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 1
hail.
CA............................. Placer............ 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2046........ Drought........................... 3 1
San Joaquin.......
Ventura...........
NV............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2046........ Drought........................... ....... 1
GA............................. Baker, Banks, 9-15-2005....... 9-17-2005...... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2047........ Tropical Storms Frances, Ivan, 32 42
Bartow, Calhoun, Jeanne.
Catoosa, Clay,
Coffee, Dade,
Decatur,
Dougherty, Early,
Fannin, Franklin,
Gilmer, Grady,
Lee, Madison,
Miller, Mitchell,
Murray, Oconee,
Randolph, Schley,
Seminole,
Stewart, Sumter,
Terrell, Thomas,
Towns, Union,
Webster,
Whitfield.
AL............................. .................. 9-15-2005....... 9-17-2005...... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2047........ Tropical Storms Frances, Ivan, ....... 6
Jeanne.
FL............................. .................. 9-15-2005....... 9-17-2005...... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2047........ Tropical Storms Frances, Ivan, ....... 4
Jeanne.
NC............................. .................. 9-15-2005....... 9-17-2005...... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2047........ Tropical Storms Frances, Ivan, ....... 2
Jeanne.
SC............................. .................. 9-15-2005....... 9-17-2005...... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2047........ Tropical Storms Frances, Ivan, ....... 1
Jeanne.
TN............................. .................. 9-15-2005....... 9-17-2005...... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2047........ Tropical Storms Frances, Ivan, ....... 4
Jeanne.
NY............................. Allegany, 11-01-2003...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2048........ (1) Multiple disasters related to 25 29
Cattaraugus, severe storms, including
Chautauqua, excessive rain, hail, flooding,
Clinton, flash flooding, high winds.
Columbia, Erie, (2) Freeze........................
Fulton, Genesee,
Greene, Lewis,
Monroe,
Montgomery,
Nassau, Niagara,
Oneida, Ontario,
Orange, Orleans,
Saratoga,
Schuyler, Seneca,
Tompkins, Ulster,
Washington,
Wayne, Wyoming.
MA............................. .................. 11-01-2003...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2048........ (1) Multiple disasters related to ....... 1
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds.
(2) Freeze........................
NJ............................. .................. 11-01-2003...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2048........ (1) Multiple disasters related to ....... 2
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds.
(2) Freeze........................
PA............................. .................. 11-01-2003...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2048........ (1) Multiple disasters related to ....... 5
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds.
(2) Freeze........................
VT............................. .................. 11-01-2003...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2048........ (1) Multiple disasters related to ....... 5
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds.
(2) Freeze........................
TX............................. Archer............ 3-04-2004....... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2049........ Excessive rain, flooding, high 1 7
winds, lightning.
TX............................. Wichita........... 3-04-2004....... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2050........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
flooding, high winds, lightning,
insect damage.
OK............................. .................. 3-04-2004....... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 10-11-2005..... S2050........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 2
flooding, high winds, lightning,
insect damage.
TX............................. Scurry............ 5-01-2004....... 10-31-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2051........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 7
tornado.
TX............................. Carson............ 11-01-2004...... 11-29-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2052........ Excessive rain, excessive snow, 1 8
flash flooding.
TX............................. Kendall........... 11-01-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2053........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 6
TX............................. Bexar............. 11-19-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 10-03-2005..... S2054........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 7
TX............................. Hudspeth.......... 10-15-2004...... 10-11-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 9-23-2005...... S2055........ Excessive rain.................... 1 4
NM............................. .................. 10-15-2004...... 10-11-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 9-24-2005...... S2055........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 1
TX............................. Colorado.......... 11-21-2004...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 9-25-2005...... S2056........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 5
TX............................. Comal............. 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 2-09-2005...... 9-26-2005...... S2057........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 5
TX............................. Wilbarger......... 11-13-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 9-27-2005...... S2058........ Excessive rain.................... 1 5
OK............................. .................. 11-13-2004...... 11-22-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 9-28-2005...... S2058........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 2
WI............................. Calumet, Clark, 3-01-2004....... 10-08-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 9-29-2005...... S2059........ Excessive rain, flooding, fol. By 10 24
Door, Kewaunee, dry spell, early frost.
Manitowoc,
Marinette,
Milwaukee,
Oconto, Waukesha,
Waupaca.
MI............................. .................. 3-01-2004....... 10-08-2004..... 2-09-2005...... 9-30-2005...... S2059........ Excessive rain, flooding, fol. By ....... 2
dry spell, early frost.
CA............................. Humboldt.......... 3-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-24-2005...... 10-24-2005..... S2060........ Drought........................... 1 4
NY............................. Herkimer, Ontario, 5-01-2004....... 10-10-2004..... 2-24-2005...... 10-24-2005..... S2061........ Excessive rain, flash Flooding, 3 16
Otsego. flooding.
CA............................. Solano............ 3-01-2004....... 9-23-2004...... 2-24-2005...... 10-24-2005..... S2062........ Extremely low precipitation 1 5
(Drought), warm spring
temperatures, dry north winds.
CA............................. San Luis Obispo... 4-23-2004....... 8-25-2004...... 2-24-2005...... 10-24-2005..... S2063........ Extreme prolonged heat; Subsequent 1 4
fruit drop, through 08/25/04.
CA............................. Marin............. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 2-24-2005...... 10-24-2005..... S2064........ Sporadic rain, high winds, 1 1
excessive heat, unseasonable
summer winds.
NY............................. Broome, Chemung, 4-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2065........ Excessive rain, flooding, flash 22 20
Chenango, flooding, high winds, hail.
Columbia,
Cortland,
Delaware,
Dutchess,
Genesee, Greene,
Livingston,
Niagara,
Onondaga, Orange,
Orleans, Oswego,
Putnam,
Schenectady,
Schoharie,
Sullivan, Tioga,
Ulster,
Westchester.
NY............................. .................. 4-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2065........ Excessive rain, flooding, flash ....... 2
flooding, high winds, hail.
NY............................. .................. 4-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2065........ .................................. ....... 1
NY............................. .................. 4-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2065........ .................................. ....... 2
NY............................. .................. 4-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2065........ .................................. ....... 5
TN............................. Lawrence, Wayne... 10-18-2004...... 10-19-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2066........ Storm, with heavy rains, 2 6
lightning, winds, tornadoes,
flooding.
AL............................. .................. 10-18-2004...... 10-19-2004..... 2-28-2005...... 10-28-2005..... S2066........ .................................. ....... 1
TX............................. Blanco............ 11-01-2004...... 11-23-2004..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2067........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
tornado.
TX............................. Brown............. 11-15-2004...... continuing..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2068........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
flooding, hail, high winds,
lightning.
TX............................. Sherman........... 11-30-2004...... continuing..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2069........ Excessive rain.................... 1 5
OK............................. .................. 11-30-2004...... continuing..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2069........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 2
TX............................. Harris............ 11-20-2004...... 11-24-2004..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2070........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
high winds, tornadoes.
WY............................. Park.............. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2071........ Drought........................... 1 2
MT............................. .................. 1-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-07-2005...... 11-07-2005..... S2071........ Drought........................... ....... 2
NY............................. Albany, Cayuga, 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-08-2005...... 11-08-2005..... S2072........ Multiple disasters related to 15 25
Dutchess, severe storms, including
Genesee, excessive rain, hail, flooding,
Livingston, flash flooding, high winds,
Monroe, Oneida, lightning, low temperatures.
Orange, Orleans,
Rensselaer,
Steuben,
Sullivan, Ulster,
Wayne, Yates.
CT............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-08-2005...... 11-08-2005..... S2072........ Multiple disasters related to ....... 2
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds,
lightning, low temperatures.
MA............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-08-2005...... 11-08-2005..... S2072........ Multiple disasters related to ....... 1
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds,
lightning, low temperatures.
NJ............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-08-2005...... 11-08-2005..... S2072........ Multiple disasters related to ....... 2
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds,
lightning, low temperatures.
PA............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-08-2005...... 11-08-2005..... S2072........ Multiple disasters related to ....... 4
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds,
lightning, low temperatures.
VT............................. .................. 5-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-08-2005...... ............... S2072........ Multiple disasters related to ....... 1
severe storms, including
excessive rain, hail, flooding,
flash flooding, high winds,
lightning, low temperatures.
AR............................. Arkansas, Ashley, 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-05........ 11-14-2005..... S2073........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 40 25
Chicot,
Cleveland,
Columbia, Conway,
Crawford, Dallas,
Desha, Drew,
Franklin,
Garland, Grant,
Hempstead, Hot
Spring, Jackson,
Jefferson,
Johnson,
Lafayette, Lee,
Lincoln, Little
River, Logan,
Lonoke, Marion,
Miller, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Nevada, Phillips,
Pope, Prairie,
Pulaski, Saline,
Scott, Sebastian,
Union, White,
Woodruff, Yell.
LA............................. .................. 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-05........ 11-14-2005..... S2073........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 8
MO............................. .................. 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-05........ 11-14-2005..... S2073........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 2
MS............................. .................. 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-05........ 11-14-2005..... S2073........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 5
OK............................. .................. 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-05........ 11-14-2005..... S2073........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 4
TX............................. .................. 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-05........ 11-14-2005..... S2073........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... ....... 2
TX............................. Schleicher........ 10-01-2004...... 11-30-2004..... 3-11-2005...... 11-14-2005..... S2074........ Excessive rain.................... 1 7
TX............................. Hutchinson, Moore. 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 3-15-2005...... 11-15-2005..... S2075........ Excessive rain, excessive snow.... 2 9
ME............................. Aroostook, 1-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 3-15-2005...... 11-15-2005..... S2076........ Excessive rain, wet conditions; 2 6
Somerset. cold spring, summer.
TN............................. Marion, Sequatchie 12-05-2004...... continuing..... 3-17-2005...... 11-17-2005..... S2077........ Storms, excessive rain, flooding.. 2 6
AL............................. .................. 12-05-2004...... continuing..... 3-17-2005...... 11-17-2005..... S2077........ Storms, excessive rain, flooding.. ....... 1
GA............................. .................. 12-05-2004...... continuing..... 3-17-2005...... 11-17-2005..... S2077........ Storms, excessive rain, flooding.. ....... 1
TX............................. Waller............ 5-13-2004....... continuing..... 3-18-2005...... 11-18-2005..... S2078........ Excessive rain, flooding.......... 1 6
TX............................. Jack.............. 6-01-2004....... continuing..... 3-18-2005...... 11-18-2005..... S2079........ Excessive rain, hail.............. 1 7
NV............................. Clark, Lincoln.... 1-09-2005....... 1-15-2005...... 3-18-2005...... 11-18-2005..... S2080........ Heavy rain, snow melt, resulting 2 2
in severe flooding.
AZ............................. .................. 1-09-2005....... 1-15-2005...... 3-18-2005...... 11-18-2005..... S2080........ Heavy rain, snow melt, resulting ....... 1
in severe flooding.
CA............................. .................. 1-09-2005....... 1-15-2005...... 3-18-2005...... 11-18-2005..... S2080........ Heavy rain, snow melt, resulting ....... 2
in severe flooding.
UT............................. .................. 1-09-2005....... 1-15-2005...... 3-18-2005...... 11-18-2005..... S2080........ Heavy rain, snow melt, resulting ....... 4
in severe flooding.
OR............................. Klamath........... 10-01-2002...... continuing..... 3-22-2005...... 11-22-2005..... S2081........ Drought........................... 1 5
CA............................. .................. 10-01-2002...... continuing..... 3-22-2005...... 11-22-2005..... S2081........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TX............................. Williamson........ 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 3-22-2005...... 11-22-2005..... S2082........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 6
MA............................. Hampshire, Hampden 7-15-2004....... 10-31-2004..... 3-22-2005...... 11-22-2005..... S2083........ Abnormally wet weather conditions. 2 3
CT............................. .................. 7-15-2004....... 10-31-2004..... 3-22-2005...... 11-22-2005..... S2083........ Abnormally wet weather conditions. ....... 3
TX............................. Brewster.......... 7-28-04......... 7-29-04........ 3-22-2005...... 11-22-2005..... S2084........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 4
06-01-04........ continuing.....
TX............................. Randall........... 9-01-2004....... 12-31-2004..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2085........ Excessive rain, flash flooding.... 1 7
TX............................. Roberts........... 11-01-2004...... continuing..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2086........ Excessive rain, freeze, excessive 1 8
temperatures.
OH............................. Ashland, 12-23-2004...... continuing..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2087........ Extreme weather conditions: 16 36
Ashtabula, Freezing rain, ice, excessive
Clermont, rain, excessive snow, high winds,
Delaware, flash flooding, flooding.
Fairfield,
Geauga, Hancock,
Holmes, Lake,
Licking, Logan,
Marion, Morgan,
Morrow,
Muskingum,
Wyandot.
KY............................. .................. 12-23-2004...... continuing..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2087........ Extreme weather conditions: ....... 3
Freezing rain, ice, excessive
rain, excessive snow, high winds,
flash flooding, flooding.
PA............................. .................. 12-23-2004...... continuing..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2087........ Extreme weather conditions: ....... 2
Freezing rain, ice, excessive
rain, excessive snow, high winds,
flash flooding, flooding.
CT............................. Fairfield, 7-01-2004....... 10-31-2004..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2088........ Abnormally wet weather conditions. 4 4
Hartford,
Litchfield,
Tolland.
MA............................. .................. 7-01-2004....... 10-31-2004..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2088........ Abnormally wet weather conditions. ....... 3
NY............................. .................. 7-01-2004....... 10-31-2004..... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2088........ Abnormally wet weather conditions. ....... 3
UT............................. Iron, Washington.. 1-09-2005....... 1-11-2005...... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2089........ Severe flooding................... 2 3
AZ............................. .................. 1-09-2005....... 1-11-2005...... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2089........ Severe flooding................... ....... 1
NV............................. .................. 1-09-2005....... 1-11-2005...... 3-25-2005...... 11-25-2005..... S2089........ Severe flooding................... ....... 1
OH............................. Franklin, 12-23-2004...... 1-23-2005...... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2090........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 7 12
Pickaway, Pike, flooding.
Ross, Seneca,
Shelby,
Tuscarawas.
TX............................. Callahan.......... 11-15-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2091........ Excessive rain.................... 1 6
TX............................. Hemphill.......... 11-01-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2092........ Excessive rain, excessive 1 4
temperatures, freeze.
OK............................. .................. 11-01-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2092........ Excessive rain, excessive ....... 2
temperatures, freeze.
TX............................. Hunt.............. 11-01-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2093........ Excessive rain.................... 1 8
TX............................. Armstrong, Oldham. 11-25-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2094........ Excessive rain.................... 2 10
NM............................. .................. 11-25-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2094........ Excessive rain.................... ....... 1
TX............................. Potter............ 11-25-2004...... continuing..... 4-14-2005...... 12-14-2005..... S2095........ Excessive rain.................... 1 7
TX............................. Haskell........... 11-01-2004...... continuing..... 4-28-2005...... 12-28-2005..... S2096........ Excessive rain.................... 1 7
TX............................. Crosby............ 5-12-2005....... 5-13-2005...... 6-21-2005...... 2-21-2006...... S2097........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 8
flooding, hail, high winds,
lightning, tornadoes.
CA............................. Yuba.............. 3-09-2005....... 3-15-2005...... 7-18-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2098........ Unseasonably high temperatures, 1 6
low humidity.
MN............................. Anoka, Benton, 11-01-2004...... 4-30-2005...... 7-18-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2099........ Winterkill; below freezing 19 29
Carver, Chisago, temperatures; cool, wet weather.
Clay, Grant,
Hennepin, Isanti,
Kanabec, Mille
Lacs, McLeod,
Morrison, Pine,
Pope, Sherburne,
Steele, Wabasha,
Wilkin, Wright.
ND............................. .................. 11-01-2004...... 4-30-2005...... 7-18-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2099........ Winterkill; below freezing ....... 2
temperatures; cool, wet weather.
WI............................. .................. 11-01-2004...... 4-30-2005...... 7-18-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2099........ Winterkill; below freezing ....... 5
temperatures; cool, wet weather.
TX............................. Callahan.......... 6-04-2005....... 6-04-2005...... 7-18-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2100........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 6
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Knox.............. 5-23-2005....... 5-23-2005...... 7-18-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2101........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 6
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Floyd............. 6-09-2005....... 6-09-2005...... 7-20-2005...... 3-20-2006...... S2102........ Excessive rain, flooding, hail, 1 7
high winds, lightning, tornadoes.
CA............................. Fresno, Kern, 4-28-2005....... 5-09-2005...... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2103........ Rain, hail storms................. 5 14
Madera, Merced,
Tulare.
OK............................. Alfalfa, Atoka, 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2104........ Drought........................... 58 17
Beckham, Blaine,
Bryan, Caddo,
Canadian, Carter,
Choctaw,
Cleveland, Coal,
Comanche, Cotton,
Craig, Creek,
Custer, Delaware,
Dewey, Ellis,
Garfield, Garvin,
Grady, Grant,
Haskell, Hughes,
Jefferson,
Johnston,
Kingfisher,
Latimer, Le
Flore, Lincoln,
Logan, Love,
McClain,
McCurtain,
McIntosh, Major,
Marshall, Mayes,
Murray, Muskogee,
Okfuskee,
Oklahoma, Pawnee,
Payne, Pittsburg,
Pontotoc,
Pottawatomie,
Pushmataha, Roger
Mills, Rogers,
Seminole,
Stephens,
Tillman, Tulsa,
Washita, Woods,
Woodward.
AR............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2104........ Drought........................... ....... 6
KS............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2104........ Drought........................... ....... 6
MO............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2104........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2104........ Drought........................... ....... 14
TX............................. Crosby............ 6-09-2005....... 6-10-2005...... 7-26-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2105........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 8
flooding, hail, high winds,
lightning, tornadoes.
IL............................. Adams, Boone, 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-27-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2106........ Drought........................... 93 8
Brown, Bureau,
Calhoun, Carroll,
Cass, Champaign,
Clark, Clay,
Clinton, Coles,
Cook, Crawford,
Cumberland, De
Kalb, De Witt,
Douglas, Du Page,
Edgar, Edwards,
Effingham,
Fayette, Ford,
Fulton, Gallatin,
Greene, Grundy,
Hamilton, Hardin,
Henderson, Henry,
Iroquois,
Jackson, Jasper,
Jefferson,
Jersey, Jo
Daviess, Johnson,
Kane, Kankakee,
Kendall, Knox, La
Salle, Lake,
Lawrence, Lee,
Livingston,
Logan, Macoupin,
Madison, Marion,
Marshall, Mason,
Massac,
McDonough,
McHenry, McLean,
Menard, Mercer,
Monroe, Morgan,
Moultrie, Ogle,
Peoria, Perry,
Piatt, Pike,
Pope, Putnam,
Randolph,
Richland, Rock
Island, Saline,
Sangamon,
Schuyler, Scott,
Shelby, St.
Clair, Stark,
Stephenson,
Tazewell,
Vermilion,
Wabash, Warren,
Washington,
Wayne, White,
Whiteside, Will,
Williamson,
Winnebago,
Woodford.
IN............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-27-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2106........ Drought........................... ....... 10
IA............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-27-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2106........ Drought........................... ....... 8
KY............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-27-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2106........ Drought........................... ....... 4
MO............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-27-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2106........ Drought........................... ....... 11
WI............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-27-2005...... 3-27-2006...... S2106........ Drought........................... ....... 6
TX............................. Duval............. 12-01-2004...... continuing..... 7-29-2005...... 3-29-2006...... S2107........ Drought, high winds............... 1 7
TX............................. Baylor............ 5-31-2005....... 5-31-2005...... 7-29-2005...... 3-29-2006...... S2108........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 8
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Jones............. 5-31-2005....... 5-31-2005...... 7-29-2005...... 3-29-2006...... S2109........ Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 7
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX............................. Brooks, Jim Hogg.. 3-01-2005....... continuing..... 7-29-2005...... 3-29-2006...... S2110........ Drought, high winds, excessive 2 8
temperatures.
CA............................. Tehama............ 3/01/05......... 05/01/05....... 8-12-2005...... 4-12-2006...... S2111........ Hot, dry, windy weather........... 1 6
03/23/05........ 3/15/05........ Severe hailstorm..................
03/23/05....... Rain, wind, unusually cool
06/08/05....... temperatures.
TX............................. Gillespie......... 6-01-2005....... 6-01-2005...... 8-12-2005...... 4-12-2006...... S2112........ High winds........................ 1 6
Sutter............ 3-05-2005....... 3-15-2005...... 8-18-2005...... 4-18-2006...... S2113........ Severe high temperatures, low 1 6
humidity, strong winds.
CA............................. Mendocino......... 5-15-2005....... 5-19-2005...... 8-22-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2114........ Rain, hail........................ 1 6
CA............................. Stanislaus........ 4-30-2005....... 5-01-2005...... 8-22-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2115........ Rains............................. 1 7
CA............................. Butte............. 4-25-2005....... 5-20-2005...... 8-22-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2116........ Hail, late rains.................. 1 6
CA............................. Lake.............. 5-18-2005....... 6-16-2005...... 8-22-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2117........ Unseasonable heavy rainfall....... 1 6
TX............................. Burleson.......... 5-01-2005....... 6-30-2005...... 8-22-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2118........ Drought........................... 1 5
MO............................. Adair, Andrew, 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... 112 3
Audrain, Barry,
Barton, Bates,
Benton,
Bollinger, Boone,
Buchanan, Butler,
Caldwell,
Callaway, Camden,
Cape Girardeau,
Carroll, Carter,
Cass, Cedar,
Chariton,
Christian, Clark,
Clay, Clinton,
Cole, Cooper,
Crawford, Dade,
Dallas, Daviess,
Dekalb, Dent,
Douglas, Dunklin,
Franklin,
Gasconade,
Gentry, Greene,
Grundy, Harrison,
Henry, Hickory,
Howard, Howell,
Iron, Jackson,
Jasper,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Knox,
Laclede,
Lafayette,
Lawrence, Lewis,
Lincoln, Linn,
Livingston,
Macon, Madison,
Maries, Marion,
McDonald, Mercer,
Miller,
Mississippi,
Moniteau, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Morgan, New
Madrid, Newton,
Nodaway, Oregon,
Osage, Ozark,
Pemiscot, Perry,
Pettis, Phelps,
Pike, Platte,
Polk, Pulaski,
Putnam, Ralls,
Randolph, Ray,
Reynolds, Ripley,
Saline, Schuyler,
Scotland, Scott,
Shannon, Shelby,
St Charles, St
Clair, St
Francois, St
Louis, Ste
Genevieve,
Stoddard, Stone,
Sullivan, Taney,
Texas, Vernon,
Warren,
Washington,
Wayne, Webster,
Worth, Wright.
AR............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 12
IL............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 12
IA............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 9
KS............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 10
KY............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 4
OK............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 2
TN............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 8-23-2005...... 4-24-2006...... S2119........ Drought........................... ....... 2
CA............................. Sutter............ 5-08-2005....... 5-19-2005...... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2120........ Unseasonable rain................. 1 6
KS............................. Butler, Ford, 6-03-2005....... 6-16-2005...... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2121........ Hail, high winds, lightning, 8 37
Gove, Grant, tornadoes, excessive rain, flash
Meade, Sedgwick, flooding, flooding.
Trego, Wabaunsee.
OK............................. .................. 6-03-2005....... 6-16-2005...... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2121........ .................................. ....... 1
MN............................. Aitkin, Beltrami, 5-07-2005....... continuing..... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2122........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. 17 28
Benton,
Clearwater,
Dakota, Grant,
Itasca, Kittson,
Koochiching, Lake
of the Woods,
Marshall, Mille
Lacs, Pennington,
Roseau, Traverse,
Washington,
Wilkin.
ND............................. .................. 5-07-2005....... continuing..... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2122........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. ....... 4
SD............................. .................. 5-07-2005....... continuing..... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2122........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. ....... 1
WI............................. .................. 5-07-2005....... continuing..... 8-25-2005...... 4-25-2006...... S2122........ Excessive rain, hail, high winds.. ....... 3
OR............................. Polk, Yamhill..... 3-24-2005....... 4-30-2005...... 8-31-2005...... 5-01-2006...... S2123........ Heavy winds, rains................ 2 7
TX............................. Wilbarger......... 3-01-2005....... 7-05-2005...... 8-31-2005...... 5-01-2006...... S2124........ Drought, high winds, excessive 1 5
temperatures.
TX............................. .................. 3-01-2005....... 7-05-2005...... 8-31-2005...... 5-01-2006...... S2124........ Drought, high winds, excessive ....... 2
temperatures.
VA............................. Fauquier.......... 4-01-2005....... 6-30-2005...... 8-31-2005...... 5-01-2006...... S2125........ Drought, high temperatures........ 1 7
MS............................. Adams, Amite, 8-29-2005....... continuing..... 9-09-2005...... 5-09-2006...... S2126........ Hurricane Katrina................. 31 4
Attala, Choctaw,
Claiborne,
Clarke, Copiah,
Covington,
Forrest,
Franklin, George,
Greene, Hancock,
Harrison, Hinds,
Jackson, Jasper,
Jefferson,
Jefferson Davis,
Jones, Kemper,
Lamar,
Lauderdale,
Lawrence, Leake,
Lincoln, Lowndes,
Madison, Marion,
Neshoba, Newton,
Noxubee,
Oktibbeha, Pearl
River, Perry,
Pike, Rankin,
Scott, Simpson,
Smith, Stone,
Walthall, Warren,
Wayne, Wilkinson,
Winston, Yazoo.
AL............................. .................. 8-29-2005....... continuing..... 9-09-2005...... 5-09-2006...... S2126........ Hurricane Katrina................. ....... 3
AR............................. .................. 8-29-2005....... continuing..... 9-09-2005...... 5-09-2006...... S2126........ Hurricane Katrina................. ....... 6
LA............................. .................. 8-29-2005....... continuing..... 9-09-2005...... 5-09-2006...... S2126........ Hurricane Katrina................. ....... 2
TN............................. .................. 8-29-2005....... continuing..... 9-09-2005...... 5-09-2006...... S2126........ Hurricane Katrina................. ....... 3
IA............................. Cedar, Clinton, 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-13-2005...... 5-15-2006...... S2127........ Drought........................... 16 10
Davis, Des
Moines, Henry,
Iowa, Jackson,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Keokuk,
Lee, Louisa,
Muscatine, Scott,
Van Buren,
Washington.
IL............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-13-2005...... 5-15-2006...... S2127........ Drought........................... ....... 7
MO............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-13-2005...... 5-15-2006...... S2127........ Drought........................... ....... 3
KS............................. Ellsworth, Geary, 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-13-2005...... 5-15-2006...... S2128........ Freeze, drought, excessive heat, 10 34
Gove, Greeley, high winds.
Jewell, Osage,
Riley, Russell,
Trego, Wabaunsee.
CO............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-13-2005...... 5-15-2006...... S2128........ Freeze, drought, excessive heat, ....... 3
high winds.
NE............................. .................. 1-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-13-2005...... 5-15-2006...... S2128........ Freeze, drought, excessive heat, ....... 2
high winds.
OH............................. Ashland, 5-25-2005....... continuing..... 9-20-2005...... 5-22-2006...... S2129........ Extreme weather conditions........ 72 16
Ashtabula,
Athens, Auglaize,
Belmont, Brown,
Butler, Carroll,
Champaign,
Clermont,
Clinton,
Columbiana,
Coshocton,
Crawford,
Cuyahoga, Darke,
Defiance, Erie,
Fairfield,
Fayette,
Franklin, Fulton,
Gallia, Geauga,
Guernsey,
Hamilton,
Hancock, Hardin,
Henry, Highland,
Hocking, Huron,
Jackson, Knox,
Lake, Lawrence,
Licking, Logan,
Lorain, Lucas,
Madison,
Mahoning, Medina,
Meigs, Mercer,
Miami, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Morgan,
Muskingum, Noble,
Ottawa, Paulding,
Perry, Pickaway,
Pike, Preble,
Putnam, Richland,
Ross, Sandusky,
Scioto, Seneca,
Shelby, Trumbull,
Tuscarawas,
Union, Van Wert,
Vinton, Warren,
Washington,
Wyandot.
IN............................. .................. 5-25-2005....... continuing..... 9-20-2005...... 5-22-2006...... S2129........ Extreme weather conditions........ ....... 9
KY............................. .................. 5-25-2005....... continuing..... 9-20-2005...... 5-22-2006...... S2129........ Extreme weather conditions........ ....... 9
MI............................. .................. 5-25-2005....... continuing..... 9-20-2005...... 5-22-2006...... S2129........ Extreme weather conditions........ ....... 3
PA............................. .................. 5-25-2005....... continuing..... 9-20-2005...... 5-22-2006...... S2129........ Extreme weather conditions........ ....... 5
WV............................. .................. 5-25-2005....... continuing..... 9-20-2005...... 5-22-2006...... S2129........ Extreme weather conditions........ ....... 11
TX............................. Bowie, Hunt, Rains 4-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2130........ Drought........................... 3 11
AR............................. .................. 4-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2130........ Drought........................... ....... 2
OK............................. .................. 4-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2130........ Drought........................... ....... 1
TX............................. Foard............. 3-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2131........ Drought........................... 1 6
TX............................. Jim Wells......... 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2132........ Drought, high winds............... 1 6
TX............................. Kleberg........... 10-01-2004...... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2133........ Drought, excessive temperatures... 1 4
TX............................. Red River......... 4-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2134........ Drought, excessive temperatures... 1 7
OK............................. .................. 4-01-2005....... continuing..... 9-19-2005...... 5-19-2006...... S2134........ Drought, excessive temperatures... ....... 2
--------------------
TOTAL ACTIVE............. .................. ................ ............... ............... ............... ............. .................................. 1,126 2048
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISASTER ASSISTANCE BRANCH/EMERGENCIES SECTION (DAB/ES) DISASTER DECLARATIONS: FINAL TOTALS SECRETARIAL
[Fiscal year 2006]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning Date Ending Date of Approved by Termination Designation
State Counties requested of disaster disaster Secretary Date Number Description of disaster Primary Contiguous
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL.............................. Alexander, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2106, Drought.......................... 5 12
Franklin, Hancock, Amendment 1.
Pulaski, Union.
IA.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2106, Drought.......................... ....... 1
Amendment 1.
KY.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2106, Drought.......................... ....... 2
Amendment 1.
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2106, Drought.......................... ....... 6
Amendment 1.
MS.............................. Alcorn, Lee, 8-29-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2126, Hurricane Katrina................ 4 ..........
Tippah, Tishomingo. Amendment 1.
AL.............................. ................... 8-29-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2126, Hurricane Katrina................ ....... 2
Amendment 1.
TN.............................. ................... 8-29-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2126, Hurricane Katrina................ ....... 2
Amendment 1.
CA.............................. Glenn.............. 5-01-05........ 6-10-05........ 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2135......... Rain, wind, unusually cool 1 5
temperatures.
CA.............................. Yuba............... 5-09-05........ 5-19-05........ 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2136......... Unseasonably heavy rains......... 1 6
MT.............................. Fergus............. 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2137......... Drought.......................... 1 8
TX.............................. Fannin............. 4-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2138......... Drought.......................... 1 5
OK.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2138......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Webb............... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 10-04-05....... 6-05-06....... S2139......... Drought, high winds, excessive 1 7
temperatures.
SD.............................. Bon Homme, Clay, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-07-05....... 6-07-06....... S2140......... Drought, high winds, spring 4 6
Lincoln, Turner. frosts, excessive heat, flash
flooding, hail, excessive
rainfall.
IA.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-07-05....... 6-07-06....... S2140......... Drought, high winds, spring ....... 2
frosts, excessive heat, flash
flooding, hail, excessive
rainfall.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-07-05....... 6-07-06....... S2140......... Drought, high winds, spring ....... 3
frosts, excessive heat, flash
flooding, hail, excessive
rainfall.
UT.............................. Washington......... 6-26-05........ 8-01-05........ 10-07-05....... 6-07-06....... S2141......... Fires caused by lightning........ 1 2
AZ.............................. ................... 6-26-05........ 8-01-05........ 10-07-05....... 6-07-06....... S2141......... Fires caused by lightning........ ....... 1
NV.............................. ................... 6-26-05........ 8-01-05........ 10-07-05....... 6-07-06....... S2141......... Fires caused by lightning........ ....... 1
AR.............................. Entire State....... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high 75 ..........
temperatures.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high ....... 8
temperatures.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high ....... 6
temperatures.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high ....... 11
temperatures.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high ....... 5
temperatures.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high ....... 4
temperatures.
AR.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 10-13-05....... 6-13-06....... S2142......... Drought, extremely high ....... 2
temperatures.
OR.............................. Lane............... 3-01-05........ 5-15-05........ 10-18-05....... 6-19-06....... S2143......... Excessive rains.................. 1 6
TX.............................. Comanche........... 8-09-05........ 8-10-05........ 10-18-05....... 6-19-06....... S2144......... Flooding......................... 1 5
TX.............................. Haskell............ 8-09-05........ 8-15-05........ 10-18-05....... 6-19-06....... S2145......... Excessive rain, flash flooding... 1 7
TX.............................. Haskell............ 8-09-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2145, Excessive rain, flash flooding... 1 7
Amendment 1.
TX.............................. Jones, Knox........ 8-14-05........ continuing..... 10-18-05....... 6-19-06....... S2146......... Excessive rain, flash flooding... 2 11
TX.............................. Camp, Franklin, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 10-18-05....... 6-19-06....... S2147......... Drought.......................... 6 10
Hopkins, Lamar,
Morris, Titus.
OK.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 10-18-05....... 6-19-06....... S2147......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
KY.............................. Adair, Allen, 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... 109 10
Anderson, Ballard,
Barren, Bath,
Bell, Boone,
Bourbon, Boyd,
Boyle, Bracken,
Breckinridge,
Bullitt, Butler,
Caldwell,
Calloway,
Campbell,
Carlisle, Carroll,
Carter, Casey,
Clark, Clinton,
Crittenden,
Cumberland,
Daviess, Edmonson,
Elliott, Estill,
Fayette, Fleming,
Floyd, Franklin,
Gallatin, Garrard,
Grant, Graves,
Grayson, Green,
Johnson, Kenton,
Knott, Larue,
Lawrence, Lee,
Leslie, Letcher,
Lewis, Lincoln,
Livingston, Logan,
Lyon, Madison,
Magoffin, Marion,
Marshall, Martin,
Mason, McCracken,
McCreary, Meade,
Menifee, Mercer,
Metcalfe, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Morgan,
Muhlenberg,
Nelson, Nicholas,
Ohio, Oldham,
Owen, Owsley,
Pendleton, Perry,
Pike, Powell,
Pulaski,
Robertson,
Rockcastle, Rowan,
Russell, Scott,
Shelby, Simpson,
Spencer, Taylor,
Todd, Trimble,
Union, Warren,
Washington, Wayne,
Webster, Whitley,
Wolfe, Woodford.
IL.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
IN.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 12
MO.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
OH.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
TN.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
VA.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
WV.............................. ................... 2-01-05........ continuing..... 10-25-05....... 6-26-06....... S2148......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
TX.............................. Fisher............. 8-01-05........ 8-16-05........ 10-20-05....... 6-20-06....... S2149......... Flooding......................... 1 7
LA.............................. Acadia, Allen, 4-26-05........ continuing..... 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2150......... Drought, Hurricane Katrina, 40 6
Avoyelles, Hurricane Rita.
Beauregard,
Bienville,
Bossier, Caddo,
Calcasieu,
Caldwell, Cameron,
Catahoula,
Claiborne,
Concordia, De
Soto, East
Carroll,
Evangeline,
Franklin, Grant,
Jackson, Jefferson
Davis, La Salle,
Lafayette,
Lincoln, Madison,
Morehouse,
Natchitoches,
Ouachita, Rapides,
Red River,
Richland, Sabine,
St. Landry, St.
Martin, Tensas,
Union, Vermilion,
Vernon, Webster,
West Carroll, Winn.
AR.............................. ................... 4-26-05........ continuing..... 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2150......... Drought, other disasters......... ....... 6
MS.............................. ................... 4-26-05........ continuing..... 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2150......... Drought, other disasters......... ....... 6
TX.............................. ................... 4-26-05........ continuing..... 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2150......... Drought, other disasters......... ....... 9
NE.............................. Holt............... 5-24-05........ 6-10-05........ 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2151......... Cool, wet weather................ 1 8
OR.............................. Linn............... Early spring... 5-15-05........ 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2152......... Excessive ongoing rains.......... 1 6
OR.............................. Wasco.............. 3-01-05........ 5-31-05........ 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2153......... Severe frosts, rain events....... 1 7
WA.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 5-31-05........ 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2153......... Severe frosts, rain events....... ....... 1
TX.............................. Delta.............. 4-01-05........ continuing..... 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2154......... Drought.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Coryell............ 7-15-05........ 7-17-05........ 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2155......... High winds....................... 1 ..........
ND.............................. Adams, Benson, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2156......... Freeze, damage, late spring snow 37 16
Bottineau, Bowman, storms, overland flooding,
Burke, Cavalier, torrential, rainfall, standing
Dickey, Divide, water, hail, high winds,
Emmons, Grand tornadoes.
Forks, Grant,
Griggs, Hettinger,
Kidder, LaMoure,
McHenry, McIntosh,
McLean, Mercer,
Mountrail, Nelson,
Oliver, Pembina,
Pierce, Ramsey,
Ransom, Renville,
Richland, Rolette,
Sargent, Sheridan,
Slope, Steele,
Towner, Traill,
Walsh, Ward.
MN.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2156......... Freeze, damage, late spring snow ....... ..........
storms, overland flooding,
torrential, rainfall, standing
water, hail, high winds,
tornadoes.
MT.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2156......... Freeze, damage, late spring snow ....... ..........
storms, overland flooding,
torrential, rainfall, standing
water, hail, high winds,
tornadoes.
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2156......... Freeze, damage, late spring snow ....... ..........
storms, overland flooding,
torrential, rainfall, standing
water, hail, high winds,
tornadoes.
WI.............................. Clark, Marinette, 1-01-05........ 5-31-05........ 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2157......... Winterkill, due to unusually warm 7 25
Milwaukee, weather; followed by below
Outagamie, freezing temperatures, and ice.
Walworth,
Waukesha, Waushara.
IL.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ 5-31-05........ 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2157......... Winterkill, due to unusually warm ....... 2
weather; followed by below
freezing temperatures, and ice.
MI.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ 5-31-05........ 10-31-05....... 7-03-06....... S2157......... Winterkill, due to unusually warm ....... 2
weather; followed by below
freezing temperatures, and ice.
OR.............................. Douglas............ 1-01-05........ continuing..... 10-24-05....... 6-26-06....... S2158......... Severe weather conditions........ 1 6
NE.............................. Chase, Cheyenne, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-03-05....... 7-03-06....... S2159......... Freeze incidents; hail, disease, 13 13
Deuel, Dundy, ongoing drought.
Furnas, Garden,
Hayes, Hitchcock,
Morrill, Perkins,
Red Willow, Scotts
Bluff, Sheridan,
Sioux.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-03-05....... 7-03-06....... S2159......... Freeze incidents; hail, disease, ....... 4
ongoing drought.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-03-05....... 7-03-06....... S2159......... Freeze incidents; hail, disease, ....... 5
ongoing drought.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-03-05....... 7-03-06....... S2159......... Freeze incidents; hail, disease, ....... 1
ongoing drought.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-03-05....... 7-03-06....... S2159......... Freeze incidents; hail, disease, ....... 2
ongoing drought.
CO.............................. Delta, Kit Carson.. 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-07-05....... 7-07-06....... S2160......... (1) Freezing temperatures........ 2 7
(2) Drought......................
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-07-05....... 7-07-06....... S2160......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
TX.............................. Wood............... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 11-07-05....... 7-07-06....... S2161......... Drought.......................... 1 7
WI.............................. Dane, Vernon....... 8-18-05........ 8-18-05........ 11-07-05....... 7-07-06....... S2162......... Tornadoes, severe storms......... 2 12
IA.............................. ................... 8-18-05........ 8-18-05........ 11-07-05....... 7-07-06....... S2162......... Tornadoes, severe storms......... ....... 1
MN.............................. ................... 8-18-05........ 8-18-05........ 11-07-05....... 7-07-06....... S2162......... Tornadoes, severe storms......... ....... 1
TX.............................. Collin............. 4-01-05........ continuing..... 11-02-05....... 7-03-06....... S2163......... Drought.......................... 1 6
MI.............................. Calhoun, Huron, 6-05-05........ 7-24-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2164......... Storms with excessive rain, 9 22
Jackson, localized flooding, high winds,
Kalamazoo, hail.
Mecosta, Sanilac,
St. Joseph,
Tuscola, Van Buren.
IN.............................. ................... 6-05-05........ 7-24-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2164......... Storms with excessive rain, ....... 2
localized flooding, high winds,
hail.
IA.............................. Clay, Dubuque, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2165......... Drought.......................... 4 17
Harrison, Monona.
IL.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2165......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2165......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
WI.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2165......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
MI.............................. Alger, Allegan, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2166......... Drought.......................... 41 19
Antrim, Baraga,
Berrien, Calhoun,
Cass, Charlevoix,
Cheboygan,
Chippewa, Delta,
Dickinson, Emmet,
Gogebic, Grand
Traverse,
Houghton, Ionia,
Iron, Kalamazoo,
Kalkaska, Kent,
Keweenaw,
Leelanau, Luce,
Mackinac,
Manistee,
Marquette, Mason,
Mecosta,
Menominee,
Missaukee,
Muskegon, Newaygo,
Oceana, Ontonagon,
Osceola, Otsego,
Ottawa, Presque
Isle, Schoolcraft,
Van Buren.
IN.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2166......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
WI.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2166......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
TX.............................. Cameron............ 7-19-05........ 7-20-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2167......... Flooding, high winds, hurricane, 1 2
lightning.
CA.............................. El Dorado.......... (1) 05-16-05... (1) 06-16-05(2) 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2168......... (1) Unseasonable rains........... 1 4
(2) 04-15-05... 05-15-05. (2) Hail, freezing conditions....
NV.............................. ................... (1) 05-16-05... (1) 06-16-05... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2168......... (1) Unseasonable rains........... ....... 1
(2) 04-15-05... (2) 05-15-05... (2) Hail, freezing conditions....
TX.............................. Hidalgo............ 1-01-05........ 6-30-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2169......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 1 5
TX.............................. Kenedy............. 10-01-04....... continuing..... 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2170......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 1 4
CA.............................. San Joaquin........ 3-01-05........ 5-31-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2171......... Spring rains..................... 1 6
CA.............................. Nevada............. 3-01-05........ 6-15-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2172......... Rains............................ 1 3
NV.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 6-15-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2172......... Rains............................ ....... 1
TN.............................. Clay, Fentress, 5-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2173......... Extreme drought, higher than 19 28
Giles, Greene, normal temperatures.
Hancock, Hawkins,
Jackson, Morgan,
Overton, Pickett,
Scott, Smith,
Sumner, Unicoi,
Van Buren,
Washington, White,
Williamson, Wilson.
AL.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2173......... Extreme drought, higher than ....... 2
normal temperatures.
KY.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2173......... Extreme drought, higher than ....... 7
normal temperatures.
NC.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2173......... Extreme drought, higher than ....... 3
normal temperatures.
VA.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2173......... Extreme drought, higher than ....... 2
normal temperatures.
TX.............................. Bailey............. 8-27-05........ 8-27-05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2174......... Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 4
hail, high winds, lightning.
NM.............................. ................... 8-27-05........ 8-27-05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2174......... Excessive rain, flash flooding, ....... 2
hail, high winds, lightning.
TX.............................. Coryell............ 8-08-05........ 8-10-05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2175......... Excessive rain, flooding, high 1 5
winds.
TX.............................. Garza.............. 8-27-05........ 8-27-05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2176......... Excessive rain, hail, high winds. 1 7
TX.............................. Lee................ 4-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2177......... Drought.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Nacogdoches........ 3-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2178......... Drought, excessive heat, high 1 5
winds.
TX.............................. Willacy............ 1-01-05........ continuing..... 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2179......... Drought, high winds.............. 1 3
MI.............................. Alger, Allegan, 4-01-05........ 5-05-05........ 11-21-05....... 7-21-06....... S2180......... Above average temperatures, 24 30
Antrim, Berrien, followed by frost, freeze,
Cass, Delta, excessive snow, hail.
Dickinson,
Hillsdale, Ingham,
Iron, Jackson,
Kalamazoo, Kent,
Livingston,
Marquette,
Mecosta,
Menominee,
Muskegon, Newaygo,
Ottawa, St.
Joseph,
Schoolcraft,
Shiawassee, Van
Buren.
IN.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ 5-05-05........ 11-21-05....... 7-21-06....... S2180......... Above average temperatures, ....... 5
followed by frost, freeze,
excessive snow, hail.
OH.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ 5-05-05........ 11-21-05....... 7-21-06....... S2180......... Above average temperatures, ....... 2
followed by frost, freeze,
excessive snow, hail.
WI.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ 5-05-05........ 11-21-05....... 7-21-06....... S2180......... Above average temperatures, ....... 4
followed by frost, freeze,
excessive snow, hail.
TX.............................. Hockley............ 8-27-05........ 8-28-05........ 11-14-05....... 7-14-06....... S2181......... Hail............................. 1 8
NY.............................. Chenango, Columbia, 4/01/05........ 4/04/05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2182......... (1) Excessive rain, flooding, 8 22
Dutchess, Ontario, 05/05/05....... 05/17/05....... flash flooding.
Rensselaer, (2) Extreme and unseasonably cold
Ulster, Wayne, temperatures, frost, freezes.
Westchester.
CT.............................. ................... 4/01/05........ 4/04/05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2182......... (1) Excessive rain, flooding, ....... 2
05/05/05....... 05/17/05....... flash flooding.
(2) Extreme and unseasonably cold
temperatures, frost, freezes.
MA.............................. ................... 4/01/05........ 4/04/05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2182......... (1) Excessive rain, flooding, ....... 1
05/05/05....... 05/17/05....... flash flooding.
(2) Extreme and unseasonably cold
temperatures, frost, freezes.
NJ.............................. ................... 4/01/0505/05/05 4/04/0505/17/05 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2182......... (1) Excessive rain, flooding, ....... 1
flash flooding.
(2) Extreme and unseasonably cold
temperatures, frost, freezes.
VT.............................. ................... 4/01/05........ 4/04/05........ 11-23-05....... 7-24-06....... S2182......... (1) Excessive rain, flooding, ....... 1
05/05/05....... 05/17/05....... flash flooding.
(2) Extreme and unseasonably cold
temperatures, frost, freezes.
CA.............................. Sutter............. 2-14-05........ 2-24-05........ 12-13-05....... 8-14-06....... S2183......... Cold, wet weather................ 1 6
OR.............................. Benton, Yamhill.... 3-01-05........ 6-30-05........ 12-13-05....... 8-14-06....... S2184......... Excessive ongoing rains, cool 2 8
temperatures.
OR.............................. Wasco.............. 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-13-05....... 8-14-06....... S2185......... Drought.......................... 1 7
WA.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-13-05....... 8-14-06....... S2185......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Coryell............ 4-01-05........ 8-04-05........ 12-13-05....... 8-14-06....... S2186......... Drought.......................... 1 5
TX.............................. Lamb............... 9-12-05........ 9-12-05........ 12-13-05....... 8-14-06....... S2187......... Hail............................. 1 7
CO.............................. Crowley, El Paso, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2188......... Various disasters: Drought, wind, 10 20
Lincoln, Otero, hail, heavy rains.
Park, Phillips,
Pueblo, Teller,
Washington, Yuma.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2188......... Various disasters: Drought, wind, ....... 1
hail, heavy rains.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2188......... Various disasters: Drought, wind, ....... 3
hail, heavy rains.
NY.............................. Chemung, Dutchess, 4-02-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2189......... Drought & various disasters...... 12 33
Essex, Jefferson,
Oneida, Onondaga,
Oswego, Saratoga,
Schuyler, Seneca,
Tioga, Ulster.
CT.............................. ................... 4-02-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2189......... Drought & various disasters...... ....... 2
MA.............................. ................... 4-02-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2189......... Drought & various disasters...... ....... 1
PA.............................. ................... 4-02-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2189......... Drought & various disasters...... ....... 3
VT.............................. ................... 4-02-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2189......... Drought & various disasters...... ....... 2
TX.............................. Taylor............. 8-03-05........ 8-29-05........ 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2190......... Excessive rain................... 1 6
TX.............................. Bosque, Grayson, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2191......... Drought.......................... 10 36
Henderson,
Houston, Johnson,
Leon, Navarro,
Tarrant, Van
Zandt, Waller.
OK.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 12-19-05....... 8-21-06....... S2191......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
NY.............................. Livingston, Madison 5-12-05........ 6-17-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2192......... Various disasters : Excessive 2 12
rain, flash flooding, frost.
TX.............................. Calhoun............ 4-15-05........ 9-30-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2193......... Drought.......................... 1 5
TX.............................. Llano, Mason....... 8-25-05........ continuing..... 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2194......... Drought.......................... 2 7
VA.............................. Amelia, Bland, 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2195......... Drought, high temperatures....... 38 51
Brunswick,
Buckingham,
Campbell,
Charlotte,
Chesterfield,
Cumberland,
Dinwiddie, Essex,
Floyd, Fluvanna,
Franklin,
Frederick, Giles,
Greensville,
Halifax, Isleght,
Kingdeen,
Lee, Louisa,
Lunenburg,
Mecklenburg,
Montgomery,
Nelson, Nottoway,
Page, Patrick,
Pittsylvania,
Powhatan, Prince
Edward, Pulaski,
Scott, Shenandoah,
Smyth,
Southampton,
Tazewell, Wythe.
KY.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2195......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
NC.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2195......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 11
TN.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2195......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 4
WV.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 12-27-05....... 8-28-06....... S2195......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 9
KS.............................. Cheyenne, Edwards, 6-03-05........ 6-13-05........ 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2196......... Severe storms.................... 7 29
Harper, Haskell,
Linn, Rush,
Stanton.
CO.............................. ................... 6-03-05........ 6-13-05........ 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2196......... Severe storms.................... ....... 4
MO.............................. ................... 6-03-05........ 6-13-05........ 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2196......... Severe storms.................... ....... 2
NE.............................. ................... 6-03-05........ 6-13-05........ 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2196......... Severe storms.................... ....... 1
OK.............................. ................... 6-03-05........ 6-13-05........ 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2196......... Severe storms.................... ....... 2
NY.............................. (1) Columbia, (1) 06-09-05... (1) 07-27-05... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2197......... (1) Excessive rain, hail, flash 11 31
Ontario. (2) 05-01-05... (2) continuing. flooding.
(2) Fulton, (2) Drought, heat, high
Hamilton, temperatures.
Herkimer, Madison,
Montgomery,
Ontario, Orange,
Rensselaer,
Suffolk, Sullivan.
CT.............................. ................... (1) 06-09-05... (1) 07-27-05... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2197......... (1) Excessive rain, hail, flash ....... 1
flooding.
MA.............................. ................... (1) 06-09-05... (1) 07-27-05... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2197......... (1) Excessive rain, hail, flash ....... 1
(2) 05-01-05... (2) continuing. flooding.
(2) Drought, heat, high
temperatures.
NJ.............................. ................... (2) 05-01-05... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06........ S2197......... (2) Drought, ................................. 2
(2) continuing. heat, high
temperatures.
PA.............................. ................... (2) 05-01-05... (2) continuing. 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2197......... (2) Drought, heat, high ....... 2
temperatures.
VT.............................. ................... (2) 05-01-05... (2) continuing. 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2197......... (2) Drought, heat, high ....... 1
temperatures.
SD.............................. Aurora, Bon Homme, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2198......... Drought, late spring frosts, 14 22
Butte, Charles extreme heat, high winds, hail,
Mix, Douglas, prairie fires.
Harding, Hughes,
Hutchinson, Hyde,
Perkins, Potter,
Stanley, Sully,
Yankton.
MT.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2198......... Drought, late spring frosts, ....... 2
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
prairie fires.
ND.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2198......... Drought, late spring frosts, ....... 3
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
prairie fires.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2198......... Drought, late spring frosts, ....... 3
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
prairie fires.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2198......... Drought, late spring frosts, ....... 1
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
prairie fires.
TX.............................. Cooke.............. 3-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2199......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 1 4
OK.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2199......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. ....... 1
TX.............................. Falls.............. 2-01-05........ 10-21-05....... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2200......... Drought.......................... 1 5
TX.............................. McLennan........... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 12-21-05....... 8-21-06....... S2201......... Drought.......................... 1 6
MS.............................. All MS Counties, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2202......... Hurricane Rita Drought........... 80 2
except Pontotoc &
Union.
AL.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2202......... Hurricane Rita Drought........... ....... 10
AR.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2202......... Hurricane Rita Drought........... ....... 5
LA.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2202......... Hurricane Rita Drought........... ....... 10
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2202......... Hurricane Rita Drought........... ....... 5
NJ.............................. Atlantic, Bergen, 6-01-05........ 10-06-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2203......... Drought, high humidity, excessive 19 2
Burlington, heat.
Camden, Cape May,
Cumberland, Essex,
Gloucester,
Hunterdon, Mercer,
Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris,
Ocean, Passaic,
Salem, Somerset,
Sussex, Warren.
DE.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 10-06-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2203......... Drought, high humidity, excessive ....... 1
heat.
NY.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 10-06-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2203......... Drought, high humidity, excessive ....... 6
heat.
PA.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 10-06-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2203......... Drought, high humidity, excessive ....... 7
heat.
NY.............................. (1) Allegany, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2204......... (1) Drought; drought related 12 26
Cattaraugus, 10-07-05....... continuing..... disasters.
Cayuga, Orleans, (2) Excessive rain, flooding;
Rensselaer, related disasters.
Steuben, Yates.
(2) Dutchess,
Putnam,
Rensselaer,
Suffolk, Ulster,
Westchester.
CT.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2204......... (1) Drought; drought related ....... 2
10-07-05....... continuing..... disasters.
(2) Excessive rain, flooding;
related disasters.
MA.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2204......... (1) Drought; drought related ....... 1
10-07-05....... continuing..... disasters.
(2) Excessive rain, flooding;
related disasters.
PA.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2204......... (1) Drought; drought related ....... 4
10-07-05....... continuing..... disasters.
(2) Excessive rain, flooding;
related disasters.
VT.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2204......... (1) Drought; drought related ....... 1
10-07-05....... continuing..... disasters.
(2) Excessive rain, flooding;
related disasters.
TX.............................. Duval.............. 10-27-05....... 10-27-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2205......... Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 7
lightning, tornado.
TX.............................. Ellis.............. 2-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2206......... Drought.......................... 1 7
TX.............................. Frio............... 5-01-05........ 10-24-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2207......... Drought.......................... 1 7
TX.............................. Gregg, Smith, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2208......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 3 9
Upshur.
TX.............................. Hill............... 2-01-05........ 10-24-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2209......... Drought.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Jim Wells.......... 10-27-05....... 10-27-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2210......... Excessive rain, flooding, hail, 1 6
high winds, lightning, tornado.
TX.............................. Kimble............. 9-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2211......... Drought.......................... 1 7
TX.............................. Lynn............... 8-28-05........ 9-14-05........ 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2212......... Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 7
lightning.
TX.............................. Mills, San Saba.... 9-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2213......... Drought.......................... 2 7
TX.............................. Parker, Wharton.... 6-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2214......... Drought.......................... 2 12
WA.............................. Benton, Clark, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2215......... Drought.......................... 13 13
Columbia, Cowlitz,
Douglas, Franklin,
Kittitas,
Klickitat,
Lincoln, Skamania,
Wahkiakum, Walla
Walla, Yakima.
OR.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2215......... Drought.......................... ....... 10
WA.............................. (1) Garfield, 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2216......... (1) Drought...................... 3 9
Whitman. 09-09-05....... 09-09-05....... (2) Hailstorm....................
(2) Pacific........
ID.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2216......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
09-09-05....... 09-09-05.......
OR.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2216......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
09-09-05....... 09-09-05.......
CO.............................. Logan.............. 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2217......... Drought, crop diseases........... 1 6
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2217......... Drought, crop diseases........... ....... 2
TX.............................. Wilson............. 3-20-05........ 11-14-05....... 1-09-06........ 9-11-06....... S2218......... Drought.......................... 1 5
TX.............................. Denton, Kaufman, 3-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2219......... Drought.......................... 6 24
Robertson,
Rockwall, Shelby,
Wise.
LA.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2219......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
TX.............................. Gillespie.......... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2220......... Drought.......................... 1 6
IN.............................. Bartholomew, Clark, 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2221......... Drought.......................... 24 25
Crawford,
Dearborn, Elkhart,
Floyd, Harrison,
Jackson, Jasper,
Jefferson,
Kosciusko, Lake,
LaPorte, Newton,
Ohio, Orange,
Porter, Posey,
Scott, St. Joseph,
Starke,
Switzerland,
Warrick,
Washington.
IL.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2221......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
KY.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2221......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
MI.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2221......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
OH.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 8-31-05........ 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2221......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
SD.............................. Lawrence........... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2222......... Drought, late spring frosts, 1 3
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
prairie fires.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2222......... Drought, late spring frosts, ....... 2
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
prairie fires.
TX.............................. Bee, De Witt, Hood, 6-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2223......... Drought.......................... 4 14
Somervell.
TX.............................. Brazos, Dimmit, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2224......... Drought.......................... 8 31
Freestone,
Guadalupe, La
Salle, Madison,
Stephens, Zavala.
TX.............................. Edwards, Hamilton.. 9-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2225......... Drought.......................... 2 13
TX.............................. Hall............... 10-10-05....... 10-10-05....... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2226......... Excessive rain, hail, high winds. 1 6
TX.............................. Hardeman........... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2227......... Drought.......................... 1 4
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2227......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
TX.............................. Medina............. 4-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2228......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 1 6
TX.............................. Montague........... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2229......... Drought.......................... 1 4
OK.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2229......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
TX.............................. Runnels............ 5-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2230......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 1 6
TX.............................. Williamson......... 4-15-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2231......... Drought.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Zapata............. 1-01-05........ continuing..... 1-17-06........ 9-18-06....... S2232......... Drought.......................... 1 3
MT.............................. Hill Co. & Rocky 8-10-05........ 8-10-05........ 1-27-06........ 9-27-06....... S2233......... (1) Severe hail, windstorm....... 1 3
Boy Indian 01-01-05....... continuing..... (2) Drought......................
Reservation.
TX.............................. Austin, Cass, 8-01-05........ continuing..... 1-23-06........ 9-25-06....... S2234......... Drought.......................... 4 19
Eastland, Palo
Pinto.
AR.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 1-23-06........ 9-25-06....... S2234......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
LA.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 1-23-06........ 9-25-06....... S2234......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Caldwell, Comal, 8-01-05........ continuing..... 1-23-06........ 9-25-06....... S2235......... Drought.......................... 3 8
Hays.
TX.............................. Goliad, McMullen... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 1-23-06........ 9-25-06....... S2236......... Drought.......................... 2 11
KS.............................. Cheyenne........... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2237......... Drought, excessive heat, high 1 2
winds.
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2237......... Drought, excessive heat, high ....... 2
winds.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2237......... Drought, excessive heat, high ....... 1
winds.
KS.............................. Sherman, Wallace... 6-19-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2238......... Severe storms.................... 2 6
CO.............................. ................... 6-19-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2238......... Severe storms.................... ....... 2
NY.............................. Cayuga, Ontario, 12-20-04....... 12-20-04....... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2239......... Freeze, excessive cold 4 11
Tompkins, Wayne. temperatures.
TX.............................. Anderson, Dallas... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2240......... Drought.......................... 2 12
TX.............................. Blanco............. 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2241......... Drought.......................... 1 7
TX.............................. Gonzales........... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2242......... Drought.......................... 1 8
TX.............................. Haskell............ 9-30-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2243......... Excessive rain, hail, high winds. 1 7
TX.............................. Karnes............. 7-25-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2244......... Drought, abnormally high 1 7
temperatures.
TX.............................. Kinney............. 3-15-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2245......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 1 5
TX.............................. Limestone.......... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2246......... Drought.......................... 1 7
TX.............................. Live Oak........... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2247......... Drought.......................... 1 7
TX.............................. Starr.............. 1-01-05........ continuing..... 2-01-06........ 10-02-06...... S2248......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 1 4
AR.............................. Conway............. 11-27-05....... 11-27-05....... 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2249......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, 1 5
tornadoes, lightning.
AR.............................. Arkansas, Ashley, 9-24-05........ 9-24-05........ 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2250......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, 18 22
Chicot, Conway, tornadoes, lightning, due to
Crittenden, Desha, Tropical Storm Rita.
Drew, Jefferson,
Lee, Lincoln,
Little River,
Lonoke, Monroe,
Phillips, Pope,
Prairie, St.
Francis, Woodruff.
LA.............................. ................... 9-24-05........ 9-24-05........ 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2250......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, ....... 4
tornadoes, lightning, due to
Tropical Storm Rita.
MS.............................. ................... 9-24-05........ 9-24-05........ 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2250......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, ....... 6
tornadoes, lightning, due to
Tropical Storm Rita.
OK.............................. ................... 9-24-05........ 9-24-05........ 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2250......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, ....... 1
tornadoes, lightning, due to
Tropical Storm Rita.
TN.............................. ................... 9-24-05........ 9-24-05........ 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2250......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, ....... 2
tornadoes, lightning, due to
Tropical Storm Rita.
TX.............................. ................... 9-24-05........ 9-24-05........ 2-07-06........ 10-09-06...... S2250......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, ....... 1
tornadoes, lightning, due to
Tropical Storm Rita.
MA.............................. Bristol, Plymouth.. 6-01-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2251......... Drought.......................... 2 3
RI.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2251......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
OR.............................. Hood River......... 6-01-05........ 6-30-05........ 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2252......... Severe Weather events............ 1 3
WA.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 6-30-05........ 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2252......... Severe Weather events............ ....... 2
TX.............................. Bandera............ 8-01-05........ continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2253......... Drought.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Colorado........... 6-01-05........ continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2254......... Drought, excessive heat, high 1 5
winds.
TX.............................. Jack, Washington... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2255......... Drought.......................... 2 14
TX.............................. Kendall............ 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2256......... Drought.......................... 1 6
OR.............................. Sherman............ 1-01-05........ continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2257......... Drought.......................... 1 2
WA.............................. ................... 1-01-05........ continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2257......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Wise............... 12-26-05....... 12-27-05....... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2258......... Fire, high winds................. 1 6
TX.............................. Callahan........... 12-26-05....... continuing..... 2-09-06........ 10-09-06...... S2259......... Fire, high winds................. 1 6
CT.............................. Entire State....... 6-01-05........ 10-15-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2260......... Drought.......................... 8 ..........
MA.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 10-15-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2260......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
NY.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 10-15-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2260......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
RI.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ 10-15-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2260......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
NY.............................. Broome, Delaware... 5-01-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2261......... Drought, heat.................... 2 8
PA.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2261......... Drought, heat.................... ....... 2
NY.............................. Clinton............ 10-06-05....... 10-06-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2262......... High winds....................... 1 2
VT.............................. ................... 10-06-05....... 10-06-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2262......... High winds....................... ....... 2
NY.............................. Clinton, Essex..... 10-25-05....... 10-25-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2263......... Excessive rain, excessive snow... 2 4
VT.............................. ................... 10-25-05....... 10-25-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2263......... Excessive rain, excessive snow... ....... 3
NY.............................. Franklin........... 10-07-05....... 10-24-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2264......... Excessive rain Freeze............ 1 4
10-20-05....... 10-22-05.......
NY.............................. Monroe............. 9-01-05........ 10-31-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2265......... Excessive rain................... 1 5
NY.............................. Ontario............ 9-15-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2266......... Excessive rain................... 1 6
TN.............................. Bradley, 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2267......... Drought, high temperatures....... 8 23
Cumberland,
DeKalb, Johnson,
Macon, Polk,
Trousdale, Warren.
GA.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2267......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 4
KY.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2267......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
NC.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2267......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 4
VA.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2267......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
TN.............................. Bradley, Polk...... 8-29-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2268......... Hurricane related wind and storms 2 4
GA.............................. ................... 8-29-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2268......... Hurricane related wind and storms ....... 4
NC.............................. ................... 8-29-05........ 9-30-05........ 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2268......... Hurricane related wind and storms ....... 1
TX.............................. Cherokee........... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2269......... Drought, frost................... 1 7
TX.............................. Cooke.............. 12-27-05....... 12-27-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2270......... Fire............................. 1 4
OK.............................. ................... 12-27-05....... 12-27-05....... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2270......... Fire............................. ....... 1
TX.............................. Fayette............ 4-15-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2271......... Drought.......................... 1 8
TX.............................. Lavaca............. 9-13-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2272......... Drought, excessive temperatures, 1 6
high winds.
TX.............................. Palo Pinto......... 1-01-06........ 1-01-06........ 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2273......... High winds, wildfire............. 1 7
TX.............................. Rusk............... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2274......... Drought.......................... 1 7
WI.............................. Adams, Brown, 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2275......... Drought.......................... 18 28
Burnett, Calumet,
Dodge, Door, Fond
du Lac, Kenosha,
Kewaunee,
Manitowoc,
Marinette,
Marquette, Oconto,
Racine, Sheboygan,
Walworth,
Washburn, Waupaca.
IL.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2275......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
MI.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2275......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
MN.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 2-13-06........ 10-13-06...... S2275......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
PA.............................. Armstrong, Bedford, 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2276......... Drought.......................... 23 27
Bradford, Centre,
Clearfield,
Clinton, Elk,
Fayette, Fulton,
Greene, Jefferson,
Lackawanna,
Lehigh, Luzerne,
McKean, Pike,
Potter,
Susquehanna,
Sullivan, Tioga,
Washington, Wayne,
Wyoming.
MD.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2276......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
NJ.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2276......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NY.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2276......... Drought.......................... ....... 10
OH.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2276......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
WV.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2276......... Drought.......................... ....... 7
TX.............................. Sterling........... 1-01-06........ 1-01-06........ 2-21-06........ 10-23-06...... S2277......... Fire............................. 1 6
TX.............................. Tom Green.......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 2-23-06........ 10-23-06...... S2278......... Grass fires...................... 1 8
VA.............................. Bedford, Hanover, 6-01-05........ continuing..... 2-23-06........ 10-23-06...... S2195, Drought, high temperatures....... 4 24
Russell, Wise. Amendment 2.
KY.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ continuing..... 2-23-06........ 10-23-06...... S2195, Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 3
Amendment 2.
VA.............................. Culpeper, 6-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2195, Drought, high temperatures....... 6 30
Goochland, Amendment 1.
Grayson, King
William, Surry,
Washington.
NC.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2195, Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 3
Amendment 1.
TN.............................. ................... 6-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2195, Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
Amendment 1.
OK.............................. Entire State....... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high 77 ..........
winds, fire.
AR.............................. ................... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 8
winds, fire.
CO.............................. ................... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 1
winds, fire.
KS.............................. ................... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 14
winds, fire.
MO.............................. ................... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 2
winds, fire.
NM.............................. ................... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 1
winds, fire.
TX.............................. ................... 7-01-05........ continuing..... 2-28-06........ 10-30-06...... S2279......... Drought, high temperatures, high ....... 20
winds, fire.
GA.............................. Appling, Bacon, 8-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2280......... Drought.......................... 112 39
Banks, Barrow,
Bartow, Ben Hill,
Bibb, Bleckley,
Bryan, Bulloch,
Butts, Carroll,
Catoosa,
Chattooga,
Cherokee, Clarke,
Clayton, Clinch,
Cobb, Columbia,
Coweta, Crawford,
Crisp, Dade,
Dawson, Decatur,
De Kalb, Dodge,
Dooly, Douglas,
Elbert, Emanuel,
Evans, Fannin,
Fayette, Floyd,
Forsyth, Franklin,
Fulton, Gilmer,
Glascock, Gordon,
Grady, Gwinnett,
Habersham, Hall,
Haralson, Harris,
Hart, Heard,
Henry, Houston,
Irwin, Jackson,
Jeff Davis,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Lamar,
Lanier, Laurens,
Lincoln, Long,
Lumpkin, McDuffie,
Macon, Madison,
Marion,
Meriwether,
Miller, Mitchell,
Monroe,
Montgomery,
Murray, Muscogee,
Oconee,
Oglethorpe,
Paulding, Peach,
Pickens, Pike,
Polk, Pulaski,
Rabun, Richmond,
Rockdale, Screven,
Seminole,
Spalding,
Stephens, Sumter,
Talbot, Tattnall,
Taylor, Telfair,
Thomas, Towns,
Treutlen, Troup,
Turner, Twiggs,
Union, Upson,
Walker, Walton,
Warren,
Washington, Wayne,
Wheeler, White,
Whitfield, Wilkes,
Wilkinson.
AL.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2280......... Drought.......................... ....... 9
FL.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2280......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
NC.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2280......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
SC.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2280......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
TN.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2280......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
TX.............................. Angelina, Aransas, 4-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2281......... Drought, above normal 117 87
Archer, Armstrong, temperatures, wildfires.
Atascosa, Bailey,
Bastrop, Baylor,
Bell, Bexar,
Borden, Briscoe,
Brown, Burnet,
Callahan, Cameron,
Carson, Castro,
Childress, Clay,
Cochran, Coke,
Coleman,
Collingsworth,
Comanche, Concho,
Coryell, Cottle,
Crockett, Crosby,
Dawson, Deaf
Smith, Dickens,
Donley, Erath,
Fisher, Floyd,
Fort Bend, Gaines,
Garza, Glasscock,
Gray, Grimes,
Hale, Hall,
Hansford, Harris,
Harrison, Haskell,
Hemphill, Hockley,
Howard,
Hutchinson, Irion,
Jackson, Jasper,
Jones, Kent, Kerr,
King, Knox, Lamb,
Lampasas,
Lipscomb, Lubbock,
Lynn, Marion,
Maverick,
McCulloch, Menard,
Milam, Mitchell,
Montgomery, Moore,
Motley, Newton,
Nolan, Nueces,
Ochiltree, Oldham,
Panola, Parmer,
Polk, Potter,
Randall, Reagan,
Real, Refugio,
Roberts, Sabine,
San Augustine, San
Jacinto, San
Patricio,
Schleicher,
Scurry,
Shackelford,
Sherman, Sterling,
Stonewall, Sutton,
Swisher, Taylor,
Terry,
Throckmorton, Tom
Green, Travis,
Trinity, Tyler,
Upton, Uvalde, Val
Verde, Victoria,
Walker, Wheeler,
Wichita, Yoakum,
Young.
LA.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2281......... Drought, above normal ....... 6
temperatures, wildfires.
NM.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2281......... Drought, above normal ....... 4
temperatures, wildfires.
OK.............................. ................... 4-01-05........ continuing..... 3-07-06........ 11-07-06...... S2281......... Drought, above normal ....... 10
temperatures, wildfires.
NY.............................. Cortland, Tompkins. 10-20-05....... 11-20-05....... 3-10-06........ 11-10-06...... S2282......... Excessive rain................... 2 9
TN.............................. Anderson, Campbell, 5-01-05........ continuing..... 3-10-06........ 11-10-06...... S2283......... Drought, higher than normal 6 19
Cannon, Carter, temperatures.
Knox, Sullivan.
KY.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 3-10-06........ 11-10-06...... S2283......... Drought, higher than normal ....... 2
temperatures.
NC.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 3-10-06........ 11-10-06...... S2283......... Drought, higher than normal ....... 2
temperatures.
VA.............................. ................... 5-01-05........ continuing..... 3-10-06........ 11-10-06...... S2283......... Drought, higher than normal ....... 3
temperatures.
TX.............................. Jack............... 1-12-06........ 1-12-06........ 3-10-06........ 11-10-06...... S2284......... Wildfire, high winds............. 1 7
TX.............................. Erath.............. 1-01-06........ 1-01-06........ 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2285......... Wildfire......................... 1 7
WV.............................. Barbour, Berkeley, 3-01-05........ 11-30-05....... 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2286......... Drought.......................... 29 12
Boone, Brooke,
Cabell, Grant,
Hampshire,
Hancock, Hardy,
Jefferson,
Lincoln, Logan,
Marion, Marshall,
Mason, Mineral,
Mingo, Monongalia,
Morgan, Ohio,
Pendleton,
Preston, Putnam,
Randolph, Taylor,
Tucker, Tyler,
Wayne, Wetzel.
KY.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 11-30-05....... 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2286......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
MD.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 11-30-05....... 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2286......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
OH.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 11-30-05....... 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2286......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
PA.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 11-30-05....... 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2286......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
VA.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ 11-30-05....... 3-29-06........ 11-29-06...... S2286......... Drought.......................... ....... 8
CO.............................. Huerfano, Kiowa, 3-01-05........ continuing..... 4-05-06........ 12-05-06...... S2287......... Drought, related disasters....... 4 14
Las Animas,
Sedgwick.
KS.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 4-05-06........ 12-05-06...... S2287......... Drought, related disasters....... ....... 1
NE.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 4-05-06........ 12-05-06...... S2287......... Drought, related disasters....... ....... 4
NM.............................. ................... 3-01-05........ continuing..... 4-05-06........ 12-05-06...... S2287......... Drought, related disasters....... ....... 2
TX.............................. Frio............... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 4-18-06........ 12-18-06...... S2288......... Drought, high temperatures....... 1 7
TX.............................. Wheeler............ 3-12-06........ 3-15-06........ 4-18-06........ 12-18-06...... S2289......... Fire, high winds................. 1 5
OK.............................. ................... 3-12-06........ 3-15-06........ 4-18-06........ 12-18-06...... S2289......... Fire, high winds................. ....... 2
TX.............................. Collingsworth...... 3-12-06........ continuing..... 4-20-06........ 12-20-06...... S2290......... Fire, high winds................. 1 5
OK.............................. ................... 3-12-06........ continuing..... 4-20-06........ 12-20-06...... S2290......... Fire, high winds................. ....... 2
TX.............................. Gray............... 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 4-20-06........ 12-20-06...... S2291......... Fire, extreme wind............... 1 7
TX.............................. Roberts............ 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 4-20-06........ 12-20-06...... S2292......... Fire............................. 1 8
TX.............................. Taylor............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 4-20-06........ 12-20-06...... S2293......... Drought.......................... 1 6
HI.............................. Honolulu, Kauai.... 2-20-06........ 3-26-06........ 4-24-06........ 12-27-06...... S2294......... Rain, flooding................... 2 ..........
TX.............................. Cottle............. 3-12-06........ continuing..... 5-03-06........ 1-03-07....... S2295......... Fire, high winds................. 1 7
AZ.............................. All counties except 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-09-06........ 1-09-07....... S2296......... Drought.......................... 14 1
Laz.
CA.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-09-06........ 1-09-07....... S2296......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-09-06........ 1-09-07....... S2296......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-09-06........ 1-09-07....... S2296......... Drought.......................... ....... 6
NV.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-09-06........ 1-09-07....... S2296......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-09-06........ 1-09-07....... S2296......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
TX.............................. Armstrong.......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-15-06........ 1-16-07....... S2297......... Drought, high winds.............. 1 7
TX.............................. Donley............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-15-06........ 1-15-07....... S2298......... Fire, high temperatures.......... 1 7
TX.............................. Hutchinson......... 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 5-15-06........ 1-15-07....... S2299......... Fire............................. 1 7
TX.............................. Runnels............ 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-15-06........ 1-15-07....... S2300......... Drought.......................... 1 6
NM.............................. All counties except 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2301......... Drought, high winds.............. 31 2
Chaves, Los Alamos.
AZ.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2301......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 3
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2301......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 7
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2301......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 1
TX.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2301......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 16
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2301......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 1
TX.............................. Hemphill........... 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2302......... Fire............................. 1 4
OK.............................. ................... 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 5-18-06........ 1-18-07....... S2302......... Fire............................. ....... 2
TX.............................. Coryell............ 3-24-06........ 3-24-06........ 5-22-06........ 1-22-07....... S2303......... Freeze........................... 1 5
TX.............................. Gillespie.......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-22-06........ 1-22-07....... S2304......... Drought.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Lipscomb........... 4-11-06........ 4-11-06........ 5-22-06........ 1-22-07....... S2305......... Wildfires........................ 1 3
OK.............................. ................... 4-11-06........ 4-11-06........ 5-22-06........ 1-22-07....... S2305......... Wildfires........................ ....... 2
TX.............................. Oldham, Potter..... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-30-06........ 1-30-07....... S2306......... Drought, high winds.............. 2 7
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-30-06........ 1-30-07....... S2306......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 1
TX.............................. Armstrong.......... 3-05-06........ 3-11-06........ 5-31-06........ 1-31-07....... S2307......... Wildfires........................ 1 7
TX.............................. Calhoun, Hamilton.. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 5-31-06........ 1-31-07....... S2308......... Drought.......................... 2 11
TX.............................. Cooke.............. 4-28-06........ 4-28-06........ 5-31-06........ 1-31-07....... S2309......... Flash flooding, hail, high winds. 1 4
OK.............................. ................... 4-28-06........ 4-28-06........ 5-31-06........ 1-31-07....... S2309......... Flash flooding, hail, high winds. ....... 1
TX.............................. Gillespie.......... 3-24-06........ 3-25-06........ 5-31-06........ 1-31-07....... S2310......... Freeze........................... 1 6
TX.............................. Brewster........... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-05-06........ 2-05-07....... S2311......... Drought, high winds.............. 1 4
TX.............................. Oldham............. 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 6-05-06........ 2-05-07....... S2312......... Wildfires........................ 1 5
NM.............................. ................... 3-12-06........ 3-12-06........ 6-05-06........ 2-05-07....... S2312......... Wildfires........................ ....... 1
AR.............................. Ashley, Bradley.... 4-07-06........ 4-07-06........ 6-12-06........ 2-12-07....... S2313......... Hail, high winds................. 2 5
LA.............................. ................... 4-07-06........ 4-07-06........ 6-12-06........ 2-12-07....... S2313......... Hail, high winds................. ....... 2
KS.............................. Cherokee, Morton... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 6-12-06........ 2-12-07....... S2314......... Drought, high winds, wildfires, 2 4
above-normal temperatures.
CO.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 6-12-06........ 2-12-07....... S2314......... Drought, high winds, wildfires, ....... 2
above-normal temperatures.
MO.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 6-12-06........ 2-12-07....... S2314......... Drought, high winds, wildfires, ....... 1
above-normal temperatures.
OK.............................. ................... 8-01-05........ continuing..... 6-12-06........ 2-12-07....... S2314......... Drought, high winds, wildfires, ....... 4
above-normal temperatures.
CA.............................. Alameda, Amador, 12-17-06....... 4-26-06........ 6-15-06........ 2-15-07....... S2315......... Storms: Excessive rainfall, hail, 29 21
Butte, Calaveras, high winds, Frost, freeze,
Contra Costa, El fluctuating temperatures.
Dorado, Fresno,
Glenn, Humboldt,
Kings, Lake,
Madera, Mendocino,
Merced, Nevada,
Plumas,
Sacramento, San
Joaquin, San
Mateo, Shasta,
Sierra, Solano,
Sonoma,
Stanislaus,
Sutter, Tehama,
Tulare, Yolo, Yuba.
NV.............................. ................... 12-17-06....... 4-26-06........ 6-15-06........ 2-15-07....... S2315......... Storms: Excessive rainfall, hail, ....... 2
high winds, Frost, freeze,
fluctuating temperatures.
TX.............................. Bosque, Johnson, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-15-06........ 2-15-07....... S2316......... Drought.......................... 3 12
McLennan.
TX.............................. Terrell............ 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-15-06........ 2-15-07....... S2317......... Drought, high winds.............. 1 4
TX.............................. Collin............. 5-09-06........ 5-09-06........ 6-19-06........ 2-19-07....... S2318......... Tornado.......................... 1 6
TX.............................. Kleberg............ 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-19-06........ 2-19-07....... S2319......... Drought, excessive temperatures, 1 4
high winds.
TX.............................. McLennan........... 5-06-06........ 5-06-06........ 6-19-06........ 2-19-07....... S2320......... Excessive rain, hail, high winds, 1 6
tornado.
VT.............................. Entire State....... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 6-23-06........ 2-23-07....... S2321......... Severe weather; excessive 14 ..........
rainfall.
MA.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 6-23-06........ 2-23-07....... S2321......... Severe weather; excessive ....... 2
rainfall.
NH.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 6-23-06........ 2-23-07....... S2321......... Severe weather; excessive ....... 4
rainfall.
NY.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 6-23-06........ 2-23-07....... S2321......... Severe weather; excessive ....... 4
rainfall.
CA.............................. Placer............. 3-01-06........ 4-30-06........ 6-26-06........ 2-26-07....... S2322......... Excessive rainfall, hail......... 1 5
NV.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ 4-30-06........ 6-26-06........ 2-26-07....... S2322......... Excessive rainfall, hail......... ....... 3
CA.............................. Placer............. 3-01-06........ 4-30-06........ 6-26-06........ 2-26-07....... S2322......... Excess rainfall [sic], hail...... 1 ..........
TX.............................. McLennan........... 3-24-06........ 3-25-06........ 6-29-06........ 3-01-07....... S2323......... Freeze........................... 1 6
TX.............................. Mitchell........... 5-02-06........ 5-02-06........ 6-29-06........ 3-01-07....... S2324......... Flash flooding, hail, tornado.... 1 7
AL.............................. Baldwin, Coffee, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-30-06........ 3-02-07....... S2325......... Drought, high temperatures....... 48 18
Barbour, Bibb,
Bullock, Butler,
Chambers,
Cherokee, Choctaw,
Clarke, Clay,
Etowah, Colbert,
Conecuh, Coosa,
Covington,
Crenshaw, Cullman,
Dale, Elmore,
Escambia, Lee,
Franklin, Geneva,
Greene, Hale,
Henry, Houston,
Jackson,
Lauderdale,
Lawrence,
Randolph, Macon,
Madison, Marengo,
Mobile, Monroe,
Montgomery,
Morgan, Perry,
Pike, Russell, St.
Clair, Sumter,
Tallapoosa,
Tuscaloosa,
Washington, Wilcox.
MS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-30-06........ 3-02-07....... S2325......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 6
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-30-06........ 3-02-07....... S2325......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 15
AL.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-30-06........ 3-02-07....... S2325......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 10
AL.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 6-30-06........ 3-02-07....... S2325......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 7
CA.............................. Lassen............. 1-01-06........ 4-30-06........ 7-05-06........ 3-05-07....... S2326......... Excessive rainfall, flooding, 1 4
cooler than normal temperatures.
NV.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ 4-30-06........ 7-05-06........ 3-05-07....... S2326......... Excessive rainfall, flooding, ....... 1
cooler than normal temperatures.
CO.............................. Adams, Alamosa, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... 28 24
Broomfield, Baca,
Chaffee, Cheyenne,
Conejos, Costilla,
Custer, Denver,
Dolores, Douglas,
Elbert, Fremont,
Hinsdale,
Huerfano, Kit
Carson, Lake, Las
Animas, Mineral,
Montezuma, Morgan,
Prowers, Pueblo,
Rio Grande,
Saguache, San
Miguel, Weld.
AZ.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 7
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2327......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
NY.............................. Cattaraugus, 4-25-06........ 4-27-06........ 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2328......... Frost............................ 3 4
Chautauqua, Erie.
PA.............................. ................... 4-25-06........ 4-27-06........ 7-10-06........ 3-12-07....... S2328......... Frost............................ ....... 3
CO.............................. Arapahoe, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-11-06........ 3-12-07....... S2329......... Drought.......................... 17 37
Archuleta, Bent,
Boulder, Crowley,
Delta, El Paso,
Gunnison,
Jefferson, Kiowa,
La Plata,
Montrose, Ouray,
Park, Phillips,
Teller, Washington.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-11-06........ 3-12-07....... S2329......... Drought.......................... ....... 11
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-11-06........ 3-12-07....... S2329......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-11-06........ 3-12-07....... S2329......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-11-06........ 3-12-07....... S2329......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
CO.............................. Dolores, Montezuma, 5-09-06........ 5-30-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2330......... Freeze........................... 3 4
San Miguel.
AZ.............................. ................... 5-09-06........ 5-30-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2330......... Freeze........................... ....... 1
NM.............................. ................... 5-09-06........ 5-30-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2330......... Freeze........................... ....... 1
UT.............................. ................... 5-09-06........ 5-30-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2330......... Freeze........................... ....... 1
NE.............................. Boyd, Brown, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2331......... High winds, excessive heat,a late 13 18
Buffalo, Garfield, freeze, drought.
Howard, Kearney,
Keya Paha, Loup,
Rock, Sherman,
Valley, Webster,
Wheeler.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2331......... High winds, excessive heat,a late ....... 2
freeze, drought.
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2331......... High winds, excessive heat,a late ....... 4
freeze, drought.
NE.............................. Arthur, Banner, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2332......... High winds, excessive heat [high 36 15
Blaine, Box Butte, temperatures], drought.
Chase, Cherry,
Cheyenne, Custer,
Dawes, Dawson,
Deuel, Dundy,
Franklin,
Frontier, Furnas,
Garden, Gosper,
Grant, Harlan,
Hayes, Hitchcock,
Holt, Hooker,
Keith, Kimball,
Lincoln, Logan,
McPherson,
Morrill, Perkins,
Phelps, Red
Willow, Scotts
Bluff, Sheridan,
Sioux, Thomas.
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2332......... High winds, excessive heat [high ....... 5
temperatures], drought.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2332......... High winds, excessive heat [high ....... 6
temperatures], drought.
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2332......... High winds, excessive heat [high ....... 5
temperatures], drought.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2332......... High winds, excessive heat [high ....... 3
temperatures], drought.
OR.............................. Malheur............ 3-29-06........ 5-10-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2333......... Flooding, cooler temperatures, 1 3
abnormally high precipitation.
ID.............................. ................... 3-29-06........ 5-10-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2333......... Flooding, cooler temperatures, ....... 4
abnormally high precipitation.
NV.............................. ................... 3-29-06........ 5-10-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2333......... Flooding, cooler temperatures, ....... 1
abnormally high precipitation.
AR.............................. Jefferson.......... 5-10-06........ 5-10-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2334......... Excessive rainfall, high winds, 1 6
tornadoes, lightning.
AR.............................. Little River....... 5-04-06........ 5-04-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2335......... Excessive thunderstorms, 1 4
rainfall, high winds, hail,
lightning.
OK.............................. ................... 5-04-06........ 5-04-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2335......... Excessive thunderstorms, ....... 1
rainfall, high winds, hail,
lightning.
TX.............................. ................... 5-04-06........ 5-04-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2335......... Excessive thunderstorms, ....... 1
rainfall, high winds, hail,
lightning.
TX.............................. Lee................ 4-20-06........ 4-20-06........ 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2336......... High winds....................... 1 6
TX.............................. Kenedy............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-13-06........ 3-13-07....... S2337......... Drought, excessive temperatures, 1 4
high winds.
TX.............................. Colorado, Pecos.... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-20-06........ 3-20-07....... S2338......... Drought.......................... 2 12
TX.............................. Dimmit............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-20-06........ 3-20-07....... S2339......... Drought.......................... 1 5
TX.............................. Duval.............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-20-06........ 3-20-07....... S2340......... Drought, high winds, high 1 7
temperatures.
TX.............................. Mason.............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-20-06........ 3-20-07....... S2341......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 1 6
TX.............................. Nolan.............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-20-06........ 3-20-07....... S2342......... Drought, fire, high winds........ 1 7
OK.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high 77 ..........
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
AR.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high ....... 8
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
CO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high ....... 1
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high ....... 14
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high ....... 2
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high ....... 1
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
TX.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2343......... Drought, extreme heat, high ....... 20
winds, stressful moisture
conditions.
SD.............................. Brule, Buffalo, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2344......... Spring killing frost, extreme 23 18
Campbell, Corson, heat, high winds, hail, insect
Custer, Dewey, damage, drought.
Edmunds, Fall
River, Faulk,
Hughes, Hyde,
Jackson, Jerauld,
Jones, Lyman,
Meade, Pennington,
Perkins, Potter,
Stanley, Sully,
Walworth, Ziebach.
ND.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2344......... Spring killing frost, extreme ....... 4
heat, high winds, hail, insect
damage, drought.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2344......... Spring killing frost, extreme ....... 2
heat, high winds, hail, insect
damage, drought.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2344......... Spring killing frost, extreme ....... 2
heat, high winds, hail, insect
damage, drought.
SD.............................. Brule, Buffalo, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2344, ADDS: prairie fires caused by dry 23 18
Campbell, Corson, Amendment 1. lightning to disasters for 23
Custer, Dewey, counties.
Edmunds, Fall
River, Faulk,
Hughes, Hyde,
Jackson, Jerauld,
Jones, Lyman,
Meade, Pennington,
Perkins, Potter,
Stanley, Sully,
Walworth, Ziebach.
ND.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2344, ADDS: prairie fires caused by dry ....... 4
Amendment 1. lightning to disasters for 23
counties.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2344, ADDS: prairie fires caused by dry ....... 2
Amendment 1. lightning to disasters for 23
counties.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2344, ADDS: prairie fires caused by dry ....... 2
Amendment 1. lightning to disasters for 23
counties.
SD.............................. Turner............. 6-16-06........ 6-16-06........ 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2345......... High winds, heavy rain, hail..... 1 6
TN.............................. Rutherford......... 5-11-06........ 5-25-06........ 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2346......... Hail, excessive rain............. 1 7
TX.............................. Live Oak, McMullen. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 7-27-06........ 3-27-07....... S2347......... Drought.......................... 2 9
TX.............................. Calhoun............ 6-20-06........ 6-20-06........ 7-31-06........ 4-02-07....... S2348......... Excessive rain, flash flooding, 1 5
flooding.
TX.............................. Hartley, La Salle, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-02-06........ 4-02-07....... S2349......... Drought.......................... 3 14
Presidio.
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-02-06........ 4-02-07....... S2349......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
TX.............................. Robertson.......... 4-18-06........ 4-20-06........ 8-07-06........ 4-09-07....... S2350......... Hail, high winds................. 1 7
CO.............................. Eagle, Fremont, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2351......... Drought, heat, high winds........ 8 21
Garfield, Larimer,
Logan, Otero,
Pitkin, Rio
Blanco, Yuma.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2351......... Drought, heat, high winds........ ....... 1
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2351......... Drought, heat, high winds........ ....... 4
UT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2351......... Drought, heat, high winds........ ....... 2
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2351......... Drought, heat, high winds........ ....... 2
CO.............................. Fremont............ 7-05-06........ 7-05-06........ 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2352......... Flooding......................... 1 7
CO.............................. Yuma............... 4-28-06........ 6-10-06........ 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2353......... Hail............................. 1 4
KS.............................. ................... 4-28-06........ 6-10-06........ 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2353......... Hail............................. ....... 1
NE.............................. ................... 4-28-06........ 6-10-06........ 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2353......... Hail............................. ....... 2
TX.............................. Llano.............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2354......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 1 5
TX.............................. Lubbock............ 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2355......... Drought, high winds, extreme 1 8
temperatures.
TX.............................. Victoria........... 1-01-06........ 6-01-06........ 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2356......... Drought.......................... 1 6
SD.............................. Aurora, Beadle, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2357......... Late spring killing frost, 18 35
Bennett, Butte, extreme heat, high winds, hail,
Clark, Codington, insect damage, insufficient
Douglas, Haakon, subsoil moisture, prairie fires
Hand, Harding, caused by dry lightning, ongoing
Hutchinson, drought.
Mellette,
McPherson,
Sanborn, Shannon,
Spink, Todd, Tripp.
MT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2357......... Late spring killing frost, ....... 2
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
insect damage, insufficient
subsoil moisture, prairie fires
caused by dry lightning, ongoing
drought.
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2357......... Late spring killing frost, ....... 4
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
insect damage, insufficient
subsoil moisture, prairie fires
caused by dry lightning, ongoing
drought.
ND.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2357......... Late spring killing frost, ....... 4
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
insect damage, insufficient
subsoil moisture, prairie fires
caused by dry lightning, ongoing
drought.
WY.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-08-06........ 4-09-07....... S2357......... Late spring killing frost, ....... 1
extreme heat, high winds, hail,
insect damage, insufficient
subsoil moisture, prairie fires
caused by dry lightning, ongoing
drought.
CT.............................. Entire State....... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2358......... Cool spring, excessively wet 8 ..........
weather pattern.
MA.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2358......... Cool spring, excessively wet ....... 3
weather pattern.
NY.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2358......... Cool spring, excessively wet ....... 3
weather pattern.
RI.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2358......... Cool spring, excessively wet ....... 3
weather pattern.
NJ.............................. Atlantic, Bergen, 6-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2359......... Excessive precipitation, high 17 4
Burlington, winds, hail, high humidity.
Camden, Cape May,
Cumberland,
Gloucester,
Hunterdon, Mercer,
Middlesex,
Monmouth, Morris,
Ocean, Salem,
Somerset, Sussex,
Warren.
DE.............................. ................... 6-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2359......... Excessive precipitation, high ....... 1
winds, hail, high humidity.
NY.............................. ................... 6-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2359......... Excessive precipitation, high ....... 3
winds, hail, high humidity.
PA.............................. ................... 6-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2359......... Excessive precipitation, high ....... 6
winds, hail, high humidity.
RI.............................. Entire State....... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2360......... unusually cool spring, 5 ..........
excessively wet weather pattern
(excessive rainfall).
CT.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2360......... unusually cool spring, ....... 2
excessively wet weather pattern
(excessive rainfall).
MA.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2360......... unusually cool spring, ....... 3
excessively wet weather pattern
(excessive rainfall).
TX.............................. Dallam, Hardeman, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2361......... Drought.......................... 7 28
Jim Wells, Kinney,
San Patricio,
Wilson, Zavala.
NM.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2361......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2361......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
TX.............................. Foard, Stephens, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2362......... Drought, high winds.............. 3 12
Wilbarger.
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-15-06........ 4-16-07....... S2362......... Drought, high winds.............. ....... 2
CA.............................. Tulare............. 5-01-06........ 5-15-06........ 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2363......... Unseasonable heat spell.......... 1 4
GA.............................. All counties except 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2364......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 155 4
Fannin, Gilmer,
Towns, Union.
AL.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2364......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 11
FL.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2364......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 9
NC.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2364......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 3
SC.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2364......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 10
TN.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2364......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 4
NH.............................. Entire State....... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2365......... Flooding, excessive rain......... 10 ..........
ME.............................. Entire State....... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2365......... Flooding, excessive rain......... ....... 2
MA.............................. Entire State....... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2365......... Flooding, excessive rain......... ....... 4
VT.............................. Entire State....... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2365......... Flooding, excessive rain......... ....... 5
NY.............................. Albany, Schoharie.. 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2366......... Excessive rain, cold temperatures 2 8
NY.............................. Columbia, Greene... 4-01-06........ 5-31-06........ 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2367......... Freeze, frost, hail, excessive 2 6
rain.
CT.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ 5-31-06........ 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2367......... Freeze, frost, hail, excessive ....... 1
rain.
MA.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ 5-31-06........ 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2367......... Freeze, frost, hail, excessive ....... 1
rain.
NY.............................. Cortland, 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2368......... Tree tent caterpillar infestation 3 14
Jefferson, due to unusually mild winter
Washington. weather.
VT.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2368......... Tree tent caterpillar infestation ....... 3
due to unusually mild winter
weather.
NY.............................. Dutchess, Ulster... 6-24-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2369......... Excessive rain, flooding, flash 2 6
flooding, high winds.
CT.............................. ................... 6-24-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2369......... Excessive rain, flooding, flash ....... 2
flooding, high winds.
MA.............................. ................... 6-24-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2369......... Excessive rain, flooding, flash ....... 1
flooding, high winds.
NY.............................. Wayne.............. 5-11-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2370......... Hail, high winds, excessive rain. 1 4
TX.............................. Fannin, Hopkins, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2371......... Drought.......................... 5 24
Hunt, Jeff Davis,
Lavaca.
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2371......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Knox............... 7-11-06........ 7-11-06........ 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2372......... Hail............................. 1 6
TX.............................. Red River.......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2373......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 1 7
OK.............................. Red River.......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2373......... Drought, excessive heat.......... ....... 2
TX.............................. Willacy............ 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-21-06........ 4-23-07....... S2374......... Drought, high temperatures, high 1 3
winds.
WI.............................. Adams, Ashland, 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-25-06........ 4-25-07....... S2375......... Drought.......................... 19 20
Barron, Bayfield,
Burnett, Douglas,
Dunn, Iron,
Langlade, Lincoln,
Marquette, Polk,
Price, Rusk, St.
Croix, Sawyer,
Taylor, Washburn,
Waushara.
MI.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-25-06........ 4-25-07....... S2375......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
MN.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 8-25-06........ 4-25-07....... S2375......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
VA.............................. Pittsylvania, 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-28-06........ 4-30-07....... S2376......... Drought, high temperatures....... 2 11
Rappahannock.
NC.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 8-28-06........ 4-30-07....... S2376......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
TX.............................. Glasscock.......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-28-06........ 4-30-07....... S2377......... Drought, heat, high winds, low 1 6
humidity.
MN.............................. Aitkin, Anoka, 5-10-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2378......... Drought.......................... 36 15
Beltrami, Benton,
Carlton, Cass,
Chisago,
Clearwater, Cook,
Crow Wing,
Hennepin, Hubbard,
Isanti, Itasca,
Kanabec, Kittson,
Koochiching, Lake,
Lake of the Woods,
Mahnomen,
Marshall, Mille
Lacs, Morrison,
Norman,
Pennington, Pine,
Polk, Pope, Red
Lake, Roseau, St.
Louis, Sherburne,
Stearns, Todd,
Wadena, Wright.
ND.............................. ................... 5-10-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2378......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
WI.............................. ................... 5-10-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2378......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
TX.............................. Karnes............. 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2379......... Drought.......................... 1 7
WA.............................. Adams, Benton, 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2380......... Adverse weather conditions: 12 15
Chelan, Douglas, Excessive rain, excessive heat,
Grant, Lincoln, hail, high winds, severe
Okanogan, Spokane, thunderstorms, lightning, flash
Franklin, Walla flooding, freezing weather.
Walla, Whitman,
Yakima.
ID.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2380......... Adverse weather conditions: ....... 5
Excessive rain, excessive heat,
hail, high winds, severe
thunderstorms, lightning, flash
flooding, freezing weather.
OR.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2380......... Adverse weather conditions: ....... 2
Excessive rain, excessive heat,
hail, high winds, severe
thunderstorms, lightning, flash
flooding, freezing weather.
AL.............................. Autauga, Blount, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2381......... Drought, high temperatures....... 19 24
Calhoun, Chilton,
Cleburne, Dallas,
De Kalb, Fayette,
Jefferson, Lamar,
Limestone,
Lowndes, Marion,
Marshall, Pickens,
Shelby, Talladega,
Walker, Winston.
GA.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2381......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 6
MS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2381......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 4
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2381......... Drought, high temperatures....... ....... 2
CO.............................. Jackson, Lincoln, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2382......... Drought.......................... 4 18
Mesa, Moffat.
MS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2382......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
TN.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2382......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
IA.............................. Cerro Gordo, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2383......... Drought, severe weather.......... 20 44
Cherokee, Clay,
Crawford, Des
Moines, Dickinson,
Harrison,
Humboldt, Ida,
Lee, Lucas,
Madison, Monona,
Monroe,
Montgomery,
Plymouth, Sac,
Sioux, Woodbury,
Worth.
IL.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2383......... Drought, severe weather.......... ....... 3
MN.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2383......... Drought, severe weather.......... ....... 3
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2383......... Drought, severe weather.......... ....... 1
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2383......... Drought, severe weather.......... ....... 4
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2383......... Drought, severe weather.......... ....... 2
MA.............................. Barnstable, 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2384......... Cool temperatures, excessive 11 2
Berkshire, rain, floods.
Bristol, Essex,
Franklin, Hampden,
Hampshire,
Middlesex,
Norfolk, Plymouth,
Worcester.
CT.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2384......... Cool temperatures, excessive ....... 4
rain, floods.
NH.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2384......... Cool temperatures, excessive ....... 3
rain, floods.
NY.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2384......... Cool temperatures, excessive ....... 3
rain, floods.
RI.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2384......... Cool temperatures, excessive ....... 3
rain, floods.
VT.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ 6-30-06........ 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2384......... Cool temperatures, excessive ....... 2
rain, floods.
TN.............................. Fentress, Franklin, 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2385......... Drought, extreme heat............ 6 18
McMinn, Meigs,
Morgan, Scott.
TN.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2385......... Drought, extreme heat............ ....... 2
TN.............................. ................... 5-01-06........ continuing..... 8-31-06........ 5-01-07....... S2385......... Drought, extreme heat............ ....... 2
CA.............................. Butte, Calaveras, 7-15-06........ 7-31-06........ 9-07-06........ 5-07-07....... S2386......... Record setting HEAT WAVE......... 16 31
Fresno, Glenn,
Imperial, Kern,
Kings, Madera,
Merced, San
Bernardino,
Solano, Sonoma,
Stanislaus,
Sutter, Tehama,
Tulare.
AZ.............................. ................... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A......... S2386......... Record setting HEAT WAVE......... ....... 3
NV.............................. ................... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A......... S2386......... # N/A............................ ....... 1
NY.............................. Cayuga, Chenango, 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2387......... Excessive rain, flooding, flash 21 20
Clinton, Columbia, flooding.
Cortland, Essex,
Franklin, Fulton,
Greene, Herkimer,
Jefferson, Lewis,
Montgomery,
Orange, Otsego,
Rensselaer, St.
Lawrence,
Saratoga, Suffolk,
Sullivan,
Washington.
CT.............................. ................... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A......... S2387......... # N/A............................ ....... 1
MA.............................. ................... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A......... S2387......... # N/A............................ ....... 1
NJ.............................. ................... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A......... S2387......... # N/A............................ ....... 2
PA.............................. ................... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A.......... # N/A......... S2387......... # N/A............................ ....... 2
VT.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2387......... Excessive rain, flooding, flash ....... 5
flooding.
ND.............................. Entire State....... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2388......... Drought, drought-related 53 ..........
disasters.
MN.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2388......... Drought, drought-related ....... 7
disasters.
MT.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2388......... Drought, drought-related ....... 5
disasters.
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2388......... Drought, drought-related ....... 8
disasters.
TX.............................. Camp, Franklin, 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2389......... Drought.......................... 7 15
Grayson, Morris,
Rains, Titus, Wood.
OK.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2389......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
MS.............................. Entire State....... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2390......... Drought.......................... 82 ..........
AL.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2390......... Drought.......................... ....... 10
AR.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2390......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
LA.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2390......... Drought.......................... ....... 10
TN.............................. ................... 3-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2390......... Drought.......................... ....... 5
MT.............................. Stillwater......... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2391......... Drought.......................... 1 5
SD.............................. Brown, Brookings, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2392......... Drought.......................... 10 22
Charles Mix,
Davison, Grant,
Gregory, Hamlin,
Hanson, Kingsbury,
Miner.
MN.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2392......... Drought.......................... ....... 4
NE.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2392......... Drought.......................... ....... 3
ND.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2392......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
VA.............................. Campbell........... 6-01-06........ continuing..... 9-12-06........ 5-14-07....... S2393......... Drought, high temperatures....... 1 7
TX.............................. Collin............. 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-25-06........ 5-25-07....... S2394......... Drought, excessive temperatures.. 1 6
NE.............................. Adams, Antelope, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2395......... Drought, high winds, extreme 34 20
Boone, Burt, heat, hail, tornadoes.
Butler, Cedar,
Clay, Colfax,
Dakota, Dixon,
Dodge, Fillmore,
Greeley, Hall,
Hamilton,
Jefferson,
Johnson, Knox,
Lancaster,
Madison, Merrick,
Nemaha, Nuckolls,
Pawnee, Pierce,
Richardson,
Saline, Saunders,
Seward, Stanton,
Thayer, Thurston,
Wayne, York.
IA.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2395......... Drought, high winds, extreme ....... 3
heat, hail, tornadoes.
KS.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2395......... Drought, high winds, extreme ....... 7
heat, hail, tornadoes.
MO.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2395......... Drought, high winds, extreme ....... 2
heat, hail, tornadoes.
SD.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2395......... Drought, high winds, extreme ....... 5
heat, hail, tornadoes.
NE.............................. Sheridan........... 6-20-06........ 6-20-06........ 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2396......... Storm with high winds, hail, 1 6
excessive rain, lightning,
tornado.
SD.............................. ................... 6-20-06........ 6-20-06........ 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2396......... Storm with high winds, hail, ....... 2
excessive rain, lightning,
tornado.
TX.............................. Bee, Blanco, Clay, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2397......... Drought.......................... 11 46
Delta, DeWitt,
Hood, Jack,
Navarro, Palo
Pinto, Somervell,
Tom Green.
OK.............................. ................... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2397......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
TX.............................. Bowie.............. 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2398......... Drought.......................... 1 3
AR.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2398......... Drought.......................... ....... 2
OK.............................. ................... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2398......... Drought.......................... ....... 1
TX.............................. Brooks, Jim Hogg... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2399......... Drought, excessive temperatures, 2 8
high winds.
TX.............................. Gregg, Upshur...... 4-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2400......... Drought, excessive heat.......... 2 7
TX.............................. Haskell, Jones, 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2401......... Drought, high winds, excessive 3 10
Knox. heat.
TX.............................. Lynn............... 1-01-06........ continuing..... 9-27-06........ 5-28-07....... S2402......... Drought, high winds.............. 1 7
--------------------
TOTAL ACTIVE.............. ................... ............... ............... ............... .............. .............. ................................. 2,301 3,861
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
agricultural credit insurance fund
Question. For each of the years 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006, please
document in detail for the record exactly how the funds provided
through the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund account were actually
obligated and used by the Agency.
Answer. The information on obligation of ACIF funds by loan
category for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2006 will be provided
for the record.
[The information follows:]
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND OBLIGATIONS BY FISCAL YEAR
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Loans:
Ownership................................... 168,575 142,404 271,929 274,604
Operating................................... 689,849 609,565 556,008 640,742
Emergency................................... 95,698 29,789 23,570 51,525
Indian Land Acquisition..................... 110 1,586 .............. 360
Boll Weevil................................. 99,000 97,695 83,070 22,000
Guaranteed Loans:
Ownership................................... 1,231,167 1,099,052 1,027,016 949,122
Operating Unsubsidized...................... 1,012,926 951,314 884,523 937,655
Operating Subsidized........................ 418,379 271,217 283,423 271,589
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Also please provide a detailed accounting of any S&E
funds, such as the IT budget or others, that were obligated and used in
support of Farm Loans. In each year, what was the percentage of the
total FSA S&E appropriation actually obligated and used to support Farm
Loans in the Field, in the State Offices, at the IT or Finance Office
level, and at the National Office level?
Answer. As generally required by the Federal Credit Reform Act
(FCRA) and by OMB Circular A-11, administrative expenses in support of
the ACIF loan programs are appropriated to the ACIF program account.
These funds are then transferred to Farm Service Agency (FSA) Salaries
and Expenses (S&E) account. Per the A-11, ``administrative expenses
means all costs that are directly related to credit program operations,
including payments to contractors. The FCRA generally requires that
administrative expenses for both pre-1992 and post-1991 direct loans
and loan guarantees be included in program accounts.''
Therefore, there is relative transparency in the amount of funding
in the FSA S&E account that is used in support of ACIF, since these
funds are originally budgeted in and appropriated to ACIF. The table
below provides the amounts of ACIF administrative funds that are
transferred to the FSA S&E account, and the relative percentage of ACIF
administrative expenses to total S&E funding.
[The information follows:]
AGRICULTURAL CREDIT INSURANCE FUND OBLIGATIONS AS A PERCENT OF FSA S&E OBLIGATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACIF Administrative Expenses.................... $277,361 $281,350 $291,414 $301,545
Total Salaries and Expenses..................... $1,249,900 $1,267,428 $1,318,733 $1,309,028
ACIF Admin as percent of Total S&E.............. 22.19 22.20 22.10 23.04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM LOAN PROGRAM STAFFING
Question. FSA has a formal training and testing procedure in place
for Farm Loan Officers and Farm Loan Officer Trainees. It is module
type training--complete a module and take a test. This training takes
about a year to complete and covers loan making and loan servicing.
Then before an FLO is granted loan approval authority they must submit
5 loan dockets they have prepared and the loans pass a review. In
addition to the formal training, senior management officials state that
it requires at least another year or two of on the job training for a
FLO to attain the experience needed to fully and independently perform
the loan officer duties. For a FLO to attain the knowledge skills and
ability to become a Farm Loan Manager, Farm Loan Specialist or advance
to a Farm Loan Chief position will require additional years of
experience.
According to a Strategic Human Capital Management study, many Farm
Loan employees will be retiring very soon. The Farm Loan employees are
in the GS-1165 series. On average, 1,165 employees are retiring within
3 months of their retirement eligibility date. 50 percent of
supervisory 1,165 employees are eligible to retire between now and
2008. Twenty-eight percent of all FSA 1,165 employees are eligible to
retire between now and 2008.
What is FSA's plan to replace these experienced Farm Loan
employees, and how much will Congress need to invest to make sure there
is no crisis in the ability of FSA to deliver the Farm Loan programs?
Answer. FSA Farm Loan Officers functions are critical to the
effective delivery and service of Agency Farm Loan Programs (FLP).
Because the GS-1165 series within FLP requires specialized training, it
is essential that resources to support the Farm Loan Officer Training
program be allocated prior to announced retirements.
FSA plans to fund additional loan officer trainee positions from
within existing resources. In fiscal year 2006, FSA funded 30 loan
officer trainee positions and plans on an additional 15 positions
available for fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2008 budget assumes 45
trainee positions. Analysis of available Human Resources data indicates
that from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009, 26 percent of
currently employed loan officers will be eligible to retire.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Sam Brownback
NATIONAL VETERINARY MEDICAL SERVICES ACT
Question. In the 2006 Agriculture Appropriations hearings, you
stated that the implementation of the full National Veterinary Medical
Service Act would take 18 months. One year later, we are informed that
you have not yet submitted for public comments a proposed rule and we
are concerned that the National Veterinary Medical Service Act may not
be implemented within the timeframe you initially provided.
What steps do you have planned that will assure implementation of
the NVMSA by October 2007 (18 months from the testimony in which you
estimated 18 months would be necessary to complete the rules)?
Answer. Although there are additional administrative steps that
must be completed prior to the distribution of funds, a framework for
the program has been proposed by CSREES. This proposal has recently
been reviewed by the appropriate legal and regulatory entities. On
March 12, 2007, the Final Rule was approved. The Final Rule was
published in the Federal Register on March 19, 2007, and permits CSREES
to implement a NVMSA program. The Department recognizes the importance
of this Act to both the veterinary community as well as the supporters
of the Act. You can be assured that we have communicated with agency
personnel responsible for moving this program forward to ensure that it
is implemented appropriately and as quickly as possible.
Question. Section 2 of NVMSA, Public Law 108-161, reads ``The
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of
1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 1415
the following new section:'' Given that 3101 of the 7 U.S.C. is
entitled ``Purposes of agricultural research, extension, and
education'' and that the money appropriated for NVMSA has been
allocated to CSREES's Research and Education Activities, why has the
USDA not formally designated CSREES as the administering agency for
NVMSA?
Answer. A Final Rule will be published in the Federal Register on
March 19, 2007 delegating NVMSA to CSREES.
Question. A study of Food Supply Veterinary Medicine released in
June 2006 quantified existing and projected shortages of veterinary
practitioners in various practice areas. How has this study helped the
NVMSA implementation process?
Answer. CSREES has utilized the 2006 Kansas State University study
on Food Supply Veterinary Medicine to identify an area of critical need
in veterinary medicine. Results of this study indicate that among the
highest forecasted future shortages in veterinary practice between 2004
and 2016 will be the Federal-animal health career and Federal-food
safety and security sectors. The finding of the study correlates with
the large number of difficult-to-fill vacancies for veterinarians in
FSIS.
Question. I do not consider the short-term pilot FSIS program,
currently being developed by CSREES, to be an acceptable substitute for
progress on the intended NVMSA program, especially the parts of NVMSA
that would address rural practice and emergency response shortages.
Furthermore, I do not approve of CSREES's intention to reprogram the
NVMSA funds into a different loan repayment program within FSIS. Is
your work on the FSIS pilot program diverting resources that could
otherwise be used to implement the rural and emergency response
portions of NVMSA?
Answer. CSREES has entered into a reimbursable agreement to
implement the loan repayment provisions of the Act. The FSIS-oriented
implementation strategy represents an approach that enables the
initiation of the use of NVMSA funds as loan repayments to eligible
veterinarians in the shortest possible time frame. Funding is not
sufficient to implement the emergency portion of the Act.
Question. Your colleague, former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, was
quoted to have said, ``I, for the life of me, cannot understand why
terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to
do.'' Given that the risks of bioterrorism are high, that the Federal
Government has been criticized for its preparedness for and response to
recent disasters, and that you have in the form of NVMSA a program
within the USDA that would create a ``Veterinary National Guard''
available for immediate mobilization in the event of a zoonotic or
major food animal disease outbreak and improve disease surveillance in
the form of escalated geographic veterinary coverage, why are you not
expediting the implementation of NVMSA?
Answer. Implementation of the loan repayment sections of NVMSA are
being expedited through the use of a reimbursable agreement with FSIS,
which was developed in order to take advantage of current student loan
regulations. Funding is not sufficient to implement the emergency
portion of the Act. Moreover, eligibility for service to the Federal
Government in emergency situations is dependent on first establishing
eligibility for the loan repayment program. The current strategy,
therefore, helps to establish a population of veterinarians eligible to
serve as emergency responders.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF HON. ANDREW VON ESCHENBACH, COMMISSIONER,
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JOHN DYER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR OPERATIONS, FOOD AND DRUG
ADMINISTRATION
RICHARD TURMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Senator Kohl. Our next panel will include the FDA
Commissioner, Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach; Mr. John Dyer, who is
the FDA Chief Operating Officer; and also Mr. Richard Turman of
the Department of Health and Human Services Budget Office.
Dr. von Eschenbach, whenever you are ready, we'll take your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW VON ESCHENBACH
Dr. von Eschenbach. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am very
honored to present to you and the members of the subcommittee
the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for the Food
and Drug Administration. I am joined this morning by Mr. John
Dyer, the FDA's Deputy Commissioner for Operations, and Mr.
Richard Turman, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at
the Department of Health and Human Services.
Mr. Chairman, at the outset may I emphasize our
extraordinary gratitude for your support and the support of the
committee that was provided by Congress in fiscal year 2007.
Soon after the President proposed our budget on February 5,
Congress enacted a revised continuing resolution for fiscal
year 2007, and we are in the midst of developing the operating
plan for fiscal year 2007 that we will be forwarding to you
within the very near future, in the 30-day time commitment.
But, taken together, the fiscal year 2007 and the fiscal
year 2008 budgets are components of an ongoing investment
strategy needed to create a modern Food and Drug Administration
capable of addressing the challenges and the opportunities of
the 21st century. We recognize how precious these assets are to
the administration and the Congress, and we will be good
stewards of the funds you provide.
For fiscal year 2008, the President's budget represents a
5.3 percent increase above the fiscal year 2007 President's
budget, and the requested $2.08 billion consists of $1.64
billion in budget authority, $428 million in current law user
fees, and $42.7 million for three new user fees. The additional
dollars that are requested in fiscal year 2008 are principally
directed to support the work force of the FDA and to enhance
our programs of food safety, enhanced drug and medical product
safety, and to accelerate the approval of generic drugs.
At its core, FDA is a scientific data analysis, information
management, and decision-making organization, and as such we
are critically dependent upon the expertise of a strong,
diverse work force that is using modern information
technologies and state-of-the-art scientific equipment. Eighty
percent of the FDA budget funds payroll and related personnel
costs, and these costs have been increasing yearly. For fiscal
year 2008 we request $64.7 million to cover nondiscretionary
increased costs for pay raises, rent, utilities, and security,
and our relocating to our White Oak, Maryland campus.
Food safety is an important cornerstone of the FDA mission.
During recent years there have been changes in our food supply
that create new challenges to the FDA to enhance food safety.
Consumption of fresh produce, particularly ready-to-eat
products that include raw and fresh foods, has increased
dramatically. Products are harvested from the vine, stem, and
from the soil, and then are delivered rapidly to our tables,
with an increasing proportion coming from outside our domestic
borders.
We propose a $10.7 million increase for a food safety
initiative that's focused on fresh produce. FDA is taking a
multitiered risk management approach to the product life cycle
of food that will build enhanced quality into the food chain
from farm to fork. This will include development and
dissemination of new and refined Good Agricultural Practices
for prevention, the deployment of scientific tools for the
detection of intentional and unintentional contamination, and
accelerated processes to detect, trace, and more rapidly
contain outbreaks.
A few examples of how we would use FDA resources include
conducting research to develop new methods to detect foodborne
pathogens; conducting advanced training for our partners in
State and local agencies that we will work with to prevent
outbreaks; and employing new microbiological techniques to
identify ways to improve the safety of produce. We will also
enhance our traceback teams and mechanisms, and deploy IT
decision systems to detect high risk food imports.
In addition to food, we will focus on drug and device
safety. Last month FDA released its commitment to drug safety
which outlined 41 initiatives that will cover the life cycle of
a drug from its development to its delivery. The $11.2 million
increase for modernizing drug safety supports FDA's response to
the report by the Institute of Medicine on drug safety.
With these resources, FDA will strengthen the science and
tools we use to ensure drug safety. We will improve
communication and information flow among all stakeholders
involved in the safe use of drugs. And we will restructure our
operations and management systems to ensure optimum review,
analysis, consultation, and communication to achieve a stronger
drug safety system.
With regard to medical devices, we will build on the
programs already in place by directing an additional $7.2
million to enhance active surveillance of devices in the post-
market area that employs modern information technology for data
mining and analysis.
In addition to safer and more effective medical products,
the public also needs more cost-effective choices, and to that
end the President's budget for fiscal year 2008 requests $5.6
million in budget authority and $15.7 million in user fees that
are dedicated to enhancing the approval of generic drugs. We
expect to be able to, with the $5.6 million increase in BA, to
approve an additional 50 applications during fiscal year 2008.
The proposed user fee program ensures that FDA can
measurably improve generic drug review performance over the
next 4 to 8 years, and this investment will return many
billions in savings to consumers and government-sponsored
health plans.
PREPARED STATEMENT
We recognize that all these dollars we are requesting are
in fact precious assets of the American taxpayer, and yet the
programs they will make possible are essential to protecting
and promoting the health of all Americans. There are critical
challenges to be addressed, but there are enormous
opportunities, such as accelerating the development and
delivery of lifesaving interventions. Meeting these challenges
and seizing these opportunities are only made possible by your
support, for which we are very incredibly grateful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Dr. von Eschenbach.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Introduction
Chairman Kohl and members of the Subcommittee, this year as a
confirmed Commissioner I am honored to present for your consideration
and approval the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request for FDA. I
am joined by Mr. John Dyer, my recently appointed Deputy Commissioner
and Chief Operating Officer and Mr. Richard Turman, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Budget at the Department of Health and Human Services. I
also have members of FDA's senior leadership with me, who at your
discretion can respond to any specific questions you may have.
We live in an era of rapid science, technology, and individualized
medicine that is changing the products FDA regulates and the
environment for FDA regulation. Congress and the Administration
recognize the challenges we face and have responded with the resources
in fiscal year 2007 that will allow FDA to begin addressing these
challenges.
As you consider our fiscal year 2008 request, please do so mindful
of the extraordinary gratitude of the FDA for your support in fiscal
year 2007. The budgets for these two fiscal years represent important
steps in an ongoing effort to create a modern FDA capable of responding
to the challenges and opportunities to protect and promote public
health in the 21st century. We will be good stewards of the funds you
provide and we will search for efficient and effective solutions to the
problems we are working to solve.
The resources requested in the President's budget for fiscal year
2008 will allow FDA to respond to emerging challenges, advance the gold
standard for regulating food and drugs, and strengthen America's
confidence in the work of our important agency.
Our achievements during the past year reflect our service to the
American public and our dedication to their health and safety. These
achievements also justify the trust you placed in us with your support
in fiscal year 2007. Using funds that you appropriated, FDA:
--approved a new test to diagnose avian influenza virus in humans
--issued guidelines to expedite seasonal and pandemic flu vaccine
development
--approved new vaccines for shingles and to prevent HPV infections
--approved new treatments for cancer, HIV, diabetes, Parkinson's,
schizophrenia, and macular degeneration
--issued more than 510 generic drug approvals or tentative approvals
--approved the first totally implanted artificial heart
--embraced many of the Institute of Medicine findings on The Future
of Drug Safety
--launched a program to achieve the optimum safety system for drugs
and other medical products
--developed proposals to renew prescription drug and medical device
user fee programs
--conducted drug reviews and issued approvals under the President's
Emergency Plan for Aids Relief
--conducted enforcement actions to protect consumers against
unapproved drugs and devices, to safeguard the blood supply,
and to protect consumers from dietary supplements containing
ephedrine alkaloids
--worked with Federal, State, and local partners to respond to
Salmonella, E. coli O157:H7, and other foodborne threats
--issued a final rule on health claims for barley products and issued
guidance on whole grain content in food
--protected consumers with food allergies by publishing guidance
documents for industry on food allergen labeling and soy
derived products
--conducted a CARVER + vulnerability assessment in eight food
products to distinguish between real and perceived food
vulnerabilities.
FDA's 2008 President's Budget Request
For fiscal year 2008, the President's budget request builds on
success of fiscal year 2007 to maintain the trajectory, by proposing a
5.3 percent increase above the fiscal year 2007 President's budget.
This will provide FDA with $2.085 billion, which consists of $1.641
billion in discretionary budget authority and $428 million in current
law user fees. Our budget also includes $42.7 million for three
proposed user fees related to reviewing generic drugs, reinspecting
facilities, and issuing export certificates for food and animal feed.
Strengthening Food Safety
FDA is committed to ensuring that America's food supply continues
to be among the safest in the world, but we face challenges. For
example, consumption of produce, particularly ready-to-eat products,
has increased dramatically during the past decade. Americans often
consume these products in their raw state, harvested from the vine,
stem, or soil without processing to reduce or eliminate pathogens that
may be present. Consequently, the manner in which these products are
grown, harvested, packed, processed, and distributed is crucial to
ensuring that microbial contamination is minimized, thereby reducing
the risk of illness to consumers. Even if a small amount of what is
harvested is contaminated, it can result in severe illness. FDA is
taking a ``farm-to-fork'' systematic risk management approach to food
safety to reduce the risk of food illness at all points in the food
chain.
FDA's ability to prevent and respond to outbreaks of foodborne
illness needs to be strengthened. For fiscal year 2008, we propose a
$10.7 million increase for a food safety initiative focused on fresh
produce. FDA will develop methods to prevent food outbreaks from
occurring by rapidly detecting contamination that leads to illness,
more quickly tracking contamination to its source, and more effectively
conducting root cause analysis of contamination. We will also provide
training to our State and local partners and develop a geographic
information mapping system for faster emergency response. Finally, we
will develop a decision-making system to detect high-risk imports
before they enter U.S. commerce, so they can be evaluated by FDA.
Access to Safe and Effective Medical Products
On January 30, 2007, FDA released a report, The Future of Drug
Safety--Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public, that
presents our comprehensive commitment to the safety of drugs and other
medical products throughout their lifecycle. The report addresses
issues referred to FDA by the 2006 Institute of Medicine report. The
report details initiatives FDA will take to achieve the best possible
safety systems for medical products, and ensures that FDA processes and
scientific methods keep pace with, and harness the benefits of, the
rapid evolution of science, technology, and health care.
At FDA, we use a systems approach to ensure drug quality and
maintain the right balance between the benefits and risks of the drugs
we approve. An $11.2 million increase for modernizing drug safety
allows FDA to advance a lifecycle approach to regulating drugs and
managing drug risks. Using the fiscal year 2008 increase and base
resources in the drug program, FDA will revolutionize our ability to
identify safety issues and rapidly and effectively communicate safety
concerns to health professionals, patients, and the public. These
efforts will improve drug safety both before FDA grants approval and
after drugs reach the market. We will also strengthen our
organizational culture to further foster an environment dedicated to
the safety of drugs and biologics.
As the complexity and utility of medical devices increases by
virtue of advances in electronics and engineering, FDA maintains the
same commitment to the safety of medical devices. Our budget contains a
$7.2 million increase to strengthen medical device safety and improve
FDA's ability to identify, analyze, and act on postmarket safety
information and use this information to improve the quality of new
devices coming to market.
Generic drugs are an important part of our health care system. The
Congressional Budget Office estimates that generic drug use results in
savings of $10 billion per year. During the next few years, $60 to $70
billion in brand name drugs will lose their patent protection, and FDA
must be poised to respond to the growing number of generic drug
applications. To help ensure that consumers enjoy a wide selection of
lower-cost generic drugs, FDA requests an additional $5.6 million in
budget authority and $15.7 million in new user fees to accelerate the
review and approval of generic drugs. With the $5.6 million budget
authority increase, FDA expects to approve an additional 50
applications during fiscal year 2008. The new user fee program ensures
that FDA can measurably improve generic drug review performance over
the next 4 to 8 years. With this new program in place, by 2014 FDA
expects to approve 90 percent of generic drug applications within 180
days. These investments will return many billions of dollars in savings
to consumers and government-sponsored health plans.
Our budget includes long-standing user fee programs. These programs
provide supplemental resources that not only allow FDA to provide
services in response to manufacturers' product applications but also
ensure that Americans have access to safe and effective medical
products. Two of these programs, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act
(PDUFA) and the Medical Device User Fee Modernization Act (MDUFMA)
expire on September 30, 2007. We have engaged with stakeholders to
develop proposals to extend these programs for an additional 5 years.
In the case of PDUFA, FDA published a draft proposal for PDUFA IV in
the Federal Register and conducted a public meeting with stakeholders
on February 16, 2007. In the case of MDUFMA, FDA is nearing the end of
discussions on the reauthorization of MDUFMA. FDA will notify Congress
of our results when we complete this process.
Ensure a Strong FDA
To successfully perform its broad mission, FDA must hire and retain
a world-class workforce that can respond to complex and escalating
public health challenges. Our workforce is FDA's most important asset,
and securing the resources to support our workforce is a top priority
in our fiscal year 2008 budget. We have nearly 10,000 employees,
consisting of medical officers, consumer safety officers, food and drug
safety experts, medical product reviewers, and other scientists and
professionals with specialized education, training, and experience to
address complex public health challenges. Eighty percent of the FDA
budget funds payroll or costs related to personnel, such as rent,
utilities, and security. These are operational costs, and the amount we
pay rises each year. For fiscal year 2008, we propose a $64.7 million
initiative to ensure that increased costs for the pay raise,
infrastructure costs, and the cost of relocating to our new White Oak,
Maryland campus do not erode core FDA programs.
Closing
FDA's request of $2.085 billion is essential to the success of our
mission--established by Congress--to protect and promote the health and
safety of the American public. These resources are an essential step in
building a 21st century FDA that responds to the new opportunities and
new challenges of science and technology. Our budget allows FDA to
strengthen the tools we use to ensure the safety of foods, evaluate new
products, and better predict--earlier and more accurately--the safety
and efficacy of drugs, biologics and medical devices. With these
resources, we will work to ensure that Americans enjoy the benefits of
personalized medicine, a safe and wholesome food supply, and the
promise of a better, healthier future. Our goal is to enable all
Americans to go to bed each night confident that the food they ate is
safe, the medical devices they used are reliable, and the drugs that
they gave to their children and grandchildren are safe and effective.
Thank you.
Senator Kohl. I'd like to start by asking you to comment on
the generic situation, generic drug situation at FDA, and the
recent funding resolution. We provided an increase of $5
million for generic drug review. The increase provided in this
resolution should allow for 10 additional approvals or
tentative approvals per month, which would be a 25 percent
increase above the current average of 40 approvals per month.
If we can do that, it would be very beneficial in bringing more
generic drugs to market.
You stated in the requested increase in fiscal year 2008
that it would allow FDA to approve just 50 additional
applications per year. Now, that would average about $112,000
per application, which seems very high, and it doesn't come
close, the 50 doesn't come close to what we estimated would be
an additional 10 per month, which would be more than double the
50 that you are talking about. How do you explain this
discrepancy?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all let me
point out that in addition to hiring the additional reviewers,
which is an important part of the allocation to then be able to
increase capacity, we also intend to increase capacity by the
efficiencies that we're building into the review process.
One particular example is to be able to do cluster
analysis, where we can take groups of generic drugs that are of
a similar nature and be able to deal with them in a cluster
type of analysis, so that we can increase the number of outputs
per the number of people and reviewers that we have. So it's
not just a matter of the 50 that is allocated to the increased
reviewers; it's also what we can do by virtue of how we
increase the systems we're using for generic drug review.
Senator Kohl. So the number that we thought we heard from
your department, 50 additional applications to be approved for
this year with the increased budget allocation that we gave
you, that number of 50 is really not what we should be focusing
on?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, again I apologize for not
explaining to you clearly. What I indicated was, we would go in
an incremental way to increasing the total output. And so what
we're expecting is, as we bring reviewers on, as we train them
up, there will be a gap and then we will pick up on the outputs
as we go forward over time by virtue of, one, the fact that
we're bringing the reviewers on, training them up, getting
outputs from them and, two, adjusting our systems. So I think
what we're indicating is what is initial and then there will be
a ramp-up beyond that.
Senator Kohl. Okay. I just point out that the increase in
generic drug applications submitted to FDA has increased from
307 applications in 2002 to almost 800 in 2006, and as you
know, we are all very intent on bringing more and more generics
to market in an effort to reduce the cost of drugs to our
population, particularly our senior population. Generic is key
to that, as you know. My understanding is that you are most
sympathetic to that attempt, want to do everything you can to
facilitate it and to increase the number of approvals that we
annually can give through the FDA to the generic market. Is
that a fair statement?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Yes, sir, that is a fair statement and
I think, as we have spoken before, we're doing this not only in
terms of increasing numbers but trying to do this strategically
as well. So we're looking at opportunities to make sure that we
have a broad portfolio of options across that portfolio, and so
we're expediting, if you will, the process to get first
generics out.
We're educating the industry to get better applications in
the first place. So as the application numbers increase, if
they're better applications, that will enhance the review
process and the likelihood of success. So we're taking a
multipronged approach to being able to accomplish the goal that
you have felt so strongly about and have proposed to us.
Senator Kohl. That's good. As you know, we're planning a
hearing in Madison, Wisconsin, on I believe it's March 12, and
I'm looking forward to that hearing on food safety. And I don't
want to get into too much detail about that because we'll deal
with it at that time, but there is a report that you may want
to comment on, that between 2003 and 2006 FDA food safety
inspections have dropped by 47 percent. This was reported
yesterday by the Associated Press.
Now, clearly with all the concern about food safety in our
country, dropping the number of inspections by nearly half,
according to that report, is I am sure something that concerns
you greatly, to the extent that it is accurate. And what we are
allocating in your budget for strengthening food safety is an
increase of less than 3 percent for food safety, to include
food inspections.
Now we have all these ongoing recalls. Just this morning I
was informed, as this hearing unfolded, there is a recall on
cantaloupes. I don't know any details on it, but it's out
there. Perhaps you've heard about it, maybe you haven't heard
about it, but it came over the press this morning.
But people are going to be very concerned when they read in
the paper that the number of food safety inspections has
declined by 47 percent over a 3-year period. Do you wish to say
something to them and to us at this time?
FOOD SAFETY INSPECTIONS
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me first of all
address the issue with regard to the magnitude of the decline.
The data that I have available indicates that the number of
inspections in 2004 was 21,876, and in 2006 it was 17,730. Now,
that's a reduction of about 23 percent.
The issue there is the realization that we have been
implementing a risk management approach to inspections, and so
rather than a blanket inspection, we are targeting particular
facilities that propose a particular high risk or probable high
risk. That makes the inspection much more intense, and so the
inspection itself is increasing in its magnitude and scale and
scope.
Now, the numbers have gone down but the intensity and the
targeting of the inspections have actually increased, and we're
doing that because we recognize that there are differences
among these various facilities, depending upon what they're
producing, as to how likely they might result in a food
outbreak. For example, facilities that are producing bread have
very low probabilities of problems, whereas those that are
processing seafood have a much higher risk. So we want to
target the inspections to those areas, rather than just simply
look across at the numbers.
As far as expanding our capability and our capacity to do
this, that's an important part of what has been an ongoing
effort to look at our field operations and to make strategic
decisions as to what type of field investigators we need going
forward and how we can most effectively utilize our resources.
So as we have recognized that we have less need for
laboratory investigators, and more need for field
investigators, who have the tools of modern science available
to them to be deployed and dispersed at the site of inspection,
we're shifting our work force over the next few years to that
goal, and that will in itself bring another 75 to 100
investigators into that work force to enhance our inspection
capability. But it is a systems approach to the problem, rather
than just simply a matter of counting facilities that we
inspect.
Senator Kohl. According to this same report that I'm
holding, which I got from Senator Harkin, who could not remain
but wanted to have these issues raised with you this morning,
safety tests for U.S.-produced food have dropped nearly 75
percent, from 9,748 in 2003 to 2,455 last year, according to
your agency's own stats, which are being used on this report
that I got from Senator Harkin this morning. It's from cnn.com/
Associated Press.
Now, I think those numbers, at least on their face, would
be of great concern to you, certainly of great concern to the
American public. Do you have any comment on that?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, as I indicated, what we are
attempting to do is really maximize our ability to have impact
with regard to these inspections. In some degree that is a
matter of increasing the kind of--the number of investigators
and their unique skill sets, and that is a process that we have
engaged in and are committed to.
In addition to that, I think the real opportunity is to
realize that there are 60,700 food firms that are out there
that we must inspect, and where we have the opportunity to
really make major inroads is to place the inspection process on
a sound foundation of risk management. And so by targeting
those facilities that we think are at the highest risk and
maximizing our efforts there, it really gives us an opportunity
to protect the public health, I think in a more effective way.
So it's not just a matter of numbers, it's a matter of how we
are doing the inspections and how we're deploying our work
force, and I think both of those are important.
PANDEMIC FLU
Senator Kohl. All right. I'd like to turn to Mr. Turman now
and ask you this question. In Dr. von Eschenbach's opening
statement he talked about some of the FDA accomplishments over
the past year. The first two of those had to do with pandemic
flu.
Could you talk about efforts at the department level on
pandemic flu? We had discussed this earlier with Secretary
Johanns. How are the various agencies at HHS, where you occupy
a very high ranking position, working together and with the
USDA in order to make sure that we have a streamlined and
coordinated plan for dealing with any potential outbreaks of
avian flu, Mr. Turman?
Mr. Turman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can affirm that
indeed Secretary Leavitt is working very closely with his
Cabinet colleagues such as Secretary Johanns, as part of the
President's plan which the Congress funded last year at $5.6
billion through supplemental funding for avian flu and being
prepared for it. And within the Department of Health and Human
Services, we work very closely together with the FDA, with the
CDC, with the NIH, with our other partners in the Office of the
Secretary, we work very closely together to make sure that we
can be protected as best we can for that which we see and
foresee coming.
And the areas where the funding has gone, they have been
primarily to work both on purchasing those antivirals which we
can get and stockpile, and also developing vaccines which would
be of use against some of the strains that could be coming in
terms of avian influenza. And in that regard FDA has a very key
role and has been playing an important role on helping us try
and speed the development of those vaccines.
That is a key position that FDA has relative to their
expertise, and their counsel and their efforts have been well
integrated with the department's plans, and they have been
making a key contribution in that regard. And so they used the
funding provided from the Congress in the initial supplemental,
and indeed our 2008 budget request has additional funds over
current investments to not only help deepen those efforts but
also work on engaging in some tools which would help detect
foodborne transmission potentially of any of these virus items.
So it's an area where Dr. von Eschenbach may want to
amplify in terms of FDA's piece, but they are an integral
partner of the department's plans.
WOMEN'S HEALTH
Senator Kohl. All right. Dr. von Eschenbach, fiscal year
2007 House and Senate bills included $4 million for the Office
of Women's Health. In fiscal year 2008 the President's budget
request includes a decrease of $350,000 for that office.
According to FDA, this funding will be transferred to the
National Center for Toxicological Research, for research
pertaining to women's health that is ongoing. However, this is
the first time that women's health funding has been decreased
in the budget.
I was disappointed to see the decrease in that budget of
$350,000 for women's health, and in today's Washington Post
there was a report that FDA is intending to cut the fiscal year
2007 level down to $2.8 million from the $4 million requested
by the President and provided by Congress. Now, I know that
your spending plan has not yet been finalized, but this
information must have come from somewhere. Can you assure us
that the budget for fiscal year 2007 is going to be $4 million
and not something less?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, Mr. Chairman, at the outset let
me assure you and other members of the committee that I
personally, and the FDA is absolutely committed to enhancing
the issues of women's health within the agency. We are, as you
pointed out, in the process of developing our plan for 2007,
and will be bringing that to you within the next few weeks.
With regard to the issue of the 2008 budget, I think it's
important to put this entire issue into context. When I say
that we are committed to women's health, this is a
comprehensive effort.
One of the most important aspects of it is the critically
important research that's going on in the National Center for
Toxicologic Research, that is helping us identify genetic and
molecular differences that are related to gender and how we can
begin to really address many of the challenges that have been
presented by the Women's Health Initiative. Actually, Women's
Health has been using dollars to fund that research in NCTR all
along, and what this is essentially is a transfer of that
$350,000, to get them integrated into the NCTR's research base
so that we can really amplify that portfolio.
So it's not in any stretch of the imagination a diminishing
of our commitment to women's health. It's actually enhancing
our ability to create a research base that will address
critically important scientific issues in women's health, as
well as provide that foundation for other similar questions,
including the kind of challenges we're seeing in personalized
medicine that not only recognize gender differences but even
potentially differences that come about beyond gender,
including racial differences.
Senator Kohl. That toxicological research is for 2008, but
in today's paper it was reported that the FDA is intending to
cut the fiscal year 2007 budget for Women's Health down from $4
million to $2.8 million. Now, I would like you to say that
that's an inaccurate report, it's not operable, that for fiscal
year 2007, which is not fiscal year 2008 and targeting this
$350,000, but for fiscal year 2007 the number of $4 million
remains intact and is not going to be reduced.
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, Mr. Chairman, the answer to your
question is, we haven't made that decision yet as to what the
2007 final plan would be. I'm looking at the entire portfolio,
so that we're responsive across the entire budget, and have not
at this point made any final decision about any particular
component of that budget.
Senator Kohl. Are you, just let me ask the question, are
you familiar with any consideration for a reduction in fiscal
year 2007 of the Office of Women's Health to something below
the $4 million?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, we have been looking across the
entire Office of the Commissioner, of which the Office of
Women's Health is a component, and we're looking to bring that
entire office into fiscal balance, if you will, with regard to
our overall budget. Now, with regard to the specific details of
what's happening with each of those compartments within the
Office of the Commissioner, I can't speak to, but I'll be happy
to get back to you on that for the record. But the fact of the
matter is, we haven't made a final decision, so I can't commit
to any particular number at this point, until that is done.
Senator Kohl. All right. We'll continue to work on that
number and get some report, as you have indicated, as soon as
you can. I thank you.
[The information follows:]
Women's Health
We are currently working on our fiscal year 2007 operating plan, as
required under section 113 of Public Law 110-5, the Revised Continuing
Resolution for fiscal year 2007. We expect to fund the Office of
Woman's Health at not less than last year's level. FDA is committed to
activities sounding women's health. The concerns of women are a
priority at FDA, and the Office of Women's Health serves as a champion
for women's health issues.
Senator Kohl. At this time I would like to turn to Senator
Reed.
SUNSCREEN MONOGRAPH
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, doctor. Just a point, not a question. But since
1997 the agency has been struggling to get a UVA/UVB labeling
protocol, monograph, together. I'm going to follow up with a
written question and ask you, bottom line, when it might
happen.
TOBACCO
Turning to another topic of interest, I just left the HELP
hearing on the regulation of tobacco, and it raises serious
questions. You have extensive experience as a former director
of the National Cancer Institute. I believe personally that
authority for FDA is long overdue, to have some role in the
regulation of tobacco, and I'm hopeful we can get the
legislation through. What are your views with respect to FDA's
role in potentially the regulation of tobacco products?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, Senator, as you point out, from
my perspective and my career at the National Cancer Institute,
like you and everyone, I recognize the serious public health
threat that occurs as a result of smoking and tobacco.
From the perspective of the Food and Drug Administration,
as Commissioner, one of the things I think is extremely
important is to realize the complexity of this issue and the
complexity of the kind of issues that it presents, on one hand
looking at it from the perspective of what has emerged with
regard to the science and our understanding of addiction as
it's related to nicotine, all the other way to the other end of
the continuum, where we're looking at a cigarette which is a
complex product. It has tobacco that has additives of one type
or another, wrapped in paper and set on fire, and someone
breathes in smoke.
And from that perspective, with all that complexity, I
think it's extremely important that we engage in a careful
assessment of how we might address that complexity as a way of
then beginning to address what role FDA should or should not
have in that process.
Senator Reed. But the complexity itself is not such that
you would be incapable as an agency of dealing with the issue.
The question would be what you could do effectively. I think
that would be the first question.
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, as I look at it and the question,
framing it within the mission of the FDA to protect and promote
the public health, I think it's an issue of being able to
determine how we could regulate whether a product was in fact
safe under any circumstances or in any possible way, and what
potential benefit or value it might have to health in any
possible circumstance or any possible way.
So that is what I believe is at the core and the base of a
regulatory decision, the complexity of a regulatory process as
it relates to tobacco. And I think those are discussions and
issues that need to occur and are going on.
Senator Reed. At a threshold level you certainly could
identify the ingredients and publicize those, of a cigarette.
Dr. von Eschenbach. I think that's one of the questions
that we have to address.
Senator Reed. That you could or could not do that?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Correct.
Senator Reed. How difficult is it to identify the
ingredients of a cigarette?
Dr. von Eschenbach. If you're talking about the ingredients
in the inhaled smoke, that, which is what in fact would have
the public health impact, not what's in the product prior to it
being smoked, that is the kind of scientific challenge and
question that I think underscores the complexity of the
problem.
Senator Reed. Do you think that the companies themselves
have that information or do that research?
Dr. von Eschenbach. I honestly don't know the answer to
that question, Senator.
USER FEES
Senator Reed. Turning to another issue, and that is the
issue of user fees, so many of your programs have user fees
attached to them, which raises a question of what percentage of
your total budget is covered by annual appropriations, what
percentage is paid for through user fees.
Dr. von Eschenbach. As far as the absolute percentage, I'm
going to turn to my right to ask Mr. Dyer to quickly calculate
that for you. But while he's doing that, let me state
specifically that I view the user fees as exactly that. They
are a fee for service, so that they do not impact upon the
overarching mission of the agency, but allow us to provide a
service that is of value or benefit to the industry in terms of
their ability to move applications more efficiently and more
rapidly through the system, by having the resources with which
to do that.
And so I know that issues have been raised about whether
the fact that we have user fees is in some way creating
problems with regard to the mission and focus of the agency,
and let me assure you, Senator, that is not the case and will
not be the case.
Having said that, I think that they provide for us the
opportunity to enhance resources, infrastructure, personnel to
address issues like our ability to accelerate drug approvals,
our ability to bring new products, whether they be devices or
drugs or biologics, to patients as rapidly as possible, while
we still at the same time assure the safety and the efficacy of
those products.
Senator Reed. Mr. Dyer.
Mr. Dyer. Sir, the budget proposes $444 million in fiscal
year 2008 for user fees in total, out of a total program level
of about $2.1 billion, which makes about 20 percent.
Senator Reed. Twenty percent? And how has that number
changed, that percentage changed, over the last 5 years? Has it
increased, decreased, remained stable?
Mr. Dyer. I don't have the exact numbers. We'll provide
them for the record. But it has been increasing.
[The information follows:]
User Fees
From fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2006, the percent of FDA user
fees compared to the total FDA budget increased from 12 to 20 percent.
During this time, FDA established two new user fees for Medical Devices
and Animal Drugs. FDA began to collect fees under these two user fee
programs in fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004, respectively. These
new user fees account for nearly one fifth of the total fee increase
from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2006.
Senator Reed. Has been increasing. And as you project
forward, do you project an increase in the fees, this 20
percent getting bigger and bigger?
Mr. Dyer. The amount of fees will go up, but again it
depends on what percentage of the overall budget, depending on
how much budget authority this committee gives us.
Senator Reed. And, doctor, you have assured us that these
fees in no way distort your approach to your duties, i.e.,
because you're being paid but with fees you have to do certain
things, where other appropriated functions are not tended to.
That's your statement.
Dr. von Eschenbach. What I was speaking to, Senator, was
where the concerns that have been raised about user fees in the
press and et cetera allow me the opportunity to assure you that
as far as the regulatory process is concerned, the integrity of
that process is not in any way impacted or adulterated by the
fact that user fees make up a portion of our resource base.
They are strictly, as I have indicated, a fee for service.
With regard to our ability to manage our portfolio of
resources, I think it's an issue that we are addressing, to
make certain that we are able to deploy resources as
efficiently and as effectively across that entire continuum.
And so I am committed to putting all components of the agency
on that sound foundation, whether they have user fees or not.
Senator Reed. Are there new user fees in this budget,
proposed budget?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Yes, sir. There are three particular
user fees that are proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget. One
of them has to do with generic drugs, and the other ones are
user fees that have previously been presented, having to do
with reinspection fees and export certificate fees.
Senator Reed. And will we receive a formal proposal to
enact these fees?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Yes, sir. That, as far as the proposal
for authorization of these fees, the two that I mentioned, the
reinspection fees and the export certificates, they have
previously been introduced and we will reintroduce them again.
The generic drug user fee is a new fee, and we are in the
process of developing that proposal for authorization.
Senator Reed. It seems, the impression, at least, that
because of constraints on your appropriated budget there is a
strong tendency to ask for user fees. Is that what seems to be
happening here?
Dr. von Eschenbach. I think they present an option with
regard to continuing to increase our ability to provide
services. And in addition to the appropriations, we have looked
for a variety of ways to be able to do that, including our
ability to collaborate and cooperate in relationships, for
example, with the NIH.
So the approach I'm taking, Senator, is to build a resource
base and a business plan that supports our overall mission,
recognizing that there is a critically important part of that
that is the appropriation; there are user fees that can
contribute to that; and then there may be other opportunities
as well. And the point of all of that is to enhance our ability
to serve the American people by bringing safe and effective
products and food to them as rapidly and as efficiently as
possible, while still assuring the safety and the efficacy of
those products.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Senator Reed. A final question, doctor. It's my
understanding that other agencies like the National Science
Foundation don't have to go through all of the hoops and the
hurdles that you do through HHS and OMB, that they have much
more direct engagement with Congress on their budget. Would a
more direct engagement help you?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, I have found that the process
that I have at this point, since I've been in this position,
has really worked quite well, Senator. I think as we looked at
the 2007 budget and the 2008 budget, the collaboration and
cooperation within the department, within the administration,
and with Congress is working quite well at this point.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Reed. And we would like to
thank you. Dr. von Eschenbach, as well as Mr. Dyer and Mr.
Turman, for helping us to conduct an informative hearing, and
we look forward to continuing to work with you.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
We want to thank all of our witnesses, yourself and the
Secretary of Agriculture, for being here. Members should
provide us with questions for the record by Tuesday, March 6.
And we look forward to continuing our dialogue and our
collaboration together on behalf of the American people. Thank
you so much.
Dr. von Eschenbach. Thank you.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
hearing:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Herb Kohl
OVERALL FUNDING
Question. Please provide a crosswalk table, in the same format as
was provided on page 68 of FDA's fiscal year 2008 Budget Summary, that
shows how FDA will allocate requested increases from the fiscal year
2007 spending plan level to the fiscal year 2008 President's budget
request. If possible, please do not include any ``redeployments''.
Answer. FDA is in the process of finalizing the fiscal year 2007
spending plan and developing the bridge between the spending plan and
the fiscal year 2008 President's budget.
Question. Please provide updated performance data based on this
information.
Answer. The performance data submitted in the President's budget
may change. The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget uses the fiscal
year 2007 President's Budget as a baseline, which is different from the
fiscal year 2007 enacted appropriation. We appreciate that the fiscal
year 2007 enacted appropriations fully funded our pay and
infrastructure needs, allowing FDA to keep more staff on board to
maintain our current performance levels throughout the Agency.
Question. If the Committee provided FDA with all increases
requested in the President's budget, totaling $95,439,000, would the
performance data submitted by FDA still be accurate, even though these
increases would be based on a number that is higher than the original
level FDA budgeted from?
Answer. The performance data submitted in the President's budget
may change. The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget uses the fiscal
year 2007 President's Budget as a baseline, which is different from the
fiscal year 2007 enacted appropriation. We appreciate that the fiscal
year 2007 enacted appropriations fully funded our pay and
infrastructure needs, allowing FDA to keep more staff on board to
maintain our current performance levels throughout the Agency.
FOOD SAFETY
Question. Please provide information on how additional funding
provided for food safety activities at FDA above the President's
request would be allocated. Please provide this information in $5
million increments up to $50 million.
Answer. FDA is committed to ensuring that America's food supply
continues to be among the safest in the world, but we face challenges.
For example, consumption of produce, particularly ``ready-to-eat''
products, has increased dramatically during the past decade. Americans
usually co nsume these products in their raw state, harvested from the
vine, stem, or soil without processing to reduce or eliminate pathogens
that may be present. Consequently, the manner in which these products
are grown, harvested, packed, processed, and distributed is crucial to
ensuring that microbial contamination is minimized, thereby reducing
the risk of illness to consumers. Even if a small percentage of what is
harvested is contaminated, it can result in severe illness. FDA is
taking a ``farm-to-fork'' systematic risk management approach to food
safety to reduce the risk of food illness at all points in the food
chain.
For fiscal year 2008, we propose a $10.644 million increase for a
food safety initiative focused on fresh produce. FDA will develop
methods to prevent food outbreaks from occurring by rapidly detecting
contamination that leads to illness, more quickly tracking
contamination to its source, and more effectively conducting root cause
analysis of the contamination. We will also provide training to our
State and local partners and develop a geographic information mapping
system for faster emergency response. Finally, we will develop a
decision-making system to detect high-risk imports before they enter
U.S. commerce, so they can be evaluated by FDA.
Due to the increased consumption of fresh produce and the current
outbreaks of contamination, FDA would allocate additional funding for
specific areas where we could expand the food safety program in order
to promote and improve the public health. FDA has identified the
following five critical areas as targets for future growth:
--preventing contamination and produce safety research
--preventing outbreaks and mitigating outbreak impact
--monitoring antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance in bacteria
from farm-raised aquatic animals and their environments
--developing efficient techniques for identifying foodborne pathogens
that cause outbreaks
--providing additional field support for the Foods and Animal Drugs
and Feed Programs.
Question. Please provide information on how the rapid response
teams in the Strengthening Food Safety initiative would be set up and
what activities they would undertake. Please provide an estimate of how
much it will cost to create and support each rapid response team.
Answer. The $3.5 million requested in the fiscal year 2008
Congressional Justification, Strengthening Food Safety Initiative, will
support FDA costs for 12 staff members, and provide equipment and
training for each team member. The Office of Regulatory Affairs, or
ORA, will be able to develop teams trained in traceback technologies
and incident command. ORA will strategically position these teams in
areas with large produce-growing regions. In addition, ORA will provide
training, equipment, and other assistance to States so that they can be
full partners with FDA in responding to and preventing produce-related
outbreaks. After the first year, ORA will have 12 fully equipped and
trained FTEs with traceback equipment, such as handheld GPS devices
that can be used with geographic information systems to facilitate
investigations of outbreaks.
These teams will be modeled on the California Food Emergency
Response Team, or CalFERT, which investigated the recent E. coli
outbreak in spinach. CalFERT is a joint FDA and California Department
of Health Services' Food and Drug Branch, or FDB, Rapid Response Team
trained and ready to respond within hours of the verification of a food
borne outbreak. That team, consisting of ORA Investigators and
Microbiologists and State of California FDB personnel, demonstrated the
importance of FDA collaboration with State regulatory partners. Team
members can immediately start the outbreak investigation because they
have clearly defined roles and responsibilities, a previously
identified chain of command and a known procedure to keep other
involved parties informed, such as the Incident Command Center of FDA's
Office of Crisis Management. These teams will benefit the entire food
program, not just produce safety.
Question. Does CFSAN have an overall ``produce safety'' plan? If
so, please provide this to the Committee, including all cost estimates
to implement this plan, even if they were not include in the
President's budget request.
Answer. In October 2004, FDA issued a Produce Safety Action
Plan(the PSAP) designed to target microbial and other food safety
hazards, such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites, in or on produce
consumed in the United States, whether produced in the United States or
abroad. The PSAP extends to all parts of the food chain from farm
through retail or consumer preparation and consumption and has four
general objectives: 1--to prevent contamination of fresh produce with
pathogens; 2--to minimize the public health impact when contamination
of fresh produce occurs; 3--to improve communication with producers,
preparers, State and local government entities, and consumers about
fresh produce; and 4--to facilitate and support research relevant to
fresh produce. For each objective, the PSAP identifies steps that could
contribute to the achievement of the objective.
The fiscal year 2008 President's Budget Request contributed to
these objectives.
GENERIC DRUGS
Question. As you know, in the JR, we also provided an increase of
$5 million for generic drug review at FDA. It is my understanding that
the increase provided in the JR will allow for ten additional approvals
or tentative approvals per month, which is a 25 percent increase above
the current average of 40 approvals per month. What is the current
backlog of generic drugs? Do you expect it to increase this year, even
with the additional funds provided, because of an increase in
applications submitted?
Answer. The current backlog is around 1,300 abbreviated new drug
applications (ANDAs) as of the end of February 2007. However, not all
ANDAs are available to be approved currently due to patent protection
and exclusivities. There are currently about 600 abbreviated new drug
applications that do not have patent or exclusivity protection. Because
we are still not at a point where we can process (approve or
tentatively approve) the number of applications that we receive, the
backlog will continue to increase. The rate of increase, however, will
not be as steep with the provision of additional funds. Our goal is to
use the FTEs obtained with the $5 million to address certain review
areas to increase the number of approvals and tentative approvals.
Through additional efficiency initiatives, we will still endeavor to
approach the projected percent increase in approvals.
Question. What will the $5.5 million increase requested in the
budget buy? How many additional approvals will you get with this money?
Answer. It is expected that an additional $5.5 million will provide
13 FTEs. Although it is difficult to predict the number of additional
approvals due to the increasing scientific and legal complexity of the
applications being received, the escalating workload involved with
responding to Citizen Petitions received, and the growing number of
requests for information received by the office, the Office of Generic
Drugs or OGD, will strive to increase the yearly number of approvals
and tentative approvals by 50. It is important to note that each
Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, represents a product
intended to be marketed in this country and contains a full scientific
data package that must be carefully evaluated. The increasing
complexity of many of the applications received is increasing the
review time needed to fully and comprehensively review these
applications.
Question. Please provide information on how many additional
approvals could be provided with increases of up to $20 million, in $5
million increments.
Answer. We estimate that we would be able to increase the number of
approvals in fiscal year 2009 (from 60 to 135) more than fiscal year
2008 (from 50 to 125), taking into account that 10-15 percent of the
increase used for IT investment and time to hire all the reviewers and
train them to conduct reviews could affect the projected number of
approvals:
[The information follows:]
NUMBER OF APPROVALS \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Increment 2008 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$5 million.............................. 50 60
$10 million............................. 80 90
$15 million............................. 110 120
$20 million............................. 125 135
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note we assume that the full $20 million is received in fiscal year
2008 and fiscal year 2009.
Question. Please provide a breakdown of the pending generic drug
applications by the four paragraphs of the Hatch Waxman Act.
Answer. The current breakdown is as follows:
Paragraph I: patent information has not been filed--418
Paragraph II: patent has already expired;--186
Paragraph III: date on which the patent will expire (generic drug
will not seek final approval until that date passes);--344
Paragraph IV: patent is challenged as invalid or not infringed.--
347
Question. How many pending applications would be ``first''
generics? Of those, how many could immediately be marketed if approved?
Answer. It is difficult to determine what you intend to include in
the term ``first'' generic. There may be a number of pending
applications for the same product that does not currently have generic
competition. They could not all be counted as the ``first'' generic and
we will not know which will be the ``first'' generic until we issue an
approval. For this reason, applications are not classified as ``first''
generics upon receipt in the office, making the tracking of ``first''
generics in the list of pending applications difficult.
Regarding the pending applications in OGD, 344 applications have
been submitted with paragraph 3 patent certifications (will wait until
a patent in force expires) and 347 applications have been submitted
with paragraph 4 certifications (are challenging a listed patent as
invalid or not infringed). Since products to which these applications
refer still have patents in force which may have prevented previous
generic approvals, many of these 691 applications have the potential to
be ``first'' generic applications. The majority, of course, will be
approved subsequent to the first generic approval, and, until the time
of approval, we will not be able to determine which product will be THE
first generic for a particular reference listed drug.
Of the remaining applications, 445 were submitted with paragraph 1
certifications (no listed patents) and 187 were submitted with
paragraph 2 certifications (patents have expired). Because many of the
products referenced in these applications already have generic
competition, only a few of these are likely to be ``first'' generics
when approved. To address the products in this category for which no
generic has been previously approved, the Office of Generic Drugs, or
OGD, instituted a revision in its first-in, first-reviewed policy last
October (10/06). Instead of reviewing these products in the order of
receipt, OGD will now expedite any application for a ``first'' generic
product for which there are no listed patents on the reference product
at the time of the generic application's submission. We believe that
this will allow critically needed ``first'' generics of products
without patent protection to reach the market place faster.
Question. Please provide specific productivity outputs should the
proposed generic drug user fee program be authorized.
Answer. Following the first full implementation year, during which
time additional staff will be hired and trained, the Generic Drug User
Fee will result in a 50 percent increase in approvals/tentative
approvals compared to the current average of 40 approvals/tentative
approvals per month. During the next 5 years, the goal is to meet the
statutory requirement for generic drug review by acting on 90 percent
of original Abbreviated New Drug Application, or ANDA, and amendments
to unapproved applications within 180 days.
IMPORT INSPECTION
Question. How many import lines did FDA review from 2002-2007, by
year? How many import lines does FDA anticipate reviewing in 2008?
Answer. I will be happy to provide that information for the record
[The information follows:]
IMPORT LINES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.......................... 7,838,956 9,336,735 11,616,348 13,819,402 14,977,795
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESTIMATED IMPORT LINES BY FISCAL YEAR 2007-2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------
Estimate 2007 Estimate 2008
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTALS.................................. 16,323,947 17,893,795
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What percentage of imports were physically inspected by
FDA in 2006? What percentage does FDA anticipate inspecting in fiscal
year 2007 and 2008?
Answer. Approximately .89 percent of all imports were physically
inspected by FDA in fiscal year 2006. FDA estimates it will physically
inspect .73 percent in fiscal year 2007 and .66 percent in fiscal year
2008.
It is important to note that FDA electronically screens imports
through the Operational and Administrative System for Import Support,
or OASIS. OASIS is an automated system for processing and making
admissibility determinations for FDA regulated products that are
offered for import. FDA also performs laboratory analysis on products
offered for import into the United States; conducts foreign inspections
to evaluate manufacturing conditions of products before they are
offered for import; and, performs periodic filer evaluations to ensure
that the import data being provided to FDA is accurate.
The Prior Notice Center, or PNC, is another important part of FDA's
import strategy. The mission of FDA's PNC is to identify imported food
and feed products that may be intentionally contaminated with
biological, chemical or radiological agents, or which may pose
significant health risks to the American public, and intercept them
before they enter the United States. FDA will continue to focus
resources on Intensive Prior Notice Import Security Reviews of products
that pose the highest potential bioterrorism risks. By using a risk
based approach, the PNC can intercept potentially hazardous products
before they enter the United States.
The benefit of these reviews comes from the quality and targeting
of review activities; not from the volume of imports inspected. Thus
the quality of import screening is a better measure of FDA's import
strategy rather than simply focusing on the items physically examined.
I will be happy to provide information on the percentage of imports
physically inspected in table form for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Import Lines Physical Exam Physically
Subtotal Examined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006................................................ 14,977,795 132,594 0.89
Fiscal year 2007 estimates...................................... 16,323,947 118,400 0.73
Fiscal year 2008 estimates...................................... 17,893,795 118,370 0.66
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide information regarding total field staff
working on import inspections? How has this number changed in the last
5 years?
Answer. FDA estimates that 611 FTE will perform import
investigative work in fiscal year 2008 and 643 FTE in fiscal year 2007.
This number compares to 674 FTE in fiscal year 2006; 666 FTE in fiscal
year 2005; 653 FTE in fiscal year 2004; and, 807 FTE in fiscal year
2003. These resources include FTE who perform import laboratory
analyses.
I am happy to provide the information in table form for the record.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Import
Investigative
FTE (includes
Fiscal year import lab
analyses
resources)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 estimate........................................... 611
2007 actual............................................. 643
2006 actual............................................. 674
2005 actual............................................. 666
2004 actual............................................. 653
2003 actual............................................. 807
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What percentage of fresh produce was physically inspected
in fiscal year 2006? What percentage does FDA anticipate inspecting in
fiscal year 2007 and 2008?
Answer. Approximately .82 percent of fresh produce was physically
inspected by FDA in fiscal year 2006. FDA estimates it will physically
inspect .69 percent in fiscal year 2007 and .67 percent in fiscal year
2008. An FDA physical inspection of an import line is defined as either
having had a field exam conducted or a sample of the import line
collected and analyzed in the laboratory. A field examination is simply
an on-the-spot examination or field test performed on a product to
support a specific decision. A physical inspection does not include
import lines that were detained at entry without a physical exam, or
DWPE, based upon an Import Alert.
I will be happy to provide that information in table form for the
record. The information follows. The following tables reflect the
estimated percentage of fresh produce imports that were physically
inspected in fiscal year 2006, and the estimated percentage of fresh
produce that will be physically inspected in fiscal year 2007 and
fiscal year 2008.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent
Fresh Produce Physical Exam Physically
Import Lines Subtotal Examined
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006................................................ 1,553,401 12,668 0.82
Fiscal year 2007 estimates...................................... 1,591,345 10,980 0.69
Fiscal year 2008 estimates...................................... 1,630,216 10,922 0.67
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Is the FDA's Prior Notice Center fully staffed and
operational? Please provide a breakdown of staff makeup, including
permanent staff, temporary staff, detailees, etc.
Answer. The Prior Notice Center is opened and operating on a 24/7
basis. The current composition of the permanent PNC staff includes one
Director, one Deputy Director; eight Watch Commanders; and, 22
Reviewers. In addition, the PNC presently has one Watch Commander and
three Reviewers on detail to the PNC.
FDA is currently advertising a vacancy announcement for 2
additional reviewers. Ideally, the PNC would like to hire 1 additional
Watch Commander, 3 additional reviewers, one support staff person, and
1 statistician. This would bring the total staff at the PNC to 1
Director, 1 Deputy Director, 9 Watch Commanders, 27 reviewers, 1
support staff person and 1 statistician.
AERS II
Question. Please provide a copy of the November 2006 report of the
Breckinridge Institute on AERS II.
Answer. I would be happy to provide that for the record. Please
note that although the reports has a confidential heading FDA has
cleared the document for public disclosure
[The information follows:]
Question. Please provide a breakdown of all expenditures on AERS II
since inception.
Answer. Approximately $1,405,000 has been spent on the Adverse
Events Reporting System II, or AERS II, project since its inception and
the breakdown of expenditures is: development of high level
requirements, $140,000; system requirements specification, $315,542;
contract support, $54,558; development contract support, $578, 000; and
program management support, $219,996; Organizational Design and
Planning work, $10,000; and Independent Verification and Validation
work, $97,340.
Question. Please discuss any and all actions FDA is taking in
response to this report.
Answer. The Breckenridge report made three recommendations. The
first two recommendations allude to problems with organizational
culture which are being addressed on a higher, more inclusive level
than the cultural problems related to this particular report. FDA and
CDER recognize the need to improve our culture, and we are addressing
the issues raised on that topic by the Institute of Medicine, or IOM,
Drug Safety Report. I refer you to the FDA response to the IOM Drug
Safety report at http://www.fda.gov/oc/reports/iom013007.html for more
details.
The third recommendation suggests FDA begin the process of
acquiring a replacement for Adverse Events Reporting System I, or AERS
I, immediately. Despite allegations in the Breckenridge report that we
differ with, AERS II development has continued to move ahead, and a
timeline has been developed with initial operations projected for
fiscal year 2008. Materials such as the requirements mapping associated
with the Breckenridge report are being used in developing AERS II, in
addition to other requirements documents that are already available.
USER FEES
Question. Please provide us with a brief update on the
reauthorization of both the Prescription Drug and Medical Device User
Fee Acts. What is status of MDUFMA negotiations?
Answer. On March 23, 2007, the Secretary transmitted to key House
and Senate authorizing committees the HHS/FDA recommendations for
changes to the statute and to the performance commitment letter for the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act IV, or PDUFA IV. These recommendations
reflected the results of FDA's discussions with the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industry, which concluded in November 2006, and further
revisions to the commitment letter based on public input received in
response to the January 16, 2007 Federal Register R notice publishing
FDA's proposed recommendations, and received at the PDUFA IV public
meeting FDA held on February 16, 2007. FDA's recommended changes to the
statute and commitment letter are currently being reviewed by the
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP, Committee staff
and House Energy and Commerce Committee staff.
FDA and the medical device industry have been discussing
legislative recommendations for the Medical Devices User Fee and
Modernization Act, or MDUFMA, reauthorization since the fall of 2005.
Almost all issues of interest to FDA and to industry have been
resolved. We are working to resolve the outstanding issues very
quickly.
Question. How will you work to ensure that any ``triggers''
included in these pieces of legislation are continually, and fully,
funded in your budget request?
Answer. We will work to ensure that the Agency's annual budget
enables FDA to meet the performance goals it has committed to under
PDUFA IV and MDUFMA II.
PROPOSED USER FEES
Question. The budget includes new proposed mandatory user fees for
reinspection costs and for export certification, which if enacted,
would bring in an additional $27 million to FDA. Please explain the
need for these user fees.
Answer. FDA is re-proposing from fiscal year 2007 two user fees
that would fund activities currently supported by budget authority
dollars. The proposed user fees for Reinspections and Food and Animal
Feed Export Certification are mandatory user fees. These fees will
replace budget authority in FDA's budget. In fiscal year 2008, if
Congress enacts these user fees, any fees collected for these two
proposed user fees will result in an equal transfer of budget authority
back to the U.S. treasury. In fiscal year 2009 FDA will not need any
budget authority resources for these activities if Congress enacts the
user fees.
When a company fails an FDA inspection, we are asking Congress to
impose the cost of conducting follow-up inspections on the company.
When we find a violation, FDA typically conducts a follow-up inspection
to ensure that the problem is corrected. Currently, if companies fail
to comply with FDA standards, then FDA must shift resources from other
public health activities to reinspect the company and confirm they have
corrected the problem. What we recommend is that the company pays the
cost of follow-up inspections when FDA finds health or safety
violations. It is important for companies to ensure the safety of
products before the products reach consumers and this user fee provides
an additional incentive for companies to meet FDA safety standards.
In the case of food export certificates, we are asking Congress to
impose the cost of preparing export certificates, required by foreign
governments, on the companies that export products. Currently, FDA
charges exporters for certificates in all other FDA product areas
except foods for this service. As with the reinspection user fee
proposal, we recommend that the company benefiting from this service
pay for this service.
Question. If these user fees were enacted, would there be a
subsequent decrease in discretionary budget authority needs?
Answer. Yes, there would be a subsequent decrease in discretionary
budget authority needs if the user fees are enacted. However, the
current proposals are structured in such a way that budget authority of
$27 million is initially requested by FDA at the beginning of fiscal
year 2008 to continue these activities in case the user fee proposals
are not enacted in a timely fashion. If the user fee proposals are
enacted and become fully operational in fiscal year 2008, the
collection of these user fees will result in decreases of equal amounts
in discretionary budget authority that will be returned to the
Treasury. If enacted, no budget authority resources will be needed for
these activities in fiscal year 2009, as they will be fully funded by
user fees.
Question. How would the additional revenue be used at FDA? Is this
reflected in the budget?
Answer. Revenue will not be used to fund new activities at FDA. The
purpose of the user fee proposals is to charge industry FDA's current
costs for reinspections and issuance of food export certificates. In
FDA's budget request, $27 million is initially requested at the
beginning of fiscal year 2008 to continue these activities in case the
user fee proposals are not enacted in a timely fashion. If the user fee
proposals are enacted and become fully operational in fiscal year 2008,
the collection of these user fees will result in decreases of equal
amounts in discretionary budget authority that will be returned to the
Treasury. If enacted, no budget authority resources will be needed for
these activities in fiscal year 2009, as they will be fully funded by
user fees.
PAY COSTS
Question. Will the funding requested for pay costs meet the actual
need for pay and benefit increases at FDA in fiscal year 2008? Part of
the reason there was such a hole that had to be filled in the Joint
Resolution was because for several years, FDA has had to cut into
program funding to fully fund their pay and rent costs. We would like
to prevent finding ourselves in a similar situation 5 years from now.
Answer. The funding requested for the pay costs in fiscal year 2008
cover the mandatory government-wide annualized pay raise of 2.8
percent.
RENT
Question. The President's budget includes an increase of nearly $30
million for Rent and Rent-related costs. It is a breathtaking amount,
and it is interesting to note that the increase requested for rent
alone is more than the requested increases for drug safety, food safety
and medical device safety combined. Further, if the rent costs aren't
accurate in the budget, as has happened in the past, increased rental
needs have to come out of FDA program activities. How does the FDA rent
costs compare to other Federal agencies of the same size? What actions
have you taken to try to decrease these costs?
Answer. The President's budget includes a substantial increase for
Rent-related costs due to the new White Oak facility and higher costs
for essential services, such as utilities, security and service
contracts to operate and maintain FDA's facilities. FDA is not privy to
other Federal agencies' rent costs. GSA sets rental rates for all of
its Federal tenant agencies as a pass-through of the underlying GSA
lease contract rent for their leased facilities, and by appraisal based
on comparable properties for GSA-owned facilities. Rent is charged per
square foot occupied. Aside from the White Oak consolidation of
headquarters locations, FDA has made considerable efforts in the past
several years to consolidate, reduce space, or close existing offices.
For example, the Office of Criminal Investigations recently co-located
its Metropolitan Washington Field Office in Laurel, MD, and its Special
Prosecution Task Force in Beltsville, MD, saving over $50,000 in annual
rent costs. Additionally, the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) closed
seven resident posts in fiscal year 2006, saving the Agency $150,000
annually in GSA rent. We have notified GSA that we will be closing five
additional offices in the coming months. Finally, ORA has developed a
comprehensive proposal to centralize laboratory management. ORA plans
to consolidate staff, equipment, and other resources from ORA's 13
laboratories into six existing laboratories located across the country.
Seven lab facilities will be closed and returned to GSA. If approved as
currently planned, these closures will save the Agency almost $5
million in annual GSA rent.
Question. When can we expect to see decreases in these rent costs,
as White Oak continues to be occupied?
Answer. Consolidation of the FDA in the field and at headquarters
will result in operational efficiencies and improved quality of the
work environment. For the headquarters consolidation, the total number
of locations will be significantly reduced. However, the headquarters
consolidation does not result in a reduction of space for the Agency's
current occupancy. This is partially due to staffing increases provided
by FDA's prior appropriations and industry funding of additional staff
through user fees. Further, because the White Oak space is often
replacing outdated facilities with leases that are from 15 to 20 years
old, rents in the consolidated facilities exceed the rents that were
paid for the outdated facilities. The White Oak consolidation does
effect a savings when compared to replacing the FDA headquarters
inventory through new leases acquired on an incremental basis as older
building leases expire. Additionally, when consolidating to Government-
owned space controlled by the GSA, there is typically a savings because
GSA bills only the fair market value of space, with no administrative
or overhead fees that would be added for a private-sector lease.
WHITE OAK
Question. The budget includes an increase of $13.2 million for
continued White Oak Consolidation. This will prepare the facility for
1,300 employees to move in during fiscal year 2009. Could you please
speak to this increase and provide an update on White Oak. When do you
expect everyone to be there?
Answer. The budget increase of $13.2 million will make it possible
for FDA to prepare Office Building 66 for the occupancy of
approximately 1,300 staff from the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health and support personnel from the Office of the Commissioner. The
funding will enable FDA to provide furniture and furnishings for staff
offices, support areas, and conference rooms; security system cabling
and equipment; and IT and telecom equipment, cabling and services.
There are five completed and occupied buildings at White Oak: Life
Sciences I Laboratory; Office Buildings 21 and 22; Central Shared Use
Building and the Engineering and Physics Laboratory which was just
occupied in March 2007. Under construction are Office Building 51
scheduled to be complete in early 2008 and Office Building 66 scheduled
to be complete spring 2009. Historic Building I and Office Buildings 31
and 32 are currently in design and construction completion is expected
in November 2008 and November 2009, respectively. FDA plans to have
everyone at White Oak in fiscal year 2013, depending upon funding
included in the General Services Administration's and FDA's future
appropriations.
RESEARCH REDUCTION
Question. The budget includes a requested decrease in funding of
nearly $4 million for outreach, coordination and research. Even more
than that, I was surprised to read that part of that reduction was to
come from the FDA Animal Drugs and Feeds program--including, and I
quote from your budget, ``research on prohibited materials in animal
feed, research on microbiology of animal feed and feed commodities, and
research on drug residues. In addition, the program will reduce Field
activities supporting enforcement, investigations and compliance.''
Canada very recently found a new BSE case. Please explain these
proposed reductions. Have we really done all of the research necessary
on animal feeds, and is it prudent to decrease enforcement and
compliance activities?
Answer. The Center for Veterinary Medicine, or CVM, completed
development of a real-time Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, based
method. Once field validation of the real-time method is completed, the
field has a necessary tool to support enforcement of the feed ban.
Companies are not marketing new rapid test kits for detecting
prohibited proteins in animal feeds; therefore, CVM does not have
additional test kits to evaluate.
The Office of Regulatory Affairs, ORA, intends to absorb the
reduction of $593K in the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program by reducing
both personnel and operating funds for coordination activities in
either the ORA Office of Enforcement; ORA Headquarters; or Compliance
Officers and Public Affairs Specialists located in the Region and
District Offices. Operating fund reductions will be taken in travel,
training and meetings with State or industry officials to perform
outreach activities in support of the Field Animal Drugs and Feed
Program. Management and coordination functions will continue by using
electronic media/technology and realigning and consolidating
coordination responsibilities to improve efficiencies.
The research reduction allows CVM and ORA to fund the full cost of
fiscal year 2008 priority initiatives.
OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
Question. Please provide a list of all research activities funded
by the Office of Women's Health in 2006 and 2007, including all
recipients of the funds.
Answer. I would be happy to provide that for the record.
[The information follows:]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year
Recipient Research Funding 2006 2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IAG/NIH-ORWH.................................. Specialized Centers of Research $100,000 $100,000
on Sex and Gender Factors
Affecting Women's Health
(SCOR)..
CDER.......................................... Prevlence study of all drugs 35,000 ..............
used in pregnancy'?.
IAG/WHO&CFSAN................................. Develop and evaluate an 152,000 ..............
effective COMBI program on
sanitation and personal hygiene
practices.
CDER.......................................... The MATT Consortium (Molecular 25,000 ..............
Assays & Targeted Therapies)
within the OBQI (Oncology
Biomarker Qualification
Initiative) specifically for a
project on lung cancer.
GNSI.......................................... Development of the Clinical 100,065 ..............
Review Template.
CDER.......................................... Gender Differences & Impact of 16,000 6,500
Pharmocogenomics in Rheumatoid
Arthritis.
CDER.......................................... Women in Clinical Trials and 13,000 ..............
Gender Analysis of Data in New
Molecular Entities (NME)
approved 2000-2002.
CDER.......................................... Impact of gender and 16,000 7,500
pharmocogenomics on clinical
efficacy, safety and
pharmocokinetics of drugs used
for treatement of alsheimer's
disease.
CDRH.......................................... Evaluation of equality and 32,900 ..............
availability of information on
females included in mechanical
circulatory support device
trials.
CDER.......................................... Women in HIV Trials: A 9,500 9,000
Comprehensive Review and Meta-
Analysis.
CFSAN......................................... Modulating effects on estrogens 33,000 ..............
on food allergens induced lung
inflammation in a highly
sensitive rat model for
postmenopausal asthma.
NCTR.......................................... Molecular mechanisms underlying 93,800 87,000
gender-associated differences
in the adverse reactions to the
anti-retroviral agent,
zidovudine (AZT): role of
mitochondria) toxicity.
NCTR.......................................... Sex Differences in 110,100 88,000
chemotherapeutic toxicity:
profiling of transporter genes
in humans.
CDRH.......................................... Assessment of the accuracy of 30,000 ..............
the Tropinin Assay in the
Diagnosis of Myocardial
Infarction by Gender and How
Gender Influences Treatment.
NCTR.......................................... Protective effect of vaginal 42,500
Lactobacillus species against
Staphylococcus aureus-mediated
toxic shock syndrome.
CBER.......................................... HIV-SELECTEST: A novel assay for 135,000 38,000
diagnosis of HIV infections in
the presence of antibodies
induced by candidate HIVE
vaccines: Evaluation of gender
bias in sensitivity and
specificity.
UN of Arizona................................. University of Arizona: Dr. 71,600 ..............
Marlene Freeman: PK/PD
Sertraline in Pregnancy.
OC/OPPL....................................... K.Morgan--Evaluation of How Best 55,000 ..............
to Communicate to Heatlh Care
Providers about the Risks.
UN of Boston.................................. ................................ .............. 50,000
UN of Wisconsin............................... University of Wisconsin: Dr. 32,900 ..............
Gloria Sarto--PK/PD of selected
atibiotics during pregnancy.
CDER.......................................... Quantitative Tumor Size-- 52,000 ..............
Survival Relationship in
Oncology Clinical Trials.
CDER.......................................... Statistical analyses of gender- 11,300 ..............
specific data from New Drug
Application (NDA) submissions.
CBER.......................................... Gender Dimorphism in HIV 16,200 ..............
Infection in Primary
Macrophages and T-Lymphocytes:
Kinetics of.
AHRQ.......................................... JAG with AHRQ: Research on the 25,000 ..............
Effects of Drug Exposures in
Pregnancy.
CDER.......................................... Cardiac safety, and specifically 50,000 ..............
to build on on-going activities
re: the ECG Warehouse and the.
CDER.......................................... Development of an HL 7 standard 50,000 ..............
for the exchange of protocols,
protocol summaries, and study.
UN of Wisconsin............................... PK/PD of selected atibiotics 16,300 ..............
dining pregnancy.
CDER/OTCOM.................................... Pregnancy Seminar: Pathways to .............. 3,400
Drug Development--A focus on
Women's Health..
-------------------------------
Total................................... ................................ 1,384,165 339,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please explain the process by which OWH determines how to
fund research activities.
Answer. The FDA Office of Women's Health, or OWH, determines
research funding priorities by coordinating with other FDA and HHS
activities around women's health issues to leverage existing funds and
target projects to meet Agency and Departmental priorities. OWH created
a Women's Health Advisory Council with numerous Agency representatives
to help identify areas of highest priority with respect to women's
health and a better understanding of sex/gender differences. By
participating with the HHS OWH, FDA OWH is able to identify cross
cutting activities. The Office sends an announcement out to all Centers
in the FDA announcing the availability of intramural funding for
research projects aimed at protecting and improving women's health. The
announcement specifies the research focus for the fiscal year (e.g. sex
related differences in safety or efficacy of FDA regulated products)
and the application due dates. Research Proposals, called Concept
Papers, are drawn up within individual Centers and go though an initial
screening by the respective Center's Women's Health Coordinator to
evaluate the proposal's eligibility for context and institutional
involvement. The Concept Papers are sent to OWH and to the Center
Coordinators who independently rank the proposals based on the need and
priority for women's health issues in the respective Centers. After a
thorough assessment of the proposals, selected investigators are asked
to further expand their proposals and submit to OWH for evaluation and
funding. OWH identifies panels of experts to perform an independent
review of the expanded proposals rating specific criteria such as
Research Question, Study Design, Feasibility, Relevance, Performance
History, Investigator Qualifications, and Budget. Final decisions on
funding are based on scientific reviews (Center Scientists, external
experts and OWH Scientists) and available funds.
Question. For fiscal year 2008, why are you proposing reducing the
research funds of OWH?
Answer. To be clear, research funds for women's health activities
are not reduced in our fiscal year 2008 budget request. Our budget
proposes to transfer $350,000 from the Office of Women's Health, which
is located within the Office of the Commissioner, to the National
Center for Toxicologic Research, or NCTR. This transfer has been
proposed to augment ongoing women's health research within NCTR. In
particular, NCTR research has focused on our ability to understand
unique risks that women face when exposed to drugs, particularly on the
risks to women's cardiac health. This transfer should not, by any
means, be interpreted as a reduction of FDA's commitment to women's
health. This transfer represents an amplification of an existing
research portfolio to examine pharmacological effects on women's
susceptibility to heart damage. It is not a diminishing of the Women's
Health Initiative.
Question. The office was created in part because the Centers were
not placing a priority on women's health. What research will NCTR fund
on women's health?
Answer. NCTR research will continue to focus on our ability to
understand unique risks that women face when exposed to drugs,
particularly the risk to women's cardiac health. This transfer of
research resources to NCTR will augment an already-robust portfolio of
toxicology research focused on examining a wide variety of health-
related topics.
Question. Why is it necessary to pull the funds from OWH if it is
simply being transferred to NCTR, as opposed to letting OWH make the
decision?
Answer. As stated earlier, this transfer has been proposed because
the National Center for Toxicological Research, or NCTR, is where we
have been using those funds to do research in women's health. The
Office of Women's Health, or OWH, serves as a champion for women's
health both within and outside the agency. To achieve its goal, the OWH
undertakes the following five activities:
--ensures that FDA regulatory and oversight functions remain gender
sensitive and responsive
--works to correct any identified gender disparities in drug, device
and biologics testing, and/or regulation policy
--monitors progress of priority women's health initiatives within FDA
--promotes an integrative and interactive approach regarding women's
health issues across all the organizational components of the
FDA
--forms partnerships with government and non-government entities,
including consumer groups, health advocates, professional
organizations, and industry, to promote FDA's women's health
objectives.
I can assure this subcommittee that the proposed transfer of funds
to NCTR, specifically for women's health research, will not in any way
diminish the ability of the OWH to achieve its goal. Specifically, the
OWH will have full input as an equal partner with regards to women's
health research activities at NCTR.
DIRECT TO CONSUMER ADVERTISING
Question. What is the current funding level of DDMAC? Please
provide a breakdown of staff.
Answer. The current funding level for the Division of Drug
Marketing, Advertising, and Communications, or DDMAC, is $4,991,000.
DDMAC consists of 44 FTE. There are nine people within the immediate
office of the director, which includes the director, deputy director,
associate director, program specialist, 3 policy and enforcement team
members, one labeling specialist, and one information-technology
specialist. In addition there are four professional review groups
totaling 20 reviewers and two technical information assistants; two
direct-to-consumer review groups with seven reviewers and two
researchers, and 2 vacancies; and one training and support group
consisting of one person on board and a vacancy. The staff breakdown
represents all full-time and part-time onboard staff and the current
vacancies. The funding level does not include full payroll expenditures
for all positions listed above.
Question. What percentage of DTC television advertisements are
currently being reviewed?
Answer. In 2006, the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and
Communications, or DDMAC, reviewed and provided advisory comments on 27
percent of television ads before they were publicly aired.
Question. If the FDA's proposed user fee for DTC advertisements is
not enacted, what additional funding amount would be required for FDA
to double the productivity of the office? What would a doubling of
DDMAC allow FDA to accomplish?
Answer. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act IV, or PDUFA IV,
currently includes provisions for $6.25 million a year for the advisory
review of DTC television ads. If we do not receive the $6.25 million a
year as proposed in user fees, we would not be able to increase our
productivity in the advisory review of direct-to-consumer, or DTC,
television ads. With a doubling of the Division of Drug Marketing,
Advertising, and Communications, or DDMAC, we estimate that we could
cut our review time for these television ads nearly in half and review
about two-thirds more of these materials than was possible in 2006.
Question. A recent GAO report stated that DDMAC should stop using
informal criteria when prioritizing material for review, and should
develop and publish criteria for prioritization and review. Please
provide a cost and time estimate for FDA to develop and formalize this
process?
Answer. FDA, like other regulatory agencies, exercises enforcement
discretion in order to focus its resources on enforcement actions that
would most impact public health. Although the Division of Drug
Marketing, Advertising, and Communications, or DDMAC, does not document
the criteria it uses to prioritize each direct-to-consumer, or DTC,
piece received for review, DDMAC has identified criteria that are
systematically applied to identify workload priorities for review of
both draft and final DTC materials that have the greatest impact on
public health. The DDMAC management team, and in particular the DTC
group leaders, works with all the DTC reviewers to ensure consistent
application. DDMAC exercises judgment in continually reevaluating its
workload in light of these priorities, contingent on emerging
scientific and regulatory events. The suggestion that each piece be
reviewed under specified criteria, and that all reviews be documented,
would require vastly increased staff to essentially review every piece
in detail. What now happens is that experienced reviewers scan pieces
for problems, recognizing our priorities, and choose the ones to
pursue. We are currently evaluating this process to determine what, if
any, changes are needed.
PROBIOTICS IN YOGURT
Question. Why does FDA require an IND when studying probiotics in
food that is readily available on grocery shelves? Is this appropriate?
Answer. The determining factor as to whether an investigational new
drug application, or IND, is required for a probiotic product is the
intended use to be studied. Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, or FD&C Act, if a probiotic product is intended to be used as a
drug, it is regulated as a drug, and an IND would be required. The FD&C
Act defines a drug as, among other things, an article intended for use
in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of
disease, as well as an article (other than food) intended to affect the
structure or any function of the body. The Public Health Service Act
definition of a biological product includes products containing
microorganisms applicable to the prevention, treatment, or cure of
disease or condition of human beings, and to which the FD&C Act
applies.
On the other hand, where a food, including a dietary supplement, is
studied to determine its effect on the structure or function of the
body, without reference to any effects on disease, an IND would not be
required.
Any clinical investigator or probiotic manufacturer interested in
evaluating a probiotic product for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment, or prevention of a disease is encouraged to request a pre-
IND meeting with FDA prior to submitting an IND.
Question. Since this research would not require the use of a drug
manufacturing ability, because the product is already on the shelves,
how can a researcher secure an IND?
Answer. The Investigational New Drug, or IND, regulations are
provided in Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 312. The
FDA internet site provides many informational resources concerning how
to submit an IND and how to conduct a clinical trial under IND. Also,
the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's Office of
Communication, Training, and Manufacturer's Assistance may be contacted
directly at 301-827-1800 for assistance in the process.
Question. Is there a way to allow for this research to move forward
without requiring an IND that still provides the safety and assurance
expected by the FDA from the public when conducting research?
Answer. If a probiotic product is to be studied for use in the
diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, it
needs to be evaluated under an Investigational New Drug, or IND.
CARBON MONOXIDE
Question. In FDA's March 2007 fresh fruit and vegetable guidance,
FDA states that the use of low oxygen Modified Atmosphere Packaging
(MAP) systems for perishable foods can promote the growth of spoilage
organisms and pathogens that may be present. In light of this
publication, and since MAP systems are also being used in fresh meat
products, does FDA anticipate withdrawing its acceptance of the GRAS
notifications that have been submitted to the agency regarding the use
of carbon monoxide in fresh meat?
Answer. FDA is currently evaluating a pending citizen petition
which requests that the agency withdraw its response letters to the
``generally recognized as safe'' notifications regarding the use of
carbon monoxide in fresh meat. While our review of that petition is
ongoing, we cannot comment on whether we anticipate withdrawing the
response letters.
Question. Please provide a status on FDA's response to a citizen
petition filed on November 15, 2005 (Docket No. 2005P-0459) regarding
carbon monoxide in fresh meat? Please provide a date by which this
citizen petition will receive a response?
Answer. On November 15, 2005, FDA opened a docket on a citizen's
petition submitted by Kalsec, Inc. In their petition, Kalsec requests
that FDA rescind the acceptance of a number of ``generally recognized
as safe'' notices related to the notifiers' determinations that carbon
monoxide (CO) is ``generally recognized as safe'' under specific
conditions of use as a component in Modified Atmosphere Packaging
systems (MAPs) used in fresh meat. FDA has received and continues to
receive numerous submissions commenting on the Kalsec petition. We are
evaluating the petition and place a high priority on preparing a timely
response. However, due to other priorities and the ongoing review of
the submissions commenting on the petition, FDA does not have a
specific date when it will complete its review of the citizen's
petition submitted by Kalsec, Inc.
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER
Question. Do contractors and consultants report to the Commissioner
or Chief of Staff? If so, what are their roles? Could these functions
be done by existing permanent staff? If so, why are these individuals
hired as consultants rather than as Federal employees?
Answer. There is one contractor who reports to the Commissioner.
The contactor's role is to provide professional services in executive
leadership development for all of the senior FDA leadership within the
Office of the Commissioner and the Centers. Specific tasks include
strengthening executive leadership, enhancing cross-agency integration,
improving communication, mentoring and developing staff. These
functions could not be performed by existing staff as the existing
staff does not possess the breadth of knowledge and level of expertise
as the contractor in the areas of executive development, coaching and
organizational culture.
There is one contractor who reports to the Chief of Staff. This
contractor has an extensive background in media and strategic
communications and a thorough understanding of how outside
organizations perceive critical FDA policies and initiatives. This
outside perspective cannot be provided by existing permanent staff.
Question. Does the Office of the Commissioner have sufficient funds
to pay for all of these staff with payroll dollars? Is there a
``payroll deficit'' for the Office of the Commissioner?
Answer. Yes, the Office of the Commissioner, or OC, has sufficient
funding for approved staffing. In fiscal year 2007, OC does not have a
``payroll deficit''.
OFFICE OF COSMETICS AND COLORS
Question. What is the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for the FDA
Office of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC) within the Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN) and the proposed number of FTE positions?
How does this compare with fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN)
estimates that its appropriated fiscal year 2008 budget for the Office
of Cosmetics and Colors (OCAC) will support 13 full time equivalent
(FTE) positions and provide $2.0 million for the cosmetics activities
conducted by OCAC. Additionally, the non-appropriated Color
Certification Program within OCAC will support 32 FTE positions with a
budget of $7.568 million in fiscal year 2008.
By comparison, in fiscal year 2006, the Agency's Cosmetics program
was staffed at 30 FTEs with a budget of $3.2 million which included
staff in OCAC (not including the color certification program). In
fiscal year 2007, all compliance and research components that were in
individual program offices within CFSAN, including those in OCAC, were
realigned to the Office of Compliance or the Office of Regulatory
Science to concentrate these similar activities. Other FTEs within the
Cosmetics Program left the Agency for various reasons, including
retirement and buyouts. As a result, the estimated fiscal year 2007
budget for cosmetic activities conducted by OCAC is 13 FTEs/$1.825
million.
Question. Is CFSAN planning to change the size or organizational
structure of OCAC, and if so, what is the new organizational plan and
how would OCAC be structured within CFSAN?
Answer. In February 2007, as part of CFSAN's proposed
reorganization, CFSAN changed the size and organizational structure of
OCAC. In fiscal year 2006, the entire cosmetics program was located in
the Division of Cosmetics and Compliance. In fiscal year 2007,
compliance and research components that were in individual program
offices within CFSAN, including those in OCAC, were realigned to the
Office of Compliance and to the Office of Regulatory Science to
concentrate staff in offices with a particular focus. As a result,
there was a significant reduction in personnel within OCAC.
Question. The size of the personal care products industry is $60
billion, with over 11 billion products sold annually, and with over
2,500 facilities in the United States. In the last 25 years there has
been a vast expansion of personal care products. However, the number of
FTEs in the OCAC has decreased dramatically during this same timeframe.
Does FDA believe that there will be a sufficient number of FTEs in the
Office of Cosmetics and Colors enough to regulate this industry and
insure the safety of these consumer products?
Answer. Thus far, FDA has been able to keep pace with developments,
averting any serious or widespread public health problems. While it is
difficult to predict, precisely, what the future will bring, there are
several areas that loom large for cosmetic safety. Key examples include
the safe use of nanotechnology in cosmetics; a need for more scientific
information to ensure the safe use of tattoos, which has greatly
expanded over a wider segment of the population than formerly; and the
increasingly global nature of the industry with a corresponding need
for FDA engagement in the development of international safety
standards.
PSEUDOEPHEDRINE
Question. The Senate and House Appropriations Committee Report on
the fiscal year 2007 FDA Appropriations Bill included language
regarding ``Expedited Filing''. In the context of this Appropriations
provision, and in light of the initiatives undertaken by FDA following
enactment of the Combat Meth Act, would you please outline the steps
that the Agency has taken to enhance access to new prescription
combinations of safe and effective marketed drugs that could provide
alternative therapies to replace pseudoephedrine-containing products
and thereby address the major public health and safety concerns arising
from meth production?
Answer. The Office of Non-Prescription Products, or ONP, is
interacting with manufacturers to help them interpret the Combat Meth
Act provisions regarding reformulation of both New Drug Applications,
or NDA, and over-the-counter, or OTC, monograph products. Products that
require NDA or a supplement to an NDA, or sNDA, may qualify for a
priority review. We are willing to meet with applicants to determine if
such applications qualify to be considered under priority review. We
interact with such applicants to ensure that only essential testing is
required to demonstrate that the reformulations will be safe and
effective. For instance, clinical trials are not required in any
instance in which a demonstration of bioequivalence in humans can be
appropriately applied. This may help shorten the time necessary to
provide data for the NDA or sNDA. We also respond to submissions and
meeting requests quickly so that access is not delayed based upon the
ability of a company to get feedback or to interact with the Agency. If
applications do not qualify for priority review, they are reviewed
under the specific timelines and procedures associated with the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, and other pertinent
regulations.
OTC products that are marketed under the OTC Drug Review may be
reformulated following the stipulations for active ingredients,
manufacturing, and labeling that are set out in the regulations
associated with the OTC monographs. These reformulations do not require
approval by the FDA prior to marketing. For example, an immediate
release tablet containing pseudoephedrine as a decongestant in
combination with an antihistamine could be reformulated under the
monograph to contain an alternative decongestant phenylephrine, in
combination with the same antihistamine. This reformulation does not
require preapproval, supporting a rapid transition from products
containing pseudoephrine to products using other antihistamines. In
addition, a new salt of phenylephrine was recently added to the
monograph to allow manufacturers more flexibility in formulating
products.
COLOR CERTIFICATION FEES
Question. What is the anticipated balance that will remain in the
Color Certification Fund at the end of fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The anticipated balance that will remain in the Color
Certification Fund at the end of fiscal year 2007 is $1,410,134.
Question. What are the anticipated revenues to this fund in fiscal
year 2008?
Answer. The anticipated revenues to this fund in fiscal year 2008
are $7,000,000.
Question. Please provide a list of all anticipated expenses for
this program in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. The following is a list of anticipated expenses for the
Color Certification Program in fiscal year 2008:
Operating Expenses:$3,309,740 (Funds the day to day operations of
the Color Certification program including equipment purchases,
supplies, travel, contracts and rent and rent related costs)
Payroll Expenses: $4,258,384 (Funds the salaries and benefits of
Color Certification employees)
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Harkin
ADVERSE EVENT REPORTING ON DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Question. The Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer
Protection Act require manufacturers and distributors of dietary
supplements and OTC drugs to report all serious adverse events to the
FDA. The legislation requires the FDA to issue guidance by September
18, 2007 on the minimum data elements that should be included in a
serious adverse event report.
Has the FDA begun that process?
Answer. Yes, FDA has begun work on the guidance required by the new
law. Before issuing final guidance, the agency intends to publish draft
guidance describing in detail the minimum data elements that should be
included in a serious adverse event report for both dietary supplements
and OTC drugs, using the current FDA 3500A MedWatch form for mandatory
reporting.
Question. Will the FDA be issuing a proposed guidance to solicit
comment from stakeholders?
Answer. Yes. In accordance with the agency's good guidance practice
regulations, FDA will announce the availability of the draft guidance
in the Federal Register and invite comment on the guidance from
interested parties.
The Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer Protection
Act supersedes the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition's (CFSAN's)
Adverse Event Reporting System, or ``CAERS'', which allows voluntary
reporting of dietary supplement adverse events.
Question. Since the legislation requires manufacturers and
distributors to report serious adverse events, does FDA expect to use
more resources to process Adverse Event Reports?
Answer. Yes, the FDA expects to use more resources to process
significant adverse event reports (AERs) which are submitted in
response to this law.
With respect to resources for Public Law 109-462, no funding for
implementation was provided in the fiscal year 2007 appropriation and
no funding was requested in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget.
Currently the agency has been performing tasks that will contribute
to the full implementation of the new law. For example, FDA performed a
gap analysis between the FDA3500A MedWatch form and the capabilities of
the current CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting System (CAERS). This
analysis shows that CAERS needs software modifications to receive
fields on the 3500A MedWatch form.
In addition, the agency is planning the additional work activities
needed to fully implement the law. These work activities will include
developing several business processes, making significant Information
Technology (IT) improvements to CAERS, and modifying contracts
providing records management and IT support. To accommodate the
increased numbers of significant AERs expected to result from mandatory
reporting, CFSAN plans to modify CAERS to accept AERs electronically
via the MedWatch Plus initiative, which will include modifications to
accommodate dietary supplements.
CFSAN already has processes in place to consolidate duplicate AERs
and new medical information on existing AERs so that all information
about a given adverse event appears in a single report, as required by
the new law.
The Administration has proposed only $4 million above last year's
enacted level for CFSAN. This funding is directed to increases in food
safety programs generally, not the CAERS system or a revised version of
it.
Question. What additional resources will FDA require for fiscal
year 2008 to prepare for the full implementation of the Act?
Answer. No funding for implementation was provided in the fiscal
year 2007 appropriation and no funding was requested in the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget.
GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES OF DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Question. It has been over 12 years after the enactment of Dietary
Supplement Health and Education Act and the FDA has yet to finalize the
Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regulations authorized by the 1994
law. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Report
that accompanied The Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug
Consumer Protection Act encouraged the FDA to act quickly to finalize a
GMP regulation for supplements. The Committee also noted that FDA has
taken action against products that arguably could not have been sold in
the first place if strong GMPs had been promulgated.
What date will GMP regulations be issued?
Answer. FDA is committed to publishing this final rule. I can
assure you that there has been significant work done on the final rule
since the comment period for the proposed rule ended in August 2003.
The Administration is currently reviewing the final rule.
We have worked extremely hard to draft the final rule in such a way
that would assure quality products for the consumer while balancing
societal costs and benefits. I can assure you that full attention is
being given to the completion of the rule as soon as possible.
FOOD SAFETY INSPECTIONS
Question. Between 2003 and 2006, FDA food safety inspections have
dropped by 47 percent as reported last month by the Associated Press.
Will an increase of just $10 million increase the number of food
safety inspections for products regulated by FDA?
Answer. The number of domestic food inspections used to calculate
the 47 percent decrease in inspections since 2003 (from 7,218 in 2003
to 3,833 in 2006) represents only a subset of total domestic food
inspections. This subset does not include such high risk areas as
Seafood HACCP inspections; Juice HACCP inspections; Cheese inspections;
Low Acid Canned Foods; and, Acidified Food inspections. When ALL
domestic food inspections are included, the reduction in inspections
between 2003 and 2006 is 19 percent.
In addition, the decreases quoted are for FDA inspections only and
do not recognize FDA leveraging with States to conduct contract/grant
and partnership inspections. For instance, in fiscal year 2006 the
States performed 8,566 food inspections for FDA which is an increase
from 8,390 conducted by the States in fiscal year 2003.
The $5.5 million that the Office of Regulatory, or ORA, requested
as part of the Strengthening Food Safety Initiative in the fiscal year
2008 President's Budget request will not result in an increased number
of food safety inspections. Funding will be used to enhance ORA's
ability to more rapidly trace back foodborne disease outbreaks and to
work proactively to encourage growers and processors to implement good
agricultural practices and other interventions designed to prevent
contamination of food. ORA will develop, train, and equip teams to work
with State partners in large produce-growing regions. Funding will also
be used to accelerate development of an import decision-making IT
system capable of detecting high-risk food shipments before they enter
U.S. commerce. While FDA already has systems that are used to identify
and target certain high-risk import shipments the new system will
increase current capabilities by providing for automated review and
trending of the results of field examinations and analyses of samples,
identifying candidates for detention without physical examination; it
will score each entry line on the basis of risk factors and
surveillance requirements, for an automated, real-time decision on
action to be taken; and, it will incorporate exogenous data with
available FDA operational data to create a broader picture for each
shipment.
The $4.0 million and 16 FTEs that the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition, or CFSAN, requested in the fiscal year 2008
President's Budget request will be used to improve its Food Safety
program particularly focused on produce safety. CFSAN plans to utilize
the fiscal year 2008 funds for resources to support four core critical
functional areas of the FDA Food Safety Program: (1) methods
development to detect and attribute foodborne illness outbreaks related
to fresh produce, (2) expand traceback capabilities by hiring
environmental epidemiologists to work with FDA and State and local
agencies and facilitate on-farm investigations, (3) development of
cost-effective regulations and/or guidance, and (4) obtain additional
expertise in the production and processing of fresh produce.
The National Center for Toxicological Research, or NCTR, will
direct $165,000 to provide additional staff and $335,000 for supplies
and services to improve methods for rapid screening and complete
identification of foodborne pathogens. NCTR will also develop a genomic
database to identify and assess the biological threat of foodborne
pathogens. The total cost is $500,000.
Also included is $644,000 for FDA's Office of Crisis Management, or
OCM, to enhance FDA's ability to help industry mitigate the risks of
foodborne outbreaks.
Question. What will be the number of inspections as compared to
fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007?
Answer. The Office of Regulatory Affairs, or ORA, currently
estimates it will perform 19,212 food inspections, including
inspections performed by the States for FDA under State contracts and
partnerships in fiscal year 2008. This represents a slight increase
over the fiscal year 2007 estimate of 19,137 food inspections. In
fiscal year 2006, FDA and the States performed 17,730 food inspections.
Question. Is $10 million enough money to ensure public safety?
Answer. Ensuring the safety of the food supply is a top priority
for FDA and the Administration and we will continue to strive to reduce
the incidence of foodborne illness, and the associated impact of public
health to the lowest level possible.
The $5.5 million that the Office of Regulatory Affairs, or ORA,
requested as part of the Strengthening Food Safety Initiative in the
fiscal year 2008 President's Budget request will be used to enhance
ORA's ability to more rapidly trace back foodborne disease outbreaks
and to perform on farm investigations. Once the outbreak and food
involved has been identified, the ability to deploy rapid response
teams trained in outbreak response and traceback procedures will
prevent additional exposure of consumers to contaminated produce and
reduce the number of illnesses by more quickly identifying implicated
shipments and removing them from the market. In addition, the
development of these teams enhances FDA's ability to perform on farm
and at processor investigations and thereby help prevent future
outbreaks. Funding will also be used to accelerate development of an
import decision-making IT system capable of detecting high-risk
shipments before they enter U.S. commerce which will improve ORA's
ability to intercept contaminated products at the border and before
they enter U.S. commerce. While FDA already has systems that are used
to identify and target certain high-risk import shipments. the new
system will increase current capabilities by providing for automated
review and trending of the results of field examinations and analyses
of samples, identifying candidates for detention without physical
examination; it will score each entry line on the basis of risk factors
and surveillance requirements, for an automated, real-time decision on
action to be taken; and, it will incorporate exogenous data with
available FDA operational data to create a broader picture for each
shipment.
The $4.0 million and 16 FTEs that the Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition or CFSAN, requested in the fiscal year 2008
President's Budget request will be used to improve its Food Safety
program particularly focused on produce safety. In a continued
commitment to improve the safety of the U.S. food supply, FDA is taking
action to prevent or reduce foodborne outbreaks and the number of
illnesses and deaths due to consumption of contaminated food,
bolstering public confidence in the safety of fresh produce, the
consumption of which the U.S. Government has been encouraging as part
of a healthful diet, and encouraging the States and industry to respond
to new information on potential food contamination.
The National Center for Toxicological Research, or NCTR, will
direct $165,000 to provide additional staff and $335,000 for supplies
and services to improve methods for rapid screening and complete
identification of foodborne pathogens. NCTR will also develop a genomic
database to identify and assess the biological threat of foodborne
pathogens. The total cost is $500,000.
Also included is $644,000 for FDA's Office of Crisis Management, or
OCM, to enhance FDA's ability to help industry mitigate the risks of
foodborne outbreaks.
Since September of last year, there have been multiple large-scale
outbreaks of foodborne illness in the United States. Press reports
suggest the reason for the recent outbreak of foodborne illness is
FDA's lack of resources in the area of food safety. The President's
fiscal year 2008 budget calls for an increase of $10.6 million for food
safety at FDA.
Question. What changes will FDA make with this money to ensure
future outbreaks of foodborne illness are prevented?
Answer. The fiscal year 2008 budget requests funds for food safety
improvements in the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, or
CFSAN ($4 million), the Office of Regulatory Affairs, or ORA ($5.5
million), the National Center for Toxicological Research, or NCTR
($500,000) and the Office of Crisis Management, or OCM ($644,000).
CFSAN expects to utilize the fiscal year 2008 increase for
resources to support four core functional areas of the FDA Foods
Program:
--Methods Development ($1 million).--Funds will develop better
methods to detect and attribute foodborne illness outbreaks
related to produce and allow for quicker intervention to reduce
the illnesses and deaths from contaminated food and quicker
resumption of marketing of uncontaminated food.
--Surveillance ($1 million).--Funds will increase sampling and
traceback capabilities, including conducting produce sampling
surveys of imported and domestic produce to examine pathogens
along the distribution chain to establish a baseline.
--Regulations and Guidance ($1 million).--Funds will help develop
cost-effective regulations and/or guidance to prevent and
reduce outbreaks, thus reducing the instance of illness and
death.
--Produce Experts ($1 million).--Funds will obtain additional
expertise in the production and processing of fresh produce,
with emphasis on microbiological safety issues.
Also included is $644,000 for FDA's Office of Crisis Management, or
OCM, to enhance FDA's ability to help industry mitigate the risks of
increased foodborne outbreaks.
The National Center for Toxicological Research, or NCTR, will
direct $165,000 to provide additional staff and $335,000 for supplies
and services to improve methods for rapid screening and complete
identification of foodborne pathogens. NCTR will also develop a genomic
database to identify and assess the biological threat of foodborne
pathogens.
The Office of Regulatory Affairs, or ORA, plans to allocate $3.5
million to develop the capacity for more rapid traceback of produce-
related outbreaks and the capacity to determine the root cause of an
outbreak. ORA will develop teams trained in traceback technologies,
incident command, and root cause analysis. These teams will be
strategically positioned in areas with large produce-growing regions.
In addition, ORA will provide training, equipment, and other assistance
to States so that they can be full partners with FDA in responding to
and preventing produce-related outbreaks. After the first year, ORA
will have 12 fully equipped and trained FTEs with traceback equipment.
ORA also plans to allocate $2 million towards developing an import
decision-making system capable of detecting high risk shipments of FDA-
regulated products before they are admitted or released into U.S.
commerce. While FDA already has systems that are used to identify and
target certain high-risk import shipments the new system will increase
current capabilities by providing for automated review and trending of
the results of field examinations and analyses of samples, identifying
candidates for detention without physical examination; it will score
each entry line on the basis of risk factors and surveillance
requirements, for an automated, real-time decision on action to be
taken; and, it will incorporate exogenous data with available FDA
operational data to create a broader picture for each shipment.
From what I can see, the FDA needs a far greater investment in food
safety in order to effect real improvements in actual practice.
Question. If given more than $10 million for food safety, which
programs would benefit most from additional money to increase the
safety of our food supply, especially in fresh produce?
Answer. FDA is committed to ensuring that America's food supply
continues to be among the safest in the world, but we face challenges.
For example, consumption of produce, particularly ``ready-to-eat''
products, has increased dramatically during the past decade. Americans
usually consume these products in their raw state, harvested from the
vine, stem, or soil without processing to reduce or eliminate pathogens
that may be present. Consequently, the manner in which these products
are grown, harvested, packed, processed, and distributed is crucial to
ensuring that microbial contamination is minimized, thereby reducing
the risk of illness to consumers. Even if a small percentage of what is
harvested is contaminated, it can result in severe illness. FDA is
taking a ``farm-to-fork'' systematic risk management approach to food
safety to reduce the risk of food illness at all points in the food
chain.
For fiscal year 2008, we propose a $10.644 million increase for a
food safety initiative focused on fresh produce. FDA will develop
methods to prevent food outbreaks from occurring by rapidly detecting
contamination that leads to illness, more quickly tracking
contamination to its source, and more effectively conducting root cause
analysis of the contamination. We will also provide training to our
State and local partners and develop a geographic information mapping
system for faster emergency response. Finally, we will develop a
decision-making system to detect high-risk imports before they enter
U.S. commerce, so they can be evaluated by FDA.
Due to the increased consumption of fresh produce and the current
outbreaks of contamination, FDA would allocate additional funding for
specific areas where we could expand the food safety program in order
to promote and improve the public health. FDA has identified the
following five critical areas as targets for future growth:
--preventing contamination and produce safety research
--preventing outbreaks and mitigating outbreak impact
--monitoring antibiotic usage and antibiotic resistance in bacteria
from farm-raised aquatic animals and their environments
--developing efficient techniques for identifying foodborne pathogens
that cause outbreaks
--providing additional field support for the Foods and Animal Drugs
and Feed Programs.
SALT
Question. In 1979, the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology submitted a final report to FDA, Evaluation of the
Health Aspects of Sodium Chloride and Potassium Chloride as Food
Ingredients. This report reviewed the adverse biological effects of
dietary sodium and concluded that these effects might be harmful to the
health of a significant proportion of the public. It further concluded
that ``it is the prevalent judgment of the scientific community that
the consumption of sodium chloride in the aggregate should be lowered
in the United States.''
Since that time, additional studies have demonstrated with much
greater certainty that diets high in sodium promote high blood
pressure. In 2003, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute's high
blood pressure committee called for a 50-percent reduction in sodium in
processed and restaurant foods over the next 10 years, or 5 percentage
points a year for 10 years. In a January 2004 commentary in the
American Journal of Public Health, the director of the National Heart,
Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and two colleagues estimated that
halving sodium levels in packaged and restaurant foods would save
150,000 lives a year in the United States.
In the early 1980s, likely based in part on the 1979 FASEB report,
FDA agreed that a reduction in the consumption of salt would be
beneficial, and it initiated a modest campaign of public education and
expanded labeling provisions to encourage consumers and food
manufacturers to use less salt. Around that time, FDA also rejected
calls to revisit the GRAS status of salt. However, in 1984, a Federal
district court ordered FDA to reconsider the GRAS status of salt if
voluntary measures did not succeed in reducing salt intake.
Per the instructions of the Federal district court in 1984, has FDA
taken steps to reconsider the GRAS status of salt?
Answer. In response to a 1979 review on salt by the Select
Committee on GRAS Substances (SCOGS) of the Federation of American
Societies for Experimental Biology, and concern about the health
effects of salt in the U.S. diet, FDA reviewed the regulatory status of
salt and issued Federal Register (FR) publications discussing salt's
status in a 1982 notice (47 FR 26580; June 18, 1982) and a 1984 final
rule (49 FR 15510; April 18, 1984). In these documents, FDA outlines
its voluntary review of salt and the decision not to alter salt's
status as a GRAS ingredient.
The question references the ``instructions of the Federal district
court in 1984.'' These instructions were contained in a court ruling
\1\ that granted summary judgment to FDA in response to a suit filed by
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) seeking the court's
review of FDA's denial of the CSPI citizen petition to reclassify salt
as a food additive. The cited ``instructions'' were non-binding
instructions for FDA to make a decision on the GRAS status of salt
after it had completed its review of the effectiveness of several FDA
initiatives for salt. FDA had concurrently completed a voluntary review
of salt and subsequently opted not to alter its regulatory status. The
conclusions of FDA's review that are the basis of our decision are
documented in the 1982 and 1984 FR documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Center for Science in the Public Interest v. Novitch, Food,
Drug, and Cosm. L. Rep. (CCH) 38,275 (D.D.C. June 11, 1984)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. If so, what is the result of those deliberations? If not,
why has FDA not done so?
Answer. The results of those deliberations in the early 1980s
regarding the GRAS status of salt ultimately led to a decision not to
alter GRAS status (47 FR 26580, June 18, 1982; 49 FR 15510, April 18,
1984). FDA opted instead to pursue a consumer information-based
approach where declarations of the salt (listed on the food label as
the sodium ion) content of foods would encourage individuals to control
their own salt intake as well as encourage food manufacturers to limit
the salt content of their products. FDA explained in the 1982 FR notice
its rationale for choosing this approach. FDA cited several legal and
regulatory issues that confounded the regulation of salt as a food
additive. These legal and regulatory issues include the complexity of
determining limitations of salt in foods and the complexity of the diet
in general (i.e., changing the salt content of a particular food or
foods may not impact a person's total intake of salt). Furthermore,
``prior sanctions''--sanctions or approvals of a use of a food
ingredient that were granted by either FDA or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture before the Food Additives Amendment to the FFDCA was
enacted in 1958--exist for uses of salt; revocation of prior sanctions
presents further complications.
Question. What resources does FDA currently devote, both budget
resources and FTSs, to sodium and sodium reduction?
Answer. Unfortunately, the Agency's financial system does not track
programmatic resources to this level of detail.
Question. What would the FDA do, if it had increased resources, to
lower sodium levels in processed and restaurant foods?
Answer. Food label education remains a key priority for FDA. In
2006, FDA released a web-based program, ``Make Your Calories Count,''
to assist consumers understand and use the food label to help manage
their calorie and nutrient intake. Sodium is one of the nutrients
featured on the program.
Additionally, in 2005 FDA amended its regulations concerning the
maximum sodium levels permitted for foods that bear the implied
nutrient content claim ``healthy.'' In this rule the agency retained
sodium levels of 480 mg or less for all food categories, including
individual foods, and 600 mg or less for meals and main dishes. Most of
the comments from industry suggested that it was difficult to make
certain products, particularly soups, which would be both palatable and
marketable at lower levels. Many consumer groups, including Center for
Science in the Public Interest (CSPI), supported this decision. The
agency had concluded that going to more restrictive sodium levels could
result in the substantial elimination of meal and main dish products
bearing the claim ``healthy'' from the marketplace and that the
proposed sodium levels would help consumers achieve a total diet that
would be consistent with dietary recommendations.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2006 CFSAN Program Priorities include
publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) to solicit
comments on updating daily values in nutrition labeling. All nutrients,
including sodium, will be taken into consideration as part of the
development of the ANPRM. We will be encouraging comments on this ANPRM
from a broad range of stakeholders.
The FDA is currently preparing for a public hearing to discuss
issues related to FDA's regulation of salt. As part of this hearing,
FDA will invite comment on the effectiveness of current measures and
discuss potential initiatives aimed at reducing salt intake in the
United States. Additional resources might be used to further any of the
FDA efforts related to reducing sodium levels identified above.
TRANS FAT
Question. The FDA considers partially hydrogenated oil, with its
trans fat, to be ``generally recognized as safe,'' even though the
agency's own evaluations indicate that the ingredient is causing
thousands of premature deaths and significant economic costs each year.
Is there any reason that the FDA should not seek to eliminate trans
fat, other than naturally occurring trans fat, from the food supply?
Answer. FDA is currently evaluating this issue in its review of a
citizen petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest
(CSPI), requesting that FDA revoke the ``generally recognized as safe''
status of trans fat. In response to this petition, we have received
comments from industry that show that revoking the ``generally
recognized as safe'' status of trans fat is a complex issue.
We note that when FDA affirmed partially hydrogenated oils as
``generally recognized as safe,'' the data on trans fats were very
limited. Since then, additional research has shown that some trans fats
are unhealthful. Research in this area is ongoing to determine the
identity, levels, safety and other variables of trans fats in food.
We are considering all options to address concerns regarding trans
fat in foods, including those raised in the citizen petition currently
under review. For example, one approach we have already taken is to
give consumers the information they need to make healthier food choices
and provide industry with an incentive to produce healthier foods. Due
in part to FDA's trans fat labeling regulation that went into effect in
January 2006, and FDA's education and outreach efforts, there has been
an increase in consumer demand for trans fat-free products. Therefore,
these activities are having a positive effect on reducing trans fat
intake.
Question. What steps is the FDA taking to reduce or eliminate trans
fat in the food supply?
Answer. The level of trans fatty acids in the diet affects risk of
coronary heart disease. To assist consumers in choosing foods with
lower amounts of trans fat, the FDA issued a final rule in 2003 (68 FR
41434, July 11, 2003) that requires the amount of trans fat to be
declared on the Nutrition Facts panel directly below the saturated fat
line. This rule became effective January 1, 2006, for all food under
the jurisdiction of FDA.
Americans face a plethora of food choices in grocery stores and at
restaurants. Our responsibility is to empower consumers to make
informed decisions about their food selections and to encourage them to
make changes in their diets for better health. The Nutrition Facts
panel, along with other education campaigns, provides invaluable
information to the consumer. At the same time, FDA's public health
mission is to foster the development of healthier food products for
American consumers. The requirement to declare trans fat on product
labeling is changing consumer demand and prompting reformulation, which
was anticipated by FDA. FDA is monitoring industry progress in
developing and using alternative ingredients and processing techniques
for reducing trans fat.
At the same time that the final rule published, FDA issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) (68 FR 41507; July 11,
2003) to request comment on establishing trans fat nutrient content
claims, disqualifying/disclosure levels, and a possible footnote about
cholesterol raising lipids to help consumers make heart healthy food
choices.
FDA is currently reviewing a citizen petition from the Center for
Science in the Public Interest requesting FDA to revoke the ``generally
recognized as safe'' status of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils
(see Docket No. 2004P-0236).
Question. Does the FDA plan to reconsider the GRAS status of
partially hydrogenated vegetable oil given that it contains trans fat?
Answer. FDA is currently evaluating this issue in the review of a
citizen petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest,
requesting that FDA revoke the GRAS status of trans fats.
Question. If so, what is the result of those deliberations? If not,
why has FDA not done so?
Answer. There is no change in the conclusion made in the trans fat
labeling regulation that trans fat represents a health concern. The
trans fat information provided on food labels will enable consumers to
make healthier food choices. As part of our ongoing review of the
citizen petition from the Center for Science in the Public Interest,
requesting that FDA revoke the GRAS status of trans fats, we are
considering all available options to address concerns regarding
consumption of trans fat. FDA plans to monitor the effect of the trans
fat labeling regulation on consumer behavior and industry practices to
help determine what, if any, additional action should be taken.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan
DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER ADVERTISING
Question. The United States is one of only two nations that allow
DTC advertising. The other is New Zealand. The amount of money spent on
DTC ads has increased by 20 percent per year since 1997. In 2005, drug
companies spent $4.2 billion on DTC ads.
I think we have to take a hard look at whether these ads have value
to consumers. I have seen some ads that don't even mention what the
product does. I remember an ad for Levitra--an erectile dysfunction
drug--that showed a man trying to throw a football through a tire
swing. He had no luck until the word Levitra flashed on the screen. In
the next scene, the man is being embraced by a woman.
Do you believe this type of ad is beneficial to consumers? Should
pharmaceutical companies be required to clearly state what the product
is for in addition to listing the risks and benefits associated with
the product?
Answer. FDA believes consumer-directed advertisements can play an
important role in advancing the public health. There are a number of
serious medical conditions that are undertreated in the United States.
Conditions such as diabetes, depression, hyperlipidemia, and
hypertension, left untreated, can have devastating effects in patients.
We believe the public health is benefited when consumer-directed
promotion provides information that encourages patients to speak with
their doctors and get their serious medical conditions treated. The
benefit depends critically on the participation of the physician, who
must devise a treatment plan, consider alternative treatments, and
monitor the patient's response to treatment. But we believe the role of
DTC advertising in initiating contacts is important for these serious
conditions. The advertisement you described, which is a so-called
``reminder ad,'' however, contains little useful information.
There are 2 types of product promotion for prescription drugs. The
first type is full product promotion, which must clearly state the
indication (approved use) of the advertised drug and must provide
balancing risk information about the drug. In addition, any claims that
are presented in the advertisement must be substantiated. These ads can
remind patients to see physicians about serious illness. The second
type is reminder promotion. Reminder advertisements are advertisements
that call attention to the name of the drug product but do not include
indications or dosage recommendations for use of the product, or any
other representations or suggestions about the product. Reminder
advertisements contain the proprietary name of the drug and the
established name of each active ingredient. They may also contain
additional limited information, such as the name of the company, price,
or dosage form. These advertisements are exempt from the FDA
regulations that require that the indication and risks of the product
be presented. However, if a supposed reminder advertisement includes
more information than is allowed, it is considered to be a full product
advertisement and must include the indication and risk information or
it is in violation of FDA regulations.
Although reminder advertisements are legal, PhRMA has encouraged
companies not to run reminder television advertisements to consumers
but rather to run only full product ads. Principle #10 of PhRMA Guiding
Principles--Direct to Consumer Advertisements About Prescription
Medicines states ``DTC television advertising that identifies a product
by name should clearly state the health conditions for which the
medicine is approved and the major risks associated with the medicine
being advertised.'' Note that these are voluntary guidelines and only
apply to television advertisements. Below is the link to PhRMA Guiding
Principles. http://www.phrma.org/files/DTCGuidingprinciples.pdf. The
Agency encourages companies to follow these guidelines so that
consumer-directed television ads provide the public with both
indication and risk information for advertised drugs.
Question. In fiscal year 2006, the FDA spent slightly more than $1
million to monitor DTC ad content. A total of 8 full time staff are
responsible for reviewing all DTC ads. Do you believe that the FDA has
adequate resources to review DTC ad content?
Answer. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research devotes 13 full
time equivalents (representing some full-time staff and portions of
time spent by other staff). With these resources, we cannot review
every one of the nearly 11,000 DTC promotional pieces disseminated by
companies annually. We are proposing to recommend a program (separate
from, but related to PDUFA IV) assessing user fees for advisory reviews
of DTC television advertisements. These new fees would provide
sufficient resources for FDA to hire additional staff to review
television advisory submissions in a predictable, timely manner. FDA
anticipates collecting $6.25 million in annual fees during the first
year of the program to support 27 additional staff.
Question. According to a recent GAO report, from 2004 to 2005, by
the time the FDA acted to stop misleading ad campaigns, more than half
of the ad campaigns had already ended. Should the FDA be required to
approve DTC ads before they are broadcast?
Answer. FDA does not have the legal authority to require that
broadcast ads be approved before they are publicly used. In the event
that FDA was given the authority to pre-approve certain ads, as noted
in Question 3 above, it would require an increase in staff resources to
perform this review and approval in a timely manner.
DRUG IMPORTATION
Question. Do you believe that prescription drugs sold in brick and
mortar pharmacies in Canada are safe?
Answer. Prescription drugs sold in brick and mortar pharmacies in
Canada are regulated by Health Canada, the Canadian Federal department
responsible for their approval. For this reason, the Administration can
only comment on those products that fall under FDA regulatory
authority. FDA can only assure the safety and efficacy of products that
have been approved for marketing in the United States.
Question. Under current law, drug companies are free to manufacture
prescription drugs in other countries and import them for sale in the
United States. About one-quarter of the drugs sold in the United States
today are made in other countries and imported to the United States for
sale by pharmaceutical manufacturers. If importation can be deemed safe
for manufacturers, why can't it be made safe for consumers?
Answer. Drug companies can manufacture prescription drugs in other
countries and import them for sale in the United States only if they
fulfill FDA's regulatory requirements. Foreign drug establishments must
be registered with FDA and comply with all regulations that apply to
domestic drug establishments. This includes submission of all
qualifying information with each drug product and being subject to
inspections to insure the integrity of the product and the manufacture,
process, handling, and storage of the product. It is only under these
conditions that FDA can confirm the integrity of the product and allow
importation of these products.
Unapproved products pose a public safety concern since they are
produced outside of this closed regulatory system. Unapproved products
may include counterfeit drug products that may be making their way into
the United States distribution system through consumers purchasing drug
products from unregulated sources, such as the internet. Patients are
at risk when they purchase these products from rogue websites, as it is
uncertain whether the product they receive is genuine or counterfeit,
contains inert or harmful ingredients, or contains sub-potent or super-
potent amounts of the active ingredient. FDA does not have the
resources to expand inspection capabilities to all possible sites from
which a consumer may obtain unapproved drug products.
The HHS Drug Importation Task Force Report issued in December 2004
outlined the measures that would be needed to implement an importation
program that provides adequate safeguards and resources to ensure that
the imported drugs are safe and effective. A program that does not take
these measures into consideration, regulated or not, would perpetuate
the ``buyer beware'' situation that is currently occurring and
consumers would continue to put themselves at risk for harm by
importing unapproved drugs into the United States for personal use.
The Task Force found that under such a system, importing drug
products would yield minimal cost savings. Based on observations during
a recent survey of packages intercepted at an international mail
facility, FDA Office of Criminal Investigations suggests that cost
savings for imported drugs is already questionable. Of over 400 drug
products assessed, approximately 50 percent were available as United
States approved generic drug products. Further examination revealed
that more than 40 percent of the generic drug products were available
through national retail pharmacy chain programs that offer generic
prescriptions for $4 each--which is likely less than the cost of
shipping.
Question. Wouldn't a regulated system be safer than what is
occurring today?
Answer. The current system is regulated; the Food Drug and Cosmetic
Act, or FD&C Act, gives the Secretary of HHS the authority to regulate
drug products in the United States through FDA. Currently FDA does not
have the resources or a regulatory mechanism to assess the safety and
effectiveness of drug products imported into the United States outside
of the existing closed distribution system. To effectively assess the
safety and efficacy of these imported drug products, a new mechanism
for the review and approval of these products would need to be created.
This could entail creating a program similar to the generic drug
program, which determines therapeutic equivalence of generic drug
products. This is achieved by a thorough scientific review of
chemistry, manufacturing and controls, clinical bioequivalence studies
comparing the innovator product to the generic product, and labeling.
Clinical, analytical, and manufacturing sites are subject to inspection
by the agency. Creation of this program is impractical since it would
require additional resources well beyond those currently available and
allow for the approval of foreign generic products without regard to
intellectual property protections of the innovator drug product.
Consumers are likely to continue to purchase drug products from
foreign or rogue websites. It is important to recognize that many who
attempt to purchase medications from foreign sources are not doing so
as a cost-savings measure, but are seeking to circumvent the need for a
legitimate doctor's prescription. As a public health agency, FDA
understands the importance of protecting the public health not only
through regulation and enforcement, but also through education and
collaboration. FDA's website is replete with consumer information about
drug importation, buying drugs online, counterfeit drugs, enforcement
activities, potential public health threats, as well as resources to
report problems with FDA regulated products or websites that could be
selling counterfeit or harmful products.
PENDING APPROVAL OF CEFQUINOME
Question. The Washington Post recently reported that the FDA is on
the verge of approving cefquinome for use in animals, despite a warning
from the FDA's Veterinary Medical Advisory Committee that approving
cefquinome for use in animals may erode the effectiveness of a related
drug that is used to treat human infections. I understand that that FDA
will likely approve cefquinome because of a guidance document (Guidance
#152) that was issued in 2003. The guidance makes it hard for the FDA
to reject any drug unless it is clear that the use of the drug in
animals will reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics that are used to
treat food-borne illnesses in humans. Why is the threat assessment in
Guidance #152 limited to food-borne illnesses?
Answer. First, we would like to clarify that Guidance 152 is
``guidance'' and, therefore, provides nonbinding recommendations on an
approach for evaluating antimicrobial drugs as part of the new animal
drug approval process. In developing this guidance, FDA obtained broad
stakeholder input through public meetings and through publication of a
draft document. The guidance document was first published as a draft
for public comment in September 2002, consistent with the Agency's Good
Guidance Practices Regulations.
After considering public comment on the draft document, FDA issued
a final guidance in October 2003. The guidance outlines an approach for
conducting a qualitative risk assessment to evaluate the likelihood
that an antimicrobial drug used to treat an animal may cause an
antimicrobial resistance problem in humans consuming food from that
animal. The guidance focuses on food-borne pathogens because FDA
believes that human consumption of animal-derived foods represents the
most significant pathway for human exposure to antimicrobial resistant
bacteria that have emerged or been selected as a consequence of
antimicrobial drug use in animals. Nonetheless, as stated in the
guidance, although FDA's primary focus will be food-borne pathogens,
other bacteria may be considered when deemed necessary. The risk
assessment approach recommended in the guidance includes three key
elements that are collectively considered in determining an
antimicrobial drug's potential risk to humans if used to treat food-
producing animals. The first is the ``release assessment,'' which
estimates the probability that resistant bacteria will be present in
animals as a result of the proposed use of the new antimicrobial drug.
The second is the ``exposure assessment,'' which gauges the likelihood
that humans would ingest the resistant bacteria from the relevant food
product. The third is the ``consequence assessment,'' which assesses
the probability that human exposure to the resistant bacteria would
result in adverse human health consequences.
The input for the ``consequence assessment'' component is based on
a system, developed as part of the guidance, for ranking the importance
of antimicrobial drugs in human medicine. The ranking system, included
as Appendix A of the guidance, results in a drug being ranked as
Important, Highly Important, or Critically Important to human medicine.
This ranking system was developed in collaboration with physicians at
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), CDER's Anti-
Infective Drugs Advisory Committee, and the Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). The criteria for ranking human importance
considers factors including whether the antimicrobial (1) is used to
treat food-borne infection; (2) is a sole therapy or one of limited
therapies to treat serious human disease, or is an essential component
among many antimicrobials in the treatment of human disease; (3) is
used to treat enteric pathogens in non-food-borne disease; and (4) is a
drug for which cross-resistance or co-resistance to other drugs is a
concern. Therefore, the human importance ranking process and, hence the
consequence assessment component, considers a number of relevant
factors in addition to whether the drug is important for treating food-
borne disease.
Based on a consideration of the release, exposure, and consequence
components of the assessment, the guidance outlines an approach by
which the animal drug in question is placed into one of three risk
categories. The guidance outlines examples of risk management steps
that FDA may apply to an antimicrobial drug based on the risk category
such as the level of concern to human health. These range from denying
the approval if the drug is not shown to be safe to approving the
application with certain restrictions on its use.
We reiterate that the final decision regarding the safety of an
antimicrobial drug is not driven solely by Guidance 152. Pursuant to
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, FDA's decision regarding
whether to approve a new animal drug application is driven by factors
that include (1) whether such application included adequate tests to
determine whether or not the drug is safe, (2) whether the results of
such tests show the drug is unsafe or do not show the drug to be safe,
or (3) whether, based on information either in the application or
otherwise available to FDA, there is sufficient information to
determine that the drug is safe.
In regard to the drug cefquinome, FDA has not made a final decision
regarding its approval. FDA is currently reviewing the comments from
its Veterinary Medical Advisory Committee, carefully reviewing the
drug's assessment under Guidance 152, and considering any and all other
information relevant to the safety of the drug.
Question. I understand that the World Health Organization
recommends that animal drugs should only be approved if the use of the
drug would not result in resistance to any antibiotic that is important
to fighting human disease. Why is the scope of the FDA standard much
narrower?
Answer. FDA recognizes that food-borne human exposure to
antimicrobial resistant bacteria is complex and often involves
contributions from other sources of exposure, for example, direct
contact between animals and humans, introduction of resistant bacteria,
and resistance determinants into the environment. However, FDA believes
that evaluating antimicrobial new animal drug safety relative to the
most significant exposure pathway, such as the food-borne pathway, is
the best way to qualitatively assess the risk of antimicrobial drug use
in food-producing animals. Nonetheless, as stated in Guidance 152, non-
food-borne bacteria may be considered when deemed necessary; for
example, uncertainties regarding the contribution of other exposure
pathways may be considered during the development of appropriate risk
management strategies.
In developing criteria for ranking antimicrobial drugs with regard
to their importance in human medicine, FDA considered broad issues
associated with the efficacy of drugs in human medicine and factors
influencing the development of antimicrobial resistance. Specific
factors include the usefulness of the drug in food-borne infections,
the types of infections treated, the availability of alternative
therapies, the uniqueness of the mechanism of action, and the ease with
which resistance develops and is transferred between organisms.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has also developed a system for
ranking antimicrobial drugs with regard to their importance to human
medicine. However, the WHO approach differs somewhat than the approach
adopted by FDA. WHO determines the critical nature of an antimicrobial
drug based on its use as the sole therapy or one of few alternatives to
treat serious human disease, and on its use to treat diseases caused by
organisms that may be transmitted via non-human sources or diseases
caused by organisms that may acquire resistance genes from non-human
sources. WHO is looking broadly at diseases worldwide that may not be
present in the United States.
As mentioned previously, FDA believes that human consumption of
animal-derived foods represents the most significant pathway for human
exposure to antimicrobial resistant bacteria that have emerged or been
selected as a consequence of antimicrobial drug use in animals.
Question. Should the burden be on the drug companies to prove that
using a drug to treat animals poses no risks to human health?
Answer. Drug companies are required to submit as part of a new
animal drug application (NADA) full reports of adequate tests by all
methods reasonably applicable to show whether or not the new animal
drug is safe and effective. For animal drugs intended for use in food-
producing species, this requirement includes safety with regard to
human health.
FDA does not normally do the actual testing, but rather evaluates
the results of testing that is submitted as a component of an NADA. In
the case of NADAs for antimicrobial drugs intended for food-producing
animals, FDA's Guidance 152 provides recommendations to industry on an
approach for evaluating safety concerns related to antimicrobial
resistance. FDA considers an antimicrobial new animal drug to be
``safe'' with regard to human health if it concludes that there is
reasonable certainty of no harm to human health from the proposed use
of the drug in food-producing animals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin
DIETARY SUPPLEMENTS
Question. Late last year, Congress enacted a law that requires
manufacturers of dietary supplements to report serious adverse events
that result from the use of their products. The supplement ephedra
caused seizures and strokes and the loss of over 150 lives before it
was finally taken off the market. The new law will provide an important
early warning system and is a first step in addressing safety concerns
with supplements. Have you developed a timeline for developing
regulations? What resources will the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
need to implement the law?
Answer. The Dietary Supplement and Nonprescription Drug Consumer
Protection Act requires by December 22, 2007, that the labels of
dietary supplements include a domestic address or phone number which
persons can use to submit adverse event reports (AERs) to the
manufacturer, packer, or distributor of the product, and declares
dietary supplements misbranded if they are labeled on or after this
date without this information. In addition, the firm whose name and
address appears on the supplement label must submit to FDA any serious
adverse event reports associated with the use of the supplement within
15 business days of receiving the report. Any new medical information
received within a year of the initial report must also be submitted to
the Secretary within 15 days of receipt. The reporting and labeling
requirements for industry are self-implementing.
The new law directs FDA to issue guidance by September 18, 2007, on
the minimum data elements that should be included in a serious adverse
event report for a dietary supplement, and to develop systems to
consolidate duplicate reports of, and new medical information related
to, a serious adverse event into a single AER. Before issuing final
guidance on the minimum data elements that should be included in a
serious adverse event report for a dietary supplement, CFSAN intends to
publish draft guidance and solicit comments from the public, in
accordance with FDA's good guidance practice regulations. CFSAN already
has processes in place to consolidate duplicate AERs and new medical
information on existing AERs so that all information about a given
adverse event appears in a single report, as required by the new law.
With respect to resources for Public Law 109-462, no funding for
implementation was provided in the fiscal year 2007 appropriation and
no funding was requested in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget.
Currently, the agency has been performing tasks that will
contribute to the full implementation of the new law. For example, FDA
performed a gap analysis between the FDA 3500A MedWatch form and the
capabilities of the current CFSAN Adverse Events Reporting System
(CAERS). This analysis shows that CAERS needs software modifications to
receive fields on the 3500A MedWatch form.
In addition, the agency is planning the additional work activities
needed to fully implement the law. These work activities will include
developing several business processes, making significant Information
Technology (IT) improvements to the existing CAERS, and modifying
contracts providing records management and IT support. To accommodate
the significant adverse event reports expected to result from mandatory
reporting, CFSAN plans to modify CAERS to accept AERs electronically
via the MedWatch Plus initiative, which will include modifications to
accommodate dietary supplements.
ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Question. The credibility of FDA's decisions is seriously
undermined when its advisory committee members have financial ties to
the industries whose products they are reviewing. I think the FDA has
too readily granted waivers to existing conflict of interest laws. In
July, FDA announced a plan to strengthen the advisory committee
process. And in January, as part of its response to drug safety
recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, FDA said it would issue
three guidances on advisory committees in 2007. Can you tell me what
issues FDA is looking at and when we can expect to see those guidances?
Answer. FDA has been engaged in a high level review of our advisory
committee processes. We are committed to making the FDA advisory
committee process even stronger and better understood so that the
public has confidence in the integrity of advisory committee
recommendations. Our goals are to increase the consistency,
predictability, and transparency of the process. As part of our efforts
to improve advisory committee processes, we announced that we would
develop three new guidance documents in furtherance of these goals. One
of these guidances has already gone on display at the Federal Register,
and we plan to issue the other two in the near future. The first
guidance will help ensure that briefing materials prepared for advisory
committee members are made available to the public and will assist
sponsors and others in preparing and submitting such briefing materials
to FDA. The second draft guidance will provide guidelines for reviewing
conflicts of interest and determining who may participate in FDA
advisory committee meetings. This draft guidance will also simplify the
process for determining who may participate in advisory committee
meetings and will recommend a consistent and predictable decision-
making process for all FDA advisory committees. FDA's third draft
guidance document on disclosure of conflicts of interest and waivers
for advisory committee members will bring increased transparency to
FDA's waiver process by making additional information about waivers and
members' conflicts of interest available on FDA's website.
FOOD SAFETY
Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
designated food safety as one of the high risk Federal Government
programs. In addition to the GAO's report, the spinach and Taco Bell E.
coli outbreaks last year and the recent outbreak of salmonella in
peanut butter underscore the need for increased food inspections.
Although FDA's overall funding has been steadily increasing since
2001, the budget for FDA's core functions, including the Center for
Food Safety and Applied Nutrition has been slowly eroding since 2002.
FDA regulates 80 percent of the food supply. According to FDA, staffing
is the main barometer of FDA resources. The total staff is not
increasing even though the workload continues to increase. What is FDA
doing to ensure that the incidence of food-borne illnesses decreases?
Does FDA have any plans to increase the number of food inspectors on
its staff?
Answer. FDA uses a risk-based approach to allocate available
resources. When outbreaks occur FDA moves resources to address the
immediate need to protect public health. Since 1998, FDA has increased
efforts toward minimizing food safety hazards associated with fresh
produce. For example, we have been and are working with industry as it
develops commodity-specific safety guidelines for a number of fresh
produce products, including lettuce and leafy greens, melons, and
tomatoes; food safety guidelines for green onions and herbs are being
drafted. We also recently issued the draft final guidance for fresh-cut
produce. We are holding public meetings to allow us to gather comments,
data, and other useful scientific information about current
agricultural and manufacturing practices, risk factors for
contamination of fresh produce, and possible steps we can take to
enhance the safety of fresh produce. In addition, FDA launched a multi-
year Leafy Greens Safety Initiative with assessment, research and
communication components. This Initiative is a collaboration between
FDA, the California Department of Health Services and the California
Department of Food and Agriculture, intended to reduce public health
risks by proactively focusing on the product, agents, and areas of
greatest concern in advance of an outbreak. We are looking at using
this Initiative as a model for other commodities, such as tomatoes.
For fiscal year 2008 we have requested a total of $10.6 million for
additional food safety activities. We consider this amount as an
initial deposit on the many activities that are necessary to continue
our campaign for improved food safety. Funds will be used to begin to
address the lifecycle of produce production; to develop better methods
to detect and attribute foodborne illness outbreaks, to increase
sampling and traceback capabilities; to develop and update guidance to
prevent and reduce outbreaks; to obtain additional expertise in the
production and processing of fresh produce; and to enhance our response
to foodborne outbreaks.
The $5.5 million that the Office of Regulatory (ORA) requested as
part of the Strengthening Food Safety Initiative in the fiscal year
2008 President's Budget request will not result in an increased number
of food safety inspections. Funding will be used to enhance ORA's
ability to more rapidly trace back foodborne disease outbreaks and to
work proactively to encourage growers and processors to implement good
agricultural practices and other interventions designed to prevent
contamination of food. ORA will develop, train, and equip teams to work
with State partners in large produce-growing regions. Funding will also
be used to accelerate development of an import decision-making IT
system capable of detecting high-risk food shipments before they enter
U.S. commerce. While FDA already has systems that are used to identify
and target certain high-risk import shipments, the new system will
increase current capabilities by providing for automated review and
trending of the results of field examinations and analyses of samples,
identifying candidates for detention without physical examination; it
will score each entry line on the basis of risk factors and
surveillance requirements, for an automated, real-time decision on
action to be taken; and, it will incorporate exogenous data with
available FDA operational data to create a broader picture for each
shipment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
SUNSCREEN MONOGRAPHS
Question. The FDA Reform Act of 1997 directed your agency to
complete a sunscreen monograph, which will guide UVA and UVB labeling
information for over-the-counter (OTC) sunscreen products. The fiscal
year 2006 Agriculture Appropriations conference report again included
language directing the FDA to complete the sunscreen monograph, within
6 months of passage of the agriculture appropriations bill. That bill
was signed into law on November 10, 2005. The FDA began drafting this
monograph for sunscreen products in 1978 and has yet to complete it.
Meanwhile, another summer season is approaching and millions of
consumers will again use sunscreen products that provide half the
protection. As you know, around 60,000 people worldwide die each year
from skin cancer caused by too much sun exposure.
Why is the FDA unable to complete this monograph despite repeated
requests from Congress, the public health community, and health care
providers?
Answer. Revisions to the stayed final sunscreen monograph that
address the issue of measuring protection against UVA rays, including
UVA and UVB labeling requirements, involve the resolution of complex
scientific and legal issues, both of which have contributed to this
lengthy process.
Question. What is the status of the monograph and how much longer
can we expect to wait before a final monograph will be available?
Answer. On May 12, 1993, FDA published a tentative final monograph
(TFM) that included UVB testing and labeling requirements. On May 21,
1999, FDA published a final monograph (FM) for OTC sunscreen drug
products. The FM included UVB testing and labeling requirements, but
deferred UVA testing and labeling requirements to a future publication.
On December 31, 2001, FDA stayed the December 31, 2002, effective date
of the FM to develop a comprehensive monograph that addresses
formulation, labeling and testing requirements for both UVB and UVA
radiation protection. The proposed rule that addresses formulation,
labeling and testing requirements for both UVB and UVA radiation
protection has been written and is in final FDA clearance.
Question. Once the final monograph is completed, how much longer
will it take for skin screen manufacturers and makers of skin care
products that include sunscreen to adopt necessary changes to their
products?
Answer. FDA cannot provide an exact time estimate, but the agency
is aware there are many factors involved for manufacturers to implement
necessary changes to their products, such as the seasonal nature of the
sunscreen industry, time required for product testing and relabeling
and economic impact considerations for the industry and consumers. All
of these factors affect the speed with which changes can be made to
products and how quickly the products reach the market.
Question. As the former Director of the National Cancer Institute,
could you talk about the potential health impact of excess exposure to
UVA rays?
Answer. Ultraviolet (UV) rays are a part of sunlight that is an
invisible form of radiation. UV rays can penetrate and change the
structure of skin cells. UVA is the most abundant source of solar
radiation at the earth's surface and penetrates beyond the top layer of
human skin. Scientists believe that UVA radiation can cause damage to
connective tissue and increase a person's risk for developing skin
cancer. UV exposure appears to be the most important environmental
factor in the development of skin cancer. A person's risk of skin
cancer is related to lifetime exposure to UV radiation. Most skin
cancer appears after age 50, but the sun damages the skin from an early
age.
Skin cancer is the most commonly occurring cancer in the United
States. Basal cell carcinoma and squamous cell carcinoma are the most
common forms of skin cancer, but are easier to cure than melanoma. The
number of new cases of skin cancer appears to be increasing each year.
It is important to decrease UV exposure by limiting time in the
sun, wearing protective clothing, and using a sunscreen.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
COUNTERFEIT DRUGS
Question. Dr. von Eschenbach, earlier this month, FDA notified
consumers that a number of Americans who had placed orders over the
internet for common prescription drugs instead received a product that
contained a very powerful anti-psychotic drug. As a result of taking
these fake products, consumers had to seek emergency medical treatment
for symptoms such as difficulty in breathing, muscle spasms and muscle
stiffness. FDA warned consumers not to purchase prescription drugs off
the internet unless they were certain that the internet sites were
legitimate pharmacy sites.
In your opinion, how prevalent are counterfeit drugs in the United
States?
Answer. We believe that in the United States, counterfeit drugs are
quite rare. By all accounts, the overwhelming majority of prescription
drugs sold in the United States are genuine, FDA-approved drug
products. While we have no direct quantitative evidence about the
prevalence of counterfeit drugs, we believe that counterfeit drugs
represent significantly less than 1 percent of the total U.S. drug
supply.
Question. Please explain the steps FDA is taking to find and
prosecute counterfeit drug manufacturers.
Answer. The FDA Office of Criminal Investigations, OCI, actively
elicits and receives information from many entities to identify
counterfeit drug sources, including industry, the public and other
domestic law enforcement agencies. OCI also coordinates counterfeit
drug investigations with several foreign counterparts, especially those
in China, Israel, the Netherlands, and Canada, to enhance criminal
investigations. These efforts continue to produce positive outcomes for
both OCI and its foreign counterparts. OCI will continue to
aggressively pursue counterfeit drug investigations with law
enforcement partners in foreign countries as well as with Federal,
State, and local law enforcement here in the United States.
As an example, in September 2006, an individual from China was
arrested by officers of the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department
based on a Federal arrest warrant issued by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Colorado. The defendant was arrested in Hong Kong after
meeting with an undercover OCI agent who posed as a buyer of over
400,000 counterfeit Cialis and Viagra tablets. This investigation
also involved the sale of several thousand counterfeit Tamiflu
capsules that were manufactured in China and shipped to the United
States. Information developed by OCI and Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, or ICE, was shared with Chinese authorities had already
led to the August 2006 arrests of four individuals in China. In
addition to the arrest in Hong Kong, three other defendants in the
United States have pled guilty to counterfeit drug charges.
Furthermore, information developed during this joint OCI, ICE
counterfeit drug investigation was the basis for another counterfeit
Percocet investigation in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania which resulted in
a sentence of 32 months incarceration for the defendant.
Question. Since many counterfeit products come from other
countries, does FDA receive adequate assistance from foreign
governments to find and prosecute drug counterfeiters?
Answer. The adequacy of assistance the Office of Criminal
Investigations, or OCI, receives from foreign governments depends on
the respective governments involved. OCI has had success with foreign
governments regarding counterfeit drug investigations, but increased
cooperation, collaboration, and strengthening of relationships with
foreign governments would lead to enhanced identification and
prosecution of counterfeit drug operations. Our success is limited
because OCI does not have a foreign presence in countries such as China
and therefore, OCI must leverage its resources with other agencies such
as the Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE and the Drug
Enforcement Administration or DEA, which do have a presence in other
countries.
In another example of assistance OCI receives from foreign
governments, an individual from the State of Washington was indicted
and arrested in September 2005 for his involvement in the importation
from China and subsequent distribution of counterfeit drugs, including
Viagra, Cialis and Lipitor. The defendant pled guilty to
distributing counterfeit drugs and was sentenced in October 2006 to 10
months of incarceration. In this joint OCI and ICE investigation,
cooperation was sought and received from the Chinese government. As a
result of this cooperation, the Chinese authorities arrested eleven
individuals in China and recovered significant amounts of counterfeit
drugs and counterfeit drug packaging.
FDA PAY COSTS
Question. During user fee negotiations this year, FDA and industry
agreed that annual inflation for pay and benefit costs is approximately
5.8 percent. This calculation was based on a moving 5-year average.
However, the budget request includes only a 3.0 percent increase for
pay costs.
Why does the budget request not include the total amount for pay?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2008 President's Budget FDA requested an
increase of $21.77 million for the 3 percent mandated cost-of-living
increase for employees, which is in concurrence with the
Administration's policy. Funding the annual pay increase enables FDA to
perform its public health mission.
Question. What is the rationale for shortchanging basic
inflationary costs in the budget?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2008 President's Budget FDA requested an
increase of $21.77 million for the 3 percent mandated cost-of-living
increase for employees, which is in concurrence with the
Administration's policy. Funding the annual pay increase enables FDA to
perform its public health mission.
Question. How do pay shortfalls affect the ability of FDA to
utilize initiative increases, such as food safety or drug safety, to
the fullest extent?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2008 President's Budget FDA requested an
increase of $21.77 million for the 3 percent mandated cost-of-living
increase for employees, which is in concurrence with the
Administration's policy.
Funding the annual pay increase enables FDA to perform its public
health mission. Without these funds, FDA must reduce the number of
inspectors, medical and consumer safety officers, food safety
technologists, medical product reviewers, postmarket safety experts,
and other public health experts to meet higher payroll obligations.
These workforce reductions would limit FDA's ability to safeguard the
American public.
Question. How does under-budgeting for pay affect FDA staffing and
future budget requests?
Answer. In the fiscal year 2008 President's Budget FDA requested an
increase of $21.77 million for the 3 percent mandated cost-of-living
increase for employees, which is in concurrence with the
Administration's policy.
Funding the annual pay increase enables FDA to perform its public
health mission. Without these funds, FDA must reduce the number of
inspectors, medical and consumer safety officers, food safety
technologists, medical product reviewers, postmarket safety experts,
and other public health experts to meet higher payroll obligations.
These workforce reductions would limit FDA's ability to safeguard the
American public.
GENERIC DRUG REVIEW FISCAL 2007 FUNDING
Question. The fiscal 2007 joint resolution provided an increase of
$5 million for the Office of Generic Drugs.
How does FDA plan to use this funding and how will generic drug
review performance be enhanced as a result of the additional funding?
Answer. The $5 million increase to the office of generic drugs in
fiscal year 2007 will allow FDA to help make up for lost performance,
due to the loss of 10 FTE under the continuing resolution. The Center
for Drug Evaluation and Research, or CDER, currently is recruiting to
backfill these lost positions. In fiscal year 2008 this $5 million
increase is expected to yield an additional 10 approvals a month, once
all of the reviewers have been hired and trained to conduct reviews.
FDA expects that it will take at least 1 year to recruit and train
staff for the Office of Generic Drugs.
Question. What is the current backlog for generic drug
applications?
Answer. There is currently a backlog of about 1,300 original
generic applications as of the end of February 2007.
FDA ALLIANCE REQUEST FOR FDA FUNDING
Question. Dr. von Eschenbach, a couple groups, the FDA Alliance and
the Coalition for a Stronger FDA, have been lobbying for more money for
FDA. They estimate that Congress needs to add $250 million in non-user
fee funding this year to effectively fund FDA's needs. This estimate is
obviously well above the budget request for FDA.
Are you aware of their analysis of FDA funding needs?
Answer. We have read accounts of their analysis that has been
reported in the press.
Question. What do you think about their suggestion that FDA needs
an increase of $250 million this year?
Answer. This is an amount that greatly exceeds the President's
budget request.
PROPOSED GENERIC DRUG USER FEE
Question. The budget request includes a proposal to implement a
generic drug user fee in fiscal 2008. According to FDA's calculations,
the fee will generate $15.7 million in the first year.
Has industry been receptive to this fee proposal?
Answer. We are currently exploring with industry the possibility of
user fees for generic drugs.
PROPOSED RE-INSPECTION USER FEE
Question. For the second year, FDA is proposing a re-inspection
user fee, which will require manufacturers to pay for the full cost of
follow-up inspections when FDA must revisit facilities because of
initial bad inspection reports. FDA plans to collect $23.2 million in
fiscal 2008 as a result of this fee.
Please explain for what services these fees are intended to be
collected.
Answer. When FDA finds that a firm fails to comply with applicable
FDA law, then FDA may take various regulatory actions to ensure the
firm's compliance. Often, the firm's voluntary corrective action can
address these compliance failures and thus preclude the need for FDA
initiating any regulatory action. In other cases, agency regulatory
action will mean that the firm can no longer market some or all of its
products. For example, in some cases FDA will not grant export
certificates, approve product applications, or award government
contracts because of the firm's compliance status. If a firm undertakes
corrective action to achieve compliance, FDA will verify the
appropriateness and completeness of the corrective action. For the firm
to satisfy FDA's concerns and, if regulatory action was taken, to
resume its full ability to market products, FDA must reinspect the firm
to confirm compliance.
When a firm believes it has corrected its noncompliance and
addressed FDA's concerns, the timely reinspection by FDA to evaluate
such compliance benefits the firm by allowing a quicker resolution of
these compliance questions and, where applicable, allowing the firm to
resume its full ability to market products.
These user fees will permit FDA to act in a timely manner to ensure
that noncompliant firms have taken appropriate corrective action and to
facilitate the return of compliant firms to full marketing. Some of the
activities that FDA performs in conducting reinspections include the
scheduling and preparatory reinspection work by the FDA investigator,
the reinspection itself, collecting and analyzing samples, preparing
reports on the inspection, review and analysis by compliance officers,
consulting with experts, and travel and administrative time.
Question. How does FDA determine the costs that each facility must
pay for re-inspection?
Answer. The Office of Regulatory Affairs determined the costs that
each facility must pay for re-inspections based on the number of
violative inspections in fiscal year 2006; the average length of time
performing those inspections; and, the average cost of each Office of
Regulatory Affairs FTE.
Question. Would FDA charge small or start-up companies differently
than larger, more established companies?
Answer. The Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish
reinspection fees to be collected based on the Secretary's estimate of
the cost to conduct reinspections for a particular year. The
legislation submitted to the Congress in fiscal year 2007 for this
proposal allows the Secretary to provide for waivers, reductions, or
other adjustment of fees based on financial hardship or other
circumstances as determined appropriate by the Secretary.
Question. Has industry been receptive to this fee proposal?
Answer. We are currently exploring with industry the possibility of
user fees for resinspections.
USER FEE REAUTHORIZATION
Question. FDA is currently in the process of renegotiating the user
fee agreements for prescription drugs and medical devices. These two
user fee programs are crucial to maintaining FDA review times and bring
in almost $400 million in revenue annually.
Please provide us with an update on the progress FDA and industry
are making toward reauthorizing these programs.
Answer. On March 23, 2007, the Secretary transmitted to key House
and Senate authorizing committees the HHS/FDA recommendations for
changes to the statute and to the performance commitment letter for the
Prescription Drug User Fee Act IV, or PDUFA IV. These recommendations
reflected the results of FDA's discussions with the pharmaceutical and
biotechnology industry, which concluded in November 2006, and further
revisions to the commitment letter based on public input received in
response to the January 16, 2007 Federal Register notice publishing
FDA's proposed recommendations, and received at the PDUFA IV public
meeting FDA held on February 16, 2007. FDA's recommended changes to the
statute and commitment letter are currently being reviewed by the
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, or HELP, Committee staff
and House Energy and Commerce Committee staff.
FDA and the medical device industry have been discussing
legislative recommendations for the Medical Devices User Fee and
Modernization Act, or MDUFMA, reauthorization since the fall of 2005.
Almost all issues of interest to FDA and to industry have been
resolved. We are working to resolve the outstanding issues very
quickly.
PANDEMIC INFLUENZA
Question. In the fiscal 2006 supplemental, we provided $20 million
for pandemic influenza preparedness. This funding was continued in the
fiscal 2007 joint resolution.
What has FDA accomplished with this funding?
Answer. FDA reports the following 12 activities have been
accomplished with the funding:
--engaged in efforts to build and enhance our infrastructure to
support new vaccine development and licensure for pandemic
influenza, hired 75 employees with expertise in essential
clinical, product safety, and manufacturing areas; initiated
contracts to ensure facilities have needed surge capacity and
being prepared to handle viruses at the Biosafety Level 3,
which include laboratories critical for vaccine testing
--approved another influenza vaccine under the new accelerated
approval pathway, giving consumers five FDA-licensed influenza
vaccines
--approved 35 influenza vaccine BLA supplements, which contribute to
capacity building for seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines
--involved in activities to determine the potency of vaccines against
a pandemic strain, develop tests and assays to ensure safety of
cell cultures used to manufacture vaccines, and explore
requirements to prepare libraries of pandemic influenza viral
strains, so the strains are available for manufacturing
vaccines
--published two draft guidance documents outlining approaches that
influenza vaccine developers can follow to ensure the safety
and effectiveness of new vaccines
--developed a Lot Release Information Technology System to support
testing and release of vaccines to ensure safety and
effectiveness
--hosted a meeting with foreign regulatory authorities to discuss
harmonizing regulatory pathways for pandemic influenza vaccines
--participated in meetings on issues such as existing and ``next
generation'' vaccine production technologies, current Good
Manufacturing Practices and research needs, and participated in
a public-private working group to develop guidelines to assure
the public of the safety of the food supply during an outbreak
in animals
--provided technical assistance to support HHS decision making on the
mix of antiviral medications to include in the Strategic
National Stockpile
--served as technical advisor to HHS and others on FDA regulation of
masks and other personal protective equipment (PPE) and
workplace guidance on the use of PPE during an influenza
pandemic
--conducted investigations and covert surveillance operations to
detect counterfeit, impure, contaminated, sub-potent, or super-
potent products that claim to prevent or treat seasonal or
pandemic influenza
--issued 41 warning letters to internet sellers of unproven bird flu
cures and preventatives.
Question. How many pandemic influenza products have been approved?
Answer. With the funding associated with the $20 million
supplemental funding CBER has approved one influenza vaccine biologics
license application, or BLA, Flulaval, which was a priority review, and
35 influenza vaccine BLA supplements, which contribute to capacity
building for seasonal and pandemic influenza vaccines. In this same
time frame, CBER held 28 meetings with influenza vaccine manufacturers
and received and reviewed 21 investigational new drug applications, or
INDs, for influenza vaccines.
In October 2006, CBER received the first U.S. BLA for a vaccine
against H5N1 influenza virus. FDA also designated this application as a
priority review, which means that FDA will take an action on the
application within 6 months of receiving it. In February 2007, CBER
presented this application to the Vaccines and Related Biological
Products Advisory Committee to obtain the Committee's input regarding
the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. The action due date for
this H5N1 vaccine is April 17, 2007. If approved, this will be the
first vaccine approved for H5N1, a potential pandemic influenza strain.
FDA has also approved other pandemic influenza products with base
funding used in both CDER and CDRH. There are four antiviral drugs
currently approved by CDER at FDA to treat acute, uncomplicated
influenza. Two related drugs, amantadine (approved 1966; Trade Name
Symmetrel, also available as generic Amantadine Hydrochloride) and
rimantadine (approved 1993; Trade Name Flumadine, also available as
generic Rimantadine Hydrochloride), are approved for treatment and
prevention of influenza A; however, many recent influenza viruses are
resistant to these drugs, seriously limiting their usefulness. Two
newer drugs, zanamivir (approved 1999; Trade Name Relenza; no approved
generics) and oseltamivir phosphate (approved 1999; Trade Name Tamiflu;
no approved generics), are approved for treatment of acute
uncomplicated illness due to influenza A and B. Both zanamivir and
oseltamivir are approved for preventive use.
CDRH approved a diagnostic device for the detection of novel
influenza (H5N1) which is directly related the Pandemic Influenza. This
product is called the Influenza A/H5 (Asian lineage) Virus Real-time
RT-PCR Primer and Probe Set. The test provides preliminary results on
suspected H5 influenza samples within four hours once a sample arrives
at the lab and testing begins. Previous testing technology would
require at least 2 to 3 days to render results. If the presence of the
H5 strain is identified, then further testing is conducted to identify
the specific H5 subtype (e.g., H5N1).
There are a number of devices regulated by FDA that would be in
increased demand in a pandemic. Examples include devices such as
ventilators, bacterial filters for breathing circuits, resuscitators,
infusion pumps, IV administration sets, vaccination needles, surgical
masks, surgical respirators, gloves and gowns. None of these is
specifically cleared for use in a pandemic, but carry more general
labeling claims. CDRH assessed types, number and the increase in
submissions for cleared products in increased demand during a pandemic.
CDRH observed an increase in the number of clearances from an average
of 0.5 respirators per year prior to October 1 2005 to an average of
5.6 respirators per year between October 1, 2005 and February 27,
2007--for a total of 8 respirators cleared in the latter time period.
RESEARCH REDUCTIONS TO BSE
Question. Dr. von Eschenbach, the budget request includes a
proposal to reduce research by $3.8 million. According to the budget
request, one area where FDA plans to reduce research is on prohibited
materials in animal feed.
Why is FDA reducing funding for this research, especially when it
is so critical to FDA's role in reducing the risk that cattle will
contract mad cow disease?
Answer. The Center for Veterinary Medicine, or CVM, completed
development of a real-time Polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, based
method. Once field validation of the real-time method is completed, the
field has a necessary tool to support enforcement of the feed ban.
Companies are not marketing new rapid test kits for detecting
prohibited proteins in animal feeds; therefore, CVM does not have
additional test kits to evaluate.
The Office of Regulatory Affairs, or ORA, intends to absorb the
reduction of $593,000 in the Animal Drugs and Feeds Program by reducing
both personnel and operating funds for coordination activities in
either the ORA Office of Enforcement; ORA Headquarters; or Compliance
Officers and Public Affairs Specialists located in the Region and
District Offices. Operating fund reductions will be taken in travel,
training and meetings with State or industry officials to perform
outreach activities in support of the Field Animal Drugs and Feed
Program. Management and coordination functions will continue by using
electronic media/technology and realigning and consolidating
coordination responsibilities to improve efficiencies.
The research reduction allows CVM and ORA to fund the full cost of
fiscal year 2008 priority initiatives.
medical device user fee and modernization act (mdufma)
Question. I have paid close attention to the Medical Device User
Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA) review program, and this
subcommittee has provided substantial appropriated dollars for the
review of medical devices.
How is FDA doing in regards to meeting the performance goals
associated with the user fee program with the user fee and appropriated
funding it has received to date?
Answer. FDA has made excellent progress towards meeting the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act's, or MDUFMA, complex and
demanding performance goals, and particularly so for the decision goals
that both FDA and industry regard as the key indicators of performance.
We review our performance at the end of each quarter, and I am
providing a table for the record that summarizes total FDA progress on
each goal through December 31, 2006. As soon as we have prepared
similar information for the quarter that ends March 31, 2007, I will
send you an updated table.
Let me cite just three examples of our progress in meeting MDUFMA's
performance goals from fiscal year 2003 through the end of 2006. For
premarket approval applications and panel-track PMA supplements, we
made 169 ``FDA decisions'' during that period, and we made 94.7 percent
of those decisions within our target of 320 days. For 180-day PMA
supplements, we made 532 ``FDA decisions'' and we made 95.7 percent of
those decisions within 180 days. And for 510(k) premarket
notifications, we made 13,670 decisions, and we made 86.1 percent of
these decisions within 90 days.
I believe the performance we have achieved to date clearly
demonstrates FDA's strong commitment to pursuing and meeting MDUFMA's
performance goals. The proposals FDA and industry have developed to
reauthorize medical device user fees for fiscal years 2008 through 2012
build on the progress we have made, and include a refined set of
performance goals that provide a clear pathway to further improvements
in our review of medical devices.
[The information follows:]
QUARTERLY REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING MDUFMA PERFORMANCE GOALS
Summary Tables
[Actions through December 31, 2006--Data for FDA]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Goals and Actual Performance to Date
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2003 Fiscal Year 2004 Fiscal Year 2005 Fiscal Year 2006 Fiscal Year 2007 Overall,
Activity Review Time ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal Year
Goal 2003 to
Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Date
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent (Actual)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VIAs, Panel-Track: Supplements,
Premarket Reports:
FDA decision (approval, 320 days ....... 91.7 ....... 91.7 ....... 97.9 80 100 90 ....... 94.7
approvable,
approvablepending GMP
inspection, not approvable,
denial).....................
First action--major 150 days ....... 84.6 ....... 82.1 75 91.9 80 92.9 90 100 87.5
deficiency letter...........
First action-all other first 180 days ....... 95.8 ....... 95 75 90 80 90.5 90 ....... 92.9
actions
(approval,approvable,
approvable pending GMP
inspection,not approvable,
or denial)..................
Second or later action--major 120 days ....... 100 ....... 100 75 70.6 80 100 90 ....... 81.5
deficiency letter...........
Action on an amendment 180 days ....... 92. ....... 88.9 75 90.2 80 90 90 ....... 90.3
containing a
completeresponse to a major
deficiency or not approvable
letter......................
Action on an amendment 30 days 90 33.3 90 ....... 90 70 90 ....... 90 ....... 44.4
containing a complete
response to an approvable
letter......................
Expedited PMAs:
FDA decision (approval, 300 days ....... 100 ....... 92.3 70 50 80 ....... 90 ....... 85
approvable, approvable
pending GMP inspection, not
approvable, denial).........
First action major deficiency 120 days ....... 100 ....... 80 70 80 80 ....... 90 ....... 82.4
letter......................
First action--all other first 170 days ....... 100 ....... 25.0 70 100 80 100 90 ....... 57.1
actions (approval,
approvable, approvable
pending GMP inspection, not
approvable, or denial)......
Second or later action--major 100 days ....... ....... ....... ....... 70 100 80 ....... 90 ....... 50
deficiency letter...........
Action on an amendment 170 days ....... 100 ....... 62.5 70 100 80 ....... 90 ....... 80
containing a
completeresponse to a major
deficiency or not approvable
letter......................
Action on an amendment 30 days 90 100 90 50 90 ....... 90 ....... 90 ....... 66.7
containing a complete
response to an approvable
letter......................
180-day PMA Supplements:
FDA decision (approval, 180 days ....... 94.1 ....... 96.2 80 95 80 98.3 90 100 95.7
approvable, approvable
pending GMP inspection, not
approvable, denial).........
First action--not approvable 120 days ....... 18.8 ....... 83.7 80 90 85 81.1 90 ....... 71.1
letter......................
First action--all other first 180 days ....... 95.3 ....... 96.8 80 98.4 85 98.9 90 100 96.9
actions (approval,
approvable, approvable
pending GMP inspection, not
approvable, or denial)......
Action on an amendment 160 days ....... 96 ....... 97.6 80 86.1 85 92.3 90 ....... 93.1
containing a complete
response to a not approvable
letter......................
510(k)s:
FDA decision (SE/NSE)........ 90 days ....... 76.1 ....... 83.9 75 91.3 75 95.3 80 100 86.1
First action--additional 75 days ....... 58.6 ....... 78.6 70 93.8 80 92.8 90 98.1 81.9
information letter..........
Second or later action....... 60 days ....... 50.9 ....... 81.9 70 91.5 80 96 90 100 80.7
Biologics Licensing Applications
BLAs:
Review and act on standard 10 months ....... ....... ....... 100 ....... 100 75 100 90 100 100
original BLAs (issue
complete action letter).....
Review and act on priority 6 months ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 75 ....... 90 ....... ...........
original BLA submissions
(issue complete action
letter).....................
BLA Supplements:
Review and act on standard 10 months ....... 100 ....... ....... ....... ....... 75 ....... 90 ....... 100
BLA efficacy supplements
(issue complete-action
letter).....................
Review and act on priority 6 months ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... 75 ....... 90 ....... ...........
BLA efficacy supplements
(issue complete action
letter).....................
Review and act on BLA 4 months ....... 98.6 ....... 100 ....... 96 75 100 90 100 98.9
manufacturing supplements
that require prior approval
(issue complete action
letter).....................
BLA Resubmissions,Supplement
Resubmissions:
Review and act on a Class 1 2 months ....... ....... ....... ....... 75 100 80 ....... 90 ....... 100
resubmission to an original
BLA or BLA efficacy
supplement (issue complete
action letter)..............
Review and act on a Class 2 6 months ....... 100 ....... 80 75 100 80 100 90 ....... 95
resubmission to an original
BLA or BLA efficacy
supplement (issue complete
action letter)..............
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Would you be willing to adopt a method to determine
incremental direct and indirect costs associated premarket application
(PMA) and 510(k) device approvals?
Answer. FDA is committed to providing a full accounting of our use
of those resources entrusted to us. To that end, we have established
cost accounting systems that meet or exceed generally-accepted
government accounting practices. As required by the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990, as amended, our records are subject to periodic
independent audits by the Office of Inspector General, or OIG. The OIG
issued unqualified audit opinions on FDA's financial statements for
fiscal years 1998 through 2004. This is the most favorable category of
audit opinion. Auditors did not render an opinion on FDA's financial
statements for fiscal year 2005, primarily due to the mid-year
conversion to the new HHS Unified Financial Management System. In
fiscal year 2006, HHS incorporated the FDA financial audit as part of
the HHS financial statement audit. We are pleased to report that HHS
received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements. Our
implementation of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of
2002, or MDUFMA, has been addressed by three reports by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office, which made no adverse findings and
provided no recommendations for change. We have also provided a MDUFMA
financial report to Congress each year since the program was enacted.
FDA and industry discussed whether additional information was
required for adequate oversight of our MDUFMA initiatives. Our joint
recommendations for reauthorization 6 months to discuss issues relating
to performance and medical device user fees includes an agreement to
meet informally every expenditures, including an FDA update on how
funding is being used for the device review process, including
investments in information technology and training.
I believe these systems, safeguards, audits, oversight, reports,
and commitments provide the necessary transparency concerning our costs
and our use of resources.
Question. What criteria does the agency use to determine the
allocation and priority for the distribution of staff and funding
increases across FDA components, including offices, divisions, or
branches resulting from the medical device user fees and related
appropriated funding?
Answer. I would describe our general approach as combining a risk-
based assessment of our needs, and a focus on accomplishing our public
health missions through the most efficient and effective means
possible. FDA allocates medical device user fees and other medical
device appropriations to best achieve FDA's public health objectives,
performance goals and other expectations established under the Medical
Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002 and its amendments. The
user fees and additional appropriations provided to FDA under MDUFMA
have been allocated to reflect the workload balance between the Center
for Devices and Radiological Health, or CDRH, and the Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research, or CBER. Soon after Congress enacted
MDUFMA, FDA estimated the percent of the device review workload that
was performed in CDRH and the percent that was performed in CBER. FDA
allocated its MDUFMA resources to CDRH and CBER using those
percentages.
Field resources are allocated among districts by the Office of
Regulatory Affairs according to each district's projected workload,
such as Quality Systems Regulation and preapproval inspections of
medical device establishments.
Each Center and ORA is responsible for apportioning its overall
resource allocation to its offices, divisions, and branches. The
general approach is to prioritize additional needs and to allocate
additional resources accordingly.
Question. Are third party review and third party inspection
programs useful? Is there anything that can be done to improve these
programs?
Answer. I believe that both the third-party inspection program and
third-party reviews of 510(k) premarket notifications have the
potential to be useful adjuncts to the corresponding FDA processes,
helping us conserve and focus FDA's resources.
In implementing the third-party inspection program, FDA met all of
the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act's, or MDUFMA,
statutory requirements and deadlines. We accredited 17 well-qualified
organizations to conduct third-party inspections. We trained third-
party inspectors so they would fully understand FDA's inspectional
requirements. We prepared guidance to facilitate the understanding of
the statutory requirements and the processes FDA would use to
administer the program. We wrote to device establishments to make them
aware of the program. Despite these efforts, establishments have been
reluctant to participate because of perceived procedural burdens. So
far, only two establishments have requested and received a third-party
inspection.
FDA is currently working on changes to this program as part of the
MDUFMA reauthorization negotiations. I look forward to communicating
these recommendations to you and working with you to see that these
changes are made.
Although the third party 510(k) review program has grown
significantly since it was established, the program has not yet saved
FDA the resources that we had hoped we could reallocate to other 510(k)
reviews. This is because all third party submissions undergo FDA
quality review and because the training and continuing education of
third parties remains resource intensive.
Nonetheless, more than 1,300 510(k)s have undergone third-party
review since the inception of the program, and the number of
submissions has been rising steadily. During fiscal year 2006, the
third-party program was responsible for 287 submissions, compared with
just 107 5 years earlier, and accounted for about 7 percent of all
510(k)s. For some types of devices, third-party submissions account for
a much larger share of our overall workload. For example, during the
past 3 years, over 80 percent of radiology devices have been reviewed
through the third-party program.
We have worked hard to ensure that third-party reviews meet our
expectations for quality and completeness. When we observed some
unevenness in the quality of third-party submissions, we provided
additional guidance to FDA staff and third-party reviewers. We also
believe that quarterly teleconferences with third-party reviewers and
continuous quality feedback from FDA review divisions will contribute
to further quality improvement over time. We believe the program may
further improve as third parties gain further review experience and
proficiency that can be applied to subsequent reviews, and as FDA
develops guidance documents for more devices.
BIOLOGIC LICENSE APPLICATION APPROVALS
Question. According to a recent news article, the Center for
Biologics Evaluation & Research's average time to approval of biologic
license applications (BLAs) was 18.9 months in 2006, almost doubling
the previous year's average of 9.3 months. This is a troubling
statistic.
What has caused the increase in review times and what steps is FDA
taking to make improvements?
Answer. The approval number quoted in the Pink Sheet article does
not reflect a doubling of Agency review time from 2005 to 2006. Time to
approval is the time from initial submission to final approval,
including all the time that elapses while a company revises its
application to correct deficiencies in its initial application. In
fiscal year 2005, the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, or
CBER, had eight biologics license application, or BLA, approvals, with
all eight approved during the first review cycle. The review cycle is
the time between application receipt and issuance of an action letter.
Sometimes an application contains deficiencies that prevent CBER from
approving the license application in the first review cycle. In this
event, CBER issues what is known as a complete response letter. A
complete response letter describes the deficiencies in the application,
stops the review clock, and gives the company an opportunity to correct
the deficiencies and resubmit its application. Sometimes companies can
correct the deficiencies quickly by explaining or clarifying existing
data or methods; other times companies must submit more data or even
conduct completely new clinical trials before the application can be
approved. In 2005, because CBER was able to approve all BLAs in the
first review cycle, total approval times were considerably shorter than
if a complete response letter had been issued.
In fiscal year 2006, CBER had five approvals: three during the
first review cycle; one in the second review cycle; and one in the
third review cycle. The approval that went through three review cycles
took almost 53 months. Thirty-two of those months did not involve FDA
review time. They were time between review cycles that the applicant
used to address CBER's complete response letters. With only five total
approvals in fiscal year 2006, that one application--along with the
other application that required more than one review cycle--skewed the
average approval time significantly. The difference between the median
approval time, which was 13 months, and the average approval time,
which was 19.4 months--the Pink Sheet's figure differs because it
includes Center for Drug Evaluation and Research-approved licenses,
reflects the effect of the two applications that could not be approved
in the first review cycle.
In contrast, the CBER approvals in fiscal year 2005 were completed
in extremely short times with no second review cycles required. The
average CBER approval time was 9.1 months, and the median CBER approval
time was 9.9 months. CBER reviewers completed those reviews
expeditiously through intense review effort but also were aided
considerably by the quality of the submissions. While CBER reviewers
made similar intense review efforts in 2006, and continue those efforts
today, we also continue to explore ways to improve the quality of
submissions and shorten review times further.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
FOLLOW-ON BIOLOGICS
Question. There is concern among biologic drug companies that the
FDA does not have the resources to handle the regulatory procedures
necessary to ensure safe and effective follow-on or generic biologics.
In your opinion does the FDA have the regulatory ability to ensure the
safety and efficacy of follow-on biologics?
Answer. FDA has the scientific expertise to determine the safety
and effectiveness of follow-on biologics. This is demonstrated by FDA's
approval of certain follow-on protein products under section 505(b)(2)
of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the agency's
substantial expertise and experience in approving biologics license
applications under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act, or PHS
Act. FDA will address the scientific challenges related to follow-on
protein products in a manner consistent with its approach in other
scientific arenas: on a case-by-case basis as issues arise, in
accordance with FDA's statutory authority and its mission to both
advance and protect the public health. If a new regulatory pathway is
enacted by statute for the approval of follow-on biologics under
section 351 of the PHS Act, it will be necessary to consider the
adequacy of agency resources needed to efficiently and effectively
implement such a program.
ORA CONSOLIDATION
Question. It is my understanding that FDA plans on consolidating
the FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs laboratories. I appreciate your
response to a joint letter to you sent on January 29, 2007. Could you
elaborate in more detail on the proposal to include which labs are
planned on being closed and the number of employees that would be
affected. Further, what does the agency plan on offering those
employees that work at labs that are proposed to be closed? Finally,
will the consolidation plan negatively impact our Nation's safety of
food, medical equipment, and cosmetics?
Answer. FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs, or ORA, plans to
enhance its laboratory capabilities by strengthening six of ORA's
regulatory labs, moving to these six labs the personnel, equipment and
other resources from seven other existing labs. The seven labs are
older facilities in need of costly renovations, cannot expand to
accommodate merging with another lab, have expiring leases, and meet a
range of other criteria which have led FDA to consolidation in these
areas. This transformation will allow ORA scientists to work more
closely together and improve collaboration and synergy. This will allow
us to invest in state-of-the-art equipment and processes in the
remaining laboratories and to increase investment in other critical
areas. Because the ORA restructuring is still early in its planning
phase, the number of employees impacted has not yet been determined.
Strengthening these six labs will help FDA better meet its mission
to protect and promote the public health. Currently, FDA must pay the
costs associated with approximately 40 percent more laboratory space
than is needed to conduct the laboratory work to support all of FDA's
field programs and activities. These six labs will accommodate and
exceed the capacity of testing conducted in the existing 13 labs.
Although overnight delivery services diminish the need for laboratories
to be in close proximity to sample collection sites, the consolidated
laboratories will be dispersed geographically. In addition, the six
labs will continue to provide supporting layers of expertise with
appropriate redundancies to protect against unforeseen operational
problems, and surge capacity to deal with emergencies.
This proposed restructuring of ORA would begin in fiscal year 2008.
Costs for the restructuring in fiscal year 2008 are covered within the
fiscal year 2008 budget level. All analysts from closing labs will be
offered jobs in the labs to which their work is transferred. We realize
that some employees will not relocate and in order to retain as many of
these valued employees as possible, we will seek to place them in other
jobs in their current location. ORA needs to invest intellectual and
financial capital in new approaches to emerging challenges such as the
increasing complexity of the products and processes we regulate. ORA
transformation provides an opportunity to staff teams of national
experts in a variety of disciplines. Towards this end, the
transformation plan provides for Centers for Excellence in those
geographic regions of the country where labs will be closed.
The seven closing laboratories include Denver District Laboratory
(Denver, Colorado); Detroit District Laboratory (Detroit, Michigan);
Kansas City District Laboratory (Lenexa, Kansas); Philadelphia District
Laboratory (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); San Francisco District
Laboratory (San Francisco, California); San Juan District Laboratory
(San Juan, Puerto Rico); and, the Winchester Engineering and Analytical
Center (Winchester, Massachusetts).
In the seven areas where there have been laboratories, FDA is
planning to utilize the significant expertise that already exists and
focus on the 21st Century challenges unique to each region. The ORA
transformation provides the opportunity to address the specific
challenges that ORA is facing in each of these regions, and to respond
to the rapidly changing profile of the products it regulates. These
regions, and the capability of the FDA employees who are stationed
there, will continue to play a critical role in ensuring the safety of
our Nation's food and drugs.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Senator Kohl. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., Tuesday, February 27, the
hearing was concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
----------
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, Food and Drug
Administration, and Related Agencies for inclusion in the
record. The submitted materials relate to the fiscal year 2008
budget request for programs within the subcommittee's
jurisdiction.]
Prepared Statement of the Ad Hoc Coalition
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, this statement is
respectfully submitted on behalf of the ad hoc coalition \1\ composed
of the organizations listed below. The coalition supports sustained
funding for our Nation's food aid programs, including Titles I and II
of Public Law 480, and therefore strongly opposes the administration's
twice-rejected proposal to convert Public Law 480 food aid funding into
cash donations for commodities purchases in overseas markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ad hoc coalition is composed of the American Maritime
Congress, American Maritime Officers, American Maritime Officers'
Service, American Soybean Association, International Food Additives
Council, International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Liberty
Maritime Corporation, Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association,
Maritime Institute for Research and Industrial Development, National
Association of Wheat Growers, National Corn Growers Association,
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, National Oilseed Processors
Association, North American Millers' Association, Seafarer's
International Union, Sealift, Inc., TECO Ocean Shipping, Inc., Tosi
Maritime Consultants, LLC, Transportation Institute, U.S. Dry Bean
Council, USA Rice Federation, and U.S. Wheat Associates, Inc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF FOOD AID POLICY
The coalition recognizes that American food assistance policy is
well-established and founded on certain guiding principles, including
the following:
--Meeting America's humanitarian obligation to sustain food
assistance programs, with U.S. participation in such programs
constituting more than 50 percent of all food aid worldwide.
--Employing food assistance programs as stepping stones for economic
growth and development.
--Employing food assistance programs to promote respect worldwide for
American values and our economic system, thereby enhancing
goodwill toward America among disadvantaged populations that
may be breeding grounds for terrorism.
THE SHARP DECLINE IN OVERALL FOOD AID PROGRAM LEVELS
The programs needed to implement these principles have enjoyed
broad, bipartisan support for many decades. The strength of our
commitment has made the United States the world's leading food aid
supplier. In the process, American agriculture is bolstered as food aid
recipients strengthen and stabilize their economies.
In recent years, however, food aid shipments have declined sharply.
The United States shipped 5.9 million tons of commodities in fiscal
year 2002, 4.2 million tons in fiscal year 2005, and 3.7 million tons
in fiscal year 2006. For fiscal year 2008, the administration's
proposal would support only 2.975 million tons of commodities.
We respectfully request that this steady erosion of food aid be
reversed, and that funding be restored to sustainable levels to assure
the continued effectiveness and stability of these important and
historically successful programs.
THE ADMINISTRATION'S BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008
The administration proposes to continue last year's total
elimination of funding for Title I.
Over the last several years, as funding for Title I has
disappeared, the vast majority of food aid donations have been provided
through the Food for Peace Title II program, which the administration
proposes to further reduce by $413 million from fiscal year 2006
levels, supporting the shipment of only 2.5 million tons of commodities
in fiscal year 2008. Moreover, under the President's budget, Title II
food aid would be reduced by up to $305 million and converted to
overseas purchases of food aid at the discretion of the Administrator
for the U.S. Agency for International Development (``USAID'').
Our coalition strongly opposes the administration's proposal to
convert essential American food assistance to a program under which
USAID would use appropriated funds to procure food supplies overseas.
It has provided no sound basis for doing so, and there are many reasons
why this proposal should be rejected again, just as it was rejected by
the Congress in 2005 and 2006.
Under authority provided by Section 416(b) of the Agricultural Act
of 1949, the administration states that no surplus commodities will be
made available for donation in 2008. This represents another year of
diminished reliance on the 416(b) program, which is funded through the
Commodity Credit Corporation (``CCC'').
In its fiscal year 2008 Budget Summary, the Department of
Agriculture (``USDA'') estimates that CCC-funded Food for Progress
(``FFP'') shipments will be 385,000 metric tons of grain equivalent.
Unfortunately, this falls short of the 400,000 ton level established
for CCC-funded FFP shipments in the 2002 Farm Bill.
Finally, the administration has requested $100 million for the
McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child Nutrition
Program (``IFEP''), representing approximately 90,000 tons of
commodities. This increase of only 3 percent from fiscal year 2006 is
far overshadowed by the decreases in other programs.
The administration's recommendations, taken together, would lead to
further reductions in food aid. Of even more significance, the
administration's recommendation to reduce Title II funding in favor of
USAID cash assistance undermines the foundation upon which U.S. food
aid policy has been built in the post-World War II era. For the reasons
set forth below, the coalition urges this subcommittee to sustain Title
II funding, reinvigorate the Title I program, and reject, for a third
time, the administration's unwise and unnecessary proposal to siphon
off a quarter of Title II appropriations into a discretionary account
for USAID.
RESTORATION OF OVERALL FOOD ASSISTANCE PROGRAM LEVELS
The coalition recommends that food aid be restored over time to
sustainable levels in the range of 5.0 million to 6.0 million metric
tons of grain equivalent in each fiscal year. In fiscal year 2008, this
would require restoration of Title I funding, incremental increase in
the Title II funding to $1.6 billion, and greater use of existing
authorities of the CCC.
USDA's Budget Summary justifies the elimination of Title I as
necessary because recipient countries have been more interested in
direct grants than concessional sales. Of course, the demand for
donated food will always exceed the supply and the coalition recognizes
that recipient countries would prefer grants over concessional sales--
even sales at extremely favorable terms.
In order to ensure that the most desperate countries have
sufficient donated food aid, the coalition recommends that USDA offer
the Title I concessional sales program to countries that can afford the
terms. Among the countries receiving Title II-funded grants in recent
years, there are surely some who reasonably could afford to make the
transition from grant assistance to concessional sales, using the
direct loan authority of Title I. And to the extent that the Title I
funding truly cannot be used for concessional sales, it may be
converted to donations on full grant terms through FFP.
ELIMINATION OF TITLE II FUNDING FOR LOCAL PURCHASE
The coalition is strongly opposed to the administration's attempts
to eliminate up to 25 percent ($305 million) of Public Law 480 Title II
funding in favor of an experimental program whereby the USAID
Administrator will be granted unchecked discretion to divert U.S. tax
dollars to foreign producers. Congress has wisely rejected this
proposal in each of the last two budget cycles, and there is no
authority for this program.
The administration intimated that its cash-based proposal was
prompted by concerns regarding the timeliness of shipments from the
United States in times of crisis. However, USAID already has adequate
options for overcoming time constraints in appropriate circumstances,
including:
--using the existing authority in the International Disaster and
Famine Assistance Program (``IDFA'');
--borrowing commodities from a nearby available source and later
replacing them with Title II commodities once shipped into the
region;
--transferring commodities between approved Title II programs before
they are distributed;
--expanding the existing prepositioning program by developing forward
deployed food stocks closer to areas of need; and
--diverting commodities already in transit to areas in extreme need,
as was done when a shipload of aid was diverted to the tsunami-
damaged areas of Asia in 2005.
Surely some combination of these solutions could be developed to
address any timeliness concerns, obviating the justification for
raiding our Nation's longest-running and most successful food aid
program.
Little study has been conducted regarding the dangers of purchasing
aid locally, near areas of food insecurity. USAID has admitted that
local purchases threaten to destabilize local food markets.
Additionally, discretionary expenditures of large sums for aid in third
world countries raise the specter of corruption and abuse, including
theft, kick-backs, and market manipulation by local traders. Local
markets lack adequate seasonal storage capacity in many instances,
putting relief efforts at the mercy of the very market fluctuations
they are designed to alleviate, and cannot be counted upon to provide
the high-quality, fortified blend products that are most essential to
saving lives in severe food crises.
Moreover, the administration's proposal to eliminate up to a
quarter of in-kind aid under Title II would undermine our position in
the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') where the United States has
spent the last several years defending our current food assistance
programs as a necessity if the world is committed to reducing hunger.
Lastly, the proposal to buy commodities overseas, instead of from
American farmers and processors, threatens to undermine the broad-based
political and support framework that has made Title II a success over
the last half century. Indeed, Europe's conversion to cash-based aid
resulted in a dramatic drop in aid levels.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Chairman, the coalition is committed to maintaining U.S. food
assistance programs at responsible levels in order to meet humanitarian
needs and enhance the potential for economic growth in recipient
countries. Our recommendation is to increase, over time, annual food
assistance at combined program levels of between 4.0 million and 6.0
million metric tons of grain equivalent. This can be accomplished, as
in the past, with a blend of programs supported by direct
appropriations and CCC program authorities.
The coalition respectfully recommends the following:
--Title I program levels should be restored, and responsibly
increased again in succeeding years, so that the unique
advantages of the program are not lost.
--The Title II program should be restored to its fiscal year 2006
level of $1.632 billion, and funding should not be diverted to
programs relying primarily on the purchase of foreign
commodities for food assistance. These actions will also help
ensure that the United States fulfills its moral obligation to
provide not less than one-half of the world's donated food aid.
--In committee report language, the House Appropriations Committee
should reiterate its directive to the FAS in the fiscal year
2003 cycle to make greater use of existing CCC authorities to
expand food aid to regions in critical need, and explicitly
reject the administration's proposal to convert American food
aid to so-called ``local purchase'' initiatives.
The in-kind food programs of Public Law 480 have been a bulwark of
American food aid policy since the days of the Marshall Plan, and they
deserve the strong support of your subcommittee, the Congress, and the
entire Nation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Prepared Statement of the Advanced Medical Technology Association
AdvaMed is pleased to provide this testimony on behalf of our
member companies and the patients and health care systems we serve
around the world. AdvaMed is the largest medical technology trade
association in the world, representing more than 1,300 medical device,
diagnostic products and health information systems manufacturers of all
sizes. AdvaMed's members manufacture nearly 90 percent of the $86
billion of health care technology products purchased annually in the
United States, and more than 50 percent of the $220 billion purchased
annually around the world. AdvaMed members range from the largest to
the smallest medical technology innovators and companies and directly
employ about 350,000 workers in the United States. More than 75 percent
of our members have $30 million or less in domestic sales annually.
AdvaMed supports the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of
$240,122,000 for the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for
Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). This inflationary increase
amount maintains the annual inflationary increases for the agency that
have helped meet the requirements of the Medical Device User Fee and
Modernization Act (MDUFMA--Public Law 107-250) and the Medical Device
User Fee and Stabilization Act (MDUFSA--Public Law 109-43) to date, and
is crucial to ensure patients have timely access to lifesaving and
life-enhancing products.
Medical Device User Fees
We are pleased that the President's budget proposal includes a 5
percent increase in FDA funding over 2007, which will help maintain a
reasonable balance between user fees and appropriated funds in the
device center and expand other resources to address key public health
needs.
The increasing number and complexity of medical device submissions
have overwhelmed CDRH over the last decade. When MDUFMA was crafted,
review times for breakthrough products often exceeded over 400 days,
despite a statutory ceiling of 180 days. To address these chronic
delays, Congress passed MDUFMA in October of 2002 to supplement FDA's
resources and expertise and reduce review times for medical
technologies. MDUFMA creates a predictable and adequate funding base
for CDRH through a combination of industry-paid user fees and an
increase in Congressional funding for the agency. Congress passed
MDUFSA in 2002 to ensure the continuance of this critical program, and
we are hopeful that MDUFMA will be reauthorized this summer to continue
the program for another 5 years.
Medical technology companies will have added over $150 million to
CDRH resources during the first 5 years of the historic MDUFMA
agreement. Although the additional appropriations did not materialize
in the first 2 budget years of the MDUFMA agreement, Congress provided
nearly $26 million in fiscal year 2005 and inflationary required
amounts for fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007. The fiscal year 2008
requested amount shows the strong support by the Administration to
maintain the MUDFMA program.
CDRH must be funded adequately to ensure the goals of MDUFMA are
met, maintain the United States' position in the rapidly advancing
field of medical technology, and ensure patients' timely access to
needed medical breakthroughs. AdvaMed requests that the fiscal year
2008 Agriculture Appropriations bill fully fund CDRH at $240,122,000 to
accomplish these important goals.
Additional Fees and Issues
AdvaMed notes with interest that the President's budget calls for
collecting over $23 million for re-inspection fees. We are interested
to learn more about the nature of these fees and to which services
currently provided by the FDA they will apply. As noted above, we are
in the process of reauthorizing the MDUFMA program this year. This
reauthorization will include significant increases in the current user
fees the industry pays already for the review process. Given the
significant number of small companies within our industry, we have
strong concerns about additional fees being applied, especially before
any substantial dialogue between the industry and the Agency over the
level and intended use of the fees. Any additional fees must be
additive to the baseline and must be associated with clearly identified
performance goals above and beyond current levels.
Additionally, AdvaMed is concerned that, as in years past, attempts
will be made in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process to alter
FDA policy and procedures related to the regulation of new and existing
devices, including the advisory panel process. AdvaMed generally
opposes such attempts to alter fundamental FDA regulatory policy for
medical devices on appropriations bills. We stand ready to offer our
expertise on such matters should the need arise in the coming months.
Background on the Medical Device User Fee Program
America is on the cusp of an unprecedented revolution in medical
technology driven by major private and public investments in scientific
research and computer technology. Congress has also made a multi-
billion dollar commitment to double medical research at NIH and unravel
the human genome. Medical technology companies also doubled research
and development spending in the decade of the 90's.
The vibrant medical technology sector has driven employment gains
and a strong balance of trade much to the benefit of the American
patient and economy over the last several years. At the same time, the
growing number and complexity of new medical devices throughout the
last decade, coupled with a drop in the absolute number of reviewers at
CDRH has resulted in severe budget strain and increasing delays in
approval of new medical technologies for patients.
Prior to passage of MDUFMA, CDRH faced increasing challenges as a
result of dwindling resources and accelerating innovation. Staff levels
had dropped by eight percent between 1995 and 2001. By 2001, the
average total review time for premarket approval applications had risen
to 411 days, more than twice the statutory review time. An FDA science
panel warned at the time that increasingly rapid advances in technology
``threaten to overwhelm'' CDRH's limited resources.
On October 26, 2002, President Bush signed MDUFMA, which was
unanimously passed by Congress, into law to give CDRH additional
resources and expertise to help provide timely patient access to new
medical technologies. It established an industry-funded user fee
program to provide up to $35 million each year to help the agency meet
rigorous new performance goals.
Key regulatory reforms in MDUFMA are designed to:
--Eliminate bureaucratic delays in review of combination products by
establishing a new office to oversee these technologies
--Authorize FDA to accredit third-party inspectors to audit medical
technology companies with a good track record of compliance;
--Encourage timely, thorough premarket reviews by codifying the PMA
``modular review'' program and extending the third-party review
program for 510(k)s;
--Permit paperless device labeling and electronic facility
registration.
--Strengthen FDA regulation of reprocessed disposable devices.
From bioengineered organs and implantable artificial hearts to
gene-based diagnostic tests and molecular imaging systems, America's
medical technology companies are developing thousands of promising new
tests and treatments. AdvaMed believes full implementation of MDUFMA
will help ensure these advances reach the millions of patients who need
them.
The user fee provisions in the law set fees for premarket approval
applications, supplements and 510(k) submissions. Under the original
law, these fees, combined with funds from increased appropriations,
will provide FDA's device program with more than $225 million in
additional resources over the 5 years of the program. A letter
agreement accompanying the bill sets review performance goals for the
agency.
To assure that these user fees would have an additive effect on the
CDRH budget, MDUFMA required that CDRH receive a $15 million
appropriations increase in each of the first 3 years of the program
(fiscal year 2003, fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005) for a total
of $45 million by the end of fiscal year 2005, or the user-fee program
would have terminated in fiscal year 2006. These funds were designed to
allow CDRH to upgrade information technology and other infrastructure
necessary to carry-out a user-fee program and to meet the performance
goals.
MDUFMA passed both houses of Congress on the last day of the
regular session in October 2002. Owing to the extremely late timing of
MDUFMA passage and a very tight budget climate, MDUFMA funding targets
were not met in either of the first 2 years of the MDUFMA agreement.
MDUFSA was passed last year to allow the program to continue despite
the funding shortages in the early years of the program. MDUFSA also
addressed the significant rate of increases in fees paid by industry.
As Congress has struggled to provide its funding, industry paid user
fees (per submission) that far exceed what was expected by MDUFMA.
Increases of 35 percent, 15.7 percent and a projected 20 percent for
fiscal year 2006 for individual PMA submissions were troubling to
industry, and we appreciate the steps Congress took to limit the rates
of increase until the program can be reauthorized by September 30,
2007.
To maintain the MDUFMA program and protect investments made by the
Agency, American consumers and a leading source of job growth in our
economy, we ask Congress to again meet the President's fiscal year 2008
budget request for CDRH.
Conclusion
AdvaMed appreciates the Subcommittee's efforts last year and urges
them to continue on this path to fully fund MDUFMA and ready FDA for
the coming era of biomedical innovation and patients that await timely
access to the coming dramatic breakthroughs in medicine. AdvaMed
requests that the fiscal year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies bill
fully fund CDRH at $240,122,000 to accomplish these important goals. We
have concerns about the inclusion of new fees for the FDA to carry out
core mission activities and urge the committee to refrain from altering
FDA policy and procedures related to the regulation of new and existing
devices in the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process.
AdvaMed thanks the committee for this opportunity to present our
views and we look forward to working with you to help prepare FDA for
the coming revolution in medical technology.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
The American Forest & Paper Association \1\ (AF&PA) supports the
sustainable management of our Nation's forests and encourages increased
funding to advance forestry research, combat invasive species, and
enhance food packaging innovations. The following recommendations
concern fiscal year 2008 appropriations for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ AF&PA is the national trade association of the forest, paper
and wood products industry. AF&PA represents more than 200 companies
and related associations that engage in or represent the manufacture of
pulp, paper, paperboard and wood products. The U.S. forest products
industry accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total U.S.
manufacturing output, employs more than a million people, and ranks
among the top 10 manufacturing employers in 42 States with an estimated
payroll exceeding $50 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
There is a critical need to focus resources on research and
outreach that addresses forest productivity, wood utilization,
inventory, and conversion of wood to produce bioenergy/bioproducts.
This practical research and outreach will advance our capacity to
produce and measure healthier, faster-growing forests. CSREES and its
partnering universities play a key role on-the-ground in meeting this
need.
--McIntire-Stennis (Cooperative Forestry Research) Program.--AF&PA
recommends an increase over the President's fiscal year 2008
request of $20.5 million. This program is the foundation of
forest resources research and scientist education efforts at
universities. It supports cutting-edge research on forest
productivity, wood utilization, and development of new
technologies. AF&PA opposes the President's proposal to divert
63 percent of existing funds to competitive funding, as it
would undermine valuable forestry research being conducted by
our Nation's universities. Instead, we encourage a phased
approach to building in a competitive grants component to the
program.
--National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants Program.--
AF&PA supports the President's request of $256 million, but
with increased focus on forestry research. These grants are a
significant source of funding for basic and applied research on
forest resources, including their management and utilization.
In recent years, however, less than 6 percent of available
funding has been allocated for forestry-related research. Given
the considerable potential of the program to contribute to the
Nation's sustainable forestry research needs, that percentage
should be increased, with specific focus on grants that support
Agenda 2020 research, such as the Pine Genome Initiative.
--Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA) Program.--AF&PA recommends
an increase over the President's request of $4 million. RREA
provides the foundation for extension and outreach efforts
delivered to private landowners through universities. Cutting-
edge forestry research is of limited benefit unless it can be
effectively delivered to the Nation's forest landowners.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
Emerging Plant Pests Program.--AF&PA encourages increased funding
to ensure adequate research, eradication, and control efforts targeting
the Sirex woodwasp, emerald ash borer, Asian longhorned beetle, and
sudden oak death pathogen. All four introduced organisms have already
done significant damage and threaten further damage to trees in our
forests and communities. For example, the Sirex woodwasp is now found
across much of New York State and parts of Pennsylvania, and threatens
valuable pine timber resources, especially those of the Southeast.
Without sufficient funding to prevent movement of these insects and
diseases through infested wood, nursery stock, and other materials, the
economic cost could escalate to hundreds of billions of dollars.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Food Contact Notification (FCN) Program.--AF&PA urges restoration
of funding at $6 million for this program, which is proposed for
elimination in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request. This
highly successful program provides efficient review and timely approval
of new food packaging materials and additives. New food-contact
materials have enhanced the safety and security of the U.S. food supply
while increasing the availability of environmentally friendly products.
The elimination of the FCN program would be an enormous detriment to
manufacturers seeking clearances for new food-contact materials to be
introduced in the U.S. marketplace. The FCN program is essential for
continued paper and paperboard food packaging innovation, and for
ensuring the most effective protection of packaged foods during
transportation, storage and ultimate use by the consumer.
Conclusion
AF&PA appreciates the opportunity to provide the Subcommittee with
testimony regarding the fiscal year 2008 budget for the U.S. Department
of Agriculture. If implemented, increased funding for the programs
listed above will help promote the sustainable management of our
Nation's public and private lands and the products that are produced
from these lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Honey Producers Association, Inc.
Chairman Kohl and Members of the Subcommittee: My name is Mark
Brady from Waxahachie, Texas, and I currently serve as President of the
American Honey Producers Association (``AHPA''). I am pleased today to
submit the following statement on behalf of the AHPA, a national
organization of commercial beekeepers actively engaged in honey
production throughout the country. The purpose of this statement is
bring to your attention both new and continuing serious threats to the
domestic bee industry and to request your continued assistance in
supporting Agricultural Research Service (``ARS'') research to address
the many challenges that face the domestic beekeeping industry.
First, we wish to thank again the Subcommittee for the strong
support you have provided in past fiscal years for agricultural
research activities on behalf of the beekeeping industry. As you know,
in the fiscal year 2003 cycle, the Subcommittee rejected a proposal
that would have resulted in the elimination of three ARS laboratories
that are indispensable to the survival of our industry. In the years
since then, the Subcommittee has worked to restore proposed cuts in
honey bee research. Such support has enabled the ARS to address the
critical research needs of the industry.
For fiscal year 2008, the Administration's budget again proposes to
eliminate certain funding for ARS that it did not request but that the
Congress provided in the appropriations process. To continue the
research that is critical to honey bees, however, the AHPA requests
that Congress maintain the funding for the ARS Honey Bee Research
Laboratories at Baton Rouge, Louisiana; Weslaco, Texas; Tucson,
Arizona; Beltsville, Maryland; and the ARS Wild Bee Research Laboratory
at Logan, Utah. We also support increased funding for honey bee genome
research at the ARS laboratory in Baton Rouge, as proposed before by
the Administration.
In addition to the maintenance of these ongoing efforts, we
strongly urge the Subcommittee to provide at least $1 million in new
funding through the ARS laboratories at Beltsville and Tucson, and
possibly in conjunction with researchers at the University of
California in Davis, to address a new threat to domestic honey bees:
Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). CCD is currently ravaging bee colonies
across the United States. The causes of CCD are unknown and appear to
be complicated mix of factors, including the stresses caused by
continuing infestations of mites and pests and by the high demands of
pollination today. I provide a more detailed description of CCD in this
statement.
The President's Budget Proposal
Our understanding is that while OMB has not yet agreed to the ARS
funding levels under the fiscal year 2007 Continuing Resolution, the
most likely outcome will be a continuation of honey bee research at the
fiscal year 2006 levels. As the Subcommittee reviews the proposed
fiscal year 2008 budget and the fiscal year 2007 baseline, we urge you
also to consider that in its fiscal year 2007 bill, the House
originally provided (H. Rep. 109-463) additional fiscal year 2007
research funding as follows: ``Bee Research, Weslaco, TX, $244,077''
and ``Honey Bee Research (Varroa Mites), Baton Rouge, LA, $390,101.''
The fiscal year 2007 Senate bill (S. Rep. 109-266) provided continued
funding for ``Bee Research (Chalk Brood)), Logan, Utah,'' and
separately recommended an increase of $100,000 for Logan, Utah for non-
Apis research.
The AHPA is concerned that the President's fiscal year 2008 budget
proposal to eliminate ongoing spending set by Congress would reduce
funding for critical research at two key ARS Honey Bee Research
Laboratories at Baton Rouge and at Weslaco. Such cuts to these ARS
Honey Bee Research Laboratories would have a severe effect on the honey
industry as well as on all pollination-dependent agriculture and many
native plants. This budget recommendation seems particularly
inappropriate considering the substantial benefits that flow from these
research efforts, which help assure the vitality of the American honey
bee industry and is integral to many aspects of U.S. agriculture.
The four ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratories provide the first line
of defense against exotic parasite mites, Africanized bees, and brood
diseases. Equally, the laboratories are prepared to respond to new
pests, pathogens and other conditions as they arise, such as CCD, that
pose very serious and growing threats to the viability and productivity
of honey bees and the plants they pollinate. If continued funding is
not provided, scientists at the Baton Rouge and Weslaco laboratories
will be overburdened and forced to discontinue essential research,
thereby jeopardizing the U.S. honey bee industry and the production of
agricultural crops that require pollination by honey bees.
The Importance of Honey Bees to U.S. Agriculture
Honey bees are a critical element in the production of more than 90
food, fiber, and seed crops, valued at more than $20 billion a year in
the United States, according to the Department of Agriculture. The role
of pollination is even more important given today's dietary importance
of fruit, vegetables and nuts, most of which are dependent on
pollination. Honey bees are necessary for the production of such
diverse crops as almonds, apples, oranges, melons, broccoli,
tangerines, cranberries, strawberries, vegetables, alfalfa, soybeans,
sunflower, and cotton, among others. In fact, honey bees pollinate
about one-third of the human diet.
The importance of this pollination to contemporary agriculture
cannot be understated--the value of such pollination is 143 times
greater than the total value of honey and wax produced by honey bees.
More than 140 billion honey bees representing 2 million colonies are
transported by U.S. beekeepers across the country every year to
pollinate crops.
The importance of honey bees--and the U.S. honey industry which
supplies the honey bees for pollination--is illustrated by the
pollination of California's almond crop, which is that State's largest
agricultural export. California grows 100 percent of the Nation's
almond crop and supplies 80 percent of the world's almonds. Honey bees
are transported from all over the Nation to pollinate California
almonds, which is the largest single crop requiring honey bees for
pollination. More than one million honey bee hives are needed to
pollinate the 600,000 acres of almond groves that line California's
Central Valley. That means nearly half of the managed honey-producing
colonies in the United States are involved in pollinating almonds in
California during February and early March. As with other agricultural
products, having enough bees to pollinate the almond crop can mean the
difference between a good crop and disaster. Moreover, almond producers
estimate that California may need as many as 2 million hives for
pollination by 2012 to pollinate the expected 800,000 acres of almonds
that will be in production then. As OnEarth magazine noted recently,
the fate of California's almond crop rests ``on the slender back of the
embattled honey bee.''
Many other U.S. agriculture producers rely on extensive honey bee
pollination. A Maine blueberry grower recently put it quite
succinctly--``without bees in May, there are no blueberries in
August.'' Additionally, avocados--a $363 million crop in California--
receive more than 90 percent of their pollination from the honey bee.
Studies on the effect of pollination of cotton by honey bees show an
increase of 17 to 19 percent in the yield of seed cotton, as compared
to a cotton crop that is not pollinated by honey bees. The cattle and
farm-raised catfish industries also benefit from honey bee pollination,
as pollination is important for growing alfalfa, which is fodder for
cattle and farm-raised fish.
Unfortunately, due to bee losses caused by pests and mites and
other recent problems plaguing the U.S. honey industry, U.S. farmers
were forced to import honey bees from other countries (New Zealand and
Australia) last year for pollination. This marked the first time since
1922 that honey bees were imported into the United States for
pollination services, underscoring the fragile State of the U.S. honey
industry and highlighting the critical need for research.
Yet, the health of the beekeeping industry is dependent upon the
production of honey and beeswax. Honey bees are responsible for the
production of an average of 200 million pounds of honey annually in the
United States, the sales of which help sustain this nation's
beekeepers.
THREATS TO THE HONEY BEES
Since 1984, the survival of the honey bee has been threatened by
continuing infestations of mites and pests for which appropriate
controls must continually be developed by scientists at the four ARS
laboratories. Within the past year, however, CCD has emerged as an
additional and grave new threat with unknown causes but destructive
force.
COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER (CCD)
As chronicled in several recent news accounts, including the
attached articles from the New York Times, CNN, ABC News and AP,
reports of the sudden death of bees in colonies has been reported in 22
States. Often, most of the adult bees in a colony mysteriously
disappear, and soon the colony is completely empty. The news outlets
quote various Federal and State researchers who have not been able to
determine the cause of the collapse of the colonies. There are also
increasing reports that otherwise healthy bee colonies are not
reproducing at anywhere near historic levels.
This severe and baffling destruction of domestic honey bee
populations will require additional resources for the ARS laboratories
as soon as possible to determine the causes of CCD and to develop
effective treatment strategies. CCD remains a mystery to both
beekeepers and scientists. There are a wide range of factors that--
either alone or in combination--may be possible causes of this serious
condition. Areas to explore include the stress from the movement of
bees to different parts of the country for extensive commercial
pollination, the additional stress of pollinating crops, such as
almonds, that provide little honey to the bees, and the impact of
certain crop pesticides and genetic plants with altered pollination
characteristics. Additionally, continuing infestations of the highly
destructive Varroa mite, combined with other pests and mites, are also
thought to compromise the immune systems of bees and may leave them
more vulnerable to CCD. At the same time, researchers will need to
focus on the many reported instances in which otherwise healthy, pest-
free, stationary bee colonies are also suffering collapse or problems
with reproduction.
In many ways, CCD is the latest is a series of threats faced by the
modern U.S. honey bee industry as it continues to evolve to both
produce honey and meet the ever-increasing demands of crop producers
for vital pollination. Unfortunately, CCD will not be the last
challenge faced by the industry. But at this time, it is clearly the
most critical threat to our industry. As every week goes by, additional
members of AHPA report that CCD is affecting their bees.
The AHPA respectfully requests that additional funding of at least
$1 million be provided in a dedicated manner to respond to CCD. Such
funding could be allocated to the ARS laboratories at Beltsville,
Maryland, and Tucson, Arizona. We would also recommend that funding be
considered for the University of California at Davis, because it has
particular expertise in honey bee research and is in close proximity to
the almond groves of the California Central Valley. Such a joint effort
could better analyze the relationship between CCD, pollination and
other stress factors. The joint effort would also take advantage of the
fact that, in February of each year, almost the entire honey bee
industry has its bees in California for pollination purposes.
ONGOING RESEARCH
The research being done at the ARS laboratories is critical in a
number of areas. For example, the pinhead-sized Varroa mite is
systematically destroying bee colonies and has been considered by many
in recent years to be the most serious threat to honey bees. Tracheal
mites are another contributing factor to the loss of honey bees.
Tracheal mites infest the breathing tubes of adult honey bees and also
feed on the bees' blood. The mites essentially clog the bees' breathing
tubes, blocking the flow of oxygen and eventually killing the infested
bees. The industry is also plagued by a honey bee bacterial disease
that has become resistant to antibiotics designed to control it, and a
honey bee fungal disease that has no known medication to control it.
These pests and diseases, especially Varroa mites and the bacterium
causing American foulbrood, are now resistant to chemical controls in
many regions of the country. Further, we have seen that these pests are
building resistance to newly-developed chemicals more quickly than in
the past, thereby limiting the longevity of chemical controls.
Unfortunately, there is no simple solution to these problems, and
the honey bee industry is too small to support the cost of the needed
research, particularly given the depressed state of honey prices.
Further, there are no funds, facilities, or personnel elsewhere
available in the private sector for this purpose. Accordingly, the
beekeeping industry is dependent on research from public sources for
the scientific answers to these threats. Since the honey bee industry
is completely comprised of small family-owned businesses, it relies
heavily on the ARS for needed research and development. The key to the
survival of the honey industry lies with the honey bee research
programs conducted by ARS.
The sequencing of the honey bee genome at Baylor University has
opened the door to creating highly effective solutions to these
problems via marker-assisted breeding. Marker-assisted breeding would
permit the rapid screening of potential breeders for specific DNA
sequences that underlie specific desirable honey bee traits. The
sequenced honey bee genome is the necessary key that will allow
scientists to discover the important DNA sequences. Because of the
sequenced honey bee genome, it is now possible to apply molecular
biological studies to the development of marker-assisted breeding of
honey bees. Marker-facilitated selection offers the first real
opportunity to transform the beekeeping industry from one that has been
dependent upon a growing number of expensive pesticides and antibiotics
into an industry that is free of chemical inputs and that is
economically viable in today's competitive global marketplace.
Furthermore, research on honey bees, one of five animals chosen by
the National Institutes of Health for genome sequencing, may provide
important insight into other areas of science. The honey bee is the
first agricultural species to be sequenced, and such work may provide
breakthrough advances in many areas of science. In fact, honey bees are
being studied by the U.S. Department of Defense as sentinel species
that could detect and locate agents of harm, such as chemical or
biological threats. According to one researcher, it appears that honey
bees' olfactory capabilities are at least on par with those of a dog,
if not more sensitive. Thus, the scientific advances achieved by ARS
will provide an array of benefits across many disciplines.
The Work of the ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratories
The ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratories work together to provide
research solutions to problems facing businesses dependent on the
health and vitality of honey bees. The findings of these laboratories
are used by honey producers to protect their producing colonies and by
farmers and agribusinesses to ensure the efficient pollination of
crops. Each of the four ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratories (which are
different in function from the ARS Wild Bee Research Laboratory at
Logan, Utah) focuses on different problems facing the U.S. honey
industry and undertakes research that is vital to sustaining honey
production and assuring essential pollination services in this country.
Furthermore, each of the four ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratories has
unique strengths and each is situated and equipped to support
independent research programs which would be difficult, and in many
cases impossible, to conduct elsewhere.
Research at the ARS Weslaco Laboratory
Because the AHPA recommends that the appropriation for the Weslaco
laboratory be approved at not less than current levels, we respectfully
request that Congress again restore an additional $244,100 in funding
for the ARS Honey Bee Laboratory at Weslaco, Texas. This funding would
be eliminated under the administration's budget. Retaining the current
level of funding for the Weslaco laboratory will enable this facility
to continue its work in finding a chemical solution to parasitic mites
that are causing a crisis for the U.S. beekeeping and pollination
industries. Varroa mites are causing the loss of hundreds of thousands
of domestic honey bee colonies annually as well as devastating wild bee
colonies. As noted in a February 2005 USA Today article, the Varroa
mite has destroyed as much as 60 percent of the hives in some areas.
For example, in Florida, the number of commercial bee colonies has
fallen from approximately 360,000 hives in 1990 to just 160,000 in
2005--in large part as a result of the Varroa mite. These tiny
parasites--also known as the ``vampire mite''--attach themselves to the
backs of adult bees and literally suck out their insides. When these
mites were first discovered in the United States in the 1980s,
beekeepers were able to fight them with strips of the chemical
fluvalinate. However, the Varroa mites have evolved into a parasite
seemingly immune to current pesticides. The ARS laboratory at Weslaco
has been developing alternative chemicals to control the Varroa mite.
Presently, there are no other chemicals available for controlling the
Varroa mite, and the laboratory is working frantically to develop other
means of control. The laboratory also is working with a potent fungus,
which may kill the mites without impeding colony development or
population size.
Furthermore, the laboratory at Weslaco is researching methods that
may control the small hive beetle. Since its discovery in Florida in
1998, this pest has caused severe bee colony losses in California,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio,
and Minnesota. Estimates put these losses in just one season at over
30,000 colonies. The beetles are now spreading all across the United
States. The ARS honey bee research scientists at the Weslaco laboratory
have been working diligently to find chemicals, techniques, pheromones,
or other methods of controlling the beetle. Time is of the essence and
a control must be found immediately, because all the bee colonies in
the Western Hemisphere are at risk.
This facility also focuses its research efforts on developing
technologies to manage honey bees in the presence of Africanized honey
bees, parasitic mites, and other pests. In order to ensure that further
pests are not introduced into the United States, scientists at the
Weslaco facility provide technical assistance to agriculture
departments in foreign countries on the control of parasitic mites. The
laboratory has worked with officials in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Mexico,
and South Africa to protect the U.S. honey bee population from further
devastation by infestation of foreign parasites, diseases, and other
pests. This inter-governmental cooperation is necessary to ensure the
continued viability of the U.S. honey bee industry.
Research at the ARS Baton Rouge Laboratory
We were pleased with past Administration budgets that requested
increased funding in the amount of $500,000 for honey bee genome
research at the Baton Rouge Laboratory and applaud the Subcommittee's
efforts in fiscal year 2006 to provide $375,000 of the $500,000
requested. In light of the importance of genome research, we encourage
the Committee to provide additional funds to move this area of research
forward. An increase in funding will allow the vital genome research to
achieve the breakthrough successes that are closer than ever to
realization.
It is also important that Congress fully restore the $390,101 in
``add-on'' funding for the Baton Rouge facility that it has provided in
previous years. This Baton Rouge facility is the only laboratory in the
United States and, we believe, in the world, developing long-term,
genetic-based solutions to the Varroa mite. Existing stocks of U.S.
honey bees are being tested to find stocks that exhibit resistance to
the parasitic mites. Research scientists with the laboratory have also
been to the far corners of the world looking for mite-resistant bees.
For example, in eastern Russia, they found bees that have co-existed
for decades with the mites and survived. Using these bees, the
laboratory develops stocks of honey bees resistant to the parasites.
Before these new stocks are distributed to American beekeepers, the
laboratory ensures that the resistance holds up under a wide range of
environmental and beekeeping conditions, testing attributes such as
vigor, pollination, and honey production. We believe recent scientific
breakthroughs with this genomic research will allow scientists in the
near future to breed honey bees that are resistant to the Varroa mite
and other parasites.
The Baton Rouge facility also operates the only honey bee
quarantine and mating station approved by the Animal and Plant
Inspection Service. These stations are necessary to ensure that new
lines of bees brought into the United States for research and
development are free of diseases unknown in the United States. In
addition, Baton Rouge research scientists are focused on the
applications of new technologies of genomics. This work has the
potential to enhance the proven value of honey bee breeding for
producing solutions to the multiple biological problems that diminish
the profitability of beekeeping.
Research at the ARS Tucson Laboratory
The American Honey Producers Association appreciates past
Administration support for maintaining funding at the ARS Honey Bee
Research Laboratory in Tucson at current levels. At the same time,
consideration should be given to possibly increased funding at this
facility to address the emerging CCD issue, and also to supporting two
new research positions at the laboratory. The addition of an insect
behaviorist position and a pollination biologist position at the Tucson
Honey Bee Research Laboratory will strengthen the research programs
conducted at the laboratory, including research related to preventing
the spread of Africanized honey bees, which are jeopardizing the queen
breeding and packaged bee industry.
This research center is the only ARS honey bee laboratory serving
the needs of beekeepers and farmers in the western United States. It
also serves as the primary facility developing methods to prevent the
spread of Africanized honey bees in our country. The facility works to
improve crop pollination and honey bee colony productivity through
quantitative ecological studies of honey bee behavior, physiology, pest
and diseases, and feral honey bee bionomics. Currently, the Tucson
laboratory is working to finalize the development of a pheromone that
kills the Varroa mite.
Because more than one million colonies are transported from across
the country for pollination into crops grown in the western United
States (primarily California), the Tucson research center addresses
problems that arise from transporting and introducing colonies for
pollination of crops such as almonds, plums, apricots, apples,
cherries, citrus, alfalfa, vegetable seed, melons, and berries. The
importance of this work is illustrated by the pollination of
California's almond crop discussed earlier in this statement. More than
one million honey bee hives are needed to pollinate the half a million
acres of almond groves that line California's Central Valley. That
means nearly half of the managed colonies in the United States are
involved in pollinating almonds in California during February and early
March.
The work of the ARS Tucson Honey Bee Research Laboratory is
indispensable in ensuring the successful pollination of crops in
California and other areas of the western United States. This research
center has been instrumental in disseminating information on technical
issues associated with the transport of bee colonies across State
lines. Additionally, in order to ensure that transported colony
populations remain stable during transport and also during periods
before the crop to be pollinated comes into bloom, scientists at the
laboratory have developed an artificial diet that stimulates brood
production in colonies. A large bee population is necessary to ensure
that efficient pollination occurs, creating superior quality crops.
Research at the ARS Beltsville Laboratory
AHPA strongly supports an increase in funding for the Beltsville
Laboratory to help address CCD and other threats to our domestic
beekeeping industry. This facility, the oldest of the Federal bee
research centers, conducts research on the biology and control of honey
bee parasites, diseases, and pests to ensure an adequate supply of bees
for pollination and honey production. Using biological, molecular,
chemical, and non-chemical approaches, scientists in Beltsville are
developing new, cost-effective strategies for controlling parasitic
mites, bacterial diseases, and emergent pests that threaten honey bees
and the production of honey.
The laboratory also develops preservation techniques for honey bee
germplasm in order to maintain genetic diversity and superior honey bee
stock. Scientists at the facility also provide authoritative
identification of Africanized honey bees and diagnosis of bee diseases
and pests for Federal and State regulatory agencies and beekeepers on a
worldwide basis. In operating this bee disease diagnosis service, the
Beltsville facility receives over 2,000 samples annually from across
the United States.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your strong support
of honey bee research in the past and for your Subcommittee's
understanding of the critical importance of these ARS laboratories.
By way of summary, the American Honey Producers Association
strongly encourages at least $1 million in additional new funding for
the ARS laboratories at Beltsville, Maryland, and Tucson, Arizona, as
well as possibly for the University of California at Davis, to address
the new CCD threat that is suddenly devastating bee colonies across the
country. AHPA also appreciates your continued support by (1) restoring
the $390,101 in funding for the ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratory in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, that had previously been added by the Congress
but is proposed for elimination in the Administration's budget
proposal; (2) continuing the increased funding of $375,000 for genome
research at the ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratory in Baton Rouge, as
proposed by the administration and approved by the Congress in fiscal
year 2006; (3) increasing the level of funding for the ARS Honey Bee
Research Laboratory in Beltsville, Maryland, by at least $500,000 in
new funding for CCD research; (4) restoring $244,100 for the Weslaco,
Texas, facility as previously provided by the Congress but not
contained in the President's budget submission; (5) maintaining at
least the current level of funding for the ARS Honey Bee Research
Laboratory in Tucson, Arizona, but also considering additional funding
of $500,000 for CDC research; and (6) maintaining the current level of
funding for the ARS Wild Bee Research Laboratory at Logan, Utah.
Only through research can we have a viable U.S. beekeeping industry
and continue to provide stable and affordable supplies of bee-
pollinated crops, which make up fully one-third of the U.S. diet.
Furthermore, we urge you to reject any effort to cut the operating
budgets of these vitally important research laboratories by
consolidating their functions. Any proposed cuts and their resulting
budget and staff reductions would significantly diminish the quality of
research conducted by these laboratories, harming bee keepers as well
as farmers who harvest pollination-dependent agriculture. Congress
cannot allow these cuts to occur and must continue to provide
sufficient funding for the ARS Honey Bee Research Laboratories to
perform their vital role.
I would be pleased to respond to provide answers to any questions
that you or your colleagues may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sheep Industry Association
The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) is a federation of
State member associations representing over 68,000 sheep producers in
the United States. The sheep industry views numerous agencies and
programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture as important to lamb and
wool production. Sheep industry priorities include expanding the United
States sheep inventory which has grown two of the past 3 years. We
believe strengthening the infrastructure of the industry primarily
through the programs of USDA, APHIS, Veterinary Services and Wildlife
Services is critical. The industry and the benefits to rural
communities will be strengthened by fully funding critical predator
control activities, national animal health efforts, and expanding
research capabilities.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the USDA fiscal year
2008 budget.
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
Scrapie
The American Sheep Industry Association supports the appropriations
approved in fiscal year 2006 of $18.4 million and urges the
Subcommittee increase funding to this level in fiscal year 2008.
Through concerted effort, USDA/APHIS, along with industry and State
regulatory efforts, is in the position to eradicate scrapie from the
United States with a multi-year attack on this animal health issue. As
the collective and aggressive efforts of Federal and State eradication
efforts have expanded into slaughter-surveillance and other methods and
systems, the costs are, as expected, escalating.
Scrapie is one of the families of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs), all of which are the subject of great
importance and interest around the globe. USDA/APHIS, along with the
support and assistance of the livestock and allied industries, began an
aggressive program to eradicate scrapie in sheep and goats four years
ago. The plan USDA/APHIS is implementing is designed to eradicate
scrapie by 2010. Through a subsequent monitoring and surveillance
program, the United States could be declared scrapie-free by 2017.
Becoming scrapie-free will have significant positive economic impact to
the livestock, meat and feed industries and, of course, rid our flocks
and herds of this fatal animal disease.
Essential to the eradication effort being accomplished in a timely
manner is adequate appropriated funds. The program cannot function
properly without sufficient emphasis on diagnostic support and
surveillance activities that are dedicated to scrapie eradication as an
animal health priority. We believe adequate funding will help provide
for an achievable scrapie eradication program and the eventual scrapie-
free status for the United States. As with the other successful animal
disease eradication programs conducted by USDA/APHIS in the past,
strong programs at the State level are key. We therefore urge the
Subcommittee to send a clear message to USDA/APHIS to (A) make scrapie
eradication a top disease eradication priority within USDA and the
APHIS field staff with a focus on ID compliance and enforcement; and
(B) increase the slaughter-surveillance numbers so that the disease can
be found and dealt with where it resides.
Wildlife Services
With well over one-quarter million sheep and lambs lost to
predators each year, the Wildlife Services (WS) program of USDA-APHIS
is vital to the economic survival of the sheep industry. The value of
sheep and lambs lost to predators and predator control expenses are
second only to feed costs for sheep production. Costs associated with
depredation currently exceed our industry's veterinary, labor and
transportation costs.
Wildlife Service's cooperative nature has made it the most cost
effective and efficient program within the Federal Government in the
areas of wildlife management and public health and safety. Wildlife
Services has more than 2,000 cooperative agreements with agriculture,
forestry groups, private industry, State game and fish departments,
departments of health, schools, county and local governments to
mitigate the damage and danger that the public's wildlife can inflict
on private property and public health and safety.
ASI strongly supports the fiscal year 2006 appropriations for
Wildlife Services operations and methods development programs,
particularly as related to livestock protection. We ask the
Subcommittee to fund the livestock industry request for the western
region of Wildlife Services operations of livestock protection at $19
million.
The line item of the fiscal year 2006 appropriations for the
livestock protection program in the western region of WS was funded at
$10.7 million, an increase of $700,000 which is very important to our
industry and the agency operations. Fuel costs alone for aerial
operations and ground vehicles have increased dramatically which
burdens the operations budgets.
The additional $8.3 million increase requested will increase the
effectiveness of the livestock protection program. Federal funding
available for livestock predation management by the Western Region
program has remained relatively constant for approximately 16 years. WS
program cooperators have been forced to fund more and more of the costs
of the program. WS Western Region base funding has increased only 5.6
percent in the past 10 years while cooperative funding has increased
110 percent. This increase has primarily come from individual livestock
producers, associations, counties, and States.
Additionally, new Federal mandates and program investments such as
narrow-banding of radios, computer record keeping and compliance with
the Endangered Species Act are requiring a larger portion of the
already stretched budget and negatively impacting the amount of
livestock predation management work that WS can conduct.
We encourage and support continued recognition in the
appropriations process for fiscal year 2007 of the importance of aerial
hunting as one of Wildlife Service's most efficient and cost-effective
core programs. It is used not only to protect livestock, wildlife and
endangered species, but is a crucial component of the Wildlife Services
rabies control program.
Similar to the increasing needs in the aerial hunting program, we
encourage continued emphasis in the programs to assist with management
of wolf depredation in the States of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming,
Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, New Mexico and Arizona. Additionally,
program expenses are expected in the States surrounding the Montana,
Idaho and Wyoming wolf populations. It is strongly supported that
appropriations be provided for $586,000 for additional wolf costs
anticipated in Washington, Oregon, Nevada, Utah, Colorado and North
Dakota.
Economics of Predation Management
The WS Western Region predation management program is one of the
few government sponsored programs that is cost-shared, and this
provides a significant benefit to both the producers and the
government. Predation management, as conducted by the WS program, is
cost effective and returns more money to the U.S. treasury than it
costs. An analysis of 1998 data shows that for every dollar spent for
predation management, $3 worth of livestock was saved. In that same
year the total investment in just the predation management program was
$20 million ($9 million Federal and $11 million cooperative funds);
therefore, the full impact of this investment was a $250 million net
increase in economic activity. Using today's values for livestock,
every Federal dollar spent on predation management results in $10.84 in
livestock saved, conservatively, $97.5 million in livestock saved
($52.5 million in calves, $34 million in sheep and lambs, $11 million
in goats). When cooperative funding is included with federal funds, the
benefit cost ratio is $4.87:1.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total value of
Type of Livestock No protected No saved from livestock
predators saved
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Calves.......................................................... 2,500,000 70,000 $52,500,000
Adult Sheep..................................................... 2,000,000 82,000 8,200,000
Lambs........................................................... 1,850,000 214,600 25,752,000
Goats........................................................... 292,000 110,960 11,096,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The value of livestock saved is much greater in rural economies
than any other type of economic development. Livestock dollars, that
would have been lost without adequate predation management, generate an
additional three fold increase in non-agricultural economic activity in
rural America. The total economic activity (both agriculture and non-
agricultural sectors) generated by predation management is $390.2
million.
Emerging Issues
Additional issues are emerging in the West that will challenge the
Federal WS program.
--Wolves.--Recently a Federal judge struck down the threatened
species status for wolves in the Western Distinct Population
area eliminating the ability of private land ranchers to deal
with wolves, thus requiring additional government intervention.
--Wildlife.--The declines in predation management that have already
occurred, and that will continue to occur without additional
Federal funding, have resulted in negative impacts on many
native wildlife populations. Several western States currently
need to fund predation management to prevent the listing of
sage grouse as an endangered species or to recover mule deer
herds.
Without additional Federal funding to support existing western
livestock protection programs, predation management expertise will be
lost and livestock grazing in some areas will be jeopardized. Rural
economies need this support and the return for the investment exceeds
the requested assistance.
ASI urges the Subcommittee to provide USDA, APHIS, WS, Western
Region an additional $8.3 million of Federal funds for livestock
protection. At a nominal 16 percent tax rate on the economic activity
generated by the investment would result in over $62 million to the
Treasury.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Livestock Protected............................... 6,642,000
Total Value of Livestock Saved (Using $10.84:1 Ratio)... $97,548,000
Value incl. Multiplier.................................. $390,192,000
16 percent Nominal Tax rate............................. $62,430,720
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chart 1.--Ten Year Comparison--WR Federal Base and Cooperative Funds
(Including Livestock Protection)
FARM AND FOREIGN AGRICULTURAL SERVICES
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS)
The sheep industry participates in FAS programs such as the Market
Access Program (MAP), Quality Samples Program (QSP) and the Foreign
Market Development Program (FMD). ASI strongly supports appropriations
at the full authorized level for these critical Foreign Agricultural
Service programs. ASI is the cooperator for American wool and sheep
pelts and has achieved solid success in increasing exports of domestic
product. Exports of American wool have increased dramatically with
approximately 60 percent of U.S. production now competing overseas.
Risk Management Agency (RMA)
Through ASI, the U.S. sheep industry is working with RMA on the
development of ``Livestock Risk Protection'' for lamb (LRP-Lamb), a
model-based, price-risk insurance product to help sheep producers
manage the primary factor in their operation's financial exposure. The
sheep industry is very anxious to participate in a 27 State pilot
project with LRP-Lamb as approved in September of 2006. The goal is a
market-based, user-friendly risk management tool that effectively and
efficiently protects against unexpected price downswings that provides
producers and their lenders with a critically needed financial
management option.
ASI urges the Subcommittee to support the agency's research and
developmental costs to design creative new programs for the livestock
sector as well as in the ``Administrative and Operating Expenses''
category to enable RMA to deliver these products, including appropriate
maintenance expenses.
NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
ASI urges increased appropriations for the range programs of the
Soil Conservation Service to benefit the private range and pasture
lands of the United States with conservation assistance. We support the
budget item and recommend an increased level for the Grazing Lands
Conservation Initiative, which ASI has worked with, along with other
livestock and range management organizations to address this important
effort for rangelands in the United States.
RESEARCH, EDUCATION AND ECONOMICS
Our industry is striving to be profitable and sustainable as a user
of and contributor to our natural resource base. Research, both basic
and applied, and modern educational programming is essential if we are
to succeed. We have been disappointed in the decline in resources USDA
has been targeting toward sheep research and outreach programs. In
order for the sheep industry to continue to be more globally
competitive, we must invest in the discovery and adoption of new
technologies for producing, processing and marketing lamb and wool. We
urge the Subcommittee to send a strong message to USDA supporting sheep
research and educational funding increases.
Agricultural Research Service
We continue to vigorously support the administration's funding of
research concerning emerging and exotic diseases. Emerging and exotic
diseases continue to have significant impact on our industry due to
animal health and trade issues. The animal disease portion should be
substantial and is urgently needed to protect the U.S. livestock
industry. We note the President's request for fiscal year 2007 includes
$9.5 million for BSE and CWD research. We agree that BSE has been an
extremely important disease issue; however it is well established that
BSE is being controlled globally and research has shown that since BSE
is not transmitted by casual contact, actual disease concerns regarding
BSE in the United States should be minimal. With this in mind, we
respectfully remind the Subcommittee that scrapie along with CWD are
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies that are endemic in the
United States and unlike BSE are transmitted by casual contact. We
recommend that any additional funds for BSE and CWD research also
address scrapie with emphasis toward scrapie eradication needs
(detection and control methods). We also respectively remind the
Subcommittee that scientists in the Animal Disease Research Unit
(ADRU), ARS, Pullman Washington, have made significant progress in the
early diagnosis of TSEs, in understanding genetic resistance to TSEs
and in understanding mechanisms of TSE transmission, which are
important in eradication of all TSEs. The programs of these scientists
at ADRU should be enhanced and expanded to include, for instance, the
development of further improvements in rapid and accurate TSE detection
methods and to provide an understanding of the role of other small
ruminants as environmental sources of the TSE agent in the transmission
of TSEs within the United States and world and to further understand
the basis of genetic resistance and susceptibility to these devastating
diseases.
We note and strongly support the ARS 2008 priority initiative (3.8
million) entitled ``Functional Genomics to Improve Nutrient Utilization
in Beef Cattle''. Due to the extreme importance of this approach to
enhancing the economics of sheep production and the recent progress in
acquiring the sheep genome, we respectively request that this
initiative be expanded to include sheep genomics. Since 2001, Congress
has had the foresight to appropriate $756,553 each year to this unit
for ``Microbial Genomics.'' Microbial genomics is the cornerstone
project for their genomic research infrastructure and has resulted in
very important genomics based research advancements for infectious
diseases of livestock such as Ovine Progressive Pneumonia virus (OPPV),
caseous lymphadenitis and foot rot. OPPV, caseous lymphadenitis and
foot rot cause infections and environmental contaminations that
continue to have significant economic impact for U.S. sheep producers.
Also, pneumonia of big horn sheep continues to be a major concern for
the domestic sheep industry. Regulatory impact on the use of public
lands by domestic sheep producers due to the perceived possibility of
disease transmission events between big horn and domestic sheep
continues to be significant. Most recently genomics based research has
yielded advancements in the understanding of the pneumonia complex
affecting big horn sheep. This research is consistent with the ARS 2008
priority initiative (4.9 million) entitled ``Livestock Immunology and
Microbial Genomics to Improve Animal Health''. Very promising on-going
genomic research efforts are directed at early determination of which
sheep are susceptible to disease and responsible for economic losses.
High throughput genomics has ushered in a new era of integrated
research regarding the ability to link control of chronic, economically
important diseases such as OPPV and important production traits. There
are a number of infectious diseases across domestic and wild animals
that will benefit from this research focus. It is becoming clear that
not all infected animals transmit diseases with equal efficiency; in
fact it appears that the ``super shedders'' are a small proportion of
an infected population. In addition to aiding in the control of chronic
infectious diseases such as OPPV, caseous lymphadenitis and foot rot,
control of Big Horn Sheep pneumonia and internal parasitism may well be
aided by this genomics approach. Early detection of susceptibility and
resistance will lead to practical intervention strategies. We
respectively request the Subcommittee to recommend the restoration and
enhancement of microbial genomics to ADRU for the fiscal year 2008
budget. With this in mind, we respectively request the subcommittee to
recommend restoration of the $764,195 and enhancement of the microbial
genomics budget of ADRU by $900,000 to a total of $1,664,195 to use in
collaboration with the University of Idaho, Washington State University
and the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois and other collaborators
to expand research concerning causation and transmission of the
pneumonia complex of big horn sheep and link predictive genomics based
tests with the genetics of production.
We also urge the Subcommittee to recommend the restoration of
$484,292 for Malignant Catarrhal Fever (MCF) at the ARS/ADRU in Pullman
for the fiscal year 2007 budget. MCF is a viral disease of ruminants
that is of great concern to our livestock industries. The exotic
variant of MCF is considered a high priority select agent. This funding
is provided for collaborative research with the U.S. Sheep Experiment
Station, Dubois ID and the University of Idaho, for vaccine development
directed at preventing transmission and economic losses caused by MCF.
Research into Johne's disease has received additional funding
through ARS over the past several years with a focus on cattle. Johne's
disease is also endemic in the U.S. sheep population and is not well
understood as a sheep disease. The same food safety concerns exist in
both sheep and cattle; other countries are also very concerned about
Johne's in sheep. We urge the Subcommittee to send a strong message to
ARS that Johne's disease in sheep should receive more attention with an
emphasis on diagnostics.
We appreciate and support USDA's strategic goals and note that
strategic goal (3) ``Enhance Domestic Rural and Farm Economies States
in part as follows: ``Work to expand production and market
opportunities for bioenergy and biobased products''. In response to
this strategic goal of the USDA we request that the Subcommittee
recommend $350,000 as a targeted increase for ARS/ERRC research at
Wyndmoor, PA to be directed toward research on wool at the molecular
level focusing on anti-microbial properties, flame retardation and
enhancement of fiber properties through enzyme treatments targeting
high priority military needs and other niche market applications for
consumers.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
The Minor Use Animal Drug Program is funded through a ``Special
Research Grant'' that has had great benefit to the U.S. sheep industry.
The research under this category is administered as a national program
``NRSP-7'' cooperatively with FDA/CVM to provide research information
for the approval process on therapeutic drugs that are needed. Without
this program, American sheep producers would not have effective
products to keep their sheep healthy. We appreciate the fiscal year-
2006 funding level of $582,000 for this program, and we urge the
Subcommittee to recommend that it be funded at least at this level in
fiscal year 2008 to help meet the needs of our rapidly changing
industry and increasing costs for research necessary to meet the
requirements for approving additional therapeutics for sheep.
On-going funding for the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank
(FARAD) program is critically important for the livestock industry in
general and especially for ``minor species'' industries such as sheep
where extra-label use of therapeutic products is more the norm rather
than the exception. We urge the Subcommittee to recommend that it be
funded at least at the fiscal year 2006 level of $806,000 in 2008 to
help meet the needs of the animal industries. FARAD provides
veterinarians the ability to accurately prescribe products with
appropriate withdrawal times protecting both animal and human health.
On-going research to improve value quantification and marketing of
wool is critically important to the sheep and wool industry. ASI urges
the Subcommittee's support to restore and continue the CSREES special
grants program for wool research at least to the fiscal year 2006 level
of $298,000 for fiscal year 2008.
Research for the Montana Sheep Institute is important to the sheep
and wool industry. Sheep grazing is being used as an important tool for
natural resource management to improve the competitiveness of lamb and
wool in the marketplace and reduce the impacts of invasive plant
species. ASI encourages the Subcommittee's support to continue funding
at the fiscal year 2006 level of $591,000 for 2008.
The Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC) is a unique and
very effective cooperative effort. This is not a State specific effort;
it operates as a national virtual ``Center of Excellence'' for
Extension education, research, and public policy. Members of the LMIC
represent 26 Land Grant Universities, 6 USDA agencies, and a variety of
associate institutions. In conjunction with the USDA's Economic
Research Service (ERS), this cooperative effort started in the mid-
1950's. This effort is an integral part of U.S. livestock marketing and
outlook programs for cattle, hogs, sheep, dairy and poultry. Demands on
the LMIC staff continue to increase from other USDA agencies, Land
Grant Universities, State governments, commodity associations and
directly from producers. We strongly support funding be continued at
least at the previously funded level of $194,000 for the Livestock
Marketing Information Center (LMIC) in fiscal year 2008. The
coordinating office for this national Land Grant University directed
effort is located in Lakewood, Colorado. As in the past, line-item
funding will be directed through the USDA CSREES.
The Joe Skeen Institute for Rangeland Restoration is an on-going
collaborative research program with Texas A&M University, New Mexico
State University and Montana State University. Federal support is
sought to help correct critical degradation of public lands, especially
desertification of rangelands through research and education.
The rangelands of the United States have been degraded for decades
impacting water runoff and production of amenities enjoyed by the
general public. Innovative methods for control of invasive plants
though goats and sheep are providing biological solutions while
improving the environment. We urge the Subcommittee to support the
Institute at $2 million for fiscal year 2008.
Grants to Train Farm Workers in Technologies and Specialized Skills
Necessary for Higher Value Crops
The shortage of skilled sheep shearers has increasingly become a
problem for U.S. sheep producers and strong interest has been expressed
in utilizing this grant program through USDA as authorized in section
6025 of the 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act. Grant funds
are authorized; however appropriations would be necessary for the
program to allow the U.S. sheep industry the opportunity to apply for
funds to train U.S. workers as sheep shearers.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) is pleased to submit
the following testimony on the fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) research and education programs.
The ASM is the largest single life science organization with more than
42,000 members. The ASM 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 health and for
economic and environmental well-being.
The ASM is concerned with the fiscal year 2008 proposed budget of
approximately $2 billion for agricultural research and development, a
$245 million decrease from fiscal year 2007, and a $428 million cut
from fiscal year 2006. The steady decline in Federal funding for
agricultural research will have detrimental effects on both public
health and the Nation's economy. Agricultural research is critical to
USDA's role in oversight of domestic and imported food production to
ensure a safe food supply and to the Nation's stake in domestic and
global markets. In 2006, U.S. agricultural exports reached a record $71
billion, an $8 billion increase over 2005. There are strong
correlations between food safety, food markets, and the U.S. economy.
The estimated costs of five foodborne bacterial diseases alone total
nearly $7 billion per year, with more than $71 million just for E. coli
O157 in contaminated ground beef. Recent outbreaks of disease linked to
spinach and peanut butter and subsequent product recalls illustrate the
effects of contaminated food on private sector markets.
The ASM asks Congress to increase support for the USDA Agricultural
Research Service (ARS), the lead scientific agency that conducts
intramural research, and the USDA National Research Initiative (NRI),
the competitive, peer-reviewed grants program that supports extramural
research. USDA research efforts in food safety, climate change, crop
production, alternative fuels, the environment and other strategic
areas are producing tangible returns on past federal investments. U.S.
agricultural output has more than doubled in the last 50 years,
attributed by economists almost entirely to increased productivity by
U.S. producers who benefit from the Nation's investment in research and
technology. Genetic improvements, for example, have accounted for half
the yield gains in major cereal crops since the 1930s. The net gain
from crop genetics research is estimated to be about $385 million per
year in the United States and more than $600 million globally. The
world's population likely will reach 9 billion by about 2050 but
agricultural experts foresee shortfalls in cropland expansion for food
production, thus the increased food supply will need to come from
enhanced yields based on basic and applied research.
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request would reduce
funding for the ARS by 11 percent from fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year
2006. The ASM urges Congress to provide at least $1.15 billion for the
ARS in fiscal year 2008, the same level as fiscal year 2007 and fiscal
year 2006. The President proposes funding the NRI at $257 million in
fiscal year 2008, an increase of $67 million over fiscal year 2007;
however, $61 million of the increase will be allocated to the
integrated programs transferred into the NRI and biofuel research,
providing the NRI with an actual increase of only $6 million for its
base programs.
Food Safety
Strong support for the NRI and ARS is needed to provide the
fundamental research essential to creating efficient and accurate
technologies for the protection of human health and agricultural
quality. This research is critical considering there are approximately
76 million foodborne illness cases in the United States per year. The
United States has recently suffered from several bacterial foodborne
illness outbreaks, including a widespread E. coli outbreak in spinach
last summer that sickened more than 200 people and killed three.
Several other outbreaks of salmonella and E. coli also occurred last
year. The most recent problem resulted in a large recall of all Peter
Pan and certain Great Value peanut butter contaminated with salmonella.
Recently, USDA supported scientists identified a safe and effective
new sanitizer (acidified sodium chlorite, or SANOVA) that achieved a 5-
log reduction of E. coli O157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, and
Salmonella on produce even in the presence of large organic loads. The
researchers optimized sanitation treatment procedures to ensure good
quality of shredded carrot and fresh-cut lettuce while maintaining the
effective killing power of the sanitizer.
Because livestock and poultry are often the original source of
pathogens (even in the case of produce-borne outbreaks), additional
research is needed to strengthen production safeguards that can protect
animal and human health. Other ARS research groups have been developing
interventions using bacteriocins (natural antimicrobial agents) and
bacteriophage (bacteria-killing agents) that upon commercialization
will contribute to a reduction in campylobacter on chicken, leading to
greater food safety.
Additionally, there is concern that some food borne bacterial
pathogens may become resistant to certain antimicrobial agents. It is
necessary to have continued support for antimicrobial resistance
monitoring programs, such as the National Antimicrobial Resistance
Monitoring System (NARMS) the Collaboration on Animal Health Food
Safety Epidemiology (CAHFSE) program to generate data that will guide
appropriate interventions in the food production chain to minimize and
contain antimicrobial resistant bacterial pathogens in the food supply.
Through the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), the USDA is
ensuring the Nation's food quality, providing safety interventions, and
contributing to pathogen reduction. The ASM supports the President's
fiscal year 2008 requested increases above fiscal year 2007 of 4.8
percent and 35.4 percent for FSIS and APHIS respectively.
In 2002, the import share of total U.S. food consumption was 13
percent and continues to grow today. As agricultural imports increase,
it is important to develop better systems to screen produce and other
food imports at the borders. Federal support of research is needed to
develop better methods for rapid detection, sampling, and intervention
to protect the public from food borne pathogens.
Bioeconomy Based Systems
Agricultural research is a critical component of discovering
biobased products such as polymers, lubricants, solvents, composites,
and energy. The USDA research programs expand science-based knowledge
and technologies to support the efficient, economical and
environmentally friendly conversion of biomass, more specifically
agricultural and municipal residuals into value-added industrial
products and biofuels. Microbial research is essential to understanding
and thus creating efficient conversion and production methods of
biomass.
As research in the area of biofuels and bioenergy expands, it also
affects other aspects of food production such as the fact that corn
prices for livestock will increase as more is diverted to biofuel
production potentially affecting the food supply, exports, and
agricultural practices overall. The ASM urges the USDA to expand
further the research programs on alternative bioenergy production to
explore new resources and methods that would not compete with the food
system, such as cellulose-based fermentation.
The ASM notes that more research is needed to understand the impact
that removing biomass for energy and other products has on the
sustainability of soils and water. Since soil sustainability is
intrinsically linked to the microbial health of the soil, and the
health of soil can directly affect its ability to filter and clean
water, a greater understanding of soil microbiology is essential to
ensuring sustainability.
Greater support for the NRI and ARS is essential to address the
challenges of the emerging biobased industry with programs that support
research, development and demonstration.
Climate Change
One of the most pressing issues faced by plant and animal producers
is adapting to the impact of global change and climate on crop or
animal production. Changing climate may alter bacterial and fungal
pathogen pressures on plant and animal production and nutrient cycling
and availability. Agriculture can contribute to a reduction in
greenhouse gases that are microbial driven. The agricultural community
needs scientific information for planning and decision making, to
ensure economic viability. Scientific information on global change and
climate and its impacts on soils, water, air, microbial biology, as
well as plant and animal biology, and the general environment will
produce robust simulation models to provide guidance on the relative
benefits associated with agronomic decisions.
Current NRI-funded weather and climate projects focus on
determining the effects of global change and climate on land-based
systems and the global carbon cycle and on identifying agricultural and
forestry activities that can help reduce greenhouse gas concentrations.
Research can help identify, describe, and quantify processes involved
in the cycling of organic and inorganic carbon in soil. Strong support
of NRI is needed to develop new tools for accurately measuring
greenhouse gases, methods for measuring and estimating carbon in
ecosystems at different scales, and effective ways to sustain
productivity in a changing environment. Information from this research
can be used to achieve national goals on carbon dioxide and methane
emissions reductions.
Genomics
The Microbial Genome Sequencing Program has been supported jointly
by the NRI and the National Science Foundation (NSF) since fiscal year
2001. The program supports high-throughput sequencing of the genomes of
a broad range of microorganisms and the development and implementation
of strategies, tools, and technologies to make currently available
genome sequences more valuable to the user community. Over 100
microbial genomes have been sequenced to date because of this program.
The broad availability of these sequences has led to important insights
into how the structure and content of microbial genomes affect the
ability of microorganisms to function and adapt to the environments in
which they live. The USDA/CSREES and NSF Microbial Genome Sequencing
Program will lead to improved breeding strategies, increased disease
resistance, and enhanced yield and nutritive value of agriculturally
important plants and animals. The ASM urges Congress to provide strong
support for the USDA genomics initiative.
Soil Processes
Microbial research is essential in protecting the Nation's natural
resources, soil and water, and the subsequent impact on the supply and
quality of food. The NRI is currently supporting research that will
potentially lead to an effective treatment to entrap, remove, or
inactivate cryptosporidia oocysts, which persist in soil and water.
Cryptosporidia are a potentially fatal protozoan that infects humans,
livestock, and wildlife. When an effective control mechanism is
developed, it may prove to be effective in dealing with all pathogens,
including Salmonella, enteric bacteria, and viruses. The ASM urges
Congress to increase support for the NRI to continue and expand on
opportunities in soil processes research that is critical for the
health and well-being of the Nation.
Workforce Development and Training
Studies project that over the period 2005-2010, employment
opportunities for U.S. college graduates with expertise in the food,
agricultural, and natural resources systems are expected to average
over 52,000 openings per year, with some 49,300 qualified graduates
available each year for these positions; with approximately 32,300 new
graduates available from the U.S. colleges of agriculture and life
sciences, forestry, and veterinary medicine and 17,000 qualified
graduates from allied higher education programs such as biological
sciences, engineering, business, health sciences, communication, and
applied technologies will be available. It is essential to foster
programs that assess what the future workforce demands will be in
agricultural research and contribute to workforce development and
training to meet these demands.
The ASM urges Congress to increase support for the NRI. As grant
applications have increased, and funding has remained flat essentially
for the last 4 years, young scientists are discouraged by the low
funding rate of just 16 percent. Increasing funding for the NRI will
increase the funding rate, providing greater opportunity for young
scientists.
Conclusion
The ASM urges Congress to increase research funding for the USDA.
The 2002 Farm Bill stated the sense of Congress to double funding for
agriculture research over the next 5 years. The ASM is concerned that
we are losing ground in the important field of agricultural research,
just as the challenges the Nation faces in competitiveness, food
safety, energy, and climate change, places more emphasis on the need
for greater research to answer these demands.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the Subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2008 appropriation for the USDA.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the fiscal year 2008 budget submission for
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ASM is the largest single
life science Society with over 42,000 members, who work in academic,
clinical, government and industry laboratories and are involved in
research and diagnostic testing. The Society has a special interest in
the activities of the FDA which are critical to safeguarding the health
and welfare of the public. The ASM supports an increase in funding for
FDA activities, which are expanding because of scientific innovations,
rapid globalization and new and reemerging diseases. The ASM urges that
the FDA budget be increased and specifically recommends a significant
increase for FDA Food Safety activities. An increase in the FDA budget
will better equip the agency to address new public health issues and
additional funding for food safety programs will help to protect the
safety and quality of food consumed in the United States.
The FDA has enormous responsibilities that affect the public every
day. About 20 percent of consumer spending in the United States buys
FDA regulated products, an annual expenditure of nearly $1.5 trillion.
The FDA plays a critical role in overseeing and evaluating new products
with significant potential to greatly improve public health and reduce
costs to society. Annual spending on health care in the United States
reached nearly $2 trillion in 2005. Last year, FDA approved an array of
new cost containing medical advances, including vaccines to fight
cervical cancer, shingles, and gastroenteritis. FDA scientific and
support staff must be prepared to respond to disease outbreaks, like
those recently linked to contaminated salad greens and peanut butter.
It is essential that FDA receive the federal funding which it needs to
meet its changing and expanding regulatory responsibilities.
The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget for FDA includes $1.64 billion
in budget authority and nearly $444 million to be collected as industry
user fees, an overall 6.8 percent increase above the fiscal year 2007
request. The fiscal year 2008 budget authority includes a net increase
of $95.3 million to subsidize high priority initiatives identified as
crucial by the FDA and external reviewers. The ASM agrees that this is
a justifiable and wise investment in these priority initiatives, which
include strengthening food safety, modernizing FDA drug safety
programs, and assuring FDA expertise and infrastructure upgrades.
Strengthening Food Safety
Foodborne disease continues to be a problem in the United States.
In 2006, FDA investigators helped pinpoint the sources of pathogens in
familiar products sold at grocery stores and restaurants, by testing
contaminated spinach and lettuce, oysters, and peanut butter. More than
250 foodborne illnesses are recognized by the FDA's Center for Food
Safety and Applied Nutrition (CFSAN). Federal officials estimate that
each year about 76 million become sick, more than 300,000 are
hospitalized, and 5,000 die from foodborne illnesses. The high priority
initiative to enhance food safety includes much needed improvements
like hiring experts in fresh produce microbiology, enhancing geographic
information systems (GIS/GPS) to better map disease outbreaks, and
expanding genomic databases used in screening imported foods.
The FDA's food program regulates $417 billion worth of U.S.
produced foods, $49 billion in imported foods, and $59 billion in
cosmetics, from point of entry or production to point of sale. Global
marketing, the threat of bioterrorist agents added to foods, changing
American diets, and the rapidly growing diet supplement industry
converge to further complicate FDA efforts toward a safe food supply.
CFSAN personnel oversee consumer products as diverse as tattoo inks and
infant formula. In fiscal year 2006, they inspected lettuce farming and
processing operations in California, completed construction of a high
level containment laboratory to develop methods for identifying
biothreat agents, established a repository of pathogenic Escherichia
coli O157:H7, and augmented advanced research tools for pinpointing
sources of contamination by specific bacterial strains.
The fiscal year 2008 budget request includes $10.6 million to
strengthen the FDA's food safety activities, as part of the overall
$467 million allocated to the agency's Foods Program (a 4 percent
increase over fiscal year 2007). The proposed increase in FDA's food
safety activities is not sufficient to provide the resources needed to
ensure adequate protection and programs based on the best science. The
FDA is responsible for ensuring the safety and quality of 75 percent of
the food consumed in the United States. Despite the fact that
additional funding was provided to FDA in the 2007 Joint Resolution, no
increase was provided for food safety. The food safety program must,
therefore, absorb infrastructure and payroll costs at the expense of
funding critical program needs. When the fiscal year 2008 CFSAN food
safety request is compared to funding for food safety in the 2007 Joint
Resolution, the net increase in fiscal year 2008 is only $1 million.
The proposed increase for food safety activities at CFSAN would be at
the expense of current CFSAN programs.
FDA food safety activities are not able to keep pace with the
demands to protect food in this country. The two primary centers within
FDA that address food safety are CFSAN and the Office of Regulatory
Affairs (ORA). In fiscal year 2004, CFSAN was authorized 901 FTEs, with
a major focus on addressing food safety issues. Since then, several
additional responsibilities have been delegated to the Center for
regulatory oversight, including nutritional claims, food allergens,
nanotechnology, and food security, and major reductions in appropriated
personnel positions have occurred. In fiscal year 2008, only 756 FTEs
have been proposed for CFSAN. In addition, in fiscal year 2004 2,086
FTEs were appropriated for ORA, the inspection program of FDA. About 30
percent of the ORA is allotted to food inspection, which equates to 626
inspectors. In fiscal year 2008, 1,946 FTEs have been proposed for ORA,
which equates to 584 for food inspectors. Currently, the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) has approximately 7,600 inspectors for approximately 6,500 meat
and poultry processing facilities. FDA has about 600 food inspectors
for over 50,000 food processing facilities which the agency oversees.
The FDA would need at least 58,500 inspectors to be on par with the
USDA-FSIS meat and poultry inspection program. Both FDA's CFSAN and the
foods program within ORA are woefully under funded to adequately
accomplish the tasks required to verify the safety of the U.S. food
supply. Addressing gaps in inspection and compliance, enhancing
scientific risk assessment, management and analysis, and science based
food standards are examples of areas in need of new resources to
provide adequate public health protection to the nation's food supply.
The ASM recommends the FDA Food Safety programs be appropriated an
additional $75 million to strengthen CFSAN and ORA Food Safety
activities.
The FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) regulates animal
drugs and feeds used to care for a momentous number of animals: 9
billion chickens, 266 million turkeys, 97 million cattle, 61 million
pigs, 11 million sheep and goats, 130 million dogs and cats, and 5
million horses. The current recall of 60 million containers of pet food
by a major Canadian manufacturer, following reports of kidney failure
in dogs and cats, is the most recent example of CVM's rapid response to
consumer complaints. The FDA quickly alerted the public and the media
of the potential threat to pet health, while CVM personnel are onsite
at the company's U.S. plants to search for any connection between the
reported cases and product processing. The fiscal year 2008 budget
requests $106 million to support FDA's supervision of animal drugs and
feeds, roughly a 7 percent increase. CVM programs slated to receive a
funding increase include an interagency effort against the rising
incidence of drug resistant microorganisms. In September 2006, the FDA
released its third annual retail meat report, based on laboratory
testing for resistance among meat associated microorganisms, part of
the interagency National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring System.
The FDA also issued an order last year that prohibits the extra label
use in poultry of two classes of human anti influenza drugs, to avoid
emergence of resistant strains of type A influenza that include the
avian H5N1 virus. Other fiscal year 2008 funding targets are vigilance
against Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle and evaluation
of genetically modified animals as human food sources. Emerging
infectious diseases and cutting edge science force regulators to adapt,
to acquire new scientific methods and evaluate previously unknown food
safety issues. Last December, the FDA issued three draft documents on
the safety of animal cloning, concluding that meat and milk from clones
and their offspring are safe as food, but asking producers to refrain
from selling such products until final documents are released following
public comment. The three documents illustrate the breadth and
complexity of FDA oversight of specific food sources: a draft risk
assessment, a proposed risk management plan, and a draft guidance for
industry.
Modernizing Drug Safety
In 2006, two reports released by the Institute of Medicine (IOM)
warned health officials about high numbers of prescription drug
dispensing errors and about problems with drug safety oversight. The
first report estimated that at least 1.5 million preventable adverse
drug events (ADEs) occur each year in the United States. The report
also concluded that preventable ADEs in hospitals alone could be
costing the U.S. economy about $3.5 billion annually in treatment
expenses, adding that the extra cost of drug error related illness and
death in the ambulatory setting had already reached an estimated $177.4
billion by 2000. In response to these crises in prescription errors,
the proposed fiscal year 2008 budget specifically requests nearly $9
million to modernize FDA's drug safety programs. The FDA expects the
fiscal year 2008 initiative to revolutionize the agency's ability to
identify drug safety issues, by collecting surveillance numbers from
more databases, acquiring the latest scientific tools to evaluate drugs
and patient reactions, hiring specialist investigators to detect and
resolve problems, and improving communication on safety to all
stakeholders.
The proposed fiscal year 2008 budget sets aside nearly $571 million
for the FDA's ongoing oversight of human drugs, a 10 percent increase
over fiscal year 2007. Without adequate funding, the quality of drug
oversight will deteriorate at the same time as regulatory demands are
expanding steadily. Each year, the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research (CDER) evaluates growing numbers of new and on-market drug
products, routinely investigating adverse medical events and clarifying
consumer information included in packaging. In 2006, the FDA approved
several significant new drugs after extensive research and review,
including the first inhaled insulin for self treatment by adult
patients, the first drug patch for depression, the first drug treatment
for a rare glycogen storage disease (Pompe disease, designated an FDA
orphan drug), and the first drug for dementia of Parkinson's disease.
Throughout the year, the agency announced a number of drug labeling
changes based on adverse event reports. The FDA also contributed to
ongoing counterbioterrorism initiatives, approving a nerve agent
treatment for use by civilian emergency personnel and generic versions
of a drug already FDA approved for inhalational anthrax.
Improving Generic Drug Review
The budget requests $5.6 million to improve the evaluation of new
generic drugs and $15.7 million in new generic drug user fees to be
collected from drug manufacturers to underwrite the rapidly expanding
generic drug industry. In 2005, prescription drug sales accounted for
roughly 10 percent of the $2 trillion in total health care spending
(about $200.7 billion), making medications the third largest spending
category. During the past six years, generic drug applications to the
FDA's Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) increased by 158 percent (793 in
fiscal year 2006), and the OGD estimates that 857 applications will be
filed in fiscal year 2008. The fiscal year 2008 request to fund the
FDA's generic drug initiative recognizes this expanding demand on FDA
oversight. The agency already has implemented steps to improve program
efficiency, to shorten turn around time for applications. It estimates
that funding for the fiscal year 2008 initiative will permit approval
of as many as 550 generic drugs annually, reducing U.S. prescription
drug costs and making more treatments available to more patients. In
fiscal year 2006, the FDA approved or tentatively approved a record 510
new generic drug applications. Among those approved were 13 HIV/AIDS
drugs and medications for hyperlipidemia, depression, osteoarthritis,
and high cholesterol.
Modernizing Biologics Safety
The initiative to modernize drug safety, which is allocated $11.2
million in the fiscal year 2008 budget, includes more than $2.2 million
to enhance safety assessments of biologics, blood and blood products,
human tissue, cell and gene therapies, vaccines, and allergenic
products. Statistics from 2006 reveal the extent of products regulated
by the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER): more
than 14 million units of blood and blood products transfused, over 235
million vaccinations administered, and more than one million human
tissues transplanted. Funding would expand postmarket surveillance,
strengthen adverse event assessment, and improve communication with the
medical community and other partners. The overall fiscal year 2008
budget for the Biologics Program would be $216 million, a 10.8 percent
increase over fiscal year 2007 that properly recognizes safe biologic
products save lives and economic resources. CBER scientists must be
able to evaluate cutting edge product development, including their
involvement in the nearly 250 new gene therapy studies presently
overseen by the Center. CBER oversight has been highly effective; for
example, the risk of HIV and hepatitis C transmission through blood
transfusion has been reduced from 1 in 100 units in the 1980s to less
than 1 in a million units today. Cost effective vaccines in particular
are credited with saving thousands of lives and millions of dollars in
health care costs. In 2006, CBER approved new vaccines against three
pathogenic viruses that cause significant death and disability: human
papillomavirus (cervical cancer, sexually transmitted disease), herpes
zoster virus (shingles), and rotavirus (gastroenteritis in infants and
children).
Improving Medical Device Safety
A high priority initiative proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget
would help the FDA better evaluate the safety of a wide range of
medical devices marketed in the United States. Of the $285 million
allocated to the Medical Devices Program, about $7.2 million will fund
specific advances in safety analysis and consumer information provided
by the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). As elsewhere
in the FDA, demands on CDRH staff are being intensified by global
market forces, rapidly advancing technologies, and shifting population
demographics. In fiscal year 2006, CDRH received over 150,000 adverse
event reports requiring review and in some cases follow up actions to
protect the public health. Last year, FDA personnel continued
collaboration with the Federal Trade Commission and eBay to make
certain that unapproved medical devices were not being sold on the
website. The CDRH also approved innovative devices with significant
health enhancing potential, including the first easy to use portable
lead poisoning test system, a device that will reduce brain damage in
some hospitalized infants by keeping the head cool, a rapid diagnostic
test for avian influenza viruses based on polymerase chain reaction
(PCR) technology, and a sensor that wirelessly transmits blood glucose
readings in real time for use by diabetics at home. The CDRH recently
provided the scientific support for a large clinical trial of digital
mammography, showing that the new technology was significantly more
accurate than standard film mammography among patients with dense
breasts, under age 50, or pre and perimenopausal. In fiscal year 2008,
CDRH expects to certify new mammography facilities after evaluation of
their technological expertise, plus examine and recertify one third of
the more than 8,900 existing mammography facilities in the United
States.
ASM Supports the Proposed FDA Budget for Fiscal Year 2008
The ASM supports an increase of $75 million in the proposed budget
for food safety and asks the Congress to appropriate the funding
necessary to strengthen FDA regulation of foods, drugs, medical devices
and other products that affect the public health. The ASM reminds the
Congress that without its highly skilled staff of scientists and
professionals, the FDA will not succeed in fully protecting U.S. public
health with activities that are based on the best science available. If
the agency does not receive adequate funding, it will be forced to
reduce the number of safety officers, onsite inspectors, product
reviewers, and laboratory researchers so necessary to effective and
efficient oversight of FDA regulated products.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Health Institute
Dear Mr. Chairman: I write today to request that you include
funding for priorities important to the animal health industry in the
fiscal year 2008 Agriculture Appropriations Bill.
The Animal Health Institute strongly endorses the Administrations
fiscal year 2008 budget request of $19.867 million for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Center for Veterinary Biologics, an
increase of about $4.4 million over its fiscal year 2007 funding level.
For the past three fiscal years, CVB's funding has not included cost of
living increases, so no progress has been made in filling vacant
positions for reviewers, inspectors, and laboratory personnel. The CVB
Inspection and Compliance division is currently at about 65 percent of
its authorized personnel level, and the Policy, Evaluation, and
Licensing division (including the laboratory) is below 50 percent.
CVB's leadership anticipates that another year of level funding would
force staff cutbacks in order to absorb the new activities relating to
beginning operations in the new laboratories and added security
responsibilities.
Every year, U.S. animal health companies produce 83 billion doses
of animal vaccines. These vaccines are critical to protecting the
health of America's flocks, herds, and pets from domestic and foreign
animal diseases. Animal health companies, for instance, are developing
new and innovative biologic to greatly reduce the presence of food-
borne pathogens in animals just prior to slaughter, resulting in less
pressure on pathogen reduction programs during processing. These new
products represent a step forward in on-farm contributions to food
safety. The lack of funding at CVB is dire, and threatens the
innovation and availability of these products.
Additionally, Congress has authorized the Animal Drug User Fee Act,
implementing a system of performance standards and user fees to improve
the new animal drug review process at FDA's Center for Veterinary
Medicine. Now in the fourth year of ADUFA implementation, CVM continues
to make steady progress toward its performance goals. Animal producers
will benefit from a supply of new and innovative products being brought
to market more efficiently. The Committee has generously funded the
fees in the previous four appropriations cycles. The President's budget
proposal includes $13.696 million that needs to be appropriated for
fiscal year 2008, the last year of ADUFA authorization. The fiscal year
2008 user fee request includes the first quarter of fees for fiscal
year 2009, funds which would be needed to ramp down the program if it
were not reauthorized. The industry and Administration have not yet
begun to negotiate a re-authorization agreement, but we are confident
that ADUFA will be reauthorized. We ask for the user fees to be
included in this year's appropriations bill. Similar to appropriations
for the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, this appropriation is entirely
budget neutral as the money will be provided by animal health
companies.
The Animal Health Institute also endorses the President's budget
request of $94.809 million for FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine
(CVM). This amount includes the additional budget authority that is
needed to make sure that user fee triggers are met. The additional
funding will ensure that CVM is able to continue essential post market
safety programs that would otherwise be adversely affected in order to
meet ADUFA trigger fee requirements.
Finally, the Animal Health Institute strongly urges the Committee
to fund the Administration's request of $1.8 million for the
Collaboration for Animal Health and Food Safety Epidemiology (CAHFSE),
a joint effort of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the
Food Safety and Inspection Service, and the Agricultural Research
Service. CAHFSE will enable USDA to identify and track emerging
diseases and identify and implement mitigation strategies in a timely
manner thereby averting economic, animal health, and public health
consequences. Further, it will provide comprehensive, science based
answers regarding animal health and public health and will serve as a
model for future surveillance efforts on a national level. Finally, it
is the only pre-harvest food safety request included in the President's
budget request.
Thank you for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to contact
me if you have any questions or need additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing in support of an fiscal year 2008
appropriation of $1.8 million for the Animal Welfare Information Center
(AWIC) at the National Agricultural Library. The AWIC was established
in 1986 in response to a mandate in the Improved Standards for
Laboratory Animals amendment to the Animal Welfare Act. The Center
serves as a clearinghouse, training center, and education resource for
those involved in the use of animals for research, testing and
teaching, and the need and demand for its services continue to outstrip
its ability to respond. The AWIC's subject areas include husbandry,
handling, and care of animals; personnel training; animal behavior;
alternatives; improved methodologies; environmental enrichment of non-
human primates, and pain control via anesthesia and analgesia. Further
information on the Center is on the web at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/
awic.
The AWIC staff also compiles and distributes information resources
from the scientific literature on zoonotic diseases such as avian
influenza, transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, tuberculosis,
etc.
An appropriation of $1.8 million would be used as follows:
--$1,273,000--Staff salary and benefits, including 2 critical new
positions to support and enhance the use and usability of
AWIC's most essential tool, its database. A Technical
Information Specialist is needed to meet growing demand for
complex AWIC database searches; to train the research community
to meet the AWA's information requirements; and to produce
large topical information resources. A new Information
Technology Specialist would build, manage, and improve use of
the AWIC database.
--$61,400--Present exhibitions at conferences, including 3 regional
AALAS conference in underserved areas of the country
--$36,000--Present workshops in cooperation with Animal Care to
assist licensees/registrants frequently cited for AWA
violations
--$28,000--Prepare and conduct informational workshops at research
institutions across the country
--$4,100--Prepare and conduct local workshops
--$38,000--Acquisition of and electronic access to data
--$29,200--Printing and reproduction (paper and electronic)
--$26,000--Office supplies (software, hardware, etc.)
--$20,400--Internet services
--$13,900--NAL staff training
--$270,000 overhead to ARS and NAL
AWIC's services are vitally important to the nation's biomedical
research enterprise because they facilitate compliance with specific
requirements of the Federal animal welfare regulations and policies
governing animal-related research. In addition, the AWIC provides
extensive research services for us, thereby greatly benefiting our work
on animal research issues. We appreciate and look forward to a
continued working relationship with the Animal Welfare Information
Center and hope you will support our modest request for appropriations.
______
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 2008 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
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 and current
SIPs, all future SIPs will continue 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. SIPs are now more complex than they were in the past.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) now recommends 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 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 2008, 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 recent 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 volatile
organic compound (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
The Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions (CoFARM)
appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2008
appropriation for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA).
CoFARM is a coalition of 24 professional scientific organizations with
over 200,000 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. 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 efforts of Congress to fund the National Research Initiative (NRI)
at $190 million in fiscal year 2007. We urge the Subcommittee to
support the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request of $257 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 the
report, Investing in Research: A Proposal to Strengthen the
Agricultural, Food and Environmental System, by the National Research
Council's (NRC) Board of Agriculture. This report called for increased
funding by USDA of high priority research 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.
Stakeholders of the research community continue their interest in
and support of the NRI, which 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, nutritional, physical, and social sciences relevant to
agriculture, food, health 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 like its current collaborations between NRI and DOE and NSF.
CoFARM urges Congress to support the Administration's requested
increase for NRI in fiscal year 2008. NRI's proposed increase comes
from the shifting of CSREES Integrated Activities, such as food safety,
pest management, and water quality, making up $42 million of the
proposed increase, providing a net increase of $25 million for NRI. The
Administration also requests $19 million of the NRI budget be used for
bioenergy research. CoFARM supports the Administration's effort to
increase competitively awarded funding mechanisms.
By increasing the funding for this program, the United States is
investing in our nation's future. Failure to make this investment will
imperil the future of agriculture in the United States by reducing
competitiveness and decreasing productivity. With limited dollars our
scientists already produce an annual rate of return of at least 40
percent.\1\ This high rate of return suggests that an increase in funds
to agricultural research would be beneficial to the U.S. economy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Agricultural Research and Productivity: Questions and
Answers,'' USDA Economic Research Service, December 2005. http://
www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/AgResearch/Questions/APRDQA6.HTM
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because of Federal investment, we have made since 1991, we have
gained valuable new knowledge in areas such as:
Food Safety and Nutrition
USDA funded competitive research has supported studies to
understand incentives for firms to adopt food safety controls and
industry response to losses when products are recalled for food safety
violations.
USDA supported scientists identified a safe and effective new
sanitizer (SANOVA) that achieved a 5-log reduction of E. coli,
Listeria, and Salmonella on produce even in the presence of large
organic loads. The researchers optimized sanitation treatment
procedures to ensure good quality of shredded carrot and fresh-cut
lettuce while maintaining the effective killing power of the sanitizer.
This research is critical considering there are approximately 76
million foodborne illness cases in the U.S. per year and the findings
from this research is especially useful to the fresh produce industry
as they provide practical information in selecting a suitable sanitizer
to maintain microbial safety and quality of fruits and vegetables.
Iowa State University researchers have studied fatty acid
composition in beef and dairy cattle through a NRI funded grant. They
have discovered a single nucleotide polymorphism that is correlated to
content of C14-O (myristic acid, the most atherogenic of saturated
fatty acids) of beef. Thus, the marker in the throesterase domain in
fatty acid synthase gene can be used to select for healthier beef.
University of Illinois scientists are involved with the assessment
of general risk posed from transgenic animals, which is important to
their future contributions to society. Identification of potentially
harmful properties of transgenic livestock is the initial step in a
risk assessment. Direct and indirect impacts of potential harmful
properties of transgenic livestock are being evaluated at three levels:
(1) characterization of how the transgene, the transgene product, and
the transgenic livestock behave in their immediate environment, that
is, in their barn or pen, (2) determination of possible impacts of
large scale release of transgenic livestock, that is, if they were to
be integrated into the larger population of food animal livestock, and
(3) determination of the more complex environmental and safety
consequences of their release into the livestock population. This study
will determine whether a mammary specific transgene, bovine a-
lactalbumin (Ba-LA) is expressed in tissues other than the mammary
gland and whether the transgene (Tg) itself, the transgenic RNA or the
transgenic protein cross over into non-transgenic (C) animals under
various physiological and physical conditions.
Renewable Energy and Fuels
In a time of volatile gasoline prices, USDA dollars have helped
provide economic and policy analyses for specific renewable energy
technologies and will estimate national impacts of certain renewable
energy policy alternatives.
An April 2005 joint study of the U.S. Departments of Energy and
Agriculture found that with continued advances in research there will
be enough renewable biomass grown in the United States. to meet more
than one-third of the current demand for transportation fuels in the
nation, without diverting from food crop production.\2\ With advances
in plant and microbial research, land in every state in the nation
could be used to grow plants that produce clean-burning cellulosic
ethanol resulting in decreased dependence on foreign oil, reduction of
the trade deficit, reduced emissions of stored greenhouse gases,
revitalized rural economies and strengthened national security.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Biomass as Feedstock for a Bioenergy and Bioproducts
Industry: The Technical Feasibility of a Billion-Ton Annual Supply,
April 2005'' http://www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/
final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant and Animal Health and Well-Being
Pennsylvania researchers are developing rapid diagnostic tests to
curb avian influenza, a disease that could cripple the state's $700
million poultry industry.
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.
Iowa State University researchers studied fatty liver syndrome in
dairy cattle. They found that daily injections of glucagon can be used
to prevent and treat fatty liver in transition dairy cows. A patent has
been issued for this technology.
Waste Remediation
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.
With the support of Congress, increased funding for research will
continue to boost the American agricultural enterprise and improve our
economy by increasing food safety, boosting production, protecting the
environment, finding new uses for renewable resources, and enhancing
food itself so that food and agricultural systems contribute to a
stronger and more healthful society. Research programs in nutrition and
food science help to ensure high-quality, safe, and affordable food for
consumers, and contribute to the success of a food and agricultural
system that creates jobs and income in the United States.
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 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
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (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 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 three 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 2007, 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 2007 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 three 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 Basin 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 Colorado River Board of California
This testimony is in support of funding for the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) with respect to its on-farm Colorado River Basin
Salinity Control Program for fiscal year 2008. This program has been
carried out through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
(Public Law 93-320), since it was enacted by Congress in 1974. With the
enactment of the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act
(FAIRA) in 1996 (Public Law 104-127), specific funding for salinity
control projects in the Colorado River Basin were eliminated from the
federal budget and aggregated into the Department of Agriculture's
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) as one of its program
components. With that action, Congress concluded that the salinity
control program could be more effectively implemented as one of the
components of the EQIP.
The Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits both the Upper Basin
water users through more efficient water management and the Lower Basin
water users, hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the
Upper Basin, through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River
water. California's Colorado River water users are presently suffering
economic damages in the hundreds of million of dollars per year due to
the River's salinity.
The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
In this capacity, California along with the other six Colorado River
Basin states through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum
(Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the
Basin States' salinity control efforts, established numeric criteria in
June 1975 for salinity concentrations in the River. These criteria were
established to lessen the future damages in the Lower Basin states of
Arizona, California, and Nevada, as well as assist the United States in
delivering water of adequate quality to Mexico in accordance with
Minute 242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission.
The goal of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program is to
offset the effects of water resources development in the Colorado River
Basin after 1972 as each state develops its Colorado River Compact
apportionments. In close cooperation with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water
Act (Public Law 92-500), every 3 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 in Total Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below
the levels measured in the Colorado River system in 1972 at Imperial
Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams. The latest report was prepared
in 2005 titled: 2005 Review, Water Quality Standards for Salinity,
Colorado River System (2005 Review). The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review includes an updated Plan of
Implementation.
Concentrations of salts in the River annually cause about $330
million in quantified damage in the United States (there are
significant unquantified damages as well). For example, 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 fewer opportunities for recycling due to
groundwater quality deterioration; and
--Increased use of imported water for leaching and the cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 milligram per liter increase in salinity
concentrations, there are $75 million in additional damages in the
United States. 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.
Enactment of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002
provided an opportunity to adequately fund the Salinity Program within
EQIP. The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Advisory Council has
taken the position that the USDA portion of the effort be funded at 2.5
percent of the EQIP funding but at least $20.0 million annually. Over
the past few years, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
has designated 2.5 percent of EQIP funds be allocated to the Colorado
River Salinity Control program. The Forum suggests that this is an
appropriate level of funding as long as it does not drop below $20.0
million. Funding above this level assists in offsetting pre-fiscal year
2003 funding below this level. The Colorado River Board supports the
recommendation of the Forum and urges this Subcommittee to support
funding for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program for 2008
at this level.
These Federal dollars will be augmented by the State cost sharing
of 30 percent with an additional 25 percent provided by the
agricultural producers with whom USDA contracts for implementation of
salinity control measures. Over the past years, the Colorado River
Basin Salinity Control program has proven to be a very cost effective
approach to help mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the
Colorado River. Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide
program is essential.
In addition, the Colorado River Board recognizes that the federal
government has made significant commitments to the Republic of Mexico
and to the seven Colorado River Basin States with regard to the
delivery of quality water to Mexico. In order for those commitments to
continue to be honored, it is essential that in fiscal year 2008, and
in future fiscal years, that Congress continues to provide funds to
USDA to allow it to provide needed technical support to agricultural
producers for addressing salinity control in the Basin.
The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
water resource to the 18 million residents of southern California as
well as throughout the Colorado River Basin. As stated earlier,
preservation and improvement of the Colorado River water quality
through an effective salinity control program will avoid the additional
economic damages to users of Colorado River water in California,
Arizona, and Nevada.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Summary of Request
Florida State University is requesting $4,500,000 from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture; Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service/Research and Education Activities/Federal Admin.
Account for the Risk Reduction for Agricultural Crops project for
fiscal year 2008.
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 $190
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.
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 interest 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.
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 $5.0 million in fiscal
year 2008 for this activity. Utilization of these tools and their
application to agricultural problems has the strong support of
extension managers.
Mr. Chairman, FSU is seeking $4,500,000 in fiscal year 2008 to
continue our important work. The new tasks for fiscal year 2008 include
the development flood forecasting methods to help farmers and producers
plan for reducing risks of economic losses and environmental damage;
developing partnerships and methods for incorporating climate forecasts
and other climate information into agricultural and water policy
decisions, and beginning development of a prototype decision support
system for the application of climate forecasts to water resource
management, especially for agricultural water use. We are also working
with the committees on agriculture on the upcoming farm bill, seeking
to secure authorization for this program.
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 2008 Agriculture,
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill.
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
Risk-Based Inspection
We have the following concerns about this proposal:
We believe that the agency lacks the statutory authority to execute
a risk-based inspection scheme, especially one that contemplates food
processing plants receiving less than daily inspection. According to
both the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 603) and the Poultry
Products 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.
FSIS' own glossary defines continuous inspection as:
--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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Secretary for Food Safety Richard Raymond has been quoted in
the press advocating ``virtual inspections,'' whereby food
establishments would merely transmit daily production records to FSIS
inspectors either via facsimile or electronically without a physical
inspection visit.\2\ This is not what the meat and poultry inspection
statutes establish, and we believe that the agency is treading on
dangerous legal ground as it proceeds with this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Morton, Joseph. ``USDA Looks at `Virtual' Inspections,'' Omaha
World Herald, October 23, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, we believe that this new system could spark legal
challenges by food establishments that believe they are being singled
out for more intense inspections. Without a statutory basis for
instituting changes to the inspection process, the agency might be
hard-pressed to implement this new program in light of such legal
challenges.
Risk-based inspection needs 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 collected by FSIS. The USDA Office of Inspector General (OIG), in
a November 2004 audit report, said the following about the agency's
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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/24501-01-FM.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2006, the OIG released an audit of the agency's
Pathogen Reduction Enforcement Program (PREP). PREP is used to collect
information from the FSIS salmonella testing program. The OIG found the
following:
--We found a significant number of establishments that were excluded
from the Salmonella sampling database because of ineffective
controls to identify eligible establishments and also because
district office personnel did not fully understand the process
for including the establishments in the database. At the
district we visited, 28 percent of the establishments that
should have been subject to Salmonella testing were excluded
from the sampling database. This problem was particularly
apparent at establishments inspected under Federal-State
Cooperative Programs (Talmadge-Aiken establishments) in the one
State we visited. The State supervisors responsible for program
oversight at these establishments were not provided with the
eligibility reports that could have allowed them to identify
establishments that needed to be included in the sampling
database.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/24601-07-CH.pdf, p. i.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agency is also lacking one critical piece of information that
we consider vital before it can move forward with any proposal to
change its inspection system--attribution data that links specific
foods under the agency's jurisdiction to food borne illness outbreaks.
Congress has repeatedly asked the agency about this issue, and the
agency has repeatedly responded that it is working on it.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations for fiscal year 2007, Food Safety and Inspection
Service, Part 1, March 8, 2006, pp. 215-216.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have long suspected that the real reason the agency is pressing
to implement risk-based inspection is that it would serve to mask
shortages in inspection staffing that has plagued the agency for years.
We have heard of chronic shortages in the number of processing
inspectors. For example, just last year, we heard of one inspector in
the Albany District of FSIS being assigned to 19 food plants that
stretched from New York City to Connecticut; in the Philadelphia
District, one inspector was assigned 26 plants to cover. These sorts of
assignments fly in the face of testimony provided by the agency during
last year's appropriations hearings in which it asserted that FSIS
inspectors spend an average of 2 hours and 40 minutes per processing
plant each day.\6\ Just this week, Under Secretary Raymond testified
before the House Agriculture Appropriations subcommittee that at least
250 establishments have not been receiving daily--or even weekly--
inspection for the last 30 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid, p. 296.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points (HACCP) inspection
system still has serious 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
a long time to implement the new policy.
In its fiscal year 2008 budget submission, the agency states that
it would like to begin implementing risk-based inspection in slaughter
facilities. We assume that its proposal means expansion of the HACCP-
Based Inspection Models Project (HIMP) in poultry slaughter. HIMP 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.\7\ 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 poultry slaughter plants using
conventional inspection techniques are being permitted to enter
commerce under the HIMP system. In a recent national public opinion
survey conducted for Food & Water Watch by Lake Research Partners,
nearly two-thirds of American consumers favor having Federal government
inspectors evaluate meat and poultry products for wholesomeness as well
as food safety issues.\8\ 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 HIMP project
before it is expanded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0259.pdf.
\8\ See http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/about/press/meat-
inspection-poll.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 initially responded that they wanted us to pay more than $10,000
for the information. The agency has since relented on the fee, but we
still have not received all of the information we requested. We believe
that Congress should request full disclosure of this information so
that it can make an informed judgment on the agency's readiness to
expand this program.
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, in 2004 the Secretary overruled them. 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, Canada is in the
process of conducting a study to justify less-than-daily inspections
for processed food exports to the United States that would serve as the
basis for a request for an equivalency determination by FSIS. We
believe that granting Canada equivalency for less-than-daily inspection
would establish a dangerous precedent and mark a radical departure from
current U.S. policy.
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. Last year, Congress was compelled to warn USDA on
changing the programs authorized under the 2002 Farm Security and Rural
Development Act through the Doha round of WTO negotiations. We suspect
that USDA may be attempting to do the same with food safety policy.
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.
Expansion of processed poultry imports from the People's Republic of
China (PRC)
In January 2007, we learned that FSIS was in the process of
developing a proposed rule that would expand the import of processed
poultry products from PRC to include poultry that was raised in the
PRC.
We have several concerns about any imports of poultry products from
the PRC:
--The April 24, 2006 regulation that permitted the import of poultry
products from the PRC that were processed from slaughtered
poultry of United States or Canadian origin was approved under
suspicious circumstances and Congress should conduct an
investigation into this matter. The fact that the Office of
Management and Budget approved this regulation in record time--
within 24 hours of its receipt of the rule from USDA--and the
day before the arrival of PRC President Hu Jintao in Washington
on April 20, 2006 clearly indicated that its approval was
orchestrated.
--There is no track record to show that the April 24, 2006 regulation
has been working. In a recent Global Agriculture Information
Network (GAIN) report issued by USDA's Foreign Agriculture
Service, the PRP has complained that the rule has been a non-
starter because it is economically burdensome.\9\ We consider
that to be a weak argument to justify the expansion of the
current trade situation for several reasons. First, we have
concerns about the sanitation practices in the slaughter and
processing facilities in the PRC. The audit reports filed by
FSIS inspectors describe unsanitary conditions in some of the
facilities in the PRC that might be eligible to export product
to the United States.\10\ Second, the PRC still has an avian
flu problem.\11\ Third, by USDA's own admission, much of the
smuggled poultry that is intercepted coming to the United
States originates from the PRC.\12\ Why should we reward
illegal activity by expanding trade?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200703/146280447.pdf, p.
6.
\10\ See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/China/China2005.pdf and
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/FAR/China/China2004.pdf
\11\ See http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/cidrap/content/influenza/
avianflu/news/feb2807avian.html
\12\ See http://www.usda.gov and search for Release 0065.07.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
USDA-Agricultural Marketing Service
Large seafood companies and trade associations have complained
about the costs of implementing country of origin labeling for fish,
while fishermen, environmental and consumer groups contend that the
costs of compliance are fair and worthwhile. AMS recognized that most
fishermen already keep sufficient records to document country of origin
and wild-caught versus farm-raised claims, making a $241 per year
estimation ``within reason.''
All sellers, not only supermarkets, should be included in the
program. Exempting processed seafood from the program does not
accurately reflect the law, given that processed foods count for up to
50 percent of the finished product. The USDA should ensure that all
seafood sold at all retailers is labeled with the proper country and
means of origin.
Food and Drug Administration
We recommend increased funding for the Food and Drug
Administration's seafood inspection program. Eighty percent of the
seafood consumed by Americans now originates in foreign countries, yet
according to a January 30, 2004 Government Accountability Office report
entitled ``FDA's Imported Seafood Safety Programs Shows Some Progress,
but Further Improvements Are Needed,'' only 1.2 percent of imported
seafood shipments are tested at ports of entry. Recent import
inspection data from the FDA indicates that inspection rates are
woefully low to ensure that consumers are protected from unsafe drugs
and chemicals used in fish farming in other countries, as well as
decomposed and filthy seafood--the number one inspection violation
since 2003. We recommend that the FDA improve testing of seafood
products, implement new regulatory programs, tighten its standards,
provide incentives for producers to reduce drug and chemical use, and
give consumers enough information to make informed decisions.
______
Prepared Statement of Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville
Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to present our statement regarding funding for the
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and
especially for the Agency's flagship research facility, the Henry A.
Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), in Maryland.
Our organization--Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville--
promotes the Center's current and long-term agricultural research,
outreach, and educational missions.
Our testimony will emphasize two main themes: First, we begin by
adding our strongest endorsement for high-value ``new'' research items
proposed in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget. We provide
additional support for each new research item in Part I.
Second, we recommend and urge continuing full support for on-going
research that the Congress has previously mandated to be carried out at
BARC. Support for these items is essential to sustaining irreplaceable
research momentum now and fundamental to the success of American
agriculture in the future. We will elaborate on the basis for our
recommendations in Part II.
part i. new research items proposed in the fiscal year 2008 budget
Obesity Prevention Research, $1,150,000.--Obesity is a growing
health menace in the United States. Today, an estimated 64 percent of
all Americans are overweight or obese. Obesity has been linked to heart
disease, stroke and cancer, and thus to spiraling health problems and
rapidly rising health care costs. These funds would provide critical
support for BARC and its collaborators to pursue vital clinical and
translational research on the efficacy of the Dietary Guidelines and to
develop improved strategies for preventing unhealthy weight gain in the
diverse American population. We urge support for this research.
Food Safety, $708,000.--Maintaining consumer confidence in the
safety of the U.S. food supply is a primary goal for producers and
marketing managers. Recent isolated food safety incidents highlight the
need for research to identify points in the food chain where food can
become contaminated by chemical residues, pathogenic bacteria or toxins
that are capable of causing severe illness, even death in worst case
situations. These funds provide the resources to examine production
systems and pre-harvest crop management practices thoroughly,
especially for leafy vegetables and organic produce. We endorse full
funding for this work.
Research to Support the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service,
APHIS, Citrus Canker and Ralstonia, $850,000.--APHIS needs effective
diagnostic tools to identify emerging citrus and tree fruits diseases,
to confirm infections in epidemiological studies, and to carry out
regulatory programs. This research also strengthens the National Citrus
Pathogen Collection, which is essential for effective citrus disease
research. Some of this research may be directed to Ralstonia, a
bacterial pathogen not known to occur in the United States. Ralstonia
causes wilt in potatoes, tomatoes, peppers, eggplant, and other crop
plants. APHIS and ARS need to design survey protocols to detect and
track plant disease agents and to identify crop pathogen threats.
Research on diseases of citrus, tree fruits, and other crops is
extremely under funded. We strongly urge support for strengthening
plant disease research and for supporting the action mission of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
Emerging Diseases and Animal Health, $1,165,000.--Globalization of
trade and the growing movement of people and goods around the world
steadily raise the threat of disease outbreaks in the United States.
Diseases such as avian influenza, bovine diarrhea, transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies, and porcine reproductive and respiratory
disease are among many such disease threats. Effective control
strategies require a more complete understanding of not only the basic
biology of pathogens and their mode of transmission but also of the
animal's immune system for resisting infections. BARC has one of the
country's premiere groups of scientists engaged in livestock immunology
research. This funding would strengthen their research effort to more
fully unravel the complexity of the animal's immune system and protect
the health of U.S. livestock. This research is vital to advancing our
understanding of livestock immunology, and for protecting and improving
animal health. We support full funding for these studies.
Emerging Diseases of Livestock, $195,000.--This research is vital
to further understanding genetics and genomics methods to improve
disease resistance in livestock. We recommend full funding.
Emerging Diseases in Crops, $500,000.--We confirm and support the
proposal to develop diagnostics for rapid, practical, and specific
identification of pathogens. This is an under funded research area, and
we recommend full support.
Soybean and Wheat Stem Rust, $300,000.--This goal here is to
identify and incorporate diverse sources of genetic resistance into new
grain and soybean varieties and germplasm. We fully support this
research.
Plant Introduction Stations and the National Plant Germplasm
System, $500,000.--These funds are necessary for making germplasm and
associated information more readily available to research programs and
user stakeholders. These funds are needed to support the activities of
the Germplasm Resources Information Network, or GRIN, which provides
germplasm information about plants, animals, microbes and
invertebrates. We recommend full funding.
Specialty Crops Genetic Resources, $250,000.--These funds will
provide floral and nursery plant research to support the research
mission of the U.S. National Arboretum. Full funding is recommended.
Part II. Now we turn to the urgent need to continue support for
specific research areas that the Congress has mandated at BARC in
previous fiscal years. These mandates address research that has
enormous national impact. We list them here with brief descriptions and
our recommendations for continued funding.
Dairy Genetics.--For over 75 years, the Animal Improvement Programs
Laboratory has created statistical genetic predictions to aid the dairy
industry in identifying the best bulls for dairy breeding. Genetic
improvement in dairy cattle has steadily increased milk yield per cow
and feed efficiency (milk produced per pound of feed) over many years.
The result is lower milk prices for consumers and less animal waste to
contaminate the environment because fewer cows are needed to produce
the Nation's milk supply. We confirm that this mission critical
research should continue.
Barley Health Food Genefits.--Barley contains soluble fiber
compounds, called beta-glucans, that are beneficial for health. Beta-
glucans can lower cholesterol and improve control of insulin and blood
sugar. These funds support human-volunteer studies designed to help us
better understand how barley could be used in a healthful diet to
reduce the incidence of chronic disease. We recommend continued
support.
Biomineral Soil Amendments for Control of Nematodes.--Plant
nematodes are microscopic worms that feed on the roots of plants.
Nematodes can cause substantial losses in crop yields. This research
focuses on using such industrial byproducts as environmentally benign
soil additives for controlling nematodes. We recommend funding for
these promising approaches.
Foundry Sand Byproducts Utilization.--Waste sands from the metal-
casting industry currently are dumped in landfills. This project is
working with industry on guidelines for beneficial uses of these sands.
We recommend continuation.
Poultry Disease (Avian Coccidiosis).--Coccidiosis, a parasitic
poultry disease, costs the industry $2-3 billion per year. This
research focuses on understanding the genetics of both the parasite and
the host chicken to identify targets that will allow better disease
control. We recommend this funding.
Biomedical materials in plants: Plants can be used as factories to
manufacture vaccines and other pharmaceuticals for both animals and
humans. This research focuses on development of tobacco as a crop with
this beneficial use. This research should continue.
National Germplasm Resources Program.--Sources of germplasm for all
agricultural crops are maintained either as seed or live plant material
at several locations across the country. Much of this germplasm is the
result of plant exploration around the world. This group maintains the
computer database that indexes all crop germplasm in our repositories
with critical information as to where it was obtained, the specific
scientific identification, and information on useful traits for plant
breeding. We strongly support continued funding for this mission-
critical program.
Bovine Genetics.--This research focuses on bovine functional
genomics, especially for dairy cattle. Scientists are identifying
specific genes for quality traits such as easier calving, higher milk
production, and resistance to mastitis. We recommend this funding.
Minor-use Pesticides (IR-4).--``Minor-use'' pesticides are those
that are used on crops such as fruits and vegetables that are not one
of the ``big four'' crops like corn, wheat, and soybeans, and cotton.
Because markets are much smaller than for major crops, chemical
manufacturers have little incentive to obtain all the safety data
needed to obtain EPA registration for pesticides used on minor crops.
Nevertheless, producers of minor crops find certain agrochemicals to be
essential. This project produces the data needed for EPA registration
of minor-use pesticides. We recommend continued funding.
National Nutrition Monitoring System.--Scientists at BARC have the
unique responsibility of carrying out the national surveys of food
consumption by individuals. This is now done in collaboration with
HHS's health surveys. BARC scientists also maintain the National
Nutrient Database, which includes information on 126 nutrients in
thousands of foods. This work supports the school lunch program, WIC,
Food Stamps, senior nutrition programs, food labeling, dietetic
practices, and even the EPA. We urge continuation of this funding.
Coffee and Cocoa.--Producers of chocolate candy are the single
largest users of fluid milk, sugar, peanuts, and almonds in the United
States. U.S. specialty coffee shop chains also are one of the major
markets for fluid milk. Events that limit the availability of cocoa or
coffee can have significant impacts on major U.S. commodity markets.
Candy producers need a stable supply of cocoa, but smallholders in
developing countries produce most cocoa. Several devastating diseases
and insects threaten cocoa. This research is aimed at developing
environmentally friendly ways to control pests and diseases. Some
insects that threaten coffee are very similar to those that attack
cacao, thus work on the two crops benefits from being together. We
recommend continuation of this funding.
Johne's Disease.--Johne's disease is a contagious bacterial disease
of the intestinal tract of ruminants. It occurs most often in dairy
cattle, causing weight loss and diarrhea. Nearly one-fourth of dairy
herds are infected. Producers lose $54 million annually from reduced
milk production. The disease is spread in manure. This research focuses
on disease control. We recommend continuation of this funding
Food Safety--Listeria, E.Coli, and Salmonella.--Food-borne illness
annually costs $3 billion in health-care costs, and annually costs the
economy up to $40 billion in lost productivity. This research focuses
on diagnostics for food-borne pathogens, and on ways to control
pathogens in fruits and vegetables. We recommend continuation of this
funding
Weed Management Research.--All farmers must contend with weeds. For
organic farmers, weeds are the single biggest challenge to crop
production. This research, in collaboration with the Rodale Institute
and Pennsylvania State University, focuses on developing systems for
controlling weeds in organic production systems. Organic crop
production was valued at $400 million per year in the 2002 Census of
Agriculture. These research funds will improve non-chemical weed
control.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes our statement. We again thank you for
the opportunity to present our testimony and for your generous support.
______
Prepared Statement of the Hardwood Federation, National Association of
State Departments of Agriculture, National Association of State
Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and Society of American Foresters
Dear Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, the Hardwood Federation,
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National
Association of State Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and Society of
American Foresters urge the Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, 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, sudden oak death pathogen, and Sirex woodwasp.
All four foreign and invasive species threaten trees in our forests and
communities and related economic values worth hundreds of billions of
dollars.
This coalition represents a widely diverse group of stakeholders
that are unified in support of the following program areas. This
statement of common goals supplements individual letters to the
Subcommittee submitted by several of these organizations. Some of these
individual letters address additional issues.
We seek an appropriation of $45 million for fiscal year 2008 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, street trees across the Nation valued at $20 to $60 billion,
and myriad trees found in our neighborhoods and parks. The emerald ash
borer outbreak is large, but the core of the infestation remains in the
lower peninsula of Michigan and neighboring portions of Indiana and
Ohio. It is absolutely 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. APHIS and its State partners need
additional funding in fiscal year 2008 to enable affected States to
eradicate limited and isolated outbreaks found in Illinois, Maryland,
Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Education, effective
quarantine, and elimination of isolated infestations are necessary to
create the potential to contain the core outbreak in and around
Michigan.
We seek an appropriation of $30 million for fiscal year 2008 to
carry forward eradication of the few 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 more than $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 Jersey and New York. The identification of
another population on an island near Staten Island just this past week
is an indication of the risk placed on the environment due to chronic
under-funding of these programs.
We support a request for $10 million in appropriations for fiscal
year 2008 to contain a third damaging forest pest, the sudden oak death
pathogen (also called the phytophthora leaf and stem blight pathogen).
This disease is a major threat to the nation's nursery industry as it
readily attacks species such as rhododendron, camellias and a long list
of other common ornamentals. In addition, 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. Many wildlife species are dependent upon
oaks for forage--the potential for devastating impacts on forests and
wildlife is very real.
The Sirex woodwasp is now found across much of New York State and
two counties in Pennsylvania, as well as in Ontario, Canada. The
woodwasp threatens valuable pine timber resources, especially those of
the Southeast. It is essential that APHIS receive $3.6 million in
fiscal year 2008 to implement a program including regulatory and
educational programs aimed at preventing movement of infested wood,
nursery stock, and other materials that spread the insect.
In addition to the appropriations needed to support these line
items in APHIS's Emerging Plant Pest program, the Hardwood Federation,
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, National
Association of State Foresters, The Nature Conservancy, and Society of
American Foresters also strongly support the Congress' numerous
statements urging the Administration to release emergency funds from
the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) sufficient to enable full
implementation of these management plans. The combination of the
appropriations and the release of CCC funds is necessary to accomplish
the needed tasks.
Action now at the funding level requested would help ensure that
these forest pests do not reach populations so large as to threaten
trees in our forests and communities, garden nursery stock, and related
economic activities worth hundreds of billions of dollars.
______
Prepared Statement of the Heart Rhythm Society
Dear Mr. Chairman, The Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) thanks the
Subcommittee for considering our comments regarding the need for
increased funding of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in
particular the Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH). The
Heart Rhythm Society recommends that the FDA receive an additional $20
million in appropriations for medical device oversight, as recommend by
the Coalition for a Stronger FDA. These dollars would in part go to
reform and update the current post-market surveillance system, which is
currently ill-equipped to handle the complex challenges of responding
to product safety issues and providing timely information to
physicians, patients and the public.
The Heart Rhythm Society, founded in 1979, is the international
leader in science, education and advocacy for cardiac arrhythmia
professionals and patients, and the primary information resource on
heart rhythm disorders. Our mission is to improve the care of patients
by promoting research, education and optimal health care policies and
standards. We are the preeminent professional group, representing more
than 4,400 specialists in cardiac pacing and electrophysiology. The
Heart Rhythm Society serves as an advocate for millions of American
citizens from all 50 States, since arrhythmias are the leading cause of
heart-disease related deaths, with Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA) taking
325,000 lives annually. Other, less lethal forms of arrhythmias are
even more prevalent and account for 14 percent of all hospitalizations
of Medicare beneficiaries.
Background
Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD's) are 99 percent
effective in stopping life-threatening arrhythmias and are the most
successful therapy to treat ventricular fibrillation, the major cause
of Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA). However, less than 2 years ago, there
was a crisis in the patient and physician community regarding the
ability of the current post-market surveillance system to react to
information on implanted cardiac devices and to communicate the
essential data to physicians and patients in a timely manner. In 2005,
recalls and advisories issued by the three largest pacemaker
defibrillator manufacturers and the untimely death of a patient with a
device malfunction, led the Heart Rhythm Society to focus attention on
the post-market system and the critical need for reform. It quickly
became apparent to the Heart Rhythm Society, that leadership was
necessary to convene members of our community, industry and patients to
discuss the inherent issues with the current post-market surveillance
system and work together to make recommendations for improvement. In
September 2005, HRS convened a policy conference, co-sponsored with the
FDA, of 300 experts in industry, the law, FDA, physician community,
risk communication and patients to explore improvements for post market
surveillance of pacemakers and ICDs. As a result of that meeting, the
Society assembled a 15-member task force of leading cardiac care
providers and experts charged with the development of recommendations
to address concerns raised at the conference. In September, 2006, the
Heart Rhythm Society published the Device Performance Recommendations
to improve the post-market surveillance system for implanted devices.
The guidelines have been officially endorsed by the American College of
Cardiology Foundation, American Heart Association and the International
Coalition of Pacing and Electrophysiology Organizations (COPE).
Current Limitations of Post Market Surveillance for Implanted Devices
As described in the Recommendations, changes to the current post-
market surveillance system are required to improve the timely
identification of cardiac rhythm management devices that do not perform
according to design and that may pose a danger to patients. The current
Manufacturer and User Device Experience (MAUDE) system assists with
adverse event reporting and information dissemination for medical
devices of all types. It contains hundreds of thousands of adverse
event reports. Selected information is publicly searchable via the
internet. However, because submitted adverse event reports are often
cryptic or incomplete, it is often difficult to determine if a true
device malfunction or patient injury has occurred. Poor organization
and retrieval tools within MAUDE frustrate the users' ability to
retrieve useful information. It is particularly difficult to
distinguish multiple reports about the same adverse event from several
sources (from the manufacturer, physician and patient) and recognize
updated information. It has been noted by many that MAUDE has other
inherent problems including the issue of under reporting, out of date
information, and having inadequate resources to meet the current needs
for medical device surveillance. Registries have been created by
physician groups to begin to meet gaps in FDA efforts in medical device
surveillance. The current MAUDE system also utilizes a one-size-fits-
all form for all medical devices, making it difficult to collect
meaningful information.
Needed Changes
The Heart Rhythm Society recommends that the FDA design and
implement a more robust reporting system for observed device
malfunctions that could overcome many of the MAUDE shortcomings and
strengthen the voluntary reporting system by:
--Utilizing a specialized form for cardiac rhythm management devices
to permit better and more precise reporting of adverse events.
--Facilitating the reporting of all unexpected device malfunctions
through the adoption of remote monitoring technologies.
--Tracking devices that are returned to manufacturers for analysis
and updating publicly available adverse event reports with root
cause analyses. The system should allow individuals to track
devices through the manufacturers' analysis online, analogous
to tracking an overnight package.
--Including in the database the adjudication of root cause analysis
once that has been determined.
--Facilitating links to data from international sources which may
permit earlier detection of device malfunction.
--Employing an internet based reporting system with a user friendly
format to encourage submission of reports by health care
providers.
--Including standardized data elements and definitions for each
device malfunction such as manufacturer model and serial
numbers, dates of implant and failure, signs of failure and
clinical consequences.
--Including a search engine available for public use.
Additionally, the FDA should establish standing post-market
advisory committees that meet on a regular basis to analyze data
regarding cardiac rhythm management device performance and to advise
when and what action should be taken to address device malfunctions
that are identified. The Heart Rhythm Society supports a centralized,
rather than the current regional, system for communication of device
advisory notifications to promote a broader and more inclusive
interpretation of the advisory issues. In addition, the unique and
specialized nature of cardiac rhythm management device advisories
requires a centralized, rather than regional, intake mechanism to
enable accurate interpretation of data on an ongoing basis by key
knowledgeable FDA staff and by the other parties such as a post-market
physician advisory panel. The Heart Rhythm Society believes that a
centralized system will facilitate timely FDA classifications and urges
the FDA to classify all advisory notifications and include these data
on the Physician Device Advisory Notification form within 30 days.
Budget Justification
To implement the above suggested changes, the FDA will need
additional resources. The FDA's resources in recent years have
diminished while Congress has mandated increases in FDA's oversight
responsibilities. The number of regulated products, imports and adverse
event reports has grown rapidly in the past 6 years and FDA is asked do
more with less. Furthermore, public confidence in the agency's
effectiveness has taken an unfortunate hit. We urge Congress to
recognize that post-market surveillance, analysis, and reporting of ICD
and pacemaker performance is a high priority for ensuring patient
safety. Additionally, we urge you to recognize and address the issue
that the FDA does not currently have adequate resources to perform this
function. The enhancements to the surveillance system that HRS
recommends, particularly those to the Manufacturer and User Facility
Device Experience (MAUDE) database, will require additional resources.
By providing such resources, Congress will enable the FDA to achieve
its mission, enhance the lives of the rapidly growing number of
Americans with these devices and their families, and may decrease costs
associated with delayed identification of device malfunction.
It is for this reason that we are asking for your support to
increase the FDA's medical device budget by $20 million for fiscal year
2008 budget. We believe that these additional funds will assist the FDA
in addressing concerns that have been raised about the safety and
effectiveness of pacemakers and ICDs and the post-market surveillance
of these life saving devices. We believe patient and physician
knowledge, confidence and trust can be enhanced and strengthened
through greater transparency in post-market surveillance, analysis,
reporting and communication of this information. Thank you very much
for your consideration of our request.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact Nevena Minor, Coordinator, Health Policy at the Heart Rhythm
Society ([email protected] or 202-464-3431) or Amy Melnick, Vice
President, Health Policy ([email protected] or 202-464-3434).
______
Prepared Statement of the Imperial Valley Conservation Research Center
Committee
My name is John R. Kershaw, President of the Imperial Valley
Conservation Research Center Committee (IVCRCC). This is a group of
Imperial Valley agricultural producers who volunteer to provide support
to the ARS Brawley Research Station in Imperial County, California.
These farmers provide financial assistance and provide necessary
equipment to augment the station's annual operating budget. We are a
501(c)(5) nonprofit organization. This is a unique industry-government
partnership that has been successfully operating since 1951 when the
station was founded.
The many achievements of this research facility rank it with the
more successful ARS/USDA stations in the United States. For example, it
is one of the lowest-cost field stations in the entire USDA network of
agriculture research sites. This is true even though it is situated in
one of the most challenging areas for farming and ranching due to the
intense heat and dry conditions. Producers in our area farm land high
in salinity content that is irrigated by water containing large amounts
of salt.
The region where the Brawley station is situated has an incredible
variety of vectors for insect and crop disease pests. The agriculture
industry could not exist without strategic research programs dealing
with soil, water, pest and disease problems that habitually confront
producers. These programs, which are and have been addressed in
Brawley, range from salt tolerance studies on food crops to new crop
management studies using high salinity water, whitefly pest densities,
virus transmission and ecological genetics of pest populations,
biological control programs and IPM programs using parasites and
predators in conjunction with microbial pesticides.
With the help of crucial federal funding, the Brawley station is
pioneering projects beneficial not only to agriculture, but, perhaps
more importantly, to urban interests as well. It is participating with
the New River Congressional Task Force addressing the quality of the
New and Alamo Rivers. The focus of the this study is to demonstrate the
effectiveness of using constructed wetlands to improve water quality in
the Imperial Valley and inflows to the Salton Sea, whose water
elevation is maintained by agricultural drainage from the tributaries
of the Alamo River, New River and Whitewater Rivers.
Expanding its traditional research in order to assist USDA in its
desire to establish greater focus on forage research in the West, the
Brawley Research Station has been conducting tests on a low-cost, high
yield forage plant with multiple potential uses, including
phytoremediation. This forage plant's characteristics allow it to be
used to improve agricultural runoff and tailwater. The plant is called
Elephant Grass, also known as Napier Grass (Pennisetum Sp) and has a
trademark name of Promor A. It was discovered in Brazil and brought to
the United States through the USDA Beltsville Quarantine Station in
1991. Experimental investigations in the San Joaquin Valley indicated
that the plant, when irrigated exclusively with dairy lagoon water,
exhibited significant phytoremediation with respect to high absorption
of nitrates and phosphates. This unique variety is also regarded as a
real candidate for biomass, including a specific capability for ethanol
production.
A large group of pregnant beef cattle cows and their calves grazed
the leaves of the grass to the ground in an experiment demonstrating
its palatability and lack of toxicity. An additional large-field
phytoremediation trial for irrigation was conducted at a raisin packing
facility using processed wash water with significant nitrate levels.
The grass used in this experiment was harvested after 60 days. Forage
samples and weight measurements indicated a nitrate uptake of almost 55
pounds per acre per day. The harvested green chop forage was fed to
dairy calves with no ill effects.
Additional research at the Brawley station, including a cooperative
project with the University of California at Meloland, show the
palatability and acceptability of this grass as use in finishing diets
for feedlot cattle. Further research being conducted at the Brawley
station utilizing elephant grass fed to lactating cows under the
direction of the University of California were also very positive.
These experiments utilizing Pennisetum SP elephant grass have drawn
the interest and financial support of the California State Quality
Control Board. This Board regards the grass as a serious candidate for
a barrier crop designation to improve water quality. Ongoing research
with the City of Fresno on its waste water support the finding that
this grass may have major benefits for city water supplies. Urban use
of the grass may result as additional cities work to clean up their
water.
All of the above projects fall directly under the mandate for
research designated by the National Program 201 Water Quality
administered by ARS. This research is part of ARS current policy and
future focus. To terminate the project prematurely due to lack of
funding would severely limit the conclusions and potential benefits.
This research facility is continuing the ongoing research on its
popular Rhyzomania resistant sugar beet seeds. This research is
conducted under the supervision and direction of ARS scientist Dr.
Llewellen from Salinas. The resultant sugar beet seed has doubled sugar
beet production yields. This research is benefiting sugar beet
producers nationwide.
The research station additionally serves as a work site and
regional office for APHIS/USDA and the California Department of Food &
Agriculture.
The research facilities are also utilized by several local
agricultural entities including cotton committees and the California
Farm Bureau. We continue as a support laboratory for the unique
Salinity Assessment Vehicle and also serve as a weather station
reporting location.
In addition to the station's diversified agricultural research
agenda, it is strategically located to provide quick response support
to biosecurity and agroterrism detection work. It is situated less than
90 miles from six Mexican border crossings; one of which is only 16
miles from Brawley, and is the busiest crossing anywhere. The constant
supply of international traffic puts Imperial Valley on the front line
of protection of the American food supply from the introduction of
disease, insects and many invasive species. The station currently
headquarters research facilities and personnel from USDA and the
California Department of Food & Agriculture which can quickly implement
control and eradication programs in coordination with local
authorities, thereby making use of the best capabilities of local,
State and Federal agencies.
As for its research agenda, the station performs many trials
associated with the arid saline conditions of the region. Specific
experiments may be conducted on, but not limited to, water management,
irrigation techniques, soil salinity, crop production, plant breeding,
agricultural systems, control of aquatic weeds and integrated pest
management.
Our salinity trials are conducted in conjunction with the U.S.
Salinity Lab based in Riverside, California. The salinity work done at
the Brawley station could not effectively be performed at Riverside
because smog there negates scientific validity of the findings. The
Brawley Research Station is geared to be a contributor, if asked, to
the National Salt Cedar Demonstration Project. The station has been
monitoring native species that could be used in the revegetation of
Salt Cedar that will be removed or mitigated.
There is a date palm repository at the Imperial Valley Research
Center. This is the largest repository of date palms in the world. It
contains every known variety of date palm. This repository is used for
research. Additionally, this repository is used to provide varieties of
date palms to various countries where the United States is encouraging
farmers to grow dates.
The Imperial Valley Conservation Research Center Committee
specifically requests that $334,514 be appropriated to fund the Water
Management Research Laboratory in Brawley, CA.
The funds for this ARS/USDA research facility were deleted from the
President's proposed budget. As you know, the President's budget
deleted over $200 million for ARS research facilities nationwide. Loss
of these research facilities would be a blow to U.S. agriculture
nationwide. Specifically it would be a blow to California agriculture
and especially to agriculture in the Imperial Valley.
The ARS research station in Brawley is in very good condition and
has been well managed. The research provided by this facility far
exceeds the value of the funds requested. The farmers in the Imperial
Valley continue to support this facility with matching funds amounting
to approximately $100,000.
We urge you, Mr. Chairman, to support the continued funding for
this important ARS research station in the fiscal year 2008
agricultural appropriations bill.
______
Prepared Statement of the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group
As members of the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group, the
undersigned associations appreciate the opportunity to share with you
our agricultural research priorities for fiscal year 2008.
As you know, corn, cotton, peanuts and tree nuts are all affected
by aflatoxin, a toxin caused by the Aspergillus flavus fungus.
Aflatoxin is the costliest, most pressing mycotoxin problem affecting
each of these crops. Widespread drought conditions in 2005 resulted in
aflatoxin contamination levels in excess of earlier levels, and more
troubling in areas of the country that are not usually prone to the
problem.
Aflatoxin also dramatically decreases U.S. global competitiveness
and farm income. Most of our export customers have more stringent
aflatoxin tolerances than the U.S., resulting in closed markets.
Likewise, an aflatoxin level in excess of FDA guidelines significantly
limits the marketability of the product.
Despite the dire consequences aflatoxin has on agricultural
marketing and human safety, Federal research budgets in this area have
been declining for the past decade. Given recent events and the spread
of the disease, the Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group recommends $1.25
million for aflatoxin research through the Pre-Harvest Control of
Aflatoxin research program. Specifically, this is an increase of
$500,000 over fiscal year 2007 funding levels. These funds will be
administered by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) and dispersed
on a competitive basis for aflatoxin research. These grants are awarded
on both crop specific and aflatoxin-wide research. Some examples of
current research are conventional crop breeding, use of atoxigenic
strains, host and fungal genomics, genetic blocks of toxin production
and transgenic resistances. Although each of these projects have
different approaches, they all share one common goal, the elimination
of aflatoxin from the worlds food supply. Following this statement, we
have provided the Committee with an example of previous work funded by
ARS.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to
agricultural research over the years. Please contact Lisa Kelley with
the National Corn Growers Association at 202-628-7001 or Howard
Valentine with the Peanut Foundation at 706-579-1755 if you need any
additional information.
APPENDIX
Previous Work Funded By ARS:
In Dr. Felicia Wu's previous work funded by ARS, ``Total Economic
Impact of Aflatoxin: Models of Economic Loss and Industry Learning,''
she developed the conceptual basis for the aflatoxin economic model
shown in Figure 1 of the Research Approach. She implemented the
following equations under ``Noncompliance Adjustment Costs'' and
``Livestock Health Effects'' for corn, by considering two classes of
impact: market losses and animal health losses.
High quality corn can be sold as human-food-grade corn at the
highest market price. Corn contaminated with aflatoxin levels between
the highest-permitted levels of food and feed can be sold for animal
feed at a lower price, and corn with high levels of aflatoxin is either
sold for non-food-non-feed uses at an even lower price or rejected
outright. The proportions of the total crop that are rejected at each
of these levels depend on the national or international standards for
mycotoxins in food and feed. Thus:
LossMarket = Mcrop*[dPfoodQfoodRfood+dPfeedQfeedRfeed],
where
Mcrop = proportion of total corn production sold
dPfood = price difference between food-grade and feed-grade corn
dPfeed = price difference between feed grade and lowest-grade corn
Qfood, Qfeed, = quantities intended for food and feed, respectively
Rfood, Rfeed = proportions of corn found to be above aflatoxin
guidelines for feed and feed
Animal health as a function of aflatoxin contamination is dependent
on three factors: the number of animals experiencing mortality or
morbidity as a result of aflatoxin consumption, the cost of treatment
for sick animals, and the market value of each animal.
LossAnimal =<3-ln-grk-S>a [(Amort,a*[Vanimal,a+ Treata] + Amorb,a
Treata],
where
Amort, Amorb = number of animals experiencing mortality or
morbidity
Vanimal = market value per animal
Treata = medical treatment cost per animal
The subscript a indicates the affected species of animals a =
(cattle, swine, poultry)
Data for each of these parameters were gathered from the USDA
National Agricultural Statistical Service (NASS) and elevant literature
on aflatoxin's animal effects (Lubulwa and Davis 1994, Keyl 1978, Wyatt
1991). Annual aflatoxin-related market losses in U.S. corn were
estimated to be $163 million ($73-332 million; 95 percent CI): $31
million in food-grade rejections and $132 million in feed-grade
rejections. Annual livestock losses were estimated at $4 million ($1-9
million). Sampling and testing costs vary by year, with an average $25
million cost annually to growers ($10-250 million; the large confidence
interval reflects the high variability in this area). In addition, the
following currently ``intangible'' costs were considered: losses
related to ethanol production (and the resulting concentration of
aflatoxin in the distillation byproducts), grower disposal of highly
contaminated corn, sampling errors, and losses on a geographical basis.
The total annual loss to U.S. corn of measurable aflatoxin-related
losses was roughly $200 million ($192 million, with uncertainty
bounds); however, the intangible costs could increase this loss
significantly.
Dr. Wu's first year of work with ARS provided her an excellent
opportunity to meet key representatives from the major commodities that
are affected by aflatoxin contamination. She is grateful to the
following commodity experts, who, among others, provided her with
useful information regarding aflatoxin's specific impacts on each
commodity: Larry Antilla, Scott Averhoff, Peter Cotty, David Gibson,
Mike Hurley, Merle Jacobs, Dave Kendra, Bob Klein, Marshall Lamb, Dewey
Lee, Howard Valentine, and Phillip Wakelyn. The insights and data she
has gained through these collaborations will provide a basis for her
economic research in this proposal.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Coalition for Food and Agricultural
Research
Dear Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bennett 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 2008 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 ``LunchNLearn'' 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 2008 FUNDING FOR FOOD & AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH,
EXTENSION & EDUCATION
CSREES.--National C-FAR urges the Subcommittee and Committee to
support the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request for USDA's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
of $1.036 billion, augmented at a minimum by restoring the funding
equivalent of ``earmark'' funding incorporated into the fiscal year
2007 CR--and other increases to the extent practicable. The
Administration's proposal represents a 10 percent decrease as compared
with fiscal year 2007 funding levels, and National C-FAR believes a
significant increase is fully warranted.
The Administration's fiscal year 2008 request does not include
about $190 million in funding that Congress in the past has invested in
so-called ``earmarks'' in the CSREES account. In the fiscal year 2007
CR Congress opted to eliminate the earmarks but included the funding
equivalent in the CSREES account. National C-FAR strongly urges the
Subcommittee and Committee to restore this funding to the fiscal year
2008 budget for CSREES, whether designated for specific projects or for
distribution by CSREES.
National C-FAR supports funding the National Research Initiative
(NRI) at the authorized level of $500 million. The Administration's
$256.5 million fiscal year 2008 request represents a significant
increase over the fiscal year 2007 Congressional funding level of $190
million. However, a portion of the proposed increase ($42 million)
results from a shift of CSREES Integrated Activities, such as food
safety, pest management, and water quality, providing a net increase of
$25 million for NRI.
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 urges the Subcommittee and Committee to
support the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request for USDA's
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) of $1.056 billion, augmented at a
minimum by restoring the funding equivalent of ``earmark'' funding
incorporated into the fiscal year 2007 CR--and other increases to the
extent practicable. National C-FAR is concerned that ARS funding has
been cut each of the past several years and urges the Subcommittee and
Committee to sustain and enhance ARS funding. 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.
According to the Administration, its fiscal year 2008 request of
$1.129 billion for ARS does not include about $280 million in so-called
``earmark'' funding [divided about equally between research projects
and facilities] that Congress in the past has invested in. In the
fiscal year 2007 CR Congress opted to eliminate the earmarks but
included the funding equivalent in the ARS account. National C-FAR
strongly urges the Subcommittee and Committee to restore this funding
to the fiscal year 2008 budget for ARS, whether designated for specific
projects or for distribution by ARS.
ERS.--National C-FAR urges the Subcommittee and Committee to
support the Administration's fiscal year 2008 request of $83 million
for the USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS), which represents a
modest increase over the fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2007
appropriated levels and provides additional funding to strengthen the
market analysis and outlook capabilities and bioenergy economic
analysis. 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.
FS.--National C-FAR urges the Committee to support the
Administration's fiscal year 2008 funding request of $263 million for
forest and rangeland research. National C-FAR is concerned that this
represents a decrease in funding compared with fiscal year 2007. While
the Administration may be justified in dropping lower priority
projects, stagnant and declining funding is inappropriate in light of
major challenges in forest, range and ecosystem management and
utilization.
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.
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 five-year mark, the larger
reality is the threat of funding cuts. National C-FAR is urging the
Congress to reaffirm a commitment to doubling funding in food and
agricultural research, extension and education in the 2007 farm bill.
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.
ENHANCED INVESTMENT IN RESEARCH, EXTENSION & EDUCATION ESSENTIAL TO
SUCCESS
The research, extension & education title of the Farm Bill
represents the nation's signature Federal investment in the future of
the food and agricultural sector. Other Farm Bill titles depend heavily
upon the Research Title for tools to help achieve their stated
objectives. 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.
Tools provided through research, extension & education are needed
to help achieve safer, more nutritious, convenient and affordable foods
delivered to sustain a well nourished, healthy population; more
efficient and environmentally friendly food, fiber and forest
production; improved water quality, land conservation, wildlife and
other environmental conditions; less dependence on non-renewable
sources of energy; expanded global markets and improved balance of
trade; and more jobs and sustainable rural economic development.
Societal demands and expectations placed upon the food and agricultural
system are ever-changing and growing. Examples of current and future
needs include--strengthened bio-security; food-linked health costs;
environment and conservation; farm income and rural revitalization;
biofuels and climate change; the world demand for food and natural
fiber and improved diets; and biotechnology and genetic resources
research and public oversight.
DEMONSTRATED VALUE OF PUBLIC INVESTMENTS IN RESEARCH
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.
Public investment in research is a wise investment. An analysis by
the International Food Policy Research Institute of 292 studies of the
impacts of ag 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 81 Percent annual rate of return on
public investments in ag research & extension!
Food and agricultural research, extension and education to date
have helped provide the United States with a food and agricultural
system that consistently produces high quality, affordable food,
natural fiber and other products, 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.
--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.
--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.
FUNDING INSUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS PRIORITY NEEDS
By any measure, Federal funding for food and agricultural research,
extension and education has failed to keep pace with identified
priority needs. 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. The unparalleled success story in
the food and agricultural system is a product in large part of past
investments in food and agricultural research and extension.
However, Federal funding for food and agricultural research,
extension and education has been essentially 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 outpaced investment in the United States.
Stagnant 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 doing fine and that funds can be
redirected to other needs. The U.S. food and agricultural sector has
been a world leader and has provided unprecedented value to U.S.
citizens, and indeed the world community. However, societal demands and
expectations placed upon the food and agricultural system are ever-
changing and growing.
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 deliver beneficial and
timely solutions. Multiple examples, such as those highlighted 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.
--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 and conservation challenges related to global
warming, limited water resources, enhanced wildlife habitat,
and competing demands for land and other agricultural
resources. Rural water conservation and development of drought-
resistant crops have evolved from a good idea to a necessity.
--It is a highly competitive world for food and agriculture and rural
America. 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.
--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.
--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.
If these challenges and opportunities are to be met, then the
nation must commit to a stronger investment that reflects the long-term
benefits of food and agricultural research, extension and education.
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 2008 and
beyond; and
--Actions should be taken to 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 Committee in
support of these important funding objectives.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to share with you our agriculture appropriations priorities
for fiscal year 2008. NCGA represents more than 32,000 members in 48
States, 47 affiliated State organizations and more than 300,000 corn
farmers who contribute to State checkoff programs for the purpose of
creating new opportunities and markets for corn growers.
America's corn producers continue to make a significant and
important contribution to our nation's economy. Over the last 5 years,
the Nation's corn crop has averaged 10.3 billion bushels resulting in
an annual average farm gate value of almost $22 billion. The relatively
stable production over the past 10 years, made possible by innovation
in production practices and technological advances, has helped to
ensure ample supplies of corn for livestock, an expanding ethanol
industry, new biobased products and a host of other uses in the corn
industry.
Aflatoxin Research
Aflatoxin is a significant problem for corn growers. While the
disease is most common in the South, northern corn growers also
experience aflatoxin, especially in times of drought. Aflatoxin costs
corn growers millions of dollars in lost sales every year.
Currently, the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) receives about $7
million per year for its entire aflatoxin research program. Of that,
ARS awards about $750,000 in competitive grants each year for pre-
harvest aflatoxin research on corn, cotton, peanuts and tree nuts.
These figures have been relatively flat for 10 years. NCGA requests an
additional $500,000 for ARS's aflatoxin cooperative agreement program,
totaling $1.25 million. We believe the funds should be used to address
cross-cutting issues of concern to all affected crops and the
development of nondestructive testing protocols and technologies.
Genomic Research
The entire corn industry, including the academic research
community, grain handlers, growers, industry and seed companies
strongly believe that research on plant and plant genomes has
substantial long-term benefits. NCGA supports the plant genome research
conducted by ARS through its genetic resources, genome sequencing and
genome bioinformatics programs. Specifically, this research includes
plant and fungal genomics exploration to determine what drives
aflatoxin production, what causes susceptibility, and helps us
understand plant and fungal nutrient and environmental needs.
NCGA also supports the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service's National Research Initiative. Our research policy
supports competitive grants where appropriate.
APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Service
NCGA supports the President's budget request of $14.141 million for
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Biotechnology
Regulatory Service as well as the separate funding stream requested in
the budget from the Office of the Secretary for the same. These
resources are necessary to ensure the agency properly manages its
functions associated with this expanding technology to maintain
consumer and customer confidence in our strong science-based regulatory
structure.
FAS SPS Issues Resolution
NCGA supports the President's budget request of $27.153 million
that increases funding by $6,196,000 within the Foreign Agricultural
Service (FAS) for Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) resolution.
Unnecessarily restrictive regulations to address plant health risks are
major impediments to U.S. market expansion. As trade barriers have been
reduced, there has been a dramatic increase in non-tariff trade
barriers to trade.
FAS Market Access
NCGA supports the President's budget request of $200 million for
the Market Access Program (MAP) within the Foreign Agricultural
Service. This program has been successful in maintaining and expanding
U.S. agricultural exports and strengthening farm income. The 2002 farm
bill authorizes up to $200 million in mandatory spending for MAP; NCGA
urges that the program be funded at the fully authorized level.
National Corn to Ethanol Research Center
In 2006, fuel ethanol production from corn generated 4.8 billion
gallons of ethanol, displacing 3 percent of petroleum imports. Economic
forecasting estimates that the United States is capable of producing in
excess of 14 billion gallons of ethanol by 2015. Such production is
critical to our national economy, energy security and the environment.
The National Corn-to-Ethanol Research Center (NCERC) at Southern
Illinois University--Edwardsville is in a perfect position to: continue
generation of baseline data, serve as training center for Workforce
Development and expand as a Lignocellulosic Center of Excellence. To
fulfill these objectives, NCGA is seeking additional funding on behalf
of NCERC.
Updated baseline data is continuously required to be reflective of
industry changes and their impact on product yields and efficiencies.
The goal of this objective is to continue generating baseline data
under typical industry operating conditions reflective of changing
industry practices and changes in inputs (e.g. fractionization, corn
hybrids, enzymes, yeast practices). The baseline data generated by the
NCERC is of significant interest to academic, government, industry and
trade association ethanol researchers as well as ethanol plant
operators. The baseline data generated by NCERC is providing a critical
benchmark for all industry and institutional comparison testing. We
encourage the committee to provide $400,000 to NCERC for this purpose.
A key component to the success of the ethanol industry over the
next decade is to ensure the industry has a ready and available
workforce. NCERC is well-positioned to train an immediately productive
workforce as it plays a unique role in serving both the educational
mission of the university as well as meeting the growing needs of the
biofuels industry. NCERC provides a year-long, hands-on workforce
training program to student interns while conducting commercial testing
trials. Since opening in late 2003, nearly 35 interns have helped with
the successful operation of the plant and labs. NCGA requests an
additional $1,000,000 to expand the current internship program to meet
the growing needs of the industry. Through this endeavor, NCERC will
develop and implement a National Biofuels Workforce Training Center.
For cellulose to be a viable feedstock, the process of converting
cellulose to ethanol must be optimized. The three ``process points'' of
optimization in the cellulose to ethanol process are: pre-treatment
method, enzyme functionality and fermentation organisms (yeast). The
NCERC is a research leader in the conversion of corn to ethanol and its
co-product. Therefore, the NCERC is able to more cost-effectively stay
on the cutting edge of technology as we enter a new era of converting
cellulose to ethanol.
The NCERC is well-positioned to work directly with USDA/ARS, the
Department of Energy, and Academic and Industry researchers who are
conducting scientific discovery research on the conversion of cellulose
to ethanol. This work will spur unlimited investment by private
industry as they will make that crucially important decision to enter
the cellulose to ethanol market. We encourage the committee to consider
NCERC as Lignocellulosic Center of Excellence.
Ethanol Coproduct Utilization
One of the major benefits of using corn as a feedstock for ethanol
production is the ability to retain the protein, fat, fiber, vitamins
and minerals for use as an animal feed. The co-product of ethanol
production, distillers dried grain with solubles (DDGS), results from
the concentration and drying of the components remaining after the
starch portion of corn is converted to ethanol. Strong global demand
for DDGS will be critical in maximizing the potential and profitability
of fuel ethanol production from corn while ensuring livestock feed
needs are met.
While nearly 12 million tons of DDGS was fed domestically or
exported in 2006, use of this alternative feed ingredient may be
limited in the future because of real and perceived issues relating to
DDGS consistency, quality, flowability and feed efficiency. NCGA
encourages the committee to dedicate the resources necessary to greatly
expand ARS's efforts in this area, particularly as they relate to DDGS
flowability, contaminant mitigation, nutritional value, and nutrient
and mineral management issues.
Value-Added Grants
Grants from USDA's Value-Added Product Market Development Grant
program have been used by corn growers to leverage significant
investments in rural communities. NCGA supports this grant program as
authorized by the 2002 farm bill at $40 million per year. Potential
technologies include processing identity-preserved corn varieties and
adding value to the non-fermentable components of the corn feedstock.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn
growers over the years. Please feel free to contact Lisa Kelley at 202-
628-7001 if you need any additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association
The Honorable Herb Kohl, Mr. Chairman and Subcommittee members, I
am Frank Kubik, 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. It began in 1969 for low-income mothers and children,
preceding the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children known as WIC. Pilot programs in 1983 added low-
income seniors to the list of eligible participants and they now
comprise 91 percent 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 departments of health,
agriculture or education provide administration and oversight. These
agency's contracts 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 to 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 in both rural and urban
settings with vital nutrition.
The foods provided through CSFP include canned fruits and
vegetables, juices, meats, fish, peanut butter, cereals and grain
products, cheese, and other dairy products increase 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 NCSFPA would like to express our concern
and disappointment regarding the reduction of available CSFP resources
for fiscal year 2008.
--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
areas that were affected by the hurricanes of 2005 and who were
given 6 month CSFP supplemental caseload that has since been
exhausted.
--At a time when many Americans must choose between food or medicine,
utilities, and other basic expenses, the Federal Government
should not be reducing benefits for our most vulnerable
citizens.
CSFP's 38 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 advantages unparalleled by any other food assistance
program:
--The CSFP specifically targets our Nation's most nutritionally
vulnerable populations: young children and low-income seniors.
--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 as prescribed by their health care provider.
--The CSFP purchases foods at wholesale prices, which directly
supports the farming community. The average food package for
fiscal year 2007 is $15.85, and 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 2008 would
eliminate CSFP completely, and would eliminate all of this effort and
support of those 38 years. This proposal has shocked the entire CSFP
community as well as legislators, anti-hunger and senior service
organizations and the concerned citizens as they have become aware of
it. America's Second Harvest, AARP, and FRAC 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. Last year this subcommittee and all of
Congress provided funding for CSFP in direct opposition to its proposed
elimination. This year, your support is again needed to provide
adequate resources for the 485,416 mothers, children and seniors
currently receiving benefits, 20,500 low-income participants currently
waiting in five new States and 100,827 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 six months, or
until the participant actually enrolls in the FSP, whichever comes
first. Simply transferring seniors to the FSP is an inadequate
solution. It is essential for seniors to have access to services which
they feel are 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 continue to be available as part of
the ``safety net'' for our low-income participants.
USDA reports that the average benefit paid to senior citizens is
about $67 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.
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 $50 worth of nutritious foods? What
happens at the end of 6 months?
The National Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association
requested the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee take the
appropriate actions to funding CSFP for fiscal year 2008 at $157.4
million as illustrated below:
To continue serving the 485,416 needy seniors (91 percent of
participants), women, infants and children (9 percent of participants)
currently enrolled in CSFP--$123 million.
To serve the 22,577 individuals who received a food package through
the supplemental caseload provided to hurricane ravaged Gulf States.--
$4.3 million.
To meet USDA's commodity procurement expenses--$0.7 million.
Appropriation required to serve the 507,993 people who have relied
upon CSFP for supplemental nutrition--$128 million.
To begin meeting the needs of 20,500 eligible seniors in the 5
States with USDA approved plans: Arkansas (5,000), Delaware (2,500),
Oklahoma (5,000), New Jersey (5,000) and Utah (3,000)--$3.9 million.
To serve an additional 100,827 individuals among of our Nation's
most vulnerable individuals in the 32 States with existing programs and
documented additional needs--$25.5 million.
Appropriation needed to maximize this program's effectiveness in
serving 629,518 seniors and women and their infants and young children
challenged by hunger--$157.4 million.
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. The 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 nearly 50 percent of the resources used in providing these
services.
ATTACHMENT 1.--NATIONAL CSFP ASSOCIATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE VALUE SURVEY FISCAL YEAR 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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................................................... $416,648 $13,227 $429,875 $6,650 $108,235 $544,760 76 $2,625
New York........................................................ 1,804,443 45,000 1,849,443 1,000 296,307 2,146,750 84 12,755
Vermont FB...................................................... 246,524 300,000 546,524 .............. 90,200 636,724 39 2,000
Washington DC................................................... 439,098 1,600,000 2,039,098 800,000 172,318 3,011,416 15 ..............
Pennsylvania.................................................... 835,702 53,197 888,899 22,885 186,985 1,098,769 76 92,638
Kentucky........................................................ 898,857 162,681 1,061,538 22,180 704,282 1,788,000 50 714,055.00
Mississippi..................................................... 400,448 .............. 400,448 160,370 561,766 1,122,584 36 ..............
North Carolina.................................................. 74,583 30,000 104,583 .............. .............. 104,583 71 5,000
South Carolina.................................................. 212,744 .............. 212,744 .............. 58,883 271,627 78 2,500
Tennessee \1\................................................... 804,260 .............. 804,260 .............. .............. 804,260 100 ..............
Illinois........................................................ 885,767 3,000 888,767 .............. 477,447 1,366,214 65 ..............
Indiana......................................................... 246,603 28,072 274,675 22,000 396,880 693,555 36 443
Michigan........................................................ 4,490,742 601,805 5,092,547 356,773 2,161,385 7,610,705 59 769,301
Minnesota....................................................... 802,557 103,225 905,782 19,000 173,068 1,097,850 73 199,000
Red Lake, MN.................................................... 5,841 .............. 5,841 .............. .............. 5,841 100 ..............
Ohio............................................................ 709,662 94,228 803,890 65,000 368,251 1,237,141 57 302,000
Wisconsin....................................................... 276,228 56,458 332,686 3,150 300,691 636,527 43 41,845
Louisiana....................................................... 4,505,386 250,000 4,755,386 452,000 825,330 6,032,716 75 ..............
New Mexico...................................................... 1,009,150 272,139 1,281,289 97,987 350,283 1,729,559 58 446,378
Texas........................................................... 708,521 70,000 778,521 15,000 405,900 1,199,421 59 12,000
Colorado........................................................ 1,193,799 204,168 1,397,967 30,474 612,151 2,040,592 59 878,389
Iowa............................................................ 222,652 520,767 743,419 .............. 29,712 773,131 29 ..............
Kansas.......................................................... 333,423 45,715 379,138 46,200 209,986 635,323 52 51,400
Missouri........................................................ 532,997 29,000 561,997 2,400 398,455 962,852 55 1,010,950
Montana......................................................... 385,402 35,525 420,927 107,333 2,163,357 2,691,617 14 78,825
Nebraska........................................................ 756,827 87,486 844,313 21,580 308,475 1,174,369 64 89,709
North Dakota.................................................... 160,216 7,800 168,016 .............. 235,729 403,745 40 ..............
South Dakota.................................................... 160,962 33,520 194,482 .............. 32,842 227,324 71 ..............
Ogala Sioux, SD................................................. 37,341 .............. 37,341 .............. .............. 37,341 100 ..............
Alaska.......................................................... 130,334 48,038 178,372 10,000 45,100 233,472 56 ..............
Arizona......................................................... 883,204 450,000 1,333,204 4,516 1,549,401 2,887,121 31 580,460
California...................................................... 3,078,203 1,265,849 4,344,052 68,600 2,492,966 6,905,618 45 772,308
Nevada.......................................................... 352,044 97,629 449,673 .............. 84,788 534,461 66 113,000
Oregon.......................................................... 78,299 48,000 126,299 .............. 75,768 202,067 39 ..............
Washington...................................................... 132,094 25,000 157,094 250 39,544 196,888 67 ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................................... 28,211,561 6,581,529 34,793,090 2,335,348 15,916,481 53,044,919 53 6,177,579
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ No information provided.
fiscal year 2008 budget request
On behalf of low-income seniors and women and their infants and
young children in need of the prescribed packages of nutritious food
made available through the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP),
we request not only the rejection of the proposal to eliminate CSFP,
but also consideration of increases in program resources.
At a modest cost of 15.85 per monthly food package, CSFP leverages
the efforts and energy of thousands of volunteers at churches and
charities across America to deliver essential nutrition with a retail
value in excess of 50.00 per month to vulnerable members of ``The
Greatest Generation'' and to help at-risk members of the next
generation get a healthy start. The appropriations required and the
benefits anticipated are as follows:
To continue serving the 485,416 needy seniors (91 percent of
participants), women, infants and children (9 percent of participants)
currently enrolled in CSFP--$123 million.
To serve the 22,577 individuals who received a food package through
the supplemental caseload provided to hurricane ravaged Gulf States--
$4.3 million.
To meet USDA's commodity procurement expenses--$.7 million.
Appropriation required to serve the 507,993 people who have relied
upon CSFP for supplemental nutrition--$128 million.
To begin meeting the needs of 20,500 eligible seniors in the 5
States with USDA approved plans Arkansas (5,000), Delaware (2,500),
Oklahoma (5,000), New Jersey (5,000) and Utah (3,000)--$3.9 million.
To serve an additional 100,827 individuals among of our Nation's
most vulnerable individuals in the 32 States with existing programs and
documented additional needs--$25.5 million.
Appropriation needed to maximize this program's effectiveness in
serving 629,518 seniors and women and their infants and young children
challenged by hunger--$157.4 million.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Environmental Services Center (NESC)
Chairman Kohl, Senator Bennett, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Subcommittee on
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies.\1\ We request
funding to support the programs of the National Drinking Water
Clearinghouse in providing information and technical assistance to
small and rural and underserved communities under the Rural Utilities
Service programs of the USDA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The National Environmental Services Center is located at West
Virginia University. This statement has been prepared by Richard
Bajura, Executive Director, with assistance from Pamela Schade and
Trina Wafle. For more information, see our Web site at http://
www.nesc.wvu.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Need for Federal Programs
Clean, safe drinking water and wastewater treatment are critical to
public and environmental health. For most of us, it's easy to take
water for granted. However, 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 and Wastewater 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 people) 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 in meeting
regulatory requirements. 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. 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 system operators 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. Wastewater infrastructure will
need an estimated $388 billion during the same time period. ASCE puts
the water infrastructure funding gap at $534 billion over the same time
period, saying that the EPA estimate doesn't adequately address
population growth and new construction. In the 2003 update to ASCE's
Report Card for America's Infrastructure, both water and wastewater
were given a grade of ``D.'' The report suggests that, without new
investment, progress made over the last 30 years is threatened.
Federal Assistance Programs
As a partial solution to addressing these challenges, the Water and
Wastewater Technical Assistance and Training [TAT] grants under USDA's
Rural Community Advancement Program make it possible for small and
rural communities to maximize their investments in water infrastructure
through assistance with technology selection, operation and
maintenance, capacity development, and asset management. The National
Drinking Water Clearinghouse has been a strong partner with USDA in
providing services to these communities. We are requesting
appropriations in fiscal year 2008 to continue our work with USDA by
providing the kinds of services described below.
About the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC)
For 17 years, the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse at West
Virginia University has helped small and rural communities with their
water infrastructure management. In 2001, the NDWC also undertook
programs related to utility security issues.
The NDWC provides a range of assistance for small communities.
Telephone callers can obtain toll-free technical assistance from our
staff of engineers and scientists. Our quarterly publication On Tap, a
magazine about drinking water treatment, financing, and management
options, helps communities and small water systems operate, manage, and
maintain their facilities, while keeping them financially viable. A
comprehensive Web site and databases with thousands of entries provide
round-the-clock access to contemporary information on small water
system. Training sessions customized for small and rural areas,
teleconferences, Web casts, and more than 400 free and low-cost
educational products give people the instruction and tools they need to
address their most pressing water issues. These services are well
received by small community officials and service providers.
In addition to our knowledge base, technical assistance through
telephone consultation, and publications which we provide to the
public, the NDWC wishes to develop new initiatives targeted to reach
underserved communities found in places such as rural Appalachia, the
Mississippi Delta, the Colonias in the U.S.-Mexico border region, and
Native American Tribes.
Request
In fiscal year 2008, we want to strengthen our core programs in
providing information and technical assistance and also develop special
initiatives to address problems unique to certain underserved
communities as described above. We seek an appropriation of $1.7
million to support our work in these two important program areas. Thank
you for considering our request.
______
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 2008 funding
request for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation).
Since 2000, the Foundation has received $3 million annually from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS). We have worked with NRCS to focus on agency wildlife priorities
in the past and look forward to continuing to do so. With a Farm Bill
pending, we have a number of outside organizations willing to match
federally provided dollars to assist in agricultural wildlife
conservation projects.
--The Foundation respectfully requests that this Subcommittee fund
the Foundation at $4 million through the NRCS Appropriation.
These dollars will be focused on mutually agreed upon projects
across the country. Furthermore, the appropriated $4 million will be
turned into a minimum of $8 million, according to the Foundation's
Congressional Charter which requires a minimum of a one-to-one match.
We have been operating on a three-to-one match historically, which
means that the $4 million has the potential to turn into $16 million or
more for on-the-ground conservation. One other note of special interest
is that according to the Foundation's Charter, all directly
appropriated funds have to be obligated to grants as they are not
available to the Foundation for any direct or indirect expenses.
Since 2000 when the grants partnership began, the Foundation has
received $21 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 470
projects in 49 States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific Islands, by
leveraging the $21 million in NRCS funds into more than $85 million in
on-the-ground conservation. These projects have led to the direct
restoration of more than 1,232,000 acres of farmland and rangeland and
1,041 miles of streams and rivers. In fiscal year 2006, the Foundation
received $3 million in NRCS Federal funds, which it leveraged into more
than $14 million in on-the-ground conservation.
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, by way of
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.
--Pulling Together Initiative (PTI).--In fiscal year 2006, 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 (FWS),
USDA-Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and the Department
of Defense to review and jointly select the most innovative
weed management projects.
--Due to the successful experience with the PTI program, NRCS has
expressed an interest in participating in the Foundation's
Bring Back the Natives (BBN) grant program in fiscal year 2007
(depending on appropriations). The BBN program is a public-
private partnership, including FS, BLM, FWS, Trout Unlimited
and the Foundation; it is focused on restoring native
populations of sensitive or listed aquatic species. Priority is
provided to aquatic joint ventures and to those projects that
directly implement the recommendations of the National Fish
Habitat Action Plan.
The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation continues to be one of,
if not the most, cost-effective conservation program funded in part by
the Federal Government. Congress established the Foundation 23 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, as well
as 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 2008, 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 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. This request would allow the Foundation to expand its
highly successful grant program to better assist NRCS in maximizing
private land conservation.
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, Doris Duke Foundation, the Kellogg
Foundation, Wal-Mart, Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., Southern Company,
Summer T. McKnight Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, William
Penn Foundation, and the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.
We also measure our success in part by preventing the listing of
species under the Endangered Species Act, as well as 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.
New Strategic Plan.--During 2006, the Foundation underwent a
detailed self-evaluation, which resulted in the development of a new
strategic plan for the organization. The strategic planning process
revealed that the Foundation maximizes conservation benefits when it
targets a series of grants towards a specific geographic region,
habitat type, or conservation challenge. To ensure that future grants
achieve a sustainable and measurable conservation impact, the
Foundation is establishing targeted Keystone Initiatives around the
core conservation investment areas in which the Foundation has
historically specialized. The Keystone Initiatives represent the new
core portfolio of the Foundation's grant making with clearly defined
long-term goals, well-articulated strategies, and defined budgets to
reach desired outcomes.
The four initial Keystone Initiatives, launched by the Foundation
in 2007, include Birds; Wildlife and Landscape Scale Habitats;
Freshwater Fish and Habitats; and Marine and Coastal Life and Habitats.
Additional Keystone Initiatives being developed include Wildlife and
Agriculture, Wildlife and Energy Development, Invasive Species, and
Future Conservation Leaders. Each grant approved under a Keystone
Initiative will be designed to provide a measurable outcome that brings
us one step closer to the final long-term conservation goal of the
Initiative. Where appropriate, the strategies and outcomes of the
Foundation's Special Grant Programs, such as the Great Lakes
Restoration Fund, Bring Back the Natives, and the Coral Reef
Conservation Fund, will be designed to directly contribute to the long-
term Keystone Initiative goal. Through our targeted grants, the
Foundation seeks to achieve measurable success in ``moving the needle''
on these critical conservation objectives over the next 5 to 10 year
period.
Accountability and Grantsmanship.--During the strategic planning
process, Foundation staff spent time listening to feedback from our
agency partners and grantees. Choke points in our grant making process
were identified, and the Foundation is in the process of revising
portions of our grant review and contracting process to ensure we
maximize efficiency while maintaining strict financial and evaluation-
based requirements. The Foundation has also launched a new website that
is more user-friendly and content rich than the previous version. This
new interactive tool will allow the Foundation to improve communication
with our stakeholders and will help streamline our grant making
process.
To ensure that only those grants with the greatest likelihood of
obtaining conservation outcomes directly related to a Keystone
Initiative are funded, the Foundation has implemented a thorough review
process. Applicants are required to submit a pre-proposal which allows
staff to proactively work with applicants to refine and improve their
application before submitting a full proposal. All full proposals are
then submitted to a peer review process which involves five external
reviews representing State agencies, Federal agencies, affected
industry, environmental non-profits, and academics. Grants are also
reviewed by the Foundation's Keystone Initiative staff, as well as
evaluation staff, before being recommended to the Board of Directors
for approval. In addition, the Foundation 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, according to our Congressional Charter.
Basic Facts About the Foundation.--The Foundation is governed by a
25-member Board of Directors, appointed by the Secretary of 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,
most all of our directors make financial contributions to the
Foundation. It is a diverse Board, and includes the Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, as well as corporate and
philanthropic leaders with a tenacious commitment to fish and wildlife
conservation.
None of our federally appropriated funds are used for lobbying,
litigation, or the Foundation's administrative expenses. By
implementing strategic real-world solutions with the private sector,
while avoiding regulatory or advocacy activities, we serve as a model
for developing cooperative solutions to environmental issues. We are
confident that the money you appropriate to the Foundation is making a
positive difference.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Potato Council
Legislative/Government Affairs
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 2008 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 2008 budget request to eliminate the CSREES Special Grant
Programs. This program supports and fine tunes important university
research work that helps our growers remain competitive in today's
domestic and world marketplace.
The NPC supports an appropriation of $1,800,000 for the Special
Potato Grant program for fiscal year 2008. The Congress appropriated
$1,482,000 in fiscal year 2006 and recommended the same amount in
fiscal year 2007. 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 2008 budget request to rescind 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 2008 as requested by the Administration.
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)
The NPC supports the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of
$268 million for the USDA Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS). This level
is necessary for the agency given the multitude of trade negotiations
and discussions currently underway. The Agency has had to absorb pay
cost increases as well as higher operating costs for its overseas
offices such as increased payments to the Department of State for
services provided at overseas posts. Recent declines in the value of
the dollar, coupled with overseas inflation and rising wage rates, have
led to sharply higher operating costs that must be accommodated if FAS
is to maintain its overseas presence.
Food Aid Programs
McGovern-Dole
The NPC supports the Administration's fiscal year 2008 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.
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 USDA-APHIS 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. Even though DHS
staffing has increased, agriculture priorities have not been adequately
addressed.
Pest Detection.--The NPC supports $45 million in fiscal year 2008,
which is the Administration's budget request. This increase is
essential for the Plant Protection and Quarantine Service's (PPQ)
efforts against potato pests and diseases such as Ralstonia and the
potato cyst nematode.
Emerging Plant Pests.--$93 million was appropriated in fiscal year
2007. The President requests $124 million in fiscal year 2008 which the
NPC supports. This budget request includes an increase of $4.5 million
for potato cyst nematode regulatory, control and survey activity.
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.--$12,457,000 appropriated in
fiscal year 2007and the President requests $15 million in fiscal year
2008. 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, as well as for vegetable pesticide use surveys, which
provides valuable data to the EPA for use in registration and re
registration decisions for key chemical tools.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Rural Telecom Association
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY REQUESTS
Project Involved
Telecommunications lending programs administered by the Rural
Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Actions Proposed
Supporting loan levels for fiscal year 2008 in the amounts
requested in the President's budget for 5 percent direct ($145 million)
and cost-of-money ($250 million) and the associated subsidy, as
required, to fund those programs at the requested levels.
Supporting Sec. 306 guaranteed loans in the amount ($295 million)
requested in the budget.
Opposing the budget request that would cut direct loans for
broadband facilities and Internet service access by 40 percent from the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $500 million to $300 million.
Supporting renewal of the pilot broadband grant program at enhanced
levels and an allocation of a portion of the authorized levels for
broadband loans at reduced interest rates to accelerate deployment of
this technology in rural areas.
Seeking language strengthening and improving the operation of the
broadband loan program in the Committee Report accompanying the bill.
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. Over 700 of the Nation's local, rural 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 almost 40 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. 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 these
loans have been repaid in accordance with their terms: almost $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 2008 and the appropriation of the
associated subsidy costs, as required, to support these levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent Direct Loans.................................. $145,000,000
Cost-of-Money Loans..................................... 250,000,000
Guaranteed Loans........................................ 295,000,000
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 2008 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 2006 and
current estimates are that authorized program levels will be met in
fiscal year 2007.
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.
The Broadband Loan Program
The broadband loan program was funded in fiscal year 2006 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 2008 by 40 percent to $300 million. We are opposed to that
reduced level and recommend to the committee that the fiscal year 2008
appropriations bill continue to fund the program at enacted levels. The
demand for this program is still quite strong and if the Congress'
stated objective of deploying this technology to all rural areas of
this country is to be met, the $500 million funding level should be
maintained.
Renewal of Pilot Broadband Grants and Allocating Funds for Reduced
Interest Rate Loans
Many of these un-served areas are in high cost, sparsely populated
regions of the country making the feasibility of loans problematic. To
facilitate the deployment of this technology to those areas, the
Committee should consider reinstating the Pilot Broadband Grant program
initiated by Congress in previous appropriations acts. We believe that
supplementing loan funds with grant funds would make many of the
projects feasible where they would not be otherwise. In fact, the
government's security interest in the loan would be enhanced. If the
Committee concurs in reinstating the pilot grant program as a national
priority, we believe it should be at enhanced levels to achieve the
Committee's goals consistent with budgetary constraints.
We also believe that if a portion of the loan funds provided by
Congress for fiscal year 2008 were made available at reduced interest
rates many additional areas could be served as well. Currently, all
broadband loans are made at the government's cost-of-money. However,
both the 2002 Farm bill that authorized the broadband loan program as
well as the President's fiscal year 2006 Budget envisioned reduced rate
loans to accelerate deployment of this technology. Reduced rate loans
could be made concurrently with cost-of-money loans producing a blended
interest rate to achieve the desired loan feasibility. The agency has
successfully accomplished this in the past.
Discretion could be left with the agency to allocate loan and grant
funds according to program needs and the feasibility of specific
applications.
Improving Program Implementation Through Committee Report Language
Distinct improvements can be made to the broadband loan program by
providing the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) broader access to the legal
expertise of the Department's Office of General Counsel (OGC). Over the
years, due to cost and other considerations, the agency's access to
counsel has been severely curtailed. This has resulted in an uneven
application of the act's requirements in the loan approval process
permitting unbridled agency discretion in administering the program.
For example, in administering the broadband loan program enacted as
Title VI of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, as an amendment
thereto, the agency has largely ignored the fundamental requirements
and prohibitions of Title II of the act that originally authorized the
telephone loan program as if they simply do not apply to the broadband
loan program. First and foremost of the prohibitions is the principle
contained in Title II that loans should not be made in areas that would
result in a duplication of facilities.
Another example is that the agency is amending loan contract terms
and publishing written policy standards without meeting the
requirements of Title II that prohibits RUS from denying loans or
taking adverse actions against applicants or borrowers for any reason
not based upon a rule adopted in an informal rulemaking proceeding.
Neither can applicants be required to increase their ratio of net
income or margins before interest to obtain a loan nor can loans be
rescinded without the consent of the borrower. In administering the
broadband program the agency has not established a consistent
definition of ``broadband''. The agency employs one standard for
approving a loan and another for determining whether an area is
``underserved''. There should be a consistent definition for both to
avoid duplicative service.
Better access to the advice and counsel of OGC could eliminate many
of these issues and assure Congress and the public that the program is
being administered in accordance with the act's requirements. This
could be accomplished through language in the Committee Report
requiring that OGC make available additional legal resources to the
agency.
Grants for Medical Link and Distance Learning Purposes
We support the continuation in fiscal year 2008 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 Turfgrass Federation, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National Turfgrass Federation (NTF), 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 2007
budget for turfgrass research within the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) at Beltsville, MD. Secondly, we ask that the committee support
the $1,880,000 request for Drought Mitigation, either by supporting the
President's budget request (we are unsure at this time if this funding
was included in fiscal year 2008) or via a Congressional earmark. This
funding will be used by ARS to conduct turfgrass water conservation and
salinity research at Phoenix, AZ and Riverside, CA. Thirdly, we ask for
your support of $450,000 in separate continuing funding for ongoing
research programs in Beaver, WV, and $450,000 for Logan, UT. Finally,
we request water quality research scientists at ARS stations in
University Park, PA, ($450,000) and Madison, WI ($450,000). All funding
provided by the Committee is requested to go directly to USDA-ARS, not
the industry per se.
Restoration of Funding for the Existing ARS Scientist Position and
Related Support Activities at Beltsville, MD ($490,000)
NTF 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 2007 budget, and in the five 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 is a 50,000,000 acre, $40 billion per year industry in
the United States, that is growing exponentially each year. 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 NTF, 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/Request a
Congressional Earmark ($1,880,000)
The turfgrass industry is excited that for the first time, the
President's fiscal year 2007 budget contained funding for turfgrass
research within ARS. Because the fiscal year 2007 was not passed before
the President submitted his fiscal year 2008 request, we are unsure if
this funding in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget. Therefore, if
included in the fiscal year 2008 President's budget, we request support
of this important drought mitigation research. If not included in the
President's fiscal year 2008 budget, we request that this funding be
supported and included by Congress as new projects. This funding will
be used to hire scientists in two very important locations, Riverside,
CA and Maricopa, 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 the fiscal year
2007 budget request, this funding will be directed to the following two
critical locations:
Maricopa, AZ, ($940,000).--The U.S. Water Conservation Lab in
Maricopa 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 Ongoing Programs and two ARS Scientist Positions at
two ARS Installations @ $450,000 Each (Total: $900,000)
The turfgrass industry also requests that the Subcommittee
appropriate an additional $900,000 for funding first allocated in
fiscal year 2005, and continued in fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year
2007 bills. As a part of the National Turfgrass Research Initiative,
the research conducted at Logan, UT and Beaver, WV is vital to the turf
industry. We are asking for $450,000 at each location. Following is a
brief description of the research that ARS will conduct with this
funding:
Beaver, WV, ($450,000).--The lab at Beaver has significant
expertise in soils and by-products research. They have excellent staff
and facilities already in place. For the turfgrass industry, they are
working on improving soil conditions and management systems to make
athletic fields softer and with improved turf cover, thereby increasing
safety. They also are considering the use of local by-products to
develop improved soil systems for parks, lawns, athletic fields and
golf courses. Besides being vital to the turf industry, this research
is very important to the regional economy and many industrial concerns.
Logan, UT, ($450,000).--Logan, UT is an ideal location for research
on drought tolerant grasses and how they function. The Logan lab is
world renowned for its efforts in collecting and improving grasses and
other native plants for forage and range purposes. With the funding
that was initiated in fiscal year 2005, they have directed additional
efforts research on breeding and genetics of turfgrass, with emphasis
on identifying plant material with superior drought and salt tolerance.
Reducing water use, through more drought tolerant plant material, is
the number one priority of the turfgrass industry. This research needs
to be continued and expanded because of the excellent ongoing research
as well as the potential for the future.
Request new Funding of new Research on Water Quality Improvement at two
ARS Installations @ $450,000 Each (Total: $900,000)
Finally, the turfgrass industry requests funding for water quality
improvement research at University Park, PA and Madison, WI; $450,000
for each location. Water quality improvement is very important to the
turf industry. There is much speculation that fertilizers and
pesticides applied to turf areas contribute to the contamination of
streams, waterways and groundwater. Very little research has been
conducted to date that proves or disproves this phenomenon. Therefore,
answers are needed to make good production, management and regulatory
decisions. In addition, the turf industry is concerned about our
natural environment and wants to protect it. Therefore, research data
is needed to understand the scope of the problem, as well as to develop
practical solutions. To address the areas with the most critical needs,
we propose funding for research at the following two locations:
University Park, PA, ($450,000).--According to the EPA, runoff and
groundwater contamination in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed is one of the
critical contributors to the decline of Bay water quality. Although
many industries have been implicated, fertilizer applications to lawns
and golf courses are routinely mentioned as significant factors in this
decline. Research to address this issue is virtually non-existent, yet
is critical to the success of the turf industry in the Mid-Atlantic, as
well as New England. The ARS lab at University Park is already
researching these issues relating to pasture and forage. Therefore,
they are uniquely positioned and they have expertise and facilities in
place. We request that funding be allocated to hire a scientist
dedicated to turf research.
Madison, WI, ($450,000).--The other area of the United States with
significant water quality concerns is the Upper Midwest. Phosphorus
contamination in the region is the most pressing problem, with other
nutrients also of concern. Several states, including Minnesota and
Wisconsin, have either already instituted turf fertilizer regulations
or are considering them. ARS has facilities at Madison and Marshfield,
WI, which have initiated research on dairy manure contamination and
disposal. This is an excellent location to address the turf-related
water quality issues in that region, issues that demand solutions to
ensure the survival of the turf industry.
THE NATIONAL TURFGRASS RESEARCH INITIATIVE
This Initiative has been developed by USDA/ARS in partnership with
the turfgrass industry. 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 U.S. 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. Last year
was 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 2008, the turfgrass
industry requests that the six positions above be
established within USDA/ARS.
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.
In addition, the Committee should be receiving Senators' requests
for funding of each of the 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 Federation and
the turfgrass industry across America, I respectfully request that the
Subcommittee continue in fiscal year 2008 the funding appropriated in
fiscal year 2007 for Beltsville, MD, ($490,000) within the Agricultural
Research Service. I also request that the committee support the
President's budget request (or new funding) of $1,880,000 for Drought
Mitigation. Third, I request the Subcommittee's support of ongoing
research programs at Beaver, WV and Logan, UT @ $450,000 each. Finally,
I request that the Subcommittee appropriate an additional $900,000 for
two new water quality research positions, at University Park, PA and
Madison, WI, with $450,000 provided for each location.
______
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 2008 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 quantified damages from the
Colorado River to United States water users are about $330,000,000 per
year. Unquantified damages are significantly greater. 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 2007 has generated about
$15.8 million in cost-sharing from the Colorado River Basin States and
agricultural producers, or about 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 2008 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 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 2008 loan levels for the telecommunications loans
program administered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the
following amounts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent hardship loans................................ $145 million
Treasury rate loans..................................... 250 million
Guaranteed loans........................................ 300 million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 are
delivering on the promise of a new ``information age.'' Both Federal
and state policymakers have made ubiquitous availability of advanced
communications services a top priority. However, without continued
support of RUS's telecommunications loans program, rural
telecommunications companies will be hard pressed to continue deploying
the infrastructure necessary to 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 per square mile than its urban
counterpart. In the Federal Communication Commission'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.'' More recently, the FCC's
January 2007 release of statistics on high-speed connections in the
United States illustrated that low population density has an inverse
association with reports that high-speed subscribers are present in an
area. Thus, in order for rural telecommunications 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 which results 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 2008.
CONCLUSION
The transformation 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 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 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 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. New carrots have been developed with tripled nutritional
value, and nutrient-rich cucumbers have been developed 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.
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 this 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
2008 budget, since the funds were not included in the budget sent to
the Congress.
We seek additional funding to support two new research initiatives
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 (Vitamin C, folic acid) 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, which typically
minimizes nutrient loss. While many high nutrient/high antioxidant
vegetables are pickled to a very limited extent, traditional processes
include steps, such as preserving in very high salt or acid followed by
washing out the excess salt or acid, that result in loss 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 low acid/low salt 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 East Lansing, Michigan location has the only federally
funded research program that is devoted to developing new and/or
improved engineering technologies and systems for assessing, retaining,
and assuring postharvest quality, marketability, and wholesomeness of
pickling cucumbers and other vegetable products. The vegetable
postharvest engineering research is one component of the postharvest
engineering research program within the Sugar Beet and Bean Research
Unit in East Lansing, Michigan. The postharvest engineering research
program currently has a full-time research agricultural engineer whose
research is primarily focused on tree fruits. Over the past few years,
the location has developed a number of innovative engineering
technologies for rapid, nondestructive measurement and inspection of
postharvest quality of tree fruits and vegetables. One is a novel
laser-based multi-spectral scattering technology for assessing the
texture and flavor of fruits. The technology may be used for inspecting
a variety of vegetable crops including cucumbers. The location did the
pioneering work in applying hyperspectral imaging technology for
quality assessment of fruits and vegetable. It recently developed an
advanced hyperspectral imaging system for automated detection of
quality/defect of pickling cucumbers.
Currently the location's cucumber postharvest engineering research
is grossly under funded, and it has not been carried out at the full
scope it would have been expected. Additional Federal funding for the
location would enable the hiring of a full-time research agricultural
engineer to focus on development of new and/or improved engineering
technologies and equipment for postharvest handling of pickling
vegetable products. Today, consumers have increasing choices of foods
and they become more conscious of food quality and nutrition. An
effective quality control and assurance system throughout the handling
steps between harvest and retail is critical for providing 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 postharvest losses
of food that has already been produced and ensure high quality,
consistent final product and end-user satisfaction. Research at East
Lansing will lead to new inspection and grading technology that will
help the pickling industry in delivering high-quality safe products to
the marketplace.
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. Current cucumber varieties are highly susceptible
to a new strain of the downy mildew pathogen; this new strain has
caused considerable damage to commercial cucumber production in some
South Atlantic and Midwestern states in 2005 and 2006, and a new plant
pathologist position needs to be established to address this critical
situation.
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 $7.794 million is
still needed for the planned $12.750 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 70 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 2008. In addition, new funds are needed to
establish a plant pathology position to address cucumber diseases,
especially the disease caused by a new strain of the downy mildew
pathogen that has caused extensive damage to cucumber production in
some South Atlantic and Midwestern states during the past 2 years. The
plant pathologist is needed to characterize pathogen strains using
molecular methodologies and to develop new management approaches and
resistant cucumber lines. This new plant pathologist position will
greatly contribute to the accomplishment of research that will provide
for the effective protection of cucumbers from disease without the use
of conventional pesticides. This position will require a funding level
of $450,000 for its establishment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gross funds
Appropriations to restore Fiscal year impacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minor Use Pesticides (IR-4)............. 2002 $5,398
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory............... 2003 489,868
U.S. Vegetable Laboratory............... 2004 266,260
-------------------------------
Total Funds to Restore............ .............. 761,526
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New funds
New scientific staff needed Current status needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Pathologist (cucumber disease) Needed................. $450,000
----------
New funds needed.............. ....................... 450,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2008 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 2008 budget.
To carry out the new research initiatives to maximize retention of
beneficial components in high nutrient/high antioxidant vegetables and
to develop systems to deliver pro-biotic lactic acid bacteria in
acidified and fermented vegetable products, we request additional
support for the Food Fermentation Laboratory of $200,000 in fiscal year
2008. This will provide support for Post-Doctoral or Pre-Doctoral
research associates along with necessary equipment and supplies to
develop these new areas of research.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
Scientific staff Current status needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiologist...................... Active................. $318,500
Chemist............................. Active................. 318,500
Food Technologist/Biochemist........ Active................. 318,500
Microbial Physiologist.............. Active................. 318,500
Fiscal year 2008 Post-doctoral or Needed................. 200,000
Predoctoral Research Associates.
----------
Total funding required........ ....................... 1,474,000
==========
Presidential Budget (fiscal year ....................... 912,195
2008).
==========
Appropriations to restore........... ....................... 361,805
New funds needed.................... ....................... 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetable Crops Research Laboratory Unit, Madison, Wisconsin
Current base funding for three scientists is $849,172, of which
$200,000 was added in fiscal year 2002. An additional $50,828 is needed
to fully fund the scientists and support staff, including graduate
students and post-doctorates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
Scientific staff in place Current status needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneticist.......................... Active................. $300,000
Horticulturist...................... Active................. 300,000
Geneticist.......................... Active................. 300,000
----------
Total funding required........ ....................... 900,000
==========
Presidential Budget (fiscal year ....................... 798,222
2008).
==========
Appropriations to restore........... ....................... 50,950
New funds needed.................... ....................... 50,828
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2008. Thus, the restoration of the funds
proposed for reduction, is urgently requested. We request a $101,778
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 $150,000 in the current base
funding level would be needed to fund the research engineer position.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funds
Scientific staff in place Current status needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postdoctoral Research Associate..... Active................. $200,000
Research Engineer................... Needed................. 150,000
----------
Total funding required........ ....................... 350,000
===================================
Current Funding..................... ....................... 200,000
New funds needed.................... ....................... 150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 82nd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 22,
2007, 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 2008 budget for NRCS indicates a
decrease of $131,740,000 (16 percent decrease) from what Congress
appropriated in fiscal year 2007, $841,340,000. 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
2008 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 $689 million, which is a decrease of $70 million from what
Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2007. 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 in the last two fiscal years. 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.
Over the past 50 years these projects have developed a $15 billion
infrastructure that is providing $1.5 billion in annual benefits to
over 47 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.
All ongoing contracts will be terminated, if you allow this program
to end. 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, but that was the last year funding was
provided. No funding was provided in fiscal year 2007. For every $1
spent, the Nation realizes $2 in benefits. Congress must take back
responsibility for this program.
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
2008.
--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 2008.
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 and only recommends $6 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 $75 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.
Again, no funding was provided in fiscal year 2007. 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 2008 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 $14.6 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. This
drastic cut is proposed by eliminating 325 of 375 coordinator
positions. The remaining 50 positions are supposed to serve all
councils in all the 50 States.
We request that $56 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, 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. Please direct your
comments and questions to our Executive Director, Richard Brontoli,
P.O. Box 709, Shreveport, LA 71162, (318) 221-5233, E-mail:
[email protected].
Grant Disclosure.--The Red River Valley Association has not
received any Federal grant, sub-grant or contract during the current
fiscal year or either of the 2 previous fiscal years.
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 82nd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 22,
2007, 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. We can be contacted at
(318) 221-5233 or [email protected].
enclosure 2
RED RIVER VALLEY ASSOCIATION FISCAL YEAR 2008 APPROPRIATIONS--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Pres. 2008 RRVA 2008
Discretionary Accounts 2006 Approp 2007 Approp Budget Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Operations......................... 839,519 759,124 689,000 930,000
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 31,516 6,000 75,000
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 50,700 14,600 56,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The President's fiscal year 2008 budget is 16 percent less than Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2007.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Animal Protective Legislation
$1.8 Million Line Item for the Animal Welfare Information Center at the
National Agricultural Library
The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) was established by the
Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act (the 1985 amendment to
the Animal Welfare Act) to serve as a clearing-house, training center,
and educational resource for institutions using animals in research,
testing and teaching. The Center is the single most important resource
for helping personnel at more than 1,200, U.S. research facilities meet
their responsibilities under the AWA. Supported by a modest funding
level, its services are available to all individuals at these
institutions, including cage washers, animal technicians, research
investigators, attending veterinarians, IACUC representatives and the
Institutional Official.
AWIC provides data on alleviating or reducing pain and distress in
experimental animals (including anesthetic and analgesic procedures),
reducing the number of animals used for research where possible,
identifying alternatives to the use of animals for specific research
projects, and preventing the unintended duplication of animal
experiments. The Center collects, updates, and disseminates 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.
There is general consensus between the biomedical research industry
(including the National Association for Biomedical Research) and the
animal welfare community about the need for increased funding. A number
of individuals representing these disparate interests have endorsed the
request for $1.8 million in funding for AWIC. The AWIC helps to improve
the conduct of research, including the care provided to the animals who
are used, thereby ensuring a reduction in variables that might skew the
research. Better science is the end result.
The AWIC website (http:www.nal.usda.gov/awic) is one of the most
accessed sites at the NAL, receiving millions of hits each year. It
provides valuable information on issues of importance not only to the
science community but also to the agriculture and public health
communities, including BSE and avian influenza, two of the top areas of
inquiry for visitors to its website. In fiscal year 2006, nearly 440
million kbytes of information were distributed via the web, and more
than 77,000 hard copies were distributed as well. AWIC staff provided
over 3,000 personal reference services. Exhibitions and/or
presentations have been conducted at such venues as the American
Association for Laboratory Animal Science (AALAS) annual meeting,
Society of Neuroscience, New Jersey Association for Biomedical
Research, American Veterinary Medical Association, 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.
We greatly appreciate Congress' past support for AWIC to carry out
its programs. Given its indispensability not only in assisting with
compliance with the AWA but also in providing up-to-date information on
a range of issues, from BSE to primate enrichment, that are critical to
the scientific and agricultural communities, we recommend that AWIC be
listed as a separate line item. We urge Congress to resist any effort
by ARS to eliminate AWIC; rather, it is essential to maintain a minimum
base of $1.15 million. Moreover, we respectfully request an additional
$650,000 in fiscal year 2008 for desperately needed expansion to meet
growing demand for AWIC's expertise on two fronts.
First, as evidenced by the findings of an Office of Inspector
General (OIG) audit, ``APHIS Animal Care Program Inspection and
Enforcement Activities,'' there has been 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 of IACUCs
and the audit recommends training for IACUC members. In response to
this need, we are requesting funds to allow AWIC to do the following:
--Continue to conduct workshops at locations around the country
rather than being limited to conducting them only from the
Center's base in Maryland.
--Hold a symposium on AWA requirements for IACUC nonaffilated members
(i.e., members from the community charged with representing the
communities' concerns for the animals).
--Work with Animal Care more closely to identify and assist those
licensees and registrants that are cited for AWA violations
most frequently.
Second, increased funding is also necessitated by the expansion of
AWIC's mandate 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. 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 also
works closely with both 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 microbacterial diseases.
The $1.8 million would be used as follows: Staff salary and
benefits ($1,273,000), including the addition of two much-needed
positions: a Technical Information Specialist and an Information
Technology Specialist, whose jobs would be to expand the content of the
Center's database and make it more user-friendly and searchable;
exhibitions at major scientific conferences, including underserved
areas of the country ($61,400); workshops, in conjunction with Animal
Care, to assist licensees and registrants frequently cited for AWA
violations ($36,000); informational workshops at research institutions
across the country ($28,000) and locally 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 $270,000).
$750,000, Plus a One-Time Infusion of $1 Million, for APHIS/Animal
Care's Enforcement of the Horse Protection Act
More than 30 years ago Congress adopted the Horse Protection Act,
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. (http://www.saplonline.org/pdf/EquusSoring.pdf)
The most effective method to reduce the showing of sored horses 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 able to attend only 32 events in fiscal year 2004 out of a
total of approximately 865 shows. Funding of $750,000 ($500,000 plus a
$250,000 add-on) is needed to enable AC to attend even a modest number
of events.
Unfortunately, the amount of penalties assessed for violations of
the law has dropped to a negligible amount. In addition to increasing
the presence of inspectors, USDA must increase the penalties that it
assesses or the industry will continue to defy the law with impunity.
Congress should direct USDA to take this step.
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, as illustrated by
radically different enforcement rates: In 2004 and 2005, the rate of
violations cited at a variety of horse shows was as much as 23 times
higher under USDA inspections versus HIO inspections. Oftentimes,
owners withdraw their horses completely from a show rather than risk an
inspection by USDA.
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. In September 2006, having ignored repeated warnings from USDA
that too many horses were showing signs of soring, organizers canceled
the Shelbyville (TN) Celebration, the prestige event in the walking
horse industry, after USDA inspectors disqualified most of the horses
because of soring. This was an unprecedented action on the part of the
industry and is a testament to USDA's commitment to vigorous
enforcement of the HPA, even in the face of threats to its inspectors.
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. USDA also needs a one-time allocation of $1
million to purchase additional equipment, such as digital radiography
machines to take radiographs of the hoof to detect changes indicative
of pressure-shoeing; and algometers, which apply consistent pressure
during the examination process. Adding these machines to the
inspectors' tools for verifying the use of soring techniques further
enhances the objectivity and consistency of the evidence obtained.
$21.126 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,
prelicensing inspections and enforcement inspections across the
country.
In fiscal year 2005, IES resolved 169 cases involving violations of
the AWA; in fiscal year 2006, 191 cases were resolved through
stipulations or ALJ decisions. These enforcement actions help ensure
the protection of both animals and people as evidenced by the OIG
Audit.
We support the President's request for $21.126 million for
enforcement of the AWA. We hope the additional funds will permit USDA
to hire additional inspectors and to conduct a national meeting, with
all inspectors in attendance. A national meeting is indispensable to
providing proper training of inspectors and ensuring that field
inspectors nationwide apply a high and equal standard of enforcement.
The cost for a national meeting is expected to be $150,000.
We also support the President's budget request for funds under the
emergency management systems line item, which will enable Animal Care
to execute its new responsibilities for pet evacuation during
disasters. However, an additional $1 million is needed (for a total of
$2 million) to ensure that AC does not have to meet these new
obligations at the expense of ongoing services.
Strengthened Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Act by FSIS
When President Eisenhower signed the Humane Methods of Slaughter
Act (HMSA) into law, he noted that if he went by his mail he would
think Americans were interested in no other issue. That concern is as
strong today as it was then. Over the past few years, Congress has
generously provided additional appropriations to the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) to improve enforcement of the HMSA;
nonetheless, 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 already dead by the time FSIS observes
them.
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 profits, so there is intense pressure for the inspector not
to take action. The situation at plants appears to be cozy for people;
meanwhile, 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, that 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 in the
plants have confirmed that little has changed--and abuses are rife. The
situation at AGRI, described above is but one example (http://
awionline.org/pubs/Quarterly/05_54_1/541p7a.htm). We vehemently oppose
increased resources for FSIS because the agency hasn't demonstrated
resolve to strongly enforce the law.
Bill language should direct FSIS to fill the many current vacancies
in its inspector force and to re-assign and/or hire no fewer than 50
individual inspectors (as opposed to FTE's or staff years) to serve as
full-time, 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. Congress' previous effort to achieve this goal
has resulted in the hiring of more upper-level personnel who are
involved in many supervisory tasks and are not present on a full-time
basis in the these slaughter plants. 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. While the Humane Activities Tracking system was
intended to promote accountability regarding enforcement of the Humane
Slaughter Act, and to provide data to guide the risk-based inspection
system, it has failed to meet these goals. Instead it yields skewed
data that actually result in needed attention being diverted from
problem plants. We suggest that real progress in ensuring compliance
with the HMSA rests with redirecting HAT funds towards securing the
many needed inspectors and improving training in HMSA enforcement.
Congress Needs to Provide Increased Oversight of Wildlife Services
Operations and Research
Wildlife Services (WS) needs to ensure that the variety of tools it
uses for management of wildlife under its purview are both 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 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, American
Animal Hospital Association, World Veterinary Association and National
Animal Control Association.
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 through 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 (on the myriad devices other than steel jaw traps)
since the agency has the appropriate technical expertise.
Further, WS should adopt a policy of checking all restraining traps
within a 24-hour period. WS has developed a device that can be attached
to a trap, and the device emits a signal when the trap is triggered;
this wonderful new technology permits trappers to focus their energies
on prompt checking of those traps that have actually been triggered. 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 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 2008 funding items of great importance to
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its nearly 10
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 2008. 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 Committee's
prior support, we request the following for fiscal year 2008:
APHIS/ANIMAL WELFARE ACT (AWA) ENFORCEMENT
We request that you support the President's request of $21,126,000
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 eight 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 $3,340,000 (plus allowance for pay costs) to cover hiring
21 new staff to further improve AWA enforcement in fiscal year 2008.
This increase will enable the agency to handle additional
responsibilities as the number of licensed/registered facilities has
grown by 13 percent from fiscal year 2005 to fiscal year 2006.
APHIS /INVESTIGATIVE AND ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
We request that you support the President's request of $12,728,000
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 $2,143,000 (plus allowance for pay
costs) and 18 staff years for IES in fiscal year 2008, of which
$291,000 and 3 staff years will be used to improve enforcement of
Federal animal welfare laws. In fiscal year 2006, IES resolved 191
cases through either civil penalty stipulations or Administrative Law
Judge decisions (compared to 169 cases resolved during fiscal year
2005).
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 recent 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. Dogfighting and cockfighting are barbaric 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 nine 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
continue its efforts to combat illegal animal fighting activity. We
also hope language can be included directing the agency to report back
to the Committee on specific Federal animal fighting enforcement
efforts undertaken during fiscal year 2008.
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 $3,000,000 as provided in fiscal year 2007 to
maintain the new Humane Animal Tracking system. We are grateful that
Congress provided $5 million in fiscal year 2007 to sustain at least 63
full time equivalent positions dedicated solely to inspections and
enforcement related to the HMSA, plus $4 million in fiscal year 2006
and $3 million in fiscal year 2007 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.
COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND EXTENSION SERVICE/VETERINARY
STUDENT LOAN FORGIVENESS
We request $1,000,000 to begin to fully implement the National
Veterinary Medical Service Act (Public Law 108-161), specifically
authorized in 2003, that received initial funding of $500,000 in fiscal
year 2006 and an additional $500,000 in fiscal year 2007. 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. A study released in
June 2006 demonstrated the acute and worsening shortage of
veterinarians working in rural farm animal practice, while domestic
pets in both rural and urban areas are often left without necessary
medical care. 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 debt burden of over $100,000 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/EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS/DISASTER PLANNING FOR ANIMALS
We request that you support the President's request of $1 million
for Animal Care under APHIS' Emergency Management Systems line item.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita demonstrated that many people refuse to
evacuate if they are forced to leave their pets behind. The Animal Care
division has been asked to develop an infrastructure to help prepare
for and respond to animal issues in a disaster and incorporate lessons
learned from previous disasters. These funds will be used for staff
time and resources to support State and local governments' and humane
organizations' efforts to plan for protection of people with animals.
The additional resources will enable the agency to participate, in
partnership with FEMA, in the newly revised National Response Plan
without jeopardizing other Animal Care programs.
APHIS/HORSE PROTECTION ACT ENFORCEMENT
We hope you will provide $750,000 (an add-on of $254,000 above the
amount requested by the President for fiscal year 2008) plus a one-time
appropriation of $1 million for specialized equipment, 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.
The most effective way to meet the goal of the Horse Protection Act--to
reduce the showing of sored horses--is to have Animal Care inspectors
present at the shows. Owners who sore their horses go to great lengths
to avoid detection, including leaving a show when USDA inspectors show
up. The greater the likelihood of a USDA inspection, the greater the
deterrent effect on those who routinely sore their horses.
Unfortunately, Animal Care is able to attend fewer than 10 of the 500-
plus shows held annually. Funding of $750,000 is needed to maintain a
modest level of compliance with the Horse Protection Act by trained
Animal Care professionals. Moreover, a one-time infusion of $1 million
is needed to enable Animal Care to buy specialized equipment, such as
digital radiography machines, that would enhance the ability of USDA
inspectors to detect evidence of soring.
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. While transmission of BSE from infected cows to people
is most well understood, there is some science indicating that pigs may
also harbor a form of this disease and 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. Moreover, these animals suffer just as downed
cattle do 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, 10 out of 11 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''). The
sole BSE-positive animal not identified as a downer was a Canadian cow
exhibiting ``abnormal locomotion and posture'' who was euthanized in
January 2006.
From an animal welfare perspective, a comprehensive ban is needed
because a downed animal 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 2008 to meet this
challenge.
ANIMAL WELFARE INFORMATION CENTER (AWIC)
AWIC was established by the 1985 amendment to the Animal Welfare
Act (the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act) to serve as a
clearinghouse, training center, and educational resource for
institutions using animals in research, testing and teaching. This
Center is the single most important resource for helping personnel at
more than 1,200 U.S. research facilities meet their responsibilities
under the AWA. Supported by a modest funding level, its services are
available to all individuals at these institutions, from cage washers
to Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) representatives
and the Institutional Official. Given its indispensability not only in
assisting with compliance with the AWA but also in providing up-to-date
information on issues ranging from BSE to primate enrichment that are
critical to the scientific and agricultural communities, we recommend
that AWIC be listed as a separate line item. We urge Congress to resist
any effort by ARS to eliminate AWIC; rather, it is essential to
maintain a minimum base of $1.15 million. Moreover, we respectfully
request an additional $650,000 (for a total of $1.8 million) in fiscal
year 2008 for critically needed expansion and other improvements to
meet growing demand for AWIC's expertise.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to share our views and
priorities for the Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA, and Related
Agencies Appropriation Act of Fiscal Year 2008. We appreciate the
Committee's past support, and hope you will be able to accommodate
these modest requests to address some very pressing problems affecting
millions of animals in the United States. Thank you for your
consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society
The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to submit
testimony concerning the fiscal year 2008 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 represents over 7,500
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
The Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) is a voluntary
program that provides technical and financial support to farmers and
ranchers to create high quality wildlife habitat. Since 1998, nearly
$150 million has been dedicated to the program and over 2.8 million
acres involving over 18,000 contracts have been enrolled. The Wildlife
Society recommends funding WHIP at $100 million in fiscal year 2008 so
that the program can continue to provide for fish and wildlife
benefits.
The Wetland Reserve Program (WRP) is a valuable program designed to
assist farmers and ranchers in protecting and restoring wetland
habitat. The Wildlife Society supports the President's enrollment
target of 250,000 acres in fiscal year 2008. Full WRP enrollment is
needed if the Administration intends to achieve the President's stated
goal of no-net-loss of wetlands.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
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 2008 proposed budget includes increases for
wildlife monitoring and surveillance ($5.016 million) and the oral
rabies vaccination program ($2 million), but proposes an overall
decrease of $1.684 million in the WS Operations line item, requiring a
redirection of $8.7 million. While we are pleased that these activities
have gained presidential support, the net decrease to the WS
operational budget will effectively result in an overall reduction in
key activity areas. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends that
Congress restore the proposed decrease of $1.684 million.
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
2008 budget proposal redirects $3.2 million for avian influenza
research. 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 important existing
projects, including 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; and the Starkville, Mississippi
Research Field Station.
The Wildlife Society is very concerned about the proposed $1.39
million reduction in the Brucellosis Program budget. 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 2008 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 Wildlife Society
recommends restoring the $6.3 million decrease to return funding to
fiscal year 2007 levels.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
The 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.
The proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 reflects a slight decrease
for the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry program. The proposal
would modify the McIntire-Stennis formula program by creating a multi-
State research program supported by about 62 percent of the total
funding. All McIntire-Stennis multi-State funds will be distributed
through competitively awarded grants in 2008. 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 2008 budget to $25 million, an amount more consistent
with historic levels.
National Research Initiative (NRI) Competitive Grants are open to
academic institutions, Federal agencies, and private organizations to
fund research on improving agricultural practices, particularly
production systems that are sustainable both environmentally and
economically, and to develop methods for protecting natural resources
and wildlife. Innovative grant programs such as NRI help broaden
approaches to land management, such as integrating timber and wildlife
management on private lands. The Wildlife Society supports the
Administration's request of $256.5 million for National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants. Included within that total, however, is
approximately $36 million for programs authorized under Section 406 of
the Research, Extension and Education Act of 1998 and previously funded
under the ``Integrated Activities'' line in the CSREES budget. While
The Wildlife Society does not oppose this consolidation, Congress
should ensure that sufficient funding is available to support all of
these efforts at no less than their fiscal year 2007 levels.
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.
______
Prepared Statement of the United States Telecom Association
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
Project Involved
Telecommunications Loan and Grant Programs Administered by the
Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Actions Proposed
Supporting RUS loan levels and the associated funding subsidy, as
required, for the 5 percent direct loan program ($145 million) and cost
of money program ($250 million) in fiscal year 2008 in the amounts
requested in the President's budget.
Supporting Section 306 guaranteed loans in the amount ($295
million) requested in the President's budget.
Opposing the budget request that would cut direct loans for
broadband facilities and internet service access by 40 percent from the
fiscal year 2006 enacted level of $500 million.
Supporting renewal of the pilot broadband grant program and an
allocation of a portion of the authorized levels for broadband loans at
reduced interest rates to accelerate deployment of this technology in
rural areas.
Continuation of the general provision contained in previous
appropriations acts that would prohibit RUS from drafting or
implementing any regulation or rule requiring recertification of rural
status for telephone borrowers.
Supporting the continued elimination of the 7 percent cap on cost
of money loans
Supporting continued funding, as requested in the President's
budget, in the amount of $25 million for telemedicine and distance
learning grants in rural areas.
Seeking language strengthening and improving the operation of the
broadband loan program in the Committee Report accompanying the bill.
Supporting provision of sufficient funds for staff, including legal
staff, to properly administer the telecommunications and broadband
programs.
I am Walter B. McCormick, Jr., President and CEO of the United
States Telecom Association (USTelecom). I submit this testimony in the
interests of the members of USTelecom and the customers they serve.
USTelecom represents innovative companies ranging from the smallest
rural telecoms in the Nation to some of the largest corporations in the
U.S. economy. Our member companies offer a wide range of services
across the communications landscape, including voice, video and data
over local exchange, long distance, Internet and cable networks.
USTelecom members firmly believe that the targeted assistance
offered by a strong RUS telecommunications loan and grant program
remains essential to a healthy and growing rural telecommunications
industry that contributes to the provision of universal telecom
service. We appreciate the strong support this Committee has provided
for the RUS telecom program since its inception in 1949 and look
forward to a vigorous program for the future.
Rural Areas Need Access to Broadband Service
Access to a reliable source of capital such as the RUS loan
programs is key to the system upgrades which will enable rural areas to
experience the economic growth and job creation that a freely
competitive market with ready access to fairly priced capital can
provide.
It is critically important that rural areas be included in the
nationwide drive for greater bandwidth capacity. In order to provide
higher speed data services, such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) or
even fiber optic connections to the Internet, outside plant must be
modernized and switching must be migrated to new platforms. These
investments may not be justified by market conditions in low density
high cost rural areas, so the RUS program provides important financial
incentives for additional investment which encourages rural
telecommunications companies to build facilities which allow advanced
services, including distance learning and telemedicine, to be provided.
The externalities measured in terms of economic development and human
development more than justify this investment in the future by the
federal government.
Greater bandwidth and packet switching capabilities are crucial
infrastructure elements which will allow rural businesses, schools and
health care facilities to take advantage of the other programs
available to them as end users. The money spent on having the most
modern and sophisticated equipment available at the premises of
businesses, schools or clinics is wasted if the local
telecommunications company cannot afford to build facilities that
quickly transport and switch the large amounts of voice, video and data
that these entities generate. RUS funding enhances the synergies among
the FCC and RUS programs targeted at improving rural education and
health care through telecommunications.
RUS endures because it is a brilliantly conceived public-private
partnership in which the borrowers are the conduits for the federal
government benefits that flow to rural telephone customers, the true
beneficiaries of the RUS program. The government's contribution is
leveraged by the equity, technical expertise and dedication of local
telecom companies. The small amount of government capital involved is
more than paid back through a historically perfect repayment record by
telecom borrowers, as well as the additional tax revenues generated by
the jobs and economic development resulting from the provision and
upgrading of telecommunications infrastructure. RUS is the ideal
government program--it provides incentives where the market does not
for private companies to invest in infrastructure promoting needed
rural economic development, it allows citizens to have access to
services which can mean the difference between life and death, and it
has never lost a nickel of taxpayer money because of a telecom carrier
default.
Recommendations
For fiscal year 2008, this Committee should set the loan levels and
necessary associated subsidy amounts for the 5 percent direct loan
program and cost of money loan programs consistent with the levels
recommended in the President's budget. The guaranteed
telecommunications loan program should also be funded at the level
requested in the budget.
Congress and the President have recognized the tremendous potential
of broadband technology to enhance human and economic development in
rural areas by establishing as a priority loans for the deployment of
such technology in rural areas. USTelecom urges the provision of
funding for these loans sufficient to support $500,000,000, the same
amount adopted in the 2006 appropriations act. The capital intensive
nature of the telecommunications industry, particularly with respect to
implementation of broadband, requires a stable and predictable source
of funds. Congress should be lauded for its recognition of the
importance of broadband deployment to our Nation's economy and
particularly for the recognition, through support of the RUS program,
of the tremendous impact broadband telecommunications can have on
economic growth and development in rural America. The pilot broadband
grant program, initiated by Congress in previous appropriations acts,
should be renewed at a higher level and increased funding should be
provided so that a portion of the authorized levels for broadband loans
can be allocated to reduced interest rate loans.
Improving the Effectiveness of the RUS Broadband Program
Redirecting Broadband Program Funding to Unserved Areas.--Since the
inception of the broadband program, RUS has used a substantial portion
of the available funds to make loans to areas that already have
broadband service. RUS justifies these loans for duplicative facilities
with the contention that service in these areas is inadequate and so
the areas are ``underserved'', thereby permitting such duplication. For
purposes of making broadband loans, RUS defines broadband service as
200 kbps. Yet when determining whether an area is underserved, RUS will
make a loan to any entity which promises a faster speed than is
provided by the incumbent, even if the incumbent is providing service
far in excess of the 200kbps standard RUS has set for new loans. RUS
should be directed to use the same standard for new broadband loans as
for the determination that an area is ``underserved''.
RUS also has determined that an area is underserved if the
applicant seeking to provide duplicative service will offer a
substantial price differential relative to the incumbent. RUS has no
objective standard for determining what constitutes a ``substantial
price differential''. RUS should be directed to establish an objective
standard through report language.
The RUS broadband program should exclusively focus on extending the
reach of broadband in rural America with a goal of ubiquitous
deployment. Making loans for duplicative facilities and service, when
other citizens in rural America reside in areas with no service at all,
is a waste of scarce government resources. To properly redirect
government funds to areas unserved by broadband, Congress should
clarify that loans funds not be used for duplicative facilities, and
should reaffirm that the non-duplication requirements of Title II of
the Rural Electrification Act are equally applicable to the Title VI
broadband program. The Undersecretary for Rural Development should be
required to make a legal finding that any loan for broadband will not
result in a duplication of facilities. To assist the Undersecretary in
making this finding, RUS broadband applications should include the
identity, list of services and charges as well as the service areas of
the incumbent provider. Also, to the extent that they do not conflict,
Congress should reaffirm that all the provisions of Title II, such as
those relating to area coverage and loan feasibility, are equally
applicable to the Title VI broadband program.
Congress Should Amend the Farm Bill to Improve the Efficiency of
the Broadband Program.--The statutory exclusion of companies with more
than 2 percent of that Nation's access lines from the broadband program
is an unfortunate policy decision that limits the effectiveness of RUS
in targeting funds to unserved areas. The RUS telephone program
contains no such exclusion. Rural customers, the true beneficiaries of
the RUS program, should not be denied its benefits because of the
identity of the carrier from which they receive service. Similarly, the
statutory requirement that the term of broadband loans cannot exceed
the expected useful life of the facilities being financed increases the
size of periodic loan repayments and diminishes loan feasibility. Since
RUS has a lien on all the property of the borrower, not just the new
facilities, in most instances there is more than sufficient security
for the loan for the broadband equipment. As long as the security of
the government's loan is sufficient, the term of the loan in relation
to the life of the facilities financed is irrelevant.
Congress Should Take Action to Improve the Feasibility of Loans in
Unserved Areas by Renewing the Pilot Broadband Grant Program at a
Higher Level and Increasing Funding to Permit Reduced Interest Rate
Loans.--The RUS program is a public/private partnership. The government
provides funds to fulfill a social goal and the borrowers use those
funds to implement that goal in a way that makes sense for their
business. Both goals are met when the revenues from the financed
facilities generate sufficient revenue to repay the loan according to
its terms. Providing broadband service in rural and remote areas
currently unserved is a financially challenging proposition. While cost
of money loans may provide a cost savings sufficient to make a project
financially doable in some areas, other areas may need below cost loans
or a combination of loans and grants in order to ensure feasibility.
The pilot broadband grant program should be renewed at a higher level
and increased funding should be provided so that a portion of the
authorized levels for broadband loans can be allocated at reduced
interest rates to accelerate deployment of broadband facilities in
rural areas.
Elimination of the Seven Percent cap on the Interest Rate for the
``Cost of Money'' Program
For a number of years, through the appropriations process, Congress
has eliminated the seven percent ``cap'' placed on the insured cost-of-
money loan program. The elimination of the cap should continue. If long
term Treasury interest rates exceeded the 7 percent ceiling contained
in the authorizing act, the subsidy would not be adequate to support
the program at the authorized level. This would be extremely disruptive
and hinder the program from accomplishing its statutory goals.
Accordingly, USTelecom supports continuation of the elimination of the
seven percent cap on cost-of-money insured loans in fiscal year 2008.
Recommended Loan Levels
USTelecom recommends that the telephone program loan levels for
fiscal year 2008 be set as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insured 5 percent Direct Loans.......................... $145,000,000
Insured Cost-of-Money Loans............................. 250,000,000
Loan Guarantees......................................... 295,000,000
Broadband Telecommunications Loans...................... 500,000,000
---------------
Total............................................. 1,190,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loans and Grants for Telemedicine and Distance Learning
USTelecom supports the continuation of $25 million in grants for
distance learning and telemedicine, as provided in the President's
budget. As we move into the Information Age with the tremendous
potential of the Internet to increase productivity, economic
development, education and medicine, such funds can help continue the
historic mission of RUS to support the extension of vital new services
to rural America.
Recertification of Rural Status Would Be Disruptive and Chill Rural
Telecom Investment
The Administration's budget notes that USDA will propose rule
changes to require recertification of rural status for each electric
and telecommunications borrower on the first loan request received in
or after 2008 and on the first loan request received after each
subsequent Census. Telecom construction and investment is a long term
continuous process, not a project by project proposition. The
uncertainty created by the possibility of decertifying a borrower as
rural after it has established a relationship with RUS and begun
borrowing funds for expansion and upgrading according to a long term
plan would be disruptive and discourage borrowers from participating in
the RUS program, thereby denying its benefits to subscribers. The
``once rural always rural'' practice of RUS has been extraordinarily
successful at providing needed long term capital, at a careful and
measured pace, to telecom carriers intent on expanding and upgrading
service to promote rural economic development. Congress should deny
funding in fiscal year 2008 for such a rule change.
Conclusion
Our members take pleasure and pride in reminding the Committee that
the RUS telecommunications program continues its perfect record of no
defaults by telecommunications carriers in over a half century of
existence. RUS telecom borrowers take seriously their obligations to
their government, their Nation and their subscribers. They will
continue to invest in our rural communities, use government loan funds
carefully and judiciously, and do their best to assure the continued
affordability of telecommunications services in rural America. Our
members have confidence that the Committee will continue to recognize
the importance of assuring a strong and effective RUS
Telecommunications and Broadband Program through authorization of
sufficient funding and loan levels.
______
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 an
update on the progress of the Institute since my testimony of
approximately one year ago. During the past year, our efforts have
focused principally on two research and commercialization areas. One
effort involves our novel, agricultural-based inventions in emulsion
polymerizations, and the other is to produce a commercial quality,
formaldehyde-free, soybean based adhesive for composite board
materials, specifically, particleboard. During the past year, we have
advanced emulsion polymerization technology, and continued to refine
the soy adhesive while preparing lab scale particleboards that now
exceed all levels of commercial specifications for particleboard. It is
my strong belief that additional research can expand the commercial use
of the products and technology produced in these projects. However,
more work must be accomplished to capitalize upon the variety of
current and potential uses for these novel agricultural derived
technology developments. I will discuss the progress for each of these
research and development thrusts to provide maximum clarity.
Seven patents, patent applications, and memorandums of invention
were generated in 2006. Additionally in 2006, seven manuscripts were
published, seven presentations to technical societies were given, and
students who have performed laboratory research have won three awards.
We remain energized, active, and successful at utilizing funding to
increase the value of agricultural products and co-products, and
discovering viable methods for utilizing agricultural-based products as
alternatives or supplements to petroleum-derived materials. The success
of our technology depends upon the use of agricultural materials as the
primary building blocks for emulsion-derived polymers, and thus clearly
offers opportunities for using ag-derived materials as a basic
feedstock in the polymer industry. The same is true for the use of
soybeans as an alternative to formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.
The 2006-2007 research and development year was quite successful
resulting in several pilot plant trials and planned commercial scale
production for vegetable oil-based monomers and polymers. Vegetable oil
macromonomers (VOMMs) have proved valuable in the synthesis of zero
volatile organic content (VOC) architectural latexes, associative
thickeners in coatings, as well as serving as the polymer
infrastructure for Navy Haze Gray paint. The DOD is desirable of a
replacement technology that excludes flammable organic solvents,
contains zero VOCs, and matches or exceeds current performance
requirements. We are happy to report that these requirements have been
realized by use of unique agricultural-derived monomer technology
invented in these laboratories. Vegetable oil-based monomers and
latexes derived from this technology are being evaluated for use in
adhesives, foams, wood composites, and several different coatings
applications. Our VOMM synthesis techniques have been optimized to
achieve greater than 90 percent conversion, producing only glycerol as
a byproduct. The revised and now accepted synthetic procedure affords a
useful, polymerizable VOMM without extraordinary methods or processes,
thus reducing the cost of manufacture. During 2005 and 2006, our
successful and novel synthetic techniques have allowed the synthesis of
new emulsion polymers whose composition contains up to 70 percent VOMM
by weight (based upon polymer solids). Moreover, this technology
provides chemically and physically stable polymers suitable for a
variety of end uses, particularly in coatings formulations. A
significant advancement this year is attributed to our new level of
control and understanding between monomer design and partitioning
during the emulsion polymerization process. The novel derivatives
provide VOMMs that are more readily copolymerizable with common
commercial monomers.
As an example of the potential impact of monomers and polymers
derived from this technology, the following statistics are cited. In
2004, sales of low gloss water thinned paints (including tinting bases)
were 181 million gallons, with a value of $1,551 million
(www.census.gov.mcd). A 1 percent share of this market within two years
would amount to 1.81 million gallons of low gloss paint. A typical flat
latex paint contains 1,200 g of latex per gallon. With latexes
containing 20 percent soybean oil derivatives, this market share would
consume 950,000 lbs of soybean oil or 89,540 bushels (up to 70 percent
soy oil derivatives have already been achieved in 2005-2006). It would
not be unrealistic to expect that in five years, a market share of 5
percent resulting in the annual consumption of 447,700 bushels of
soybeans for high value-added monomers and high performance decorative
and protective coatings. The environmental impact has potential to
reduce volatile organic emissions by 3.6 million lbs per year at only 1
percent market share (data 250 g/L VOC 3.78L/gal, 1.81 million gallons
and 1 percent market share).
Vernonia oil, a naturally occurring epoxidized oil, was reacted
with supercritical carbon dioxide to yield carbonated vernonia oil.
This derivative has much lower viscosity than its synthetic analogs and
can serve as a precursor for synthesizing isocyanate-free
polyurethanes. The synthesis is an attractive option for reducing
global levels of carbon dioxide while utilizing mainly natural
products. Additionally, vernonia oil was modified to yield a novel
polyol that resulted in lower viscosity than commercial, petrochemical-
based polyol at the same hydroxyl value. This polyol was the key
component in the synthesis of rigid foams that meet or exceed the
mechanical performance of commercial foams based on petrochemical
derivatives.
A soybean oil-based VOMM was employed in the synthesis of
associative thickeners for use with commercial latexes. The biobased
thickener provided improved thickening efficiency when compared to
commercial petrochemical-based thickeners at equal concentrations. The
soybean oil-based VOMM was also used in the synthesis of a biobased
ultraviolet absorber (UVA). The UVA displayed good gloss retention
properties and its synthesis is being optimized to improve its effect
on color retention.
Commercial nail polishes contain very high amounts of organic
solvents which constitute volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
negatively impact the environment. VOMM-based latexes, without the
organic solvents, were formulated into environmentally-responsible,
glossy nail polishes with acceptable dry times and water resistance
properties.
In summary, commercialization efforts have continued over the past
year with waterborne architectural coatings, new technology to meet DOD
needs for Navy Haze Gray waterborne paint, environmentally-responsible
nail polish formulations, associative thickeners, and UV absorbers.
Patents have been approved; new patent applications have been
submitted; high performance monomers have been created and scaled-up
for manufacture at toll production levels; new higher performing
coatings have been designed, manufactured, formulated, and tested; and
formulation efforts have been directed toward the generation of high
performance, low odor, and low VOC coatings. We are optimistic that
commercialization and sales of one or more of these ag-derived products
will be realized in the year ahead.
In yet another of our novel ag-based technologies, we have
developed formaldehyde-free adhesives for use in particleboard
composites. The developmental adhesive is composed of soy protein
isolate (SPI), and lab produced particleboards made with this
formaldehyde-free adhesive meet or exceed industry performance
requirements as defined by ANSI standards for M1, M2, M3, and M-S grade
boards. Processing and board production are compatible with current
equipment and methodologies. Sustained research efforts have resulted
in higher adhesive solids resulting in faster line speeds. Plant trials
conducted with this novel soy-derived adhesive at a commercial
particleboard manufacturing plant generated boards that were consistent
with boards made in our laboratories under similar processing
conditions. Particleboards typically employ wood chips as the
discontinuous phase. Alternate sources of wood furnish are of interest
in expanding the utility of soybean protein adhesive in composite
applications. We have developed biobased composites using our soybean
protein-based adhesive in conjunction with alternative materials such
as cork, vermiculite, kenaf, and recycled paper, while
polycaprolactone, defatted soy flour, lignin, and cellulose were
evaluated as additives.
In 1983, the Mississippi Legislature authorized the Mississippi
Polymer Institute at USM to work closely with emerging industries and
other existing polymer-related industries to assist with research,
problem solving, commercializing efforts, and workforce development.
The Institute has maintained that thrust during the past year with much
success. In fact, while manufacturing jobs alone in Mississippi have
declined over the past 10 years, manufacturing jobs in the plastics
sector have continued to increase (45 percent growth in 2004). The
Institute provides industry and government with applied or focused
research, development support, commercializing assistance, and
workforce development. This effort complements existing strong ties
with industry and government involving exchange of information and
improved employment opportunities for USM graduates. Most importantly,
through basic and applied research coupled with developmental and
commercializing efforts of the Institute, the School of Polymers and
High Performance Materials continues to address national needs of high
priority.
Our research remains focused on the study and development of
technology platforms that facilitate further commercialization of
alternative agricultural crops for use in the polymer industry. The
polymer industry maintains its position as the single largest consumer
of petroleum chemical intermediates in the world. The finite supply of
petroleum resources has resulted in extreme price pressures as
worldwide demand continues to increase. Unfortunately, this feedstock
normally generates non-biodegradable raw materials that are not carbon
neutral, and therefore do not represent a sustainable alternative for
economic development in the polymer industry. The theme of our work is
to develop high performance, and environmentally responsible technology
utilizing agricultural intermediates. In this way, we as a Nation can
improve our environment, reduce our dependence on imported petroleum,
and keep America's farmlands in production. As farm products meet the
industrial needs of the American society, rural America is the
benefactor. Heretofore, these successful efforts to utilize alternative
agricultural products as an industrial feedstock continue to receive
more and more attention but drastically less than these high tech
innovations and opportunities warrant. Your decisions are crucial to
the accomplishment of these goals as funding from this Subcommittee has
enabled us to implement and maintain an active group of university-
based polymer scientists whose energies are devoted to commercializing
alternative crops. We are most grateful to you for this support, and
ask for your continued commitment.
Polymers, which include fibers, plastics, composites, coatings,
adhesives, inks, and elastomers, play a key role in the materials
industry. They are used in a wide range of industries including
textiles, aerospace, automotive, packaging, construction, medical
prosthesis, and health care. In the aerospace and automotive
applications, reduced weight and high strength make them increasingly
important as fuel savers. Their non-metallic character and almost
unlimited design potential support their use for many national defense
purposes. Moreover, select polymers are possible substitutes for so-
called strategic materials, some of which come from potentially
unreliable sources.
As a polymer scientist, I am intrigued by the vast opportunities
offered by American agriculture. As a professor, however, I continue to
be disappointed that few of our science and business students receive
training in the polymer-agricultural discipline despite its enormous
potential. At USM, we 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. For
more than 40 years, I have watched the evolution of polymers 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. Now is the
ideal time for agricultural materials to make significant inroads as
environmentally-responsible, biodegradable, and renewable raw
materials.
U.S. agriculture has made the transition from the farm fields to
the kitchen tables, but America's industrial community continues to be
frightfully slow in adopting ag-based industrial materials. The prior
sentence was included in my last four testimonies but continues to ring
true, even as I write this report. We are making progress and we must
persist. We must aggressively pursue this opportunity and in doing so:
--Intensify United States efforts to commercialize alternative crops
and dramatically reduce atmospheric VOC emissions and odor for
a much cleaner and less noxious air for all Americans.
--Reduce United States reliance on imported petroleum.
--Maintain a healthy and prosperous farm economy.
--Foster new cooperative opportunities between American farmers and
American industry.
--Create advanced polymer technology-based manufacturing jobs that
cannot be easily exported to other countries.
--Maintain our innovative and developmental competitive edge over
other less environmentally-responsible countries and less
competitive economies.
Mr. Chairman, your leadership and support are deeply appreciated by
the entire University of Southern Mississippi community. While I can
greatly appreciate the financial restraints facing your Subcommittee, I
feel confident that further support of the Mississippi Polymer
Institute will continue to pay dividends by way of increasing
commercialization opportunities for agricultural materials in the
American industry. Advances in polymer research are crucial to food,
transportation, housing, and defense industries. Our work has clearly
established the value of ag products as industrial raw materials, and
we must move it from the laboratories to the industrial manufacturing
sector. Only then can the 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. We are most grateful for
the support provided by you in the past. The funding you provided has
facilitated laboratory work to be conducted, manufacturing scale-up to
be accomplished, and ensured sales (although limited) of products based
on this technology. However, additional funds are needed to make these
technologies cost effective while maintaining the high performance
standards to which we are accustomed. Pilot scale processes are
necessary to move this technology into the market place, and will be
the principal focus of our upcoming work. Of course, while working to
achieve commercialization, we are committed to continue technology
advancement, as will basic research on those topic areas where
knowledge is required.
Since our testimony last year, our research and development efforts
have effectively shown that sustained research has expanded the
viability of agricultural derivatives. Indeed, the technology is
maturing, which must be followed by marketing and sales to realize full
potential. Thus, we are asking for your support to advance these
technologies to the market place, and to continue our development of
other useful ag-derived technologies. We therefore respectfully request
$1.5 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 to optimize the
potential of the knowledge creation described herein. Our efforts will
be recognized as instrumental in developing a ``process'' for the
commercialization of new ag-based products. We have proven that we are
successful in developing technologies from the ``idea'' stage to scale-
up for commercialization in several market areas. 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 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.
CRP, WRP, EQIP, and CSP are key non-regulatory elements in the States'
efforts to address agricultural sources of water quality impairment
through the Total Maximum Daily Load program and can help address the
national concern with hypoxia in the Gulf of Mexico.
Conservation Reserve Program
The UMRBA supports President Bush's fiscal year 2008 budget request
of $2 billion for the Conservation Reserve Program, a slight increase
over fiscal year 2007. 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 7.1 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. CRP
contracts expiring in 2007 cover 2 million acres in the five UMRBA
States. Preliminary data indicate that 77 percent of those expiring
acres will be re-enrolled or extended.
All five UMRBA States also have active Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Programs (CREP) tailored to meet their priority
conservation needs. Current CREP enrollment in the five States is over
261,000 acres, or 28 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 2008 budget proposes $455 million for
the Wetlands Reserve Program, an increase of 72 percent over fiscal
year 2007 spending estimates. UMRBA applauds this substantial increase
and the Administration's goal of enrolling 250,000 acres, bringing the
total acres to WRP's authorized program cap.
WRP 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. From fiscal year 1992 through fiscal year
2006, NRCS has enrolled 2,680 contracts in Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin totaling more than 352,000 acres, or 19 percent
of the national total. In fiscal year 2006, $56.3 million of WRP
funding was allocated to the five Upper Mississippi River States,
representing a quarter of all WRP investment that year. Yet the future
viability of WRP is in question as a result of the 2006 change in the
way USDA appraises property for WRP easements. The new ``Yellow Book''
appraisal system has resulted in lower price-per-acre offers, making
enrollment in WRP less attractive for many landowners and potentially
leading to enrollment of less environmentally valuable lands. UMRBA is
concerned that WRP target the most ecologically valuable wetland areas
and thus urges Congress and USDA to evaluate the impacts of the new WRP
appraisal system and take action to maintain the program's future
effectiveness.
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 (EQIP) supports conservation
on working lands. Promoting agricultural production and environmental
quality as compatible goals is particularly important in the Midwest
agricultural heartland.
The President is proposing to fund EQIP at $1.0 billion in fiscal
year 2008, essentially unchanged from the fiscal year 2007 funding
level. The UMRBA supports this investment, noting that EQIP is a
tremendously popular conservation program in the 5 States of the Upper
Mississippi River Basin. In fiscal year 2006, $75.7 million was paid
for conservation practices completed in UMR States under 1997-2006 EQIP
contracts. In addition, 5700 new EQIP contracts were approved in fiscal
year 2006 in the UMR States, obligating $97 million in future financial
assistance. Yet that same year, an additional 6700 applications,
totaling $125 million, were left unfunded.
Conservation Security Program
The President's fiscal year 2008 budget request of $316 million for
the Conservation Security Program (CSP) reflects a 22 percent increase
over fiscal year 2007 for this popular voluntary program, which
provides financial and technical assistance to agricultural producers
who implement conservation measures on working lands. However, the
President's proposed funding level will only be sufficient to continue
to support CSP contracts signed in prior years. No new enrollments
would be offered in 2008. Given the popularity and effectiveness of the
CSP, the UMRBA urges Congress to consider increasing CSP funding beyond
what the Administration has proposed to enable additional eligible
acreages to benefit.
In the first 3 years of CSP (2004-2006), 28 of the 280 eligible
watersheds in the nation were in the 5 States of the Upper Mississippi
River Basin. Within those 28 watersheds, there are 6,139 approved CSP
contracts, which constitute nearly one-third of all CSP contracts, and
total $56 million in approved payments.
In fiscal year 2007, there are 51 additional watersheds eligible
for CSP nationwide, including one in each of the 5 UMRBA States.
Conservation Technical Assistance
Through the Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) 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 $91 million in CTA funding was allocated to
the five UMRBA States (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin) in fiscal year 2006.
Given that CTA is the foundation for much of the nation's private
lands conservation assistance, UMRBA supports the President's fiscal
year 2008 funding request of $679 million for CTA, a 3 percent increase
over the fiscal year 2007 estimated spending 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 September
2005 there were $1.85 billion of unfunded Federal commitments to Public
Law 566 and Public Law 534 projects nationwide, with $208 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 these 4
States were allocated 31 percent of the total national funding in
fiscal year 2006, that amount ($21.7 million) was far less than the
$208 million backlog. In fiscal year 2006, although there was only $69
million allocated for watershed protection and flood prevention
operations nationwide, there were funding requests totaling over $174
million, $44 million of which were 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.
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. However, that authorization
expires at the end of fiscal year 2007. Nevertheless, the President has
proposed $6 million for the Watershed Rehabilitation program in fiscal
year 2008, targeting it exclusively on technical assistance. That
amount is well below the recent funding levels of $30 million and only
a small fraction of the $150 million authorized for fiscal year 2007.
Repair, upgrade, or removal of aging dams, which could become a threat
to public health and safety, is extremely important and UMRBA thus
urges Congress to reauthorize and increase funding for the Watershed
Rehabilitation Program.
______
Prepared Statement of the USA Rice Federation
This is to convey the rice industry's request for fiscal year 2008
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 subcommittees face
when developing the fiscal year 2008 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 subcommittees and committees to resist
such efforts during the appropriations process, in particular with the
2002 farm bill up for reauthorization this year.
A list of the programs the USA Rice Federation supports for
appropriations in fiscal year 2008 are as follows:
funding priorities
Research and APHIS
The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center should receive
continued funding at the fiscal year 2007 approved level, which was
approximately $3.9 million, and appropriate additional funding to
reflect any increased administrative and operations costs. 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. 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 2008 for research to develop high-
yielding, high-quality domestic aromatic rice varieties for the U.S.
rice industry. Further details and specifics of this request are
attached in a separate document.
For the Western Regional Research Center, in Albany, California, we
support the Administration's budget proposal for the Renewable Energy
Resources within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) account. The
total budget request for the Renewable Energy Resources project is
$10,954,000, of which, we understand, approximately $5,399,000 is to be
directed to the Albany, CA facility for research on modification of
plant cell walls in energy crops and crop residues for efficient
conversion to biofuels.
This research will play a key role in the ability to utilize rice
straw and other rice crop residues for the production of biofuels. Rice
straw represents a current and ready-made feedstock that could meet a
substantial portion of the demand for biofuels production in the
regions of the country where rice is produced, including the Sacramento
Valley of California. We urge you to fully fund this request as our
researchers work to develop the technologies necessary to meet the
ambitious goals for biofuels production set before us.
For APHIS-Wildlife Services, we encourage the subcommittees to fund
the Louisiana blackbird control project at $150,000. This program
annually saves rice farmers in Southwest Louisiana over $4,000 per
farm, or $2.9 million total.
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 2008, FMD should be fully
funded at no less than $34.5 million.
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 2008, MAP should be funded at no less than $200
million.
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 urge the subcommittees to fund Public Law 480 Title I. No Title
I funding was provided in fiscal year 2007. At a minimum, fiscal year
2008 funding should be the same as 2006, the last year in which the
program was funded. Public Law 480 Title I is our top food-aid priority
and we support continued funding in order to meet international demand.
Food-aid sales historically account for an important portion of U.S.
rice exports.
For Public Law 480 Title II, we support funding for fiscal year
2008 at $1.632 billion, which is its fiscal year 2006 level. We
encourage the subcommittees 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, at
a minimum, for the Food for Progress Program's Public Law 480 Title I-
sourced funding and at fiscal year 2007 levels, at a minimum, for the
program's Commodity Credit Corporation funding component. Funding for
this program is important to improve food security for food-deficit
nations.
The McGovern-Dole International Food for Education and Child
Nutrition Program is a proven success and it is important to provide
steady, reliable funding for multi-year programming. USA Rice supports
funding at the $140 million level 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 subcommittees 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 subcommittees receive
and have restricted our comments accordingly.
Thank you for your consideration of our recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS)
The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS) is submitting this
testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture
regarding their hearing on the fiscal year 2008 U.S. Department of
Agriculture budget, with specific reference to the 2007 Farm Bill
proposals. My name is Charlie Nylander, and I represent the interests
of WESTCAS and serve on the Board of Directors (representing the State
of New Mexico) and as Treasurer.
WESTCAS is a coalition of approximately 125 water and wastewater
districts, municipalities, and professional organizations focused on
water quality and quantity issues in eight western States, including:
Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, and
Texas. WESTCAS advocates wise use of water resources by promoting
scientifically-sound laws, regulations, appropriations, and policies
that protect public health and the environment in the arid West. My
testimony today focuses on those aspects of the fiscal year 2008 USDA
budget and the 2007 Farm Bill proposals that impact water quality and
quantity in the arid West.
This WESTCAS testimony will focus on two areas of importance to our
membership, i.e. the conservation programs and the rural development
programs. First, the Administration proposes to provide approximately
547,000 rural households with new and improved water and wastewater
disposal facilities. The proposed $1.5 billion funding level includes
$1.2 billion in loans and $349 million in grants. This combination of
funding represents a higher loan to grant ratio than exists in 2007,
according to the budget proposal. However, USDA is proposing to reduce
the interest rate on loans, and state that most rural communities would
have lower repayment costs as a result of the combination of these
changes. Although WESTCAS would like to see a significant increase in
the proposed funding for this program, given the current national
budget demands, we support the proposed funding level and the approach
taken with respect to loans and grants.
The water and wastewater disposal program provides financing for
rural communities to establish, expand or modernize water treatment and
waste disposal facilities. Eligibility if limited to communities of
10,000 or less in population which are unable to obtain credit
elsewhere. In addition, they are available only to those communities
with low median household income levels. The eight WESTCAS member
western states contain hundreds of communities that meet these
criteria. Moreover, due to the evolving demographics of the western
United States, many of our rural communities are either seeing an
influx of new residents who are moving to the area in their retirement,
or are seeing a reduction in population due to a weakened economic
picture and the lack of reasonable employment opportunities. In either
case, the physical and financial impact on existing, aged, or needed
water and wastewater infrastructure is demonstrable. These rural
communities cannot cope with the maintenance or new development of
adequate water and wastewater infrastructure without programs such as
proposed in this fiscal year 2008 USDA budget request.
I would like to provide an example in my own State of New Mexico. I
currently facilitate the Espanola Basin Regional Planning Issues Forum
(EBRPIF). This forum represents a government-to-government ad hoc group
of 14 members representing city, county, and tribal jurisdictions in
Northern New Mexico. For the past three years, this forum has met
monthly to candidly discuss planning issues of regional concern, with a
focus on water and wastewater. The three county governments represented
among the 14 members contain rural communities that have populations of
less than 10,000 people. Many of those communities are increasingly
financially-burdened by water and wastewater infrastructure needs that
result from: aged, existing infrastructure; population growth that
demands new utility services; local groundwater contamination issues
resulting from the existing use of on-site individual liquid waste
systems and historic use of cesspools (that are now illegal);
inadequate operation and maintenance; declining groundwater levels in
over-drafted aquifers; the effects of a 7+ year drought; naturally-
occurring groundwater contaminants that exceed new, and increasingly
stringent drinking water standards, e.g. the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's standard for arsenic; and challenging new concerns
for utility safeguards and security measures. All of these very typical
factors exacerbate the financial, planning, maintenance, and
development demands affecting these small, rural communities, who
without the availability of government program support, like the USDA
Rural Development Program, would have no place to turn.
According to the Administrations proposal, these grants are limited
to a maximum of 75 percent of project costs, but have typically
averaged 35 to 45 percent of project costs. Program regulations
stipulate that the grant amount should only be as much as necessary to
bring the user rates down to a reasonable level for the area. Water and
wastewater grant and loan funds are usually combined, based on the
income levels of users and user costs. Throughout the WESTCAS western
states, when it comes to financing water and wastewater infrastructure,
all of the rural communities are increasing user rates, while still
needing to augment funding through federal and state financing
programs. Thus, WESTCAS strongly supports the continuation the USDA
Rural Development Program.
The second area of concern to WESTCAS, funding and technical
assistance to support the Farm Bill conservation programs is vital to
the management of water resources in the arid West. The
Administration's proposal includes about $4 billion for these programs,
an increase of $242 million over the 2007 level. This includes funding
for the Conservation Security Program at a level of $316 million, and
increase of $57 million over 2007, in order to support prior year
contracts. The budget also includes $455 million to enroll up to
250,000 acres in the Wetlands Reserve Program in 2008 to reach the
program cap of 2,275,000 acres. In addition, the proposed budget
includes $1 billion for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), enabling nearly 39,700 producers to participate in the program,
covering nearly 21 million acres of land. The EQIP program will
continue to emphasize land management practices.
WESTCAS strongly supports the proposed conservation programs,
however we have the following comments.
--The Conservation Security Program pays farmers for improving soil
and water quality or enhancing wildlife habitat. Some voices in
Congress have recently advocated also using these funds to
promote the planting of energy crops. WESTCAS supports this
program because it has a fundamental connection to water
quality and quantity. By wisely managing the land, this USDA
program has a very positive affect on non-point sources of
water pollution. Sediment and nutrients are less likely to
runoff and end up in the surface waters where they contribute
to water pollution. In addition, this program can enhance the
ability of soils to hold moisture and reduce the demands for
irrigation water from surface or groundwater sources. Enhancing
wildlife habitat is also a vital benefit, especially in those
areas of the country, like the western states, where growth and
development are increasingly marginalizing wildlife habitat.
Additionally, if one examines other federal agency budgets,
(like the Fish and Wildlife Service's fiscal year 2008 proposed
budget where grants are being eliminated that help landowners
restore habitat for species on their land), there are proposed
cuts in funding for wildlife habitat. Thus, the USDA program
funding is of vital importance.
WESTCAS supports increased appropriations for the Conservation
Security Program, but does not want it be closed to new
subscribers, as Secretary Johanns has recently proposed. Across
the western states, many new opportunities exist to improve
soil and water quality and enhance wildlife habitat. Rather
than cap the program to allow funding to present subscribers,
WESTCAS believes that it should be expanded, and that USDA
should implement a monitoring and reporting program to
quantify, to the best of their ability, the benefits derived
from the program's implementation. A comprehensive monitoring
program could be networked with other agencies such as the U.S.
Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management, and Environmental
Protection Agency, so as to more efficiently collect and
quantify the data. Such monitoring and reporting would greatly
impact the continuation and expansion of this important
program, and help assess the positive benefits being derived
for water quality.
Regarding the proposal to use these funds for the planting of
energy crops, WESTCAS offers one caution. That caution concerns
the impact of extensive new energy crop plantings on both water
quantity and quality. By promoting the planting of energy
crops, the USDA (or Congress) may be exacerbating the problems
associated with nutrient-caused eutrophication of water
resources due to seepage and/or runoff of applied crop
nutrients that affect water quality. But more importantly,
promotion of such planting may negatively impact the increasing
strain on scarce water resources in the arid western states
through the promotion of irrigated agriculture to produce
energy. By promoting planting of energy crops, there is a
promotion of irrigation which may have deleterious affects on
both surface and groundwater resources in the arid West.
Historically, USDA price supports for cotton, resulted in
increased planting that resulted in excessive water level
declines in important aquifers, such as the Ogalalla aquifer.
Thus, prudent caution should be given when including such
proposals in the program due to inadvertent consequences.
--The Wetlands Reserve Program proposal for increased funding and
maximizing the subscription acreage is heartily supported by
WESTCAS. Although the arid West has minimal acres of wetlands,
as a water quality organization WESTCAS recognizes the natural
benefits of increased wetlands promoting water quality and
wildlife. Wetlands are natural systems that greatly contribute
to the promotion of water quality, and aid in providing buffer
zones for riparian vegetation that mitigate the affects of
runoff events and flood flows. In the arid West, the use of
artificial wetlands is utilized more and more in the treatment
and reclamation of wastewater effluent. The natural
purification processes that take place in a wetland environment
greatly benefit water quality, and this USDA program is of
great national import regarding the protection of water quality
and provision of wildlife habitat.
--WESTCAS strongly supports the Environmental Quality Incentive
Program (EQIP). This program is very important in providing
assistance to landowners that face serious natural resource
challenges that impact soil, water, and related natural
resources. As was mentioned above regarding the Conservation
Security Program, EQIP provides resources for those stewards of
the land that are in need so as to enhance the natural
resources. The EQIP financial resources improve water quality
and quantity through the subscriber application of sound
remedial projects that improve both land and water.
--Lastly, WESTCAS supports the premise of the Healthy Forest
Initiative in reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires. It
is very important that the USDA continue to implement this
initiative, and reduce the risk of wildfire. Through hazardous
fuel treatment, provision of adequate fire preparedness, and
providing technical assistance, the USDA is assisting the arid
West in safeguarding our vulnerable forested watersheds that
provide the source of water for our cities, towns, industries,
ranches and farms. During the past 7 years of sustained drought
conditions, the arid West has felt the impact of catastrophic
wildfire from California, across Arizona, through New Mexico
and Colorado. Wildfires can destroy the vital watersheds upon
which our populations depend for their annual and long-term
supply of water. WESTCAS urges your support for the proposed
budget for this important program.
On behalf of WESTCAS, thank you for this opportunity to provide
this testimony.
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research and the
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 the Food and Drug Administration,
and more specifically for the Office of Women's Health, a critical
focal point within the Agency on women's health.
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 that are concerned
and committed to improving women's health research. The Coalition now
has more than 650 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 as well as leading voluntary health
associations, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.
The Society and the Coalition are committed to advancing the health
status of women through the discovery of new and useful scientific
knowledge. We strongly believe that appropriate funding of the FDA by
Congress is absolutely critical for the Agency to be able to maintain
basic functions and to assure the American public of the safety of our
food and drugs. More specifically, we recommend that Congress not only
sustain but should increase funding for the Office of Women's Health
and its women's health research programs. These programs, often
conducted with the Agency centers, are necessary if we are to maintain
any focus on women's health within the Agency Furthermore, these
programs are critical to improve care and increase awareness of disease
specific impacts to women such as those associated with differences in
the efficacy of drugs, devices and diagnostics, as a function of sex.
Therefore, we strongly urge Congress to support a robust increase for
fiscal year 2008 budget for the FDA, and within that budget to provide
the Office of Women's Health funding of $5 million such that it may
meet and exceed its program goals.
OFFICE OF WOMEN'S HEALTH
The Office of Women's Health (OWH) at the FDA, established in 1994,
plays a critical role in women's health, both within and outside the
Agency, supporting sex- and gender-based research, areas in which the
Society has long been a proponent. OWH aims to provide scientific and
policy expertise on sex and 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 both leadership and an integrated approach
across the agency. Despite inadequate funding, OWH provides all women
with invaluable tools for their health.
With little difficulty, OWH exhausts its tiny budget each year. For
the past five years, OWH has been provided a flat budget of $4 million,
which is, in essence, a decrease due to required Federal cost of living
adjustments, benefit cost increases and other related issues. Despite
this squeeze, the office has managed to advance its mission both within
the Agency and externally through it research grants, drug and disease
pamphlets and outreach programs. OWH's pamphlets are the most requested
of any documents at the government printing facility in New Mexico.
(More than 3.5 million pieces are distributed to women across the
Nation including target populations such as Hispanic communities,
seniors and low income citizens.) Yet despite these successes, the OWH
was targeted to have its fiscal year 2007 programs budget raided by
$1.2 million, virtually shutting down the ability of this office to
function for the rest of the year. Thankfully, this decision was
reversed at the very last minute.
Despite clear funding intentions within the Administration's
proposal for fiscal year 2008 for OWH to receive $4million, the FDA has
indicated that it will be cutting the budget of OWH by $350,000 from
the OMB designated amount of $4 million. These two actions (fiscal year
2007 and fiscal year 2008) taken together cause us great concern and
set a precedent that leads us to believe the office's functionality is
in serious jeopardy.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL FOR CONGRESS TO TAKE ACTION NOW TO HELP
PRESERVE THE VITAL FUNCTIONS OF OWH
Since its beginning, OWH has funded high quality scientific
research to serve as the foundation for Agency activities that improve
women's health. To date, OWH has funded over 100 research projects with
approximately $15.2 million. Intramural grants support projects within
the FDA that address knowledge gaps or set new directions for sex and
gender research. Extramural contracts leverage a wealth of expertise
and other resources outside the Agency to provide insight on regulatory
questions pertinent to women' health. All contracts and grants are
awarded through a competitive process. A large number of these studies
are published, many of which appear in peer reviewed journals.
OWH has recently funded research to more fully understand heart
disease in women. Despite being the number one cause of death, women
with heart disease face misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, under-
treatment, and mistreatment due to their under-representation in heart-
related research studies. Extramural research funded by OWH is looking
into the use of coronary stents in women and problems associated with
breast interference in interpretation of heart catherization studies.
As part of its educational outreach efforts to consumers, OWH
continues to work closely with women's advocacy and health professional
organizations to provide clarity on the results of the Women's Health
Initiative. Due to OWH efforts, an informational fact sheet about
menopause and hormones and a purse-sized questionnaire to review with
the doctor were distributed to national and local print, radio, and
Internet advertisements. OWH's website received over three million hits
to download campaign materials. This website provides free,
downloadable fact sheets on over 40 different illnesses, diseases, and
health related issues.
In addition, OWH has recently completed medication chart brochures
on seven chronic diseases. These are unique within the Agency. These
charts list, in one place, all the medications that are prescribed and
available for each disease. Again, the information is available on the
website and is ideal for women to use in talking to their doctors,
pharmacists or nurses about their treatment options.
As a result of FDA information system aging, combined with the
inability to keep pace with information technology needs due to budget
constraints, the OWH has been unable to conduct much needed data
analysis on women's health and sex-related differences. This effort
originally started in 2001, when the Society submitted testimony on
behalf of the OWH in support of a centralized FDA database to
coordinate clinical trial oversight, monitor the inclusion of women in
clinical trials, oversee the parameters of informed consent, and
identify health provider training needs. As a result of Society efforts
and this Committee's commitment, in 2002 Congress provided the OWH with
funds to develop an agency-wide database focused on women's health
activities to include demographic data on clinical trials. OWH did
begin 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. However, without the ability to match this capability to
the rest of the Agency efforts developing this important Repository
have been halted at the present time.
While progress has been made, the database is far from up and
running due to the aging and outdated information technology systems of
the Agency. Currently, the FDA receives large volumes of information in
applications from drug manufacturers for review and evaluation. The FDA
reviewers must manually comb through the submitted drug trial reports
and digital data in as many as twelve formats to evaluate a new drug's
safety and effectiveness. With no uniform system or database, reviewers
must handpick sex, age, and ethnicity information manually from stacks
of paper reports and craft their own data comparisons. This is time
consuming, makes the review process less efficient, is error-prone 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 to OWH for the Demographic Information and Data Repository. It
is time for us all to recognize that the Agency must utilize up to date
information technology and sorely needs the resources to maintain them.
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 sequencing of the 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.
Much of what is known about sex differences is the result of
observational studies, or is descriptive evidence from studies that
were not designed to obtain a careful comparison between females and
males. 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. Many sex differences are already present at birth, whereas
others develop later in life. These differences play an important role
in disease susceptibility, prevalence, time of onset and severity and
are evident in cancer, obesity, coronary heart disease, immune
dysfunction, 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 supported and encouraged.
Building upon sex differences research, the Society encourages the
establishment of drug-labeling requirements that ensure labels include
language about differences experienced by women and men. Further, we
advocate for research on the comparative effectiveness of drugs with
specific emphasis on data analysis by sex. When available, this
information should be on labels.
Our country's drug development process has succeeded in developing
new and better medications to ensure the health of both women and men.
However, there is no requirement that the data acquired during research
of a new drug's safety and effectiveness be analyzed as a function of
sex or that information about the ways drugs may differ in various
populations (e.g., women requiring a lower dosage because of different
rates of absorption or chemical breakdown) be included in prescription
drug labels and other patient educational and instructional materials.
Proper drug labeling is not always the complete solution. If the
drug is not one newly approved or if the sex-specific information is
detected only in post-marketing studies, the drug label will not
reflect sex specific information discovered to the prescribing
physician, and it may be difficult to get new information incorporated
into physicians' prescribing habits.
The Society believes the opportunity is now before us to
communicate 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 need to
analyze and report sex differences, the Society encourages the FDA to
continue adequately 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.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and this Committee for
its strong record of support for women's health and your commitment to
OWH. We encourage you to provide it with funding of $5 million for
fiscal year 2008 and to provide the FDA with a significant increase
over the fiscal year 2007 budget to address its urgent needs and
chronic shortfalls. We look forward to continuing to work with you to
build a healthier future for all Americans.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ad Hoc Coalition, Prepared Statement of.......................... 721
Advanced Medical Technology Association, Prepared Statement of... 724
American:
Forest & Paper Association, Prepared Statement of............ 726
Honey Producers Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of..... 727
Sheep Industry Association, Prepared Statement of............ 733
Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statements of...........738, 741
Animal:
Health Institute, Prepared Statement of...................... 745
Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of..................... 745
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
Questions Submitted by.....................................136, 708
Statement of................................................. 2
Bond, Senator Christopher S., U.S. Senator From Missouri,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 156
Brownback, Senator Sam, U.S. Senator From Kansas, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 476
Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
Questions Submitted by......................................... 153
California Industry and Government Central California Ozone Study
Coalition, Prepared Statement of............................... 746
Christopherson, Charles R., Jr., Chief Financial Officer, Office
of the Chief Financial Officer, Department of Agriculture,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 24
Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 747
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 6
Colorado River:
Basin Salinity Control Forum, Prepared Statement of.......... 749
Board of California, Prepared Statement of................... 752
Collins, Dr. Keith, Chief Economist, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 31
Combs, David M., Chief Information Officer, Department of
Agriculture, Prepared Statement of............................. 20
Conner, Charles, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Dorgan, Senator Byron L., U.S. Senator From North Dakota:
Questions Submitted by.....................................123, 701
Statement of................................................. 3
Durbin, Senator Richard J., U.S. Senator From Illinois, Questions
Submitted by.................................................123, 705
Dyer, John, Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 479
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Statement of................................................... 5
Florida State University, Prepared Statement of.................. 753
Fong, Phyllis K., Inspector General, Office of the Inspector
General, Department of Agriculture, Prepared Statement of...... 45
Food and Water Watch, Prepared Statement of...................... 754
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 757
Hardwood Federation, Prepared Statement of....................... 760
Harkin, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From Iowa, Questions Submitted
by............................................................. 694
Heart Rhythm Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 761
Imperial Valley Conservation Research Center Committee, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 763
Johanns, Hon. Mike, Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 10
Statement of................................................. 7
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin:
Opening Statement of......................................... 1
Questions Submitted by......................................84, 492
McKay, Margo M., Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Department of
Agriculture, Prepared Statement of............................. 28
Multi-Crop Aflatoxin Working Group, Prepared Statement of........ 765
National:
Association of State:
Departments of Agriculture, Prepared Statement of........ 760
Foresters, Prepared Statement of......................... 760
Coalition for Food and Agricultural Research, Prepared
Statement of............................................... 766
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, Prepared
Statement of............................................... 772
Corn Growers Association, Prepared Statement of.............. 770
Environmental Services Center (NESC), Prepared Statement of.. 778
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of.......... 779
Potato Council, Prepared Statement of........................ 782
Rural Telecom Association, Prepared Statement of............. 784
Turfgrass Federation, Inc., Prepared Statement of............ 786
Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Tennessee:
Questions Submitted by....................................... 126
Statement of................................................. 5
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of... 790
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies, Prepared Statement of............ 792
Pellett, Nancy C., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm
Credit Administration, Prepared Statement of................... 59
Pickle Packers International, Inc., Prepared Statement of........ 793
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of.............. 798
Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island:
Questions Submitted by.....................................135, 707
Statement of................................................. 5
Rutherford, Boyd K., Assistant Secretary for Administration,
Department of Administration, Department of Agriculture,
Prepared Statement of.......................................... 18
Society:
For:
Animal Protective Legislation, Prepared Statement of..... 802
Women's Health Research and the Women's Health Research
Coalition, Prepared Statement of....................... 824
Of American Foresters, Prepared Statement of................. 760
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Questions
Submitted by.................................................154, 718
Steele, W. Scott, Budget Officer, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Teuber, Terri, Director, Office of Communications, Department of
Agriculture, Prepared Statement of............................. 30
The Humane Society, Prepared Statement of........................ 806
The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of.................... 760
The Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 810
Turman, Richard, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Food and
Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services... 479
United States Telecom Association, Prepared Statement of......... 811
University of Southern Mississippi and the Mississippi Polymer
Institute, Prepared Statement of............................... 815
Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, Prepared Statement of. 818
USA Rice Federation, Prepared Statement of....................... 820
Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), Prepared Statement of 822
von Eschenbach, Hon. Andrew, Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 479
Prepared Statement of........................................ 481
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 83
Administrative:
Costs for Earmarks........................................... 73
Expenses for Earmarks........................................ 71
Afghanistan/Iraq Provincial Reconstruction Activities............ 85
Agricultural:
Credit Insurance Fund........................................ 475
Disaster Assistance.......................................... 138
Marketing Service..........................................105, 120
Quarantine Inspection:
Fees..................................................... 77
Positions Transferred to DHS............................. 77
Reconstruction Activities.................................... 103
Research..................................................... 87
Service, Buildings and Facilities............................ 149
Agriculture:
Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments................. 19
Quarantine and Inspection.................................... 121
APHIS:
Cooperative Agreements....................................... 107
Program Cost Share........................................... 147
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas.................. 122
ARS Research Funding............................................. 123
Avian Flu........................................................63, 88
Broadband and Distance Learning and Telemedicine Funding......... 124
BSE Surveillance................................................. 126
Capital Security Cost Sharing Program............................ 102
Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion........................ 110
Chronic Wasting Disease/State Match.............................. 90
Commodity Supplemental Food Program.................. 79, 109, 129, 154
Elimination.................................................. 144
Common Computing Environment..................................... 108
And Information Technology................................... 86
Community Facilities Grants...................................... 96
Conservation:
Contingency Funding.......................................... 82
Operations................................................... 104
Program...................................................... 125
Security Program............................................. 122
Corporate Activities............................................. 61
Country of Origin Labeling.......................................69, 93
Crop:
Insurance.................................................... 122
Gap Coverage............................................. 82
Cross-Cutting Trade Negotiations and Biotechnology Resources..... 148
DA Direct........................................................ 19
DHS:
Agricultural Inspections at U.S. Borders..................... 75
AQI Inspectors............................................... 81
Disaster:
Aid.......................................................... 67
Assistance................................................... 126
E. Coli in Specialty Crops....................................... 78
Electronic Government............................................ 23
Emerald Ash Borer................................................ 64
Emerging Pests..................................................88, 106
Enterprise Architecture (EA) and IT Management Programs.......... 23
Eradication Versus Management.................................... 89
Examination Programs for FCS Banks and Associations.............. 60
Farm Program Staffing............................................ 475
Farm Service Agency (FSA)........................................ 154
Computer System.............................................. 65
Field Staff and Office Structure............................. 102
Financial Management System....................................102, 141
Financing New Electric Generation Facilities..................... 99
Fiscal Year 2008:
Budget Request...........................................29, 31, 36
Key Outcomes................................................. 29
Objectives...................................................18, 29
Request...................................................... 19
Food:
Aid.......................................................... 81
Stamp Program Legislative Proposals.......................... 110
Food Safety and Inspection Service............................... 111
Food Inspectors.............................................. 116
Funding...................................................... 142
Level.................................................... 62
IT Infrastructure............................................ 155
Research..................................................... 152
Risk Based Inspection........................................ 113
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program in Schools..................... 123
Genetically Modified Materials in Commercial Crops..............93, 120
Global Warming................................................... 94
Greenbook Charges................................................ 140
Hazardous Materials Management................................... 20
Information:
Security..................................................... 22
Technology (IT) Issues....................................... 101
International Trade.............................................. 66
Invasive Species................................................89, 119
Johne's Disease.................................................. 90
Loan Program Delinquency Rates................................... 156
Locally Produced Food to Schools................................. 74
Multi-Family Housing:
Revitalization............................................... 98
Vouchers..................................................... 98
Mutual and Self-Help Housing..................................... 97
National:
Animal:
Health Laboratory Network Funding........................ 123
Identification System...........................67, 91, 118 143
Information Technology Data Center (NITC) Hosting............ 22
Organic Certification Cost Share Program..................... 106
Veterinarian Medical Service Act...................70, 87, 122, 476
Natural Resources Conservation Service........................... 153
Technical Assistance Funding................................. 126
Number of AQI Inspectors......................................... 77
Office:
Consolidations............................................... 96
Of the Secretary, Provincial Reconstruction Teams............ 149
OIG's Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request............................ 58
Organic Farming.................................................. 80
Progress Implementing Local Food Purchase Provision.............. 135
Proposed Limit on WIC Administrative Funding..................... 109
Protecting and Improving the Integrity of USDA Programs.......... 49
Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)........................... 73
Public Law 480 Titles I and II and Food for Progress............. 103
Regulatory Activity.............................................. 61
Renewable Energy--Commodity Prices............................... 138
Rental Assistance................................................ 136
Research, Education, and Economics Reorganization................ 146
Resource Conservation and Development............................ 105
Risk:
Based Inspection............................................. 142
Management Agency...........................................94, 118
Crop Insurance User Fee.................................. 137
Rural:
Business Development Grants.................................. 99
Development.................................................. 154
Direct Loans............................................. 137
Guaranteed Lending....................................... 128
Housing Programs......................................... 125
Rental Housing............................................... 97
Safety, Security, and Public Health.............................. 45
Service Center Modernization Initiative--(SCMI).................. 21
Single Family Housing Loan Programs.............................. 95
Small Farm/Organics/AMS Seed Mislabeling......................... 91
Telecommunications............................................... 22
The Management of USDA's Public Resources........................ 55
2008 Budget Request for Public Law 480 Title II Donations........ 82
U.S.:
Agricultural Trade........................................... 130
Foreign Food Assistance...................................... 121
USDA:
Fiscal Year 2008 Information Technology Investment Summary... 20
Loan Guarantee Authority..................................... 69
Overseas Activities.......................................... 150
Renewable Energy and Biofuels Investment..................... 127
User Fee Proposals............................................... 140
Value-Added Grants..............................................95, 120
Veal............................................................. 84
Water and Waste Program.......................................... 100
WIC:
Food Package................................................. 146
Legislative Proposals........................................ 144
Management Information System Funding........................ 145
$200 Million Contingency Fund................................ 145
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Additional Committee Questions................................... 492
Adverse Event Reporting on Dietary Supplements................... 694
Advisory Committees.............................................. 706
AERS II.......................................................... 497
Biologic License Application Approvals........................... 717
Carbon Monoxide.................................................. 692
Color Certification Fees......................................... 694
Counterfeit Drugs................................................ 708
Department of Health and Human Services.......................... 492
Dietary Supplements.............................................. 705
Direct to Consumer Advertising.................................691, 701
Drug Importation................................................. 702
FDA:
Alliance Request for FDA Funding............................. 710
Pay Costs.................................................... 709
Follow-on Biologics.............................................. 718
Food Safety....................................................493, 706
Inspections................................................485, 696
Generic Drugs.................................................... 494
Review Fiscal 2007 Funding................................... 710
Good Manufacturing Practices of Dietary Supplements.............. 695
Import Inspection................................................ 495
Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act (MDUFMA)........... 713
Office of:
Cosmetics and Colors......................................... 693
The Commissioner............................................. 693
Women's Health............................................... 689
ORA Consolidation................................................ 718
Overall Funding.................................................. 492
Pandemic Flu...................................................486, 711
Pay Costs........................................................ 687
Pending Approval of Cefquinome................................... 703
Probiotics in Yogurt............................................. 692
Proposed:
Generic Drug User Fee........................................ 710
Re-Inspection User Fee....................................... 710
User Fees.................................................... 686
Pseudoephedrine.................................................. 694
Rent............................................................. 687
Research Reduction.............................................688, 713
Salt............................................................. 698
Sunscreen Monographs...........................................489, 707
Tobacco.......................................................... 489
Trans Fat........................................................ 700
User Fees........................................................ 490
Reauthorization.............................................. 711
White Oak........................................................ 688
Women's Health.................................................487, 488