[Senate Hearing 110-613]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-613
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
before a
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
S. 3289
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD
AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES PROGRAMS FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2009, 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
41-239 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
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
Charles Kieffer, 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
BEN NELSON, Nebraska LARRY CRAIG, Idaho
JACK REED, Rhode Island SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
(ex officio)
Professional Staff
Galen Fountain
Jessica Arden Frederick
Dianne Preece
Fitzhugh Elder IV (Minority)
Stacy McBride (Minority)
Graham Harper (Minority)
Brad Fuller (Minority)
Administrative Support
Renan Snowden
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Page
Department of Agriculture: Office of the Secretary............... 1
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Department of Health and Human Services: Food and Drug
Administration................................................. 99
Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................ 171
AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND
RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10:06 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Reed, Bennett, Cochran, Specter,
and Craig.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
STATEMENT OF HON. ED SCHAFER, SECRETARY
ACCOMPANIED BY:
CHUCK CONNER, DEPUTY SECRETARY
DR. JOSEPH GLAUBER, CHIEF ECONOMIST
SCOTT STEELE, BUDGET OFFICER
opening statement of senator herb kohl
Senator Kohl. Hello and welcome to one and all. Today we
begin hearings for the fiscal year 2009 budget. We have before
us Secretary Schafer and other distinguished guests from the
Department of Agriculture. As you know, this is our first
budget hearing for the year.
Secretary Schafer, Dr. Glauber, and Mr. Steele, we want to
welcome you before our panel. It is good to have you here
today. I would also like to note that Dr. Glauber did receive
his Ph.D. from the University of Wisconsin, which makes you a
very smart man and a very intelligent man.
Before we get started with you, that is.
The President's budget includes fiscal year 2009
discretionary spending levels of $17.3 billion for USDA, which
is a decrease of over $400 million from last year. We have to
assume that you were told to hold the line on spending, but
however, this budget, notwithstanding that, as you know, does
not have very many highlights to it.
Although the WIC budget provides an increase of $80
million, we are already hearing that up to an additional $750
million could well be necessary and that number might go even
higher.
CSFP is eliminated yet again. Although we are hearing calls
from all over to fix the food safety problems, this budget
provides no funding for additional inspectors or inspections.
Research is cut by over $250 million. Conservation is cut
by over $140 million. Scores of rural development programs
vital to America are simply abolished. Food aid requests remain
stagnant, although the need is clearly growing, and a looming
Farm Service Agency IT disaster is not addressed.
As we move through the appropriations process, I pledge to
you that we will maintain a constructive dialogue with USDA. We
have many challenges this year, and I hope to work closely with
the Department so we can produce a constructive and a
responsible bill.
I am going to turn to my very good friend and the ranking
member, Senator Bennett, but first I want to thank publicly
Senator Bennett and his staff for the helpful and bipartisan
manner in which we have worked over the past few years. And I
assume him and all members of the subcommittee that that very
constructive working relationship will continue.
So, Senator Bennett will now make an opening statement, and
then we will turn to other members, if they arrive, for their
opening statements. Following that, we will be pleased to hear
from Secretary Schafer.
Members will have 1 week to submit questions for the
record, and we will act quickly on their questions.
Now, Senator Bennett.
statement of senator robert f. bennett
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, not
only for your leadership, but for your kind words. We have
worked together in a bipartisan fashion and I hope for the
benefit of agriculture in the country.
I want to welcome Secretary Schafer back to the
subcommittee and those joining him, Deputy Secretary Conner and
Chief Economist Glauber, and Budget Director Steele.
Dr. Glauber, congratulations on your appointment. I enjoyed
the analysis provided by your predecessor, Dr. Keith Collins,
who retired earlier this year, and look forward to hearing from
you and working with you.
The atmosphere in which we find ourselves with respect to
this budget hearing is that food prices are rising sharply
throughout the whole world and causing unrest in certain
places, not excluding our own country. Decades of nearly
stagnant farm gate prices have led us to anticipate stable
prices in the marketplace, but farmers are now enjoying record
high commodity prices at the same time as costs for feed, fuel,
and fertilizer are also reaching record highs.
Biofuel production continues to grow. This year roughly a
third of the U.S. corn crop will be used for biofuel
production. And that, too, helps increase the price for
farmers.
But the other side of it, which may have serious problems
for the rest of us, is that the cost of WIC, food stamps, and
other feeding programs keeps going up. I am not sure these are
issues that are easily resolved, and I hope we can talk a
little bit about them this morning.
Now, we have had food recalls and people have been
concerned about the safety of their food supply. I appreciate
your quick response to the humane slaughter violations in the
Hallmark/Westland case, Mr. Secretary, but as a subcommittee,
we will continue to fully and properly fund and monitor the
activities in the area of food safety. We want to make sure the
Department has all of the resources that it needs, but we
recognize that everybody else, producers, processors,
suppliers, importers, retailers, and so on, must work together
in conjunction with the regulators to make sure that the
consumers have no reason to question the safety of our food
supply.
Mr. Secretary, you are defending a budget you did not
prepare by virtue of the timing of your entry into your present
position, but you are accompanied by Deputy Secretary Conner
who did help prepare this. So I am confident that between the
two of you, you will be able to give us a full explanation of
where we are and how we got there. And I look forward to
hearing your thoughts.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
prepared statement
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett. And now
we will hear from you, Mr. Secretary.
The subcommittee has received a statement from Senator
Johnson which will be placed in the record.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Tim Johnson
Thank you, Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Bennett, for holding
today's Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration,
and Related Agencies subcommittee hearing to discuss the state of
fiscal year 2009 appropriations for agriculture. Your leadership is
invaluable and appreciated during this process. Thank you also,
Secretary Schafer, Deputy Secretary Conner, Chief Economist Dr.
Glauber, and Budget Officer Steele, for your time this morning. We
appreciate your coming to the Hill to discuss appropriations for this
next fiscal year for the United States Department of Agriculture.
As members of the Senate Appropriations Committee, we have an
obligation to ensure that our Federal programs function as both
intended and promised in enacted legislation. Programs addressed by
this subcommittee specifically should strive to ensure that our
Nation's rural and agriculture communities remain intact, and that we
provide opportunity in those regions that are struggling. I'm sure that
many subcommittee members' home States are impacted by rural out-
migration as significantly as mine is, and population loss is often
irreversible. The Department of Rural Sociology at South Dakota State
University released an analysis in 2006 that addressed population
changes. The study's findings included an 8.0 percent gain in
Southeastern Minnehaha County from 2000-2005, which includes Sioux
Falls, the largest city in South Dakota. Minnehaha County's gain
presents a stark contrast to rural Harding County, located in the
Northwest corner of South Dakota, which experienced a 10 percent drop
in population over that same time. Rural communities are impacted
dramatically by the shortfalls or inadequacies of each fiscal year's
budget proposals, and as a member of this subcommittee I will continue
to fight to keep our rural communities vibrant.
There are many areas in the President's proposed budget for fiscal
year 2009 that are enormously concerning, and I do not believe that the
administration's proposed budget can accomplish the intended goal of
our Federal programs. I will work with my colleagues to make these
areas whole, and I would like to touch on just a few of those programs
today.
The 2002 farm bill included an 80 percent increase in Federal
dollars for conservation programs over previous measures. However, this
administration's most recent suggestion for conservation funding
includes a 20 percent reduction. In the wake of the Department of
Agriculture's handling of the Conservation Reserve Program with
expiring 2007-2010 contracts, which has discouraged participation in
the program, this additional proposal is counterproductive for
conservation efforts in South Dakota and nationally.
The President's budget proposal includes eliminating the Resource,
Conservation and Development (RC&D) program entirely. The President has
clearly not been a fan of this program, proposing substantial
reductions consistently for several years. The RC&D program encourages
economic growth in rural areas that aren't privy to the economic
stimulus of urban areas. For every $1 invested into this program by the
Federal Government, the program generates an impressive $7.50 in
return. I have worked to restore this program in the past, and I will
continue to support full funding for this program.
For the third year in a row, this administration has attempted to
slash funding for the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP).
Elimination of this program would cause nearly half a million low-
income seniors and children to be cut off from nutritious commodities.
In my home State, nearly 300,000 senior citizens rely on the nutritious
meal boxes CSFP provides each month. The Bush administration proposes
simply transferring CSFP recipients to the food stamp program. However,
food stamp benefits alone are not sufficient to meet the dietary needs
of most CSFP participants. I will again fight to reinstate funding for
CSFP and ensure that this important program receives meaningful dollars
to support their growing needs.
I have heard from many South Dakotans who share in my concern for
the President's proposed budget, and I appreciate the opportunity to
share some of these concerns. I will continue to work for the strongest
possible agriculture budget we can achieve in Congress, which is simply
what America's farmers and ranchers deserve.
STATEMENT OF SECRETARY ED SCHAFER
Secretary Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking
member. I am pleased to appear before the committee, and thank
you for the opportunity to discuss our fiscal year 2009 budget
for the Department of Agriculture.
As was mentioned, I am joined at the table here by my
esteemed colleagues who can provide the expertise and
background to your questions.
I am grateful that the President has provided me this
opportunity to serve the people of the United States, and I
will do my very best to promote, preserve, and enhance the
mission of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Before I discuss the 2009 budget, I would like to thank the
committee for the opportunity to appear before you in late
February to testify on the inhumane handling of cattle at the
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company. At that hearing, I
described actions that we took immediately. Also, soon after
learning of the situation, we asked the Office of Inspector
General to immediately begin an investigation into the matter.
Since that hearing, we have taken additional actions,
including auditing 18 beef processing facilities that supply
products to the Department's nutrition assistance programs,
including the school lunch program. In addition, FSIS has
directed inspectors to increase the amount of time spent on
humane handling surveillance.
I have been concerned that some Members of Congress and
some of the media have mischaracterized this recall as a food
safety issue. I again want to assure our citizens that this
class II recall does not pose an imminent threat to our food
supply.
As we learn more from the ongoing investigations, we look
forward to keeping the committee well informed.
Now I would like to discuss the USDA and our 2009 budget.
As I mentioned earlier, I am very pleased to have been given
the opportunity to lead this great Department at a time in
history when the agriculture economy has never been stronger.
Market prices are at or near record levels for virtually all of
our major crops and net cash income for 2007 will exceed $87
billion, which is up almost $20 billion from last year.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, as well
as your other members, during the 2009 budget process to ensure
that we have the resources needed to continue making a positive
impact on the economic well-being, safety, and health of all
Americans.
Let me start by saying we are proud that USDA's 2009 budget
advances the President's goal of achieving a balanced Federal
budget by 2012, also while encouraging our economic growth and
enhancing our security.
As was noted, I am new to the Federal budget process, but I
have faced many challenges in developing budgets at a State
level. As a Governor for 8 years, I was required to make tough
decisions to balance our State budget as required by law. Today
at the Federal level, we face similar challenges to keep
spending under control and meet the President's deficit
reduction goals.
The USDA's total budget authority request pending before
this committee proposes an increase from $88 billion in 2008 to
$93 billion in 2009, while the discretionary appropriation
request is $17.4 billion. That is a decrease of approximately
$400 million from the 2008 enacted level.
The budget before you proposes to terminate $1 billion in
lower-priority activities, earmarks, and programs that
duplicate other activities. I would like to point out that even
within this tight overall budget framework, we request that
additional funds be allocated to food safety, nutrition, and
high-priority bioenergy research.
The budget requests nearly $1 billion in appropriated funds
for the Food Safety and Inspection Service, a record level of
funding. This funding will ensure that the demand for
inspection is met, and we will build on our success in
improving the safety of our food supply. We will continue to
pursue the development and implementation of inspection systems
that are better grounded in science and that can increase the
speed in which we detect and respond to outbreaks of food-borne
illnesses.
The budget supports increased participation and food costs
for the Department's three major nutrition assistance programs:
food stamps, WIC, and child nutrition. I would like to mention,
Mr. Chairman, that we are monitoring the WIC situation very
carefully, both food costs and participation levels, and I know
that you have been as well. We will keep the committee informed
of the trends and work with you to ensure that this important
program is appropriately funded.
The budget includes additional funding for bioenergy
research aimed at increasing the efficiency of converting
cellulose to biofuels. Under the National Research Initiative,
USDA will support efforts to develop and enhance feedstock
sources and biocatalysts for cellulosic conversion.
The Agricultural Research Service will focus on developing
sustainable, efficient production of energy from a variety of
agriculture products and from enabling on-farm processing for
cellulosic feedstocks.
The budget also provides support to ensure that critical
program delivery systems are maintained so the infrastructure
is in place that we can build upon to meet the demands of
implementing a new farm bill and addressing other needs in
rural America.
The budget proposes the funding needed to increase the
enrollment of our conservation programs to record levels of
acres. These programs are essential to protecting and
preserving our land, our water, and our air resources for
future generations.
The budget provides $15 billion for rural development. This
level of support maintains USDA's role in financing rural home
ownership, rural utilities, and business and industry. It also
includes $1 billion to protect the rents of low-income rural
residents.
Within this program level, we are proposing to shift the
emphasis from grants to loans and from direct loans to loan
guarantees. These shifts permit us to continue to address the
priorities but at a lower cost to the taxpayer.
All Americans and particularly our farmers and ranchers
know the importance of a healthy economy. It creates jobs and
it boosts incomes. Keeping America's agriculture strong means
we must continue to build on our recent successes in trade. We
are forecasting record agriculture exports of $101 billion in
2008, an increase of over $19 billion from 2007. And as you
know, agriculture is the sector of the economy that provides a
positive trade balance.
USDA has worked aggressively to open new markets for
America's farmers and ranchers, and those efforts are showing
results. Progress was made in our efforts when the President
signed the trade promotion agreement with Peru last December.
Congress can continue to help create jobs and economic
opportunity by passing the Free Trade Agreements with Colombia,
Panama, and South Korea. As you know, the President yesterday
sent up the signed Colombia FTA for ratification, and we urge
Members of Congress to vote for American agriculture and pass
this legislation.
We also need to secure a new farm bill. More than a year
ago, the administration announced a comprehensive set of farm
bill proposals for strengthening the farm economy in rural
America. These proposals represent a reform-minded, fiscally
responsible approach to supporting America's farmers and
ranchers and our rural communities.
Because of that, we are still working with Congress to
shape the farm bill, but as of today, we do not have new
legislation in place. The President's 2009 budget for USDA is
based on the provisions of the 2002 farm bill and reflects the
administration's proposals for change. We expect, however, some
changes will be made to the budget estimates when the new farm
bill is finally passed. I am still confident that that will
happen.
PREPARED STATEMENTS
In closing, I would like to emphasize that this budget
provides the critical resources we need to keep our agriculture
economy strong, and it is in keeping with the President's
policy of funding the highest priorities while restraining
spending.
I look forward to working with the members of the staff and
the committee. We will now be pleased to take your questions.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Ed Schafer
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of this committee, I am
pleased to appear before you to discuss the fiscal year 2009 budget for
the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
I am joined today by Deputy Secretary Chuck Conner, Scott Steele,
our Budget Officer; and Joseph Glauber, our Chief Economist.
Before I begin to discuss the fiscal year 2009 budget, I would like
to provide you an update to my February 28 appearance before this
committee to testify about the inhumane treatment of cattle at the
Hallmark/Westland Meat Packing Company in California. As you know, on
January 30 when the Humane Society of the United States released the
video from this facility, I asked the USDA Office of Inspector General
to immediately begin an investigation into the matter. Since that time,
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) has implemented a
series of interim actions to verify and thoroughly analyze humane
handling activities in federally inspected establishments. FSIS has
also audited all 18 beef slaughter plants that supply beef to the
Federal nutrition assistance programs. I have been concerned that some
Members of Congress and some of media have mistakenly characterized
this recall as a food safety issue. I again want to assure our citizens
that this class II recall does not pose any eminent threat to our food
supply. Therefore, once this review has concluded, we will have
additional information that, along with the results of the additional
verification activities and audits, will determine the actions for FSIS
oversight, inspection and enforcement that may be required. We will
continue to keep the committee informed of all developments and will
report back to the committee on our actions.
As I previously mentioned, it is a pleasure to come back before
this committee today, this time to discuss the President's 2009 budget
request for the Department of Agriculture. I come from an agriculture
State and understand the important role the Department plays in the
lives of many Americans. I look forward to working with you, Mr.
Chairman, as well as the other members, during the 2009 budget process
to ensure that we have strong programs that serve not only U.S.
agriculture, but a broad spectrum of rural residents and consumers. By
continuing the effective cooperation between this committee and the
Department, we can build a stronger America.
After reviewing the record, I am proud to report that the
Department has made significant progress in achieving its goals to
improve the rural economy, strengthen U.S. agriculture, protect
America's natural resources, and improve nutrition and health.
Specifically, I would like to note:
--Under President Bush's economic policy, rural America and U.S.
agriculture has prospered.
--Renewable energy production continues to grow and is contributing
to the energy security of the United States as well as
improving the farm economy.
--U.S. agricultural exports were at a record level of $82 billion in
2007, the fourth record year in a row, and are now projected to
set another record of $101 billion during 2008. This would be
an unprecedented increase of $32 billion in just the last two
years.
--USDA continues to pursue the President's trade agenda that will
create new market opportunities overseas and ensure the United
States remains a leader in a rules-based global trading system.
In this regard, we are continuing our efforts to achieve a
successful conclusion to the Doha Round of multilateral trade
negotiations--one that will provide fundamental reform of
agricultural trading practices and spur economic growth and
development.
--In the future, as in the past, our long-term economic growth will
be enhanced by supporting international trade, by opening world
markets to U.S. goods and services and by keeping our markets
open. Progress was made in our efforts to remove trade barriers
and ensure a level playing field for U.S. farmers and ranchers
when the President signed the Trade Promotion Agreement with
Peru last December. Congress can continue to help increase jobs
and economic opportunity by passing the pending Free Trade
Agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
--The Department continued its efforts to regain our beef export
markets. We have reopened or maintained the markets in over 40
countries that closed or threatened to close their borders to
U.S. beef products after the first detection of BSE. Recently,
Peru, Colombia, Panama, the Philippines, Indonesia, and
Barbados have removed their remaining restrictions for beef and
beef products in accordance with international guidelines.
--In December 2007, the Department made the first major revision of
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants,
and Children (WIC) food package in nearly 30 years. The changes
take into account an improved understanding of nutritional
requirements as well as the changing profile of supplemental
nutrition needs of WIC's diverse population.
--Actions were taken to improve the safety of meat, poultry, and egg
products, by identifying contamination earlier and reducing the
exposure to foodborne pathogens.
--The 2006 supplemental funding provided the resources for USDA to
work with domestic partnerships to prepare for a potential
influenza pandemic. Through these efforts, we have played a
leadership role in the worldwide effort to stop the spread of
the H5N1 virus overseas and have increased our preparedness to
deal with an outbreak should one occur.
In 2007, the administration announced a comprehensive set of farm
bill proposals for strengthening the farm economy and rural America. We
are continuing to work with the Congress to formulate a new farm bill.
The enactment of the new farm bill may affect some of the 2009 budget
estimates depending on specific provisions.
2009 Budget
Although I did not participate in the development of the 2009
budget, Deputy Secretary Conner conducted an in-depth review of USDA's
budget and program performance in order to develop a budget that meets
the administration's 2009 budget targets and contributes to the
President's policy of reducing the deficit and balancing the Federal
budget by 2012. Tough choices had to be made to keep spending under
control and achieve the President's deficit reduction goals. Therefore,
this budget funds the Department's highest priorities, while reducing
or terminating duplicative or lower priority programs, including
earmarks. I believe this is a responsible budget that funds critical
programs and priorities and focuses efforts on programs that work and
achieve results. Key priorities in the budget include:
--Reducing trade barriers and expanding overseas markets;
--Increasing funding for bioenergy research in support of the
President's goal for achieving energy independence;
--Supporting policies that enhance job creation, improve rural
infrastructure, and increase homeownership opportunities;
--Ensuring Americans continue to enjoy a safe and wholesome food
supply;
--Protecting agriculture from diseases and pests;
--Increasing funding for our major nutrition assistance programs;
--Providing for a record number of acres in conservation programs;
and
--Carrying out high priority basic and applied sciences that provide
the technology and information necessary for the development of
innovative solutions facing American agriculture.
The USDA's total budget authority request pending before this
committee proposes an increase from $88 billion in 2008 to $93 billion
in 2009, while the discretionary appropriation request is $17.4
billion, a decrease of approximately $400 million below the 2008
enacted level. The discretionary appropriation request is based on the
2008 enacted level.
I would now like to focus on some specific program highlights.
Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative
USDA continues its vigilance in ensuring the safety of our food and
agriculture system. The Department is a strong partner in the
administration's efforts to prepare for any potential bioterrorist
attack. We are working 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 pest and disease
introductions, the budget proposes $277 million for USDA's part of the
President's Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative. Funding for on-
going programs is $264 million, an increase of $81 million from the
2008 level. Of the total amount for on-going programs, an increase of
about $14 million for Food Defense would enhance research to safeguard
the Nation's food supply from foodborne pathogens and pathogens of
biosecurity concern. For Agriculture Defense, the budget includes an
increase of about $20 million for research to improve animal vaccines
and diagnostic tests. An additional $47 million would be used to
improve USDA's ability to safeguard the agricultural sector through
enhanced monitoring and surveillance of pest and disease threats,
improve animal identification, strengthen 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 $13 million to proceed with the design and planning
of the Biocontainment Laboratory and 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
One of the Department's top priorities is to ensure the safety of
our food supply. The 2009 budget requests record funding of nearly $952
million, an increase of about $22 million over 2008, for FSIS to
protect the Nation's supply of meat, poultry and egg products. About 80
percent of the FSIS funding goes for staff pay for Federal and State
inspection programs to meet the demand for inspection services. With
this funding, in addition to providing necessary food inspection, FSIS
will continue to develop the food safety infrastructure to ensure that
inspections systems are better grounded in science and inspector
observations and data are captured and used in a timely manner. The
objective is to reduce the risk of foodborne pathogens in meat, poultry
and processed eggs and consequent infection.
The budget estimates that $140 million in existing user fees for
voluntary inspection will be collected. We will submit authorizing
legislation to Congress to expand these collections, adding another $96
million in new user fees. These fees will be used to offset needs in
2010, so they have no direct effect on 2009. The proposed legislation
will authorize a licensing fee projected to collect $92 million from
meat, poultry, and egg products establishments based on their volume.
An additional $4 million would be collected from establishments that
require additional inspection activities for performance failures such
as retesting, recalls, or inspection activities linked to an outbreak.
Farm Program Administration and Agriculture Credit Programs
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 2008. The budget includes funding
to support on-going operational needs based on current programs and the
current delivery system.
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 2009 budget
supports about $3.4 billion in direct and guaranteed farm loans. The
2009 budget proposes loan levels that generally reflect actual usage in
recent years.
Crop Insurance
Crop insurance is designed to be the primary Federal risk
management tool for farmers and ranchers. In 2009, crop insurance is
expected to provide coverage for nearly $72 billion in risk protection,
more than 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. Our
Department is meeting that challenge. Currently, the crop insurance
program offers revenue protection for swine, fed cattle, feeder cattle
and lamb. In 2007, the crop insurance program began offering two
innovative pilot programs covering pasture, rangeland, and forage. The
programs proved to be highly popular with farmers and ranchers and, in
2008, the pilot area is being expanded to provide additional
information on program performance.
For 2009, the budget re-proposes legislation to initiate a small
participation fee in the Federal crop insurance program to fund
modernization and maintenance of a new information technology (IT)
system. Modernization of the IT system would improve program efficiency
and provide the capacity needed to keep pace with the ever expanding
workload for developing new crop insurance products. 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.
Based on current program indicators, we estimate that the fee would
amount to about one-quarter cent per dollar of premium sold. In
addition, the budget proposes to expand on language included in the
2008 Appropriations Act by including IT modernization as an authorized
purpose for mandatory funding already provided under the Federal Crop
Insurance Act. Either approach could be implemented without increasing
the Federal budget deficit.
International Programs
Expanding access to overseas markets and securing a level playing
field are critical for the continued prosperity of America's farmers
and ranchers. Future growth in demand for our agricultural products is
primarily going to occur overseas, particularly in developing countries
which are experiencing rapid economic growth and rising incomes. We
must, therefore, ensure that our producers and exporters have the tools
they need to be competitive in a rapidly expanding global marketplace.
Our 2009 budget proposals support our continued commitment to
opening new markets and expanding trade. 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.
For the foreign food assistance programs, the budget continues to
place the highest priority on meeting emergency and economic
development needs of developing countries. The 2009 request for
appropriated funding for the McGovern-Dole International Food for
Education and Child Nutrition Program is $100 million. This level will
allow USDA to extend school feeding and educational benefits to about 2
million women and children during 2009. The program is helping children
in countries with severe educational and nutritional needs. In recent
years, more than 15 million children throughout the world have received
benefits from the McGovern-Dole program and its predecessor, the Global
Food for Education Initiative.
The budget requests appropriated funding of $1.2 billion for the
Public Law 480 Title II program, which provides emergency relief needs
and addresses the underlying causes of food insecurity through non-
emergency programs. In addition, to help improve the timeliness,
efficiency, and effectiveness of the U.S. Government's response to food
needs overseas, increased flexibility is requested in the purchasing of
Title II commodities. As the President said in his State of the Union
message, this flexibility is important to help break the cycle of
famine. In countries like Bangladesh, this authority would have allowed
us to provide more assistance, quicker, to those affected by the
cyclone several months ago.
The budget requests funding of $12.5 million 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 economics and planning, soil and water
policy, extension, and food safety and animal inspection. This
collaboration supported the development of the first national strategic
plan for agriculture under the new government. Other USDA agricultural
advisors are serving on the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs)
working in the rural provinces of Afghanistan and Iraq on activities
such as soil and water conservation, irrigation and water management,
grain and seed storage, post-harvest loss reduction, marketing system
improvements, and livestock health, nutrition, and breeding. These
advisors are providing much needed assistance in addressing a wide
range of problems brought on by years in some cases decades, of neglect
and mismanagement in the agricultural sectors of these two countries.
Additional funding will be needed for USDA to continue to be a key
player in these areas.
Conservation
USDA fosters environmental stewardship through conservation
programs supported with appropriated and mandatory CCC funding. Since
2001, USDA has provided assistance to farmers and ranchers resulting in
conservation on more than 130 million acres of land.
The 2009 budget reflects a strong commitment to conservation and
includes nearly $4.6 billion in mandatory funding. Of this amount, $775
million is needed to support the Administration's Farm Bill proposals.
This funding will be allocated among the various conservation programs
described below when new program levels are established by the Farm
Bill.
Within the total amount of mandatory funds, the budget proposes
$181 million for the Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP). The projected WRP
enrollment for 2009 is approximately 100,000 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
support program of the President's goal to restore, protect, and
enhance 3 million acres of wetlands by 2009. The Administration's Farm
Bill proposals for WRP would provide the funding necessary to achieve
an annual enrollment goal of 250,000 acres.
The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) accounts for more than half
of the mandatory funds with total funding of just under $2 billion.
Enrollment in CRP is expected to decline by about 2 percent to 34.2
million acres in 2009 due to expiring contracts and the conversion of
farmable land to crop production. In addition, funding for the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) will increase by $50
million to just over $1 billion to protect 17.5 million acres in 2009.
The budget includes $360 million for the Conservation Security
Program (CSP). This level of funding is expected to support almost
25,400 contracts signed in prior years, which cover 20.4 million acres.
The Administration's Farm Bill proposals would increase funding for
these programs to enroll and treat more acres. In addition, these
proposals would reduce the complexity of conservation programs to
encourage greater participation.
The 2009 budget includes $801 million in discretionary funding for
on-going conservation work. 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 savings of $136 million from the elimination of funding
for earmarked projects, duplicative programs, and programs that do not
represent a core responsibility of the Federal Government. No funding
is proposed for the Resource Conservation and Development Program and
the Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program.
Rural Development
USDA's Rural Development (RD) programs support the quality of life
and economic opportunities in rural America by providing financial
support for housing, water and waste disposal and other essential
community facilities, electric and telecommunication facilities,
broadband access, and business and industry. This support includes
direct loans and grants and guarantees of loans made by private
lenders.
The 2009 budget supports a program level of $14.9 billion for the
RD programs. This level is similar to the level requested in the 2008
President's budget, but is about $3.6 billion less than the amount
appropriated for 2008. The difference is due primarily to a reduction
in electric utility loans and the elimination of direct loans in favor
of loan guarantees for single family housing. The budget supports
shifting resources to address the highest priority programs.
The 2009 budget includes almost $1 billion for rental and voucher
assistance to protect the rents of 230,000 low-income households. This
is $518 million more than the amount appropriated for 2008. Of this
amount, $100 million is for vouchers that will promote choice by
providing the rental subsidy directly to the low-income tenant. Within
the last few years, the period to renew expiring rental assistance
contracts has been reduced from 5 years to 1 year. This action provided
initial budget savings but increased the number of expiring contracts
and, hence, the funding needed for renewing these contracts in 2009 and
beyond.
With regard to single-family housing, the 2009 budget reflects a
shift from direct to guaranteed loans as proposed for 2008. This shift
would reduce the cost of providing homeownership opportunities in rural
America in a manner than is consistent with the administration of other
Federal housing programs and sustainable as a long-term policy.
Guaranteed loans have accounted for almost all the growth in USDA's
single-family housing program since the mid-1990's and have proven to
be effective in reaching low-income as well as moderate income
households. The 2009 budget includes $4.8 billion for such guaranteed
loans, an increase of $658 million and an amount estimated to provide
about 43,000 homeownership opportunities in rural America.
For the water and waste disposal program, the 2009 budget supports
$1.3 billion in direct loans, $75 million in guaranteed loans and $220
million in grants, for a total program level of $1.6 billion, which is
a slight increase over the program level for 2008. The 2009 budget does
not repeat the 2008 budget proposal to change the interest rate
structure for direct loans, but it does reflect a sizeable shift from
grants to direct loans. This shift achieves substantial budget savings
while maintaining a high level of financial assistance that most rural
communities can afford to repay at low interest rates.
For the electric program, the 2009 budget supports $4.1 billion in
direct loans for distribution, transmission, and power generation
improvements. This level is expected to meet the demand for these
categories of loans. Funding for baseload generation loans will be
determined contingent upon enactment of legislation to authorize a fee
to cover all subsidy costs. It is the administration's policy that the
Department of Energy be the sole source of financial support for
nuclear power generation facilities.
The 2009 budget supports almost $300 million in broadband access
loans. We believe this amount will provide sufficient resources to
serve creditworthy applicants. It is anticipated that new program
regulations for the broadband program will be in place for 2009 to
ensure proper administration of the program and that more assistance
will be directed to areas without existing providers. The budget also
proposes $20 million in distance learning and medical link grants.
Based on recent trends in applications and the potential
availability of carryover, the 2009 funding level for Business and
Industry guaranteed loans is $700 million. In addition, the budget
supports almost $33 million in zero-interest direct loans for
intermediary relending.
Research
Research to improve the quality and productivity of America's food
production and distribution system has contributed to the strength of
American agriculture. By improving the competitiveness of agricultural
research, we will continue to post gains in agricultural efficiency and
production. The administration strongly believes that merit-based,
peer-reviewed grants represent the best mechanism for providing the
highest quality research. In support of this approach, the 2009 budget
for the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service
(CSREES) includes a $19 million increase for the National Research
Initiative (NRI), the Nation's premier competitive research program for
fundamental and applied sciences in agriculture for bioenergy and
biobased fuels, a continuing high priority of the administration. The
NRI also supports integrated projects that focus on water quality, food
safety, and pest management.
The budget also supports the administration's goal for earmark
reform to bring greater transparency and accountability to the budget
process. In this regard, the budget proposes to eliminate $144 million
in earmarked projects within CSREES. The budget also proposes to modify
the Hatch and McIntire-Stennis formula programs. This proposal will
expand multi-state research programs and direct a higher proportion of
these funds to competitively awarded research projects. This will
ultimately foster greater competition and improve the quality of USDA
supported research. As proposed in the 2008 budget, the 2009 proposal
would sustain the use of Federal funds to leverage non-Federal
resources, maintain program continuity, facilitate responsiveness to
State and local issues, and leverage and sustain partnerships across
institutions and States.
The budget for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) includes $47
million in increases for high priority research conducted in areas such
as emerging and exotic diseases of livestock and crops, bioenergy,
plant and animal genomics and genetics, and human nutrition and obesity
prevention. Funding increases for these critical research priorities
are offset by the discontinuation and redirection of $105 million in
lower priority programs as well as the elimination of $41 million in
Congressional earmarks.
Finally, the budget includes $39 million to complete 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 supports increased participation and food costs for the
Department's three major nutrition assistance programs--Food Stamps,
WIC, and Child Nutrition. For WIC, the budget supports an average
monthly participation of 8.6 million in 2009, up from 8.5 million in
2008. Food Stamp monthly participation is estimated at 28 million,
about 200,000 above the 2008 level. School Lunch participation is
estimated to grow a little over 1 percent to keep pace with the growing
student population to a new record level of 32.1 million children per
day.
For Food Stamps, legislation will be reproposed to allow
participation of certain households currently not eligible due to
retirement and education savings accounts, child care expenses, and
military combat pay. These re-proposals will also include legislation
to close a loophole that some States used to enroll people not intended
to be served by the program. For 2009, the budget includes increased
funding to assess ways to increase participation among the elderly and
the working poor, two populations that historically have been
underserved. In addition, funds are also included to study ways to
improve the application process as well as for nutrition education so
that we can continue to refine the program.
The President's appropriation request is $6.1 billion for WIC and
will provide benefits to an average of 8.6 million monthly
participants. Language is reproposed to cap the national average grant
per participant for State administrative expenses at the 2007 level,
which will reduce overall financial requirements by about $145 million
in 2009. This reduction will encourage States to seek ways to be more
efficient without affecting core services. In addition, the budget is
reproposing to limit automatic WIC income eligibility to Medicaid
participants with household incomes that fall below 250 percent of the
Federal poverty guidelines. The automatic eligibility provisions for
Medicaid participants make some people with incomes up to 300 percent
of poverty eligible, well above the 185 percent of poverty WIC
statutory standard.
The Food and Nutrition Service is working with the States to
implement the revised WIC food packages rule promulgated in December.
The new rules allow the States to offer fruits and vegetables, whole
grains, and more flexibility to offer foods likely to appeal to a
variety of cultural preferences which will improve WIC's ability to
achieve its nutritional objectives.
The budget reproposes the elimination of the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program (CSFP), since the program is only available in limited
areas, and overlaps with two of the largest nationwide Federal
nutrition assistance programs--Food Stamps and WIC. USDA intends to
pursue a transitional strategy to encourage the 30,000 women, infants
and children that are eligible for WIC to apply for that program, and
to encourage 434,000 elderly CSFP recipients to apply for the Food
Stamp Program. As part of this strategy, the budget provides resources
for outreach and temporary transitional food stamp benefits to CSFP
participants 60 years of age or older. These benefits would equal $20
per month for the lesser of 6 months or until the recipient starts
participating in the Food Stamp Program. Overall the Food Stamp Program
budget includes $72 million for the transition in 2009.
The Department has had great success in promoting healthy eating
habits and active lifestyles with MyPyramid, the new MyPyramid for
Pregnant and Breastfeeding Women and associated web-based, interactive
tools. There have been 4.3 billion hits to MyPyramid.gov and 3.2
million registrations to MyPyramid Tracker, the on-line tool that
assesses diet quality and physical activity status, since MyPyramid was
made available April 2005. The budget includes an increase of $2
million to update and improve these popular tools plus develop the 2010
Dietary Guidelines for Americans. USDA has the lead in developing the
Dietary Guidelines--the basis for determining benefit levels in Food
Stamps, Child Nutrition Programs, WIC and others, as well as for
Federal nutrition policy and nutrition education activities. This
supports the HealthierUS Initiative, which is aimed at improving diets
and increasing physical activity in order to reduce obesity in America.
Department Management
The 2009 budget continues to support the overall management of the
Department. Increased funding is being sought for selected key
management priorities including:
--Reviewing agency compliance with civil rights laws in program
delivery and affirmative employment goals, while providing
effective outreach to ensure equal and timely access to USDA
programs and services to all customers.
--Ensuring that ethics oversight and the delivery of ethics services
to the agencies is carried out in a consistent manner with
clear accountability in the USDA program.
--Providing oversight of program delivery by conducting audits and
investigations and limiting fraud, waste, and abuse throughout
USDA.
--Funding rental payments to the General Services Administration and
security payments to the Department of Homeland Security to
provide USDA employees with a safe working environment.
In closing, I want to emphasize that the USDA budget fully supports
the President's goals and funds the Department's highest priorities.
That concludes my statement. I look forward to working with members
and staff of the committee and we will be glad to answer questions you
may have on our budget proposals.
______
Prepared Statement of Phyllis K. Fong, Inspector General, Office of the
Inspector General
I want to thank Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Bennett for the
opportunity to submit testimony to the subcommittee about the work of
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) and our fiscal year 2009 budget
request.
I am pleased to have the chance to provide the subcommittee with an
overview of our most significant recent activities and the oversight
work we have planned and in-process at this time. In fiscal year 2007,
OIG issued 61 audit reports containing 255 recommendations to improve
and protect USDA programs and operations. Pursuant to the statistical
reporting requirements established by Congress in the Inspector General
Act of 1978, we determined that OIG audits resulted in a potential
monetary impact of $91 million in fiscal year 2007.\1\ OIG criminal
investigations resulted in over 520 indictments and 440 convictions in
fiscal year 2007 and achieved an additional potential monetary impact
of over $63 million.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 5 U.S.C. App. 3 5.
\2\ Components of the monetary impact figure include fines,
recoveries/collections, restitutions, claims established, cost
avoidance, questioned costs, and administrative penalties achieved in
OIG criminal investigative cases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This written statement will follow the framework of our four
Strategic Goals. We organize our audit and investigative work under
these Strategic Goals to effectively target OIG resources toward the
key programmatic issues and public concerns facing the Department and
our Congressional oversight committees. Our four Strategic Goals are
(I) Safety, Security, and Public Health; (II) Integrity of USDA
Benefits and Entitlement Programs; (III) Management Improvement
Initiatives; and (IV) Stewardship of Natural Resources. The final
section of my testimony provides information in support of the
President's fiscal year 2009 Budget Request for OIG.
safety, security, and public health
OIG Food Safety Reviews
Assessing USDA's Risk Based Inspection Program for Meat and
Poultry Processing Establishments
In February 2007, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced its plan to implement a pilot risk-based inspection (RBI)
program for meat and poultry processing establishments. The agency
believed it had comprehensive and reliable data and that ``real and
immediate'' improvements could be made to the effectiveness of
inspection operations. Congress and other stakeholders became concerned
that FSIS was beginning to implement RBI before it had corrected
deficiencies reported in prior OIG audits and that issues regarding the
agency's methodology for determining risk had not been addressed.
Consequently, there was a concern that food safety might be compromised
if RBI proceeded at that time.
This subcommittee, working with the House Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee, included language in the May 2007
emergency appropriations act \3\ to prevent FSIS from using funds to
implement RBI in any location until OIG studied the program, including
the data supporting its development and design. We conducted an
assessment of the FSIS processes and methodologies used to design and
develop its proposed RBI program, as well as FSIS' infrastructure and
management controls that would support a reliable, data-driven RBI
program. Our December 2007 report questioned whether FSIS has the
systems in place to provide reasonable assurance that risk can be
properly assessed, especially since the agency lacks current and
comprehensive assessments of food safety systems at meat and poultry
processing facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 110-038, enacted May 25, 2007. The U.S. Troops
Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability
Appropriations Act, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the course of OIG's review, we discussed our concerns
and provided recommendations to FSIS so that the agency could act to
immediately address the weaknesses we identified. OIG's concerns
related to FSIS' (1) assessments of establishments' food safety
systems, (2) security over information technology (IT) resources and
application controls, and (3) management control structure, among other
issues. OIG reached agreement with FSIS on the agency actions necessary
to implement each of the 35 recommendations we presented in our report.
OIG recommended that FSIS complete its plan for improving the use
of food safety assessment-related data and determine how the assessment
results will be used in determining risk. As the agency moves forward
with the development and implementation of an RBI program, FSIS should
ensure that its risk analysis and assessments are thoroughly documented
and any data limitations are mitigated, and the decisions made in its
inspections process are published and transparent to all stakeholders.
FSIS also needs to implement appropriate oversight for the development
of critical IT systems needed to support RBI. We made numerous
additional recommendations to improve FSIS' management controls, data
collection and analyses processes, and staff training.
FSIS has responded substantively to OIG's findings and
recommendations. During the course of our audit, FSIS began a critical,
in-depth examination of the data used as the components of its RBI
assessment with a view to refining and expanding the data used in
future versions of RBI. As of September 2007, FSIS awarded a contract
to build the agency's new Public Health Information System (PHIS) to
better integrate its numerous IT systems that are used to manage
inspector activities. The primary goal of PHIS is to improve the
timeliness of collecting/analyzing inspection data, and thereby enhance
the agency's capability to address food safety hazards.
Strengthening USDA's E. coli Testing Program
In response to a large recall involving contaminated ground beef
product, the then-Acting Secretary requested in October 2007 that OIG
determine whether improvements could be made to FSIS' sampling and
testing procedures for Escherichia coli O157:H7 (E. coli) and identify
relative costs and benefits associated with these improvements. OIG
promptly initiated a review of the actions FSIS already had in process
to improve its E. coli sampling and testing program. As part of our
review, we solicited feedback from a broad array of stakeholders
actively involved in this issue, such as representatives from other
USDA and Federal entities with similar sampling and testing programs,
meat industry representatives, academic institutions that perform E.
coli research, and the quick-service restaurant industry.
OIG provided a memorandum report to USDA officials at the end of
January 2008 containing our observations and suggestions. We concluded
that while the actions FSIS has in process will improve its testing
program, we believe that strengthening the adequacy, timeliness, and
effectiveness of other aspects of the agency's Hazard Analysis and
Critical Control Point (HACCP) verification activities would provide
stronger assurance that federally-inspected establishments are properly
identifying and controlling their food safety hazard risks. FSIS
generally concurred with our findings and conclusions.
Improving Safety Inspections for Egg Products
Since 1995, FSIS has administered USDA's responsibilities under the
Egg Products Inspection Act. FSIS inspects egg products to ensure they
are wholesome, processed under sanitary conditions, and properly
packaged and labeled to protect consumers. OIG evaluated FSIS'
monitoring and inspection of egg processing plants to assess the
agency's performance in meeting these responsibilities.
OIG found that FSIS has not yet integrated egg product inspections
into its overall management control structure, including the science-
based HACCP program and the automated Performance-Based Inspection
System (PBIS).\4\ FSIS increasingly depends on PBIS and other automated
systems to provide safeguards and oversight of its meat and poultry
inspection operations. However, these automated systems cannot be
extended to egg processing inspections until a system of electronic
records is created to record inspection data for this area. This delay
raises concerns about potential adulteration of processed products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ FSIS has not implemented HACCP at the egg processing plants and
it needs to accomplish this first before egg inspection results can be
included in PBIS. Once egg inspection results, non-compliance records
and other data are in PBIS, FSIS will have information in an electronic
format that can be analyzed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS is developing a rule that would require egg product processing
plants to develop and implement HACCP systems. In response to OIG's
recommendations, FSIS agreed to develop a new IT system to track
domestic inspection activities, including egg products processing,
thereby replacing PBIS. FSIS also agreed to conduct trend analyses to
identify and correct serious or widespread deficiencies at egg products
processing plants.
OIG Investigations: Food Safety
Investigating Allegations of Adulterated Beef Entering the
Food Supply
As members of the subcommittee are aware, USDA's investigation into
recent allegations, made by the Humane Society, of inhumane treatment
of cattle at a Chino, California, slaughter/processing facility has
identified potentially adulterated beef entering the food supply. This
has led to the biggest food recall in U.S. history. At the request of
the Secretary, OIG is leading the Department's investigation into
potential violations of the Federal Meat Inspection Act and the Humane
Slaughter Act.\5\ Our investigation is ongoing, and we are working
cooperatively with FSIS and other law enforcement agencies. We are
coordinating our efforts with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). At
the conclusion of our investigation, we will report on our findings to
the appropriate USDA officials. We have also initiated a companion
audit that will examine procedural issues arising from the allegations
against the Chino, California, facility. (Described on the following
page of this statement.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Federal Meat Inspection Act, 21 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 601-695
(FMIA); Humane Slaughter Act, 7 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1901-1907.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Investigating Fraud in the BSE Surveillance Program
OIG investigated allegations of fraud on the part of an Arizona
facility that housed both pet food slaughter and meat processing
operations and that participated in the Department's Bovine Spongiform
Encephalopathy (BSE) Surveillance Program. Our agents revealed that the
corporation's owner used various schemes to increase the number of
brain stem samples submitted for testing, thereby increasing the amount
of USDA payments he received. Some of the samples the company submitted
were from healthy, USDA inspected cattle. The owner was convicted of
theft, mail/wire fraud, and aiding and abetting. A Federal court
sentenced him to 8 months of imprisonment and 36 months supervised
release and ordered him to pay a total of $490,000 in fines/
restitution.
Fraudulent Conduct Involving Contaminated Food Products
A joint OIG-Food and Drug Administration (FDA) food safety
investigation in the past year disclosed that a Florida food processing
company was the source of poultry and seafood products that were
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, a potentially fatal
pathogenic bacterium that can be found in ready-to-eat food products.
The company did not initiate a recall of the product after learning
that it tested positive for Listeria monocytogenes. The product was
misbranded and shipped to several locations throughout the United
States and Canada. The company president was charged with a scheme to
defraud through the sale of adulterated foods and a scheme to introduce
misbranded food into interstate commerce. He was sentenced to 15 months
imprisonment and 36 months supervised release. Additionally, he
received a fine of $5,000 and was ordered to pay $200,000 in
restitution to the University of Florida to support its food safety
programs.
OIG assisted in a multi-agency food safety investigation into the
egregious conduct of a man who had made several allegations that his
two young children were harmed by eating contaminated soup. The younger
child, an 18-month old, had to be airlifted to an Atlanta hospital for
critical care. A sample of the soup submitted to an FDA laboratory for
analysis tested positive for Prozac and other anti-depressants. The
investigation revealed that the father was responsible for
contaminating the soup. He was charged in Federal court with food
tampering and ultimately sentenced to 60 months imprisonment and 36
months supervised release.
Food Safety Oversight Work for Fiscal Year 2008: Planned and in Process
As mentioned above in my discussion of OIG's investigation into
allegations of what occurred in the Chino slaughterhouse facility, OIG
has recently initiated an audit concerning FSIS' Management Controls
Over Pre-Slaughter Activities. Our objectives are to determine whether
inspection controls and processes in that facility may have broken down
and whether the alleged conduct (or omissions) represents an isolated
or systemic problem. OIG will evaluate the adequacy of pre-slaughter
controls and determine whether improvements are needed to identify and
prevent similar problems from occurring elsewhere. We will coordinate
this new audit with our ongoing inquiry into alleged criminal
violations of food safety and humane animal handling laws at the Chino
facility.
Follow-up Review on Meat and Poultry Import Inspections
We are currently conducting a follow-up audit of the Federal
inspection system for meat and poultry imports. We will evaluate the
adequacy of FSIS' foreign inspection processes concerning the
equivalency of foreign food safety systems to U.S. standards; the
agency's periodic, in-country reviews that assess whether foreign
systems remain equivalent; and FSIS' re-inspection of imported products
at U.S. ports of entry. We anticipate releasing our report in late
April 2008.
FSIS Recall Procedures for Adulterated or Contaminated Product
As part of a request from the former Acting Secretary, OIG is
evaluating issues regarding FSIS recall procedures for adulterated or
contaminated product that have already entered the food distribution
chain. We will identify whether improvements can be made to FSIS
processes for handling recalls to ensure that appropriate information
is rapidly conveyed to the appropriate agency decisionmakers. We plan
to also evaluate whether FSIS is taking full advantage of its statutory
authority to address recall situations. We anticipate releasing this
report in late May 2008.
Oversight of the National Organic Program
America's organic foods industry is growing rapidly. Without
effective oversight, non-organic products could be marketed as organic
and sold for significant profit. To ensure producer compliance with
USDA's National Organic Program, OIG plans to conduct an audit to
evaluate the oversight provided by the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) and State and private certifying agents. As will be discussed
below (Section V), the start of this audit has been delayed but we
anticipate beginning work in August 2008.
OIG Investigations into Animal Cruelty and Dog Fighting
OIG is devoting increased attention to animal cruelty cases. During
fiscal year 2007 and the first 4 months of fiscal year 2008, OIG
criminal investigators opened 21 cases and helped achieve 132
convictions related to animal cruelty investigations.
Shutting Down Dog Fighting
OIG dog fighting investigations in 2007 resulted in two of the most
significant cases we have pursued in recent years with respect to the
number of convictions gained and the extensive public attention
received. Foremost was our investigation into a dog fighting ring in
Smithfield, Virginia, involving a professional athlete and his
associates. This dog fighting ring operated from 2001-2007, until it
was shut down as the result of OIG's investigation. The primary
defendant's property contained structures specifically designed for dog
breeding, housing, and fighting. A total of 66 dogs (52 pit bulls and
14 other breeds) were seized by State and local authorities in the
execution of a search warrant on the property. OIG's Emergency Response
Team (ERT) assisted in this investigation by recovering and
transporting evidence located on the grounds. Pursuant to a court
order, the 47 pit bulls forfeited to the U.S. Government were
eventually transferred to a Utah animal sanctuary or seven other animal
rescue organizations for foster and/or lifetime care of the dogs.
The five subjects of the dog fighting ring pled guilty in Federal
court to conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful
activities and to sponsoring a dog in an animal-fighting venture. The
primary defendant was sentenced to 23 months incarceration and was
ordered to pay $928,073 in restitution to fund the lifetime care of the
dogs rescued from his property. The four other subjects received
varying sentences ranging from 2 to 21 months incarceration.
Our second major animal fighting investigation in 2007 was
``Operation Bite Back,'' an investigation conducted jointly with the
Ohio Organized Crime Investigations Commission into a multi-state dog
fighting and gambling enterprise operating in Ohio, Kentucky, and
Michigan. This investigation resulted in more convictions than any
other single OIG investigation into dogfighting. During surveillance of
various dog fighting events, we observed food stamp (Electronic
Benefits Transfer, EBT) fraud, illegal wagering, the sale and use of
narcotics, and felons illegally carrying firearms. Agents from OIG and
other agencies seized pit bulls, U.S. currency, marijuana, cocaine,
firearms, a bulletproof vest with a ski mask, and a warehouse full of
dog fighting equipment and blood-stained fighting pits.
Operation Bite Back resulted in charges against 55 individuals,
including violations of Federal and State laws prohibiting dog
fighting, possession of firearms, gambling, food stamp trafficking, and
interstate transportation of stolen vehicles. Guilty pleas were entered
by 46 of the accused. OIG's National Computer Forensics Division
provided digital analysis of three seized computers for the Dayton,
Ohio, Police Department. Federal and State prosecution activity in this
case is ongoing.
Homeland Security Oversight
Evaluating USDA Controls on the Importation of Biohazardous
Materials
In order to protect our Nation's animal and plant resources from
diseases and pests--and preserve the marketability of U.S. agricultural
products--USDA's APHIS requires permits for entities \6\ seeking to
import or move certain animals, animal products, pathogens, plant
pests, and specified agricultural products. OIG evaluated APHIS'
controls over its permit system regarding the importation of
biohazardous and other regulated materials and assessed the
effectiveness of APHIS' corrective actions in response to our 2003
audit report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Examples include private, State, and Federal research
laboratories, universities, and vaccine companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG determined that APHIS has taken some of the corrective actions
recommended in a prior audit, such as restricting the hand-carrying of
packages containing regulated materials through ports of entry. Persons
authorized to hand-carry must now be named in the permit, and the
permit holder must contact APHIS in advance to coordinate the arrival
of all hand-carried regulated material. In addition, inspectors at the
ports can now access the ``ePermits'' database system to verify the
basic information contained on incoming permit documents.
Our audit found, however, that other key OIG recommendations to
strengthen APHIS' permit systems against vulnerabilities and misuse
still needed to be implemented. The agency had not fully implemented
the new ePermits monitoring system. Until ePermits is fully
operational, APHIS cannot monitor import activity at a nationwide
level.\7\ Inspectors have not been provided instructions for using
ePermits to screen incoming shipments. Although APHIS has made progress
in improving its screening procedures for plant inspection stations at
ports of entry, APHIS needs to develop controls to ensure that
biohazardous materials are routed to those facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For example, until the ePermits system is fully operational,
the agency cannot perform analyses to identify trends in permit
activity that could signal possible misuse of the permit system. The
ePermits system could not provide officials with information on which
permit holders had been inspected or were required to be inspected
before permit issuance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza: Reviewing USDA's Response
In late 2005, the President announced the National Strategy for
Pandemic Influenza (National Strategy), a comprehensive approach to
addressing the threat of pandemic influenza. The Implementation Plan of
the National Strategy included over 300 tasks that were designed to
ensure that the Federal Government, along with its State and local
partners, continues to prepare for a possible outbreak in the United
States. USDA was assigned responsibility for completing 98 of these
tasks.
We have provided testimony to the subcommittee about the findings
of our review of APHIS oversight of Avian Influenza (AI).\8\ We
continued our oversight work in this area by evaluating USDA's progress
regarding its responsibilities under the National Strategy. We found
that USDA has made significant progress in developing or revising
policies and procedures to detect, contain, and eradicate highly
pathogenic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ APHIS-Oversight of Avian Influenza. OIG report number 33099-11-
HY. June 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AI in order to reduce the threat of a pandemic.
USDA took action on each lead task we reviewed, such as helping to
develop the interagency response playbook that detailed step-by-step
actions that Federal agencies should take in response to an outbreak.
Our review found, however, that these new procedures were not tested to
ensure they worked as designed.
We also found that APHIS had not implemented all of the
recommendations from our 2006 report intended to strengthen the
agency's outbreak response capabilities. One was the recommendation
that the agency work closely with State and industry representatives
regarding outbreaks affecting live birds, in order to develop necessary
response plans and review/certify State plans. These State plans are
necessary to address gaps in the Federal response plan, including
cleaning and disinfection, humane euthanasia, quarantine, and movement
control. As a result, we believe APHIS has reduced assurance that it
will be able to timely and effectively respond in the event of an
outbreak. APHIS generally agreed with OIG's findings and
recommendations.
Homeland Security Oversight in Fiscal Year 2008: Planned and in Process
USDA Participation in the Rehabilitation of Flood Control
Dams
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) is authorized to
assist local organizations with the rehabilitation of aging flood
control dams. Many NRCS assisted dams in the United States are near or
at the end of their 50-year design life and warrant inspection and
potential rehabilitation. A dam failure in Hawaii and a ``near
bursting'' dam in Massachusetts demonstrate the need to determine the
conditions of NRCS-financed dams. OIG initiated an audit to review the
adequacy of NRCS' controls for the rehabilitation of agency-assisted
flood control dams. We anticipate releasing this report in mid-2008.
protecting the integrity of usda benefit and entitlement programs
USDA's Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Preventing Waste and
Abuses
Since I last submitted testimony to the subcommittee (March 2007),
OIG has concluded several of the primary audits we initiated in
response to the devastating 2005 hurricane season. Members of Congress
urged Federal OIGs to work in concert to ensure that the massive
Federal funds allocated for multi-agency disaster relief efforts in
2005 were expended efficiently and not subject to waste and abuse. In a
series of audits, OIG found areas where improved agency controls were
necessary to avoid further waste and fraud, and we identified USDA
``best practices'' that could also benefit other Federal entities. I
would like to highlight several of our more significant reviews for the
subcommittee.
At the onset of the hurricanes, OIG quickly deployed audit teams to
the Food and Nutrition Service's (FNS) food stamp distribution centers
in the Gulf region. Our personnel reviewed and observed the operation
of FNS disaster food stamp programs \9\ as State and local personnel
disbursed benefits to families affected by the disasters. Our audit
teams were able to provide feedback to FNS and State personnel on
whether program controls were sufficient to prevent abuses such as
duplicate payments, dual participation, and employee fraud. OIG
concluded that FNS and participating State agencies quickly and
effectively provided over $800 million in disaster food stamp benefits
to millions of disaster victims. However, we did note that improvements
could be made to ensure that State agencies are adequately prepared in
disaster situations. States did not always include required components
in their disaster plans, such as fraud prevention procedures. Some
application processing systems used by States did not track denied
applications or account for all family members--two factors that can
result in fraudulent benefits. Based on OIG recommendations, FNS agreed
to specify in regulations the State agency responsibilities for
developing and implementing disaster assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Under a disaster food stamp program, FNS can waive requirements
of the regular program in order to provide benefits quickly to disaster
victims. Some items that were waived during the hurricanes included
income requirements, eligibility tests, and identity tests. Benefits
are provided at many different locations. Because of the reduced
eligibility requirements, duplicate participation and other types of
fraud can readily occur.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Focusing primarily on loan and grant funds being disbursed to
repair hurricane damage in the Single Family Housing Program (SFH), OIG
audit staff found that USDA's Rural Housing Service (RHS) and other
Federal agencies had not coordinated activities to prevent duplicate
housing assistance payments to hurricane victims. RHS had not required
recipients to provide information about reimbursements and assistance
they received from insurance companies and charitable organizations.
This resulted in some recipients receiving duplicative financial
assistance from RHS and other sources for a single damage claim. We
also found that RHS emergency grant funds were awarded for ineligible
purposes, such as non-disaster related repairs, improvements and
repairs unrelated to health and safety concerns, and use of unlicensed
contractors. RHS is taking action to address the majority of our
recommendations. We are continuing discussions with agency officials to
reach management decision on the propriety of using hurricane disaster
funding for non-hurricane related repairs.
Disruptions resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita temporarily
impacted commodity prices received by farmers. Afterwards, USDA
developed initiatives to alleviate transportation congestion on the
Mississippi River, such as providing grants to move damaged corn from
New Orleans and move agricultural commodities through other regions.
The Farm Service Agency (FSA) implemented the initiatives and provided
monetary assistance through the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC). OIG
conducted an audit that determined USDA needed an improved response and
recovery plan to relieve future, serious disruptions in the movement of
commodities along the Mississippi River. Due to the urgent situation
brought about by the hurricanes, USDA had initially used ad hoc
procedures to award noncompetitive agreements that resulted in higher
costs compared to competitively-secured agreements. FSA acted upon OIG
audit recommendations to coordinate with USDA entities, industry
stakeholders, and other Federal agencies to formalize a response/
recovery plan for disruptions to the grain transportation/storage
system.
OIG also conducted numerous criminal investigations into
allegations of fraudulent activity resulting from Federal hurricane
relief efforts. To date, our investigations have achieved 61
indictments and 18 convictions involving the Food Stamp Program. We
continue to work closely with DOJ Fraud Task Forces in Louisiana and
Mississippi to ensure that allegations of fraud are investigated.
While the aforementioned audit and investigative work represent
OIG's most recent contributions to USDA's disaster relief activities,
this year we will assess the efficiency of other USDA programs that
assist citizens and communities during emergencies. In fiscal year
2008, we expect to issue reports on the Hurricane Indemnity Program,
Livestock and Feed Indemnity Programs, Emergency Forestry Conservation
Reserve Program, and Emergency Conservation Program, among others.
Review of Misreported Nonfat Dry Milk Pricing Data
Each week, the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
collects data from plants that commercially produce in excess of 1
million pounds of dairy products, which are then used to determine
current market prices. In brief, the nonfat dry milk prices NASS
publishes are used by AMS to help set the minimum prices paid to milk
producers in the Federal milk marketing order system.
In a review done by OIG's Office of Inspections and Research, OIG
determined that a large dairy firm misreported nonfat dry milk volume
and price information when submitting its weekly reports to NASS
beginning in 2002. The incorrect data, once aggregated with other
firms' data, was then factored into the Federal milk marketing order
formula, resulting in a $50 million underpayment to milk producers.
We offered recommendations to NASS centering on the need for the
agency to verify the information previously received from dairy plants
which will allow the calculation of a more precise Federal milk
marketing order price for milk producers. We also recommended measures
to ensure improvement in NASS' data collection process. NASS agreed
with each of our recommendations and has taken steps to improve its
data collection and review processes.
Identifying Improper Payments: Conservation Programs
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) administers
conservation easement programs that restore lands to their natural
state (i.e., wetlands and grasslands) by purchasing conservation
easements from landowners. Participating landowners agree to limit use
of their land to activity that both enhances and protects the purposes
for which the easements were acquired. Land under conservation
easements may be ineligible for farm assistance payments from FSA.\10\
NRCS field offices are required to notify FSA whenever land is placed
under a conservation easement, so that FSA does not make payments to
landowners with conservation easements on farm land. In a previous
audit, OIG found situations where FSA made improper farm assistance
payments to landowners for land under conservation easements. To
determine the extent of such ineligible payments in one major
agricultural State, we conducted an audit in 2007 to expand our
previous work in California.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ If a landowner with NRCS conservation easements participates
in FSA farm assistance programs, he or she is required to inform FSA
about the easements so the agency can appropriately reduce the
landowner's crop bases and calculate their assistance payments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG's review found additional examples demonstrating the need for
better interagency communication, coordination, and program integration
between NRCS and FSA. In 49 of the 53 Wetland Reserve Program and
Emergency Watershed Protection Program easements we reviewed, NRCS did
not notify FSA when the easements were recorded. This occurred because
the local NRCS field offices mistakenly expected the relevant NRCS
State office to fully inform FSA of the easements. Without the
necessary easement information, FSA made improper farm assistance
payments on 33 easements, totaling $1,290,147. During our fieldwork, we
recommended that NRCS immediately provide a list of easements in
California to FSA. Our report recommended that NRCS provide training
for field staff in California regarding their responsibility to notify
FSA about recorded easements. NRCS and FSA responded that each agency
has taken appropriate corrective action to remedy the specific concerns
noted in OIG's report and established a protocol to ensure better
interagency communications.
Assessing USDA's Efforts to Promote U.S. Farm Exports
In response to a Congressional request, OIG reviewed the extent to
which the Foreign Agricultural Service's (FAS) market development
programs foster expanded trade activities in the exporting of U.S.
agricultural products. OIG was asked to review concerns regarding U.S.
trade practices, promotion efforts, and financing operations, and to
identify areas for USDA to achieve greater results with improvements
such as enhanced inter-department coordination.
OIG found that FAS does not formally track its efforts to expand
exports or its outreach to U.S. exporters and thereby had no assurance
that outreach efforts were effective in expanding U.S. agricultural
exports. OIG issued recommendations intended to allow USDA to more
effectively measure its accomplishments and thereby prioritize limited
resources to better promote U.S. exports. FAS generally concurred with
OIG's recommendations and has agreed to take corrective action on each.
Reviewing the Tobacco Transition Payment Program
Legislation enacted in 2004 ended the Depression-era tobacco quota
program and established the 10-year, $10.14 billion Tobacco Transition
Payment Program (TTPP) to provide annual transitional payments to
eligible tobacco quota holders and producers.\11\ Payments began in
fiscal year 2005 and are funded through assessments on tobacco product
manufacturers and importers. CCC estimates that payments made over the
10-year period will approximate $6.7 billion to quota holders and $2.9
billion to tobacco producers. OIG is conducting a three-phase review of
TTPP. The first phase has now been completed; we examined FSA's
controls on payments to quota holders and concluded that they were
generally adequate to ensure that TTPP payments were issued to eligible
quota holders. The second phase (audit of TTPP assessments) is ongoing
and the final phase (audit of payments to producers) is planned for
later this fiscal year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ TTPP quota holders are the landowners of farms to which
tobacco quota was assigned.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG Investigations: Farm Programs and Crop Insurance Fraud
In fiscal year 2007, OIG criminal investigators helped obtain 35
convictions in cases involving criminal activity related to FSA and
Risk Management Agency operations. Our investigative work related to
these two agencies achieved approximately $21.6 million in monetary
results during fiscal year 2007.
Uncovering Fraud Related to the Tobacco Program
OIG conducted a joint investigation that resulted in two North
Carolina men being ordered to forfeit $4.5 million for their conspiracy
to structure financial transactions to avoid filing currency
transaction reports. The men used an extensive network of accomplices,
family members, and friends to conduct over $4.5 million of
transactions in increments under $10,000 to avoid filing the required
reports. OIG agents determined that both men intentionally engaged in
fraudulent actions regarding the proper identification of tobacco grown
under FSA's Burley Tobacco Marketing Program. The IRS, FBI, and
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation participated in this investigation.
Uncovering Fraud in the Crop Insurance Program
OIG agents revealed a crop insurance scheme in Virginia wherein an
insurance company supervisor and a claims adjuster colluded to
misrepresent a tomato farmer's production records. The supervisor
backdated forms to enable the producer to meet planting dates approved
by RMA and falsified production totals to ensure the producer would
realize a loss. The adjuster made false statements by verifying that he
visited the producer's fields; in fact, no such visits were made. The
producer was unaware of the actions taken by the supervisor and the
adjuster. OIG determined that the misrepresentations resulted in the
producer receiving a $308,000 Federal crop insurance indemnity payment
for purported tomato losses. The supervisor and the adjuster were
sentenced in 2007; the supervisor was sentenced to 5 months
imprisonment and additional home detention; and the adjuster received a
sentence of 24 months probation. Both men were ordered to pay $240,031
in restitution and were debarred by RMA from participation in the crop
insurance program for 3 years.
A second crop insurance case investigated by OIG determined that
producers in Georgia conspired to use a third producer as a ``front.''
The scheme involved using the front's name as the producer because he
had a higher production yield for tobacco. The two producers thereby
received larger crop insurance payments during several years from 2000
to 2004 and paid cash to the front for his participation. OIG's
investigation resulted in the two producers paying a combined
restitution of $739,000 to USDA prior to their sentencing for
misprision (concealment) of a felony. The producers were each sentenced
in August 2007 to 48 months probation and fined $80,000 in addition to
the restitution. The front producer cooperated in the investigation and
received pretrial diversion.
OIG Investigations: RD Programs-Fraud by Company Financial Officer
Results in Sentence and Restitution
OIG conducted an investigation into an Oklahoma manufacturing
company's former chief financial officer who used falsified documents
to obtain RD loans. Our investigation disclosed that the individual
fraudulently obtained $4.9 million in financial assistance from USDA
and an Oklahoma bank, and another loan of $275,000 from a local lender.
USDA ultimately paid the lender $1.8 million as a result of the loans
going into default. The investigation resulted in the former financial
officer being sentenced to 40 months imprisonment and 60 months
supervised release. He was also ordered to pay $3.8 million in
restitution.
OIG Oversight of the Crop Insurance Program in Fiscal Year 2008:
Planned and in Process
Reviewing RMA Compliance Activities
RMA administers the Federal crop insurance program in a partnership
with approved, private sector insurance providers (AIP). RMA is
mandated to ensure integrity in the program; its actions include
monitoring AIP performance and conducting various compliance
activities. We are in the latter stages of our review of the
effectiveness of the agency's compliance activities and expect to issue
our report in mid-2008.
Implementing an Effective Quality Control System for Crop
Insurance
We previously reported that RMA must have an effective quality
control system in place to fully implement the Agricultural Risk
Protection Act of 2000 and thereby strengthen the program's integrity
and improve participant compliance. To date, we still have not reached
management decision on three of the four recommendations in OIG's 2002
report. OIG recently initiated a review of the corrective actions
planned and/or implemented by RMA. We will assess the agency's
oversight activities concerning AIP program delivery and examine
whether AIPs have implemented the controls required to prevent/detect
program abuses, waste, and improper payments.
Evaluating Crop Losses and Indemnity Payments Due to
Aflatoxin-Infected Corn
RMA issued indemnity payments totaling $27 million nationwide for
the 2005 crop year due to Aflatoxin-infected corn.\12\ Agency concerns
about the market price data used to calculate the resulting indemnity
payments led RMA to request OIG's assistance. We therefore initiated an
audit to evaluate (1) whether RMA had sufficient management controls
regarding those payments, (2) whether indemnity payments were properly
determined, and (3) whether payments were based on reasonable
reductions in market value, among other issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Aflatoxin, produced by the fungus Aspergillus flavus, is a
potent carcinogen. Its presence in corn reduces marketability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG Oversight of Rural Development Programs in Fiscal year 2008:
Planned and in Process
Rural Business Cooperative Service: Reviewing Economic
Development Loans to Intermediaries
RBS' Intermediary Relending Program (IRP) seeks to increase
economic activity and employment in rural communities and alleviate
poverty by providing loans to local organizations that utilize the
funds to make direct, smaller loans to eligible businesses and projects
in the community. In fiscal year 2007, the IRP had over 400 borrowers
and a loan portfolio of $687 million. Congress has appropriated
approximately $33 million for the IRP for each of the past 3 fiscal
years. OIG is examining RBS' internal controls to determine if they are
sufficient to ensure that IRP loan funds are properly spent. OIG will
examine whether these loans are made to eligible borrowers for eligible
purposes, the liens are appropriately used to secure the loans, and
RBS' servicing actions are effectively managing collections,
delinquencies, and defaults.
Rural Rental Housing: Concerns About Owner Financial Data
and Maintenance
OIG has previously found theft of project funds by owners and
management companies, totaling $4.2 million.\13\ The thefts contributed
to deteriorated Rural Rental Housing (RRH) projects that threatened the
health and safety of rural residents nationwide. We are planning a new
review to determine whether there is adequate accounting for the
financial data submitted by owners, whether the RRH project's operating
expenses are reasonable and documented, and whether Rural Development's
(RD) inspection procedures effectively resolve RRH maintenance and
repair issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Rural Rental Housing Program, Uncovering Program Fraud and
Threats to Tenant Health and Safety. OIG Report 04801-6-CH, issued
March 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During fiscal year 2008, OIG also plans to audit the Rural Housing
Service's (RHS) management controls to determine if they are sufficient
to limit delinquencies in the SFH Direct Loan Program.
Rural Utilities Service: Broadband Loan Programs and Water
and Waste Programs
Based upon the findings of OIG's September 2005 audit, the House
Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee expressed concern that the
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) had not taken sufficient corrective
actions regarding its Broadband Loan Program. OIG reported that of the
$599 million in broadband funds reviewed, over $340 million (67
percent) was expended for questionable purposes. We plan to conduct a
comprehensive follow-up audit to determine RUS' progress in managing
its broadband programs and address specific concerns raised by Members
of Congress.
In fiscal year 2007, RUS' Water and Waste Programs provided over
1.3 million rural subscribers with new or improved service facilities
at a cost of approximately $1.6 billion. These programs are limited to
communities that have populations of 10,000 or less, with low median
household income levels, and cannot obtain credit elsewhere. OIG plans
to evaluate management controls in the agency's Southeast region to
determine whether water and waste funding is being allocated only to
communities meeting these criteria.
Improving USDA Nutrition Programs: Oversight of Governmental and
Private Entities
In addition to our disaster food stamp program work, we also issued
several other nutrition assistance program audits in 2007. We audited
nonprofit sponsors in California and Nevada participating in the
agency's Summer Food Service Program. We found several deficiencies in
three sponsors' administration of the program, including unsafe food
handling and storage. The sponsors also submitted reimbursement claims
for unsupported and questionable costs. Our review of the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)
in Puerto Rico determined that FNS had not ensured that the
Commonwealth's agency resolved deficiencies noted in prior FNS reviews,
including inadequate oversight of WIC vendors. Commonwealth WIC
officials compromised the vendor bidding process by releasing
information that allowed vendors to calculate bid prices in ways that
increased food costs to the program and violated regulations by
permitting in-store credits. These credits resulted in reimbursement to
vendors for products that were not delivered to WIC participants.
In 2007, OIG also assessed the EBT system controls of the company
that is the program's largest EBT processor. In fiscal year 2008, we
will continue our oversight in this field by reviewing elements of the
EBT systems in Colorado and California.
OIG Investigations: Targeting Fraud and Theft in USDA Nutrition
Programs
In fiscal year 2007, OIG investigators helped obtain 77 convictions
in cases involving criminal activity related to food stamp program/EBT
fraud and achieved $25.4 million in monetary results.\14\ For criminal
activity related to the WIC program in fiscal year 2007, OIG
investigators helped obtain 10 convictions and $507,884 in monetary
results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Each of the monetary result statistics contained in this
testimony statement were determined as required by the Inspector
General Act of 1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec. 5.&
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following cases provide examples of the type of criminal
activity and schemes our agents uncover.
Vendor Fraud in the Food Stamp Program
A repeat offender of the food stamp program received an extended
sentence after a joint investigation OIG conducted with Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) and the Syracuse Police Department. The
individual was a ``straw owner'' of a grocery store that redeemed over
$1 million in illegal food stamp benefits during 2005 and 2006. Seeking
to hide his prior conviction on food stamp fraud, the individual had
another person act as the store owner and obtain the FNS license
necessary to redeem food stamp benefits. The straw owner purchased food
stamp benefits for below face-value from recipients and was then
reimbursed by the food stamp program for their full value. The OIG/
joint investigation resulted in the former store owner being sentenced
in June 2007 to 30 months in prison, 36 months probation, and
restitution of $330,074 to USDA. The sentence will run consecutively
with the 33-month sentence (currently being served) he received for
money laundering in an earlier food stamp fraud case prosecuted in the
Northern District of Ohio.
OIG conducted an investigation with U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) into the former owners of two Chicago grocery stores
engaged in EBT trafficking. The owners redeemed approximately $1.2
million in EBT benefits and over a year's time withdrew more than
$100,000 without reporting the financial transactions to IRS. The two
were found guilty of wire fraud, aiding and abetting, money laundering,
and conspiracy to avoid currency regulations. In September 2007, the
first owner was sentenced to 90 months of imprisonment, to be followed
by deportation and was ordered to pay $1.1 million in restitution. The
second owner was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment and ordered to pay
approximately $61,000 in restitution.
Investigations to Safeguard the Women, Infants, and
Children Program
A major OIG case involved an interstate conspiracy in which
extremely large amounts of infant formula that were shoplifted in the
Atlanta metro area were transported to New York in rental trucks. A
covert search during the investigation revealed that the baby formula
was stored in an infested, non-refrigerated storage unit during extreme
heat conditions, causing the formula to become adulterated. The value
of the stolen goods for the two organized crime organizations involved
was approximately $6.48 million. In December 2007, five members of the
two organizations received sentences ranging from 27 to 60 months in
Federal prison for conspiracy and 42 to 65 months for interstate
transportation of stolen property. The five members each received an
additional 36 months of supervised release. OIG investigated this case
with FDA and the Organized Crime Unit of the Atlanta Police Department.
Prosecutorial activity is ongoing.
We are currently awaiting sentencing in a case in which OIG agents
determined that the husband and wife owners of a Michigan grocery store
had fraudulently redeemed approximately $917,000 in WIC coupons and
food stamp benefits. In July 2007, the husband pled guilty to food
stamp trafficking and agreed not to contest the forfeiture of
approximately $108,000 (including WIC vouchers) seized from his
business and residential properties. The woman was enrolled in Medicaid
and childcare subsidy programs; she did not disclose her part-ownership
in the store and provided false information regarding her family
income, thereby improperly receiving over $22,000 in Government
subsidies. The wife pled guilty to false statements related to her
welfare fraud. OIG worked this case jointly with the State of
Michigan's Human Services Department.
OIG agents worked with Federal and local law enforcement agencies
to reveal that an FNS authorized convenience store operator in North
Carolina was involved with other individuals in a stolen infant formula
theft ring and counterfeit pharmaceutical scheme. A Virginia man
involved in the conspiracy had devised a scheme to illegally transport
stolen ``WIC approved'' infant formula from the North Carolina
convenience store to Virginia and New York. Two suspects paid
undercover agents approximately $100,000 for ``stolen'' infant formula
that had a retail value in excess of $700,000. The store operator was
sentenced in June 2007 to 37 months in prison and 36 months supervised
probation; a deportation hearing will be held upon release. The
individual responsible for transporting and trafficking the infant
formula had previously pled guilty in Federal court. The FDA, FBI, and
the Wilson, North Carolina, Police Department participated in the
investigation.
improving usda management
USDA's Fiscal Year 2007 and 2006 Consolidated Financial Statement
Audits
Pursuant to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, Federal OIGs are responsible for
annual audits of Departmental and agency financial statements to obtain
reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free of material
misstatements. For fiscal year 2007, OIG issued a qualified opinion on
the USDA Consolidated Financial Statements and the RD Financial
Statements. The qualified opinions were the result of significant
revisions made to RD's credit reform processes related to the Single
Family Housing Program cash flow model and subsidy re-estimates. We
were unable to obtain sufficient evidence to support USDA's or Rural
Development's financial statement amounts as of the end of fiscal year
2007 for estimated allowances for subsidy costs.
The Commodity Credit Corporation, Forest Service (FS), FNS, and
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation/RMA received unqualified opinions on
their fiscal year 2007 financial statements.\15\ However, OIG noted
that the Department needs to continue improving its overall financial
management, information technology security and controls, and certain
financial management processes. The Office of the Chief Financial
Officer (OCFO) has immediate and long-term plans to substantially
improve these financial and IT material weaknesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ An unqualified opinion means USDA and standalone agencies'
financial statements fairly presented their financial position and
related reporting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight of USDA's Information Technology Security
Last fall, we issued our annual review of the Department's Federal
Information Security Management Act (FISMA) efforts for fiscal year
2007. Our review determined that the Department has improved its IT
security oversight in several areas during the fiscal year. For
example, the inventory of agency systems had significantly improved. In
other areas, such as the certification and accreditation (C&A) process,
improvements were noted, but additional work is still needed. However,
a continuing material IT control weakness exists within the Department
due to the lack of an effective, Departmentwide IT security plan. In
our view, an effective plan would measurably improve USDA's ability to
correct IT issues that affect its agencies and the Department as a
whole. If the Department and its agencies effectively identify and
prioritize the IT risks that exist and work collaboratively to resolve
them, they can implement a time-phased plan to systematically mitigate
them. Increased agency emphasis will facilitate improvements in
compliance with required standards, plan of action and milestones
reporting, risk level characterization, C&A of key IT processes,
Privacy Act implementation and encryption, and configuration
management.
The Department concurred with OIG findings and recommendations and
is taking steps to implement corrective actions. USDA officials advise
that these IT control weaknesses are complex, affect most agencies
within the Department, and will take time to fully resolve.
Processing USDA Employee Civil Rights Complaints
In response to a request from Senators Harkin and Lugar, we
followed up on an earlier OIG review and evaluated USDA's performance
in tracking and processing equal employment opportunity (EEO)
complaints from USDA employees and job applicants.\16\ We found that
the Office of Civil Rights (CR, now known as the Office of Adjudication
and Compliance) had significantly reduced the time required to complete
an average case by approximately 50 percent from 1997 through 2006. The
agency also began implementation of its Civil Rights Enterprise System
(CRES) a web-based application that enables USDA agencies and CR to use
a single, improved automated system for processing/tracking EEO
complaints. Previously, USDA agencies all maintained separate systems
that were not reconciled. However, our audit also found that CR could
not track EEO complaints effectively or process them on time and
material weaknesses persisted in CR's management control structure and
environment. Consequently, CR continued to miss Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) required timeframes. While the
implementation of CRES was a positive step, CR did not establish
sufficient protocols in the system to ensure the accuracy and
sufficiency of complaint data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Office of Civil Rights--Management of Employment Complaints.
OIG report 60801-3-HQ, issued March 10, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In response to OIG's recommendations, CR agreed to a series of
corrective measures. These include developing a detailed formal plan to
process EEO complaints timely and effectively, fully test and implement
improved CRES protocols and validate the accuracy of its complaint
information, and implement procedures to control and monitor case file
documentation and organization.
OIG Investigations Involving USDA Employees
In addition to OIG's law enforcement activities regarding external
parties and individuals who violate Federal laws pertaining to USDA
programs and operations, we are responsible for examining and
investigating allegations that USDA employees have engaged in serious
misconduct or criminal activity related to their employment. Following
are two examples of such cases from 2007.
An OIG investigation involving a former RD Community Development
Technician with 25 years of Federal service revealed that the
individual had created fictitious loan files and grant applications.
The former employee wrote checks from an agency supervised account
regarding fictitious loan applications and stole the funds for her
personal use. The former employee was sentenced to serve 24 months in
prison, followed by 36 months supervised release, and ordered to pay
$160,484 in restitution for embezzlement.
Following a joint OIG-FBI investigation, an Illinois man was
arrested by the Cairo, Illinois, Police Department and found to possess
hundreds of counterfeit identification cards, including two APHIS
Veterinary Service photo identification (ID) cards. The police also
found an identification-making machine and related paraphernalia. The
individual utilized the false ID cards to cash fabricated checks at
grocery stores throughout the Midwest. He was sentenced in Federal
court in May 2007 to 60 months in prison, 60 months of supervised
release, and ordered to pay $26,129 in restitution for the manufacture/
possession of counterfeit USDA identification documents.
Oversight Work Regarding USDA Management in Fiscal Year 2008: Planned
and in Process
The Use of Suspension and Debarment in USDA
OIG is conducting an audit to assess the use of suspension and
debarment procedures by USDA agencies. We will determine the extent to
which USDA personnel are effectively using and enforcing existing
authorities, so that individuals and entities found to have previously
abused Federal programs do not cause further injury or loss to the
Government.
the stewardship of usda's natural resources
Implementation of Renewable Energy Programs in USDA
In 2006, the President developed the Advanced Energy Initiative to
reduce the Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources as a matter of
economic and national security. USDA established an Energy Council to
coordinate and guide renewable energy activities within the Department
and with other Federal departments. USDA uses its renewable energy
funding to conduct research and to provide loans and grants to build
facilities for ethanol, cellulosic, wind, and solar renewable energy
projects.
OIG has an audit ongoing to evaluate the Department's efforts to
promote renewable energy projects, as it was directed by the 2002 Farm
Bill, the 2005 Energy Policy Act, and the Advanced Energy Initiative.
Our review includes an assessment of the agencies' internal controls
regarding recipient eligibility, the issuance of renewable energy
funds, and the coordination of renewable energy research within USDA.
Our audit work is focusing on renewable energy activities at the
Departmental level and within the following agencies: RBS; RUS;
Agricultural Research Service; Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service; and FS. We anticipate releasing this report in
April 2008.
Natural Resources Oversight Work for Fiscal Year 2008: Planned and in
Process
Conservation: Wetlands Reserve Program--Restoration Costs
and Oversight
The Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP) assists private landowners by
providing financial and technical assistance to restore, enhance, and
protect wetlands in a cost-effective manner through long-term easements
and cost-share agreements. WRP focuses on enrolling marginal lands that
have a history of crop failure or low yields and restoring and
protecting degraded wetlands. OIG is examining WRP restoration costs
and NRCS' monitoring of restoration efforts on these lands.
Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program--Review of Non-
Governmental Organizations
The Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program provides matching funds
to purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranch lands
in agricultural use. NRCS uses cooperative agreements to partner with
State, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations
(NGO) to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land from
landowners. Due to our 2006 audit findings that an NGO circumvented
NRCS policies, we initiated a nationwide audit to evaluate the adequacy
of NRCS' controls regarding NGOs and the appraisals used in
conservation easement purchases.
Effectiveness of NRCS' Reviews Regarding Producer
Compliance with Conservation Requirements
In order to maintain their eligibility for USDA program benefits,
producers are required to apply conservation systems to control soil
loss or preserve wetlands on highly erodible lands and wetlands. NRCS
implemented a status review process to assess producer compliance with
its conservation requirements and thereby determine (with FSA)
producers' continued eligibility for farm program benefits. Due to
problems disclosed in prior OIG and Government Accountability Office
audits, OIG is reviewing actions taken by NRCS to address our prior
findings and recommendations and evaluating the agency's current status
review operations.
OIG Oversight of Forest Service Programs and Operations
While I recognize that the subcommittee does not appropriate funds
for FS, I would like to briefly discuss OIG's oversight work related to
FS because it is an important area of oversight responsibility for us.
Due to FS' vast size--a budget of $4.4 billion and approximately 30,000
FTEs in fiscal year 2008--and its vital mission to manage America's
national forests and grasslands, OIG devotes considerable resources to
FS oversight activities.
To address concerns about the airworthiness of firefighting
aircraft, we audited the FS Air Safety Program to determine whether it
minimizes the risk of accidents and contributes to the effective use of
aerial resources.\17\ We concluded that FS has made strides in
improving its air safety program, but believe the agency still needs to
implement an airworthiness assessment and maintenance program for all
of its aircraft that is targeted towards the demands that a
firefighting flight environment imposes on aircraft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Forest Service's Air Safety Program. OIG Report 08601-48-SF,
issued February 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2007 and 2008, OIG provided testimony on three occasions to
House and Senate committees regarding our work assessing the
increasing, large fire suppression costs borne by USDA/FS, and the
over-accumulation of hazardous fuels in the national forests that is
contributing to these larger and more destructive fires.\18\ We advised
that the majority of FS' large fire suppression costs (50 percent to 95
percent) are directly linked to protecting private property in the
Wildland Urban Interface. At the time of our audit, FS did not have the
ability to ensure that the highest priority fuels reduction projects
were funded first. The financial burdens on FS due to wildland
firefighting are likely to continue to rise because of current public
expectations and uncertainties about Federal, State, and local
responsibilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Fire suppression costs for FS averaged $994 million annually
from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2006. Suppression costs for
the 2007 fire season are estimated to exceed $1.3 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG Investigations: FS Operations and Personnel
As part of our FS oversight responsibilities, OIG has a statutory
duty to conduct an independent investigation into the death of an
officer or an employee of the Forest Service that is caused by wildfire
entrapment or burnover and to provide the results of our investigation
to the Secretary and Congress. With the support of this subcommittee,
we therefore established our Wildland Fire Investigation Team (WFIT) to
ensure that select OIG criminal investigators receive extensive
training in the highly specialized field of wildland fire fighting. We
currently have two investigations ongoing related to FS firefighter
fatalities. The first pertains to the Thirtymile Fire that occurred in
July 2001 in the Chewuch River Canyon area north of Winthrop,
Washington. The second ongoing investigation pertains to the FS
fatalities that occurred during the Esperanza Fire that occurred in
October 2006 in Riverside County, California.
A further OIG investigation of note regarding FS in 2007 was our
investigation into the cause of several 2004 wildfires in the Coconino
National Forest (Arizona) that consumed 24 acres. OIG agents found
evidence that a long-serving, experienced FS fire management officer
had intentionally set the fires. The former FS employee eventually
confessed to starting two wildfires in the forest and retired during
the course of the investigation. He was sentenced in Federal court in
June 2007 to 24 months in prison and 36 months of supervised release
and ordered to pay a total of $15,390 in fines and restitution.
FS Oversight Work for Fiscal Year 2008: Planned and in Process
We have audit initiatives underway to review FS' firefighting
succession planning (ensuring the agency will have a sufficient number
of skilled, well-trained Incident Commanders), the agency's use of
contract labor crews, and its replacement plan for firefighting aerial
resources. We also plan to review FS' acquisition practices for IT
hardware and software.
oig's fiscal year 2009 budget request
Finally, I would like to provide the subcommittee with information
describing OIG's budget situation in fiscal year 2008 and the
President's fiscal year 2009 request for OIG. We are very appreciative
of the support this subcommittee has shown for OIG's work and your
understanding of our need for resources to produce that work. We are
providing this information to assist you with your review of the fiscal
year 2009 budget request.
OIG's Current Budget Situation
As the chart below demonstrates, OIG's Congressional appropriation
was essentially straight-lined between fiscal years 2006 and 2007 and
actually went down between fiscal years 2007 and 2008. For fiscal year
2008, the President had requested $83,998,000 in appropriated funds for
OIG. OIG received only $79,491,000 (an appropriation of $80,052,000
minus a recision of $560,364). This does not include funding requested
to cover the mandatory pay raise, allow OIG to expand its work on crop
insurance issues, or make needed improvements to its IT infrastructure.
In order to live within these budget constraints, meet our mission
as best we can, and fund legislatively mandated pay increases, OIG has
now reached the point where it has instituted a hiring freeze with the
goal of reducing staff levels. Our plan calls for OIG staffing levels
to be reduced, through attrition, to 570 by the end of fiscal year
2008. This is a reduction of 18 staff from fiscal year 2007, which
itself was a reduction of 7 staff over fiscal year 2006.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Unfortunately, these reductions follow an extended period of
decline for OIG staffing levels. In the 10 years between fiscal year
1996 and fiscal year 2006, OIG staff declined approximately 22 percent.
With the reductions over the last 2 years, OIG has lost 26 percent of
its work capacity in just a 12 years.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Staff reductions alone do not tell the full story of operational
changes OIG has had to make. For instance, for fiscal year 2008 we have
made a series of tough budget decisions to enable us to live within our
appropriated funds.
--We postponed equipment purchases for the National Computer
Forensics Division (NCFD), which are necessary to keep that
unit within compliance with professional equipment and training
standards.
--We postponed necessary training and equipment purchases for the
Emergency Response Program (ERP).
--We cut a total of $900,000 from our IT budget. Most recently, we
concluded that we would have to skip a year in our normal cycle
of replacing one third of our laptops each year. We cannot
suspend this replenishment cycle another year without finding
ourselves in the position of having laptops that will not be
compatible with the new operating system USDA is expecting to
roll out in fiscal year 2009 or fiscal year 2010.
--We cut basically all other OIG discretionary spending (contracting,
training, and travel) by an average of 8 percent. The travel
cuts were particularly painful as they have a direct effect on
the number and scope of the audits and investigations OIG can
do. Where previously an audit might have included sufficient
sites to support nationwide projections and recommendations, we
will likely have to limit a number of our future audits to a
regional scope.
President's Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request for OIG
The President's Budget request for OIG for fiscal year 2009 is
$85,776,000. The request would enable OIG to:
--Cover the mandatory pay raise costs expected for fiscal year 2009.
--Eliminate the hiring freeze and address critical vacancies.
--Purchase two new Storage Area Networks (SAN) to enable OIG to take
advantage of data replication and disaster recovery options not
available when OIG's current SANs (which go out of warranty in
fiscal year 2009) were purchased.
--Make the delayed purchases to support our NCFD and ERP.
--Restore funds cut from Audit and Investigations travel, thereby
increasing the scope of oversight work we can perform.
If, however, OIG does not receive the staff support and IT costs
requested by the President, OIG would have to reduce staff further in
fiscal year 2009. Should OIG not receive the requested funding, we
estimate that it will be necessary to reduce the fiscal year 2009
staffing level by 21 staff, or almost 4 percent below the already
drastically reduced fiscal year 2008 levels. OIG staff would then be
down 30 percent since fiscal year 2006.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ This estimated reduction is based on the following
assumptions: OIG would have to absorb a pay cost approximate to the
$1.9 million we absorbed this year, the postponed NCFD and ERP
enhancements would have to be funded at $.3 million, and one-third of
OIG laptops would need to be replaced at approximately $.4 million.
This would equal a total additional cost of $2.6 million that would
have to be absorbed at OIG's current budget level. Estimating $122,000
per FTE, that would be approximately 21 staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
OIG's ability to provide services to the Department, Congress, and
the public is directly tied to the number of staff it can support
through pay and related costs. Over the last 3 fiscal years, management
has agreed to over 1,143 OIG recommendations for program improvements
and over $1.8 billion in OIG financial recommendations and
investigative recoveries. Those numbers--which are really just a
statistical barometer of OIG's impact on Departmental operations--will
most likely decrease as our staff continues to decline, as will our
ability to do the types of work we summarized for you today in this
testimony. We have done all we can to do more with less; we are now at
that juncture where, in truth, we can only do less with less.
--In fiscal year 2008 alone, our Audit office will lose approximately
12 work years and $400,000 in travel funds. Several audits
(including some identified as high priority) will need to be
delayed; the scope of some audits will have to be reduced; and
some audits will have to be cancelled outright. The following
is a partial list of audits that have already been delayed and
may have to be cancelled.
An audit of the National Organic Program, which was scheduled to
start in January 2008, will now be delayed until August 2008.
Organic food sales have grown between 14 to 21 percent each
year since 1997. Sales of organic foods in 2006 exceeded $16
billion. However, with the staffing and travel requirements for
this audit, the work will need to be split between 2 fiscal
years to have sufficient resources to conduct the audit.
Audits addressing WIC vendor monitoring, new farm programs
included in the Farm Bill, acquisition of IT software and
hardware, the FSA comprehensive compliance system, and the RMA
National Program Operations Review are being delayed, and no
estimated start date has been set due to lack of currently
available resources. These audits involve billions of dollars
in program payments and analyses of agency internal control and
compliance systems that help ensure program integrity.
--Should staff, equipment, and travel resources available to our
Investigations office continue to diminish, OIG will have to
increasingly limit our investigative focus only to those food
safety and security issues that directly imperil public health.
The resources dedicated to detecting and preventing fraud in
USDA programs would have to decline, in order to preserve our
ability to work on critical safety and security cases.
Unfortunately, this reduced capacity for fraud investigations
would likely end in greater cash losses to the Federal
Government than are saved by the cuts to OIG.
It is to avoid further limitations on OIG's ability to provide
independent, effective audit and investigations coverage to USDA
programs and operations that we are asking for your support of the
President's Budget Request for fiscal year 2009 for OIG.
This concludes my statement. I again want to thank the leadership
of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony to you. I
hope you will not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions
or desire additional information.
______
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, Dallas
Tonsager of South Dakota and Leland Strom of Illinois, 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 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 (FCS or System) institutions and the Federal Agricultural
Mortgage Corporation (Farmer Mac). Earlier this fiscal year, the Agency
submitted a proposed total budget request of $49,640,147 for fiscal
year 2009. The Agency's proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 includes
funding from current and prior assessments of $49,000,000 on System
institutions, including Farmer Mac. Almost all this amount
(approximately 82 percent) goes for salaries, benefits, and related
costs.
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.
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 2007 accomplishments
In fiscal year 2007 we continued our efforts to achieve our
Agency's strategic goals through (1) effective risk identification and
corrective action and (2) responsible regulation and public
policymaking. 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
The Agency's highest priority is to maintain appropriate efficient
and effective risk-based oversight and examination programs. Our
examination programs and practices have worked well over the years and
have contributed to the present overall safe and sound 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 expertise in key examination functions. We have
also realigned our organizational structure to make the best use of our
resources. Our Office of Examination has completed its transition from
a regionally-based field office structure to divisions of nationally-
based examination teams. Office locations have been retained, but the
examination programs are now managed nationally to better manage
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. Examiners use a
risk-based examination and supervision program to differentiate the
risks and develop individual oversight plans for each FCS institution.
For example, the System has been a leader in lending to the ethanol
industry from its infancy and continues to support this rapidly
evolving sector. Our examiners watch the concentration risk in this and
other areas to make certain lending is done in a safe and sound manner.
We set the scope and frequency of each examination based on the
level of risk in the institution. Examiners base the scope of their
oversight and examination activities on their assessment of an
institution's internal controls environment and the ability of the
institution's board and management to manage risks. Our regulations
require FCS institutions to have prudent loan underwriting and loan
administration processes, to maintain strong asset-liability management
capabilities, and to establish high standards for governance and
transparent shareholder disclosures. 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 at
least every 18 months as required by the Farm Credit Act. Most issues
are resolved through corrective actions established in the Report of
Examination or other communications. In extreme cases, FCA will use its
enforcement powers to effect changes in the institution's policies and
practices to correct unsafe or unsound conditions or violations of law
or regulations.
As part of our ongoing efforts, we evaluate 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. FIRS ratings range from 1 (for
a sound institution) to 5 (for an institution that is likely to fail).
As of December 31, 2007, FIRS ratings as a whole continued to reflect
the stable financial condition of the FCS: 83 institutions were rated
1, 14 institutions were rated 2, and three institutions were rated 3.
Importantly, there were no institutions rated 4 or 5. In addition, no
FCS institutions are under enforcement action and no FCS institution is
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), or FCS
institution stockholders.
During fiscal year 2007, FCA also performed various examination and
other services for the Small Business Administration, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, FCSIC, and the National Consumer Cooperative
Bank. Each of these entities reimbursed FCA for its services.
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 focuses our efforts on 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 fiscal year 2007, the Agency's
regulatory and policy projects included the following:
--Young, Beginning and Small Farmers (YBS).--The Board acted to
ensure that all System institutions assist YBS farmers to
enter, grow, or remain in agricultural or aquaculture
production. A revised Bookletter, issued in August, provides
guidance to all FCS institutions on interpreting the phrase
``sound and constructive credit'' when applied to YBS farmers
and ranchers and on extending credit to part-time YBS farmers
who demonstrate a commitment to be full-time agricultural
producers. The Bookletter further encourages System lenders to
provide credit enhancements so that YBS farmers can qualify for
financing, and it encourages System lenders to mitigate the
risk of lending to YBS farmers by increasing coordination with
other lending entities and sharing best practices.
--Policy Guidance Provided on Rural Housing Lending.--FCS
institutions are authorized to provide rural housing financing
for single-family, owner-occupied, and moderately priced
dwellings, but System institutions had reported difficulties in
applying the regulatory definition of a ``moderately priced''
rural home. In response, the Agency issued an Informational
Memorandum providing answers about the regulatory definition of
moderately priced housing, what is necessary to identify
moderately priced housing values, and what data are acceptable
to establish those values.
--Disclosure and Reporting Final Rule.--The Agency issued a final
rule amending existing disclosure requirements for reports to
System shareholders and investors. These amendments ensure that
the System's disclosures and financial reporting keep pace with
recent changes in industry practices, Securities and Exchange
Commission regulations implementing the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, and Public Company Accounting Oversight Board auditing
standards.
--Final and Proposed 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 RBC is used to calculate Farmer
Mac's regulatory minimum risk-based capital level. The rule is
intended to improve the model's output by more accurately
reflecting risk. In addition, we also proposed to further amend
RBC regulations to update the recent additions to Farmer Mac's
program operations, to address assumptions on the carrying
costs of nonperforming loans, and recognize counterparty risks
on nonprogram investments. The FCA Board is expected to act on
this final rule in 2008.
--Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) on Capital Adequacy.--
We issued an ANPR to solicit public input on appropriate
changes to FCA's capital adequacy requirements for the System
in light of Basel II proposals by the other Federal banking
agencies.
The Agency has also adopted an ambitious regulatory and policy
agenda for fiscal year 2008. The agenda includes the following goals:
--Finalizing a proposed rule to change the requirement for
determining the eligibility of processing and marketing
entities for System funding.
--Developing a proposed rule to describe how System partnerships and
investments can increase the availability of funds to help
stimulate economic growth and development in rural America. The
System began using such partnerships and investments 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.
corporate activities
The pace of System restructuring remained slow in fiscal year 2007.
Only one corporate application was submitted for FCA Board review and
approval during fiscal year 2007, compared with four applications the
prior year. As of January 1, 2008, the System had 94 direct-lender
associations and five banks for a total of 99 banks and associations.
Seven service corporations and special-purpose entities brought the
total number of FCS institutions to 106 entities. Through mergers, the
number of FCS associations has declined slightly more than 45 percent
since 2000, and the number of FCS banks has decreased almost 30
percent.
condition of the farm credit system
As noted previously, the System's overall condition and performance
remained strong throughout 2007. 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 the System earned $2.7 billion in 2007, a 13.8 percent
increase from 2006.
Gross loans grew by 15.8 percent in 2007, compared with 16.2
percent the previous year. Nonperforming loans increased by $6 million
to $621 million as of December 31, 2007. However, nonperforming loans
represented just 2.35 percent of total capital by the end of 2007, down
from 2.52 percent at the end of 2006. The System has earned more than
$1 billion consistently each year since the early 1 990s; 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.
conclusion
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. It is our intent
to stay within the constraints of our fiscal year 2009 budget as
presented, and we continue our efforts to be good stewards of the
resources entrusted to us in order to meet our responsibilities. 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.
AUDITS OF SLAUGHTER PLANTS
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
We would like to thank you again for testifying last month
about the Westland/Hallmark beef recall. I believe that was a
productive hearing. We have been following up with your staff
since then. We are drafting a bill that gets at this issue from
several angles, which will include a potential downer ban. I
believe we need to continue working on this and I am hopeful we
can achieve an accord.
Yesterday, Mr. Secretary, I received the results of the
audits of slaughter plants under contract with USDA for
nutrition programs, to which you referred. As you said, you
audited 18 plants. If you add in the plant at Chino, there are
19 total plants actively participating in the Federal nutrition
programs. Of these, two had offenses serious enough to require
a notice of suspension. While it is just two, it is over 10
percent of the total that were audited.
In early March, the Las Vegas Sun quoted you as saying that
you would not be surprised if there were more plants like the
one in Chino out there and that hiring additional inspectors
will not help because ``if they're going to break the rules,
then they're going to break the rules.'' These remarks did
trouble me a bit, especially if 10 percent of the plants have
serious problems, because they suggest that perhaps USDA has
reached a limit in what it can do to improve food safety.
So we would like to give you a chance to elaborate and
clarify. Do you really think that USDA cannot do a better job?
And what action has USDA taken since our hearing and what
action is planned?
Secretary Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As we did point
out in the letter to you yesterday, we have done audits at 18
facilities. I appreciate you bringing up the Hallmark/Westland
plant as number 19, but as you know, that is not operating. It
is in suspension.
The three issues where we found problems in humane
treatment of animals were not on a downer cow situation. They
were things like crowding in the pens. It was bunching up of
cattle going into the stunning operation and excessive use of
stunning sticks or the prodders. Those facilities have been
corrected.
As we look at this, we are confident that USDA can do a
better job. We have redirected our inspectors. We are rotating
the inspectors, the time they are coming in and out of the
facilities. As you know, the plants cannot operate unless the
inspector is in place, as we do a carcass-by-carcass inspection
of every cow that goes through the process.
As we have looked at the inhumane treatment of animals, you
will also notice in the investigation that we sent you
yesterday that all facilities have cameras and surveillance in
some portions. Many of them have them in the stunning area and
in the pens as well. So we are looking at ways that we can
better observe. We have helped train our inspectors to observe
while being unobserved so that they can properly watch over the
system. And I do believe that the result of our investigations,
when we get completed, will allow us to make some further
changes to enhance the process. But we believe that the USDA
inspectors and veterinarians are capable, are hard-working and
committed to their jobs, and we think we can direct them in the
proper place so that this does not take place again.
OIG REPORT
Senator Kohl. In your statement, you talked about the OIG
report. Can you estimate when that report will be complete?
Secretary Schafer. I cannot, Mr. Chairman. I met with the
OIG officer a few days ago, and as you know, that is an
independent investigation arm and we do not have the legal
relationship for them to include us in the timing and the depth
of the investigation. But we were urging them to get it done as
soon as possible because we are working on efforts to assure
the people of the United States that we have a safe food supply
out there, and as we start enhancing the message on safe food,
we want to make sure that we incorporate the results of the
investigation.
RECALLED MEAT
Senator Kohl. Can you tell us whether all of the recalled
meat from the school lunch program has been identified,
collected, and destroyed?
Secretary Schafer. Sir, I think all of the meat has been
identified. It has been contained. Most of it has been
destroyed. All of it has not.
Senator Kohl. What do you want us to take from that
statement, or what would you want the public to take from that
statement?
Secretary Schafer. It was put on hold. Once we started the
recall, all meat that went into the school lunch program was
identified. It was contained. We purchased meat to replace
product taken from the schools. And so as we are going through
that process, we are destroying that meat as we go. We are not
complete with that process, so I know there is still some that
is contained, identified, but not totally destroyed. And we are
reimbursing those schools for the costs in doing so.
Senator Kohl. All right.
WIC PROGRAM
Before I turn it over to Senator Bennett, I would like to
discuss WIC with you a bit. As you know, we need to start
talking about WIC immediately. The President's request last
year was $633 million short of what was ultimately needed. We
had to come up with the difference and we were forced to do it
without any input from USDA. We do not want to repeat that
situation, I think we could agree. So we have asked USDA for
monthly reports on participation and food cost estimates.
We did receive the second of these reports yesterday, and
in a nutshell, in the current fiscal year will be short
somewhere between $65 million and $100 million, even after
releasing the entire contingency fund. The report says that you
are looking at available options to address this problem.
What options are you considering? As you know, we are
currently working on a supplemental appropriations bill.
Secretary Schafer. Maybe I could get the best answer from
Scott for you, as we look at these dollars. As we looked at the
budget, we planned on an 8.6 million participation level and
also increased the budget based on current food costs and
estimated food costs. We think that the budget does reflect the
proper dollars for the participation and cost level. But maybe
Scott could give us a few more details.
Mr. Steele. Yes, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Chairman, the shortfall that was identified in Under
Secretary Johner's letter to you identified a shortfall for
2008, the current fiscal year at somewhere between $65 million
and $100 million.
There are some options we are looking at. We have used the
Secretary's interchange authority in prior years and we are
looking at that option as a possibility. We are in discussions
with OMB on that. We have not yet defined exactly what we are
going to do.
We have yet some more time here in April and maybe part of
May to figure out a solution to that problem. We certainly will
be in touch with the committee in terms of how we are going to
resolve that and whether we need to discuss some options with
you in terms of resolving it.
For 2009, we are still staying with our current
participation estimate, as the Secretary just indicated, the
8.6 million. We are looking at that estimate, obviously, on a
monthly basis. We will be doing our mid-session review estimate
in July, which would be an official estimate by the executive
branch. OMB would be clearing off on that. A revised estimate
would come to Congress in July.
But as you say, we are on an ongoing basis, looking at
this, submitting our monthly reports to you, and we will try to
keep abreast of it and identify problems that we see coming
forward.
It is our biggest discretionary program, as you know. It is
over $6 billion a year. It is rising rapidly. As the Budget
Officer of the USDA, I am concerned about the funding for the
program given it is a discretionary program. So we are going to
have to work closely together to try to resolve this.
Thank you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you. I think we can all agree that it
is something that needs to be monitored, as you have suggested,
very, very closely. WIC needs to be funded. It is really not
something that we have discretion in terms of whether we will
or will not. We know we are going to have to fund WIC. And if
we do not work very closely, then we will be caught in a very
serious situation, and I think collectively we do not want that
to happen. So we do look forward to working with you in an
honest, forthcoming, and timely manner on WIC.
Senator Bennett.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
PUBLIC LAW 480 TITLE II GRANTS
Secretary Schafer, the supplemental request from the
President contains a request from you for additional funding
for Public Law 480 Title II grants of $350 million. The
supplemental last year contained a request for $350 million.
The supplemental for the year before that contained a request
for $350 million.
This is a pretty strong coincidence, that for 3 years in a
row, you have asked for an additional $350 million and it
raises the question, why do you not just put $350 million in
the regular budget and be done with it? Is this request really
based on unanticipated needs and is it just a coincidence? Help
us understand why there is not something in the regular budget
for this.
Secretary Schafer. Well, we think that the budget reflects
a prioritization among the competing demands for international
humanitarian assistance. This budget request really addresses
the most severe and critical emergency food and needs overseas.
As far as the specifics, I will turn to our Budget Officer,
Scott Steele, for information on the specific programs.
Mr. Steele. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Bennett, yes, the Department of Agriculture does not
unilaterally decide on the level for Public Law 480, Title II
assistance. As you well know, the Title II program is operated
by USAID.
Senator Bennett. Right.
Mr. Steele. And they have people in the field. As you know
as well, the foreign assistance situation is a very dynamic
situation right now, and we have the issues in Darfur in Sudan
and other places that are----
Senator Bennett. I am not questioning the need for it.
Mr. Steele. Yes, I understand what you are saying. It has
gone on repeatedly and we do have other options to consider as
well. We have the Emerson Trust as something that could come
into play here at some point as well.
I do not have a good answer for you in terms of why the
Department's budget did not reflect the additional $350 million
in terms of a request. You are right. It continues on as a
major problem in funding food assistance. We will try to
provide more information for the record, if that is okay.
[The information follows:]
Public Law 480 Title II Budget Request
International emergency food assistance needs have been unusually
high in recent years due to a variety of causes, both man-made and
natural. The United States has continued to demonstrate leadership in
responding to those needs, including through the provision of food aid
commodities under the Public Law 480 Title II program. In order to do
so, in certain years supplemental appropriations have been requested
for the Title II program to meet the extraordinary levels of emergency
need.
Many factors are considered in developing the annual budget request
for the Public Law 480 Title II program, including what level of
funding should be included for emergency programming. This effort is
complicated because development of the annual budget submission begins
more than a year before the start of the fiscal year. That time frame
makes it difficult to project with accuracy what the level of emergency
needs will be during the course of the year and, therefore, difficult
to budget for them with certainty. As a result, there may be years when
emergency needs exceed the level provided through the annual
appropriations, and the administration will need to consider what steps
are necessary to ensure the United States can respond to extraordinary
emergencies. One option for doing so is to request supplemental
appropriations.
However, in responding to unanticipated emergencies there are
alternatives to a supplemental appropriations request. For example, one
option is authorizing a release of commodities or funds from the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust. The Trust specifically provides for the
commodities to be programmed through Title II to provide a humanitarian
response to unanticipated, emergency food aid needs. On April 14, 2008,
the President directed the Secretary of Agriculture to release
commodities from the Trust to meet emergency food aid needs abroad this
year; this action is expected to provide an additional $200 million of
assistance.
In addition, in recent years the President's budgets have included
a request for authority for the Administrator of AID to use up to 25
percent of annual Public Law 480 Title II funding to purchase
commodities in countries closer to where they are to be donated. This
authority would facilitate the donation of a higher level of
commodities as savings achieved in transportation and distribution
costs would be available for additional commodity purchases.
Approximately 60 percent of annual Title II funding is used for non-
commodity costs for the program, which includes ocean freight
expenditures. Consequently, the savings achieved through enactment of
this proposal could be substantial, and those savings would be
extremely helpful in responding to unanticipated emergency situations.
All of these factors--the uncertainties inherent in projecting
emergency response needs, the availability of the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust, and the proposal for overseas purchases--were
considered in developing the President's budget request for the Public
Law 480 Title II program for 2009. At the same time, the resource
requirements for Title II had to be weighed against competing claims
for funding from many other worthy programs that assist the American
public, including through agriculture, rural development, and food and
nutrition programs.
Senator Bennett. Yes, that will be fine. But give some
serious consideration to building it into your regular budget
because every spring there is a supplemental and every spring
it is for $350 million. It appears to say that amount regular
budgeting procedures ought to be able to anticipate that amount
and put that in the annual budget.
COMMODITY PRICES
Let me go to the issue that I mentioned in my opening
statement, which is commodity prices. They have shown a drastic
increase both in the cash prices and in the future market and
have had a drastic ripple effect across all areas of
agriculture. The rising prices have made it more expensive to
feed a family, but it has also driven up the participation
rates of the various programs that are involved in this, WIC,
food stamps, et cetera. There are States now where one in six
people are on food stamps, which is not what we had
anticipated.
How is the Department dealing with the unpredictability of
the costs and the subsequent unpredictability of the
participation in these programs? And, Dr. Glauber, I would be
interested in having your take on what the primary cause of
these increases would be.
Dr. Glauber. In terms of the underlying cause, there is no
question there is a number of things going on in world markets.
People point, one, to the rapid expansion of area devoted to
biofuel production. That is certainly important.
But I think in looking at the overall food price picture
certainly in the United States, there is a number of other
things to consider. Dairy prices. We have seen very, very high
dairy prices. Of course, dairy products figure heavily in a
number of budgets, of food aid program budgets. Most of that
increase I think could be attributed to declining milk
production in New Zealand and Australia. They have had very
serious droughts over the last couple years. World dairy prices
have been very high as a result.
So I would attribute that less to sort of high corn prices,
although there is no question that the sectors themselves are
feeling the pinch of higher feed prices.
The other big thing, of course, in a very visible price
increase both on futures markets but also at the grocery store,
has been bakery products. There have been underlying wheat
problems. That too is largely a problem of overseas production.
There was also a very short crop in Australia. There was also a
poor crop in Canada this year. There was a poor crop in Europe
this past year. They are all expected to rebound production,
but in the meantime, we saw futures prices hit as high as 20
percent, and not surprisingly, that is being reflected in
bakery products and other cereals and other sorts of things.
Now, this past year 2007, we saw inflation, CPI for food,
around 4 percent, which is certainly higher than the 2.5
percent or so that we have averaged for a long time over the
past 5-7 years. This year we are seeing slightly higher
increases. We are thinking somewhere between 3.5 to 4.5
percent. Some of that is largely because big components of the
food price bill are meats. We are seeing flat meat prices. In
fact, in some cases for pork, we have seen some decline in
prices.
Senator Bennett. People in WIC usually do not eat that much
meat.
Dr. Glauber. No. That is right.
Senator Bennett. The grain situation----
Dr. Glauber. No. You are absolutely right.
Senator Bennett [continuing]. Hurts them far more.
Dr. Glauber. That is right.
So if you focus on individual components, dairy, for
example, is big. Again, I think that we are seeing dairy prices
come down and we are likely to see some decline in dairy prices
this year.
So you are absolutely right, and that is part of the
previous question, of course, on food aid overseas. That is
also a big component there where, certainly in lower income
countries, the price of the underlying commodity as a
proportion of the overall price that consumers pay is much,
much higher than it is in the United States.
Senator Bennett. Are you anticipating that the price will
come down? The President's budget projects an increase of 2.3
percent, which is in line with what you have just said. Are
conditions in Australia and New Zealand and Europe----
Dr. Glauber. Yes. We are expecting production to snap back
in that region. They had 2 years of back-to-back droughts, and
it looks like conditions are returning more to normal there. We
are expecting a better crop in Europe.
But it is important to understand that on the other hand,
we are looking at a very, very low stock situation, and I do
not want to minimize that. We have very low wheat stocks. We
have very low corn stocks, both near historic lows, given the
size of the economy now compared to, say, 50 years ago, very,
very low stocks-to-use ratio, which is a critical factor when
we look at price projections.
And for that reason, I think the markets will be focused
very much on weather this year, and what we see in terms of the
crop progress over the next 4 or 5 months I think will be very
critical.
Senator Bennett. So you talk about the wheat price. Is that
driven in part by the desire to plant more corn and thus take
up acreage that would otherwise be planted in wheat? We hear
that theory.
Dr. Glauber. I would say maybe to a limited degree. There
is competition there. Understand that a lot of the area that is
planted to wheat in a lot of the areas is less suitable for
corn. Now, when corn gets to be $5 to $6 a bushel, a lot of
areas look a lot better than they might have when corn was
going at $2. But I think----
Senator Bennett. Just like oil.
Dr. Glauber. Yes, that is right.
But we do expect wheat prices to come down as the world
crop comes on. Again, I think that a lot will depend on the
size of the northern hemisphere crop this summer. Our plantings
are actually up this year for wheat. So people were able to
plant more wheat despite the competition with corn and very,
very high soybean prices.
Senator Bennett. Thank you. That was helpful.
AFRICAN WHEAT STEM RUST
I understand, Mr. Secretary, that you need to do what you
can to deal with the President's desire to balance the budget
overall, and I also understand how OMB sometimes can be less
sympathetic to programs that the Department might think makes
some sense. I am not going to put you in the position of having
to argue with OMB, but let me point out one thing to you.
In the November-December issue of Agriculture Research,
which is the science magazine that is published by USDA, there
was an article entitled ``World Wheat Supply Threatened!''
Whenever a scientific journal uses an exclamation point you
know they probably mean it. It was about the Department's
efforts to combat African stem rust with the very interesting
numerical designation, UG99. It sounds like a really weird Web
site. But this is a highly virulent and aggressive stem rust.
It spread rapidly throughout Africa and into the Middle East,
threatens world barley, wheat production and food security. And
coming after the answer we have just gotten from Dr. Glauber as
to the importance of what is happening in the rest of the world
with wheat production, you would think this is a very big deal.
Most experts believe it will eventually reach the United
States where both barley and wheat varieties are highly
susceptible. And your budget proposes eliminating the funding
of research at St. Paul, Minnesota that supports the agency's
lead scientists working on African stem rust. It is not a big
amount of money. It is $308,000.
I will not ask the question of whether this is something
that ended up on the cutting room floor at OMB and that you
proposed. Deputy Secretary Conner, be careful about your nods.
They might get noticed somewhere.
But I simply make the point that I would hope we can find
that $308,000 and maybe a little more because, again, given the
answer we got from Dr. Glauber, we could end up spending
millions, if not billions, if this particular disease gets into
the American production pattern. And a few hundred thousand
right now might make some sense.
Secretary Schafer. Yes, Senator. We estimate that 75
percent of the wheat strains in the United States are
susceptible to that rust. Maybe our Deputy Secretary could
outline the reasons that were taken here and also the approach
we are taking to consider this issue and its impact on the
wheat supply in the United States.
Senator Bennett. I do not need to take any more time of my
colleagues. You can supply that for the record.
Secretary Schafer. We will.
[The information follows:]
Stem Rust Research
The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is leading a national
cereal rust research effort and is making key contributions to
supporting international cooperative efforts through the Global Rust
Initiative to address the new African wheat stem rust. Fiscal year 2008
ARS wheat stem rust funding is $1.1 million. ARS scientists are
developing diagnostic tests for rapid identification of the disease
should it enter the United States and are contributing to monitoring
and surveillance. Additionally, ARS is also developing and testing
several new techniques that show promise in monitoring of wheat stem
rust epidemics and for characterizing new races of cereal rust
pathogens. A set of microsatellite DNA markers for the stem rust fungus
has been developed; these workers are useful in tracing the
geographical origins of new races of stem rust. Seedling evaluations
are being conducted against African stem rust races to test the
susceptibility of U.S. wheat varieties. ARS funding for wheat stem rust
in fiscal year 2009 is estimated to be $944,000. The 2009 Budget
proposes to eliminate all ARS earmarked funding, including $308,000 at
the Cereal Disease Laboratory at St. Paul, Minnesota.
In fiscal year 2008, the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service (CSREES) plans to fund 1-2 competitive grants
totaling $248,000 for aerobiology modeling of Ug99 for assessing
potential pathways, timing of incursion and to support rust
surveillance. An additional $20,000 in Hatch Act funds will support
wheat stem rust research. In fiscal year 2009, CSREES estimates $20,000
in Hatch Act funds will support wheat stem rust research.
Senator Bennett. I will simply indicate that as far as I am
concerned, I would like the committee to put that $308,000 back
and help you out.
FOOD COSTS FOR WIC PROGRAM
Finally, let us talk about WIC some more. The food costs
have increased enormously. Participation has gone up,
demonstrating the inability of people to find the necessary
food on the basis of their own salaries. As these costs go up
along with the signs of the weakening economy, people need help
with food.
We have asked for a report from the Department. In the
report accompanying our fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill,
we requested monthly reports on amounts necessary to fund WIC
in fiscal year 2009. We were hoping to avoid the situation we
had in fiscal year 2008 where the subcommittee had to provide
$633 million above the President's request when we had not
previously heard any information from the Department that WIC
needs had increased. So the $633 million was a surprise.
The reports were to include projections for food costs and
participation and clearly explain how those projections
differed from the assumptions made in the budget request and
how they would impact the WIC program in 2009.
Well, we got the first report. It was 2 months late, and
unfortunately, it was inadequate. The second report was
significantly better, but still did not provide an assessment
for what the current participation trends and food costs mean
for the fiscal year 2009 budget. And I would like to know why
the report has been delayed, and do you think the level of
detail in future reports can be adequate to the needs that we
have talked about?
Secretary Schafer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note--
--
Senator Bennett. You are promoting me. The chairman is to
my right.
Secretary Schafer. I am sorry, Senator Bennett.
I appreciate all of your concerns about this WIC issue. We
do use our best estimate of participation of 8.6 million
participants in this program for the 2009 budget.
As for the reports, I am going to ask the Deputy Secretary
to talk about the process of getting you more timely reports
with the information you need.
Mr. Conner. Senator Bennett, it is certainly our full
intention to comply with those monthly requests. Again, I think
we would acknowledge the first report--, we were ironing out
some of the kinks, and I think the one we got to you recently,
I think late last week, I believe is much more in line with
what the committee has in mind to monitor this.
We have a little bit of a problem here, as you know,
Senator Bennett, the development of a Federal budget is a 7-
month process that we will begin again around the first of
August for next year's budget. In this last budget, I will tell
you that during the course of time that we were developing our
budget, the numbers were changing on WIC pretty substantially
and we were chasing that number a little bit, if you will.
There is a 3-month delay in the data in terms of it coming in,
and so it requires a little bit of time to filter that into the
process.
We are going to get you the absolute best data that we have
got as quickly as we have it available. You do not need bad
data from us, and obviously, we do not want to give you bad
data. But as soon as those numbers become available, we are
going to get that information to you. We want to work with this
committee. And I will tell you OMB wants to work with this
committee as well.
We had excellent cooperation with them in the development
of this year's budget in that, late in the game, we came in and
said our numbers show the need for more for WIC. They gave that
to us, frankly, without asking us to take it out of anywhere
else. And so we have had good cooperation.
This is one of those unfortunate circumstances where the
numbers are changing quicker than what our system oftentimes is
prepared to deal with. But I think between your work and the
information we provide, we will get through this and get you
the information you need to make the right decisions here.
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr.
Chairman. You have been very generous with allowing me this
time. I appreciate it.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Bennett.
Senator Craig.
Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, gentlemen, thank you for being with us.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask unanimous consent that any opening
remarks that I prepared become a part of the record.
Senator Kohl. It will be done.
Senator Craig. Thank you.
COMMODITY PRICES
Mr. Secretary, I would like to ramble a bit because,
obviously, the chairman and the ranking member have picked up
on rising food costs and its impact on poorer people and the
need to fund those programs.
Having said that, I am an unabashed supporter of high
commodity prices because it is doing something to American
agriculture that you and I and others have fretted and stewed
about for decades. How do we change the aging trend in the
American farmer? How do we change the disinvestment in the
agricultural portfolio and see reinvestment of a kind that will
keep agriculture modern and aggressive and ongoing?
And the way you do that is profitability and higher
commodity prices. For whatever reason, the last few years have
created some of those trends. There is no doubt about it. You
go into farm country today. You walk across it. You hear a dad
saying, you know, my son has just decided to come home and farm
with me or my daughter has. And 5 years ago, they were not even
talking about that. Why? Because they can come home to a
lifestyle and a business that has some dynamics to it today.
That is very exciting to me.
I drove by a--I will not give the brand name--an implement
lot recently, and there were 55 new combines sitting on the
lot. And I asked a farmer in the area: Who is going to buy all
those combines? And he smiled and said, Larry, they are already
sold. There is not a combine available in the market today for
another 6 to 8 months. The same way with tractors. Farmers are
reinvesting in the agricultural portfolio of America because it
is profitable. For what reason? A lot of reasons.
I just returned from Ottawa yesterday, Mr. Chairman, from
looking at a cellulosic ethanol plant, knowing that that is
where we have got to go because some would argue, gee, we have
disrupted the food chain with corn-based ethanol. And this
Congress is now aggressively awakening to the reality that we
have become so dependent on foreign oil, we ought to become
independent of it. And we are working to get there now. It is a
good deal. It is a good idea.
At the same time, on the way back from Ottawa last night, I
for the first time was spending more time reading the ethanol
magazine, and I was counting the number of new plants under
construction as we speak. That represents about 4.2 billion
gallons annually coming into the market in the next 12 months.
Now, that is in addition to the current 7.8 billion gallon
capacity. All of a sudden, we are bumping the 15 billion that
we thought would be the limit for corn-based, very, very
quickly. That is pretty exciting. But it also demands that we
do our part.
And it is going to be very fascinating, Mr. Chairman, to
see the land base shift out there and adjust. There are already
all kinds of reactions going on about how that happens.
So with all of this new positiveness comes a kind of a
stress and a need for research and the types of things that
USDA, in cooperation with its land grant universities, have
done so very well over the years. And your budget dramatically
reflects the opposite. And that is very frustrating to me. Yes,
profitability brings new investment in American agriculture,
but the kind of research that Senator Bennett was talking
about, as it relates to that rust, the other kinds of research
that keep pushing us to the cutting edge in technology to
advance these causes in American agriculture today is
phenomenally important. And I do not think your budget
adequately reflects that.
FARM BILL
Let me turn to another issue. The week before last, I spent
a week traveling around Idaho, talking to farmers and ranchers,
mostly regarding agricultural issues. All are very frustrated
that we cannot work out this farm bill issue. It is a symbol of
the inability of a government to function and function in a
timely and responsible manner. And you can and I can make all
of the excuses, and it really does not quite fit. It speaks to
our collective dysfunctionality. And so we ought to really work
to get it done and not extend it for another period of time in
my opinion and I think the opinion of American agriculture. I
think I am reasonably reflective of that.
We are going to become the third largest dairy State in the
Nation. We have got about 560,000 cows milking in Idaho right
now. So we are going to break those numbers very quickly, and
that brings both opportunity and problems. Research again
becomes very, very important to us, how you manage large herds
and how you manage waste and all of that. That is in
cooperation.
But the biggest issue that is not, nor can it be, reflected
by this budget--but I would hope that it would become reflected
by your rhetoric--is the biggest in Idaho agriculture today,
and it has been a long time coming because they have been
hiding behind their combines or hiding behind their cows
because the issue was so politically charged they did not want
to deal with it and now they have got to. And that is the hands
to milk the cows and operate the equipment and work the rows.
It is labor.
American agriculture last year guesstimated--and maybe our
economist can tell us we dropped $8 billion at the farm gate,
rotted in the fields, could not pick it, could not deliver it,
could not process it. I have got potato lines in our plants in
Idaho down right now because we cannot supply them with
workers. And it is possible, even though we have become very
good at storing spuds, that some might rot in the cellars
because we cannot get them into the boxes and out to the
market. And we talk about prices going up, and yet we cannot
deliver to the market.
We have lost maybe a quarter of a million acres of
vegetables in the San Joaquin Valley in this cropping season.
It has gone to grains and hays and other things because their
hands are not there. And those acreages have moved across the
border into Mexico and gone on to Chile and possibly to Brazil.
The exportation of American agriculture production today,
because this Congress cannot get it right about immigration, is
tragic. And there is a bit of a panic in farm country as to
what we do because we have not done what we need to do. And our
borders, which we should secure, are securing.
Well, that is an extension to my opening remarks, a bit of
a diatribe, but a very important one I think.
Am I out of time, Mr. Chairman?
Let me thank you, now that I have had your ear, for potato
cyst nematodes and the resources that you have helped provide
the potato industry in Idaho when we had an outbreak and have
worked to contain that problem and are doing quite well by it
now, a potentially ruinous problem to a $2.9 billion potato
industry. And we need a little more help there. The work that
has been done I think has been very effective in its
eradication, at least in its containment and hopefully its
eradication. A very little amount of money, but $1.8 million
goes a long way because farmers and researchers know how to
stretch it. So we cannot compromise. We have got to finish it
and complete it. We have isolated it and we hope to have your
help in doing so.
Lastly, food safety issues are critically important. The
funding of the National Veterinary Medical Services Act is
awfully important to us.
From those standpoints, the budget is inadequate. And I
understand the squeezes. We will work with the chairman and the
ranking member to resolve these issues. I did not think that a
continuing resolution for budget purposes this year, because of
the politics that America is in right now, would be a good idea
because it talks about our inability to get things done. But in
all fairness, Mr. Secretary, when I look at your budget, maybe
it is not a bad idea, at least for the short term.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I really have no questions of you. We will put the rest in
writing. But there is a lot of good news and a lot of
frustration out in farm country today. And I do not mind us
moving away from a cheap food policy. We just need to simply
make sure that those who cannot afford food are cared for at a
time when profitability and investment are returning to the
agricultural portfolio of America.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Larry Craig
Thank you for appearing before us today to discuss USDA's fiscal
year 2009 proposed budget.
We are in an interesting time given the current status of farm bill
negotiations. There is a great deal of uncertainty among our Nation's
farmers and ranchers regarding what the next 5 years of farm policy
will look like.
I hope that we can finalize this process and get it to the
President--and that he will sign it--to give some much-needed certainty
to our farmers and ranchers that are right now making planning
decisions in the dark.
I understand the difficulty of putting together a budget under
these uncertain circumstances. Couple that uncertainty with an
extremely tight budget and we have a serious challenge on our hands.
Without spending too much time parsing over the elements of the
Department's budget proposal with which I agree or disagree, let me
just point out a few particular areas of concern.
The first is in regard to agriculture research. I think we all
agree that the current status of our domestic agriculture industry is a
product of decades of innovation--fueled by a strong investment in
agriculture research.
Though I appreciate the idea of more collaboration and greater
``efficiency'' in research, I become very concerned about the
consequences of terminating or drastically under-funding critical areas
of research in this country.
One of the research units proposed for termination is the ARS Land
Management and Water Conservation Research Unit in Pullman. This unit
has played a leading role in the development of science-based solutions
to agricultural and environmental problems of the Pacific Northwest.
We must not lose sight of the value of our land grant institutions,
and the value of the formula dollars that we direct their way. Many of
our land grant universities--including the University of Idaho--utilize
those formula dollars to invest in extremely valuable long term, core
agricultural research programs that cannot be effectively managed or
supported through multi-state or short term granting mechanisms.
Switching gears, I believe that your dedication to the areas of
pest and disease management is extremely vital to the health of our
domestic agriculture industry.
Take, for example, our collective efforts over the last year or so
to eradicate potato cyst nematode. This pest threatened to devastate
our State's potato industry, and that of the nation.
Thanks to adequate funding and a rapid response, we have likely
prevented this pest from becoming even more expensive to control, and
more devastating to the industry. Our work there is not done yet--we
need to continue to provide adequate funding for programs like this to
remain effective.
Likewise, the USDA has a significant challenge in safeguarding the
health of our Nation's livestock--for purposes of national security,
public health, the safety of our food supply and health of our animal
agriculture industry.
I am encouraged to see that USDA continues to focus on this area,
reflected by an increase in the budget for disease monitoring,
surveillance and response programs.
However, I fear USDA continues to miss a key priority in bolstering
the numbers of our ``first responders''--those large animal
veterinarians willing to practice in rural areas; a breed that is
largely disappearing.
Smaller farms in rural areas of Idaho are facing significant--and
growing--challenges in finding veterinarians to service their herds. We
have several counties in Idaho without a single food animal
veterinarian. Several counties have upwards of 50,000 food animals per
food animal veterinarian. Rural, large-animal veterinarians are
themselves becoming an endangered species, and we must do something to
restore their ``population.'' If not, we risk losing the important
first responders when it comes to disease threats.
There is immeasurable value in dollars spent to find solutions to
current and emerging animal diseases. However, if there is no one to
identify, prevent and treat these diseases once they emerge, our money
spent on research is much less fruitful.
I point out only a couple of these issues to highlight the
difficult job ahead of utilizing limited dollars wisely.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Secretary, as we move
forward on our fiscal year 2009 priorities.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Craig.
Senator Cochran.
Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here and helping us
understand the President's budget request for the Department of
Agriculture and related agencies.
Let me first ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that my
prepared statement be printed in the record.
Senator Kohl. Without objection.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Thad Cochran
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the fiscal year
2009 United States Department of Agriculture budget. I welcome
Secretary Schafer to the committee. I would also like to congratulate
Dr. Joseph Glauber on his recent appointment to Chief Economist for the
United States Department of Agriculture and look forward to working
with you and your staff.
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
recommendation to reduce agriculture research
funding by $170 million from last year's enacted level. Agriculture
Research continues to influence production agriculture by giving
producers better varieties for quality and yield, identifying new
methods for treatment of pests and diseases, and developing agriculture
practices that reduce environmental effects such as sediment runoff and
carbon release. Congress should continue to make investments in
agriculture research.
The requested increase of $480 million for the Women, Infants, and
Children Program provides evidence that the rising cost of food
continues to be a problem for both the Department and consumers. This
problem is not limited to the United States. The United Nations' World
Food Program announced that from October 1, 2007 through February 1,
2008, the cost of its program rose 41 percent in that 5 month period.
Congress has been able to allocate additional funding for the Women,
Infants, and Children
Program through previous emergency supplemental appropriation
bills. It is my hope that the Department will keep the committee
informed as to whether additional funding will be required above the
current fiscal year 2009 request.
Once again, I welcome the Secretary and look forward to his
comments.
Senator Cochran. I mention in the statement the importance
of agriculture research and worry about the fact that the
budget request is about $170 million below last year's enacted
level of funding. But this is not unusual for the Department to
submit a budget request that they know is going to be
increased. So it will not be a shock to you. And I am proud to
associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Idaho
about the importance of agriculture research. It helps improve
our profitability in production agriculture. It helps create
jobs in the processing and exporting industries. And these are
big factors in our own economic well-being. And I know you
understand that. So you will not be surprised if you see us
increasing those numbers a little bit.
We do need your guidance and observations about offsets
because we do not want to overspend and injure the economy by
running up deficits that threaten overall economic health too.
So we know we need to work together, and I look forward to
doing that.
COLOMBIA TRADE AGREEMENT
In that connection, I think the administration deserves
praise for negotiating trade agreements that help enable our
producers and exporters to realize profits in the international
marketplace. I know we have coming before the Senate a Colombia
trade agreement. Let me ask you if the Department of
Agriculture supports the ratification of that, and what
comments can you make that would give us some reason to be
strong advocates of that position?
Secretary Schafer. We do very much support the ratification
of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. I was fortunate to be
with the President yesterday when he made the announcement that
he was sending this legislation to the Hill. And I was there
because of the importance of free trade agreements, bilateral
agreements and multilateral agreements, to the agriculture
community.
We would note that--and I mentioned it earlier--the
agriculture sector is the positive trade balance sector of our
economy, and we also note that last year that 40 percent of the
GDP growth in this country was led by exports. We think exports
are important. I can tell you from my State, North Dakota, 50
percent of our agriculture products are exported from this
country. And that is duplicated State after State after State.
The issues of national security and combining with an ally
in South America with a democratically elected government are
strong, but the issues of agriculture, we think, are most
important. As that country is moving away from illegal
production and growth of drugs and crops to make drugs and
moving into legitimate, honest, and legal products and crops,
it is important that we support that government. As we import
our products there, jobs are created. People have better
opportunity. As they export their products to us, they provide
economic opportunity for the people there.
For the people of the United States of America, we are
already importing 99 percent of the products from Colombia
duty-free. On the other hand, our products that go down there
contain levels of duty ranging from 5 percent to well into the
70 percent range. And I would note that upon ratification of
this treaty, 70 percent of the products that we currently ship
to Colombia go duty-free; the rest, over time, those tariffs
and duties disappear. That provides economic opportunity for
our current exporting levels.
Also, if you look at the importance of trade with the Peru
agreement that was passed, if you add Colombia, Korea, and
Panama, those four provide $3 billion of annual opportunity for
agriculture exports. We think it is important for this country,
and we urge the ratification of this legislation.
Senator Cochran. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Cochran.
Senator Specter.
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, we welcome you here and note your
distinguished record as Governor of North Dakota and thank you
for undertaking this assignment in the last year of the
administration.
In reviewing the proposed budget, I am pleased to see that
the budget fully funds the Department's three major nutrition
assistance programs, food stamps, school lunch, and WIC. But
the funding has been terminated for the Commodity Supplemental
Food Program. It is a program that I have consistently
supported, and we are going to try to find a way to put that
$100 million back in the budget because it is an important
program. And I would appreciate your taking a look at that.
Food safety has an increase of $22 million at a funding
level of $952 million, and I would appreciate it if you would
take a look to see and give us a written response on the
adequacy of that amount of money, considering the very serious
problems there are.
As you have noted, this is a very busy place. Senators come
and go. I am due on the floor 6 minutes ago on the housing
bill. So I am not going to be able to stay to have a dialogue.
But if you would give an analysis to the subcommittee on that,
I would appreciate it.
CONSERVATION
With respect to conservation, I am concerned about the 15
percent decrease from fiscal year 2008 where there is
elimination of funding for Watershed and Flood Prevention
Operations, Watershed Surveys and Planning, Healthy Forest
Reserve, Resource Conservation and Development. And I would
like your responses to the impact of that 15 percent decrease
and your Department's analysis, your analysis, of the
importance of those programs.
On agriculture research, I note that the fund is down 10
percent, or more than $100 million, from last year. And 11 labs
are closed, including one at University Park, Pennsylvania. I
know the important work that Penn State does. Here again, I
would like you to give us an analysis as to whether that
shortfall could be made up in some other way.
You have a large budget, but you need a large budget. You
handle a Department which has more Senator interest, I think,
than any other Department perhaps, with the exception of the
Department of Defense. Well, there are many Departments that
have a lot of concerns, but the Ag bill draws more interest.
The Department of Justice is very important. I serve as the
ranking on Judiciary. But we legislate every 5 years on the Ag
bill, and that draws tremendous, tremendous member interest.
So if you would take a look at those areas and give the
subcommittee a written response, I would very much appreciate
it.
Again, thank you for taking on this tough job.
[The information follows:]
Food Safety Budget Request
The President's budget request is adequate to cover the
cost of Federal meat, poultry, and egg products inspection as
well as Federal costs for equivalent State inspection programs.
An increase for the FSIS inspection program is requested to
maintain our high standards for the safety and wholesomeness of
meat, poultry and egg products and our continued efforts to
ensure effective inspection and policy implementation. This
appropriation request includes funding an increase in pay and
benefit costs, which make up approximately 80 percent of FSIS'
budget; an increase for costs of the State Meat and Poultry
Inspection Programs; and an increase to support Federal
responsibilities added due to the takeover of the New Mexico
State program.
conservation funding
Watershed Rehabilitation Program
The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget proposes a reduction in
discretionary funding for the Watershed Rehabilitation Program,
although mandatory funding is available. The Watershed Rehabilitation
Program addresses the problem of aging dams, especially those with a
high risk for loss of life and property. This reduction reflects the
administration's position that the maintenance, repair, and operation
of these dams are primarily a local responsibility since program
benefits are highly localized. A reduced level of discretionary funding
will provide technical assistance to address those dams with the
greatest potential for damage.
Watershed Operations and Small Watersheds Programs
The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget proposes no funding for the
Watershed Operations and Small Watersheds programs. Through the
Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Program, NRCS provides local
communities with technical and financial assistance to construct flood
prevention, water supply, and water quality improvement projects. Since
most program benefits are highly localized, the Agency anticipates that
those Public Law 534 and Public Law 566 projects not yet completed will
continue to receive strong local support from project sponsors.
Watershed Surveys and Planning Program
The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget proposes no funding for the
Watershed Surveys and Planning Program. The Watershed Surveys and
Planning Program authorities are directed toward assessment of natural
resource issues and development of watershed plans to conserve and
utilize natural resources, solve local natural resource and related
economic problems, avoid and mitigate hazards related to flooding, and
provide for advanced planning for local resource development. With the
elimination of Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations, continuation
of the planning component is no longer necessary. Since the benefits
are highly localized, local sponsoring organizations as well as State
and local governments are expected to assume a greater role in
identifying and addressing water resource problems.
Resource Conservation & Development Program
The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget proposes no funding for the
Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D) program. The purpose of the
RC&D Program is to encourage and improve the capabilities of State and
local units of government, and local nonprofit organizations in rural
areas to plan, develop, and carry out programs for resource
conservation and economic development. The program provides technical
assistance to local communities to develop strategic area-wide plans
that address their locally identified natural resource and economic
development concerns. Many RC&D councils have received Federal
financial support for at least 20 years. At this point, most of these
communities should have the capacity to identify, plan, and address
their identified priorities. In addition, a Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) evaluation determined that the program is duplicative. The
PART concluded that the program duplicates other similar resource
conservation planning, rural economic development, and community
programs 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).
Healthy Forests Reserve Program
The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget proposes no funding for the
Healthy Forests Reserve Program (HFRP). The HFRP assists landowners in
restoring, enhancing and protecting forest ecosystems to promote the
recovery of threatened and endangered species, improve biodiversity,
and enhance carbon sequestration. The administration's farm bill
proposal consolidates this program as part of a combined Private Lands
Protection Program.
agriculture research funding
Many difficult choices were made in developing the Department's
fiscal year 2009 budget in order to advance the President's goal of
achieving a balanced budget by 2012, while also encouraging economic
growth and security.
The reduction in research funding is primarily due to the
termination of earmarks consistent with the administration's policy,
and a reduction in lower priority research in favor of higher priority
research, including bioenergy research.
The decision to terminate or close programs and locations was based
on specific criteria which include whether the facilities have reached
their useful life span or have such high maintenance and operating
costs that it is no longer feasible or possible to keep them open;
closing these locations and moving personnel to newer facilities or to
those that conduct related research, will enable a larger critical mass
of Agricultural Research Service (ARS) scientists to address issues in
a more efficient manner; and finally, some of the research is no longer
relevant to the mission of ARS or has matured to the point that
discontinuing it and closing the locations is the best use of limited
resources.
In focusing on the need to redirect and reallocate limited ARS
resources to higher priority research initiatives and to provide
funding that would support the administration's goal of deficit
reduction and economic growth, programs were reviewed for relevance,
quality, impact, and cost effectiveness.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Specter.
Senator Craig.
RESEARCH FUNDING
Senator Craig. Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Secretary, one last thought. As we look to budgets and
we look to consolidating resources but continuing to provide
quality resources in a variety of areas, especially in
research, as you know, out in Idaho and Washington we have the
uniqueness of having two land grant universities 8 miles apart,
Washington State University and the University of Idaho. And
there is an increasing cooperative effort between the two as it
relates to the land grant responsibility and the agricultural
needs of that whole region of the country. And as a result of
that, I think the Federal Government gets a lot more bang for
its buck because when we deal with cold weather crops and we
deal with large animal science, it is all the more important.
I mentioned the growth of dairy in Idaho and that is a
unique phenomenon of location and climate and space and the
modernness that our dairy industry is moving into. But as a
result of that, when you go to large, confined operations of
5,000 and 6,000 and 8,000 and 10,000 animals, the science of it
becomes awfully important. The health of it becomes awfully
important.
Idaho is preparing to invest heavily in a world-class dairy
science center that will spread beyond that to large animal
reviews, waste management, anaerobic digestion, a whole
combination of things. And the State is willing to make that
investment. ARS will be a player there. They must be a player
there. It is too good of an opportunity to pass up for that
kind of world-class science to be revisited and brought modern
both with facility and location and need.
So when I look at these research dollars and research
budgets, whether it is the Land Management and Water
Conservation Research Unit at Pullman, Washington, extremely
valuable for that high production cropland in the Palouse
country in the Pacific Northwest and the work that has been
done there, and I look at large animal science that the
University of Idaho in cooperation with world-class animal
science, as the president of Washington State just spoke to
recently, your budgets do not serve that very well.
For example, your proposal would force the University of
Idaho to eliminate 58 faculty or staff positions. Now, that is
a phenomenal hit and one that I will make every effort not to
tolerate. And I say that in a broader sense. I am going to have
support. I am going to have the Senators from the State of
Washington supporting me, the Senators from Montana and Oregon
and surrounding States because the work we do is very
transparent and very important to the agriculture of that
region.
And so, again, I say that--how do we justify? I guess my
only question because I will be submitting some to you. How do
we justify this sort of significant departure from traditional
distribution of Hatch Act funding as it relates to these kinds
of programs both in the long-term and short-term value that our
land grant university research has always produced for us?
Because it is regional. It is national. It fits the need
locally and area-wide. What do we do?
Secretary Schafer. Thank you for the question, Senator
Craig, and it is an important one.
As you know, we removed about $185 million in research
funds from the budget in an effort to look at our limited
resources and how they most wisely can be spent. Most of those
were earmarks for specific facilities and specific programs.
As we looked at the budget, recognizing that we do have
some constraints if we are going to put us on a pathway to
balance the budget by 2012, we wanted to make sure that we
played our part in that.
The administration believes and we at USDA believe that by
competitive grant sources, we can better focus the research
where we get the best research and the best outcome, that while
we are requesting the removal of earmarks for facilities, we
still have grants available. You mentioned several States, and
it was mentioned today, closing facilities, I should point out
that being from North Dakota, one of those facilities for
proposed closing is in North Dakota. So I am well aware of the
situation.
But I think as we look at the grant opportunities, we at
USDA are going to focus on the priorities, some of which you
mentioned. But as we look at those priorities, we are going to
provide the grant dollars on a competitive basis for facilities
to do that. We think that allows us to wisely use the limited
dollars that we have.
Senator Craig. Well, I can appreciate the priorities and I
can also appreciate the fiscal soundness of decisions. One of
the great values of land grant systems spread nationwide is
that it dealt locally and regionally in ways that became
national in value when oftentimes not seen from the 30,000-foot
level by USDA. And we all know that has been the case time and
time again throughout the history of the modernizing of
agriculture as we worked aggressively to do it over the last
good while.
So we will work with you and certainly with the committee
to help establish some of these priorities.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
I will submit the balance of my questions in writing. Thank
you.
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much, Senator Craig.
And we thank you, Mr. Secretary, and your colleagues for
being with us today.
[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
humane slaughter
Question. Can you provide an update on what is happening with
recalled food that wasn't part of Federal nutrition programs? How much
is still out there, and how much do you realistically believe we will
ever collect?
Answer. It is the responsibility of the recalling firm, and not
FSIS, to ensure that consignees are notified of the need to retrieve
and control recalled products. FSIS does conduct effectiveness checks
for all recalls, and when this case is closed, the agency will report
to the Committee the amount of product recovered.
Question. The FSIS budget doesn't include any increased funding,
other than for employee pay costs and to cover the cost of the New
Mexico program. Would additional dollars, either for more inspectors or
more training, be beneficial?
Answer. The President's budget request is adequate to cover the
anticipated cost of providing Federal meat, poultry, and egg products
inspection as well as the Federal costs for equivalent State inspection
programs. An increase for the FSIS inspection program is requested to
maintain our high standards for the safety and wholesomeness of meat,
poultry and egg products and our continued efforts to ensure effective
inspection and policy implementation.
Question. What is the status of the proposed rule to permit FSIS to
list in its recall press releases the names of retail consignees?
Please provide an explanation for what types of recalls (Class I, Class
II, etc.) will be included and excluded.
Answer. USDA submitted a draft final rule to the Office of
Management and Budget for review under Executive Order 12866 on April
8, 2008. As a general rule we do not discuss draft content of rules
currently under review. Upon completion of review, we will publish the
final rule in the Federal Register. The preamble to the final rule will
include an explanation of decisions made with respect to the
rulemaking.
fiscal year 2008 wic budget
Question. Mr. Secretary, does USDA still believe, as Undersecretary
Johner stated a few weeks ago in front of the House of Representatives,
that the fiscal year 2008 budget request for WIC was adequate?
Answer. The information available at the time indicated that this
was the case. More recent year-to-date WIC participation and food cost
data suggests that program costs for fiscal year 2008 will exceed
levels anticipated in the President's fiscal year 2009 budget and
funded by the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Our
current analysis of fiscal year 2008 program performance indicates that
without additional funding there would be a fiscal year shortfall even
after the release of the remaining $150 million of contingency
resources. For this reason, I am reviewing options that include
transferring funds from the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve to
the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and
Children (WIC) to address funding shortfalls in that program.
Question. How much of the contingency fund will be released in
fiscal year 2008?
Answer. In fiscal year 2008, $258 million of WIC contingency
reserve funding has been made available to the States. This included
$108 million of prior year contingency funds and $150 million provided
by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Public Law 110-161).
Question. So, all of the funding Congress provided (again, over
$600 more than the administration requested), including the entire
contingency fund, will be used. Will there be additional funding
required and where will it come from?
Answer. Yes, program data suggests that program costs for fiscal
year 2008 will exceed levels anticipated in the President's fiscal year
2009 budget and funded by the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. Our current estimate indicates that without
additional funding there would be a shortfall even after the release of
the remaining $150 million of contingency resources.
For this reason, I am reviewing options that include transferring
funds from the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve to the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to
address funding shortfalls in that program.
Question. How much is included in the budget request for the
contingency reserve in fiscal year 2009, and how much of the
contingency reserve does the budget assume will be needed to fund the
participation levels estimated in the budget?
Answer. The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the WIC
Program funds the contingency reserve at $150 million. The budget
request assumes that the entire $150 million will be needed to support
the projected 8.6 million person average monthly participation for
fiscal year 2009. Maintaining the WIC contingency reserve, even when
its use is anticipated, is important because it preserves USDA's
ability to quickly and precisely target program resources to States
experiencing funding difficulties.
world/domestic food supply
Question. Over the last year we have seen dramatic changes in the
cost of farm commodities and the world food supply in general. There
have been food riots in many countries, and some countries that used to
export grains are now keeping them for their own use. Today, the ending
U.S. stocks of wheat are the lowest in history.
Can you or Dr. Glauber give us a good overview of the United States
and world food situation and the implications it has on USDA policy?
How much of this is driven by shifts to energy production? How much
have costs increased for livestock producers as a result of rising
grain costs?
Answer. I have asked Dr. Glauber to respond to your questions for
the record.
[The information follows:]
One way to provide you with an overview of the United States and
world food situation is through the prices paid for food commodities.
In general, higher food prices reflect tighter market conditions either
through greater demand for food or higher production costs. For
example, an increase in demand for agricultural commodities due to
higher global income increases the prices paid for agricultural
commodities and therefore food commodities. Similarly, higher energy
prices increase the cost of producing and marketing food commodities.
Higher production and marketing costs are then passed through to
consumers in the form of higher food prices.
Recently, both greater demand and higher production and marketing
costs have both been working to place upward pressure on the prices
paid for food commodities. In 2007, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for
food increased by 4.0 percent, up from 2.4 percent in both 2004 and
2005. We are currently forecasting that the CPI for food will increase
by 4.5 to 5.5 percent in 2008 and by 4 to 5 percent in 2009.
Retail prices for fruits and vegetables increased 3.8 percent in
2007, as fresh fruit and vegetable prices rose by 3.9 percent and
processed fruit and vegetable prices rose by 3.6 percent. Price spikes
in these commodities are often linked to drought or freeze damage. The
CPI for fruits and vegetables is projected to increase by 4.5 to 5.5
percent in 2008 and by 3.5 to 4.5 percent in 2009.
The CPI for meat, poultry and fish increased by 3.8 percent in 2007
and is forecast to increase by 2-3 percent in 2008 and 5-6 percent in
2009. In 2007, prices were particularly strong for cattle and broilers.
These strong prices generally reflected production adjustments made
prior to the recent increase in feed costs. U.S. production of meat and
poultry is expected to be a record 94 billion pounds in 2008. This
large supply of meat is expected to limit gains in prices for cattle,
hogs, broilers, and turkeys in 2008, leading to the relatively smaller
increase in the CPI for meat, poultry and fish in 2008. In addition,
the demand for red meat and poultry could be affected by consumers'
economic concerns.
The CPI for fats and oils and the CPI for cereal and bakery
products increased by 2.9 percent and 4.4 percent, respectively, in
2007. The CPI for fats and oils is forecast to increase by 11.5-12.5
percent in 2008 and 3-4 percent in 2009. The CPI for cereals and bakery
products are forecast to increase by 9-10 percent in 2008 and 3.5-4.5
percent in 2009. The relatively large increases in the CPI for each of
these categories reflect the relatively tight market conditions that
existed for much of 2008. However, improved growing conditions in many
parts of the world are expected to ease market conditions somewhat for
2008/09. Based on the July World Agricultural Supply and Demand
Estimates (WASDE), global 2008/09 wheat production is projected at a
record 664 million tons, 53 million tons higher than the weather-
reduced 2007/2008 crop. Global 2008/2009 coarse grain production is
projected at slightly over 1 billion tons, similar to the estimated
2007/2008 crop. Global oilseed production is projected at 417 million
tons, a 7.8 percent increase over the 2007/2008 estimate.
Globally, there is no measure that reflects the prices paid by
consumers for food commodities. One measure that has received
considerable attention lately is the International Monetary Fund's
(IMF) global food commodity price index. The IMF global food commodity
price index includes a bundle of agricultural commodities including
cereals such as wheat, corn (maize), rice, and barley as well as
vegetable oils and protein meals, meat, seafood, sugar, bananas, and
oranges. Over the past 12 months (June 2007 to June 2008), the IMF
global food commodity price index increased by 44 percent. However, the
increase in the food commodity price index should be viewed in
comparison to other prices changes. The IMF overall commodity price
index rose by 62 percent over the same 12 months while the petroleum
price index rose by 93 percent.
Overall, the market for most commodities remains tight by
historical standards. However, as weather conditions improve in various
parts of the world and oil prices ease, we would expect to see some
moderation in the prices consumers pay for food in the next year.
With respect to shifts in energy production based on the latest
information prepared at USDA, the expansion in biofuel production in
the United States would appear to be a relatively modest contributor to
food price inflation globally and in the United States. Assuming no
expansion in biofuel production in the United States, we estimate the
CPI for all food would have increased by 4.55-4.60 percent during the
first 4 months of 2008, compared with the actual increase of 4.8
percent. Globally, we estimate the IMF global food commodity price
index would have increased by over 40 percent from April 2007 to April
2008, compared with the actual increase of 45 percent.
Higher grain costs are having an impact on costs for livestock
producers. The most recent Agricultural Prices report, released on July
31, 2008 by the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) shows
that feed price ratios have fallen considerably since last year. The
feed price ratios measure the pounds of feed equal to the amount of
production for various types of livestock or livestock products in
value terms. For example, the broiler-feed price ratio fell from 5.2 in
July 2007 to 3.2 in July 2008. The reason for the decline is that while
the price of broilers increased only slightly from 2007 to 2008, the
price of corn and soybeans increased by 69 percent and 88 percent
respectively. As listed in the table below, the effects of higher corn
and soybean prices were reflected in lower feed price ratios across all
types of livestock.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feed Price Ratio July 2007 June 2008 July 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broiler-Feed: Pounds of Broiler Grower Feed equal in value to 1 5.4 3.2 3.2
pound of broiler, live weight..................................
Market Egg-Feed: Pounds of Laying Feed equal in value to 1 dozen 10.7 7.2 5.0
eggs...........................................................
Hog-Corn: Bushels of Corn equal in value to 100 pounds of hog, 15.7 9.7 9.4
live weight....................................................
Milk-Feed: Pounds of 16 percent Mixed Dairy Feed equal in value 3.16 1.88 1.82
to 1 pound of Whole Milk.......................................
Steer & Heifer-Corn: Bushels of Corn equal in value to 100 28.0 17.6 17.8
pounds of Steer & Heifers, live weight.........................
Turkey-Feed: Pounds of Turkey Grower equal in value to 1 pound 6.6 4.3 4.2
of Turkey, live weight.........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower feed price ratios will cause the sector to adjust. Based on
the July World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), poor
producer returns for broiler and turkey producers are expected to weigh
on the sector, and 2009 production is expected to dip below 2008. For
2009, we expect total red meat and poultry production to decline by
about 1.6 percent from 2008 levels.
world/domestic food supply
Question. How long do you estimate that food costs in this country
are going to continue to rise? Do you feel that the current Food Stamp
benefit is adequate to meet the rising demand? What about other food
assistance programs at USDA and local programs like food banks, what is
happening there?
Answer. In USDA's Agricultural Projections to 2017 published in
February 2008, the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for food is projected to
increase more than the CPI for all items in 2008 and 2009. For 2010-
2017, the CPI for food is projected to average 2.28 percent annually,
less than the 2.5 percent CPI projected for all items.
The Department believes the benefit levels in the Food Stamp
Program, which are based on the ability of recipients to use their
benefits combined with their own income to purchase a low-cost,
nutritious diet, are adequate to meet the needs of the people that the
program serves.
Benefit levels for food stamps, and payments for school meals and
WIC food packages, are adjusted annually to respond to increased costs.
Between fiscal year 2007 and 2008, food stamp benefit levels increased
4.6 percent; school meals reimbursements increased about 3 percent. We
also budgeted for an 8.7 percent increase in the average cost of WIC
food packages between fiscal year 2007 and 2008.
The Department has tools and policies in place to respond to
changes in projected demand and costs in the domestic nutrition
assistance programs. Two of the major programs the Food Stamp Program
and the Child Nutrition Programs are designed to respond automatically
to annual increased participation when economic or other circumstances
change. The program's entitlement structure helps to ensure that
benefits automatically flow into communities, States, or regions of the
country in which increased numbers of eligible people apply for
benefits.
While WIC, as a discretionary program, does not have this same
structure, the Department monitors participation and food price trends
closely to ensure that sufficient resources are available for the
administration to maintain its long standing policy of serving all
eligible persons seeking WIC services.
With regard to food banks, we have heard from our cooperators and
others that the private food bank network, which is supported in part
by The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP), is facing increased
demand. In addition to the $140 million provided in appropriated funds
for the purchase of TEFAP commodities, USDA began a ``Stocks-for-Food''
initiative in July 2007 to barter government-owned bulk commodities
with food processors in exchange for value-added agricultural products
that can be distributed through USDA's nutrition assistance programs.
We expect about $90 million in commodity foods to be distributed to
domestic nutrition assistance programs under this initiative.
Question. What is the outlook for the near and long term food
situation? For example, what would happen if the drought in Australia
continues? What happens if an exotic disease like wheat stem rust takes
hold in this country? How is USDA preparing the Nation for continuing
problems like these?
Answer. USDA forecasts world production, consumption, and trade for
the major field crops which include the major grain staples. At this
time, world production prospects for wheat and coarse grains remain
very favorable for 2008. Additional detail will be provided for the
record.
[The information follows:]
World wheat production is expected at record level with favorable
weather supporting fall planting and crop development in most of the
Northern Hemisphere countries including the major producing countries
of the European Union and Former Soviet Union, and also in India,
China, and the United States. With higher prices, area expanded
substantially last fall in most of these countries. Price increases
since that time have also spurred incentives to increase spring wheat
plantings in Canada and plantings in key southern hemisphere producers
such as Australia. The drought in Australia appears to have been
largely broken with significant rainfall in the eastern portions of the
country in recent months and very timely rains ahead of 2008 crop wheat
seeding in the southern and western growing areas more recently. At
this point, the possibility of a third year of drought remains fairly
low for Australia; however, even a drought as serious as those in the
past 2 years would mean a loss of only 10-15 million tons of production
worldwide, not enough to prevent a record world wheat crop in 2008,
given all indications at this time.
World coarse grains production in 2008 is expected to match or
surpass last year's record level, despite a likely reduction in U.S.
corn output with lower expected planted area. Although most of the
world's coarse grains crop remains to be planted, record prices are
encouraging increases in planted area throughout the major producing
countries. This suggests record world production again in 2008 with
normal weather.
Crop production remains highly dependent on weather with additional
risks poised by pest and disease problems. Although pests and diseases
are a serious issue, risk of major crop failures due to these threats
remains relatively low. USDA will continue to monitor crop health
issues and reflect the impact of crop problems in its monthly crop
reporting and supply and demand estimates reports. These reports
provide the public with a reliable and timely source of information
about crop production and use in the United States and around the
world.
effect of high commodities demand
Question. Because of the high demand for commodities, there is a
large concern that lands that have been placed in conservation
practices may be moved into farm production and, as a result, a lot of
environmental benefits will be lost. Do you share that concern? What is
USDA doing to help maintain the levels of water, soil, and wildlife
habitat protection that conservation programs have achieved over the
last 20 years?
Answer. USDA approaches conservation with the objective of ensuring
that lands can be productive in concert with a healthy environment and
that benefits achieved can be maintained.
For example, USDA cost share programs provide assurances that
conservation practices are maintained and that taxpayer investments are
protected. Each conservation practice the Department implements has a
life span attached to it and if the landowner does not maintain the
practice, we can recoup our costs.
There are also pressures from a land retirement perspective that
sensitive lands may go into production. The 1985 Farm Bill authorized
the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) as an option for producers with
Highly Erodible Land (HEL). Any HEL land coming out of CRP and going
back into production, must be farmed in accordance with an acceptable
conservation plan/system in order to be eligible for certain USDA
benefits.
The Department is ready to address increased requests from
producers with expiring CRP contracts for conservation technical and
financial assistance (cost-sharing) through the Environmental Quality
Incentives Program, the Conservation Security Program, the Wildlife
Habitat Incentives Program, and other conservation programs.
In the Administration's 2007 Farm Bill proposals, the Department
proposed a forward looking approach in the form of a biomass reserve,
which would have encouraged energy crop production on suitable lands
currently enrolled in the CRP.
national animal identification system
Question. Over the past several years, this Subcommittee has
provided substantial funding to USDA for the National Animal ID
program. However, this program is still not established in any
meaningful way and there is a lot of frustration in the farming
community and within Congress about the way this program has been
managed.
What is the current status of this ID program? Do you support a
voluntary or mandatory program and who do you think should pay the cost
of it? How have you spent the money that has been appropriated for it
so far?
Answer. A great deal of progress has been made with all three
components of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS).
Premises registration is the foundation of the NAIS. Progress
continues at a steady pace. Currently, participating States and Tribes
have registered 461,846 premises nationwide. This represents
approximately 33 percent of the estimated national total.
USDA wants to reach as many producers as possible. Recognizing the
need for industry groups to be more involved in premises registration
outreach efforts, USDA has initiated cooperative agreements with
nonprofit organizations to advance premises registration. USDA has
finalized eight agreements for this purpose.
USDA has approved six manufacturers of animal identification number
(AIN) tags to produce ten devices for official NAIS use including radio
frequency identification (RFID) eartags that are compliant with
standards from the International Organization for Standardization.
Approximately 4.2 million AIN devices have been distributed.
Last year, USDA purchased 1.5 million NAIS-compliant RFID eartags
to be used specifically for current animal disease programs--such as
the cooperative, State-Federal bovine tuberculosis (TB) and brucellosis
programs. These tags will also be distributed in geographic areas that
are at increased risk for disease outbreaks. In response to the TB
detection in California in December 2007, 108,000 AIN tags have been
provided to support bovine TB testing in California and Nevada. An
additional 18,900 tags have been distributed to support disease program
efforts in other States.
The tracing component of the NAIS continues to advance. In 2007,
USDA published A Business Plan to Advance Animal Disease Traceability.
The business plan detailed strategies and actions to more fully utilize
the NAIS standards in existing animal health programs. The plan also
works to harmonize animal identification systems with industry
marketing, management, and performance recording programs to improve
the overall U.S. animal disease traceability infrastructure. Seven
specific strategies detailed in the plan include actions that USDA can
take immediately to make an impact on traceability. While 48-hour
traceability is a long-term goal, USDA is working now to reduce the
length of time it takes to conduct an animal disease investigation.
USDA is cooperating with States, Tribes, and industry groups to
integrate NAIS standards into existing USDA disease programs and
further interoperability between technology systems. These short-term
actions will help significantly in improving traceability and meeting
our immediate goal for NAIS.
USDA does not believe that the NAIS needs to be mandatory to be
effective. USDA believes the goals of the system can be achieved with a
voluntary program as a result of standard business practices. For
example, animal identification has many ``drivers'' that provide
marketing advantages to producers. Other ``drivers'' may become
requirements for certain markets (e.g., age verification for the
purposes of international trade). NAIS animal ID has been developed to
meet the needs of various programs, including both regulatory disease
control programs and industry programs. Participation in NAIS provides
marketing and management benefits to producers, as well as the data
that animal health officials need to respond quickly and effectively to
animal disease events.
Producers who choose to participate in NAIS will find many positive
benefits. Contact information provided during premises registration
allows State animal health officials to provide participating producers
with information about disease outbreaks or incidents in their area.
This will enable producers to rapidly protect their premises and their
livelihood. Participating producers will also be better positioned to
protect their market access and expand their marketing opportunities
because their participation will provide vital information on
identification and movement of their animals, necessary for animal
traceability.
Because the NAIS is a State-Federal-industry partnership, the
program works best if there is active involvement and feedback from the
States, industry, and producers. As the NAIS has evolved, USDA has put
participant feedback to work to adjust the program and address their
thoughts and concerns. USDA will continue working collaboratively to
ensure that the NAIS is easy to use and makes sense.
The following table shows how APHIS has obligated NAIS funding
through April 2008:
NATIONAL ANIMAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM OBLIGATIONS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 CCC funds 2005 2006 2007 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System funding.................. $1,813 $4,089 $2,466 $6,207 $1,412
Cooperative agreements.......... 13,554 12,838 5,191 19,569 5,728
Communications and outreach..... 2,132 2,557 2,402 2,980 528
Staff and materials............. 319 3,928 6,424 14,185 3,819
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Funding 17,819 23,413 16,482 42,941 11,487
Obligated................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What are you hearing from farmers and ranchers about this
program?
Answer. Overall, the feedback from producers and industry
organizations from the commercial animal agriculture industry has been
positive. However, some groups oppose participation in the program and
will not register their premises. In addition, in some States (e.g.,
Missouri and South Dakota) legislation has been periodically introduced
to restrict participation in the program at the State level. Producers
in some areas have opted not to participate in the NAIS. However, the
enhanced communications efforts, which began in May 2006, continue to
address concerns.
emerson trust
Question. One of the tools to fight world hunger is the Bill
Emerson Humanitarian Trust. However, in spite of the recent rising food
costs and urgent need for food aid in places like Sudan and Somalia,
the Emerson Trust has not been used since 2005.
Do you have plans to recommend any releases from the Emerson Trust
in the near future?
Answer. Yes, the President directed that the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust be drawn down to provide emergency food aid through
the U.S. Agency for International Development, to meet unanticipated
needs in Africa and elsewhere. This action will provide an estimated
$500 million of emergency assistance this year.
Question. Do you think the Emerson Trust plays an important role in
fighting world hunger and can you explain what the level of commodities
and cash in the trust are today?
Answer. The Department of Agriculture and U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) agree that the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust is an important tool in the battle against world
hunger. It complements the traditional Public Law 480 food aid
programs, particularly Title II, by making stocks available during
periods of tight supply and to meet unanticipated emergency food aid
needs. The Trust consists of 654,979 metric tons of wheat and about
$196.4 million in cash.
Question. Can you describe how the Trust actually works, how much
do you spend on storage, and how do the commodities actually get from
the storage facilities to the recipient countries?
Answer. Bulk commodities in the Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust
(wheat) are generally sold to generate funds that are used to acquire
commodities needed in the recipient country, as determined by the
USAID. CCC purchases commodities requested by USAID with the sales
proceeds from the wheat, and arranges for transportation from U.S. port
locations to recipient countries. Another method is to swap CCC-owned
wheat for the desired commodities.
With respect to storage costs, CCC paid more than $936 million for
wheat in the Trust from 1981 through 2007, averaging more than $34
million per year. At the current Trust level of 654,979 metric tons,
CCC will pay about $6.9 million per year in storage costs.
Because of these costs and other considerations, holding cash
rather than commodities in the Trust can be a preferred option.
colony collapse disorder/varroa mites
Question. A very large segment of our food supply relies of the
work of natural pollinators, namely bees. However, we continue to hear
about serious problems like Colony Collapse Disorder, Varroa Mites and
other threats to bee species and ultimately, to our food supply.
What are you doing this year regarding these problems and what
progress have you made?
Answer. The Research, Education and Economics mission area reacted
quickly to lead the Federal response with the formation of a colony
collapse disorder (CCD) Steering Committee which developed an action
plan to coordinate Federal research. ARS is conducting research into
the potential causes of CCD, including pathogens, parasites,
environmental stress (including pesticides) and management stresses,
and the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
(CSREES) is coordinating Federal and land grant university efforts. The
2009 budget requests an additional $780,000 for ARS to research the
role of pathogens and other stress factors in CCD and develop ways to
mitigate their effects. In 2008, ARS began a 5-year Honeybee Health
Areawide Project funded at $1 million per year.
CSREES awarded $4.1 million to the University of Georgia to study
the causes of CCD and other diseases affecting bee populations.
The Protection of Managed Bees Coordinated Agricultural Project
aims to improve the health of managed bee populations in agricultural
systems. The research will address genomics, breeding, pathology,
immunology and applied ecology to explain the causes behind dwindling
bee populations. Researchers will work closely with the extension
community and other stakeholders to develop and implement mitigation
strategies for CCD and other significant problems.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will
undertake a project to examine key honeybee issues. In addition to
working with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) on research
regarding potential causes of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), APHIS is
examining existing risk assessments for queen bees, packages, and
germplasm from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. Presently, importing
bee-collected pollen and royal jelly for bee feed is prohibited.
However, APHIS is developing a risk pathway analysis for royal jelly
and bee pollen as bee food.
Question. Can you describe how your research and regulatory
agencies plan to deal with these problems in this budget?
Answer. The 2009 budget requests an additional $780,000 for ARS to
research the role of pathogens and other stress factors in CCD and
develop ways to mitigate their effects. In 2008, ARS began a 5-year
Honeybee Health Areawide Project funded at $1 million per year.
CSREES awarded $4.1 million to the University of Georgia to study
the causes of CCD and other diseases affecting bee populations.
The Protection of Managed Bees Coordinated Agricultural Project
aims to improve the health of managed bee populations in agricultural
systems. The research will address genomics, breeding, pathology,
immunology and applied ecology to explain the causes behind dwindling
bee populations. Researchers will work closely with the extension
community and other stakeholders to develop and implement mitigation
strategies for CCD and other significant problems.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) will
undertake a project to examine key honeybee issues. In addition to
working with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) on research
regarding potential causes of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), APHIS is
examining existing risk assessments for queen bees, packages, and
germplasm from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.
varroa mites
Question. Senator Inouye has brought to my attention that the
varroa mite has suddenly appeared in Hawaii and this poses a special
threat because many of the honey colonies that are used in this country
are actually produced in Hawaii.
Senator Inouye has asked me to submit some questions for the record
on his behalf, which I will, but can you tell us if you are aware of
this problem, how serious you think it is, and what you are doing about
it?
Answer. Varroa mites were recently found on the island of Oahu and
appear to be established throughout the island. But so far, there is no
evidence that the mites are present on any of the other islands. Hawaii
has strong intra-island quarantine regulations in place. APHIS is
providing funding to the State to conduct a survey for a variety of
honey bee pests and diseases, including varroa mites. The survey will
provide information to officials to help manage the situation, although
once they are established, it is virtually impossible to eradicate
varroa mites. There is no record of the mite ever having been
eradicated.
rural development and rental assistance--absence of a sound strategy
Question. Rental assistance provides funding to help very low
income rural families so they don't have to spend more than 30 percent
of their incomes on rent. Recipients are typically elderly,
handicapped, or female-headed households, with average household
incomes near $12,000. If this assistance is not continued, tenants will
face rents that they cannot afford and will face eviction.
Over the past several years this program has reduced from 5 years
to 1 year the amount of time that families had assurances (through
formal contracts) this assistance would continue. This reduction was
done to provide immediate savings, help measure annual cost increases,
and improve the ability to forecast future renewal needs. It was
recognized that over time, there would be a large increase in annual
program costs. That is occurring in fiscal year 2009 as program needs
jumped from $445.8 million in fiscal year 2008 to $1.02 billion.
The administration was well aware of this phenomenon. However, in
spite of ample lead time the administration failed to develop an
adequate plan. The administration's proposal is to fund these needs by
program terminations and reductions across Rural Development.
Besides forcing Rural Development to absorb over $500 million in
offsets, were other options considered?
Answer. Rural Development's first priority is to continue tenant
protections in the form of Rental Assistance renewals. The
administration is committed to fully meeting the need for renewals
while meeting the President's goal of reducing spending and achieving
balance budget. The formulation of the President's budget involved
discussion of numerous options among multiple participants.
Question. What were those options and why were they rejected?
Answer. Any discussions of options are predecisional. We believe
the fiscal year 2009 President's budget is the best course of action to
ensure the vitality of the Rental Assistance program. It will allow us
to be more responsive to program needs and will improve our ability to
forecast future Rental Assistance renewals.
rural housing and the sub-prime housing crisis
Question. The sub-prime housing crisis has created turmoil in
housing and financial markets nationwide. But, little attention is paid
to impacts on rural residents. We want to ensure that rural households
receive the support and assistance needed to weather the storm.
How is the fallout in the sub-prime market affecting rural housing
in general?
Answer. Information on how rural borrowers have been affected by
the sub-prime home mortgage crisis is limited. However, there is
evidence that a significant amount of sub-prime lending has occurred in
rural areas, particularly where borrowers have limited access to
traditional credit. Some of these borrowers are likely to be having
repayment problems. However, the adverse impacts on rural housing
markets may not be as widespread because there is less concentration of
housing in rural areas and home prices tend to be lower than those in
urban areas.
Question. What Rural Development housing programs are most impacted
and how?
Answer. The current situation in the subprime market has had a
minimal impact on Rural Development's housing programs. Our single
family housing portfolio remains strong with low delinquency and
foreclosure rates. In ten of the last 12 months, we have experienced
historical low delinquencies. Demand for the section 502 guaranteed
loan program is at record levels as private sources of mortgage credit
for first-time homebuyers have tightened dramatically.
Our Single Family Housing programs have seen an increase in
activity, which is common when the private sector market is
experiencing difficulties. We have responded accordingly and have been
able to meet current demands.
Question. Although the Budget substantially increases the Sec. 502
guaranteed single family housing program, the increase is coupled with
a 50 percent fee increase. Why do you believe now is the appropriate
time for a large fee increase?
Answer. Most other Federal guarantee programs operate near ``budget
neutral;'' however, the Section 502 Guaranteed loan program continues
to require a taxpayer subsidy. By bringing the guarantee fee in line
with other Federal guarantee programs we will be able to operate near
budget neutral while providing a much greater amount of program level
funding. Overall, the subsidy rate for the guarantee program will drop
from 1.20 percent in fiscal year 2008 to 0.27 percent in fiscal year
2009, requiring very little credit subsidy.
Question. This Budget, again, terminates the direct Sec. 502 single
family housing program. Without this credit source, particularly in the
current environment, where will very low and low income rural
households obtain funding for homeownership?
Answer. The guaranteed program can already provide coverage for
many of the customers that would traditionally look to the direct loan
program for financing. In recent years, about 30 percent of USDA's
guaranteed loans for single family housing have gone to families with
50 to 80 percent of median family income, which is within the income
limit for direct loans. The remaining 70 percent of these loans have
gone to families with incomes between 80 percent and 115 percent of
median family income. By shifting budget authority to guaranteed loans
in fiscal year 2009 we will be able to increase program level funding
for guaranteed lending to over $4.8 billion. Guarantees will allow us
to leverage a much greater amount of program level funding which in
turn allows us to assist more rural Americans. Some of the Very Low
Income applicants, those making less than 50 percent of the Area Median
Income, would not be served without the 502 direct loan program.
However, these individuals may be able to qualify under the guaranteed
program for a more modest sized home.
farm service agency (fsa) information technology (it) problems
Question. Last year at this hearing the USDA Secretary acknowledged
problems with FSA's legacy IT system. The system was unstable and the
Agency rationed access to guard against comprehensive failure. The
Secretary promised to provide a plan to develop and implement a
replacement for the outdated and overloaded legacy systems. Maintenance
funding was provided in the supplemental bill for short term
stabilization.
One year later we remain in essentially the same situation. FSA's
systems are one year older and availability to users is questionable at
any time. The specter of a comprehensive system crash remains. Little
confidence is placed on the replacement cost and scheduling estimates
that have been provided.
Given the damage that may result from systems failure, why are we
not further along regarding implementing a solution?
Answer. USDA is pleased that our business case for modernization
has been approved by OMB and reviewed by GAO. All parties agree with
USDA that modernizing the business delivery systems of the Commodity
Credit Corporation is a priority. As soon as funding becomes available,
USDA is ready to proceed.
Question. Why does this budget not include funding to address this
problem?
Answer. The business case was approved by OMB in late November
2007, by which time decisions on the fiscal year 2009 President's
Budget had already been made. However, we have been working with the
authorizing committees to provide for the needed funding through the
pending Farm Bill. We have proposed amending the Commodity Credit
Corporation Charter Act to permit the use of up to $400 million in CCC
funds over the next 4 years, with offsets for collecting user fees.
Question. Are negotiations underway through the Farm Bill process
to obtain adequate funding there?
Answer. Yes. USDA has had multiple meetings with House and Senate
staff working on the Farm Bill negotiations. We have provided the
authorizing committees with legislative language to amend the CCC
Charter Act to allow for the collection of user fees to fund the
modernization and stabilization projects.
Question. What is the explanation for the lack of urgency displayed
by the administration regarding this critical issue?
Answer. USDA has been diligent in following all the necessary steps
to gain approval of the modernization business case. OMB and GAO agree
with USDA that modernizing the business delivery systems for the
Commodity Credit Corporation is a priority. USDA has developed the
MIDAS foundational requirements so that USDA is positioned to move
forward when funding becomes available.
resource conservation and development program (rc&d)
Question. Mr. Secretary, the budget proposes reducing the Resource
Conservation and Development program by nearly $51 million which
eliminates this program.
Will the RC&D Councils be folded into other areas of NRCS? If not,
how many employees will be let go and have these employees been
notified of your intentions yet?
Answer. The proposal eliminates Federal technical assistance to the
375 RC&D councils. As nonprofit organizations, RC&D Councils will still
exist. At this point, most of these Councils should have the capacity
to identify, plan, and address their identified priorities. The
majority of the Councils have increased their partnerships and
financial portfolios and will continue to bring resources to their
communities.
RC&D staffing adjustments are being considered as part of NRCS'
human capital analysis and plan. Since NRCS is facing significant
retirements in the future, all appropriate staffing incentives and
adjustments are being considered. However, specific plans have not been
finalized. Implementation of any plan for fiscal year 2009 would not be
initiated until Congressional action on the President's Budget is known
and necessary decisions have been made. NRCS intends to retain as many
RC&D staff on NRCS payroll as the overall NRCS budget will support.
Skills learned as an RC&D Coordinator serve employees well in many
other NRCS positions. The ability to foster partnerships, collaborate,
and plan projects is essential to all NRCS field and State level
technical positions. Many of these employees can be placed in other
NRCS field and State office positions such as district conservationist
and other natural resource positions.
Question. Has the Department ever attempted to measure the benefits
to rural communities that specific RC&D councils have provided, and if
so what did you learn?
Answer. Although no studies to measure the benefits to rural
communities provided by specific RC&D Councils have been undertaken in
the last 25 years, reporting provided through the NRCS Program
Operations Tracking System (POINTS) shows that through the
implementation of projects, Councils have brought between $6 and $8 for
each $1.00 invested by the Federal government back to their communities
in the form of donated materials, professional services and volunteer
time.
commodity supplemental food program
Question. Mr. Secretary, once again the administration is proposing
to eliminate the CSFP Program. However, in the budget, the inventory at
the end of fiscal year 2008 is estimated to be $36,239,000 which is
$6,065,000 higher than the inventory at the end of fiscal year 2007.
If this program is slated for elimination, why is USDA allowing
inventory buildup instead of using it to fund current program needs,
especially considering that the CSFP caseload was actually decreased in
fiscal year 2008 from the fiscal year 2007 levels?
Answer. The ending inventory is essentially a ``rolling'' figure
that largely represents foods purchased/delivered late in the last
quarter of one fiscal year for distribution in the first quarter of the
following fiscal year. This practice is necessary to ensure continuity
of service to participants as we transition across fiscal years. Until
such time as the Congress adopts the President's proposal to cease
program operations in 2009, we plan to carry over sufficient inventory
from fiscal year 2008 to assure service continuity in fiscal year 2009.
The increase in the dollar value of projected fiscal year 2008 ending
inventory is a function of rising food costs and the need to meet
anticipated delivery demand.
With the exception of a small volume of foods that are purchased
for the program through a single annual procurement, there is no
significant undistributed program inventory held at the Federal level
at any time during the program year.
Question. What does USDA intend to do the $36,239,000 at the end of
fiscal year 2008 if Congress agrees with the administration's proposal
to eliminate CSFP?
Answer. Should Congress choose to adopt the President's fiscal year
2009 budget request, commodities remaining in CSFP inventories next
fiscal year will be re-donated for use in other domestic nutrition
assistance programs, including the Emergency Food Assistance Program
(TEFAP).
dairy prices and nutrition programs
Question. Over a year ago, I wrote USDA out of concern for a
pending Federal milk marketing order proposal which would raise fluid,
or Class I milk prices. In that letter I explained how this decision
would disadvantage dairy farmers in the Upper Midwest, and attached
documentation showing that the proposal was inconsistent with previous
department Federal order policies.
It has been almost 18 months since USDA held an ``emergency
hearing'' on this issue, and I presume that you must be close to a
decision. Before you make that decision; however, I would like you to
advise the subcommittee of any impact your proposed decision would have
on the costs of the WIC program. I would also like you to consult with
the Congressional Budget Office on how you estimate the impact of your
decision on the WIC program, and other USDA nutrition programs,
including the School Lunch program. I am interested to know if the
pending decision would add to these costs by arbitrarily increasing the
Class I differentials throughout the country.
It is my understanding that, under OMB internal guidance to all
Federal agencies, any administrative decision that raises outlays or
the cost of another Federal program must be offset by a reduction
elsewhere. If you make this decision to raise milk costs, please also
advise this subcommittee on how you will be offsetting the increased
costs to WIC and other impacted nutrition programs.
Answer. OMB does not require offsets for impacts on discretionary
programs. However, OMB may require an offset for the impact of the
increase on the Food Stamp Program and other mandatory programs.
tart cherries
Question. On January 8 USDA announced its intention to purchase up
to 8.1 million pounds of tart red cherries. This is a matter of some
importance to producers in my State and others. They point out that
weather conditions in cherry growing regions have been ideal for a
large crop this coming year. They fear an unmanageable carryover stocks
and surplus of cherries in the coming year and would like to see USDA
take further steps under this announcement by June 2008.
Could you give the subcommittee and update on your actions in this
area?
Answer. The Department will complete the entire 8.1 million pound
bonus cherry program as announced by June 2008. Thus far, USDA has
purchased a total of 4.7 million pounds of canned, frozen and dried
cherries for distribution to child and domestic food assistance
programs. At present, USDA is in the process of purchasing an
additional 1.1 million pounds of frozen cherries and will complete the
program with a purchase of 2.3 million pounds of dried cherries.
organic pasture
Question. One of the central tenets of organically produced
livestock and livestock products is the requirement that animals be
given access to pasture. Current USDA National Organic Program
Regulations require access to pasture for all ruminant animals
(205.237, 205.239).
However, in recent years, it has become clear that some organic
dairies have been permitted to sell milk as ``organic'' even though
their cows have not had access to pasture. When challenged about why
they are permitting some dairy operations to skirt the pasture
standards, USDA's National Organic Program has stated that the
regulation is too vague for them to adequately enforce.
Therefore, the agency issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking to solicit input from the public about the pasture issue. In
order to facilitate this process, a Pasture Symposium was convened by
USDA in April of 2006 in State College, Pennsylvania to hear from
certifiers, farmers, consumers, and industry regarding pasture
standards. Based on input received at the Pennsylvania Symposium and
subsequently, USDA had indicated its intention to issue a Proposed Rule
in 2006 to update the organic standards to make a more specific pasture
standard for organic livestock.
Now nearly 2 years later, no proposed rule has been issued on this
issue. It is critical to the entire organic sector that USDA move
forward with rulemaking to establish a strong, enforceable organic
standard to require access to pasture for ruminant animals.
Please provide an update on this situation, and explain the delay.
When can we expect to see a proposed rule out to the public for
comment?
Answer. AMS received over 80,000 comments based on the Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) issued in April 2006, most urging
a larger role for pasture in the National Organic Program regulations.
After analysis of all comments, a proposed rule was drafted, which is
now in Departmental clearance. AMS plans to publish it by the end of
this fiscal year.
potatoes and wic
Question. USDA published an interim final rule that expands the
eligibility for the WIC program to include all fresh fruits and
vegetables with the single exception of ``white potatoes''.
Please explain the public policy and nutritional rationale for
excluding fresh white potatoes from the expanded WIC voucher program.
Answer. The changes to the WIC food packages were made based on
scientific recommendations from the National Academies' Institute of
Medicine (IOM). The IOM was charged with reviewing the nutritional
needs of the WIC population--low-income infants, children, and
pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women who are at nutritional
risk--and recommending changes to the WIC food packages.
The restriction of white potatoes, as recommended by the IOM, is
based on (1) food intake data indicating that consumption of starchy
vegetables by the WIC-eligible population meets or exceeds the amounts
suggested in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans for consumption
of starchy vegetables; and (2) food intake data showing that white
potatoes are the most widely consumed starchy vegetable.
Question. Please provide a description of the process and an
estimate of the cost of compliance for the exclusion of a single fruit
or vegetable from the program.
Answer. Generally, on an annual or biennial basis, WIC State
agencies determine what foods to include on their State WIC food lists
from the list of federally authorized WIC-eligible foods. In making
their determination, State agencies consider factors such as product
availability, participant acceptance, and costs.
There is no compliance costs for the exclusion of a single fruit or
vegetable from the WIC Program because it is a part of normal business
practice for State agencies to determine which foods will be eligible
for the State WIC program.
national arboretum
Question. In reviewing the administration's budget for the U.S.
National Arboretum, we note a proposed cut of $2 million from the
Gardens Unit and the Education and Visitor Services Unit.
Please explain why these cuts have been proposed.
Answer. The reductions have been proposed to address higher
research priorities of the administration, such as bioenergy, food
safety, and obesity prevention.
Question. Did the specificity of these cuts, i.e., that they must
come from Gardens and Education and Visitor Services at the National
Arboretum, originate from an OMB mandate to the USDA, from the senior
administration of the Department or from within the ARS itself?
Answer. ARS programs were reviewed for relevance, quality, impact,
and cost effectiveness in the overall context of competing program
priorities in the Department and the administration's goal to balance
the Federal budget by 2012.
Question. How do you intend to execute these cuts and maintain
compliance with your legal obligation to provide education at the U.S.
National Arboretum, a mandate which Congress spelled out in the
legislation which established the National Arboretum?
Answer. ARS would continue to provide education at the U.S.
National Arboretum at a reduced scope.
Question. If these cuts are implemented, what will be the impact on
the USNA?
Answer. The Arboretum would emphasize research activities and
reduce funding for its non-research activities. The Gardens Unit and
Education and Visitor Services Unit would be merged. Resources to
maintain the gardens and plant collections would be reduced and
educational activities and use of the arboretum by outside
organizations would be limited.
Question. Will there be any curtailment of days or hours of
operation?
Answer. Yes, public access time would most likely be reduced.
Question. Will you be able to maintain all of the current Garden
Displays and Plant Collections currently at the Arboretum?
Answer. The Arboretum would most likely have to reduce in size
several of the existing collections and no longer actively maintain
other collections.
Question. Will there be a reduction in the number of staff
positions currently approved for the Arboretum and if so, how many and
where?
Answer. Yes, there would be a reduction in staff. The Gardens Unit
will be reduced from the current level of 26.6 FTE to 13.5 and the
Education and Visitor Services Unit will be reduced from 11.7 to 3.7
FTE positions.
Question. Do you think the ARS is still the appropriate
administrative home for the National Arboretum in light of the
Department's desire to focus on research and the fact that the
Arboretum has become an increasingly popular destination for the
general public to visit?
Answer. USDA views the National Arboretum as a national asset and
has taken pride in its public displays. ARS is committed to research
supporting the floral and horticultural industries.
national organic program reorganization
Question. The recent announcement of a reorganization of the
National Organic Program included information on who would head several
branches of the program, although not the compliance and enforcement
branch. When will you name the head of this program?
Answer. AMS is in the midst of staffing the compliance and
enforcement branch and plans to have it staffed by the end of fiscal
year 2008, including the announcement of the head of the branch.
country of origin labeling
Question. What steps is USDA taking to ensure that mandatory
country of origin labeling will be in effect as required by September
30, 2008?
Answer. USDA is working with all parties to expedite the
development and publication of the necessary rulemaking. The rule must
be published in the Federal Register by July 30 to meet the September
30, 2008, implementation date for mandatory country of origin labeling
on all covered commodities. USDA is on-track to meet these deadlines.
Question. How has USDA spent funds allocated for enforcement of
existing rules for mandatory country of origin labeling for seafood
products? What audits or other enforcement actions have been done?
Answer. The $1.1 million in appropriated funding allocated for the
country of origin labeling program is used for all regulatory and
oversight activities, rulemaking, outreach, education, monitoring and
enforcement-related activities for fish and shellfish. Surveillance
reviews of randomly-selected retail stores began in August 2006. During
2006, 1,159 retail surveillance reviews were performed in 19 States.
During fiscal year 2007, AMS performed 1,657 retail surveillance
reviews in 23 States. COOL retail surveillance activities have expanded
to all 50 States for fiscal year 2008, increasing the number of retail
reviews to 2,000. AMS has entered into reimbursable cooperative
agreements with 42 States as of March 2008. USDA employees will perform
retail surveillance in the remaining eight States.
ams audits
Question. FSIS non-compliance reports can be obtained through
Freedom of Information requests, although AMS does not make public
audit reports issued by AMS auditors of the same facilities that sell
meat and poultry products to the National School Lunch Program. Why is
this?
Answer. AMS audit reports of contractors and suppliers to Federal
food and nutrition assistance programs are available under the Freedom
of Information Act. However, proprietary information related to a
firm's business and other sensitive information contained in the
reports may be withheld, if deemed appropriate by the Agency.
Question. How often do AMS auditors visit food establishments that
sell products to USDA feeding programs?
Answer. An AMS meat grader is present at the facility when ground
beef is being processed for delivery under Federal contracts.
Additionally, an AMS auditor performs an unscheduled audit of the
grinding and slaughter processes once per month (or contract) while the
facility is producing AMS purchased product. Additionally, AMS is
cooperatively working with FSIS on cross-utilizing AMS employees to
provide an enhanced surveillance program for the livestock holding and
movement areas of slaughter establishments that provide raw materials.
risk based inspection
Question. At the February 5, 2008, meeting of the National Advisory
Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection, FSIS distributed a document
entitled, ``Timeline for Development and Implementation of the Proposed
Public Health Risk-Based Inspection System, Public Health Information
System and Poultry Slaughter Rule.'' Please provide a copy of the
timeline and explain how it was developed.
Answer. The draft timeline was developed based on the agency's plan
to strengthen its infrastructure and the continued enhancement and
evolution of inspection. The timeline was and is still considered to be
a draft, and is subject to substantial revisions as the agency receives
input from all stakeholders. The draft is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
timeline for development and implementation of the proposed public
health risk-based inspection system, public health information system
and poultry slaughter rule
January 28, 2008.--Post the reports listed below on FSIS website
for public comment:
--Public Health Risk-Based Inspection Technical Report for Processing
and Slaughter.
--Public Health Risk-Based Inspection Technical Report for Poultry
Slaughter.
January 28, 2008.--Submit Public Health Risk-Based Inspection
(PHRBI) reports for peer review.
February 5-6, 2008.--NACMPI Full Committee meeting on Public Health
Risk-Based Inspection.
February 29, 2008.--SAIC to deliver draft requirements document to
FSIS for Public Health. Information System (PHIS).
March 22, 2008.--Receive NACMPI, public and peer review comments on
Public Health Risk-Based Inspection Reports.
March 2008.--Submit proposed rule on poultry slaughter for FSIS
Assistant Administrator Review.
March 31, 2008.--FSIS approves SAIC requirements document for PHIS.
April 17, 2008.--Complete revision of PHRBI reports according to
NACMPI, public and peer review comments.
April 18, 2008.--Send PHBRI report to OIG.
April 2008.--Submit proposed poultry slaughter rule to OGC for
review.
April--Aug. 2008.--Draft directives, notices, and other needed
documents, based upon approved PHIS requirements.
Spring 2008.--Submit proposed poultry slaughter rule to OMB.
Summer 2008.--Publish proposed poultry slaughter rule.
April-Sept. 2008.--Develop training schedule, detailed training
plan, and logistics to deliver training to approximately 5,000 FSIS
employees for the proposed PHRBI System and the PHIS.
October 2008.--Develop detailed plan to implement and initiate
training for the proposed PHRBI System and the PHIS to FSIS field
personnel.
January 2009.--Conduct User Acceptance Testing and begin field
testing PHRBI system and PHIS.
October 2009.--Deploy PHRBI system and PHIS for use in field.
fsis vacancy rates
Question. Please provide a tabular report of the in-plant
inspection personnel vacancy rate broken down by job title and FSIS
district for each of the past 6 months.
Answer. I will provide, for the record, a FSIS in-plant inspection
personnel report that displays permanent full-time positions for each
of the past 6 months (using data from the end of the pay-period closest
to the end of the month).
[The information follows:]
DISTRICT PFT EMPLOYMENT AND OTP USAGE
[As of October 27, 2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-INPLANT INPLANT FISCAL FISCAL OPT USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR YEAR 2007 -----------------------------
DISTRICT DIST ALLOCS 4/ DIFFER ALLOCS 4/ YTD
OFC FLS TOTAL EGG VMS VMO FI CSI EIAO TOTAL 11/07 11/07 PP USAGE USAGE AVAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA............................................. 13 14 27 6 ...... 34 132 235 11 418 427 -9 9.00 0.2034 0.37 8.63
DENVER.............................................. 11 12 23 7 1 45 120 246 17 436 437 -1 6.00 0.1582 0.29 5.71
MINNEAPOLIS......................................... 13 7 20 10 1 44 93 149 11 308 326 -18 6.00 0.2478 0.55 5.45
DES MOINES.......................................... 11 11 22 29 1 63 299 198 11 601 615 -14 18.00 0.3485 0.69 17.31
LAWRENCE............................................ 12 8 20 5 1 52 258 201 10 527 520 7 16.00 0.4549 0.89 15.11
SPRINGDALE.......................................... 14 10 24 2 1 71 320 297 10 701 713 -12 60.00 1.9458 3.68 56.32
DALLAS.............................................. 113 9 22 2 1 54 257 193 9 516 515 1 35.00 0.9899 1.97 33.03
MADISON............................................. 12 7 19 7 1 31 65 127 8 239 240 -1 5.00 0.1392 0.32 4.68
CHICAGO............................................. 12 13 25 12 1 42 104 229 20 408 400 8 11.00 0.5672 0.91 10.09
PHILADELPHIA........................................ 14 12 26 8 1 39 78 242 15 383 400 -17 7.00 0.2790 0.49 6.51
ALBANY.............................................. 13 11 24 4 1 15 5 194 12 231 250 -19 2.00 0.0728 0.12 1.88
BELTSVILLE.......................................... 11 7 18 ...... 1 42 201 163 9 416 432 -16 20.00 0.5906 1.12 18.88
RALEIGH............................................. 10 10 20 ...... 1 66 393 229 11 700 670 30 52.00 1.9352 3.60 48.40
ATLANTA............................................. 12 14 26 3 1 69 399 393 15 779 765 14 33.00 1.1123 2.05 30.95
JACKSON............................................. 14 10 24 2 1 92 426 317 13 851 855 -4 80.00 2.8497 5.53 74.47
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 185 155 340 97 14 759 3150 3312 182 7514 7565 -51 360.00 11.8945 22.57 337.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
FLS--Frontline Supervisor
EGG--Egg Inspection
VMS--Veterinary Medical Specialist (Humane Slaughter)
VMO--Public Health Veterinary
FI--Food Inspector
EIAO--Enforcement Invest. & Analysis Officer
CSI--Consumer Safety Inspector
DISTRICT PFT EMPLOYMENT AND OTP USAGE
[As of November 24, 2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-INPLANT INPLANT FISCAL FISCAL OPT USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR YEAR 2007 -----------------------------
DISTRICT DIST ALLOCS 4/ DIFFER ALLOCS 4/ YTD
OFC FLS TOTAL EGG VMS VMO FI CSI EIAO TOTAL 11/07 11/07 PP USAGE USAGE AVAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA............................................. 13 14 27 8 ...... 34 132 231 10 415 427 -12 9.00 O.1835 0.81 8.19
DENVER.............................................. 12 12 24 7 1 45 126 246 17 442 437 5 6.00 O.1129 0.55 5.45
MINNEAPOLIS......................................... 13 7 20 10 1 43 92 151 11 308 326 -18 6.00 O.1961 1.02 4.98
DES MOINES.......................................... 12 11 23 29 1 63 301 200 11 605 615 -10 18.00 0.3691 1.36 16.64
LAWRENCE............................................ 12 8 20 5 1 52 258 203 10 529 520 9 16.00 0.5773 1.99 14.01
SPRINGDALE.......................................... 14 10 24 2 1 71 320 296 10 700 713 -13 60.00 2.0607 7.55 52.45
DALLAS.............................................. 13 9 22 2 1 53 253 194 9 512 515 -3 35.00 0.9025 3.87 31.13
MADISON............................................. 12 7 19 7 1 30 68 127 8 241 240 1 5.00 0.0805 0.50 4.50
CHICAGO............................................. 13 13 26 12 1 41 103 231 21 409 400 9 11.00 0.4083 1.82 9.18
PHILADELPHIA........................................ 14 12 26 8 1 39 78 242 15 383 400 -17 7.00 0.2455 1.01 5.99
ALBANY.............................................. 13 11 24 4 1 15 5 193 12 230 250 -20 2.00 0.0536 0.25 1.75
BELTSVILLE.......................................... 11 7 18 ...... 1 41 200 163 9 414 432 -18 20.00 0.5407 2.26 17.74
RALEIGH............................................. 10 9 19 ...... 1 65 397 229 12 704 670 34 52.00 1.7605 7.03 44.97
ATLANTA............................................. 13 14 27 3 1 69 398 292 16 779 765 14 33.00 0.8834 3.91 29.09
JACKSON............................................. 14 10 24 2 1 95 431 317 13 859 855 4 80.00 2.4688 10.81 69.19
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 189 154 343 99 14 756 3162 3315 184 7530 7565 -35 360.00 10.8434 44.73 315.27
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
FLS--Frontline Supervisor
EGG--Egg Inspection
VMS--Veterinary Medical Specialist (Humane Slaughter)
VMO--Public Health Veterinary
FI--Food Inspector
EIAO--Enforcement Invest. & Analysis Officer
CSI--Consumer Safety Inspector
DISTRICT PFT EMPLOYMENT AND OTP USAGE
[As of January 5, 2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-INPLANT INPLANT FISCAL FISCAL OPT USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR YEAR 2007 -----------------------------
DISTRICT DIST ALLOCS 4/ DIFFER ALLOCS 4/ YTD
OFC FLS TOTAL EGG VMS VMO FI CSI EIAO TOTAL 11/07 11/07 PP USAGE USAGE AVAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Headquarters........................................ 36 ...... 36 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......... ...... ......... ......... ...... .........
ALAMEDA............................................. 13 14 27 8 1 33 131 235 10 418 427 -9 9.00 0.2545 1.53 7.47
DENVER.............................................. 12 12 24 7 1 43 128 243 17 439 437 2 6.00 0.1638 1.14 4.86
MINNEAPOLIS......................................... 13 7 20 9 1 43 83 162 10 308 326 -18 6.00 0.1851 1.64 4.36
DES MOINES.......................................... 10 11 21 29 1 60 301 199 11 601 615 -14 18.00 0.2692 2.18 15.82
LAWRENCE............................................ 12 8 20 5 1 52 254 206 10 528 520 8 16.00 0.5024 3.52 12.48
SPRINGDALE.......................................... 13 10 23 2 1 69 307 312 10 701 713 -12 60.00 1.5733 13.52 46.48
DALLAS.............................................. 13 9 22 2 1 55 250 196 9 513 515 -2 35.00 0.9564 6.94 28.06
MADISON............................................. 12 7 19 7 1 30 63 132 8 241 240 1 5.00 0.1073 0.81 4.19
CHICAGO............................................. 13 13 26 12 1 43 97 238 21 412 400 12 11.00 0.3399 3.03 7.97
PHILADELPHIA........................................ 14 12 26 8 1 39 71 250 15 384 400 -16 7.00 0.1529 1.70 5.30
ALBANY.............................................. 12 11 23 4 1 16 5 196 12 234 250 -16 2.00 0.0383 0.38 1.62
BELTSVILLE.......................................... 11 7 18 ...... 1 41 198 166 9 415 432 -17 20.00 0.6036 4.17 15.83
RALEIGH............................................. 10 9 19 ...... 1 63 400 228 12 704 670 34 52.00 1.4529 11.71 40.29
ATLANTA............................................. 14 14 28 3 1 67 390 300 16 777 765 12 33.00 0.7375 6.27 26.73
JACKSON............................................. 14 11 25 2 1 94 429 313 12 851 855 -4 80.00 2.4978 19.40 60.60
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 222 155 377 98 15 748 3107 3376 182 7526 7565 -39 360.00 9.8349 77.95 282.05
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
FLS--Frontline Supervisor
EGG--Egg Inspection
VMS--Veterinary Medical Specialist (Humane Slaughter)
VMO--Public Health Veterinary
FI--Food Inspector
EIAO--Enforcement Invest. & Analysis Officer
CSI--Consumer Safety Inspector
DISTRICT PFT EMPLOYMENT AND OTP USAGE
[As of February 2, 2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-INPLANT INPLANT FISCAL FISCAL OPT USAGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- YEAR YEAR 2007 -----------------------------
DISTRICT DIST ALLOCS 4/ DIFFER ALLOCS 4/ YTD
OFC FLS TOTAL EGG VMS VMO FI CSI EIAO TOTAL 11/07 11/07 PP USAGE USAGE AVAIL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA............................................. 13 13 26 7 1 35 144 222 10 419 427 -8 9.00 0.2198 2.11 6.89
DENVER.............................................. 12 10 22 7 1 43 127 240 16 434 437 -3 6.00 0.2027 1.51 4.49
MINNEAPOLIS......................................... 13 6 19 9 1 42 95 149 10 306 326 -20 6.00 0.1040 1.89 4.11
DES MOINES.......................................... 11 11 22 28 1 62 301 199 11 602 615 -13 18.00 0.2107 2.58 15.42
LAWRENCE............................................ 11 8 19 5 1 52 256 203 10 527 520 7 16.00 0.4594 4.64 11.36
SPRINGDALE.......................................... 11 10 21 2 1 69 358 260 10 700 713 -13 60.00 1.9725 17.89 42.11
DALLAS.............................................. 12 9 21 2 1 56 256 193 9 517 515 2 35.00 0.9389 8.82 26.18
MADISON............................................. 12 7 19 7 1 31 66 128 8 241 240 1 5.00 0.0966 1.00 4.00
CHICAGO............................................. 13 13 26 12 1 41 107 227 21 409 400 9 11.00 0.2597 3.62 7.38
PHILADELPHIA........................................ 13 12 25 8 1 39 82 241 15 386 400 -14 7.00 0.1291 2.01 4.99
ALBANY.............................................. 11 11 22 4 1 16 6 193 10 230 250 -20 2.00 0.0383 0.46 1.54
BELTSVILLE.......................................... 11 7 18 ...... 1 41 205 154 9 410 432 -22 20.00 0.6251 5.45 14.55
RALEIGH............................................. 10 9 19 ...... 1 61 400 228 9 699 670 29 52.00 1.4623 14.48 37.52
ATLANTA............................................. 12 14 26 3 1 67 405 236 15 777 765 12 32.00 0.7252 7.75 25.25
JACKSON............................................. 13 9 22 2 1 94 473 263 11 844 855 -11 80.00 2.9460 25.41 54.59
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL......................................... 178 149 327 96 15 749 3281 3186 174 7501 7565 -64 360.00 10.3903 99.63 260.37
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
FLS--Frontline Supervisor
EGG--Egg Inspection
VMS--Veterinary Medical Specialist (Humane Slaughter)
VMO--Public Health Veterinary
FI--Food Inspector
EIAO--Enforcement Invest. & Analysis Officer
CSI--Consumer Safety Inspector
DISTRICT PFT EMPLOYMENT AND OTP USAGE
[As of March 1, 2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-INPLANT INPLANT OPT USAGE
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- FISCAL FISCAL --------------------------------
Inplant Inspection YEAR YEAR 2007
DISTRICT DIST TOTAL -------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL ALLOCS 4/ DIFFER ALLOCS 4/
OFC FLS CSI 8- 11/07 11/07 PP USAGE YTD USAGE AVAIL
VMO FI-7 CSI-7 EGG 10 VMS EIAO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA.................................. 13 11 24 35 128 19 7 221 1 10 421 427 -6 9.00 0.1674 2.45 6.55
DENVER................................... 12 9 21 44 127 ...... 7 241 1 16 436 437 -1 6.00 0.2998 2.05 3.95
MINNEAPOLIS.............................. 13 7 20 43 87 10 9 148 1 8 306 326 -20 6.00 0.1287 2.17 3.83
DES MOINES............................... 11 12 23 61 299 ...... 30 198 1 11 600 615 -15 18.00 0.2955 3.10 14.90
LAWRENCE................................. 11 8 19 53 256 ...... 5 206 1 10 531 520 11 16.00 0.5001 5.66 10.34
SPRINGDALE............................... 12 10 22 70 288 69 2 257 1 9 696 713 -17 60.00 2.0443 21.93 38.07
DALLAS................................... 12 9 21 54 249 3 2 194 1 9 512 515 -3 35.00 1.0341 10.92 24.08
MADISON.................................. 12 8 20 32 59 9 7 130 1 7 245 240 5 5.00 0.0830 1.12 3.88
CHICAGO.................................. 13 13 26 41 96 10 12 230 1 20 410 400 10 11.00 0.3867 4.39 6.61
PHILADELPHIA............................. 14 11 25 40 76 9 8 240 1 15 389 400 -11 7.00 0.1190 2.29 4.71
ALBANY................................... 11 11 22 15 4 2 4 194 1 10 230 250 -20 2.00 0.0517 0.58 1.42
BELTSVILLE............................... 10 7 17 40 196 7 ...... 155 1 8 407 432 -25 20.00 0.7408 6.92 13.08
RALEIGH.................................. 11 10 21 61 400 2 ...... 228 1 12 704 670 34 52.00 1.7305 17.89 34.11
ATLANTA.................................. 12 14 26 66 392 12 3 284 1 16 774 765 9 33.00 1.0065 9.66 23.34
JACKSON.................................. 13 9 22 94 428 53 2 268 1 11 857 855 2 80.00 3.1773 31.76 48.24
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.............................. 180 ...... 329 749 3085 205 98 3194 15 172 7518 7565 -47 360.00 11.7654 122.88 237.12
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
FLS--Frontline Supervisor
EGG--Egg Inspection
VMS--Veterinary Medical Specialist (Humane Slaughter)
VMO--Public Health Veterinary
FI--Food Inspector
EIAO--Enforcement Invest. & Analysis Officer
CSI--Consumer Safety Inspector
DISTRICT PFT EMPLOYMENT AND OTP USAGE
[As of March 29, 2008]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NON-INPLANT INPLANT OPT USAGE
---------------- -------------------------------------------------------- FISCAL FISCAL --------------------------------
Inplant Inspection YEAR YEAR 2007
DISTRICT DIST TOTAL -------------------------------------------------------- TOTAL ALLOCS 4/ DIFFER ALLOCS 4/
OFC FLS CSI 8- 11/07 11/07 PP USAGE YTD USAGE AVAIL
VMO FI-7 CSI-7 EGG 10 VMS EIAO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALAMEDA.................................. 13 11 24 33 128 19 7 228 1 11 427 427 ...... 9.00 0.1678 2.75 6.25
DENVER................................... 13 9 22 44 125 ...... 7 241 1 15 433 437 -4 6.00 0.2657 2.58 3.42
MINNEAPOLIS.............................. 13 7 20 42 85 10 10 150 1 8 306 326 -20 6.00 0.1821 2.48 3.52
DES MOINES............................... 12 12 24 60 304 ...... 30 198 1 11 604 615 -11 18.00 0.4101 3.94 14.06
LAWRENCE................................. 11 8 19 52 251 ...... 5 204 1 10 523 520 3 16.00 0.5708 6.70 9.30
SPRINGDALE............................... 12 10 22 71 288 70 2 257 1 9 698 713 -15 60.00 2.3359 26.20 33.80
DALLAS................................... 12 9 21 55 248 3 2 195 1 9 513 515 -2 35.00 1.1638 13.19 21.81
MADISON.................................. 12 7 19 32 59 10 7 130 1 8 247 240 7 5.00 0.1060 1.31 3.69
CHICAGO.................................. 13 12 25 41 90 16 12 228 1 20 408 400 8 11.00 0.3551 5.23 5.77
PHILADELPHIA............................. 14 12 26 42 73 10 8 243 1 14 391 400 -9 7.00 0.0584 2.51 4.50
ALBANY................................... 11 11 22 14 4 2 4 194 1 10 229 250 -21 2.00 0.0496 0.68 1.32
BELTSVILLE............................... 11 7 18 39 182 18 ...... 157 1 8 405 432 -27 20.00 0.7300 8.32 11.68
RALEIGH.................................. 10 9 19 61 384 13 ...... 231 1 12 702 670 32 52.00 1.9361 21.49 30.51
ATLANTA.................................. 12 14 26 66 388 12 3 287 1 16 773 765 8 33.00 0.9165 11.39 21.61
JACKSON.................................. 13 11 24 93 427 52 2 267 1 12 854 855 -1 80.00 3.0898 37.90 42.10
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL.............................. 182 149 331 745 3036 235 99 3210 15 173 7513 7565 -52 360.00 12.338 146.66 213.34
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KEY:
FLS--Frontline Supervisor
EGG--Egg Inspection
VMS--Veterinary Medical Specialist (Humane Slaughter)
VMO--Public Health Veterinary
FI--Food Inspector
EIAO--Enforcement Invest. & Analysis Officer
CSI--Consumer Safety Inspector
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
colony collapse disorder
Question. How are Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) and other pests
and diseases such as Varroa mites affecting domestic honeybee
beekeepers and the pollination capacity of U.S. agriculture?
Answer. CCD is a syndrome of honey bees that strikes colonies in
fall, winter and early spring, when they are weakest. Forager bees
leave the hive and do not return. However, CCD is only one of many
problems beekeepers face in maintaining healthy hives. Surveys of bee
colony losses over the past 2 years estimated that beekeepers in the
U.S. lost 31 percent and 37 percent of their colonies in 2006 and 2007,
respectively. This rate of colony loss is not sustainable for
beekeepers, and while we are not in a pollination crisis, our ability
to meet increasing pollination needs in almonds and other crops is
surely threatened.
Question. If pollination capacity is seriously compromised, is our
food security seriously threatened and would this constitute a
national, if not global, crisis?
Answer. Bees are responsible for $15 billion in added crop value
and are as essential to plant reproduction and fruit production as soil
and water are to plant growth. Due to invasive pests such as mites,
honey bees were already under tremendous stress even before the
appearance of CCD. The bee industry and growers cannot absorb yet
another major cause of bee loss, particularly with demand for honey
bees continuing to increase dramatically due to increased almond
acreage, requiring half of the Nation's 2.4 million colonies. Colony
rental costs have doubled for almond and blueberry producers. Other
crops with heavy reliance on honey bees include alfalfa (for dairy and
beef cattle), apples in the East and West, cranberries in the North,
and citrus and vegetables throughout the South. If bee colony losses
continue or increase, our ability to produce fruits, vegetables and
nuts in the United States could indeed be threatened. Similar honey bee
losses are occurring around the world and many of these losses are as
yet unexplained.
Question. As hives are depleted, what is the Department doing to
assist bee keepers with hive restorations? More specifically, what is
the Department doing to ensure a long-term supply of queen bees that
are free of major pests and diseases such as Varroa mites?
Answer. USDA's-Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is working on
means to improve colony survival by testing means to recycle beekeeping
equipment from dead hives including beeswax comb fumigation and
irradiation to kill pathogens. To insure disease-free queens the
Department is working with the queen breeding industry to find means of
queen production that consistently produce quality queens that are long
lived.
Question. Are there sources of queen bees free of Varroa mites that
will play pivotal roles in the restoration of hives and ultimately
pollination capacity in the United States? What steps need to be taken
to assure preservation of these supplies of queen bees.
Answer. The Hawaiian Islands, particularly Kona on the Big Island
(Hawaii), have represented one of only two locations in the world where
queens could be produced without the impacts of parasitic varroa and
tracheal mites, the other being Australia. Thus, the unique pest-free
nature of the Big Island represents a valuable source of quality
queens. This is now threatened by the arrival of the varroa mite on
Oahu. APHIS is working with the Hawaiian Department of Agriculture to
determine what eradication or management options are feasible for
limiting the spread of varroa between these islands.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
humane slaughter
Question. Secretary Schafer, over the last 4 months, I have written
you three letters expressing my concerns about food safety related to
the incidents exposed at the Hallmark/Westland slaughter facility in
Chino, California and I also submitted questions for the February 28
subcommittee hearing. I have not received any satisfactory answers to
my inquiries.
As you know, I have introduced bipartisan legislation that will
establish penalties for those who slaughter or attempt to slaughter
nonambulatory animals and will require the release of the names of
establishments where recalled meats are sold or served.
Mr. Secretary, could you tell me why you have not used the
authorities Congress gave you in the Farm Security and Rural Investment
Act Sections 10414 and 10815 to punish violators who treat animals
inhumanely and process nonambulatory animals outside of regulation for
human consumption?
Answer. USDA has used its existing authority, when appropriate, to
ensure animals are treated humanely. Since January 2004, non-ambulatory
disabled cattle have been prohibited from the food supply. In July
2007, FSIS issued a final rule, ``Prohibition of the Use of Specified
Risk Materials for Human Food and Requirements for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Cattle,'' which confirmed this policy and
stated that such cattle would not pass ante-mortem inspection. However,
under this rule, if an animal passes ante-mortem inspection and
subsequently becomes non-ambulatory before slaughter, the FSIS Public
Health Veterinarian must immediately be notified and will determine, on
a case-by-case basis, whether the animal was unable to walk due to an
acute injury, such as a broken leg. In that case, the animal would be
eligible to move on to slaughter operations as a ``U.S. Suspect.'' Such
animals are slaughtered separately and receive careful examination and
inspection by the FSIS Public Health Veterinarian after slaughter. The
Agricultural Marketing Service has longstanding specification
requirements for foods purchased for Federal nutrition programs that
preclude the use of meat and meat products derived from non-ambulatory
disabled livestock.
penalties for slaughter of nonambulatory animals
Question. Could you tell me why you have not finalized regulations
that require the release of the names of establishments where recalled
meats are sold or served?
Answer. The Department is in the process of finalizing the rule.
commodity crop payments
Question. I agree with the position of the United States Department
of Agriculture that the Federal Government should not give commodity
crop payments to America's wealthiest people. In recent years, the
largest recipient of Farm Bill Commodity Payments in California lived
in San Francisco, demonstrating that the program does not currently
help the small family farmer it was designed to assist. For this
reason, I supported reform efforts during consideration of the Farm
Bill that would have limited payments to individuals with high incomes.
Efforts to impose an income cap failed because members of the
Senate believed that reform provisions included in the committee-passed
bill would address this problem, but I am concerned that America's
wealthiest people may still receive payments after these reforms are
adopted.
Please provide the USDA's best estimate of how many individuals
with adjusted gross incomes above $250,000 per year will qualify for
commodity payments under your farm bill proposal.
Answer. A September 2007 USDA study found that 25,191 farm
operators and 12,906 share landlords had an adjusted gross income (AGI)
greater than $200,000 in 2004. In this analysis, no exemption was
allowed for those with farm related income making up 75 percent or more
of AGI as is done under current legislation. We have no analysis on a
cutoff of $250,000 but the USDA study results for $200,000 should be
quite similar.
Question. Please compare this to the number of individuals that
would qualify under an extension of the current Farm Bill.
Answer. The current AGI cutoff, $2.5 million with an exemption for
those with 75 percent or more of their AGI stemming from farm-related
income, likely only affects a few hundred producers each year.
Question. Please estimate how much money is saved by adopting the
reform proposals in the Senate and House bills, respectively, as it
pertains to the adjusted gross income thresholds.
Answer. USDA has no specific analysis of various AGI cutoffs
proposed by the House and Senate. The September 2007 USDA study found
that, in 2004, farmers and share landlords with an AGI of greater than
$200,000 earned close to $400 million in farm payments. Not all of that
$400 million should be counted as potential savings as a portion of it
was conservation payments which likely will not be subject to a
tightened AGI limit.
Question. Please estimate how much money would be saved by reducing
the adjusted gross income limits to $500,000; $400,000; $300,000; and
$200,000 for farmers regardless of income source.
Answer. The USDA analysis did not include projected savings for
limits other than $200,000. Of course, as the limit is raised, fewer
farmers would be affected. As only a small percentage of farmers are
affected by the $200,000 limit, the higher limits would be expected to
have small impacts.
Question. Please also estimate how much money would be saved if
Congress exempted farmers from these caps if a certain percentage of
income is derived from on-farm income.
Answer. The USDA study found that exempting farmers with 75 percent
or more of total income from farming and ranching would reduce savings
from the AGI criteria by about 40 percent.
Question. As Secretary of Agriculture, can you think of any reason
why government revenues--collected from the incomes of every American--
should be spent on commodity payments to Americans whose incomes are in
the top 1 percent of all Americans?
Answer. Current commodity program legislation does not contain
income targeting other than the $2.5 million AGI cutoff. USDA data
indicate that most payments go to farm households that have large
incomes compared with other farms and compared with the U.S. average
household. Payment eligibility limits based on lower AGI levels would
better help ensure equity among farmers.
Question. What percentage of America's farmers have an adjusted
gross income exceeding $200,000? Last year, what percent of total Farm
Bill spending went to individuals with incomes exceeding $200,000?
Answer. The USDA study found that 1.2 percent of sole proprietors
and 2.0 percent of share landlords had AGIs greater than $200,000 in
2004. Together, they earned about 5 percent of payments. That 5 percent
includes conservation payments, which likely will not be subject to the
AGI limit.
Question. Finally, do Americans in the top income bracket who
receive commodity payments pay income taxes on their payments?
Answer. Commodity program payments are taxable income.
conservation funding cuts
Question. California relies on USDA's conservation programs to help
farmers meet clean air and clean water regulations while still
producing some of the crops including fresh fruits and vegetables that
are not produced anywhere else in the United States. The President's
2009 budget proposes to cut discretionary funding for conservation;
funding that will provide the needed technical resources for our
farmers and ranchers to install conservation practices.
Do you believe funding cuts for Farm Bill programs should come from
conservation? To preserve conservation funding, where do you think
funding cuts should come from?
Answer. Increasing our commitment to conservation programs is
important to the Department and the Farm Bill is a major vehicle for
addressing the Nation's conservation needs. The President's budget
request must be viewed in concert with the Administration's Farm Bill
proposal which makes a significant investment in conservation. The
proposal would add $775 million to Farm Bill conservation programs in
fiscal year 2009 and provides $7.8 billion in new spending over 10
years in the conservation title.
In order to provide this level of investment in conservation, the
administration will continue its efforts to reduce or eliminate
redundant or lower priority programs and to eliminate Congressional
earmarks. In addition, wherever possible, the administration's budget
proposal combines and streamlines program design to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of program delivery making even more
funding available for important conservation efforts.
commodity supplemental food program
Question. More than 530,000 California seniors, over the age of 65,
receive Supplemental Security Income, making them ineligible for Food
Stamps. The maximum Supplemental Security Income benefit is $870 per
month making it extremely difficult for these seniors to afford food.
There is a significant need to expand the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program to help more low-income seniors.
Why did the President's budget deem the Commodity Supplemental Food
Program as a redundant program and eliminate it in the fiscal year 2009
proposal?
Answer. There is significant overlap between CSFP eligible
populations and areas of operation and those of both the WIC Program
and the Food Stamp Program. Unlike CSFP, both of these programs are
available in communities throughout the United States.
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 food stamps, WIC, and
other nationally-available programs, such as the administration on
Aging programs for seniors and 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
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 would have access to TEFAP.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Johnson
resource conservation and development program (rc&d)
Question. The RC&D program returns $7.50 to local communities for
every dollar the Federal Government invests. At a time when we are
looking at ways to stimulate the economy, why did you cut this program?
Answer. The proposal eliminates Federal technical assistance to the
375 RC&D councils. The majority of RC&D Areas have received Federal
support for at least 10 years. As nonprofit organizations, RC&D
councils will still exist and most of these should have the capacity to
identify, plan, and address their identified priorities. In addition,
the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis found the program to
be duplicative of other similar resource conservation planning, rural
economic development, community programs 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. NRCS has established performance goals for RC&D in jobs
and businesses created and retained. Has RC&D met those goals? Why cut
funds for a program that helps create businesses in a time of economic
downturn?
Answer. RC&D has met and exceeded the established performance goals
for jobs and businesses created and retained each year. The proposal
eliminates Federal technical assistance to the 375 RC&D councils. RC&D
councils will still exist as nonprofit organizations. The majority of
RC&D areas have received Federal technical assistance support for at
least 10 years while obtaining financial support for projects from
other sources. They can continue to obtain support from other sources
to provide assistance to their communities.
Question. It is my understanding the NRCS contracted out for a
survey to determine customer satisfaction with their programs and that
RC&D received one of the highest scores. Why did you cut a program that
the general public is satisfied with and delivered results? Please
provide for the record the full results of the American Customer
Satisfaction Index Survey and indicate the rank of RC&D compared to
other NRCS programs.
Answer. The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is the
national indicator of customer evaluations of the quality of goods and
services available to U.S. residents. It is the only uniform, cross-
industry/government measure of Customer Satisfaction. The RC&D program
received an ACSI score of 81 compared to the overall Federal Government
score of 67.8 and the national sector score of 75.2. Although the
program scored highly, the latest program performance review using the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) analysis found the program to be
duplicative of other similar resource conservation planning, rural
economic development, and community programs 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). It is for this reason that elimination of
funding has been proposed. The full results of the American customer
Satisfaction Index Survey for NRCS programs are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal
Program Year Conducted Score Government National
ACSI Sector ACSI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)......... 2001 81 71.3 72.0
Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP).. 2004 75 72.1 74.3
Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program (WHIP)....... 2004 77 72.1 74.3
Conservation Security Program (CSP)............. 2005 76 71.3 73.2
Snow Survey and Water Supply Forecasting........ 2005 77 71.3 73.2
Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA)......... 2007 79 67.8 75.2
National Resources Inventory (NRI).............. 2007 57 67.8 75.2
Plant Materials Center (PMC).................... 2007 83 67.8 75.2
Resource Conservation & Development (RC&D)...... 2007 81 67.8 75.2
Soil Survey Program............................. 2007 79 67.8 75.2
Technical Service Providers (TSP)............... 2007 78 67.8 75.2
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).................. 2007 69 67.8 75.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. An earmark in the fiscal year 2008 Senate Committee
Report for a project in Hawaii was moved by NRCS from the conservation
operations budget to the RC&D program. The Senate committee has
included this earmark for the project in Hawaii in the conservation
operations budget for over 5 years. Why did you move this earmark? The
net result is that each council nationally lost $1,800 in funding. Did
you seek permission from the committee to move this earmark?
Answer. The earmark for Hawaii was funded from the RC&D budget
rather than the Conservation Operations (CO) Program in 2008 because
the project scope and intent was more properly aligned with RC&D
program objectives and authorities than it was with those of the CO
Program. Conservation operations policy was revised recently to state
that if an earmark can be appropriately funded through a program other
than Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA), then funding from that
program source should be used. With this shift in funds, the essence of
the earmark (purpose, intent, objectives) did not change.
Question. RC&D Councils are made of volunteers and the program was
not designed to move councils to self sufficiency. RC&D Councils are
dedicated to putting resources on the ground in communities to address
unmet needs. Councils have prided themselves on using grants to serve
communities--not for their own administrative costs. What sources of
funding do you see for Councils to become self-sufficient?
Answer. Funding needed for RC&D Councils to become self-sufficient
would need to come from sources such as State and local governments,
private foundations, and other Federal agencies. Councils can request
assistance from State governments for funds that are not tied
specifically to a project, but are used to assist the Council in
covering other costs. A number of States have provided assistance to
Councils in the past, such as Alabama, Arkansas, and Georgia.
Question. The fiscal year 2008 appropriation includes a cap on
headquarters funding. Are greenbook charges included in the
headquarters cap? Please provide an allocation chart that includes all
costs--headquarters, State by State, and any other costs assessed to
the RC&D program. Please include fiscal year 2007 allocations in the
chart for comparison purposes.
Answer. Yes, the agency greenbook charges are included in the
amount applied to the headquarters funding cap. In the table below, the
greenbook allocations are considered in addition to the National
Headquarters allocations and include agency-wide assessments
(assessments applied at the headquarters level) and state specific
assessment charges. The fiscal year 2007 and 2008 allocations include
carryover funds which are considered to be outside of the cap.
The information is provided for the record.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2007 Final 2008 Initial
State Allocations Allocations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $1,112,363 $1,070,781
Alaska.................................. 940,158 962,592
Arizona................................. 781,445 783,509
Arkansas................................ 901,283 902,792
California.............................. 1,476,699 1,432,353
Colorado................................ 942,084 951,806
Connecticut............................. 291,801 296,117
Delaware................................ 143,105 145,222
Florida................................. 1,018,812 990,310
Georgia................................. 1,307,235 1,313,377
Hawaii.................................. 595,518 1,259,387
Idaho................................... 1,064,020 1,051,130
Illinois................................ 1,182,516 1,194,401
Indiana................................. 1,039,433 1,070,782
Iowa.................................... 1,875,868 1,903,612
Kansas.................................. 1,056,396 1,072,020
Kentucky................................ 1,656,085 1,665,661
Louisiana............................... 1,021,730 919,739
Maine................................... 649,112 656,956
Maryland................................ 425,494 435,666
Massachusetts........................... 422,574 435,666
Michigan................................ 903,077 919,739
Minnesota............................... 1,042,830 1,051,130
Mississippi............................. 1,000,977 997,706
Montana................................. 972,773 987,160
Missouri................................ 1,035,580 1,051,130
Nebraska................................ 1,406,903 1,427,709
Nevada.................................. 426,099 435,666
New Hampshire........................... 306,050 290,444
New Jersey.............................. 286,211 290,444
New Mexico.............................. 960,090 957,413
New York................................ 997,135 1,000,681
North Carolina.......................... 1,107,877 1,189,758
North Dakota............................ 962,746 976,343
Ohio.................................... 1,085,578 1,070,782
Oklahoma................................ 1,098,987 1,085,964
Oregon.................................. 715,527 726,110
Pennsylvania............................ 1,184,056 1,070,782
Rhode Island............................ 148,005 145,222
South Carolina.......................... 918,864 919,739
South Dakota............................ 906,334 919,739
Tennessee............................... 1,172,418 1,189,758
Texas................................... 2,608,788 2,617,467
Utah.................................... 1,003,322 944,456
Vermont................................. 285,772 290,444
Virginia................................ 902,960 919,739
Washington.............................. 959,292 1,016,554
West Virginia........................... 718,607 729,235
Wisconsin............................... 906,334 919,739
Wyoming................................. 717,668 726,110
Pacific Basin........................... 237,569 303,582
Caribbean Basin......................... 429,316 435,666
National Headquarters................... 2,910,065 2,572,253
Centers................................. 615,516 479,402
Greenbook............................... 2,047,191 813,932
Undistributed........................... .............. 280,621
-------------------------------
Total............................. 52,884,248 52,266,498
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Please provide for the record the number of new RC&D
coordinators who have been hired in the last 2 years. Please provide
for the record the number of training sessions held for new RC&D
coordinators (RC&D concepts course and area planning course) and the
number of new coordinators trained in the last fiscal year and
scheduled for fiscal year 2008.
Answer. Forty-nine new RC&D coordinators have been hired in the
last 2 years. One RC&D concepts course and one area planning course was
held by the NRCS National Educational Development Center (NEDC) in
fiscal year 2006. In fiscal year 2007, training was provided by the
national NRCS office through internet ``net meetings.'' Three internet-
based area planning courses and three internet-based concept courses
were held. In fiscal year 2008 the NEDC plans to hold one concepts
course and one area planning course. Twenty-seven of the 49 new
coordinators have taken the concepts course, with 23 trained in fiscal
year 2007 through the net meetings. Twenty-one of the 49 new
coordinators have taken the area planning course with 19 trained in
fiscal year 2007 through the net meetings. We do not have information
regarding training requests for fiscal year 2008 broken down by
position.
Question. How many RC&D coordinators are eligible to retire in
fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009? How much does it cost to fill a
coordinator vacancy on average?
Answer. Sixty-eight RC&D coordinators are eligible to retire in
fiscal year 2008 and an additional 23 will be eligible to retire in
fiscal year 2009. On average, it costs approximately $80,000 in
relocation costs to fill a coordinator position. This does not include
the cost of salary, benefits, vehicle, etc.
Question. What is the average cost to provide a full time
coordinator to an RC&D area? What is the current level of funding
provided to an average RC&D area in fiscal year 2008?
Answer. The average cost to provide a full time coordinator is
approximately $124,500 and this is the average level of funding
provided.
Question. Coordinators no longer serve a council full-time. On
average how much of a coordinators time is spent on RC&D? What other
programs are coordinators working on?
Answer. Although we do not have a national figure for the amount of
time a coordinator spends on RC&D Program activities at this time, we
are in the process of obtaining the information for the record.
Qualitative information from discussions with our State offices shows
that most Coordinators spend the vast majority of their time on RC&D
activities. Time spent implementing Farm Bill programs is charged as
Technical Assistance (TA) to the appropriate Farm Bill program. Program
and fund integrity is maintained by the agency for the RC&D program and
all other programs. The other programs coordinators are working on
include Conservation Technical Assistance, Watersheds and Flood
Prevention Operations, Watershed Surveys and Planning, and other Farm
Bill programs such as the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and
the Conservation Security Program.
Question. Please provide for the record the program improvements
that have been made to address the OMB PART score concerns.
Answer. Since 2004, significant improvements have been made and in
2006 the program received an increased score performing at an
``Adequate'' level. Program improvements include: developed and
implemented annual, long-term, and efficiency measures; developed and
implemented a more targeted allocation methodology designed to address
priority program needs; revised the RC&D policy manual to reflect
increased emphasis on program performance and linkages to national
performance goals; and developed and implemented a new reporting system
to track program performance.
In addition, the Agency is taking the following actions to improve
the performance of the program: developing and implementing a 5-year
comprehensive budget and performance management strategy aligned with
NRCS's strategic plan; continuing to streamline the program by updating
the allocation methodology, identifying ways to increase local
leadership capabilities, and eliminating costs such as those for
clerical and office support that can be incurred by councils.
Question. The budget indicates that RC&D duplicates other Federal
programs but through its area planning it reviews resources in a
community and assesses and addresses unmet needs. In the most rural
areas of this country there are often no organizations to act as a
fiscal agent and deliver Federal programs without the assistance of an
RC&D council. How do you propose to assist these communities in the
absence of RC&D?
Answer. RC&D councils are established nonprofit organizations and
will continue to play a role in assisting their communities. These
councils have developed strategic area plans that identify, plan, and
address their agreed priorities. They have experience in obtaining
financial support for projects and acting as fiscal agents in their
communities. Although the technical assistance provided by NRCS will be
eliminated, the councils can continue to act as a fiscal agent in their
communities.
Question. The House report included report language that the
Committee requests that NRCS work with the Councils to develop
appropriate measures of effectiveness for both conservation and
economic development. Can you give us an update on how you worked with
councils to achieve this? We continue to hear that conservation is the
priority--what have you done to be sure that economic development
activities can also be provided?
Answer. The RC&D Program's short and long-term program performance
and efficiency measures reflect both conservation and community
development aspects of the program. These measures were developed in
conjunction with the National Association of Resource Conservation and
Development Councils (NARC&DC), representing the 375 councils
nationwide, to incorporate local council concerns identified through
the Area Planning process.
Conservation is a priority for NRCS, but does not exclude Councils'
ability to continue to work on community and economic development
projects. We have annual and long-term performance measures to capture
the community development activities of councils. The annual
performance measure is: local businesses created or retained in rural
communities. A number of businesses within the agricultural and non-
agricultural sectors are eligible. Example businesses include, but are
not limited to, manufacturing, service, value-added agriculture,
tourism, home-based, and energy related industries. Performance is
reported in numbers. This measure is calculated as the sum of new
businesses created or businesses retained in the current fiscal year.
The long-term performance measure is: Natural resource-based
enterprises created or retained that increase employment opportunities,
the cumulative number of jobs created and/or retained with RC&D
assistance in natural resource-based industries for fiscal year 2005-
2010.
NRCS works closely with local RC&D councils to help them develop
and implement projects that support their Area and Annual plans with
programs and services from NRCS, other USDA agencies and other private
and public entities. By partnering with other entities, NRCS was able
to help RC&D councils create or retain 10,723 jobs and 3,185 businesses
in 2007.
country of origin labeling
Question. With respect to Country of Origin Labeling (COOL), the
President addressed COOL as follows in his proposed fiscal year 2009
budget:
Country of Origin Labeling (COOL) becomes mandatory for all covered
commodities on September 30, 2008. Currently, AMS operates a small COOL
enforcement program for fish and shellfish compliance (the only
commodities for which labeling is now required). As part of the 2009
budget, the agency will propose to charge a mandatory fee for the full
implementation of a complete COOL enforcement program for the following
commodities, in addition to the current fish and shellfish items:
muscle cuts of beef (including veal), lamb, and pork; ground beef,
ground lamb and ground pork; perishable agricultural commodities;
peanuts and the current fish and shellfish items. Additional
commodities may also be considered. The additional funds will be
deposited into the agency's existing Trust account.
If the USDA has not yet charged a user fee for the implementation
of COOL for fish and shellfish, why is the administration now proposing
to charge a blanket user fee for all commodities for this program?
Answer. The expansion of mandatory labeling requirements to all
covered commodities will greatly increase the cost of operating the
program. USDA believes it appropriate for the regulated entities to pay
the cost for enforcement-related activities to ensure that covered
commodities are labeled in conformity with regulations. Approximately
37,000 retailer locations would be assessed a fee of about $260
annually per location to finance COOL enforcement costs of $9.6
million. The proposed fees would be used to: finance surveillance
reviews on all covered commodities at retail establishments on a random
basis approximately every 7 years, plus a limited number of supplier
trace-back audits; provide training for Federal and State employees on
enforcement responsibilities; and develop and maintain an automated
web-based data entry and tracking system for records management and
violation follow-up. Appropriated funding at the current level would be
used for regulatory and oversight activities including rulemaking,
outreach and education for suppliers, retailers, and consumers.
Question. What is USDA's most recent estimate for mandatory COOL's
implementation cost, for each commodity and for the enforcement of all
commodities, on a fiscal year basis, and what factors and expenses did
you take into account to arrive at this conclusion?
Answer. USDA's fiscal year 2009 budget request identifies ongoing
appropriated funding at $1.1 million and a legislative proposal for new
user fee funding at $9.6 million annually for a total of $10.7 million
to implement and enforce mandatory COOL for all covered commodities.
The user fee cost estimate was based on an expansion of current
retailer review activities to incorporate all covered commodities at
5,000 retailers each year at a cost of $900 per location, performed
primarily by cooperating State agencies. It also includes more detailed
supplier trace-back audits of 300 items each year at 100 locations that
require 40 hours per location, at a cost of $1.3 million; Federal
personnel to administer these enforcement activities whose salary and
support costs total $2 million; and a tracking system with an annual
cost of $1.8 million to handle compliance documentation on the
approximately 37,000 retail locations.
Question. How much money has USDA spent on implementing the
mandatory COOL program for fish and shellfish to date, for each fiscal
year since the program was enacted?
Answer. Mandatory country of origin labeling for fish and shellfish
became effective in fiscal year 2005. The COOL program was first funded
in fiscal year 2006 at $1.05 million, funding continued at $1.05
million in fiscal year 2007, and $1.07 million in fiscal year 2008.
Question. Has USDA requested any money from Congress for COOL
program implementation in fiscal year 2009, as it has in the past?
Answer. Congress appropriated $1.05 million for COOL program
implementation in fiscal year 2006 and delayed expansion of mandatory
COOL requirements until September 30, 2008. Since fiscal year 2006, the
funding for COOL program activities has stayed substantially the same.
The fiscal year 2009 budget includes $1.1 million in appropriated
funding.
For fiscal year 2009, the Budget proposes that the appropriated
funding be used to conduct non-enforcement related COOL activities for
all covered commodities. The budget proposal also identifies an
additional $9.6 million needed on an annual basis for enforcement-
related activities on all covered commodities. This amount is to be
provided through the proposed user fee.
commodity supplemental food program
Question. CSFP eligibility is based only on income, while the food
stamp program applies resource tests for household eligibility. These
eligibility differences will likely prevent many CSFP recipients from
participating in the food stamp program. What is your plan for
participants who will no longer be eligible for benefits under food
stamp guidelines?
Answer. Elderly participants who are leaving the CSFP upon the
termination of its funding and who are not already receiving food stamp
benefits will 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. The Department believes the number of CSFP participants who are
ineligible for food stamps is relatively small. These individuals will
be treated no differently than anyone else living in similar
circumstances, who are currently unable to participate in the CSFP due
to its limited availability.
Former CSFP participants will have access to TEFAP and other
government and private non-profit programs that offer community-based
food assistance opportunities. Eligible women, infants, and children
will be referred to the WIC Program. Finally, 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 U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services.
Question. Isn't it true that the food stamp program and CSFP are
supplemental programs that are meant to work with each other to ease
the burden upon our low income seniors?
Answer. The Food Stamp Program is the cornerstone of the national
nutrition safety net, and is the largest nutrition assistance program
serving the elderly. The Food Stamp Program serves nearly 2 million
seniors in an average month. Because CSFP operates in limited areas,
some low-income seniors have access to nutrition assistance through
commodities as well as food stamps, while almost all other low-income
seniors throughout the Nation must rely exclusively on food stamps for
such help.
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 food stamps, WIC, and
other nationally-available programs that provide benefits to eligible
people wherever they may live, including communities currently served
by CSFP. Many elderly CSFP participants are expected to be eligible
for, and to make use of the Food Stamp Program, from which they may
receive benefits that can be more flexibly used to avoid conflicts with
their individual medical issues and other needs.
Question. What will you do for the 25 percent of the CSFP
participants who are already enrolled in the food stamp program and
would be losing a critical benefit?
Answer. CSFP recipients who are already enrolled in the FSP will
continue to receive monthly food assistance benefits and have access to
nutrition education services. They will also have access to The
Emergency Food Assistance Program and other government and private non-
profit programs that offer community-based food assistance
opportunities, including congregate and home-delivered nutrition
assistance provided by Area Agencies on Aging, which are funded through
the Administration on Aging in the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services.
The decision to eliminate CSFP reflects the administration's choice
to make the best use of the resources available to serve all eligible
people in need of nutrition assistance nationwide, wherever they live.
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 these resources than to allocate
them to programs that cannot provide access in many areas of the
country. For this reason, the administration has placed a priority on
funding food stamps, WIC, and other nationally-available programs.
Question. In years past, CSFP has received bartered commodities
from USDA. During the second round of bartered commodity purchases,
none of the bonus commodities are being directed to CSFP. The National
CSFP Association has asked you why this has occurred and it received
the response that CSFP will not receive bartered commodities because
the administration has proposed elimination of the program. However, in
the first round of bartered commodity purchases, $10 million worth of
bonus commodities were provided to CSFP and it had been eliminated in
the administration's fiscal year 2008 budget then, too. Why is there a
discrepancy between this round of bartered commodity purchases and the
last round given that the administration's intention to eliminate the
program has not changed?
Answer. Under the first round of bartered commodity purchases, the
Department provided modest amounts of bartered foods to CSFP, a program
available in only limited areas. This modest support helped maintain
program participation that was at risk due to funding difficulties. Our
intention remains to distribute the majority of bartered commodities to
TEFAP, a program which is available nationally.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
rice stock reporting
Question. It is my understanding that the National Agricultural
Statistics Service has been asked by the rice industry to require
additional rice stock reporting dates on June 1 and September 1.
Further, I understand that NASS has agreed to implement the June date
for 2008.
Will the implementation of these dates require additional staff?
Answer. No. The implementation of each additional quarterly Rice
Stocks report requires a total of 0.20 FTE positions. This includes
preparation activities, editing, analysis, estimation, and publication.
These 0.20 FTEs are current NASS employees and are spread across
various Federal staff in the rice estimating States and headquarters.
Question. If not, what are the marginal costs associated with
adding one or more date? Please provide a detailed breakdown.
Answer. The marginal out-of-pocket costs associated with
implementing each date are estimated at $26,000 in data collection
costs; and $4,000 in miscellaneous costs such as postage and supplies.
The cost of the 0.20 FTE positions, already in place, is estimated at
$20,000 for Federal salaries and benefits.
public law 480 title ii supplemental requests
Question. Secretary Schafer, the pending supplemental request from
the President contains a request for $350 million in additional funding
for Public Law 480 Title II grants. This marks the third consecutive
fiscal year the administration has requested exactly $350 million for
``emergency'' need in this critical international food aid program.
Since this is part of an emergency supplemental request, I would assume
it is based on unanticipated emergency needs in the program. Yet I find
the consistency in this amount over the past several years somewhat
interesting.
Is this request in fact based on unanticipated needs? Is it just
coincidence that this amount has not changed?
Answer. Although the supplemental request has remained at the same
level, the location and nature of the needs have varied by year. The
relative areas of focus, for example, have shifted among Darfur,
Southern Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Afghanistan. We anticipate
changing needs in fiscal year 2009 as well. The President is expected
to submit a budget amendment to Congress requesting an additional $395
million for Public Law 480 Title II to provide additional emergency
food aid to Africa and other regions as well as to address higher
projected commodity and transportation costs.
Question. If not, why is this amount not included in the annual
budget submission?
Answer. It is extremely difficult to predict the extent of
emergency needs in advance, particularly when development of the annual
budget submissions begins over a year before the start of the fiscal
year. The supplemental requests have been based on emergency needs that
were previously unanticipated and are formulated once post-harvest
assessments are complete.
commodity prices
Question. Soaring commodity prices and increased volatility in both
the cash and futures markets have had drastic ripple effects across all
areas of agriculture. One glaring instance of these changes is the
havoc that has been wreaked on the Department's feeding programs, both
domestic and international. It would seem that the rising prices have
not only the effect of making it more expensive to feed a person, but
also drive the participation rates up by adding people who are no
longer capable of self-sufficiency due to higher food costs.
How is the Department dealing with the unpredictability of the
costs and subsequent unpredictability of participation rates in these
programs?
Answer. The Department has tools and policies in place to respond
to changes in projected demand and costs in both the domestic and
international food assistance programs. The major domestic programs are
designed to respond automatically to annual increases in participation
when economic or other circumstances change. The programs' structure
helps to ensure that benefits automatically flow into communities,
States, or regions of the country in which increased numbers of
eligible people apply for benefits.
In the case of the international programs, we have the Bill Emerson
Humanitarian Trust (BEHT) which allows the United States to respond to
unanticipated emergency food aid needs overseas. The administration
recently announced two releases from the BEHT. Last October, the
President also requested supplemental appropriations of $350 million
for the Public Law 480 Title II program for 2008.
Finally, it is important to note that the Stocks-for-Food
initiative that was announced in July 2007 is helping to provide
additional commodities for programming under both the domestic and
international food aid programs.
Question. Dr. Glauber, what do you see as the main influencing
factors in what we are seeing in these markets?
Answer. Many factors are contributing to increased commodity
prices. Global economic growth is boosting global demand for food. Real
foreign economic growth in 2007 was a strong 4.0 percent and is
expected to decline slightly to 3.9 percent in 2008 but remain well
above trend, as has been the case beginning in 2004. Asia, excluding
Japan, will likely grow at over 7 percent in 2008, above trend for the
fifth consecutive year. Higher incomes are increasing the demand for
processed foods and meat in rapidly growing developing countries, such
as India and China. These shifts in diets are leading to major shifts
in international trade.
Crop and livestock production depend on the weather. The multi-year
drought in Australia reduced wheat and milk production and that
country's exportable supplies of those commodities. Drought and dry
weather have also adversely affected grain production in Canada,
Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States.
Many exporting countries have put in place export restrictions in
an effort to reduce domestic food price inflation. Exporting countries
as diverse as Argentina, China, India, Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, and
Vietnam have placed additional taxes or restrictions on exports of
grains, rice, oilseeds, and other products. This has further
constrained food supplies.
Higher food marketing, transportation, processing costs are also
contributing to the increase in retail food prices. Record prices for
diesel fuel, gasoline, natural gas, and other forms of energy affect
costs throughout the food production and marketing chain. Higher energy
prices increase producers' expenditures for fertilizer, chemicals,
fuel, and oil driving up farm production costs. Higher energy prices
also increase food processing, marketing, and retailing costs. These
higher costs, especially if maintained over a long period, tend to be
passed on to consumers in the form of higher retail prices.
In recent years, the conversion of corn and soybean oil into
biofuels has been a factor shaping major crop markets. The amount of
corn converted into ethanol and soybean oil converted into biodiesel
nearly doubled from 2005/2006 to 2007/2008. The growth in biofuels
production has coincided with rising prices for corn, soybeans, soybean
meal, and soybean oil. From 2005/2006 to 2007/2008, the farm price of
corn has more than doubled and the price of soybeans nearly doubled.
Question. How much of this can be attributed to the massive amounts
of our crops now being diverted from the food supply to be used for
biofuels production?
Answer. Many factors in addition to biofuels production have
contributed to lift current commodity prices above long-term averages.
These factors include: record high petroleum prices; weather-related
production losses; rapidly rising incomes in large population countries
such as China and India; and, unprecedented speculative demand for all
types of commodities.
With respect to the effects of biofuels on prices, the exact level
of impact is based upon numerous factors. For example, the United
States uses about 10 percent of the world's corn production and 1
percent of the world's vegetable oil production for biofuels. The 10
percent of global corn used for biofuels represents only 4 percent of
grain (coarse grains, rice, and wheat) production. Based upon current
projections, only 1.2 percent of world harvested grain area will be
required to meet U.S. ethanol corn demand this year. In addition, for
every bushel of corn used to produce ethanol, 17 pounds of distillers
dried grains (DDGs) is produced. DDGs can be substituted for corn in
many livestock rations and when this offset is taken into account, corn
and its equivalent feed value lost through ethanol production
represents about 17 percent of current year corn production even though
a projected 24 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be used by ethanol
producers in 2007/08.
wic food costs
Question. For this subcommittee, the increase has been felt
primarily in the WIC program, which makes up one-third of our
discretionary budget. The average monthly food cost for the WIC program
increased 7.05 percent in fiscal year 2008, which is almost a full
percentage point higher than the increase estimated in the President's
fiscal year 2008 budget.
Is this trend likely to continue or have we reached a plateau?
Answer. The Department is projecting continued, but considerably
slower inflation in average WIC food package costs for fiscal year
2009. The Department's latest Monthly Report to Congress on the WIC
Program contains our most current estimate of WIC food package cost
inflation for fiscal year 2008.
Question. Is the estimate in the fiscal year 2009 budget for WIC
food costs likely to increase? The President's budget only projects an
increase of 2.3 percent in fiscal year 2009.
Answer. The Department's projected increase in WIC food package
costs of 2.3 percent in fiscal year 2009 is based on a 2.08 percent
projected increase in the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP) index plus an
adjustment for anticipated changes in some States' infant formula
rebate contracts. TFP forecasts are updated semiannually.
USDA plans to revise its fiscal year 2009 WIC food package cost
projection when the TFP is next re-estimated as part of the upcoming
Mid-Session Review of the President's budget.
food stamp participation
Question. Food Stamp participation has reached a record high. The
growth in the program is astounding. For example, recent news reports
indicate that 1 in 10 New York residents, 1 in 8 Michigan residents,
and 1 in 6 West Virginia residents are now on food stamps. In addition,
many States, including Maryland and Florida, have seen a 10 percent
increase in participation in the last year alone. This is particularly
troubling because one must be near poverty levels to qualify for food
stamps. Specifically, an individual or household's net income cannot be
more than the level of poverty to qualify.
What do you attribute increases in food stamp participation to?
Answer. The Food Stamp Program is designed to expand and contract
as the economy changes. The Department forecasts an increase in
participation for both fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009,
consistent with the projected increase in the unemployment rate
provided by OMB for use in the development of the fiscal year 2009
budget.
The number of Americans receiving food stamps has increased by over
60 percent since 2000 for a number of reasons.
First, legislative changes made it easier to qualify for food
stamps and simplified rules improved program access. The major
provisions that contribute to increases in participation include State
options for simplified reporting that make it easier for low-income
families to participate, restoration of eligibility for many legal
immigrants, and replacement of outdated limits on the value of vehicles
that participants can own.
Second, the percent of eligible low-income people who participate
in the Food Stamp Program has increased in recent years. In 2001, only
54 percent of those eligible for benefits participated. However, by
2005, that proportion had increased to 65 percent. Over the last
several years, USDA has engaged in multiple activities including an
ongoing outreach campaign to ensure that needy persons are aware of the
nutrition assistance available to them. Enrolling more eligible people
can further the Nation's goals for improving the nutrition and health
of low-income Americans and has been a priority of the Department for
several years.
colombia free trade agreement (fta)
Question. What are the potential negative effects on American
agriculture we should expect if the Colombia FTA is not passed by the
Congress?
Answer. The effects are many. First, without an agreement, the
terms of bilateral trade will continue to grow in favor of Colombia,
contributing to a lopsided agriculture trade imbalance. In 2007,
Colombia had a positive agricultural trade balance with the United
States of $300 million. One reason for this is that nearly all of
Colombia's agricultural products enter the United States duty free,
under a unilateral trade preference agreement, the Andean Trade
Preference and Drug Eradication Act.
However, currently, no U.S. agricultural exports enjoy duty-free
access to the Colombian market. With the agreement in place, more than
70 percent of U.S. agricultural product tariff lines--52 percent of the
value of U.S. agricultural trade to Colombia--will immediately enter at
zero duty. Most all other tariffs on U.S. agricultural products will be
reduced to zero within 15 years and all within 19 years.
Second, without the agreement third-country competitors will gain
market share at the expense of the United States. Colombia is currently
negotiating a free trade agreement with Canada. Besides gaining
immediate market share in our largest market in South America, allowing
Canada to implement its FTA first will put U.S. exporters at a
disadvantage, costing them millions of dollars.
Colombia implements a variable levy known as the price band. Under
the U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement (CTPA) the price band
system, which affects over 150 products including corn, rice, wheat,
oilseeds and products, dairy, pork, poultry, and sugar, will be
immediately eliminated. Tariffs under the current price band system
vary with world prices and can reach as high as the World Trade
Organization tariff bindings which range from 15 to 388 percent. Canada
will be protected from international price fluctuations due to their
agreement to eliminate the variable duty price band system. As long as
the United States does not implement the CTPA, U.S. exporters will be
subject to variable import duties that could change every 2 weeks. In
addition, Canada will have access to markets for new-to-market products
in Colombia, such as high quality beef, poultry parts, and select dairy
products.
Finally, but no less important, approval of the Colombian agreement
would acknowledge and support the transformation of the people and the
democratic government of Colombia. The agreement builds on Colombia's
revival by enhancing long-term investments in the country. The
Colombian people have demonstrated their commitment to deepening a
U.S.-Colombian economic and political relationship when the Colombian
legislature approved the CTPA last year.
african stem rust research
Question. In the November/December 2007 issue of Agricultural
Research, a science magazine published by USDA, there was an article
entitled: ``World Wheat Supply Threatened!'' The article was about
USDA's efforts to combat African Stem Rust or Ug99, a highly virulent
and aggressive stem rust, which has rapidly spread through Africa and
into the Middle East, threatening world barley and wheat production and
food security. Most experts believe it eventually will reach the US
where most barley and wheat varieties are highly susceptible. The
threat to world food security and the US economy from this disease has
not diminished.
Why does this budget propose to eliminate ARS funding of $308,000
at St. Paul, Minnesota which supports the agency's lead scientists
working on African Stem Rust?
Answer. The 2009 Budget proposes to eliminate all ($41 million) ARS
earmarked funding, including $308,000 at the Cereal Disease Laboratory
at St. Paul, Minnesota. The Department has proposed termination of all
the ARS earmarks because they lack the programmatic control necessary
to ensure quality as well as relevance to the core mission of ARS.
Within the total proposed for ARS, the 2009 Budget includes $944,000 to
continue priority wheat stem rust research.
In fiscal year 2008, the Cooperative State Research, Education and
Extension Service (CSREES) plans to fund 1-2 competitive grants
totaling $248,000 for aerobiology modeling of Ug99 for assessing
potential pathways, timing of incursion and to support rust
surveillance. An additional $20,000 in Hatch Act funds will support
wheat stem rust research. In fiscal year 2009, CSREES estimates $20,000
in Hatch Act funds will support wheat stem rust research.
Question. How does USDA propose to address the African Stem Rust
threat?
Answer. USDA-ARS is leading a national cereal rust research effort
and is making key contributions to supporting international cooperative
efforts through the Global Rust Initiative to address the new African
wheat stem rust. ARS scientists are developing diagnostic tests for
rapid identification of the disease should it enter U.S. borders and
are contributing to monitoring and surveillance. Additionally, ARS is
also developing and testing several new techniques that show promise in
monitoring of wheat stem rust epidemics and for characterizing new
races of cereal rust pathogens. A set of microsatellite DNA markers for
the stem rust fungus has been developed. These markers are useful in
tracing the geographical origins of new races of stem rust. Seedling
evaluations are being conducted against African stem rust races to test
the susceptibility of U.S. wheat varieties.
In fiscal year 2008, USDA-CSREES plans to fund 1-2 grants for
aerobiology modeling of Ug99 for assessing potential pathways, timing
of incursion and to support rust surveillance.
food aid ``safe box''
Question. Both the House and Senate versions of the farm bill
contained language creating a ``safe box'' for developmental food aid
resources. The language would essentially mandate that a certain amount
of food aid resources be used for developmental programs and would not
allow them to be diverted to cover emergency needs.
In your opinion, what are some issues that may arise if similar
language is included in a Farm Bill?
Answer. Adoption of such a proposal would happen at the worst
possible time as our emergency food aid is being seriously affected by
rising commodity and transportation costs. Our capacity for emergency
assistance has already been diminished by about $265 million to meet
higher-than-anticipated commodity and freight prices in fiscal year
2008.
The hard earmark for non-emergency monetization food aid in the
House and Senate versions of the farm bill will put millions of lives
at risk and undermine our ability to prevent famine. The average level
of non-emergency monetization food aid to Private Voluntary
Organizations over the course of the last two farm bills has been
approximately $360 million. Reserving a significantly higher level of
funding to be used solely for non-emergency programs as under
consideration in the Farm Bill encroaches and effectively cuts funds
for emergency feeding, where food is used to feed hungry people in dire
situations.
This set-aside would create a funding shortfall that cannot be
filled through other sources. The timing involved in requesting and
Congressional approval of supplemental appropriations is unpredictable
and untimely. The Bill Emerson Humanitarian Trust holds much lower
levels than 5 years ago and does not have sufficient resources to cover
emergency needs over the 5-year life of the next Farm Bill.
Question. What would this mean for the emergency needs throughout
the world?
Answer. The hard earmarks for non-emergency monetization food aid
in the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill will put millions of
lives at risk and undermine our ability to prevent famine.
Question. Would the administration support waiving such a
provision?
Answer. The administration strongly opposes a hard earmark for non-
emergency food aid. There is limited funding available to meet the
highest priority foreign assistance needs, including humanitarian
assistance. The administration needs to have the flexibility to
prioritize funding to meet the most critical needs.
wic monthly report and fiscal year 2009 budget
Question. In the report accompanying the final fiscal year 2008
appropriations bill, the Committee requested monthly reports on the
amount necessary to fund the WIC program in fiscal year 2009. The
reason the reports were requested is to hopefully avoid the situation
we had during the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process where the
subcommittee had to provide $633 million above the President's request
and never heard a word from the Department that WIC needs had
increased.
The reports were to include projections for food costs and
participation and clearly explain how those projections differ from the
assumptions made in the budget request and impact the WIC program in
fiscal year 2009. The first report the Committee received was not only
2 months late but woefully inadequate. The second report was
significantly improved, but still did not provide an assessment of what
current participation trends and food costs mean for the fiscal year
2009 budget. For example, the Department leads the Committee to believe
that the fiscal year 2009 WIC budget may be inadequate by stating that
``reported participation estimates are higher than anticipated,'' and
food costs have increased more than expected. However, the report does
not go on to explain whether the Department believes these increases
are an anomaly or a real issue that may need to be addressed. Surely,
the Department is capable of making a professional judgment about a $6
billion program. Given that WIC is one-third of this subcommittee's
discretionary budget, the lack of information being provided is
disappointing.
Why has the report been delayed? Do you think the level of detail
in the report provided to the Committee adequately reflects what was
requested?
Answer. I want to assure you that we take seriously our obligation
to provide reports to Congress. The President's Budget request released
in February provided participation and food cost data as requested. We
have also provided reports on March 4 and April 4, 2008. We remain
committed to working with Congress to provide monthly data regarding
current participation levels and monthly food costs, as requested.
Question. What does the statement ``reported participation
estimates are higher than anticipated'' mean? Is this an anomaly or do
you think we should be concerned that the fiscal year 2009 request for
WIC is not adequate?
Answer. The phrase reported participation estimates are higher than
anticipated means that year to date reported program participation
suggests that the annual average participation level for the WIC
Program will be higher than was projected in, and supported by, the
fiscal year 2008 budget.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request of $6.1 billion can
support an average monthly program participation level of approximately
8.6 million persons in fiscal year 2009. This level of participation
can be maintained as a result of savings accruing from the proposed cap
on the WIC administrative grant per participant ($145 million) and an
increase in estimated available prior year resources from fiscal year
2008.
USDA will continue to closely monitor WIC Program performance
including trends in participation and food costs. This information, in
conjunction with revised economic projections for fiscal year 2009,
will permit the Department to assess the adequacy of the President's
fiscal year 2009 budget request. This assessment will be made in
conjunction with the annual Mid-Session Review (MSR) of the President's
budget. Results of this evaluation will be communicated to the Congress
when the President's MSR review is released and we will keep the
committee informed through the regular monthly reporting process.
farm service agency it system
Question. Mr. Secretary, at this time last year, I was in this room
speaking with your predecessor about the major problems with the IT
system of the Farm Service Agency and the plans to upgrade and maintain
the system. Can you tell us what work has been done over the past year
to achieve this?
Answer. There are two projects that are moving forward in parallel:
a modernization project and a stabilization project. I will provide a
description of both of these for the record.
[The information follows:]
The modernization project has received business case approval to
implement a commercial, off-the-shelf software solution. Since last
year, USDA has developed MIDAS foundational requirements for governing
an ``enterprise'' software acquisition of this type; USDA has hired a
full-time program manager; and we are currently conducting Lean Six
Sigma analysis of our USDA Service Center operations. USDA is
positioning itself to be ready to move forward into the acquisition
phase as soon as funding becomes available.
The stabilization project has focused on reinforcing the elements
of our Common Computing Environment infrastructure that failed to host
our Web-based software applications successfully. In January 2007, USDA
Service Centers experienced a widespread outage with system error
messages saying ``page cannot be displayed.'' We have taken specific
action to replace firewall technology, increase telecommunication
bandwidth capacity, isolate inefficient application software and data
bases accesses, install modern monitoring tools within the environment,
and establish independent testing environments. Congress provided $37.5
million for this project in fiscal year 2007 including funding for the
costs of implementing an independent data warehouse capability. The
data warehouse will allow USDA to isolate reporting queries from our
transactional, production data bases that carry on the day-to-day
delivery processes in order to improve the speed of transactions and
improve information security.
Question. What is the status of the system today?
Answer. A minimum level of service delivery has been restored to
Web-based software applications. USDA has been fortunate that the level
of program activity has been very low due to high commodity prices.
Even with low demand for the automated systems, we are still
experiencing about 6 hours of unplanned outages per month. This is down
considerably from a year ago when unplanned outages approached 16 to 20
hours per month.
Question. What are your plans to secure funds to perform the work
you have outlined?
Answer. USDA has provided the authorizing committees with
legislative language to amend the CCC Charter Act to allow for the
collection of user fees to fund the modernization and stabilization
projects.
national animal identification system
Question. In the report accompanying the final fiscal year 2008
appropriations bill, the Committee expressed concern over the direction
of the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), especially given
the amount of funding provided for the program. The total amount of
funding dedicated to NAIS through fiscal year 2008 is more than $127
million. The fiscal year 2009 budget proposes an additional $24.144
million. I appreciate the efforts of USDA to finally develop a business
plan for the system last year. However, the budget does not outline how
the requested funding will be spent or how the request fits into the
plan. The budget only States that this is the amount the program needs
to carry out essential activities, without explaining what those
``essential activities'' are. I think we can agree that $24 million is
a significant budget request that warrants more justification.
Please explain in detail how the requested funding will be spent
and how the funded activities fit into the business plan.
Answer. USDA will use the $24 million included in the fiscal year
2009 budget request for the following NAIS activities: $3.5 million for
information technology (IT) maintenance and development, $10.8 million
for cooperative agreements, $800,000 for communications and outreach,
and $8.9 million for national program oversight and field activities.
Specific short- and long-term milestones related to each of these
categories will be provided to the Committee in the coming weeks.
Additional information about the plan is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
For efficient, effective disease containment, animal health
officials need the data required to trace a disease back to its source
and limit potential harm to animal agriculture. USDA's overall
objective is to establish an animal tracing infrastructure that will
retrieve traceback data within 48 hours of disease detection. The speed
with which animal health officials can access critical animal location
and movement information determines the timeliness--and effectiveness--
of the disease control and containment effort. USDA defines the
retrieval of traceback data within 48 hours as optimal for effective
disease containment. This type of effective response can result in huge
cost savings to the government in terms of eradication efforts, and
producers benefit in terms of property and marketability of livestock.
USDA will work toward this long-term objective by implementing
immediate, short-term strategies, as outlined in USDA's Business Plan
to Advance Animal Disease Traceability. Through the strategies, it is
USDA's goal to facilitate increased participation in the NAIS, bolster
the existing animal disease response network, reduce the amount of time
required to conduct and complete a disease investigation, and continue
to build critical Federal-State-industry partnerships necessary for
animal disease control and eradication success.
Through existing fiscal year 2008 funds and requested fiscal year
2009 funds, USDA plans to accomplish the following:
--Nearly 100 percent traceability will be achieved for the commercial
poultry and swine industries (identification of commercial
production units in the required radius of a disease event)
with support and cooperation of the National Poultry
Improvement Plan and National Pork Board respectively;
--Through continued integration of the National Scrapie Eradication
Program with NAIS, over 90 percent of the sheep breeding flock
will be identified to their birth premises and approximately 90
percent of the breeding population of goats will be traceable
to their birth premises within 48 hours of a disease event;
--Over 90 percent of competition horses will be identified through
NAIS compliant processes through the integration of equine
infectious anemia testing requirements and interstate
certificates of veterinary inspection;
--Over 70 percent of the commercial cattle population born after 2008
will be identified with NAIS compliant identification methods;
--Critical Location Points will be registered in the National
Premises Information Repository (nearly 90 percent of the 2,750
county and State fairgrounds and racetracks; 100 percent of the
98 import/export facilities; 70 percent of the 3,388 markets
and dealers, including public auctions; nearly 100 percent of
the 3,097 harvest facilities, including renderers and slaughter
plants; nearly 100 percent of the 34 semen collection and
embryo transfer facilities; nearly 90 percent of the 8,000
veterinary clinics (large animal practices that receive
livestock); and 100 percent of the 880 licensed food waste
swine feeding operations);
--The use of NAIS-compliant animal identification number (AIN)
devices will be initiated in breed registry programs;
--The premises identification number will be incorporated in the
Dairy Herd Improvement Association's administration of the
National Uniform Eartagging Numbering System;
--The electronic brucellosis vaccination and testing system will be
fully developed and implemented;
--The NAIS-compliant premises identification number format will be
incorporated into existing Federal disease program activities
(e.g., vaccination, herd testing, emergency response, etc.);
and
--The full integration of approximately 20 animal tracking databases
maintained by States and private organizations with the Animal
Trace Processing System will be achieved.
conservation reserve program (crp)
Question. Secretary Schafer, can you please explain how the recent
increases in commodity prices are affecting enrollment in the CRP
program? In your opinion, how will the changes you are seeing affect
the program in the years to come? Are there other conservation programs
that are showing significant impact from rising commodity prices? What
if anything is the Department doing to protect these programs?
Answer. It is still somewhat early to say definitively how recent
crop price increases have impacted CRP enrollment. First, we did not
conduct a general sign-up last year and do not plan to conduct one this
year, so we do not know to what extent interest may have declined.
However, continuous sign-up enrollment has actually increased. Recent
continuous sign-up enrollment is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Fiscal
Fiscal Year Through March Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006.................................... 110,000 348,000
2007.................................... 88,000 538,000
2008.................................... 148,000 ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be determined.
It is difficult to assess whether enrollment is up due to re-
enrollments of expiring contracts or due to continued interest in
continuous sign-up.
We are monitoring the extent that participants have been dropping
out of the program prior to normal contract terminations. Reports from
States indicate that about 130,000 acres were withdrawn between October
2007 and March 2008, but we do not know what future dropouts will be.
About the same number of general sign-up acres were ``lost'' during the
entire 2007 fiscal year.
It is also hard to predict enrollment in the years to come. Our
baselines have projected that enrollment will decline, at least in the
short term. In the fiscal year 2009 President's Budget, enrollment is
projected to decline from 36.8 million acres on September 30, 2007 to
34.8 million acres on September 30, 2008, and to 34.2 million acres on
September 30, 2009. Because there will not be a general sign-up this
year, the 2009 enrollment is now expected to be 34.0 million acres, a
2.8 million acre decline from 2007 levels.
We anticipate the Conservation Technical Assistance Program and the
Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) will see increased
attention as acres expire from CRP and need working lands assistance.
Producers who wish to enroll in commodity programs on these expiring
acres will require a Highly Erodible Land Compliance plan from NRCS.
They may also need or wish to enroll in EQIP on these acres.
We anticipate that higher farm income associated with increased
commodity prices will result in increased conservation investments by
producers, thus increasing demand for existing working lands programs,
such as EQIP and the Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program.
We want producers to have successful farming enterprises in
conjunction with a healthy environment. In order to prepare for the
changing economic picture of farming for energy crops, the
administration has proposed a bioenergy reserve. The idea is to
encourage production of energy crops such as switchgrass on CRP lands
that are well suited and thereby mitigate potential shifts from CRP to
cropping where it may not be advisable.
CRP is partially protected from rising crop prices through its
rental rate setting policies. In this process, rental rates are set at
an average of the 3 most recent years' market rental rates for the
area, adjusted for each individual soil's productivity. Rates are
periodically updated.
CRP also provides incentives for selected high-priority continuous
sign-up enrollments. Practices such as buffer strips are eligible to
receive a one-time signing incentive (SIP) of $100 per acre, a practice
incentive (PIP) equal to 40 percent of the practice's establishment
costs, and an annual incentive of 20 percent of the annual rental
payment. Additional incentives are also provided through the
Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). In addition to
providing SIPs and PIPs, many CREPs pay higher annual incentives.
wic fiscal year 2008 budget
Question. Secretary Schafer, escalating food costs and
participation has dramatically increased the amount necessary to fully
fund the WIC program. With the information available to the
subcommittee at the time, we provided an increase of $633 million above
the President's request for fiscal year 2008. WIC program funding is
now over $6 billion annually. Even with the increase, I am concerned
that funding for WIC in fiscal year 2008 may not be sufficient. Do you
believe that funding for the WIC program in fiscal year 2008 is
adequate?
Answer. Analysis of year-to-date WIC participation and food cost
data suggests that program costs for fiscal year 2008 will exceed
levels anticipated in the President's fiscal year 2009 Budget and
funded by the fiscal year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act. Our
current analysis of fiscal year 2008 program performance indicates that
without additional funds for fiscal year 2008, the program would have a
shortfall, even after the release of the remaining $150 million of
contingency resources.
Question. If not, are you addressing the shortfall?
Answer. Yes. I am reviewing options that include transferring funds
from the Food Stamp Program contingency reserve to the Special
Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) to
address funding shortfalls in that program.
fsis budget
Question. In December 2007, the Office of Inspector General
released a report on the Food Safety and Inspection Service's plan to
implement risk based inspection. In the report, OIG questioned whether
``FSIS has the systems in place--to provide reasonable assurance that
risk can be fully assessed.'' OIG identified several specific concerns,
including FSIS' assessments of establishments' food safety systems,
security over IT resources, and data management concerns.
FSIS agreed with all 35 of the recommendations in the report, and
began work on implementing systems changes, including building a new IT
system called the Public Health Information System (PHIS). The actions
proposed by FSIS in response to the report seem to be very costly.
However, the budget does not propose an increase to implement these
items, and I'm curious from where the money for the current work on
PHIS and other programs is coming.
Is FSIS shifting money from current activities to address the OIG
recommendations? If so, which activities and how is this affecting the
performance of those activities?
Answer. FSIS has not shifted money from current activities to
address the OIG recommendations on implementing the PHIS. In September
2007, FSIS awarded a $15 million contract for PHIS that will enhance
our domestic and international inspection functions, export compliance
certification functions and our agency-wide predictive analytics
capability. The funding was made available at the end of the fiscal
year as a result of delays in the hiring process. This contract will
cover activities in fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009.
Question. Annually, how much would it cost to address the OIG
recommendations and is this amount included in the fiscal year 2009
budget?
Answer. The major cost associated with implementing the OIG
recommendations is for strengthening the infrastructure and the
development and deployment of PHIS. All fiscal year 2009 funding in
support of PHIS and the other ongoing activities identified in the
management response to OIG's recommendations is included in the
President's budget.
fsis humane methods of slaughter
Question. The Hallmark/Westland meat recall that took place in
February was the largest meat recall in history and was initiated after
it became evident that the company was abusing cattle and had
slaughtered cattle that could not stand or walk, commonly known as
``downer'' cattle, without appropriate inspection. Many people are
concerned how the egregious activities that took place at the Hallmark/
Westland facility went unnoticed by Food Safety and Inspection Service
inspectors. It has been suggested that we enhance USDA inspection and
increase oversight of humane handling at slaughter facilities, perhaps
by enacting new legislation or more effectively targeting resources.
What does the Department need to make sure that incidents like the
Hallmark/Westland don't happen again? Does the Food Safety and
Inspection Service need more staff, statutory authority, or staff
training?
Answer. The investigation being led by OIG with support from FSIS
and AMS is ongoing. Once the investigation has concluded, we will have
additional information that, along with the results of the additional
verification activities, will determine the actions for FSIS oversight,
inspection and enforcement that may be required.
export credit guarantee program
Question. Mr. Secretary, reports in the press indicate that social
unrest is building in countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Malaysia, and
the Philippines over the rising price and declining availability of
basic foodstuffs such as wheat and rice. The GSM-102 export credit
guarantee program at USDA is specifically designed to facilitate the
purchase of US agricultural commodities by these middle income
countries during periods of challenging commodity markets and credit
availability.
Unfortunately, to date USDA has made available only $1.23 billion
in guarantees for fiscal 2008. This is below the current program need,
as evidenced by the fact that applications for approximately twice that
amount were received within days of the guarantees being made
available. In addition, current law requires that $5.5 billion in
guarantees be made available each fiscal year. Under the current Farm
Bill extension through April 18 of this year, it would appear that at
least $2.86 billion should have already been made available by USDA.
Given the current environment, even this amount would likely be below
the actual program need.
Can you tell the Committee when USDA will make GSM guarantees
available to meet the rising demand for the program and the statutory
minimum?
Answer. The administration has treated GSM-102 the same as other
programs that are affected by Farm Bill proposals. USDA has made
resources available on a proportional share basis consistent with
program levels reflected in the 2008 column of the fiscal year 2009
President's Budget. The sharp increase in program demand due to
changing world economic conditions and food shortages was not foreseen
at the time the 2009 President's Budget was submitted. The
administration urges Congress to complete action on a Farm Bill the
President can sign as soon as possible. That action will ensure full-
year programming for GSM-102.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
commodity supplemental food program
Question. This is a follow-up question regarding the Commodity
Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). It is my understanding that CSFP
received a 33 percent increase in funding for fiscal year 2008 to
compensate for increased food prices and to allow more program
participants. Please provide an analysis on where the increased funding
was directed. Please also provide a summary of supply vendor invoices
for CSFP product over the last year, in order to account for the
increase in food prices and participants? Finally, has USDA used
bartered items and free/donated items for the program?
Answer. The $139.7 million appropriation, after rescission, was not
sufficient to maintain caseload at the 2007 level due to significant
increases in food costs, a substantial reduction in the level of
surplus or ``free'' commodities available to support the program, and a
significant increase in the legislatively mandated administrative grant
per caseload slot. A total of 473,473 caseload slots were allocated in
2008, slightly lower than the 485,614 slots assigned last year.
In agricultural markets, significantly less food has been, and for
the foreseeable future, will be purchased under agriculture support
programs and donated for use in domestic nutrition assistance programs,
including the Commodity Supplemental Food Program (CSFP). Thus, without
the customary levels of donated, or so-called ``free'' foods, a greater
proportion of the cost of food packages in fiscal year 2008 was covered
by appropriated funds than was the case in fiscal year 2007. For women,
infants, and children, the appropriation must fund $24.27 of the
average monthly cost of the food package (up from $21.92 for fiscal
year 2007), and $18.15 of the average monthly cost for seniors (up from
$16.64), an increase of over 10 percent and 9 percent respectively.
Two examples illustrate the effect of rising food costs on the CSFP
food package. In fiscal year 2007, nonfat dry milk was available as
free to the program due to abundant supplies of surplus. However, as of
mid-fiscal year 2008, the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) will have to
pay an estimated $1.96 per pound to obtain this product. Furthermore,
in fiscal year 2007, macaroni cost FNS $0.41 per pound. The cost for
this item has risen to $0.79 per pound in fiscal year 2008, an increase
of over 90 percent.
In order to maximize food dollars through economies of scale, USDA
purchases CSFP commodities in combination with TEFAP and the Food
Distribution Program on Indian Reservations. Therefore, invoice data
are aggregated across all three programs, making CSFP-specific invoice
sheets unavailable.
With respect to bartered foods available through the Department's
Stock-for-Food Initiative, approximately $10 million was distributed to
CSFP in order to maintain program participation that was at risk
because of funding difficulties.
colony collapse disorder
Question. In the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations
legislation that was signed into law on December 26, 2007, language was
included that stated: ``Within available resources, the Department is
encouraged to take appropriate actions, consistent with the directives
in this explanatory statement, to address areas of crop and livestock
protection, foods (including food allergens), nutrition, colony
collapse disorder, and other areas included in the President's budget
for these research needs.'' Please provide specific information on the
amount of funds that USDA has directed to colony collapse disorder
(CCD) research and how these funds were used.
With agriculture being PA's largest industry, this issue is
important to my home State. Further, I am aware that the Pennsylvania
State University has been a key leader and partner with the
Agricultural Research Service in CCD research. It is my understanding
that the United States is losing about 35 percent of the bee colonies
this year as opposed to a 31 percent loss rate last year. There has
been effort by Congress to help address this major concern in the long-
term through the Farm Bill. However, how does USDA plan on addressing
CCD and other pollinator threats in the near future? Does the
Department plan on utilizing its authority under CCC or Section 32 to
direct funds to emergency assistance for beekeepers or to provide much
needed increased funding for research to address this crisis?
Answer. The Department is aware of the devastating effects of
colony collapse disorder (CCD) and is utilizing all research funds
available to address the issue. Currently, the Department does not plan
to use either CCC or Section 32 funds to provide emergency assistance
to beekeepers or provide additional funding for research. Information
on USDA-funded projects is provided for the record.
[The information follows:]
For comparison purposes, funding information is provided for fiscal
years 2006, 2007, and 2008. CSREES provides all funds for multi-year
competitive grants in the first year of their existence and does not
show recurring costs.
In fiscal year 2007, ARS base funding for honey bee health
increased $41,900. ARS also allocated $200,000 of fiscal year 2007
temporary funding to CCD research at Beltsville, Maryland. CSREES
grants awarded in the National Research Initiative (NRI) and the
Critical and Emerging Issues (CEI) programs for honey bee health
research increased $463,432.
In fiscal year 2008, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) will
begin testing honey for pesticide residues on a fee basis as part of
its Pesticide Data Program. ARS funding for CCD/honey bee health
increased $123,400. Additionally to base-funded projects, a critical
new project is the new ARS Areawide Project on Honey Bee Health, which
is being supported by temporary funding of $670,000 in fiscal year
2008. CSREES will initiate several new projects and increase funding by
$1,497,843.
FISCAL YEAR 2006, 2007 AND 2008 FUNDING BY AGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Funding in fiscal Funding in fiscal Funding in fiscal
Agency Name of Project Location year 2006 year 2007 year 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMS................................. Survey of Honey in Consumer Sized Pesticide Data Program ( \1\ ) $260,000 $260,000
Containers at the Retail Level. ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
ARS................................. Preservation of Honey Bee Beltsville, MD........ $382,200 384,300 381,500
Germplasm.
ARS................................. Managing Diseases and Pests of Beltsville, MD........ 1,679,200 1,688,300 1,676,200
Honey Bees to Improve Queen and
Colony Health.
ARS................................. Improving Crop Pollination Rates Tucson, AZ............ 1,124,300 1,130,700 1,122,800
by Increasing Colony Populations
and Defining Pollination
Mechanisms.
ARS................................. Pests, Parasites, Diseases, and Weslaco, TX........... 1,879,300 1,890,500 1,877,300
Stress of Honey Bees Used in
Honey Production and Pollination.
ARS................................. Breeding, Genetics, Stock Baton Rouge, LA....... 1,339,700 1,346,100 1,336,800
Improvement, and Management of
Russian Honey Bees for Mite
Control and Pollination.
ARS................................. Development and Use of Mite- Baton Rouge, LA....... 955,000 960,000 953,000
Resistance Traits in Honey Bee
Breeding.
ARS................................. Biochemistry of Pest and Fargo, ND............. 64,600 65,000 64,500
Beneficial Insects and
Interactions with Host Plants
and Natural Enemies.
ARS................................. Chemistry and Biochemistry of Gainesville, FL....... 208,400 209,700 208,200
Insect Behavior, Physiology and
Ecology.
ARS................................. Areawide Project on Honey Bee Various............... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 670,000
Health.
CSREES, NRI......................... Time-Memory Control of Honey Bee East Tennessee State 183,000 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Foraging Behavior. Univ.
CSREES, NRI......................... Molecular Mechanisms of Honey Bee North Carolina State 355,000 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Mating. University.
CSREES, CEI......................... Colony Collapse Disorder: University of Illinois ( \1\ ) 60,000 ( \1\ )
Initiation of a National
Response.
CSREES, CEI......................... Colony Collapse Disorder: Pennsylvania State ( \1\ ) 51,932 ( \1\ )
Determination of the Roles of University.
Pathogens in Unique Colony
Losses of Honey Bees and Funding
of Workshop.
CSREES, NRI......................... The importance of intracolonial Cornell University.... ( \1\ ) 206,000 ( \1\ )
genetic diversity for foraging
success in honey bee colonies.
CSREES, NRI......................... Modulation of social interactions North Carolina State ( \1\ ) 337,000 ( \1\ )
by disease in honey bees. University.
CSREES, NRI......................... Assessing the mating health of North Carolina State.. ( \1\ ) 346,500 ( \1\ )
commercial honey bee queens.
CSREES, CEI......................... Unraveling Impacts on Honey Bee Pennsylvania State ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 89,996
Health of Agricultural and In- University.
Hive Pesticides.
CSREES, CEI......................... Impacts on Honey Bees and Pennsylvania State ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 89,987
diseases from In-hive Miticide University.
Use.
CSREES, CEI......................... Assessment of Miticide Use of Clemson University.... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 90,000
Honey Bee Longevity and Colony
Health.
CSREES, NRI......................... Toxigenomics of Apis mellifera... University of Illinois ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 340,000
CSREES, NRI......................... Analysis of genes and gene Purdue University..... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 479,134
regions affecting agronomically
important honey bee behaviors..
CSREES, NRI......................... Genome Informatics for Georgetown University. ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 410,158
Agriculturally Important
Hymenoptera Species and Their
Pathogens.
CSREES, NRI......................... Undetermined..................... Undetermined.......... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total AMS..................... ................................. ...................... ( \1\ ) 260,000 260,000
Total ARS..................... ................................. ...................... 7,632,700 7,674,600 7,798,000
Total CSREES.................. ................................. ...................... 538,000 1,001,432 2,499,275
Total......................... ................................. ...................... 8,170,700 8,936,032 10,557,275
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ N/A.
\2\ Estimate.
Additional/Future Projects
USDA developed a CCD Action Plan in July 2007 based on
recommendations from the CCD Steering Committee, which is composed of
academic, private, and Federal scientists. The Action Plan outlines a
strategy for current and future needs to address the CCD crisis,
involving four main components:
--Survey and data collection;
--Analysis of samples;
--Hypothesis-driven research; and
--Mitigation and preventative action.
Within each topic area, the status of ongoing CCD research and
future plans are outlined, as well as the organization(s) involved in
the effort. Both ARS and CSREES are using existing funding authorities
to support these research, extension, and education projects. The
accomplishments of current research will be used to gauge the direction
and prioritization of future research.
In addition, in 2007 CSREES oversaw the formation of a Multi-State
Research/Extension Committee titled ``Sustainable Solutions to Problems
Affecting Honey Bee Health'' which will address CCD-related objectives
that will complement those of ARS scientists and other CSREES-funded
projects (e.g., NRI-CAP, and CEI). The Committee is administered by the
North Central Region, funded by Hatch Multi-State allocations to
participating States and also supported in part by Federal Smith-Lever
appropriations to States for the Cooperative Extension System. Future
research needs to be addressed by this committee are complementary and
compatible with research priorities outlined in the Action Plan and by
ARS.
Looking to fiscal year 2009 and beyond, ARS has identified a number
of projects, in varying levels of priority, to address CCD and honey
bee health. Needs include developing artificial diet-based systems to
increase pollination for specialty crops impacted by CCD (Tucson,
Arizona); determining the role of pathogens and other stress factors in
CCD and mitigating their effects (Beltsville, Maryland); reducing
colony stress through integrated pest management (Tucson); developing
genetic resistance to CCD (Baton Rouge, Louisiana); and treating and
mitigating CCD (Beltsville). To fund these efforts, the President's
2009 budget requests an increase of $780,000 for ARS.
food safety regulations
Question. This is a follow-up to my food safety question. Does USDA
have adequate authority and resources to implement the food safety laws
and regulations? Further, it is my understanding that in 2007, there
were a combined total of more than 70 new rules, notices, directives
and regulations issued or finalized by FSIS. Please describe what USDA
is doing to assist meat, poultry, and egg firms with compliance when
they have problems and when the Department issues new regulations? Is
USDA effectively training its workforce to implement these regulations?
Answer. FSIS has adequate authority and resources to enforce the
food safety laws and regulations under its purview.
FSIS takes its outreach mission very seriously. In March 2008, FSIS
announced the formation of the new Office of Outreach, Employee
Education and Training, to provide consolidated access, resources and
technical support for small and very small plants to better assist them
in providing safe and wholesome meat, poultry and processed egg
products. This program area will also ensure that all FSIS personnel
have the necessary training to effectively carry out their assigned
duties.
For FSIS to ensure public health protection through food safety, it
not only needs to verify that small and very small plants,
establishments that comprise over 90 percent of the plants under FSIS'
jurisdiction, are producing safe food but to reach out to those plants
to make sure that they fully understand their responsibilities and how
to achieve them. Thus, for small and very small plants, the agency
launched a targeted Web page and launched a monthly publication called
Small Plant News which includes articles with up-to-date technical
information and guidance, resource materials, and FSIS rules and
regulations as well as the most common questions asked and answers that
apply to establishments' operational practices. All of this is in
addition to outreach visits, net meetings, information sessions, and
numerous regulatory education sessions.
In 2007, FSIS launched askFSIS, an outreach effort for
stakeholders. askFSIS is a Web-based feature designed to help answer
technical and policy questions regarding inspection and public health
regulations 24 hours a day. The new interactive feature provides
answers on technical issues in more depth than the standard list of
``frequently asked questions'' available through FSIS' Web site. It
allows visitors to seek answers on topics such as exporting, labeling
and inspection-related policies, programs and procedures, as well as
submit new questions to be added to the system. This new Web-based tool
has received high customer satisfaction marks from our stakeholders,
and the system already has nearly 800 questions and answers.
In the wake of ongoing, progressive policy changes, FSIS ensures
that inspection program personnel and the industry fully understand
FSIS rules, regulations, directives, and notices. The agency is
developing a strong, ongoing strategy to evaluate the success of its
training program. Through the In-Plant Performance System, AssuranceNet
management controls, and reports from district analysts, the agency is
ensuring that inspection program personnel are doing their jobs
correctly, are held accountable, and have appropriate workloads and
supervision.
hallmark/westland recall
Question. Further, this question is specific to the Hallmark/
Westland recall of 143 million pounds of fresh and frozen beef
products. Was there an alternative response that the Agency could have
had to address the regulatory concern and not pursue an event that
potentially confuses consumers? Possibly a market withdrawal? Finally,
with much of the meat used for the School Lunch Program, can a USDA
inspected plant sell meat to the program if it tests positive for E.
coli?
Answer. The recall action was deemed necessary because the
establishment did not comply with FSIS regulations. The recall was
designated Class II because the probability is remote that the recalled
beef products would cause adverse health effects if consumed. This
recall designation is in contrast to a Class I recall, which is a
higher-risk health hazard situation where there is a reasonable
probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse
health consequences or death. A USDA inspected plant can continue to
sell raw materials or finished products to the National School Lunch
Program as long as the raw materials or finished products are not the
ones that tested positive for E. coli.
u.s. beef products
Question. Several significant beef markets and U.S. trading
partners are still partially or completely closed to U.S. beef
products. This stonewalling has persisted for more than 3 years. Having
open beef markets is important to Pennsylvania's, and the Nation's,
beef producers. According to the PA Department of Agriculture, the beef
industry contributes about $1.9 billion annually to the economy. What
do you plan to personally do as Secretary to address these remaining
bans on all or part of American beef?
Answer. USDA is working actively and constructively to re-open many
international markets that closed as a result of the finding of bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in the United States in late 2003.
Science and sound risk management principles remain the underpinnings
of our consistent approach to all trading partners. As evidence of our
success, U.S. beef and beef product exports rebounded to over $2.6
billion in CY 2007, equal to almost 70 percent of trade in 2003, before
BSE was identified in the United States. Last year, the World
Organization for Animal Health (OIE) designated the United States as a
``controlled risk'' Nation for BSE, reaffirming the effectiveness of
the U.S. regulatory system to protect the food supply from BSE. With
this rating in hand, we are stepping up our efforts to reopen markets
for U.S. beef based upon science and internationally recognized
standards. Indonesia, Barbados, and the Philippines are some of the
countries that have fully reopened to U.S. beef and livestock since the
United States achieved ``controlled risk'' status.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Larry Craig
food safety inspection user fees
Question. I appreciate USDA's dedication to ensuring the safety of
our food supply. As evidenced by the Hallmark/Westland violation, we
have some work to do to improve the oversight of our inspection system.
However, I am concerned about the proposal to add another $92 million
in new user fees from meat, poultry and egg products establishments.
Why would USDA propose to have the packers pay for their own food
safety inspections when this is clearly the role of government? Are you
concerned that these additional costs would be passed down to cattle
producers?
Answer. The legislative proposal to create new user fees would
transfer a portion of the cost of mandatory Federal inspection services
to the industries that directly benefit from them, and would result in
savings to the taxpayer. If any costs were passed down to cattle
producers, the amount would be extremely small.
national veterinary medical service act
Question. The National Veterinary Medical Service Act (NVMSA) was
signed into law in December of 2003. This program has been funded
through appropriations for several years now, yet USDA has failed to
implement this veterinarian loan repayment program as it was designed.
If implemented, this program would extend veterinary services to rural
and other underserved areas that struggle to attract young vets.
Does USDA recognize that there is a shortage of veterinarians in
the United States, especially large animal practitioners in rural
areas? Four years after passage of the National Veterinary Medical
Services Act, what has USDA done to implement the full veterinarian
loan repayment program? What do they need to move forward to implement
it? Please provide for the Committee a timeline for when USDA plans to
write the full program rules.
Answer. USDA is aware of the shortage of veterinarians in the
United States and recognizes that this shortage extends to virtually
every aspect of the practice of veterinary medicine, including large
animal practice, epidemiology, and food safety in both private and
government employment. Further, we accept the validity of studies that
show this shortage is growing.
As you note, NVMSA was enacted in 2003. Funds for this program were
first appropriated in fiscal year 2006. The Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) conducted a review of program
options and considered input from other Federal agencies, veterinary
associations, and the veterinary educational community. CSREES
developed an implementation plan that took advantage of already
existing Office of Personnel Management student loan programs and
regulations. On March 19, 2007, a final rule was published in the
Federal Register that permitted CSREES to implement this phase of the
NVMSA program. This rule specified that the USDA Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) would utilize a portion of NVMSA funding as
hiring incentives, to pay the educational loans of new hires. This
strategy which included FSIS supplementing the NVMSA incentive by
contributing a matching recruitment bonus, allowed USDA to reach the
largest number of eligible veterinarians in the shortest possible time
frame.
To address other areas of veterinary shortage, CSREES is
establishing a work unit that will involve both program and
administrative employees with new staff hired to administer the NVMSA.
Similarly, new processes and procedures will need to be developed and
put in place, since the agency will be dealing with individual
veterinarians instead of the universities that comprise its normal
customer base. Simultaneously, CSREES will develop and publish the
rule(s) necessary to fully implement this program.
Because CSREES has never delivered a program of this type and
complexity targeted to individual recipients rather than established
institutions, it is very hard to judge how much time will be required.
As an estimate, we believe CSREES may be able to accept applications as
early as the second quarter of fiscal year 2009 with the repaying of
educational loans by the end of fiscal year 2009.
exclusion of potatoes from wic
Question. I understand that USDA published an interim final rule
that expands the eligibility for the WIC program to include all fresh
fruits and vegetables with the single exception of white potatoes. In
contrast, I understand that WIC vouchers can currently be used to
purchase fresh fruits and vegetables, including fresh potatoes, at
farmer's market programs. It seems to me that fresh white potatoes,
along with apples, bananas and carrots, are all popular vegetables
which provide important nutrients critical to the diet of WIC
participants.
Can you provide the Committee with the public policy and
nutritional rationale for excluding fresh white potatoes from the
expanded WIC voucher program for all other fresh fruits and vegetables?
What is the rationale for excluding fresh white potatoes from the
expanded WIC program while allowing the inclusion of other frequently
purchased fruits and vegetables? Excluding fresh white potatoes from
the expanded WIC program will require State agencies and retailers to
develop administrative procedures to exclude those purchases. Can you
please provide this Committee a description of the process and an
estimate of the cost of compliance for the exclusion of a single fruit
or vegetable from the program?
Answer. The changes to the WIC food packages were made based on
scientific recommendations from the National Academies' Institute of
Medicine (IOM). The IOM was charged with reviewing the nutritional
needs of the WIC population, low-income infants, children, and
pregnant, postpartum and breastfeeding women who are at nutritional
risk, and recommending changes to the WIC food packages.
The restriction of white potatoes, as recommended by the IOM, is
based on (1) food intake data indicating that consumption of starchy
vegetables by the WIC-eligible population meets or exceeds the amounts
suggested in the 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans for consumption
of starchy vegetables; and (2) food intake data showing that white
potatoes are the most widely consumed starchy vegetable.
There is no cost of compliance for the disallowance of a single
fruit or vegetable from the WIC Program. WIC State agencies routinely,
and as a part of normal business practice, determine what foods to
include on their State WIC food lists from the list of Federally
authorized WIC-eligible foods.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
Senator Kohl. Our hearing will end at this time. Next week
we will be discussing the FDA budget, and we look forward to
continuing our dialogue. Thank you so much.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Tuesday, April 8, 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 2009
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Hon. Herb Kohl (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Kohl, Dorgan, Reed, and Bennett.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
STATEMENT OF ANDREW C. VON ESCHENBACH, M.D.,
COMMISSIONER
ACCOMPANIED BY:
JOHN DYER, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
RICHARD TURMAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HERB KOHL
Senator Kohl. Good morning to one and all. Today we welcome
Dr. von Eschenbach, the FDA Commissioner; Mr. John Dyer, the
Deputy Commissioner for Operations; and Mr. Richard Turman, the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at HHS. We thank you for
appearing this morning to discuss the FDA's budget for 2009.
American consumers spend 20 cents of every dollar on
products that are regulated by the FDA. Food, medicine, medical
devices, vaccines, the blood supply, cosmetics, and veterinary
products all fall within FDA jurisdiction. FDA has a
responsibility to make sure that all of these are safe and
effective.
As you appreciate better than anyone else, it is, indeed, a
daunting task that grows more complex every year.
Unfortunately, your budget request does not keep pace with
these huge responsibilities.
For fiscal year 2009, the administration proposed an
increase of $54 million, or just over 3 percent. It recommends
modest increases for food safety and medical products. While
that is a welcome contrast compared to cuts proposed for HHS
and USDA, I find it hard to believe that this recommendation
will achieve anywhere near the goals that FDA has set.
The budget purports to hire over 200 additional FDA
inspectors, as well as staff, but in reality, you do not
request enough money to pay for the staff that you have now.
Specifically, the budget clearly states that FDA needs $60
million more than last year simply to maintain current staffing
levels, but you only request $54 million new dollars.
What this really suggests to me is that any additional
money you claim to be for new food and medical safety
activities will really be used to maintain current staff. There
is no new money for food safety, medical products safety, as
well as anything else.
FDA recently published a food protection plan and import
safety action plan. Both documents outline important steps
needed to keep our food supply safe, and those steps will cost
money. Serious work also needs to take place to ensure that the
drugs, which FDA approves are indeed safe, and we need
assurances that necessary follow-up will happen. We have all
heard that 80 percent of the raw ingredients going into our
medicines come from overseas. It would take FDA 13 years to
inspect each of these plants just once.
I know that you are aware of these issues and many more,
and I believe you want to move in the right direction. But I
also feel obliged to address your recent complaint that
Congress has failed to give FDA the money it needs. That
complaint seems a little specious to me. Congress gave FDA $90
million more than you sought for the current year, and we
provided $17 million more than you sought in fiscal year 2007.
So I take issue with that complaint and we look forward to your
comments and explanations.
We have developed a good working relationship over the past
several years, and I am sure that will continue this year.
Although we seem to be far apart on how we would interpret this
budget right now, we want to work with you to make sure that
your agency, one that affects every single American every day,
has the necessary funding to be effective, as we both think it
should be.
We will now turn to Senator Bennett for his opening
statement, and following that, we look forward to hearing from
you. Senator Bennett.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You
have covered many of the points that I wanted to highlight as
well.
The FDA's regulatory authority is vast. It encompasses 80
percent of the food we eat, all animal and human drugs and
medical devices, along with some other products, and 20 percent
of all consumer expenditures go for some product that is
regulated by the FDA. That is $1.5 trillion worth of
expenditures. So this is a very important agency.
And, Dr. von Eschenbach, I want to take this occasion--this
will be your last appearance in defense of the budget--to thank
you for the stewardship you have provided at this agency.
We more often hear about problems connected with the agency
than we do about the success in making the United States food
and drug supply the safest in the world, as I believe that it
is.
But there have been problems and I expect we will hear
about some of them, the widely reported recall of heparin
because of contaminated ingredients that came from the supplier
in China, the recall of peanut butter tainted by salmonella,
followed by a massive pet food recall, also having to do with
contaminated ingredients from China. As we look at those
problems, we sometimes, as I say, lose sight of the fact that
overall we do have the safest food and drug supply in the
world.
But I agree with the chairman that we need to pay attention
to the amount of money that is required here and that the
budget that has been submitted to us by the administration
appears to me to be inadequate to meet those challenges. I have
sat on your side of the table. I know the kinds of fights that
go on in an executive agency between what you feel is your best
judgment and what OMB feels is its best judgment and the very
difficult position you get put in when you are sent up here to
defend OMB's number when in your heart you might prefer a
higher one. You need not comment on that. I will not put you in
that box. But I have seen that kind of thing happen before. And
I feel, with the chairman, it may be our responsibility to fix
OMB's mistake here. I think you probably have more friends here
than you might have at other places in town.
It is not just money, however. You need leadership. You
need good people. You need to be able to attract the right
people and hold onto the right people. Those are some of the
things we will be talking about.
We have to take into consideration the comments that are
made by the Science Board that concluded--and I quote--FDA can
no longer fulfill its mission without ``substantial and
sustained additional appropriations.'' That is something that
we, I think, have to pay attention to even if some others do
not.
Well, we all benefit from a strong and well-funded FDA. It
is an area where consumers, industry, and the Congress
vigorously agree and where all must work together to see that
we get the results that we want. I look forward to the
testimony and working together with you, Mr. Chairman, to try
to solve some of these problems.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Dorgan, do you have a statement?
Senator Dorgan. No, thank you.
Senator Kohl. We will now ask Dr. von Eschenbach for your
statement.
STATEMENT OF DR. ANDREW VON ESCHENBACH
Dr. von Eschenbach. Chairman Kohl and Senator Bennett,
Senator Dorgan, I am very gratified by your kind remarks and
certainly your support. It is always an honor for me to appear
before you.
But today, it is also a special privilege for me to be
accompanied by FDA leadership that you see sitting behind me,
the center directors and the deputies, who provide the day-in-
and-day-out leadership of this incredible agency and who truly
epitomize the over 10,000 FDA employees who bring dignity to
the title and to the words ``public servant.''
I am pleased to be here today joined by Mr. Turman and Mr.
Dyer to present to you FDA's fiscal year 2009 budget request.
As you have already indicated, the beginning of the 21st
century has already witnessed FDA facing incredible challenges
emanating from a rapidly and radically changing world. And
these changes are, in fact, reshaping the way in which we must
accomplish our mission to protect and promote the public
health.
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
More than 2 years ago, when I first sat before you, I
presented my initial request for increased resources that FDA
needed to address these changes and last year requested even
more additional resources. I trust you know that I will not
disappoint you in your expectations that I am here today
requesting even further increases in the FDA's budget.
But I hope you will also recognize that this has never been
for us an exercise simply to ask for more. We have attempted to
be good stewards of these precious resources and have been
creating detailed plans that communicate how FDA will deploy
those resources to overcome the challenges we face and to
provide regulatory oversight for the food and health products
we regulate.
These requests for additional resources and these plans,
which is our strategic plan and food protection plan, et
cetera, are part of a trajectory that we have been attempting
to create that will continue to build over time to modernize
the Food and Drug Administration of the 21st century.
But Congress and the American people expect more than just
plans and budgets. They deserve exceptional performance, and I
believe we have also delivered. The list of recent
accomplishments that appear in my written testimony reflects
the universal determination within FDA to ensure the people we
serve that they will always have access to safe and effective
medical products, that we will safeguard the food that they
eat, and address emerging threats to America's public health.
What we have done and what we must do is only possible through
your support, and we are deeply grateful for the support that
you have provided and continue to provide us.
I come here today asking for more support because the
challenges that we are facing tomorrow compared to yesterday
are, for sure, formidable. Our response to those challenges
affects our entire enterprise.
MODERNIZATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT)
For example, a global supply chain of food and medical
products now requires FDA to expand its presence and reach
beyond our borders. A complex regulatory pathway that is
embracing innovative products from their production to
consumption now requires us to modernize our infrastructure,
particularly our FDA information technology. The need to always
be a science-based and science-led agency in our decisionmaking
now demands that we create the facilities that will support
that kind of an infrastructure, including the completion of the
construction of the consolidated campus for FDA at our new
campus at White Oak. And I present to you a picture of that
construction of that state-of-the-art facility that is in
process and must, as a part of this trajectory, continue to be
supported and completed.
BUDGET REQUEST INCREASE
The 2009 budget request builds on the 2008 appropriation by
proposing an additional 5.7 percent increase. That will result
in a total budget of $2.4 billion, of which $1.8 billion would
be in budget authority and $700 million in user fees.
USER FEES
Last year, Congress reauthorized the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act which provided direction to the
agency with 125 new requirements in the bill's 11 titles, but
it also reauthorized essential user fee programs for
prescription drugs and medical devices.
This year, the successful program to support animal drug
review, the Animal Drug User Fee Act, expires on September 30,
2008, and this 2009 budget recommends extending that program
for an additional 5 years, and in addition, includes $48
million for four new proposed user fee programs relating to
generic drugs, generic animal drugs, the reinspection of
facilities, and issuing export certificates for food and animal
feed.
FOOD PROTECTION AND IMPORT SAFETY
During 2009, we will continue to implement the food
protection plan and our import safety action plan that we
announced in 2007. And the subcommittee generously provided $56
million for food protection in 2008, and we are requesting an
additional $42 million in 2009, which will provide an
additional 94 full-time equivalent staff to conduct food
protection activities, including 68 to support our domestic and
foreign inspections through our Office of Regulatory Affairs.
We will continue to expand and support essential programs to
protect and defend our food supply.
RAPID RESPONSE TEAMS
We will also emphasize a priority that you championed,
Senator Kohl, in deploying three more rapid response teams
during fiscal year 2009, in addition to the six that we will
deploy in 2008. And we will also improve the information
technology systems that support risk assessment, research,
inspection, and surveillance.
COST OF LIVING AND CRITICAL PATH
And finally, there will be $12 million for the cost-of-
living increases for our essential staff.
In 2008, the subcommittee appropriated increases for drug
safety, critical path generic drug review, drug advertising
review, and pandemic preparedness programs at FDA. Thanks to
the commitment of this subcommittee, specifically Senator
Bennett, we will commence 50 important critical path activities
across all medical product programs. This is our effort to
transform the design, development, testing, and use of medical
products.
PRODUCT SAFETY
We continue to address our need for product safety and
development, including our ability to provide increased staff
and oversight for targeted increases in blood and blood
products, human tissue safety, criminal drug investigations,
and device import safety, as well as animal drug grants under
the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act.
PREPARED STATEMENT
This $2.4 million contains essential resources on that
trajectory to continue to build the FDA of the 21st century
that will protect and promote the health and safety of the
American public. And we are deeply grateful for your commitment
to that continuous, ongoing effort to recreate and redefine and
modernize the FDA.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Andrew C. von Eschenbach
Introduction
Chairman Kohl and members of the subcommittee I am pleased to
present the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA). I am joined by Mr. John Dyer, FDA's
Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer, and Mr. Richard
Turman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget at the Department of
Health and Human Services.
At the outset, I want to lay out the trajectory reflected in FDA's
budgets during my tenure. When I first sat before you on behalf of the
FDA 2 years ago, I presented a budget that recognized the need for
additional resources so that FDA can accomplish its mission. Just as
important, FDA also recognized the need to establish plans that define
how to use our resources wisely.
For the past 2 years, we requested additional resources to meet
important public health challenges. We also developed detailed plans
that communicate how we will deploy our resources to overcome the
challenges that we face. However, you also expect performance while we
are developing plans for the future, and we have delivered.
Recent FDA Achievements
Thanks to funding appropriated by this subcommittee, FDA is
achieving important public health milestones, and we thank you for your
support. Since I appeared before you last year, FDA worked with
Congress on the FDA Amendments Act (FDAAA) to extend key user fee
programs including the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and the
Medical Device User Fee Act (MDUFMA), to reauthorize the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act.
During the past year FDA also:
--published comprehensive plans for food defense, food safety, and
import safety
--negotiated and signed food and medical product safety agreements
with China
--expanded FDA's capacity to detect radiological contamination of
food by 150 percent
--launched a national initiative to strengthen State food safety
programs
--issued a current good manufacturing practices rule for dietary
supplements
--approved a second-generation smallpox vaccine to enhance U.S.
preparedness
--approved the first U.S. vaccine for humans against H5N1, the avian
influenza virus
--approved the sixth seasonal influenza vaccine, allowing
manufacturers to produce a record number of flu vaccine doses
--approved a decellularized heart valve, a new drug-eluting stent,
and the first artificial cervical (neck) disk
--approved new treatments for hypertension, Crohn's disease, cancer,
HIV, diabetes, Parkinson's, Fibromyalgia, leukemia, and blood
clotting disorders, including 22 new molecular entities and 18
orphan products
--tentatively approved the 64th anti-retroviral product under the
President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR)
--issued more than 680 generic drug approvals or tentative approvals
during fiscal year 2007--a 30 percent increase from the
previous year
--approved new tests for blood typing and to detect malaria, West
Nile Virus, certain breast cancers, respiratory viruses, and
other infections
--identified Critical Path opportunities for generic drugs and
conducted Critical Path workshops on cancer clinical trials and
developing anti-cancer agents
--proposed new standards and a new UVA rating for sunscreen products
--released a report on science and regulatory issues associated with
nanotechnology
--conducted enforcement actions to protect consumers against
unapproved drugs and devices and from unsafe dietary
supplements
--identified 25 drugs products that must submit safety plans under
Title 9 of FDAAA.
These are important public health accomplishments, and they
demonstrate FDA's performance while we also prepare for the future.
My FDA colleagues and I recognize that we have important work to do
in all FDA program areas. We also have challenges that cut across all
FDA programs, such as expanding FDA's reach beyond our borders,
modernizing our Information Technology, and working with the General
Services Administration to complete our new campus at White Oak.
FDA's 2009 Budget Request
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget request for FDA builds on
the fiscal year 2008 appropriation by proposing a 5.7 percent increase.
FDA will focus its increased resources on protecting America's food
supply and improving the safety of human and animal drugs, medical
devices, and biologics--including vaccines, blood products, and human
tissues.
This increase will provide FDA with a budget of $2.4 billion, which
consists of $1.8 billion in discretionary budget authority and $0.7
billion in user fees. FDA user fee programs provide supplemental
resources that not only allow FDA to review manufacturers' product
applications but also ensure that Americans have access to safe and
effective medical products.
As I mentioned, Congress reauthorized user fee programs for
prescription drugs and medical devices last year in FDAAA. This year,
the successful program to support animal drug review, the Animal Drug
User Fee Act (ADUFA), expires on September 30, 2008. We have engaged
with stakeholders to develop proposals to extend this program for an
additional 5 years. FDA published a draft proposal for ADUFA II in the
Federal Register and conducted a public meeting with stakeholders on
March 11, 2008.
Finally, our budget includes $48 million for four proposed user
fees related to reviewing generic drugs, reviewing generic animal
drugs, reinspecting facilities, and issuing export certificates for
food and animal feed.
FDA Food Protection Plan Investments
On November 6, 2007, the administration issued the Import Safety
Action Plan (ISAP), a comprehensive, strategic roadmap to strengthen
import safety. In conjunction with this release, FDA released its Food
Protection Plan (FPP), a comprehensive initiative to protect America's
food supply.
The FPP is a risk-based, production-to-consumption strategy to
assure the safety of domestic and imported food. FDA's plan relies on
three core elements--prevention, intervention, and response--and calls
for ten new legal authorities. The plan is designed to identify
potential food defense and food safety threats and to counteract those
threats before they harm consumers.
FDA has begun implementing the FPP and ISAP with the resources that
the subcommittee appropriated in fiscal year 2008. In fiscal year 2009,
FDA requests an additional $42 million to protect the food supply and
to continue to implement our plan. These funds will allow FDA to
advance important food defense and food safety priorities. Fiscal year
2009 prevention activities include performing essential food research,
determining the greatest threats of intentional and unintentional
contamination to the food supply, and expanding food protection
activities beyond our borders. Our intervention activities include
conducting more risk-based inspections and surveillance and deploying
new food defense and food safety screening tools. Fiscal year 2009
response activities include establishing more rapid response teams,
strengthening emergency response, and improving our ability to conduct
food tracebacks.
To achieve these objectives and safeguard American consumers, FDA
will also improve IT systems that support our research, risk
assessment, inspection, and surveillance. Finally, FDA's fiscal year
2009 food protection initiative includes $12 million for the cost of
living pay increase for FDA food safety and food defense programs.
These funds allow FDA to retain its professional workforce that conduct
food safety and food defense activities. Overall, our food protection
investments for fiscal year 2009 support an additional 94 full-time
equivalent (FTE) staff, including 68 FTE to conduct domestic and
foreign inspections through FDA's field operations in the Office of
Regulatory Affairs.
Investments for Safe and Effective Medical Products
For fiscal year 2008, Congress appropriated increases for drug
safety, Critical Path, generic drug review, drug advertising review,
and pandemic preparedness programs at FDA. With these increases, FDA
will strengthen medical product development, safety, and review
activities that the subcommittee identified as fiscal year 2008
priorities. I assure you that FDA will be a good steward of the funds
you provide and that we will search for effective solutions to the
public health challenges involving medical products.
For fiscal year 2009, FDA is proposing a $17 million initiative for
medical product safety and development, including funds for the cost of
living pay increase. FDA is also proposing targeted increases for our
medical product programs.
With the fiscal year 2009 increase, FDA's Biologics Program will
strengthen its ability to prevent, detect, and respond to emerging
safety threats in blood and blood products. FDA will also improve
tissue safety by expanding our program to educate industry about tissue
processing and tissue safety technologies.
In the Human Drugs Program, FDA will improve import safety by
conducting additional investigations of criminal drug activity. The
volume of drugs imported into the United States will likely increase by
12 percent during fiscal year 2009, and the additional import volume
creates a need for criminal investigators to support drug import
surveillance.
In the Device and Radiological Health Program, FDA will strengthen
import safety by improving the ability of the ORA field operations to
work on import issues with Customs and Border Protection and other
agencies. Finally, in the Animal Drugs and Feed Program, FDA will
provide targeted grants to stimulate the development of new animal
drugs under the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004.
Implementing FDAAA
In the fall of 2007, Congress enacted legislation reauthorizing
prescription drug and medical device user fees, the Best
Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act.
This legislation also grants new authorities to ensure the safety of
the food supply and the safety and effectiveness of medical products--
drugs, devices, and biologics. As I mentioned previously, FDAAA also
reauthorized user fees for prescription drug and medical device review.
Implementing FDAAA is a formidable challenge. The legislation is
complex, with eleven titles containing more than 125 new requirements.
To cope with the breadth of this act, FDA launched a detailed
implementation plan. And, in the spirit of transparency, the details of
our progress to implement FDAAA appear on our website. Within FDA, we
established working groups to confirm the scope of our FDAAA
responsibilities and identify the actions and timetables necessary to
conduct our new work. As you might expect, we are giving our first
attention to FDAAA provisions that have the greatest implications for
public health.
The new law is barely 6 months old, but our accomplishments are
already tangible. As of today, FDA published 20 Federal Register
notices related to FDAAA. We are methodically working through the new
law, giving priority attention to new standards that will have the
greatest public health impact. Achieving all of the goals and
objectives of this landmark legislation will require a sustained effort
from many individuals inside and outside of FDA for years to come.
The Scope of FDA Challenges
FDA will face many challenges in the 21st century. Thanks to the
talented professionals who serve the American public at FDA, we are
addressing many daunting challenges within all areas of our mission. We
must modernize our workforce, our work plans, and the infrastructure
that supports our mission to assure that we remain the gold standard
for food and drug regulation.
In this era of change, FDA has developed strategic plans to respond
to high-profile challenges in priority areas. During the past 2 years,
we presented comprehensive plans to Congress and the American public on
food and import safety, and responded to the Institute of Medicine
Report on drug safety.
My colleagues and I at FDA are committed to our mission and
committed to the changes necessary to protect America's public health.
Thanks to your support, the FDA of the future--the near future--will
better protect the public from the threats that we experience today. At
the same time, FDA will better promote the discovery, development, and
delivery of lifesaving products that improve the quality of our lives.
Conclusion
The fiscal year 2009 request of $2.4 billion contains essential
resources to protect and promote the health and safety of the American
public. The funds that we request will allow FDA to strengthen the
safety of the food supply, to assess, review, and approve new products,
and to better predict--earlier and more accurately--the safety and
effectiveness of drugs, biologics, and medical devices.
With the fiscal year 2009 resources, FDA 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.
Meeting these challenges is only possible with your leadership and with
the support that you consistently demonstrate for the mission of the
Food and Drug Administration.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Dr. von Eschenbach.
Dr. von Eschenbach, how do you reconcile your statement
about Congress not providing you with enough funding when, in
fact, over the past 2 years, this committee has provided you
with over $100 million more than you asked for?
INCREASED PRODUCTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Dr. von Eschenbach. Mr. Chairman, with great credit to you
and to other Members of Congress, you have more recently been
very, very generous in your support of the FDA. I think what we
are both faced with is the realization that over the past 2
decades the FDA has been immersed in this rapidly and radically
changing world that has increased the scale and scope of the
portfolio of products and responsibilities facing the FDA, as
well as increasing complexity in the nature of those products
and the nature of their production and their consumption. And I
think it is in the context of that rapidly and radically
changing world that over the past 2 decades the resources
required have not kept pace with the needs.
But I certainly commend you and other Members of Congress
for your recent attention to our need to perhaps accelerate our
ability to create that trajectory so that we can, in fact,
bring the FDA up to the level of that we currently anticipate
will be needed for this modern world.
SCIENCE BOARD
Senator Kohl. Dr. von Eschenbach, we would be remiss if we
did not discuss the FDA Science Board's recommendation for your
budget. Their report states--and I quote--``FDA's resource
shortfalls have resulted in a plethora of inadequacies that
threaten our society including, but not limited to, inadequate
inspections of manufacturers, a dearth of scientists who
understand emerging new science and technologies, inability to
speed the development of new therapies, an import system that
is badly broken, a food supply that grows riskier every year,
and an information infrastructure that was identified as a
source of risk in every FDA center and function.'' This is a
board full of experienced and knowledgeable people that was
established at your request.
So let us start with the overall number.
Your budget requests a $54 million increase this year, but
the Science Board recommends $375 million. Is your budget
adequate? How do you respond to the Science Board's
recommendations?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Mr. Chairman, I was very gratified by
the report by the Science Board, which I had convened in order
to have an external, objective assessment of FDA's scientific
infrastructure. I think what the report has pointed out is the
need for change within FDA. We have attempted to address those
changes based on a strategic plan for implementation of the
needed changes over a period of time.
The resources that are required will continuously need to
be increased. I think the board reflects the fact that if we
wish to accelerate the time line for that modernization effort
and the implementation of many of the changes that are
necessary to align the FDA with the modern rapidly and
radically changing world around us, that level of support would
be required.
ADDITIONAL $375 MILLION
Senator Kohl. Could the FDA absorb an additional $375
million in 1 year?
Dr. von Eschenbach. No, sir. I do not believe it could
absorb that in 1 single year. I do believe, however, that we
have now put in place the trajectory that I indicated before in
which we have plans which define time lines, outcomes, and
deliverables so that there is the rational investment of those
additional resources and the ability to demonstrate a return on
that investment to the American people.
I believe we could absorb significant increases in our
budget and we are prepared to address how they would be applied
if they were to be available. And we are doing that in the
context of recognizing that our budget is one part of a larger
portfolio of responsibilities to the American people that is
reflected by both the President and the Congress.
NECESSARY RESOURCES
Senator Kohl. Is the FDA underfunded, hugely underfunded,
grossly underfunded? What would you tell the American people?
Dr. von Eschenbach. I believe that from the perspective of
our recognition of the changes that are occurring in the world
around us, the need for the FDA to significantly change its
strategies as to how it is addressing those changes, be they
the incredible opportunities that are emanating from the
discoveries in science and technology with new products such as
will occur with regard to our ability to recognize the fruits
of nanotechnology and regenerative medicine, all the way
through to the recognition of the threats that are now
emanating from globalization and the fact of our need to secure
integrity of supply chain of these medical products from
production to consumption, be it food or medical products, all
of this is requiring a change within the Food and Drug
Administration that is both strategic and a change that is also
resource-dependent.
So the answer is I believe that we have been eminently
successful up to this point in time. We are the world's gold
standard, but if we wish to continue that record of excellence,
we must change as the world around us is changing and we must
change from the perspective that as our portfolio is expanding,
so are the need for our resources to meet those expectations in
that portfolio.
Senator Kohl. So in order to meet those expectations I
think what you have said--I believe what you said--is that in
order to discharge those responsibilities to the American
people, the FDA is underfunded. Hugely underfunded, grossly
underfunded. One could debate that, but underfunded.
Dr. von Eschenbach. I believe that we need additional
resources. I am presenting a budget today that asks for
additional resources. I have asked for more additional
resources. I believe we could and would apply any additional
resources wisely and effectively, given the fact that, as I
indicated in my opening statement, it is not simply a matter of
asking for more. It has rather been our responsibility to
define how we would spend more, spend it wisely and
strategically, and be able to then assure a return on that
investment by enhancing the American people's access to safer
and more effective medical products and food.
Senator Kohl. Thank you.
Senator Bennett.
FUNDING ABSORPTION
Senator Bennett. I would like to continue the line of
questioning that the chairman has started down. You said you
could not absorb $375 million in a single year. I think that is
probably right. How much could you absorb? This is not asking
you to break with OMB. This is just a theoretical question that
you can answer in a scholarly kind of way. How much could you
absorb?
Dr. von Eschenbach. I believe that what we have attempted
to do, Senator Bennett, in our planning process, both in our
food protection plan, as well as in our strategic plan, and
participating even in the larger agenda, like our import safety
working group, our drug safety initiatives, across the context
of food and medical products, enhancing safety, as well as
rebuilding and recreating the infrastructure at FDA, we have
laid our a series of initiatives, a series of opportunities. If
additional funding was available, depending upon the level of
funding, we would apply it to that portfolio of opportunities
which we have outlined in these plans. We would do that
initially around those opportunities having to do with assuring
safety of food and of medical products.
BEYOND OUR BORDERS
So, for example, we have embarked upon initiatives now
recognizing that FDA must go beyond our borders. And
establishing an FDA presence in geographic regions around the
world is a new initiative to which we could apply new dollars
and accelerate our ability to implement the establishment and
support of those offices, which would enable us to, one, work
with our partners in other parts of the world to build
capacity, to assure quality being built into the production of
food and medical products, as well as being able to enhance the
completion of White Oak and our data center.
FUNDING ABSORPTION
Senator Bennett. I am sure you would go through this
orderly process. I am looking for a number. If we were to, in
our wisdom, decide that OMB was wrong and we needed to add an
extra $100 million to the amount that you have taken, just to
pull a number completely out of the air, could you handle that?
You said $375 million you could not handle. You said you could
handle more than $54 million. I am looking for something ball
park in between as to, yes, we could comfortably absorb and
handle an extra $50 million, an extra $100 million. You get
beyond that, we are looking at future years.
It is an unfair question, but it is not because if we are
moved to help you, we want to move in an area that is prudent
rather than extravagant.
Dr. von Eschenbach. First of all, I would certainly welcome
an opportunity to present a scenario and portfolio of options
given additional possible investment. Certainly just as you
say, today I do believe we could absorb the $100 million that
you referred to and do that quite rapidly and quite
effectively. As we would get closer and closer to the larger
number that you presented, I think it would require greater
stewardship to be certain that we could implement those dollars
as rapidly and as effectively as we need to.
CRITICAL PATH
Senator Bennett. I appreciate your emphasis on safety, and
I agree with that.
But as you know, I am very much concerned about the
critical path activities. You came to the University of Utah
and testified at a hearing there, and we all got excited about
the opportunities that are there. We provided $7.5 million in
2008, and $2.5 million was made available for competitive
critical path research grants. Is that one area where you are
expecting, even with what you have asked us for, to make
additional resources, or is that an area that would benefit
tremendously if we were to go above the number you have
suggested?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, again, I think critical path is
an excellent example of how we have tried to create this
trajectory. We have, within critical path, 50 areas of
opportunity for investment. They are a different grain size. As
dollars are available to us, we can strategically apply them to
those initiatives but do that in a way that is addressing the
modernization of our drug development and medical product
development process and also do it in a way that demonstrates a
return on investment.
WARFARIN
Let me give you one quick example of how we have utilized
some of the resources you have already applied. In taking on
our ability to look at the drug warfarin and use
pharmacogenomic testing in order to be able to appropriately
define the right dose for the right patient, that is now a part
of FDA's labeling of that particular drug. That enabled us to
begin to reduce the complications of either under-dosing
patients experiencing clots or overdosing and having them
unnecessarily bleed. And by getting that right dose based on
our understanding of pharmacogenomics, that is projected to
result in the savings of $1 billion per year for our health
care system by the elimination of emergency room visits for the
complications of an inappropriately dosed level of warfarin.
So I see this as a strategic business plan as well as a
strategic opportunity to transform the science, and with
additional dollars, we would expand our investment in a variety
of those initiatives across the critical path.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
Senator Bennett. And I see it as a business plan too.
Unfortunately, in the way we structure Federal budgets, unlike
businesses that I ran or businesses that the chairman ran
before we came here, we still find things so that we do not
recognize that there would be a billion dollar benefit, but it
is in somebody else's budget. So we do not get credit for it as
we think about it here.
Let us talk about IT. You are spending roughly what--10
percent of your budget--on IT right now, and the results are
less than satisfactory. Talk to us about what has to be done to
bring your IT capability up to where it needs to be.
Dr. von Eschenbach. When I arrived at FDA, the two most
critical areas I believe to address was our workforce
development and our information technology infrastructure
because we are, in fact, an information management business.
With regard to the information technology, we are spending,
according to benchmarks, about $200 million a year on IT. But
the problem that we encountered was it was being spent on
woefully inadequate equipment to kind of attempt to maintain it
at huge cost, and we did not have the modern information
systems running on that equipment.
So we have been engaged in a transformation of our entire
IT infrastructure, moving to modern servers and equipment,
increasing their efficiency from what has been around 30
percent to a 70 percent target, consolidating them so that we
have shared activities across those servers, as well as
implementing the Bioinformatics Board to redefine the programs
that need to be operationalized on that IT infrastructure to
create integration across the agency and information sharing,
especially from our field to our centers. That is now an
investment of about $247 million a year.
WHITE OAK AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
White Oak construction includes plans for our
implementation and build-out of a data center at White Oak
which will help us to continue our efforts to put FDA on a
complete electronic infrastructure and move us away from paper.
As we had more dollars to invest, we could accelerate the
implementation of that IT strategic plan.
Senator Bennett. So that brings us back to White Oak. What
is your time line, and is the construction of White Oak, which
is not just bricks and mortar, as you have just indicated, it
is also massive increases in efficiency as you get the kind of
data center that you are looking to from your IT investment
there, proceeding more slowly because we are not putting enough
money into it? Would it be completed more rapidly if we gave
you more money? And what is your time line for getting it done?
GSA
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, we obviously are dependent upon
the appropriations that the General Services Administration,
GSA, receives, and they are responsible for the bricks and
mortar and maintaining that development on its time line for
full completion by 2012. If those dollars were to fall off and
construction slowed, that would create serious problems for us
in terms of our transition into that consolidated facility from
what are currently leased and widely dispersed facilities.
More importantly, as you point out, are opportunities lost
with regard to consolidation. We see White Oak as our
opportunity to integrate our science more effectively by virtue
of having modern state-of-the-art laboratories that are working
in an interdependent fashion.
Senator Bennett. Would you see savings if White Oak were
finished in 2010? And could it be if more money went to GSA?
Dr. von Eschenbach. I have not done a cost analysis in
terms of savings by virtue of acceleration. I certainly can
tell you that there are huge losses--we would sink a lot of
cost if that time line was slowed down. So how much would we
gain back?
Senator Bennett. Yes.
DATA CENTER
Dr. von Eschenbach. I certainly know by completion of such
things like our data center would have a significant impact
across the entire FDA operation, not just the White Oak campus.
Senator Bennett. We need to do everything we can to get
that finished in as logical a time as we can.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Bennett.
Senator Dorgan.
HEPARIN--FOREIGN INSPECTIONS
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Dr. von Eschenbach, thank you. I want to ask about the
issue of inspections of foreign properties, especially about
the issue of heparin, if I might. Heparin is a blood thinner--
we are well familiar with it--commonly used by dialysis
patients, recently pulled from the market after it was linked
to some 62 deaths. Baxter Health Care, which markets heparin in
the United States, indicated the allergic reactions appeared to
be caused by a contaminant that was added in place of the
active ingredient in heparin somewhere in the manufacturing
process, they suspect, mostly in China. They have purchased the
active ingredient for heparin from a company called SPL, which
is based in Wisconsin, and they purchased pig intestines from
Chinese pig farms and processed the intestines in China and
Wisconsin.
I am going to show you some charts. The Wall Street Journal
did something about this. It published a series of photos of
the Yvan Intestine and Casing factory which processes pig
intestines used to make heparin. Now, I am not tracing this
heparin to this place because none of us can know that or do
that. But this shows the types of unsanitary conditions in
which production maybe taking place. We will go down the list
of these photographs. This is a place that is processing what
is an active ingredient in heparin. This is processing pig
intestines.
My understanding is that the FDA inspected 1,222 plants in
the United States in a year and conducted only 17 inspections
of plants in China. Further, when we met with Baxter, we asked
Baxter had the FDA ever inspected the plant in China that is
using pig intestines to create the active ingredient in
heparin. Baxter said that the FDA had scheduled an inspection
but actually ended up inspecting the wrong factory.
So 62 people are dead. We hear about the danger of re-
importing FDA-approved prescription drugs from Canada, which is
beyond me, by the way. They do that routinely in Europe under
something called parallel trading where they move FDA-approved
drugs from country to country. But even though we hear about
the danger of that, including from the FDA I might add, it
appears to be the active ingredient in heparin, which may well
have caused some 60-some deaths, is coming from areas in China
where there have been no inspection.
So tell me about that, 17 inspections in China, 1,100
inspections in the United States.
GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN
Dr. von Eschenbach. Senator, your question is very
perceptive in that I think the heparin experience points out to
us many of the principles that we have been discussing this
morning. Let me try to succinctly address what is a very
complex issue.
We are engaged in now a global supply chain, and FDA,
rather than it being a gatekeeper, is now invested in a
strategy of being engaged in the total life cycle of products
from production to consumption. That then requires us to look
at that comprehensively and look at it from the point of view
of prevention of problems, building quality in at the outset,
intervention when there is a suspicion or concern, and response
when there is evidence of an adverse event. So all parts of
that equation must be emphasized and enhanced, our ability to
respond rapidly and efficiently, as well as our ability to
intervene but, most importantly, to begin to emphasize the
front end, building quality in at the outset.
Senator Dorgan. But, Dr. von Eschenbach----
Dr. von Eschenbach. Inspections are important, and I
completely concur with our need to enhance our foreign
inspections.
But this issue points out the fact that that inspection
would not have detected the contamination of heparin because
the contaminant is not detectable by our routine testing
methods. And it was apparently, we suspect, done by virtue of
economic fraud and, therefore, we had to devise new testing
methods which now are being used around the entire world by our
other agencies to address the problem.
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Senator Dorgan. A fair point.
But, Dr. von Eschenbach, these plants have not been
inspected. My assumption is even if you could detect the active
ingredient and the problems there, you would not allow this
plant to process pig intestines and send an active ingredient
in the U.S. drug supply. And my understanding is that 40
percent of the active ingredients in the U.S. drug supply come
from China and India, and I just described what we have here.
Seventeen inspections in all of China in 1 year, 1,200
inspections in this country.
Now, Senator Bennett asked you the question about the
resources needed. Is FDA only doing 17 inspections because they
do not have the resources?
BEYOND OUR BORDERS
Dr. von Eschenbach. FDA inspects all the factories or all
sites of production for new active pharmaceutical ingredients
for which an application is being submitted. It is the
reinspections where we need to begin to expand our capacity. We
are doing that in terms of, one, our initiative, FDA Beyond our
Borders. We are in the process of working with the Chinese
Government and we have signed memorandums of agreement to work
directly with their regulatory agency. We are anticipating
opening five FDA offices around the world. China will be our
first with offices in Beijing, Guangzhou, which is the source
of major food production, and in Shanghai where we have the
port. We will work directly through that process to enhance
inspections but, more importantly, to work to build, with our
Chinese counterparts, systems that will assure quality in the
production of these products long before they actually come
into our supply chain.
FOREIGN INSPECTIONS
Senator Dorgan. This comes from the Congressional
Quarterly. It says the Food and Drug Administration wanted to
inspect 3,249 factories overseas and it was able to inspect 212
in all countries. You were able to inspect 6.5 percent of that
which you wanted to inspect.
Again, my point is if 40 percent of the active ingredients
for prescription drugs comes from China and India and we have
such a small amount of inspection going on and you say and
everyone says we are in a global economy. Well, it does not
look like we are in a global inspection system. Obviously,
those patients who have died as a result of the heparin
situation paid the price for that.
CANADIAN DRUGS
But I want to make one final point that is related to this.
We are not inspecting these foreign sources of the elements of
prescription drugs, but here are two pill bottles of Lipitor.
As you know, the FDA itself has been helpful to the
pharmaceutical industry in recent years in saying, well, if
U.S. consumers were allowed to reimport FDA-approved drugs from
a Canadian drugstore where they are sold at fraction of the
price, these two bottles--one is the U.S. bottle; the other is
Canada--both made in the same place, put in the same size
bottle, a couple different changes in the label. The only
difference here--the same pill, same bottle, same company, FDA-
approved--is the U.S. consumer gets to pay twice the price. And
yet, the FDA says, in assistance to the administration and the
pharmaceutical industry, there is a problem with allowing the
reimportation of a FDA-approved drug from Canada even while
this occurs, such a miserable level of inspections
internationally.
Now, I am not laying this all at your feet, Dr. von
Eschenbach because you have not been there all that long. But I
do think it relates to the questions asked by the chairman and
the ranking member about resources and what are we deciding to
do to protect the health of the American people with respect to
these issues.
Dr. von Eschenbach. Senator, I think it is both resources
and a completely different way of doing business. First of all,
with regard to the process, we need to work more effectively
and collaboratively with other regulatory agencies in other
countries, but also with regard to the developers and suppliers
of these drugs. They have an integral and important part to
play in this as well.
TRACK AND TRACE
We are embarking upon this in a more comprehensive way than
just simply increasing the number of inspections, which we will
do, but we will do that in a risk-based model. We will do that
in a very tiered fashion so that electronically we are able to
be aware of all of the things in a track and trace and then
define where we need to target those specific inspections where
we believe there is the greatest potential for risk.
ACTIVE INGREDIENTS
Senator Dorgan. Now, last year I added report language to
an appropriations bill that directs the FDA to tell us where
are drugs made and where do the active ingredients come from.
We have not yet received that. Is that on its way from the FDA
to the Congress?
Dr. von Eschenbach. We are in the process of--again, as we
talked about earlier, our need for revamping and rebuilding of
our information technology infrastructure to be able to create
a system where we have product identification and we can
actually track and determine all things that are coming----
UNITED STATES VERSUS CANADA
Senator Dorgan. But is the report on its way to Congress on
where active ingredients come from? That is a requirement.
I have taken more time than I think I am allowed. One final
question if I might.
This issue of United States versus Canada. Canada has an
almost identical chain of control of prescription drugs, as we
do. Most everyone understands and agrees with that. Europe has
had a parallel trading program for 20 years. If you are in
Spain and want to buy a prescription drug from Germany, no
problem. If you are in Italy and want to buy it from France, no
problem. Why is it that the FDA seems to think Europe can do
something that we cannot do?
Dr. von Eschenbach. First of all, Senator, the report is in
progress and I cannot tell you exactly when it will be
delivered to Congress. But it is in process and it is being
prepared for delivery.
Let me separate this into two issues. One issue is how do
we address the integrity of the supply chain of the development
of that product. The second is how do we address the issue of
the introduction of counterfeits into the supply chain with
regard to reimportation. They are two completely different
problems and require two completely different approaches
because----
Senator Dorgan. Europe has done that for two decades.
Dr. von Eschenbach. I just returned from----
Senator Dorgan. If they can do it, we can do it.
COUNTERFEITS
Dr. von Eschenbach. I have just returned from some
interactions with counterparts in which some of the
transshipments through countries are detecting a significant
degree of counterfeits being introduced into that process. We
are addressing both of these, Senator, because they are both of
critical importance to assuring the product that Americans use,
when they take those drugs home and give them to their children
or to themselves, that they are, in fact, getting the right
product.
Senator Dorgan. Mr. Chairman, you have been generous.
Dr. von Eschenbach, would you be worried if a member of
your family were taking a prescription drug that was FDA-
approved and purchased in a Canadian drugstore?
Dr. von Eschenbach. If I purchased it in a Canadian
drugstore and----
Senator Dorgan. A registered pharmacy in Canada. FDA-
approved, registered pharmacy in Canada. Would you be worried
about the efficacy of that drug?
Dr. von Eschenbach. It would depend on the drug, but no, I
would not. But that is different than me having that imported
into the United States through a website.
Senator Dorgan. That was not the question. You said no
because, I assume, that the drugs for your family you would
purchase in a registered Canadian pharmacy you feel has the
same chain of command, almost identical to the United States.
Is that----
Dr. von Eschenbach. I have a high degree of respect for the
Canadian system with regard to their own regulation of drugs.
Yes, sir.
Senator Dorgan. Thank you, Dr. von Eschenbach.
Senator Kohl. Senator Reed.
INDOOR TANNING DEVICES
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
Commissioner.
By September 27, 2008, the FDA must submit a report to
Congress on its labeling requirements for indoor tanning
devices. What is your understanding of the science of the risk
of tanning devices and what progress has FDA made on reviewing
these labeling requirements that you are required to
promulgate?
Dr. von Eschenbach. We have been actively involved in
preparing that report to Congress, Senator. It really looks at
the issue of warning labels, as you have requested. Personally
as a melanoma survivor, I obviously have great interest and
concern about this even though I am not directly involved in
the specifics of this issue. But we are addressing this and
addressing this as a public health need.
Senator Reed. Your last statement presumes that existing
scientific evidence suggests this is a public health problem.
Dr. von Eschenbach. The concern is certainly--the concern
is always with regard to potential problems for over-exposure
or over-use.
Senator Reed. Some individuals and groups are suggesting
that indoor tanning devices are actually palliative, not
dangerous at all. For this reason, we are very eager for
scientific evidence of their effects. Can you be more specific
as to your progress? I presume if you are working towards this
labeling, that there is some scientific predicate to labeling.
Otherwise, you would come back to us and say the labeling is
unnecessary.
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, the labeling needs to address the
risks, as well as the benefits that may be associated with the
use of this particular kind of device and the appropriate use
of the device. And I believe that the Center for Devices and
Radiologic Health is addressing this, both from the scientific
perspective as well as from a consumer's understanding and
appreciation of health messages associated with these products,
and we will be presenting that report to Congress before
September.
SUNSCREENS
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Commissioner.
In a related matter, the FDA is in the process of
finalizing its proposed rule on sunscreen products. Can you
give us an estimate of when it will be completed? It has been
pending for a while now.
Dr. von Eschenbach. Yes, sir. It was a matter of addressing
the issue of adding the UVA component to the UVB standards with
regard to the rule so that we now have two test methods for UVA
and the inclusion of the appropriate warning statements. That
proposed rule is in process, and I cannot give you an exact
date of when it will be presented, but it is an issue that is
being actively worked on for finalization.
Senator Reed. Can you give an estimate? Within this quarter
or next quarter?
Dr. von Eschenbach. I would be reluctant to give you an
estimate and then not be able to assure that, Senator. But I
will assure you that this is not something that is being
ignored. It is being given appropriate attention and the
expectation is to finish this.
GENERIC DRUGS
Senator Reed. Thank you.
We all recognize that generic drugs play an important role
in the health care system today. I have been told that there
are about 1,400-1,500 generic drug applications currently
pending, with 570 or so pending over 180 days. Do you need
increased funding for these generic reviews? Do you need
something to expedite their approval?
Dr. von Eschenbach. We are both blessed and challenged by
the success that we have achieved with regard to bringing
generic drugs to the American people. This year we received 880
applications--in 2007, rather. And we have approved 682, which
was a 33 percent increase in 2007 over 2006. So the track
record is extraordinary, but because the funnel has increased
so significantly, that has continued to create the backlog
issue.
NEW STAFF
Now, we have approached that on a variety of fronts. One
is, as you indicated, applying additional resources. So we have
hired approximately 40 new staff to address generic drug
review. We are also beginning to attempt to try to prioritize
the review process to get the first generics and also beginning
to address things like process improvement, as well as
enhancement of our infrastructure, specifically IT, work with
the people who are creating these drug applications to get
better quality into the applications so that they go through
the regulatory process in a lot more efficient way. And I think
the net effect of all of that would be to continue to enhance
our productivity and reduce the backlog.
Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ADDITIONAL STAFF
Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Dr. von Eschenbach, going back to a comment I made in my
opening statement, you say that your budget provides funding
for increased activities for food safety and medical product
safety and that you will hire several hundred additional staff
this year. But the budget request is not enough to even pay for
the staff that you now have. So how do you equate your
intentions with respect to additional staff when you do not
have money to even pay for the staff that you now have?
Dr. von Eschenbach. Well, we are on the trajectory to
increased staff. We do, in fact, have to absorb additional
costs associated with that staff over and above what we
currently have available to us in the budget. So it is perhaps
slowing it down a little bit, but the trajectory is still very
positive and we are still increasing the number of staff that
we have. It is just we will not do it at the rate that we had
anticipated because of needing to absorb the cost of living of
$34 million that you indicated.
So the simple answer to your question, Senator, is we have
to make accommodations in the pace with which we will bring
those people on board in order to stay within our budget
framework, but it will not be a negative. It will not be a
deficit. It will be just not as rapid an accrual of those
numbers as we had anticipated. We will just have to push it off
a little bit.
Senator Kohl. I appreciate that, but what I think I and
others are taking from what you are saying is that the lack of
the necessary funding will, in fact, have a severe impact on
your ability to do the things that you are saying you want to
do.
Dr. von Eschenbach. There are a very large number of
important initiatives that we have identified that are part of
what I consider to be the essential modernization of the FDA.
Depending upon available resources, we would be able to
implement many of those initiatives in as an effective way as
possible. So I do agree with you from the perspective that
there is much to be done and we are prepared to do it, and with
support, we would implement those programs in a strategic way
but also with great stewardship, recognizing how precious these
resources are and how many other needs there are across the
entire Federal Government.
CHINA OFFICE
Senator Kohl. Dr. von Eschenbach, can you provide us with a
status update of the office that you are trying to open in
China? How many FDA employees do you anticipate working there,
and what do you intend their focus to be?
Dr. von Eschenbach. We anticipate a total of 13 individuals
that will be making up our China office. Eight of those will be
full-time FDA employees. Five of them will be locally employed
staff. That will be give us great opportunity with regard to
our ability to integrate effectively locally.
OTHER FOREIGN OFFICES
We also look forward to offices in India, the Middle East,
Latin America, and Europe. And I have been engaged in
conversations with governments and counterparts, as has
Secretary Leavitt, in all of those areas. It is a balance
between their willingness to welcome us and accept us at the
government level. We have not yet secured that welcome from
China officially, but we certainly have great interest and
enthusiasm on the part of the ministers and government
officials in China with whom we have discussed this. So I
anticipate that it will occur.
We really look forward to the China office being fully
implemented within this fiscal year, and we are laying the
groundwork and would like very much to begin to develop the
other sites as rapidly as possible.
POST-MARKET SAFETY
Senator Kohl. Dr. von Eschenbach, you noted in your
statement several new medical devices that FDA approved last
year. Post-market safety of medical devices obviously is an
important issue for patients. But the number of staff in the
FDA devices program is, in fact, decreasing this year. So can
you comment on how you plan to continue improving these
important devices, as well as ensuring their safety after they
have been approved with the very minimal funding increases and,
in fact, while at the same time losing staff?
Dr. von Eschenbach. We are doing a number of things,
Senator, one of which, as I had indicated earlier, is this
ability to create much greater integration and interdependence
across programs. For example, in this regard, I believe we
could effectively enhance the performance in post-market
surveillance, whether it is drugs or devices, by virtue of our
information technology infrastructure and our ability to do
much more effective post-market surveillance. We look forward
to being able to continue to streamline and enhance the very
effective programs that are already underway in the Center for
Devices and Radiologic Health with regard to working with the
industry in post-market surveillance.
So I think it is a combination of building the trajectory,
as I have indicated before, finding ways to leverage currently
ongoing resources or programs like IT, and continue to make
strategic investments, especially as user fees contribute to
this opportunity. And we expect our user fee program to
increase. In 2009, there will be $52.5 million in this
particular area. So we do look forward to growth, but it is
going to come in different ways.
Senator Kohl. Senator Bennett.
CLOSING REMARKS
Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think
all of the issues I have on my list have been covered either by
you or Senator Dorgan or in my previous questions.
So let me again thank Dr. von Eschenbach and his team for
their willingness to serve in what must occasionally be a
somewhat contentious atmosphere, and I wish them well.
Senator Kohl. I want to associate myself with Senator
Bennett's statements. I think it has been a good hearing. I
think we have brought out very clearly, number one, the huge
and expanding responsibilities the FDA has and, number two, the
lack of satisfactory funding to carry out your
responsibilities. Clearly, there is a very important job that
we need to work together to achieve.
In fact, it is clear to us that you cannot carry out the
responsibilities you have in a way that I believe would satisfy
you without the necessary and adequate funding. I think there
are plenty of professional people on your staff, most
importantly yourself, who can and would get the job done with
adequate funding, but without the funding, it is pretty hard to
do the job that you need to do.
If you want to respond to that statement, that would be
fine. You could make a comment or two and then we will close
the hearing.
Dr. von Eschenbach. I would just close, Mr. Chairman, with
echoing what I know is both your sentiments and Senator
Bennett's sentiments. This country and this agency is truly
blessed by the people of the Food and Drug Administration. I
have the privilege every day to witness their sacrifice, their
commitment, and their unbelievable performance, given the
nature of the challenges that they are burdened with every
single day. If we were to talk about resources, it is resources
that are not about programs. It is resources about people. And
the Food and Drug Administration's most precious asset, this
Nation's most precious asset, are these incredible individuals.
We need more of them. We need more of them with new and
different skill sets that are going to be aligned with the
challenges of the 21st century, new science that is emerging,
new technologies that are emerging, new complexity in the
production and consumption of products. One needs only to go
and walk through a supermarket and realize that with the
exception of meat and chicken, every other thing in that
supermarket is their responsibility to assure to the American
people the quality of those products.
Every dollar that you choose to invest is, I believe, my
responsibility to use to nurture and support that workforce. We
need a fellowship program that will be able to create the
intellectual capital of tomorrow. We need career development
for the people that are already there. We are going to hire
over 700 new people, which I believe is a wise use of the
resources that you will make available to us.
But if I was to leave you with one final word, it would be
I do not believe that there is any greater investment the
American people could make than to invest in the people who
make up the Food and Drug Administration.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
Senator Kohl. Thank you very much. That is a fine
statement. You made a fine appearance here this morning. We
thank you, as well as Mr. Dyer and Mr. Turman for being here.
And at this time we will close the hearing.
[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
fda science board recommendations
Question. If additional funding was provided to FDA this year above
your request level, what are the top 3 most pressing needs you would
address?
Answer. On November 6, 2007, the administration released its Action
Plan for Import Safety. The Action Plan for Import Safety recognizes
FDA's central role in ensuring the safety of America's food supply and
the safety and effectiveness of medical products, regardless of where
the food and medical products are produced.
Implementing the Action Plan for Import Safety is a top FDA
objective, and FDA has three priorities to achieve that objective: FDA
Beyond Our Borders, building a modern IT infrastructure, and risk-based
science.
Beyond Our Borders is a core element of the Action Plan for Import
Safety. Beyond Our Borders includes establishing offices in China,
India, and other locations. The FDA Beyond Our Borders initiative also
relies on greater collaboration with foreign regulators, the use of
third parties to provide information about the compliance of regulated
industry with FDA standards, and greater FDA direction to regulated
industry to ensure that their global activities meet FDA standards.
FDA foreign inspections and import exams are also an essential part
of the Beyond Our Borders Initiative. In addition to providing greater
deterrence, FDA will better target inspections to firms and products
that pose the greatest risk to consumers.
Consistent with recommendations in the Action Plan for Import
Safety, FDA must modernize its IT systems. Improving FDA's IT will help
the agency target inspections to foreign firms whose products pose the
greatest risk. IT improvements will allow FDA to better predict the
firms and products that pose the highest risk imports.
Under the Action Plan for Import Safety, FDA must also strengthen
its capacity to conduct the science that supports risk-based
inspections. FDA risk-based science is essential to assure that imports
are safe. and to assure that FDA scientists stay ahead of those who
accidentally or intentionally defeat FDA oversight of imports. The
Action Plan for Import Safety requires a strong FDA program of risk-
based science and laboratory support so that FDA can ensure the safety
of imports for patients and consumers.
Question. Please provide a professional judgment budget, regardless
of constraints faced by FDA due to DHHS or OMB, on additional funding
needed by the Agency that could reasonably be expended, in fiscal year
20009.
Answer. The following document is an assessment of immediate
resource needs based on a professional judgment analysis, without
regard to the competing priorities that FDA, the President, and the
President's advisors must consider as budget submissions to the
Congress are developed. As the response indicates, the amounts
identified are in addition to amounts appropriated to FDA in fiscal
year 2008.
[The information is attached.]
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ESTIMATE
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2009 FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Protection......................... $125 259
Safer Drugs, Devices, and Biologics..... 100 160
Modernizing FDA Science and Workforce... 50 71
-------------------------------
Total............................. 275 490
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amounts identified in this document support three strategic
investment areas--protecting our food supply, assuring safer drugs,
devices, and biologics, and modernizing the essential infrastructure of
FDA's science and workforce. The amounts are in addition to amounts
appropriated to FDA in fiscal year 2008. Investing in these three
strategic areas will permit FDA to rapidly achieve important public
health goals that cut across strategic components of the Agency.
This document responds to the request for the FDA's professional
judgment concerning resource needs. The document and was developed
without regard to the competing priorities that the President and his
advisors must consider as budget submissions to the Congress are
developed.
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT: FOOD PROTECTION PLAN (+$125 MILLION)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Elements and Strategic Activities FPP Output Amount FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention:
1.1 Promote Increased Corporate Increase FDA presence beyond our $16,000,000 24
Responsibility to Prevent borders, including increased
Foodborne Illnesses: FDA will training for food safety best
ensure the safety of imports by practices abroad. Offices in four
increasing FDA's presence beyond additional countries with 7/8 FDA 5,000,000 2
our borders and building capacity FTE and 4/5 foreign nationals per
with foreign partners. country/region. Yields FDA presence 5,000,000 3
in five countries or regions of the
world.
Increase technical assistance on food
standards in at least 3 of the
countries accounting for the major
share of imports.
Develop systems and tools for an
international information exchange
database related to inspections and
quality.
1.2 Identify Food Vulnerabilities Increase capacity to collect & 5,000,000 10
and Assess Risks: FDA will interpret data for risk-based
conduct risk-based prevention to prevention for products of greatest 7,000,000 20
better protect America's food concern.
supply. FDA will better Research and develop risk-based
understand food safety and food prevention strategies based on
defense risks and use this scientific data and protocols.
understanding to define the
optimum preventive controls to
establish.
1.3 Expand Understanding and Use Develop and validate rapid detection 5,000,000 10
of Effective Mitigation Measures: technologies and assays (see 2.3 for
FDA will develop and validate deploying technologies and assays);
rapid detection tools to quickly For high risk foods, commence work
detect and mitigate a potential to develop two new priority tools
problem. and to validate two test methods for
toxic chemicals or microbes
developed by industry.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 43,000,000 69
----------------------------------
Intervention:
2.1 Inspections and Sampling Based 20,000 more import food exams at the 6,000,000 36
on Risk: FDA will apply risk port of entry \1\ ($300 each). 13,500,000 50
analysis to set priorities for 800 more foreign food production and/
food inspections and or processing facility inspections 6,500,000 33
interventions. and support for foreign inspections
\1\ (uc=$16.7K).
800 more domestic food safety
inspections \1\ (uc=$8k).
2.2 Enhance Risk-Based Integrate and assimilate risk-based 10,000,000 15
Surveillance of Imported Foods at information into data systems.
the Border: FDA will design and
build risk-based algorithms to
conduct inspections and detect
food risks. Understanding the
risks defines the number and
types of inspections and tests
needed to ensure that preventive
controls are working.
2.3 Better Detect Food System Improve signal detection of 5,000,000 5
Signals that Indicate intentional and unintentional
Contamination: FDA will deploy chemical and microbial contamination. 5,000,000 5
rapid detection technologies and Deploy 1-2 rapid detection assays to
assays and build laboratory test high risk foods. Acquire
infrastructure for faster advanced technology and deploy such 11,000,000 10
testing. FDA will deploy state-of- equipment to FDA field and conduct
the-art technology to improve the technology transfer to industry.
integration of incoming signals Build high throughput rapid detection
and achieve faster mitigation and technology into laboratory
response. infrastructure.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 57,000,000 154
----------------------------------
Response:
3.1 Improve Immediate Answer. FDA Develop and implement a system for 10,000,000 20
will enable real-time traceback from product consumption
communication of lab results. FDA back to the source of production
will develop protocols to using, for example, electronic 10,000,000 6
facilitate tracebacks of pedigrees and industry applied
foodborne illnesses. FDA will technologies of bar coding and radio
rapidly detect and respond frequency identification.
foodborne outbreaks. Enhance interoperable information
technology networking system between
FDA and Federal, State, and local
testing labs.
3.2 Improve Risk Communications to Create a health hazards alert 5,000,000 10
the Public, Industry, and Other communication system using multiple
Stakeholders: FDA will enhance media outlets to quickly inform a
risk communication though broad cross section of the public.
aggressive, targeted food safety
campaigns that disseminate clear
and effective messages with
regular updates through a variety
of media to all target audiences.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 25,000,000 36
----------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, Food Protection ..................................... 125,000,000 259
Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDA will hire and train additional field inspectors throughout fiscal year 2009. As a result, by fiscal year
2010, the proposed investment will allow FDA to increase its inspection and surveillance capacity by the
number of inspections identified in this FPP output
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT: ENSURING SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICAL PRODUCTS (+$100 MILLION)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Activity Output Amount FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safer Drugs, Devices, and Biologics:
1.1 Science to Improve Medical Establish a unique device $7,500,000 17
Product Safety and Development: identification system to track
Use new science and analysis to devices, facilitate recalls, and 14,000,000 10
improve the safety of medical support inventory management during
products. In some cases, new disasters and terrorism response.
science creates opportunities to Implement FDAAA safety requirements
leverage advances from one related to pediatric drugs and
product area to promote safety in devices, postmarket study
a different area. commitments, clinical trials, active
drug surveillance, labeling and safe
use of drugs.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 21,500,000 27
----------------------------------
1.2 Data Analysis Tools to Build Regulated Product Information 15,000,000 ..............
Identify Safety Issues: Develop Data Warehouse that will enable
and implement quantitative intelligence sharing with other 15,000,000 6
decision-making tools to assess regulatory agencies.
the safety and effectiveness of Data access and analysis for active
drugs, biologics, and devices safety surveillance with development
throughout their lifecycle. of scientific methods of data mining
for signals of adverse events.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total....................... ..................................... 30,000,000 6
----------------------------------
1.3 Risk-Based Inspection and 250 more foreign medical product 11,200,000 50
Compliance: Strengthen field facility inspections \1\ 10,800,000 18
operations to better protect (uc=$45.000).
public health. The sheer volume Increase FDA's presence beyond our 4,400,000 14
of products, manufacturing borders to five countries or regions 7,500,000 5
plants, distributors, and of the world.
importers demands a more robust 250 more domestic medical product 6,600,000 35
inspection force with better inspections (uc=17.7K). 3,000,000 ..............
capacity to reach the community Improve lab infrastructure and tools 5,000,000 5
that FDA regulates. for rapid analysis of product/
ingredient content.
Increase import exams (10,000) and
sampling/laboratory analysis (300).
IT systems to achieve an integrated
inventory database.
Improve risk communications to public
and industry.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 48,500,000 127
----------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, Medical Product ..................................... 100,000,000 160
Safety and Effectiveness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDA will hire and train additional field inspectors throughout fiscal year 2009. As a result, by fiscal year
2010, the proposed investment will allow FDA to increase its inspection and surveillance capacity by the
number of inspections identified in this output
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT: MODERNIZING FDA SCIENCE AND WORKFORCE (+50 MILLION)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Activity Output Amount FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernizing FDA Science and Workforce:
1.1 Science Leadership and Strengthen programs of emerging $5,000,000 15
Coordination: FDA will enhance science in Centers and at the
science programs across the National Center for Toxicological 27,000,000 40
agency, especially in emerging Research and enhance integration.
areas such as nanotechnology and Strengthen capacity to support
tissue engineering. FDA will nanotechnology, cell and gene
establish mechanisms to access therapies, robotics, genomics and
the best scientific knowledge and proteomics, Critical Path
expertise to modernize its initiatives, and advanced
regulatory science. FDA will manufacturing technologies.
strengthen its capacity to
support emerging areas of science
and manufacturing that are
essential to regulating FDA
products.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 32,000,000 55
----------------------------------
1.2 Investments to Support Science- Expand science training and 4,000,000 8
Based Regulation: FDA will professional development for career 4,000,000 8
upgrade its science capacity by employees. 10,000,000 ..............
providing more training and Launch Science Fellows Program and
professional development support initiate recruitment of first 500
for FDA science staff. FDA will fellows.
create an Agency-wide 2-year Improve facilities outside of the
Science Fellows Program intended Washington region to support FDA's
to include up to 2,000 trainees mission and enable these facilities
to develop a new cadre of to accept new food and medical
emerging leaders in regulatory product technologies.
science. FDA will upgrade
facilities that do not adequately
support FDA's current or future
mission.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 18,000,000 16
----------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, Modernizing FDA ..................................... 50,000,000 71
Science and Workforce.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pay costs
Question. If you plan to ``absorb'' the pay costs that you haven't
actually paid for in the budget, what will you cut to do it?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget for FDA includes an
increase of $25 million for the cost-of-living increase for FDA
employees. The cost-of-living increase allows FDA to retain the
professional workforce that performs FDA's public health mission. FDA
will cover its fiscal year 2009 cost increases through a combination of
strategies, reducing operating costs, and adjusting its hiring plan.
overseas staffing
Question. I understand that FDA has also expressed interest in
opening other overseas offices to deal with the large and continually
growing number of imported products--including one in India. Again,
however, I don't see this reflected in the budget. Is this something
you are considering? If so, where, and what would the cost be?
Answer. FDA has agreements in place and we are making final
arrangements for offices in China. FDA is also planning to establish
additional offices in India, and is exploring the possibility of
opening offices in three additional regions. The President's fiscal
year 2009 budget provides $3.1 million to establish the office in
China. We have not developed specific estimates for additional offices
by location because developing these estimates requires significant
discussions with the host countries and the Department of State. The
cost to establish additional foreign offices will depend on the office
location, the activities that FDA staff will perform at the location,
and the number of staff that FDA assigns to the location.
food protection plan
Question. Last year, we provided you with a $56 million increase
for food safety, and attached some very specific directives, including
hiring additional inspectors, forming rapid response teams, and
contracting with the National Academy of Sciences on a food safety
study. You talked in your statement about what you have planned for
2009--can you provide us with specifics on how the money we've already
given you has been spent?
Answer. With the funding provided in the January 1, 2008 increase,
FDA has undertaken additional food safety activities. These funds were
used to support planning and the initial stages of implementation of
several Food Protection Plan initiatives. These initiatives include the
FDA hiring surge, the Food Protection Plan, and the Import Safety
Action Plan.
FDA was granted direct hire authority in April 2008 and will hire
161 new FTEs to work in food safety. The Office of Regulatory Affairs--
ORA--completed a 3-year plan to increase State inspections and will
hire an additional 77 new FTEs with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation
and an additional 53 new FTE with the funds from the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, which will be available on July 1, 2008 to
conduct food field exams, inspections, and sample collections. These
investigators will conduct critical activities such as import food
field exams and assist senior investigators in performing high risk
food inspections.
The Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, known as CFSAN,
hired one new FTE with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation and will hire
an additional 28 new FTEs with the funds from the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2008, which will be available on July 1, 2008 to
assist with food safety work aimed at developing guidance to minimize
microbial food safety hazards, developing best practices for preventive
controls that rapidly determine the source of food contamination,
developing risk ranking models for imported and domestic foods,
providing technical assistance to foreign countries on Good
Agricultural Practices, and continuing research to improve
surveillance, sampling and traceback activities and other tools to
rapidly detect and minimize the public health impact of foodborne
pathogens, toxins, and other contaminants that threatens the U.S. food
supply.
In addition, CFSAN is working with the Western Center for Food
Safety at the University of California Davis to focus on the interface
between food protection and the agricultural production of commodities.
FDA has met with the National Academy of Sciences and discussed a
statement of work for a comprehensive study of the gaps in public
health protection provided by the United States' food safety system. In
addition, FDA issued a Request for Applications for forming rapid
response teams. Also, the Office of Crisis Management will hire two new
FTEs with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation to assist FDA in quickly
responding to food safety threats.
Question. You said as part of your statement that during the past
year that FDA has expanded its capacity to detect radiological
contamination of food by 150 percent. We discussed at length last year
the importance of being able to identify contaminants in the food
supply as quickly as possible and provided money for those activities--
can you further discuss your achievements in that regard?
Answer. In fiscal year 2007, FDA, through the Food Emergency
Response Network, also known as FERN, awarded cooperative agreement
grants to three additional State FERN radiological laboratories. These
three labs increased the number of FDA's FERN cooperative agreement
radiological laboratories to five. This is the basis of the statistic
that FDA expanded its capacity to detect radiological contamination of
food by 150 percent.
These five labs are geographically distributed and uniformly
equipped with the latest detection equipment for responding to
radiological contamination in foods. The cooperative agreements also
provide funds to purchase reagents, supplies, and personnel. The model
used for the development of these laboratories follows that of the FERN
chemistry cooperative agreement labs. State FERN chemistry labs are
fully equipped and trained to run FDA's FERN chemistry methods that are
used to screen large numbers of samples. FDA used the FERN chemistry
cooperative agreement labs very successfully to identify melamine
contamination. FERN labs screened large numbers of plant protein
samples in a short time frame.
The radiological labs participate in Federal and State surveillance
sampling programs to monitor the food supply, and are involved in
developing and validating contamination detection methods. Using FERN
rapid screening methods, the labs also serve to dramatically increase
the surge capacity of the laboratory network to respond to terrorist
attack or a national emergency involving the food supply. The increased
capacity to rapidly test large numbers of samples of foods that may be
radiologically contaminated allows FDA's FERN laboratories to respond
quickly to food supply events to protect public health and mitigate
disruption of the distribution of important foods.
field exams/samples
Question. The budget States that FDA plans to perform additional
20,000 import field exams for food this year, but at the same time, the
percent of import lines physically examined is going to decrease from
the 2007 level. I know the number of import lines is growing rapidly,
but this is a perfect example of your budget not keeping up with your
mission. What does a ``field exam'' actually entail, and why is the
percentage of imports physically examined actually decreasing?
Answer. As displayed in the fiscal year 2009 Congressional
Justification (CJ), import physical exams are the total of import field
exams and import laboratory sample analyses. A field exam is a visual
examination of food to determine whether it complies with FDA
requirements. The field exam involves actual physical examination of
the food for admissibility factors such as storage or in transit
damage, inadequate refrigeration, rodent or insect activity, lead in
dinnerware, odor, and compliance with labeling requirement. A field
exam cannot be used to test for microbiological or chemical
contamination. As a result, FDA also conducts import sampling and
analysis to test for such contamination.
In fiscal year 2009, FDA plans to perform an additional 20,000
import food field exams and an additional 75 food import lab sample
analyses. In addition, FDA electronically screens all FDA-regulated
products offered for import into the United States for a variety of
risk factors. FDA electronically screens 100 percent of human food and
animal feed prior notice submissions which are required for all food
and feed imports.
In fiscal year 2007, the percent of import lines examined was 1.28
percent. For fiscal year 2008, FDA estimates that it will examine 1.13
percent of import lines. For fiscal year 2009, the estimate rises to
1.26 percent. Between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2009, FDA is
experiencing a decline in the percent of import lines physically
examined at the same time that the number of import field exams is
increasing due to the rapidly rising volume of food imports.
FDA will continue to focus resources on products that pose the
highest potential risks to the United States. The benefit of physical
exams comes from the quality and targeting of review activities, not
from the volume of imports analyzed. The quality of import screening is
a better measure of FDA's import strategy than simply focusing on the
number of items physically examined.
third party certifications
Question. The Food Protection Plan mentions in several places FDA's
interest in expanding third-party certifications for domestic and
international inspections and examinations. How would these work, and
why is it cheaper than having FDA employees actually do the work?
Answer. The universe of domestic and foreign food establishments
subject to FDA inspection is immense and is expected to see continued
rapid growth. Third party certification programs, when correctly
designed and implemented, allow FDA to accredit independent third
parties, or to recognize entities that accredit third parties. FDA
plans to use information gathered from third party inspections to
evaluate compliance with FDA requirements and to allocate inspection
resources more effectively. This would allow FDA to gather more
information about manufacturers, especially foreign manufacturers, in a
much more resource efficient way. Using third party certification
programs allows FDA to leverage and benefit from the inspections
conducted by others. FDA is working to develop standards that a
certification organization must meet to receive FDA recognition.
generic drugs
Question. In your statement, you note that in fiscal year 2007,
generic drug approvals or tentative approvals increased by 30 percent
over the previous year, even though it's taking longer, on average, to
approve a generic. If the generic drug user fees you propose in your
budget are not adopted by the authorizing committee, how much of an
increase in funding for generic drug approval do you think would be
necessary to continue making gains?
Answer. The increased resources recently provided by Congress have
enabled FDA to hire more scientific review staff and achieve a 33
percent increase in the number of approvals and tentative approvals--
from a total of 510 in fiscal year 2006 to 682 in fiscal year 2007.
In both fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009, we hope to remain
near the fiscal year 2007 performance level with a target of 700 ANDA
approvals and tentative approvals, a slight increase over the 682
approval actions in fiscal year 2007.
A key performance measure of our generic application review process
is the total number of ANDA actions, which include ``approvals,''
``tentative approvals,'' ``not approvables,'' and ``approvable''
actions. Under the fiscal year 2009 President's budget, we expect to be
able to increase the number of total ANDA actions to 1900, an increase
of 7 percent over fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2007.
We expect to be able to continue making performance gains in the
generic drug review process with additional funding. Additional
resources, like those envisioned under a user fee program, would give
us additional staff enabling us to decrease ANDA action time, possibly
resulting in more actions taken on ANDAs in a given year. Under such a
program we would establish a new performance measurement structure
around review performance targets, similar to the user fee program for
new drug applications. We would also plan to use resources to increase
our capacity to address other critical activities that are part of a
complete generic drug review. This includes the scientific and legal
components, and conduct of pre-approval inspections to ensure that
manufacturing processes and facilities--often located in foreign
countries--will deliver drug products that meet our quality standards.
We recognize, however, that it would take a few years to ramp up such a
program in order for us to see significant performance gains.
medical product safety
Question. Could you update us on your progress in this area?
Answer. FDA plans to use the funding increase for the Medical
Product Safety and Development Initiative to support priority
activities in the Biologics, Human Drugs, Device and Radiological
Health, and Animal Drugs and Feed Programs.
In the Biologics Program, the resources in this initiative will
allow FDA to strengthen essential infrastructure, including laboratory
capacity and review expertise to prevent, detect, and respond to
emerging safety threats in blood and blood products.
In the Biologics Program, the resources in this initiative will
also allow FDA to strengthen medical and microbiologic review and
acquire greater epidemiologic expertise to conduct adverse event
analysis and safety investigations. FDA will also improve tissue safety
by conducting workshops to educate industry about tissue processing and
tissue safety technologies.
In the Device and Radiological Health Program, FDA will strengthen
import safety by improving the ability of the ORA field operations to
work on import issues with Customs and Border Protection and other
agencies. FDA will also leverage information from other sources to
conduct stronger risk-based entry review of medical devices.
In the Animal Drugs and Feed Program, the resources in this
initiative will allow FDA to provide grants to stimulate development of
new animal drugs under the Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health
Act of 2004.
drug safety--imports
Question. In your statement, you note that the volume of drugs
imported into the United States will likely increase by 12 percent
during fiscal year 2009, but your budget for the Human Drugs Program--
not including user fees--is only increasing by 1.3 percent. If you add
in user fees, the increase is 8.5 percent. And this money is mostly for
approving drugs, not monitoring them. How will you keep up?
Answer. FDA will continue to apply a risk-based approach to
identify drug production and distribution activities of greatest
concern, and focus resources on those activities. In addition, FDA is
working to design an integrated drug registration and listing system
that provides comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date information. This
system must cover each entity that produces and distributes drugs, each
drug product that these entities produce and distribute, and each
participant in the product's chain of custody--from manufacturing,
through shipping and importation, to final distribution. Every
participant in the drug production and distribution system, including
excipient and component suppliers, active pharmaceutical ingredient
suppliers, and finished dosage manufacturers must be known to FDA and
responsible for the supply chain that precedes them and the quality of
their products.
mercury testing
Question. Although FDA laboratory tests for element violations,
including mercury, have declined by about 30 percent between 2003 and
2006, and the number of positive tests has declined to zero in 2005 and
2006, FDA issued a warning on eating fish, especially tuna fish,
because of mercury contamination.
Why did FDA alert consumers to mercury poisoning risks in fish and
at the same time reduce the number of tests for mercury and other metal
in imported fish?
Answer. FDA's advisory to pregnant women, women who might become
pregnant, nursing mothers, and young children is designed to ensure
that fetuses and young children are not excessively exposed to
methylmercury. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, also known
as NHANES, more than 95 percent of women of childbearing age are
exposed to methylmercury below thresholds of safety designed to protect
the fetus. Per NHANES, the remaining women still retain margins of
safety. In effect, the advisory recommends that, as a matter of
prudence, these remaining women increase their margins of safety. FDA
is completing a risk assessment to better understand the risk to these
individuals and to the population as a whole.
Because NHANES data identify the extent to which Americans are
exposed to methylmercury, FDA's sampling program is primarily designed
to learn the range of methylmercury concentrations in commercial fish
species, including the highest and lowest concentrations and the mean
concentration. We can then compare new results against these known
values. In recent years, all our samples have been within the known
ranges.
FDA uses sampling results to predict how exposures to methylmercury
would be affected by changes in fish consumption. After the consumer
advisory published in 2004, FDA increased its annual sampling levels to
ensure the safety of fish consumption. After FDA completed this
testing, and based on the results of this testing, FDA testing levels
returned to levels that reflected the rate of sampling that FDA
conducted prior to issuing the advisory.
food protection plan
Question. On February 7, 2008, FSIS officials wrote to officials at
FDA offering to free up FSIS inspection dollars to assist in the FDA
Food Protection Plan. How did FDA respond to this letter?
Answer. On February 7, 2008, FSIS officials wrote to officials at
FDA and stated, ``FSIS personnel may be available to help provide
coverage as an effective governmental presence in the riskiest FDA
plants.'' In a February 21, 2008 letter, FSIS officials clarified,
``this statement was not meant to suggest the FSIS employees would
definitely be available to do this work. In point of fact, we have no
reason to believe at this time, that any of the initiatives that we are
undertaking will result in employees being available to provide
inspection at FDA plants.'' In light of the clarification that FSIS
provided, FDA did not respond to the letter in writing. Instead, FDA is
conducting regular monthly meetings with FSIS on how to best leverage
resources and work cooperatively to ensure a safe food supply for all
Americans.
estriol
Question. On January 9, 2008, FDA announced that it was banning the
use of estriol in compounded estrogens prescribed for decades by
doctors for the treatment of menopause symptoms in women. Please
provide the committee with documentation of specific adverse events
from the use of estriol during the past three decades, as well as
details of specific scientific and medical research supporting the
FDA's decision to ban estriol.
Answer. FDA has not banned estriol. Our January 9, 2008 action was
aimed at false and misleading claims of certain compounding pharmacies
that offer estriol products without a valid investigational new drug
application, also known as an IND. Except in rare instances,
compounding pharmacies do not report adverse events to FDA. However,
the absence of evidence of a risk does not demonstrate the absence of
the risk. One of the reasons we are encouraging IND submissions for
estriol products is so that we will receive any adverse event
information for these products.
Question. How many women are potentially affected by the FDA
decision to ban estriol? What does the FDA estimate it will cost these
women to return to their doctors and get a prescription for an
alternative treatment?
Answer. FDA does not know how many women are potentially affected
by FDA's decision to require health care practitioners to obtain INDs
for compound estriol products. This is due, in part, to the fact that
FDA has imperfect information about both the number of compounding
pharmacies and the scope of pharmacy compounding operations. In
general, there is no requirement for pharmacies to register or list
with FDA.
We do not have information about the costs that women incur in
connection with compounded or approved estrogen therapies. However,
because healthcare providers can continue to treat patients under an
FDA-sanctioned IND, FDA does not believe there is a need for women to
return to their health care providers for alternative new prescriptions
and treatments when they are receiving estrogen therapy under an FDA-
sanctioned IND.
Question. I understand that the FDA action on estriol will not
restrict access to this medication as a doctor can continue to
prescribe estriol if he or she files an investigational new drug
application (IND). FDA has further indicated that it is developing a
simplified or streamlined IND for doctors. Can you give the committee
specific information on this issue, including detailed information on
the proposed simplified process, including if the development of this
simplified process would be subject to notice and comment rulemaking?
Answer. Your understanding is correct. No drug containing estriol
has been approved by FDA, and the safety and effectiveness of estriol
is unknown. Therefore, physicians may not prescribe estriol, and
pharmacies may not compound drugs under a physician's prescription that
contain estriol, unless they have an FDA-sanctioned IND application.
An IND is an application submitted by a physician who both
initiates and conducts an investigation, and under whose immediate
direction the investigational drug is administered or dispensed. A
physician might submit an IND to propose studying an unapproved drug,
or for an approved product to study use in a new indication or in a new
patient population.
Regulations describing the IND requirements can be found at 21 CFR
312, and detailed instructions for IND applications can be found on the
FDA website. FDA also provides pre-IND consultations and assistance in
developing applications.
An IND must generally contain information in three broad areas:
Animal Pharmacology and Toxicology Studies, Manufacturing Information,
and Clinical Protocol and Investigator information. In the clinical
protocol section, the Investigator must also give a commitment to
obtain informed consent from the research subjects, obtain review of
the study by an institutional review board and agree to adhere to the
IND regulations.
We would like to clarify that there is no official streamlined or
simplified IND process; however, we use our discretion in determining
how much and what type of information is appropriate for an
application. For example, in the case of estriol, preclinical animal
toxicology and pharmacology data might not be necessary because the
product has already been used in humans. INDs can cover research
involving several patients, so that a physician need not submit
separate INDs for individual patients. These types of decisions in
evaluating IND applications would not be made through the rule-making
process.
Question. If the FDA's assertion is correct, and an IND process can
be developed that is simple and that will not discourage physicians
from writing prescriptions containing estriol, can you estimate how
many doctors would submit the simplified IND? Since the FDA is required
to review every application for an IND, can you also estimate the cost
and time required for the FDA to review these submissions, and the
effect this would have on the agency's ability to process other INDs?
Answer. As FDA does not know how many women are potentially
affected by FDA's decision, we cannot estimate how many doctors would
submit an IND. Without knowing how many INDs the FDA will receive we
cannot estimate the total cost and time required for the FDA to review
these submissions, nor how it would affect FDA's ability to process
other INDs.
Question. INDs require well-controlled, randomized clinical studies
including a placebo or control arm. Is the FDA suggesting that some
women would receive a placebo without their knowledge?
Answer. INDs do not require that well-controlled, randomized
clinical studies be conducted. One of the objectives of the IND
requirement is to help assure the safety and rights of subjects. There
are various ways for conducting clinical trials, and not all methods
require use of placebo controls. FDA is not suggesting that a woman
would receive a placebo, and certainly not without informed consent
which would inform her of that possibility.
reports
Question. Please provide monthly updates on the status of all
outstanding reports requested as part of the report accompanying Public
Law 110-161.
Answer. I will be happy to provide a status report of all
outstanding reports.
[The information follows:]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT STATUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BSE....................................... Transmitted to Congress
5.20.08
Diacetyl.................................. Transmitted to Congress
3.25.08
Folic..................................... Transmitted to Congress
5.20.08
Food Safety Quarterly (1st Q)............. In Clearance Process
Food Safety Quarterly (2nd Q)............. HHS Awaiting FDA Draft
Foreign Drugs (Interim)................... In Clearance Process
Foreign Drugs (Final)..................... In Clearance Process
Front Label Symbols....................... In Clearance Process
GAO Recommendations....................... In Clearance Process
Ketek..................................... In Clearance Process
Mammography IOM Recommendations........... In Clearance Process
Med Guide................................. Not due until Dec 08
Methamphetamine........................... Transmitted to Congress
4.22.08
Microbial Resistance...................... Transmitted to Congress
1.2.08
National Research Initiative.............. In Clearance Process
OIG Recommendations....................... In Clearance Process
Post Marketing Studies.................... In Clearance Process
Removing Food Safety from GAO High Risk In Clearance Process
List.
Women's Health (Quarter 1)................ Transmitted to Congress
4.14.08
Women's Health (Quarter 2)................ HHS Awaiting FDA Draft
------------------------------------------------------------------------
post-market surveillance of silicone breast implants
Question. When the FDA approved the use of silicone breast implants
in 2006, I understand that it included a requirement that all women who
receive these implants must participate in a post-approval study to
ensure that these implants were safe. However, I understand that
participation in these studies is now discretionary. What is the status
of the post-market safety studies of silicone breast implants, and what
authority does FDA have to require that manufacturers conduct the
studies?
Answer. When the FDA approved the use of silicone breast implants
in 2006, FDA required Mentor Corporation and Inamed Corporation, which
is now named Allergan, to conduct post approval studies, also known as
PAS, to answer particular questions. FDA allowed the companies the
opportunity to develop different study designs and other protocol
elements to meet this requirement. The goals were to design studies
that would minimize bias in the study results and in which the subject
enrollment goals could be achieved. The participation could be
voluntary or mandatory. The companies proposed the specific study
designs to answer those questions and submitted them for FDA approval.
Allergan proposed, and FDA approved, a study with voluntary
participation. Mentor originally proposed, and FDA approved, a study
where participation was mandatory in order for women to obtain the
Mentor product.
In April 2007 FDA approved Mentor's request to amend the
MemoryGelTM Large Post-Approval Study protocol to allow for
voluntary instead of mandatory participation of study subjects to
address concerns regarding enrollment.
The status of Allergan's and Mentor's postmarket studies of
silicone breast implants and conditions is summarized in a table that I
would be happy to provide for the record.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF ALLERGAN'S AND MENTOR CORPORATION'S SILICONE GEL-FILLED BREAST
IMPLANT POSTMARKET STUDIES AND CONDITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Condition Allergan Mentor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Post-Approval Study........ Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time 2
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Large Post-Approval Study....... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \1\. On time \1\
Study Status: Study Status: On
Overdue \3\ (12- time \3\
month patient
enrollment target
was not met).
Device Failure Studies.......... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Focus Group Study............... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Informed Decision Process....... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Adjunct Study................... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reporting status for Larger Post-Approval Study is ``On time'' if 15-
month report was received by the February 16, 2008 due date.
\2\ Reporting status is ``on time'' if 12-month report for a post-
approval study other than the Larger Post-Approval Study was received
by November 17, 2007 due date.
\3\ Study progress status for a post-approval study condition is ``On
time'' if patient enrollment and follow-up targets have been met and
``Overdue'' if the interim enrollment target was not met.
FDA may require that manufacturers conduct studies under 21 CFR
section 814.82 or 21 CFR Part 822.
mdufma
Question. As you know, the President's budget calls for increased
funding for the medical device user fee program, and the Congress has
provided inflationary increases to fully fund the program in the past.
How the agency is doing in regards to meeting the performance goals
associated with the user fee program with the funding it has gotten to
date?
Answer. FDA continues to succeed in improving the process for the
review of medical device applications and meeting the performance goals
first established under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization
Act of 2002, known as MDUFMA. Title II of the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 continued MDUFMA performance
goals.
MDUFMA requires close collaboration with stakeholders and increased
communication with applicants. FDA is working to clarify its regulatory
requirements and make its decisions more transparent through new
guidance, educational materials, and meetings. We continually seek to
enhance the efficiency and flexibility of our review processes. These
efforts help applicants improve the quality of their submissions, and
help FDA provide timelier, better-focused reviews. Our ultimate
objective is to make important new medical devices available to
patients and healthcare providers earlier, while continuing to ensure
the quality, safety, and effectiveness of those devices.
I would be happy to provide for the record a table that summarizes
FDA's performance on the goals established for the fiscal year 2003-
fiscal year 2007 receipt cohorts, showing results achieved through
March 31, 2008. The goals applicable to the fiscal year 2008 receipt
cohort have been in place for only 6 months, so it is too early for
statistical measures to provide useful insights into our progress
towards achieving those goals. FDA has, however, taken action to ensure
that we are well positioned to achieve the goals for fiscal year 2008-
fiscal year 2012. FDA is developing and implementing a new interactive
review process that will contribute to better communication with
applicants and more rapid resolution of review questions.
[The information follows:]
QUARTERLY REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING MEDICAL DEVICE PERFORMANCE GOALS SUMMARY TABLES
[Actions through March 31, 2008--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
Activity Review Time Goal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Goal Percent Goal Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMAs, Panel-Track Supplements, Premarket
Reports:
FDA decision (approval, approvable, 320 days......................... ......... 91.8 ......... 91.7 ......... 87.7 80 83.7 90 100
approvable pending GMP inspection, not
approvable.
FDA decision--Percent within 180 days...... 180 days......................... ......... 44.9 ......... 37.5 ......... 29.8 ......... 36.7 50 41.2
Expedited PMAs:
FDA decision (approval, approvable, 300 days......................... ......... 100 ......... 92.3 70 83.3 80 100 90 .........
approvable pending GMP inspection not
approvable.
180-day PMA Supplements:
FDA decision (approval, approvable, 180 days......................... ......... 94.1 ......... 95.3 80 95.0 80 97.0 90 92.8
approvable pending GMP inspection not
approvable.
510(k)s:
FDA decision (SE/NSE)...................... 90 days.......................... ......... 76.1 ......... 83.9 75 91.1 75 91.6 80 92.7
Biologics Licensing Applications (BLAs):
Review and act on standard original BLAs 10 months........................ ......... ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 75 97.7 90 97.7
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
Review and act on priority ordinal BLA 6 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
submissions (issue ``complete action''
letter).
BLA Supplements:
Review and act on standard BLA efficacy 10 months........................ ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
supplements (issue ``complete action''
letter).
Review and act on priority BLA efficacy 6 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
supplements (issue ``complete action''
letter).
Review and act on BLA manufacturing 4 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
supplements that require prior approval
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
BLA Resubmissions, BLA Supplement
Resubmissions:
Review and act on a Class I resubmission to 2 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 100 80 ......... 90 100
an original BLA or BLA efficacy supplement
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
Review and act on a Class 2 resubmission to 6 months......................... ......... 100 ......... 80 75 100 80 100 90 100
an original BLA or BLA efficacy supplement
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What criteria does the agency use to determine the
allocation and priority for the distribution of any increase in staff
across FDA components, including offices, divisions, or branches
resulting from the medical device user fees and related Congressional
appropriations?
Answer. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007,
known as FDAAA, was signed into law on September 27, 2007. FDAAA
reauthorized FDA's authority to collect fees from the medical device
industry under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, also
known as MDUFMA. The activities that comprise the medical device review
process are defined in MDUFMA. Medical device review components within
FDA receive increased allocations from device user fee collections, as
defined by MDUFMA.
FDA allocates medical device user fees and other medical device
appropriations to best achieve FDA's public health objectives, device
performance goals, and other expectations established under MDUFMA, as
amended. The allocation between the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health (CDRH) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research
(CBER) is based on the workload balance between the two centers. FDA
estimates the percent of the device review workload performed by CDRH
and CBER, and allocates MDUFMA resources accordingly. Field resources
are allocated among FDA district offices by the Office of Regulatory
Affairs according to each district's projected workload. The Centers
and ORA apportion their individual resource allocations to their
offices, divisions, and branches.
additional tools
Question. Despite the increased funding the FDA has received over
the last 5 years in appropriations and user fees to hire more FTEs, we
know the demands on staff remain very high. I am aware that there are
additional tools, such as third party reviews, third party inspections,
and the CDRH fellowship program to augment the work of the Agency. Can
you discuss benefits and/or shortfalls of these programs?
Answer. These three programs--third-party review of 510(k)
premarket notifications, third-party establishment inspections, and the
Medical Device Fellowship Program--provide FDA with important tools
that can help us better achieve our public health objectives.
The purpose of the program permitting third-party review of certain
510(k) premarket notifications is to improve the efficiency and
timeliness of FDA's 510(k) process. This is the process by which most
medical devices receive marketing clearance in the United States. Under
the program, FDA has accredited third-parties that are authorized to
conduct the primary review of 510(k)s for eligible devices. Persons who
are required to submit 510(k)s for these devices may elect to contract
with an Accredited Person and submit a 510(k) directly to the
Accredited Person. The Accredited Person conducts the primary review of
the 510(k), then forwards its review, recommendation, and the 510(k) to
FDA. By law, FDA must issue a final determination within 30 days after
receiving the recommendation of an Accredited Person. 510(k) submitters
who do not wish to use an Accredited Person may submit their 510(k)s
directly to FDA. FDA data shows that third-party reviews are somewhat
more rapid than an FDA review in some instances. Third-party 510(k)s
submitted to FDA are also exempt from any medical device user fee that
would otherwise apply.
As of April 15, 2008, FDA has accredited 16 third-party
organizations to conduct quality systems inspections of certain medical
device establishments. Individuals from eight of these organizations
have completed FDA's training requirements and FDA has cleared these
individuals to conduct independent inspections. Through April 15, 2008,
accredited organizations have conducted six inspections. Although few
inspections have been conducted to date, changes specified by the Food
and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, also known as FDAAA,
have the potential to eliminate certain obstacles to manufacturers'
participation in FDA's programs for inspections by accredited third
parties.
CDRH established the Medical Device Fellowship Program, also known
as MDFP, to increase the range and depth of collaborations between CDRH
and the outside scientific community. The MDFP offers short and long-
term fellowship opportunities for individuals interested in learning
about the regulatory process and sharing their knowledge and experience
in the many specialized fields that concern medical devices. Physicians
with clinical or surgical expertise, engineers in biomedical,
mechanical, electrical and software areas, and individuals from many
other scientific disciplines have participated in the fellowship
program. Opportunities are available for students in many other areas
as well. This collaboration improves FDA's review processes, postmarket
surveillance, and science base, all of which contribute to efforts to
ensure patients and health care professionals have timely and continued
access to safe and effective medical devices.
guidance development
Question. The rules and processes for FDA regulatory decision-
making are necessarily complex. Since it is not possible for FDA and
Congress to anticipate every situation in statute and regulation, the
issuance of guidance documents by FDA is essential to helping industry
keep abreast of current agency thinking. Given that lack of adequate
guidance often results in the need for meetings with submitters, extra
rounds of submissions, and other inefficiencies, do you believe that
putting up-front resources into guidance development will reap
efficiency and provide industry with broad access to FDA thinking on a
timely and meaningful basis?
Answer. The agency makes extensive use of guidances to the extent
possible. FDA's Good Guidance Practices have been in effect for more
than 7 years. Under Good Guidance Practices, FDA centers made available
draft and final guidance documents, for comment and use, covering a
broad spectrum of topics. These guidances include technical guidances
that may recommend the best means for producing clinical trial data.
FDA guidances also include non-technical guidances, called Level 1
guidances that provide more complex scientific information or provide
initial interpretations of statutory and regulatory requirements.
During 2007, we published 95 Federal Register Notices alerting the
public to the availability of draft and final guidances. While the
recommendations in the guidances are not legally binding, these
recommendations do provide the agency's current thinking on an issue to
industry and the public. FDA believes that the guidances that we issue
are very useful and that resources that FDA devotes to developing
guidances are a worthwhile investment.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
food safety gaps
Question. As you are well aware, gaps in our food safety system
have been exposed and people have become sick and worse have died from
contaminated products like spinach and peanut butter. Yet, the Food and
Drug Administration has only asked for a slight increase in funding for
fiscal year 2009. With the increase in food imports, and the changing
structure of our food supply system in the United States, I am
concerned that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is neither
prepared nor taking steps to adapt to the changes to be effective in
protecting our food supply.
Dr. von Eschenbach, can you tell me how many inspectors are
currently employed at the Food and Drug Administration? What percentage
is that of the total FDA workforce?
Answer. In fiscal year 2008, the Office of Regulatory Affairs, also
known as ORA, currently estimates that it will have 1,218
investigators. Investigators represent approximately 12 percent of the
total 9,975 FTE FDA workforce in fiscal year 2008.
In fiscal year 2009, ORA currently estimates that it will have
1,300 investigators. Investigators represent approximately 12 percent
of the total 10,501 FTE FDA workforce in fiscal year 2009. It should be
noted that the ORA hiring initiative is on-going in fiscal year 2008
and that ORA is still developing hiring plans based on the fiscal year
2009 requested increase. As a result, these figures are estimates and
may change as hiring is completed.
Question. Can you tell me how many inspectors currently employed at
the Food and Drug Administration are dedicated solely to food
inspection?
Answer. In fiscal year 2008, ORA estimates 587 investigators will
perform work in the Foods Program. Many field investigators are cross-
trained and may perform work in multiple programs as work priorities
change or emergencies arise. For fiscal year 2009, ORA currently
estimates that approximately 650 investigators will perform work in the
Foods program. It should be noted that the ORA hiring initiative is on-
going in fiscal year 2008 and that ORA is still developing hiring plans
based on the fiscal year 2009 requested increase. Consequently, these
figures are estimates and may change as hiring is completed. Additional
field staff in the foods program will support the fiscal year 2009
performance increases of 20,000 additional import food field exams and
50 additional foreign food inspections.
Question. Where are the FDA inspectors located? Please be specific.
Answer. ORA field staff are dispersed throughout the United States.
More than 85 percent of ORA's staff works in five Regional Offices, 20
District Offices, 13 Laboratories, and 168 Resident Posts and Border
Stations. As a separate entity within ORA, Office of Criminal
Investigations personnel are located throughout the field organization
in 30 Field Offices, Resident Offices, and Domiciles, which are located
throughout the U.S. FDA maintains offices and staff in Washington,
D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and in all States except
Wyoming.
I would be happy to provide a table that highlights this
information. The information provided in the following table
specifically provides ORA's geographic distribution of facilities which
includes the locations of FDA investigators nationwide.
[The information is attached.]
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF FACILITIES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Name Center City State OP DIV Subdivision
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resident Post--Mobile, AL.... ORA.... 2100--MOBILE................ 1--AL......... SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Montgomery, AL ORA.... 2130--MONTGOMERY............ 1--AL......... SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Birmingham, AL ORA.... 350--BIRMINGHAM............. 1--AL......... SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Anchorage, AK. ORA.... 130--ANCHORAGE.............. 2--AK......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Border Station--Nogales, AZ.. ORA.... 330--NOGALES................ 4--AZ......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Nogales, AZ.. ORA.... 330--NOGALES................ 4--AZ......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--San Luis, AZ. ORA.... 417--SAN LUIS............... 4--AZ......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--San Luis, AZ. ORA.... 417--SAN LUIS............... 4--AZ......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Phoenix, AZ... ORA.... 490--TEMPE.................. 4--AZ......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Tucson, AZ.... ORA.... 530--TUCSON................. 4--AZ......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Little Rock, ORA.... 2320--LITTLE ROCK........... 5--AR......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
AR.
District Office W/Lab--San ORA.... 10--ALAMEDA................. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Francisco.
Border Station--Calexico, CA. ORA.... 520--CALEXICO............... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Border Station--Calexico, CA. ORA.... 520--CALEXICO............... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Fresno, CA.... ORA.... 1370--FRESNO................ 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Irvine Regional Laboratory-- ORA.... 1713--IRVINE................ 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Security Gate House.
Resident Post--San Pedro, CA. ORA.... 1970--LONG BEACH/San Pedro.. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Canoga Park, ORA.... 1970--CANOGA PARK........... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
CA.
Resident Post--Nisco Pacific ORA.... 810--COMPTON................ 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Warehouse--Compton, CA.
Resident Post--LAX (El ORA.... 1980--LOS ANGELES........... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Segundo).
Regional Field Office-- ORA.... 2480--OAKLAND............... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Pacific--Oakland.
Resident Post--Ontario, CA... ORA.... 2550--ONTARIO............... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Border Station--Otay Mesa, CA ORA.... 2610--OTAY.................. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Sacramento, CA ORA.... 3150--SACRAMENTO............ 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Otay Mesa, CA. ORA.... 3260--SAN DIEGO............. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--San Diego, CA. ORA.... 3260--SAN DIEGO............. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--San Jose, CA.. ORA.... 3340--SAN JOSE.............. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--San Francisco ORA.... 3730--SAN FRANCISCO......... 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Airport, CA.
Resident Post--Stockton, CA.. ORA.... 3770--STOCKTON.............. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Border Station--Tecate, CA... ORA.... 3835--TECATE................ 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Carson, CA.... ORA.... 602--CARSON................. 6--CA......... PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
District Office W/Lab--Denver ORA.... 600--DENVER................. 8--CO......... SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Bridgeport, CT ORA.... 80--BRIDGEPORT.............. 9--CT......... NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Hartford, CT.. ORA.... 280--HARTFORD............... 9--CT......... NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Wilmington, DE ORA.... 490--WILMINGTON............. 10--DE........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Boca Raton, FL ORA.... 290--BOCA RATON............. 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Fort Myers, FL ORA.... 1070--FORT MYERS............ 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Jacksonville, ORA.... 1510--JACKSONVILLE.......... 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
FL.
District Office--Florida..... ORA.... 1895--MAITLAND.............. 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Miami, FL-- ORA.... 2010--MIAMI................. 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Import.
Resident Post--Miami, FL-- ORA.... 2010--MIAMI................. 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Domestic.
Resident Post--Tallahassee, ORA.... 2940--TALLAHASSEE........... 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
FL.
Resident Post--Tampa, FL..... ORA.... 2950--TAMPA................. 12--FL........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
District/Region--Atlanta..... ORA.... 280--ATLANTA................ 13--GA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Savannah, Ga.. ORA.... 4910--SAVANNAH.............. 13--GA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Tifton, GA.... ORA.... 5490--TIFTON................ 13--GA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Honolulu, HI.. ORA.... 2400--HONOLULU.............. 15--HI........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Boise, ID..... ORA.... 160--BOISE.................. 16--ID........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Border Station- Eastport, ID. ORA.... 445--EASTPORT............... 16--ID........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Bensenville, ORA.... 740--BENSENVILLE............ 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
IL.
District Office--Chicago..... ORA.... 1670--CHICAGO............... 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Regional Field Office-- ORA.... 1670--CHICAGO............... 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Central--Chicago.
Resident Post--Gurnee, IL.... ORA.... 3670--GURNEE................ 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Hinsdale, IL.. ORA.... 3980--HINSDALE.............. 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Mount Vernon, ORA.... 5900--MT VERNON............. 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
IL.
Resident Post--Peroia, IL.... ORA.... 6850--PEORIA................ 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Springfield, ORA.... 8220--SPRINGFIELD........... 17--IL........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
IL.
Resident Post--Evansville, IN ORA.... 1480--EVANSVILLE............ 18--IN........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Indianapolis, ORA.... 2210--INDIANAPOLIS.......... 18--IN........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
IN.
Resident Post--South Bend, IN ORA.... 4580--SOUTH BEND............ 18--IN........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Davenport, IA. ORA.... 2080--DAVENPORT............. 19--IA........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Des Moines, IA ORA.... 2260--DES MOINES............ 19--IA........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Sioux City, IA ORA.... 7850--SIOUX CITY............ 19--IA........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
District Office--Kansas City. ORA.... 3080--LENEXA................ 20--KS........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Wichita, KS... ORA.... 5880--WICHITA............... 20--KS........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Louisville, KY ORA.... 2090--LOUISVILLE............ 21--KY........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Baton Rouge, ORA.... 150--BATON ROUGE............ 22--LA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
LA.
Resident Post--Lafayette, LA. ORA.... 1230--LAFAYETTE............. 22--LA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Mandeville Square Shopping ORA.... 1400--MANDEVILLE............ 22--LA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Center.
Metairie Center.............. ORA.... 1545--METAIRIE.............. 22--LA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Shreveport, LA ORA.... 2130--SHREVEPORT............ 22--LA........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Augusta, Me... ORA.... 160--AUGUSTA................ 23--ME........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Border Station--Calais, ME... ORA.... 1250--CALAIS................ 23--ME........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Border Station--Houlton, ME.. ORA.... 3750--HOULTON............... 23--ME........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Border Station--Houlton, ME.. ORA.... 3750--HOULTON............... 23--ME........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
District Office--Baltimore... ORA.... 50--BALTIMORE............... 24--MD........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Dundalk, MD-- ORA.... 50--BALTIMORE............... 24--MD........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Import.
District Office--New England. ORA.... 1275--STONEHAM.............. 25--MA........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Worchester, MA ORA.... 1520--WORCESTER............. 25--MA........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Boston, MA.... ORA.... 120--BOSTON................. 25--MA........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Detroit District Office-- ORA.... 1260--DETROIT............... 26--MI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Office.
Border Station--Detroit, MI.. ORA.... 1260--DETROIT............... 26--MI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Grand Rapids, ORA.... 2010--GRAND RAPIDS.......... 26--MI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
MI.
Resident Post--Kalamazoo, MI. ORA.... 2520--KALAMAZOO............. 26--MI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Border Station--Bluewater ORA.... 4060--PORT HURON............ 26--MI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Bridge, MI.
Border Station--Sault Ste ORA.... 4480--SAULT STE MARIE....... 26--MI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Marie, MI.
Resident Post--International ORA.... 3480--INTERNATIONAL FALLS... 27--MN........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Falls, MN.
District Office--Minneapolis. ORA.... 4760--MINNEAPOLIS........... 27--MN........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Jackson, MS... ORA.... 1220--JACKSON............... 28--MS........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--St Louis, MO.. ORA.... 7080--ST LOUIS.............. 29--MO........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Springfield, ORA.... 7460--SPRINGFIELD........... 29--MO........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
MO.
Resident Post--Helena MT..... ORA.... 590--HELENA................. 30--MT........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Border Station--Sweetgrass, ORA.... 1125--SWEETGRASS............ 30--MT........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
MT.
Resident Post--Omaha, NE..... ORA.... 3620--OMAHA................. 31--NE........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Las Vegas, NV. ORA.... 120--LAS VEGAS.............. 32--NV........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Reno, NV...... ORA.... 170--RENO................... 32--NV........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Concord, NH... ORA.... 70--CONCORD................. 33--NH........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Elizabeth, NJ. ORA.... 860--ELIZABETH.............. 34--NJ........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--North ORA.... 2140--NORTH BRUNSWICK....... 34--NJ........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Brunswick, NJ.
District Office--New Jersey.. ORA.... 2498--PARSIPPANY............ 34--NJ........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Voorhees, NJ.. ORA.... 3465--VOORHEES.............. 34--NJ........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Albuerque, NM. ORA.... 30--ALBUQUERQUE............. 35--NM........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Columbus, NM. ORA.... 200--COLUMBUS............... 35--NM........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Santa Teresa, ORA.... 735--SANTA TERESA........... 35--NM........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
NM.
Resident Post--Albany, NY.... ORA.... 50--ALBANY.................. 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Border Station--Alexandria ORA.... 90--ALEXANDRIA BAY.......... 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Bay, NY.
Resident Post--Binghamton, NY ORA.... 540--BINGHAMTON............. 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Import Office--Buffalo, NY... ORA.... 750--BUFFALO................ 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Long Island, ORA.... 1050--CENTRAL ISLIP......... 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
NY.
Border Station--Champlain, NY ORA.... 1080--CHAMPLAIN............. 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--New Windsor, ORA.... 4130--NEW WINDSOR........... 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
NY.
District/Region/Regional Lab-- ORA.... 4170--JAMAICA............... 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
New York.
Border Station--Ogdensburg, ORA.... 4420--OGDENSBURG............ 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
NY.
Resident Post--Rochester, NY. ORA.... 5230--ROCHESTER............. 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Border Station--Massena, NY.. ORA.... 5275--ROOSEVELTOWN.......... 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Syracuse, NY.. ORA.... 6010--SYRACUSE.............. 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--White Plains, ORA.... 6670--WHITE PLAINS.......... 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
NY.
Border Station--Peace Bridge. ORA.... 750--BUFFALO................ 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Border Station--Lewiston ORA.... 3220--LEWISTON.............. 36--NY........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Bridge.
Resident Post--Arden, NC..... ORA.... 131--ARDEN.................. 37--NC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Charlotte, NC. ORA.... 870--CHARLOTTE.............. 37--NC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Greensboro, NC ORA.... 1940--GREENSBORO............ 37--NC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Greenville, NC ORA.... 1950--GREENVILLE............ 37--NC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Raleigh, NC... ORA.... 3750--RALEIGH............... 37--NC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Wilmington, NC ORA.... 5060--WILMINGTON............ 37--NC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Fargo, ND..... ORA.... 1020--FARGO................. 38--ND........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Border Station--Pembina, ND.. ORA.... 2500--PEMBINA............... 38--ND........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Brunswick, OH. ORA.... 1085--BRUNSWICK............. 39--OH........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
District Office/Forensic ORA.... 1610--CINCINNATI............ 39--OH........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Chemistry--Cincinnati.
Resident Post--Columbus, OH.. ORA.... 1800--COLUMBUS.............. 39--OH........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Toledo, OH.... ORA.... 8120--TOLEDO................ 39--OH........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Oklahoma City, ORA.... 3550--OKLAHOMA CITY......... 40--OK........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
OK.
Resident Post--Tulsa, OK..... ORA.... 4780--TULSA................. 40--OK........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Beaverton, OR. ORA.... 180--BEAVERTON.............. 41--OR........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Portland ORA.... 1650--PORTLAND.............. 41--OR........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Airport, OR.
Resident Post--Harrisburg, PA ORA.... 3500--HARRISBURG............ 42--PA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
District Office/Region W/Lab-- ORA.... 6540--PHILADELPHIA.......... 42--PA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Philadelphia.
Resident Post--Pittsburgh, PA ORA.... 6600--PITTSBURGH............ 42--PA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Scranton, PA.. ORA.... 7460--SCRANTON.............. 42--PA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Providence, RI ORA.... 57--EAST PROVIDENCE......... 44--RI........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Resident Post--Charleston, SC ORA.... 410--CHARLESTON............. 45--SC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Columbia, SC.. ORA.... 520--COLUMBIA............... 45--SC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Greenville, SC ORA.... 1040--GREENVILLE............ 45--SC........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Sioux Falls, ORA.... 2450--SIOUX FALLS........... 46--SD........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
SD.
Resident Post--Chattanooga, ORA.... 400--CHATTANOOGA............ 47--TN........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
TN.
Resident Post--Knoxville, TN. ORA.... 1300--KNOXVILLE............. 47--TN........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Memphis, TN... ORA.... 1620--MEMPHIS............... 47--TN........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
District Office--Nashville... ORA.... 1760--NASHVILLE............. 47--TN........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Memphis, TN... ORA.... 1620--MEMPHIS............... 47--TN........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Austin, TX.... ORA.... 330--AUSTIN................. 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Brownsville, ORA.... 940--BROWNSVILLE............ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
TX.
Border Station--Los Tomates/ ORA.... 940--BROWNSVILLE............ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Brownsville, TX.
Border Station--Los Tomates, ORA.... 940--BROWNSVILLE............ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
TX.
District/Sw Imports--Dallas.. ORA.... 1730--DALLAS................ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Regional Office--Dallas, TX.. ORA.... 1730--DALLAS................ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--DFW Airport, ORA.... 1730--DALLAS................ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
TX (Grapevine).
Border Station--Del Rio, TX.. ORA.... 1820--DEL RIO............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Eagle Pass, ORA.... 2030--EAGLE PASS............ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
TX.
Border Station--Bota, TX (El ORA.... 2190--EL PASO............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Paso).
Resident Post--El Paso, TX... ORA.... 2190--EL PASO............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--El Paso, TX.. ORA.... 2190--EL PASO............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--El Paso, TX.. ORA.... 2190--EL PASO............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Ysletta, TX.. ORA.... 2190--EL PASO............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Fort Worth, TX ORA.... 2450--FORT WORTH............ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Resident Post--Houston, TX... ORA.... 3280--HOUSTON............... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--USBS Columbia ORA.... 3899--LAREDO................ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Import Dock, Laredo, TX.
Border Station--USBS J&L ORA.... 3899--LAREDO................ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Bldg. 2 Admin.
Border Station--Laredo World ORA.... 3899--LAREDO................ 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Trade Bridge, TX.
Border Station--Pharr, TX.... ORA.... 5330--PHARR................. 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Pharr, TX.... ORA.... 5330--PHARR................. 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
Border Station--Rio Grande ORA.... 5780--RIO GRANDE CITY....... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
City, TX.
Resident Post--San Antonio, ORA.... 6090--SAN ANTONIO........... 48--TX........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
TX.
Resident Post--Salt Lake ORA.... 1700--SALT LAKE CITY........ 49--UT........ SOUTHWEST (DALLAS)
City, UT.
Border Station--Highgate ORA.... 245--HIGHGATE SPRINGS....... 50--VT........ NORTHEAST (NEW YORK)
Springs, VT.
Resident Post--Falls Church, ORA.... 930--FALLS CHURCH........... 51--VA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
VA.
Resident Post--Norfolk, VA-- ORA.... 1760--NORFOLK............... 51--VA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Import.
Resident Post--Norfolk, VA-- ORA.... 1760--NORFOLK............... 51--VA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Import.
Resident Post--Richmond, VA.. ORA.... 2060--RICHMOND.............. 51--VA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Roanoke VA.... ORA.... 2100--ROANOKE............... 51--VA........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Prior Notice Center.......... ORA.... 2034--RESTON................ 51--VA........ HEADQUARTERS
Border Station--Blaine, WA... ORA.... 150--BLAINE................. 53--WA........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
District Office/Regional Lab-- ORA.... 170--BOTHELL................ 53--WA........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Seattle.
Resident Post--Oroville, WA.. ORA.... 1610--OROVILLE.............. 53--WA........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Seattle, WA... ORA.... 1960--SEATTLE............... 53--WA........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Spokane ORA.... 2110--SPOKANE VALLEY........ 53--WA........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Valley, WA.
Resident Post--Tacoma, WA.... ORA.... 2230--TACOMA................ 53--WA........ PACIFIC (OAKLAND)
Resident Post--Morgantown, WV ORA.... 1840--MORGANTOWN............ 54--WV........ CENTRAL (PHILADELPHIA)
Resident Post--Green Bay, WI. ORA.... 2000--GREEN BAY............. 55--WI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Madison, WI... ORA.... 2780--MADISON............... 55--WI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Wauwatosa, WI. ORA.... 5130--WAUWATOSA............. 55--WI........ CENTRAL (CHICAGO)
Resident Post--Aguada, PR.... ORA.... 20--AGUADA.................. RQ--PR........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Resident Post--Ponce, PR..... ORA.... 760--PONCE.................. RQ--PR........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
San Juan--New Administration ORA.... 930--SAN JUAN............... RQ--PR........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Building.
Resident Post--St. Thomas, VI ORA.... 900--ST. THOMAS............. VQ--VI........ SOUTHEAST (ATLANTA)
Parklawn Building--Rockville, ORA.... 5600--Rockville............. MD............ 24--MD HEADQUARTERS
Maryland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. Who inspects FDA regulated products if no FDA inspector
is present at a port where products are being imported?
Answer. FDA has commissioned approximately 9,900 Customs and Border
Protection, also known as CBP, employees to inspect food shipments that
require prior notice data submission under the provisions of the
Bioterrorism Act if FDA is not present to do so. However, regarding the
admissibility of all FDA regulated commodities, much of FDA's work in
screening and inspecting import shipments occurs at locations other
than ports of entry.
Entry data for shipments of FDA-regulated products are transmitted
electronically by CBP to FDA. FDA screens each entry line
electronically against certain criteria for admissibility. Many of the
shipments of FDA-regulated products are designated by the electronic
screening system for admissibility review by FDA employees.
Entry reviewers often request additional documentation from the
importers to determine if a product should be allowed entry or should
be set up for examination. The reviewers allocate inspectional
resources to best cover products that appear to pose the highest risk.
The remaining products are allowed to proceed without examination.
With the exception of truck ports, most entry reviewers are located
in district offices and resident posts, not at the port of entry. They
may review entries for a dozen or more ports. The entry reviewers issue
assignments to investigators requesting a field examination and/or
sampling to be conducted on specific import entries.
If the shipment arrives when FDA is not present, unless
specifically instructed to hold the shipment at the port for FDA's
examination, CBP will issue a conditional release of the cargo and
allow it to move to its destination. Such movement is done under bond
and is permitted under Section 801(b) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. If FDA decides to physically examine these goods, the work will be
performed at the destination of the goods.
Question. If non-FDA inspectors are conducting inspections, what
and how much training have they been given to inspect food?
Answer. By the phrase non-FDA inspectors, we assume that you are
referring to inspections conducted by State personnel under contract
with FDA. State personnel that conduct these inspections attend ORA
sponsored inspection training courses with ORA personnel and receive
the same training courses as ORA investigators. State personnel also
receive on-the-job training by FDA. For example, State personnel join
FDA investigators on FDA inspections as observers. To conduct
inspections on behalf of FDA, State personnel attend the same training
courses, participate in joint training inspections, and then perform an
inspection in which they are audited by FDA. After State inspectors
pass the initial field audit, they are re-audited over a 3-year cycle.
In addition, State personnel have access to online training courses
developed by ORA-University. These courses serve as classroom courses
and continuing education.
FDA is also implementing the Manufactured Food Regulatory Program
Standards under which the State will assess its program against a set
of uniform standards. The uniform standards are the key elements of a
State program, such as regulatory foundation, staff training, risk
based inspections, quality assurance, foodborne illness/defense
preparedness and rapid response, compliance and enforcement, education
and outreach, resource management, and laboratory resources.
In addition to receiving FDA provided training, the State
inspectors must also meet their individual State requirements to
conduct food inspections.
Question. According to the Congressional Research Service, the FDA
inspects only about 1 percent of all FDA regulated imports. Does this 1
percent include both paper and physical inspections? If not, how much
of FDA regulated imports get physical inspections?
Answer. As displayed in the fiscal year 2009 Congressional
Justification, or CJ, import physical exams are the total of import
field exams and import laboratory sample analyses. A field examination
is a visual examination of the product to determine whether the product
complies with FDA requirements. It involves actual physical examination
of the product for admissibility factors such as storage or in transit
damage, inadequate refrigeration, rodent or insect activity, lead in
dinnerware, odor and label compliance. A field exam cannot be used to
test for microbiological or chemical contamination. As a result, FDA
also conducts sampling and analysis to test for such contamination.
Based on the fiscal year 2009 CJ, 0.82 percent of imports will be
physically examined in fiscal year 2009.
In addition, FDA electronically screens all FDA-regulated products
offered for import into the United States. FDA also electronically
screens 100 percent of human food and animal feed import prior notice
submissions and, as targeted, based on risk, performs intensive manual
reviews on a subset of those prior notices.
FDA will continue to focus resources on products that pose the
highest potential bioterrorism risks to the United States. The benefit
of physical exams comes from the quality and targeting of review
activities, not from the volume of imports analyzed. The quality of
import screening is a better measure of FDA's import strategy than
simply focusing on the items physically examined.
Prior Notice Security Reviews are only performed on human food and
animal feed imported products and are performed as a requirement of the
Bioterrorism Act which requires human food and animal feed importers to
give FDA ``prior notice'' of their imported product being offered for
entry into the U.S. Prior Notice Security Reviews are performed by
Prior Notice Center Reviewers using electronic databases, law
enforcement data and other information sources to determine whether or
not the shipment poses a significant security risk to the United States
food supply. A significant difference between a field exam and the
Prior Notice Security Review is that the Prior Notice Security Review
is conducted on food and animal feed products ``only'' while a field
exam is conducted on all FDA regulated products. Field exams are
physical examinations of an imported product while Prior Notice
Security Reviews use electronic data bases to assess security threats.
Question. What is the budget in FDA for food safety oversight and
how is that broken down between the budget spent on domestic and
imported food safety oversight and inspection?
Answer. Rather than trying to inspect all imports, FDA recommends
targeted risk-based inspections to focus resources where they are most
needed and will provide the greatest benefit to American consumers. ORA
resources for food safety oversight in the fiscal year 2009
Congressional Justification include $358.1 million in the Field Foods
program and $37 million in the Field Animal Drugs and Feeds program.
These figures represent ORA's food protection resources for both human
and animal food. In the Field Foods program, approximately 45 percent
of these resources are allocated to domestic food safety oversight and
inspection. The remaining 55 percent are allocated to import and
foreign food safety oversight and inspection. In the Field Animal Drugs
and Feeds program, approximately 78 percent of these resources are
allocated to domestic food safety oversight and inspection. The
remaining 22 percent of these resources are allocated to import and
foreign food safety oversight and inspection.
Question. How many inspectors are needed to handle the volume of
foods being imported? What would that cost?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 Congressional Justification estimates
that ORA will physically examine approximately 1.26 percent of food
imports. The physical exam percentage is a combination of import field
exams and import laboratory samples analyzed. In fiscal year 2009, ORA
estimates allocating approximately 305 FTE and $50 million to perform
the import food field exams and collect food import samples for
analyses. This estimate does not include laboratory resources to
analyze the import samples. Also, this figure does not include
resources to electronically review the imported products that are not
physically examined, as well as resources for the Prior Notice Center.
Finally, these numbers do not include Center or Agency overhead costs.
Funding increases requested in the fiscal year 2009 CJ will allow
ORA to perform an additional 20,000 import food field exams, as well as
50 additional foreign food inspections, and an additional 75 food
import lab sample analyses.
Question. How many inspectors are needed by product line to handle
the volume of all FDA regulated imports?
Answer. Rather than trying to inspect all imports, FDA recommends
targeted risk-based inspections to focus resources where they are most
needed and will provide the greatest benefit to American consumers.
Because FDA recommends a targeted risk-based approach to inspections
rather than inspecting 100 percent of FDA-regulated products, we have
not estimated the cost of inspecting all imported foods. The fiscal
year 2009 Congressional Justification (CJ) estimates that ORA will
physically examine approximately 0.82 percent of all FDA-regulated
imported products. This includes foods, cosmetics, human drugs,
biologics, animal drugs and feeds, and medical device and radiological
health imported products. The physical exam percentage is a combination
of import field exams and import laboratory samples analyzed. In fiscal
year 2009, ORA estimates allocating approximately 351 FTE and $57.5
million to perform the import field exams and collect import samples
for analyses across all field program areas. This estimate does not
include laboratory resources to analyze the import samples. Also, this
figure does not include resources to electronically review the imported
products that are not physically examined, as well as resources for the
Prior Notice Center. Finally, these numbers do not include Center or
Agency overhead costs.
Question. What level of funding is needed to handle all the volume
of FDA regulated imports?
Answer. Rather than trying to inspect all imports, FDA recommends
targeted risk-based inspections to focus resources where they are most
needed and will provide the greatest benefit to American consumers.
Because FDA recommends a targeted risk-based approach to inspections
rather than inspecting 100 percent of FDA-regulated products, we have
not estimated the cost of inspecting all FDA-regulated imports. The
fiscal year 2009 Congressional Justification estimates that ORA will
physically examine approximately 0.82 percent of all FDA-regulated
imported products. This includes foods, cosmetics, human drugs,
biologics, animal drugs and feeds, and medical device and radiological
health imported products. The physical exam percentage is a combination
of import field exams and import laboratory samples analyzed. In fiscal
year 2009, ORA estimates allocating approximately 351 FTE and $57.5
million to perform the import field exams and collect import samples
for analyses across all field program areas. This estimate does not
include laboratory resources to analyze the import samples. Also, this
figure does not include resources to electronically review the imported
products that are not physically examined, as well as resources for the
Prior Notice Center. Finally, these numbers do not include Center or
Agency overhead costs.
Funding increases requested for fiscal year 2009 in the Field Drugs
Program will increase the Office of Criminal Investigations capacity to
investigate criminal import violations. Funding increases requested in
the Field Device Program will be directed towards the improvement of
strategic information-sharing between FDA and regulatory partners, such
as U.S. Customs and Border Protection. This activity directly supports
intervention recommendations made by the Interagency Working Group on
Import Safety in the Import Safety Action Plan.
Question. What level of funding is needed to handle all other FDA
regulated activities outside of imports?
Answer. Rather than trying to inspect all imports, FDA recommends
targeted risk-based inspections to focus resources where they are most
needed and will provide the greatest benefit to American consumers.
Because FDA recommends a targeted risk-based approach to inspections
rather than inspecting 100 percent of FDA-regulated products, we have
not estimated the cost of inspecting FDA-regulated products that are
not imported. With the requested funding in the fiscal year 2009
Congressional Justification, the Office of Regulatory Affairs estimates
that it will allocate $200.7 million and 1,224 FTE for FDA domestic
inspections in fiscal year 2009 and award $15.7 million to the States
for State contract inspections. These resources will allow ORA to
inspect approximately 24 percent of the domestic inventory for which
the Field has a recurring inspectional obligation. The domestic
inventory estimate includes firms in all five field program areas:
Foods, Human Drugs, Biologics, Animal Drugs and Feeds, and Devices and
Radiological Health. The inventory estimate includes firm types such as
manufacturers, repackers, relabelers, warehouses, blood banks, and
bioresearch monitoring facilities. This estimate does not include
mammography facilities because all mammography facilities are inspected
annually using user fee funds. Finally, these funding estimates do not
include Center or Agency overhead costs.
Question. Why does the OASIS database not accurately track volume
or make it easily to ascertain the volume of goods coming from a given
country?
Answer. There are three primary ways to measure the amounts of
imported goods: declared value, quantity, as measured by weight,
volume, or piece count, and count of entry lines. None of these
measures is ideal. Importers are not required to provide FDA with
either the value or the quantity of goods in an entry line, and often
they do not. When quantity data are provided, entry filers sometimes
make significant errors. Those errors can badly distort aggregate data.
Entry lines can be counted precisely, but the value and quantity of the
goods in any given line can vary enormously.
FDA uses the count of entry lines as the best available option. For
the reasons given above, aggregation of data on declared value or
quantity is not feasible.
Question. To protect the public from food borne illness from both
domestic and imported products, what is the FDA doing to change the way
it does business?
Answer. In November 2007, FDA released the Food Protection Plan,
also known as the FPP, to address both food safety and food defense for
domestic and imported products. The plan is integrated with the
Administration's Import Safety Action Plan. The FPP is an integrated
strategy that focuses on risks over a product's life cycle from
production to consumption. The FPP targets resources to achieve maximum
risk reduction and address both unintentional and deliberate
contamination. The FPP relies on science and modern technology systems.
FDA was granted direct hire authority in April 2008 and will hire
161 new FTEs to work in food safety. The Office of Regulatory Affairs
has completed a 3-year plan to increase State inspections and will hire
77 new FTEs with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation and an additional
53 new FTE with funds from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008,
which will be available on July 1, 2008 to conduct food field exams,
inspections, and sample collections. The Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition will hire one new FTE with the fiscal year 2008
appropriation and will hire an additional 28 new FTEs with the funds
from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, which will be available
on July 1, 2008 to assist with food safety work aimed at protecting the
Nation's imported and domestic food supply from both unintentional and
deliberate contamination. The Office of Crisis Management will hire two
new FTEs with the fiscal year 2008 appropriation to assist FDA in
quickly responding to food safety threats. In addition, FDA is focusing
on the interface between food protection and the agricultural
production of commodities. FDA officials have also met with the
National Academy of Science and discussed a statement of work for a
comprehensive study of the gaps in public health protection provided by
the United State's food safety system.
breast implants
Question. The Food and Drug Administration approved silicone gel
breast implants, manufactured by Mentor, in November 2006. This
approval came with rigorous post approval conditions, including
mandatory enrollment in longitudinal studies.
Following the approval of silicone gel breast implants manufactured
by Allegan, the FDA made this enrollment in longitudinal studies
optional.
What is the reason for this change? What specific data was
presented to justify this change?
Answer. In November 2006, both Allergan and Mentor Corporation
received FDA approval to market their silicone gel-filled breast
implants in the United States, subject to requirements to conduct post
approval studies, also known as PAS, to answer particular questions.
FDA allowed the companies the opportunity to develop different study
designs and other protocol elements to meet this requirement. The goals
were to design studies that would minimize bias in the study results
and in which the subject enrollment goals could be achieved. The
participation could be voluntary or mandatory. The companies proposed
the specific study designs to answer those questions and submitted them
for FDA approval. Allergan proposed, and FDA approved, a study with
voluntary participation, while Mentor originally proposed, and FDA
approved, a study where participation was mandatory in order for women
to obtain the Mentor product.
In April 2007 FDA approved Mentor's request to amend the
MemoryGelTM Large Post-Approval Study protocol to allow for
voluntary instead of mandatory participation of study subjects.
Mentor's request reported that the company received many complaints
from Institutional Review Boards--IRBs, hospitals, and other
institutions, questioning the appropriateness of requiring patients to
become subjects in a PAS in order to receive an approved device. Mentor
indicated that mandatory PAS participation might not be consistent with
standard PAS practice, and that several complainants indicated that in
keeping with good clinical practice, patient participation should be
voluntary. The concerns had also made it difficult for Mentor to obtain
the IRB approval required to commence the study at a number of sites,
slowing overall progress of the study.
Based on FDA's assessment of the supplement and principles of good
study design, FDA approved the amendment to the MemoryGelTM
Large Post-Approval Study protocol which changed the enrollment type
from mandatory to voluntary and thus allows women access to this
approved device without requiring participation in a research study.
The change increases participation of women who meet the PAS inclusion
criteria by eliminating barriers to IRB approval and patient
enrollment.
The key points underlying FDA's decision are as follows. First,
there is no scientific rationale for requiring mandatory subject
participation. Mandatory and voluntary subject participation were
acceptable alternative approaches to design the PAS. Second,
participation in the post-approval study for Allergan's comparable
silicone gel-filled breast implants is voluntary. Third, Mentor's
request to allow voluntary participation of women who receive the
MemoryGelTM implant is acceptable as an alternative study
design and is justified to allow women access to this approved device
without requiring participation in a research study and to potentially
increase participation of women who meet the PAS inclusion criteria.
Fourth, IRB participation and support is critical for the success of
the Post-Approval Studies Program. In the silicone breast implant
studies, the role of IRBs is even more important because the studies
are long-term and involve tens of thousands of subjects.
Question. How many patients are currently enrolled in longitudinal
studies of silicone gel breast implants made by Allegan and Mentor?
What percentage of women who have received implants since the November
2006 approval are enrolled in these studies?
Answer. FDA believes this information about enrollment in ongoing
studies is confidential commercial information protected from public
disclosure by statute and regulation. It cannot be disclosed for the
record absent permission from the companies. We apologize for any
inconvenience this may cause. FDA does not have information regarding
the percentage of women who have received implants since the November
2006 approval that are enrolled in these studies.
Question. What other changes have been made to the post approval
study requirements?
Answer. In May 2007, FDA approved a protocol change for the Large
Post-Approval Study, requested by Mentor, that allows the company to
enroll Canadian patients who receive the MemoryGel silicone breast
implant in addition to the U.S. study participants. The November 17,
2006, approval order states that Mentor will enroll in this study.
Mentor requested this protocol change to meet Health Canada's post-
approval conditions for the MemoryGel Silicone gel-filled Breast
Implant. Mentor will use the FDA MemoryGel PAS protocol for the
Canadian MemoryGel participants. The sponsor plans to perform the
analysis twice, once on all study participants and a second time based
only on U.S. study participants.
Question. Are Mentor and Allergan currently in full compliance with
the post approval requirements?
Answer. The status of Allergan's and Mentor's postmarket studies of
silicone breast implants and conditions is summarized in a table that I
am pleased to provide for the record. Both Mentor Corporation and
Allergan started enrolling patients in February 2007 as required by
their respective approval orders and both firms have complied with the
reporting requirements. The table below identifies the status of
individual approval conditions that Allergan and Mentor must meet.
[The information follows:]
STATUS OF ALLERGAN'S AND MENTOR CORPORATION'S SILICONE GEL-FILLED BREAST
IMPLANT POSTMARKET STUDIES AND CONDITIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approval Condition Allergan Mentor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Post-Approval Study........ Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time 2
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Large Post-Approval Study....... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \1\. On time \1\
Study Status: Study Status: On
Overdue \3\ (12- time \3\
month patient
enrollment target
was not met).
Device Failure Studies.......... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Focus Group Study............... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Informed Decision Process....... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
Adjunct Study................... Reporting status: Reporting status:
On time \2\. On time \2\
Study Status: On Study Status: On
time \3\. time \3\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reporting status for Larger Post-Approval Study is ``On time'' if 15-
month report was received by the February 16, 2008 due date.
\2\ Reporting status is ``on time'' if 12-month report for a post-
approval study other than the Larger Post-Approval Study was received
by November 17, 2007 due date.
\3\ Study progress status for a post-approval study condition is ``On
time'' if patient enrollment and follow-up targets have been met and
``Overdue'' if the interim enrollment target was not met.
Question. Based on the post approval data already reported by
Mentor and Allergan, what findings has the FDA made regarding the
safety of silicone gel breast implants?
Answer. FDA's review of the 12-month reports submitted by Allergan
and Mentor for the six conditions of approval indicates that the
results regarding the safety of the silicone gel breast implants
presented in these reports are consistent with the data available at
the time of approval. The studies are continuing to allow FDA to
evaluate long-term device safety.
Question. Does the FDA have the necessary resources to enforce
these post-approval requirements?
Answer. In 2005, CDRH transferred the responsibility for post-
approval study oversight from the premarket staff of the Office of
Device Evaluation and the Office of In Vitro Diagnostics to the
postmarket staff of the Office of Surveillance and Biometrics, also
known as OSB.
The fiscal year 2003-2005 cohort approval commitments for the
silicone breast implants focuses on three areas: ensuring the
timeliness of the study execution, ensuring that the FDA-approved
protocols are properly implemented, and making sure that the studies
are progressing well and provide meaningful results that can guide
regulatory actions.
OSB has two project managers who are fully dedicated to overseeing
manufacturer compliance with post-approval study commitments. They
enable OSB to acknowledge receipt of study reports, monitor compliance
with reporting requirements, and contact the manufacturer when the
reports are not received as scheduled.
In 2006, OSB instituted an automated tracking system to monitor PAS
study commitments. The project managers use this tracking system to
make sure manufacturers send PAS study progress reports on time and
that we review these reports in a timely manner.
Two OSB epidemiologists serve as the lead reviewers for post-
approval commitments and review the study reports to make sure the
studies are progressing well. A multi-disciplinary post market team of
scientists is available as consultants to the epidemiologists.
The FDA Post-Approval Studies Website went live in April 2007. The
site documents the status of PAS studies for the two implants. A user
can search for information by the device name or manufacturer and view
a description of the study, the reporting schedule, and status of the
studies--such as whether the study is On Time or Overdue. The site is
maintained by the project managers for Post-Approval Studies and
updated once a month. I would be happy to provide the website address.
[The information follows:]
http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/
pma_pas.cfm.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett
heparin and drug facility inspections
Question. Dr. von Eschenbach, the recent recall of the blood
thinning drug Heparin has opened our eyes to some possible gaps in the
agency's inspection processes. The recall has been particularly
troubling because FDA has tied 62 deaths directly to the use of
contaminated Heparin. The Chinese company that prepared the
contaminated ingredient should have been inspected by FDA before
product approval, but it was not. FDA stated that the agency thought
the company had been inspected, but realized after the recall started
that it had not received the required pre-approval inspection. The
reason the company was not inspected is because the company's name is
similar to another facility in China that had passed FDA inspection.
FDA admits that the agency confused the names of the facilities on the
drug application.
Can you help me understand how something like this could happen? I
understand that manufacturers of active drug ingredients must be
inspected prior to drug approval, how does FDA miss one?
Answer. Under section 505 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act, prior to approval of a new drug application, abbreviated new drug
application, or certain manufacturing supplements, FDA determines that
the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the
manufacture, processing, and packing of the applicant's drug are
adequate to preserve the drug's identity, strength, quality, and
purity. Our policy has been, and continues to be that we approve drugs
after verifying that this standard is met based upon a recent
inspection of the manufacturing facility or facilities named in the
application. If we have a recent, satisfactory inspection on record for
a given facility named in the application, we generally will not
conduct a new pre-approval inspection of that facility prior to
approving the application. However, even if there is a recent
inspection, we will inspect again if we determine that the
circumstances warrant it.
In this situation, FDA learned in January 2008 that Baxter received
FDA approval to use the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API)
manufacturer, Changzhou SPL in Changzhou, China, although FDA did not
conduct a pre-approval inspection of the plant. The plant subsequently
shipped product to Baxter. As FDA has acknowledged, FDA's failure to
inspect the plant was the result of human error. FDA staff entering
data into a database confused the name of the Changzhou plant with
another plant that had a similar name and had been previously
inspected.
Question. What are you doing to make sure this doesn't happen
again?
Answer. Process improvements in CDER are already underway that will
prevent future data entry errors like this. These improvements include
additional training for those who perform data entry on which
inspection assignments hinge, hiring new staff dedicated to this data
entry, and putting procedures in place that will provide FDA with the
necessary data from drug manufacturers in a user-friendly way. In
addition, efforts are underway to centralize all FDA's Information
Technology, or IT, systems to meet the challenges of the FDA in the
21st century. Coupled with resource planning and development
activities, FDA's Office of Information Management has undertaken
detailed succession planning to ensure that the IT organization that
FDA is building for the 21st century remains reliable in support of
FDA's mission and is sufficiently flexible to accommodate the science
and technology advances of the future.
Question. In media calls, the agency stated that the mix-up
occurred because the company in question has a name similar to another
Chinese company that had previously passed FDA inspection. From what
I've heard, it appears that manufacturers of active drug ingredients
are identified by name and not by some standardized system, for
instance, numerically. Why? Do you think they should be identified
using a standardized system?
Answer. A unique numerical identifier for each registered facility
can be helpful for assuring FDA that the firm is the same entity of
record in FDA databases, that the physical location of the facility is
valid, and that the firm is still engaged in FDA-regulated business.
Unique identifiers already in use at FDA, such as the Firm
Establishment Indicator number, or FEI, could be used for these
validation purposes. However, the FEI falls short of providing high-
quality validation because it is not implemented with a rigorous
validation protocol. For example, inter-agency computer applications
can lead to the creation of new FEIs during importations when
information is conflicting or missing. Having a unique identifier is
useful only if the software and policy procedures use it for rigorous
validation.
Although FDA has an ongoing effort to strengthen its own identity
validation software, there are benefits of partnering with third party
organizations that are in the business of uniquely identifying and
collecting business information on companies. First, the commercial
firms succeed by maintaining high-quality firm identifiers (including
address) and business information. When a firm terminates business, the
identifier is no longer valid. Second, the third party business
databases offer rapid validation tools electronically. Finally, the
third party databases provide business relationships not routinely
visible to FDA that are often an aid during supply chain and other
investigations.
fda international offices
Question. Currently, close to 15 percent of the food consumed in
the United States is imported and the percentage is rising every year.
In addition, the volume of prescription drugs imported into the United
States is expected to increase by 12 percent during fiscal year 2009.
It is clear that the global marketplace is having a significant impact
on the products regulated by FDA. And, FDA currently does not have any
staff located abroad.
In the fiscal year 2009 budget, FDA States that it will establish
an office in China to better protect consumers from unsafe products. In
addition, the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill provided funding to
increase domestic and import food inspectors, including international
inspectors. I understand you've been working with the Chinese
government to have employees stationed there.
What is the status of these discussions? When do you believe the
first FDA employees will be stationed in China? And, how many employees
do you expect will be stationed there?
Answer. The discussions with the Chinese Government concerning
stationing FDA employees there are being handled by the U.S. Embassy.
However, Secretary Leavitt and I have had discussions with their
Chinese counterparts, who have signaled support. At this point, we are
waiting for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to endorse the proposal.
FDA has received approval from the Department of State to station
eight employees in China. FDA expects that it will station the first
FDA employee, the Country Director for the FDA Office, in Beijing by
the end of calendar year 2008. FDA also plans to make additional hires
for China offices during 2009.
Question. You have mentioned in public statements that China is not
the only country FDA would like to place employees. In what other
countries are you looking to locate employees, and have you begun
negotiations with those countries?
Answer. FDA has agreements in place and we are making final
arrangements for offices in China. FDA has conducted general
discussions about FDA foreign offices with India and Jordan.
overall fda funding
Question. Many people have said that FDA needs more money,
including FDA's own Science Board. Specifically, the Science Board said
that ``FDA can no longer fulfill its mission without substantial and
sustained additional appropriations.'' The Science Board suggested that
an increase of $375 million in fiscal year 2009 is necessary to help
FDA fulfill its mission.
Dr. von Eschenbach, you appear to agree with the notion that FDA
needs more money. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal earlier
this year, you said ``to do what [FDA] needs to do requires
substantially more dollars than what has been invested in the FDA thus
far.'' You also go on to state you wanted more out of the budget
process this year than what finally ended up in the budget request.
While $375 million in 1 year may be more than we can come up with,
this subcommittee is determined to help FDA in any way it can.
What do you think of the Science Board's assessment?
Answer. On December 3, 2007, the FDA Science Board accepted the
report of its subcommittee entitled, ``FDA Science and Mission at
Risk.'' The subcommittee report reveals a number of areas that
recommend increased investment. FDA takes this report seriously. The
need to improve science at FDA is not in question. Nor is there any
question that we must make a significant investment in improving the
science.
FDA is keenly aware that we must develop comprehensive solutions to
face an ever-changing scientific and technological landscape. We look
forward to working with Congress and other stakeholders to strengthen
the scientific base at FDA and ensure that in the next 100 years, FDA
retains its reputation and preeminence as the gold standard through the
use of cutting edge science and technology.
Question. Does FDA need more money than is requested in the
President's budget?
Answer. FDA's fiscal year 2009 budget request of an additional
$50.7 million in budget authority and $78.9 million in user fees for
programs to protect America's food supply and for medical product
safety and development reflects the competing priorities the President
and the President's advisors must consider as budget submissions to the
Congress are developed. In light of these competing priorities, FDA's
fiscal year 2009 budget request is the amount designated to allow FDA
to achieve its public health priorities.
Question. How much would you suggest is necessary in fiscal year
2009 to help FDA meet its demands and which program areas would benefit
most from additional resources?
Answer. The following document is an assessment of immediate
resource needs based on a professional judgment analysis, without
regard to the competing priorities that the agency, the President, and
the President's advisors must consider as budget submissions to the
Congress are developed. As the response indicates, the amounts
identified are in addition to amounts appropriated to FDA in fiscal
year 2008.
[The information is attached.]
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ESTIMATE
[Dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2009 FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Protection......................... $125 259
Safer Drugs, Devices, and Biologics..... 100 160
Modernizing FDA Science and Workforce... 50 71
-------------------------------
Total............................. 275 490
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The amounts identified in this document support three strategic
investment areas--protecting our food supply, assuring safer drugs,
devices, and biologics, and modernizing the essential infrastructure of
FDA's science and workforce. The amounts are in addition to amounts
appropriated to FDA in fiscal year 2008. Investing in these three
strategic areas will permit FDA to rapidly achieve important public
health goals that cut across strategic components of the Agency.
This document responds to the request for the FDA's professional
judgment concerning resource needs. The document and was developed
without regard to the competing priorities that the President and his
advisors must consider as budget submissions to the Congress are
developed.
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT: FOOD PROTECTION PLAN (+$125 MILLION)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Core Elements and Strategic Activities FPP Output Amount FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prevention:
1.1 Promote Increased Corporate Increase FDA presence beyond our $16,000,000 24
Responsibility to Prevent borders, including increased
Foodborne Illnesses: FDA will training for food safety best
ensure the safety of imports by practices abroad. Offices in four
increasing FDA's presence beyond additional countries with 7/8 FDA 5,000,000 2
our borders and building capacity FTE and 4/5 foreign nationals per
with foreign partners. country/region. Yields FDA presence 5,000,000 3
in five countries or regions of the
world.
Increase technical assistance on food
standards in at least 3 of the
countries accounting for the major
share of imports.
Develop systems and tools for an
international information exchange
database related to inspections and
quality.
1.2 Identify Food Vulnerabilities Increase capacity to collect & 5,000,000 10
and Assess Risks: FDA will interpret data for risk-based
conduct risk-based prevention to prevention for products of greatest 7,000,000 20
better protect America's food concern.
supply. FDA will better Research and develop risk-based
understand food safety and food prevention strategies based on
defense risks and use this scientific data and protocols.
understanding to define the
optimum preventive controls to
establish.
1.3 Expand Understanding and Use Develop and validate rapid detection 5,000,000 10
of Effective Mitigation Measures: technologies and assays (see 2.3 for
FDA will develop and validate deploying technologies and assays);
rapid detection tools to quickly For high risk foods, commence work
detect and mitigate a potential to develop two new priority tools
problem. and to validate two test methods for
toxic chemicals or microbes
developed by industry.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 43,000,000 69
----------------------------------
Intervention:
2.1 Inspections and Sampling Based 20,000 more import food exams at the 6,000,000 36
on Risk: FDA will apply risk port of entry \1\ ($300 each). 13,500,000 50
analysis to set priorities for 800 more foreign food production and/
food inspections and or processing facility inspections 6,500,000 33
interventions. and support for foreign inspections
\1\ (uc=$16.7K).
800 more domestic food safety
inspections \1\ (uc=$8k).
2.2 Enhance Risk-Based Integrate and assimilate risk-based 10,000,000 15
Surveillance of Imported Foods at information into data systems.
the Border: FDA will design and
build risk-based algorithms to
conduct inspections and detect
food risks. Understanding the
risks defines the number and
types of inspections and tests
needed to ensure that preventive
controls are working.
2.3 Better Detect Food System Improve signal detection of 5,000,000 5
Signals that Indicate intentional and unintentional
Contamination: FDA will deploy chemical and microbial contamination. 5,000,000 5
rapid detection technologies and Deploy 1-2 rapid detection assays to
assays and build laboratory test high risk foods. Acquire
infrastructure for faster advanced technology and deploy such 11,000,000 10
testing. FDA will deploy state-of- equipment to FDA field and conduct
the-art technology to improve the technology transfer to industry.
integration of incoming signals Build high throughput rapid detection
and achieve faster mitigation and technology into laboratory
response. infrastructure.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 57,000,000 154
----------------------------------
Response:
3.1 Improve Immediate Answer. FDA Develop and implement a system for 10,000,000 20
will enable real-time traceback from product consumption
communication of lab results. FDA back to the source of production
will develop protocols to using, for example, electronic 10,000,000 6
facilitate tracebacks of pedigrees and industry applied
foodborne illnesses. FDA will technologies of bar coding and radio
rapidly detect and respond frequency identification.
foodborne outbreaks. Enhance interoperable information
technology networking system between
FDA and Federal, State, and local
testing labs.
3.2 Improve Risk Communications to Create a health hazards alert 5,000,000 10
the Public, Industry, and Other communication system using multiple
Stakeholders: FDA will enhance media outlets to quickly inform a
risk communication though broad cross section of the public.
aggressive, targeted food safety
campaigns that disseminate clear
and effective messages with
regular updates through a variety
of media to all target audiences.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 25,000,000 36
----------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, Food Protection ..................................... 125,000,000 259
Plan.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDA will hire and train additional field inspectors throughout fiscal year 2009. As a result, by fiscal year
2010, the proposed investment will allow FDA to increase its inspection and surveillance capacity by the
number of inspections identified in this FPP output
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT: ENSURING SAFE AND EFFECTIVE MEDICAL PRODUCTS (+$100 MILLION)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Activity Output Amount FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safer Drugs, Devices, and Biologics:
1.1 Science to Improve Medical Establish a unique device $7,500,000 17
Product Safety and Development: identification system to track
Use new science and analysis to devices, facilitate recalls, and 14,000,000 10
improve the safety of medical support inventory management during
products. In some cases, new disasters and terrorism response.
science creates opportunities to Implement FDAAA safety requirements
leverage advances from one related to pediatric drugs and
product area to promote safety in devices, postmarket study
a different area. commitments, clinical trials, active
drug surveillance, labeling and safe
use of drugs.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 21,500,000 27
----------------------------------
1.2 Data Analysis Tools to Build Regulated Product Information 15,000,000 ..............
Identify Safety Issues: Develop Data Warehouse that will enable
and implement quantitative intelligence sharing with other 15,000,000 6
decision-making tools to assess regulatory agencies.
the safety and effectiveness of Data access and analysis for active
drugs, biologics, and devices safety surveillance with development
throughout their lifecycle. of scientific methods of data mining
for signals of adverse events.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total....................... ..................................... 30,000,000 6
----------------------------------
1.3 Risk-Based Inspection and 250 more foreign medical product 11,200,000 50
Compliance: Strengthen field facility inspections \1\ 10,800,000 18
operations to better protect (uc=$45.000).
public health. The sheer volume Increase FDA's presence beyond our 4,400,000 14
of products, manufacturing borders to five countries or regions 7,500,000 5
plants, distributors, and of the world.
importers demands a more robust 250 more domestic medical product 6,600,000 35
inspection force with better inspections (uc=17.7K). 3,000,000 ..............
capacity to reach the community Improve lab infrastructure and tools 5,000,000 5
that FDA regulates. for rapid analysis of product/
ingredient content.
Increase import exams (10,000) and
sampling/laboratory analysis (300).
IT systems to achieve an integrated
inventory database.
Improve risk communications to public
and industry.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 48,500,000 127
----------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, Medical Product ..................................... 100,000,000 160
Safety and Effectiveness.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FDA will hire and train additional field inspectors throughout fiscal year 2009. As a result, by fiscal year
2010, the proposed investment will allow FDA to increase its inspection and surveillance capacity by the
number of inspections identified in this output
FDA FISCAL YEAR 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT: MODERNIZING FDA SCIENCE AND WORKFORCE (+50 MILLION)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Strategic Activity Output Amount FTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modernizing FDA Science and Workforce:
1.1 Science Leadership and Strengthen programs of emerging $5,000,000 15
Coordination: FDA will enhance science in Centers and at the
science programs across the National Center for Toxicological 27,000,000 40
agency, especially in emerging Research and enhance integration.
areas such as nanotechnology and Strengthen capacity to support
tissue engineering. FDA will nanotechnology, cell and gene
establish mechanisms to access therapies, robotics, genomics and
the best scientific knowledge and proteomics, Critical Path
expertise to modernize its initiatives, and advanced
regulatory science. FDA will manufacturing technologies.
strengthen its capacity to
support emerging areas of science
and manufacturing that are
essential to regulating FDA
products.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 32,000,000 55
----------------------------------
1.2 Investments to Support Science- Expand science training and 4,000,000 8
Based Regulation: FDA will professional development for career 4,000,000 8
upgrade its science capacity by employees. 10,000,000 ..............
providing more training and Launch Science Fellows Program and
professional development support initiate recruitment of first 500
for FDA science staff. FDA will fellows.
create an Agency-wide 2-year Improve facilities outside of the
Science Fellows Program intended Washington region to support FDA's
to include up to 2,000 trainees mission and enable these facilities
to develop a new cadre of to accept new food and medical
emerging leaders in regulatory product technologies.
science. FDA will upgrade
facilities that do not adequately
support FDA's current or future
mission.
----------------------------------
Sub-Total..................... ..................................... 18,000,000 16
----------------------------------
GRAND TOTAL, Modernizing FDA ..................................... 50,000,000 71
Science and Workforce.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
pay costs
Question. The budget request includes a net increase request of $54
million in budget authority. The increase is supposed to fund pay costs
and increases in food safety and medical product safety. However, the
budget also states that the pay and benefits need for fiscal year 2009
is slightly more than $59 million, approximately $5 million more than
the request.
It is apparent that maintaining current staff levels will consume
your entire request amount in fiscal year 2009. Since this is the case,
how will you accomplish the food safety and medical product safety
activities promised in the budget? Will you be forced to cut back in
other areas?
Answer. The fiscal year 2009 President's Budget provides staff for
FDA to perform its public health mission and provide inspectors,
medical and consumer safety officers, food safety technologists,
medical product reviewers, postmarket safety experts, and other public
health experts to safeguard the American public and implement the food
and medical product safety activities outlined in the budget.
The President's fiscal year 2009 budget contains $25 million to pay
the cost of living increase for FDA employees. FDA will cover fiscal
year 2009 cost increases through a combination of strategies, including
reducing operating costs and the design of its hiring plan.
it investments
Question. Dr. von Eschenbach, in a recent speech to the Food and
Drug Law Institute you mentioned that FDA's information technology
infrastructure is ``adequately funded at $200 million a year, but [it]
remains antiquated, unreliable, and beset by high-cost maintenance.''
You said that FDA's IT infrastructure is essentially ``a quilt of
patched-together hardware, and fragmented software packages.''
In addition, one of the findings in the recent Science Board report
was that ``FDA lacks information technology capability and capacity to
support monitoring of drug and food safety and is particularly
challenged in the regulation of products based on new science.'' The
Science Board goes on to recommend the development and execution of a
comprehensive IT modernization plan.
FDA's budget for fiscal year 2008 is about $2.2 billion. According
to your numbers, the agency is spending about 10 percent of its budget
on IT.
How is it possible that your IT systems are in such shambles if the
agency is regularly spending about 10 percent of your budget on IT?
Based on your statement, you appear to agree that $200 million a year
is ``adequate''.
Answer. We concur that FDA faces many challenges maintaining its
current management information system while also upgrading its IT
services to meet the challenges of the 21st century. However, FDA has
made great strides since fiscal year 2004, and has accelerated its
progress during fiscal year 2007 to centralize FDA-wide IT resources.
FDA activities will result in strengthening FDA's base operations,
eliminating duplicative systems, standardizing processes and
procedures, and generally improving the efficiency of FDA IT systems.
Starting in 2004, the FDA Business Framework established and
implemented the Bioinformatics Board, also known as the BIB. The BIB
provides strategic direction, coordinates FDA business processes, and
harmonizes information management initiatives. The BIB governance
structure operates with five Business Review Boards to harmonize FDA
business processes across strategic lines of business. The five
Business Review Boards address Pre-Market Activity, Post-Market Safety,
Product Quality and Compliance, Administrative Services, and Scientific
Computing and Computational Science.
FDA progress coordinating the management of information systems
matured in 2007 with the creation of the Chief Operating Officer
position and the elevation of the Chief Information Officer. These
actions signified the importance and criticality of Information
Management at FDA. At the same time, the Business Review Board
identified 5-year goals and strategic objectives for five FDA-wide
Information Technology initiatives.
The first initiative is the Information and Computing Technologies
for the 21st Century, which is designed to provide modernized servers
and analysis mechanisms to meet Bioinformatics requirements.
The second initiative is updating MedWatch, which is a system
created to provide a portal for adverse event reporting and consumer
complaints.
The third initiative is the Harmonized Inventory Project, an
exciting endeavor to clean up legacy data and provide one source of
truth for registration and listing information.
The fourth initiative is the creation of a Common Electronic
Document Room to facilitate data sharing across all of the FDA business
lines.
Finally, the FDA Advanced Submission Tracking and Review System,
upon completion, will move data across applications throughout the
continuum of the product lifecycle, from pre-approval through
consumption, creating a close loop system encompassing all FDA business
lines.
In summary, these initiatives not only lay the foundation for
integrating disparate existing systems across the FDA, but they also
align with recently enacted legislation and action plans.
Continuing in 2008 and beyond, FDA will achieve business driven IT
that is managed as an FDA IT investment portfolio. FDA will standardize
approaches to developing systems to increase interoperability, minimize
redundancy by centralizing IT and obtain economies of scale across FDA.
FDA will deliver the systems and functionality to implement FDA
Amendments Act, Import Safety Action Plan, and the Food Protection
Plan.
These advances at FDA have raised Information Technology to a
corporate level resource that is being directed, governed, and managed
across FDA by the Bioinformatics Board and the CIO. This approach
enables business driven IT support and services that allow FDA to
achieve its mission of promoting and protecting public health.
Question. If you were to prioritize areas where IT investment could
be made, what would those areas be and how much would you invest?
Answer. FDA's Business Review Board identified 5-year goals and
strategic objectives for five FDA-wide Information Technology
initiatives. The five initiatives are Information and Computing
Technologies for the 21st Century, MedWatch, the Harmonized Inventory
Project, a Common Electronic Document Room, and the FDA Advanced
Submission Tracking and Review System. These are long-term IT projects
and FDA is still evaluating the resource requirements to accomplish
these IT priorities.
critical path activities
Question. Last year, you joined us in Utah for a subcommittee
hearing on FDA's critical path initiative. During the hearing we
discussed ways that FDA can work with universities and non-profit
organizations to optimize drug dosing for certain patients, thus
minimizing adverse events and helping people get the drug that is right
for them. In the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, the Committee
provided $7.5 million for the critical path initiative, of which $2.5
million was made available for competitive critical path research
grants.
Could you update us on your progress in this area?
Answer. FDA has awarded more than $3 million in grants and
contracts so far this year to external organizations to support a
variety of critical path activities, including efforts in support of
personalized medicine.
For example, we renewed and extended our contract with the Critical
Path Institute, C-Path. As you know, C-Path was co-founded by the
University of Arizona and Stanford Research Institute, International,
as a neutral ground for supporting collaborations on education and
training in applied research and regulatory sciences. FDA and C-Path
executed a memorandum of understanding that lays out the general
parameters for these collaborations. One of these collaborations, the
Predictive Safety Testing Consortium--PSTC--was announced in March 2006
to develop and qualify preclinical safety biomarkers. Although that
effort will continue, significant progress already has been made. FDA
and our European counterpart, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
currently are reviewing the validity of seven new tests, or biomarkers,
to detect drug-induced kidney damage. The PSTC was able to bring
together 190 international scientists to share scientific data and
generate a novel simultaneous submission to both regulatory bodies.
We look forward to the possibility of further transatlantic
cooperation for safer medical products. We hope for similar, continued
advancements from our five working groups: Kidney Toxicity, Liver
Toxicity, Blood Vessel Toxicity, Carcinogenicity, and Muscle Toxicity.
Question. Are there any particularly promising critical path
projects that you would like the Committee to know about?
Answer. We would like to share four important projects with you
today.
FDA is developing and implementing a single electronic portal for
the receipt of all adverse event reports coming into the Agency--
MedWatchPLUS. A 5-year contract was awarded to SRA International, Inc.
in early 2008 for the integration of the MedWatchPlus portal and the
FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, our new harmonized adverse events
reporting system. This effort is critical for public health; it will
greatly improve the quality and consistency of the adverse event
reports that we receive. We are also working on a related effort with
the National Institutes of Health to develop an electronic reporting
questionnaire that will greatly reduce the burden on the healthcare
community and the public when they report to us through the new portal.
FDA is working to explore the possibility of collaborating to
create a national, integrated, electronic system for monitoring medical
product postmarket safety. This Sentinel System would enable FDA to
capitalize on the capabilities of multiple, existing data systems to
augment the Agency's current postmarket monitoring capability.
C-Path is helping launch a large collaboration dedicated to
advancing progress against major diseases, initially Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's. The Coalition Against Major Diseases, CAMD, will enable
FDA, industry, academic scientists, government agencies, and healthcare
providers to share pooled data on the natural history of diseases. With
these data we will generate a quantitative disease progression model
that can be made available for all to use in designing clinical trials
to more efficiently evaluate new therapies. This effort will be similar
to our collective attack on HIV/AIDS.
Finally, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, CTTI, is a
collaborative endeavor with Duke University and other academic and
industrial Critical Path partners. The aim is to improve the efficiency
and safety of clinical trials by incorporating new information
technology and monitoring systems.
food safety research
Question. In the fiscal year 2008 appropriations bill, the
Committee provided $3 million for food safety research under the
National Research Initiative at USDA. We directed the Department of
Agriculture and FDA to work together to develop food safety research
priorities that benefit both USDA and FDA.
How is this effort progressing? Have you identified research
priorities and started the process of awarding research grants?
Answer. The FDA and USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, also known as CSREES, have met on several
occasions to discuss FDA's broad food safety research priorities in
relation to how these priorities would benefit USDA. FDA's priorities
from these discussions are incorporated in two of the current
priorities that CSREES announced in their request for proposal, also
known as an RFP. Fiscal year 2008 research priorities will address
human enteric viruses or microbial toxins in the areas associated with
seafood and in the areas of fresh fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
For fiscal year 2008, CSREES' Food Safety Program's review panel
met April 22 through 24, 2008, to rank proposals received. One FDA
scientist participated as a member of the review panel. Awards will be
made based on normal CSREES extramural and contract procedures. FDA has
had additional discussions with CSREES regarding establishing a more
formal process for seeking FDA's input into the development of next
year's RFPs, and FDA is currently moving forward with those
arrangements.
Question. What are the food safety research priorities for FDA?
Answer. FDA's Food Protection Plan emphasizes the need to know the
science underpinning how and where food becomes contaminated and the
associated risks. The Food Protection Plan also highlights the use of
science to determine optimal interventions to reduce the likelihood of
contamination and harm. The Center for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition, known as CFSAN, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, known as
CVM, and the National Center for Toxicological Research, known as NCTR,
work collaboratively to advance research in the food safety arena.
The following information describes the CFSAN food safety research
priorities. FDA periodically updates its research priorities to reflect
the changing needs of food programs. CFSAN is currently updating its
research priorities since the center successfully completed a cycle of
research focused on food defense issues. The center is initiating
research to support our Food Protection Plan. These priorities include
addressing issues related to the prevention, intervention and response
components of the Food Protection Plan. Priority regulatory activities
that will require substantial research support are likely to include
work in chemical and microbiological sampling and detection methods,
interventions to prevent the contamination of produce and dairy
products, assessing the safety of dietary supplements, research to
support dietary guidelines, conducting of evidenced-based evaluation of
health claims, and developing and disseminating guidance to
stakeholders for food safety concerns. CFSAN will address these
research needs through intramural and extramural research, Centers of
Excellence partnership programs, and our established interactions with
research agencies such as USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service, USDA's Agricultural Research Service, and the
National Institutes of Health.
The following information describes the CVM food safety research
priorities. In the area of antimicrobial safety, CVM is developing
rapid methods such as microarray and biomarkers to screen foodborne
pathogens for genetic relatedness. CVM is also developing rapid methods
to screen for the carriage of resistance genes in order to measure the
migration of resistance genes from the animal production environment to
humans where they can cause intestinal illness. This information will
help assess the risk associated with antimicrobial use in food-
producing animals. CVM's National Antimicrobial Resistance Monitoring
System, or NARMS, provides ongoing monitoring data on the antimicrobial
susceptibility patterns in common foodborne bacteria. This information
can be used to alert the veterinary medical community and regulatory
officials about emerging resistance problems that may compromise drug
efficacy.
In the area of animal feed safety, CVM is developing and validating
methods for detecting prohibited proteins from the United States and
European Union sources in animal feeds. The methods will provide
Federal and State investigators with rapid and sensitive tools for
enforcing the FDA Feed Ban, thus preventing the spread of BSE in cattle
and the possible outbreak of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in
humans. We are also conducting residue depletion and toxicity studies
associated with melamine and cyanuric acid in animal feeds. Information
from these investigations will aid in assuring the safety of animals
consuming contaminated feed and humans consuming animal products.
In the area of drug residues and chemical contaminants, CVM is
developing methods for use in Federal and State regulatory laboratories
to detect illegal drug residues in animal-derived foods such as
aquaculture products and honey. Methods are being developed to detect
illegal residues, natural toxins, and dangerous contaminants in animal
feeds. Significant progress has been made in developing methods to
detect melamine and cyanuric acid in feeds, and to develop methods
capable of testing for a variety of contaminants in distillers' grains,
a byproduct of the ethanol industry frequently used as a component of
animal feeds.
NCTR provides research that supports FDA's food safety priorities
in three specific areas. NCTR is conducting research to develop,
validate, and implement test methods to rapidly detect chemical and
microbial contamination of food. The results of this research are
evaluated for application in the FDA Office of Regulatory Affairs field
laboratories as well as in commercial food facilities. NCTR research
also assesses the biological activity of food contaminants. This
research includes determining the toxic effects of the contaminants,
evaluating methods to neutralize the contaminant, and investigating
pathways of antimicrobial resistance. NCTR develops tools that assist
FDA to identify high-risk products, and thereby facilitate optimal use
of inspection resources. These tools include statistical models and
methods to evaluate the risk potential of imported and domestic
products. NCTR is also collaborating to develop a database that
contains genetic information about bacterial strains that can be used
to differentiate between pathogens and nonpathogens and facilitate
tracing pathways of contamination.
generic drug citizen petitions
Question. Dr. von Eschenbach, you've mentioned in public statements
that one significant challenge posed by the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act is the 180-day deadline for FDA to take
final action on certain citizen petitions related to the approval of
generic drugs. You've stated that meeting this new deadline will
require significant new efforts and additional resources.
For the past 2 years, this subcommittee has provided FDA with more
money than was requested in the budget for generic drug review. Is it
possible to use these resources to assist with the review of citizen's
petitions?
Answer. FDA recognizes the value of the subcommittee's interest and
support for the Generic Drug Review program, as represented by the
additional resources provided for generic drug review during the last 2
years. The increased funding has been instrumental in ensuring that FDA
can continue its performance in expanding the availability of high-
quality generic drug products and providing consumers and healthcare
providers with information on the safety and effectiveness of generic
drugs.
The staff hired with the new funding that FDA received in recent
years is not specifically focusing on reviewing citizen petitions.
However, increased staff helps to ensure that the Office of Generic
Drugs has the expertise necessary to reviewing citizen petitions.
Question. Do you have an estimate of how much would be necessary to
meet this new deadline? If so, how much?
Answer. Review of Citizen Petitions subject to Section 914 of the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 involves the work
of experts in several offices throughout FDA, including CDER's Office
of Regulatory Policy, Office of Generic Drugs, and the Office of New
Drugs, as well as the Office of Chief Counsel. We estimate that a total
of 40 additional FTEs would be needed to adequately staff all of these
offices for this purpose.
implementation of the fda amendments act of 2007
Question. Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the
Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act last September. The act is
very broad. It reauthorized and expanded FDA's drug and device user
fees and included provisions related to food safety, drug safety,
research on pediatric products, and advisory committees. According to
FDA's implementation plan, the act included 125 separate clauses or
provisions that require action.
How are the agency's implementation plans progressing? What would
you consider the greatest implementation challenge for the agency?
Answer. FDA efforts to implement the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act, also known as FDAAA, are proceeding well. After FDAAA
passed last year, we determined that there were approximately 125
provisions which FDA needed to implement or would have a role in
implementing. These provisions, however, represent many more individual
tasks. For example, one provision may take thirty individual tasks to
accomplish while another provision may require only two or three tasks.
As we implement the provisions, additional tasks are added as the full
impact of a provision is not always obvious at the outset of
implementation.
There are several challenges in implementing FDAAA. The complexity
and breadth of the provisions coupled with various specific deadlines
pose an enormous challenge to FDA--one that I believe agency employees
are doing their best to meet.
Question. Are you meeting the deadlines set forth in the
legislation?
Answer. At the current time we have been able to meet almost all of
the specific deadlines required by FDAAA.
medical device review performance
Question. As you know, I've been very interested in the medical
device user fee program and I have asked many questions about the
performance of the program since it was enacted. In addition, this
subcommittee has shown a significant amount of support for this program
by providing inflationary increases to fully fund the program.
Can you tell us how the agency is doing in regards to meeting the
performance goals associated with the user fee program?
Answer. FDA continues to succeed in improving the process for the
review of medical device applications and meeting the performance goals
first established under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization
Act of 2002, known as MDUFMA. Title II of the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act of 2007 continued MDUFMA performance
goals.
MDUFMA requires close collaboration with stakeholders and increased
communication with applicants. FDA is working to clarify its regulatory
requirements and make its decisions more transparent through new
guidance, educational materials, and meetings. We continually seek to
enhance the efficiency and flexibility of our review processes. These
efforts help applicants improve the quality of their submissions, and
help FDA provide more timely, better-focused reviews. Our ultimate
objective is to make important new medical devices available to
patients and healthcare providers earlier, while continuing to ensure
the quality, safety, and effectiveness of those devices.
I would be happy to provide for the record a table that summarizes
FDA's performance on the goals established for the fiscal year 2003-
fiscal year 2007 receipt cohorts, showing results achieved through
March 31, 2008. The goals applicable to the fiscal year 2008 receipt
cohort have been in place for only 6 months, so it is too early for
statistical measures to provide useful insights into our progress
towards achieving those goals. FDA has, however, taken action to ensure
that we are well positioned to achieve the goals for fiscal year 2008-
fiscal year 2012. FDA is developing and implementing a new interactive
review process that will contribute to better communication with
applicants and more rapid resolution of review questions.
[The information follows:]
QUARTERLY REPORT ON PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING MEDICAL DEVICE PERFORMANCE GOALS SUMMARY TABLES
[Actions through March 31, 2008--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
Activity Review Time Goal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actual Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual Goal Actual
Goal Percent Goal Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PMAs, Panel-Track Supplements, Premarket
Reports:
FDA decision (approval, approvable, 320 days......................... ......... 91.8 ......... 91.7 ......... 87.7 80 83.7 90 100
approvable pending GMP inspection, not
approvable.
FDA decision--Percent within 180 days...... 180 days......................... ......... 44.9 ......... 37.5 ......... 29.8 ......... 36.7 50 41.2
Expedited PMAs:
FDA decision (approval, approvable, 300 days......................... ......... 100 ......... 92.3 70 83.3 80 100 90 .........
approvable pending GMP inspection not
approvable.
180-day PMA Supplements:
FDA decision (approval, approvable, 180 days......................... ......... 94.1 ......... 95.3 80 95.0 80 97.0 90 92.8
approvable pending GMP inspection not
approvable.
510(k)s:
FDA decision (SE/NSE)...................... 90 days.......................... ......... 76.1 ......... 83.9 75 91.1 75 91.6 80 92.7
Biologics Licensing Applications (BLAs):
Review and act on standard original BLAs 10 months........................ ......... ......... ......... 100 ......... 100 75 97.7 90 97.7
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
Review and act on priority ordinal BLA 6 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
submissions (issue ``complete action''
letter).
BLA Supplements:
Review and act on standard BLA efficacy 10 months........................ ......... 100 ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
supplements (issue ``complete action''
letter).
Review and act on priority BLA efficacy 6 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
supplements (issue ``complete action''
letter).
Review and act on BLA manufacturing 4 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 ......... 90 .........
supplements that require prior approval
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
BLA Resubmissions, BLA Supplement
Resubmissions:
Review and act on a Class I resubmission to 2 months......................... ......... ......... ......... ......... 75 100 80 ......... 90 100
an original BLA or BLA efficacy supplement
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
Review and act on a Class 2 resubmission to 6 months......................... ......... 100 ......... 80 75 100 80 100 90 100
an original BLA or BLA efficacy supplement
(issue ``complete action'' letter).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question. What criteria does the agency use to determine the
allocation and priority for the distribution of any increase in staff
across FDA components, including offices, divisions, or branches
resulting from the medical device user fees and related Congressional
appropriations?
Answer. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007,
known as FDAAA, was signed into law on September 27, 2007. FDAAA
reauthorized FDA's authority to collect fees from the medical device
industry under the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, also
known as MDUFMA. The activities that comprise the medical device review
process are defined in MDUFMA. Medical device review components within
FDA that conduct activities that are included in the review process, as
defined by MDUFMA, receive increased allocations from device user fee
collections.
FDA allocates medical device user fees and other medical device
appropriations to best achieve FDA's public health objectives, device
performance goals, and other expectations established under MDUFMA, as
amended. The allocation between the Center for Devices and Radiological
Health, or CDRH, and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research,
or CBER, is based on the workload balance between the two centers. FDA
estimates the percent of the device review workload performed by CDRH
and CBER, and allocates MDUFMA resources accordingly. Field resources
are allocated among FDA district offices by the Office of Regulatory
Affairs according to each district's projected workload. The Centers
and ORA apportion their individual resource allocations to their
offices, divisions, and branches.
Question. Even though the devices center has received significant
increases over the past few years, I understand that the demands on
staff are very high. Are there additional tools, such as third party
reviews, third party inspections, or fellowship programs available to
augment the work of the center? Please discuss the benefits of these
programs and why they are important.
Answer. These three programs--third-party review of 510(k)
premarket notifications, third-party establishment inspections, and the
Medical Device Fellowship Program--provide FDA with important tools
that can help us better achieve our public health objectives.
The purpose of the program permitting third-party review of certain
510(k) premarket notifications is to improve the efficiency and
timeliness of FDA's 510(k) process. This is the process by which most
medical devices receive marketing clearance in the United States. Under
the program, FDA has accredited third-parties that are authorized to
conduct the primary review of 510(k)s for eligible devices. Persons who
are required to submit 510(k)s for these devices may elect to contract
with an Accredited Person and submit a 510(k) directly to the
Accredited Person. The Accredited Person conducts the primary review of
the 510(k), then forwards its review, recommendation, and the 510(k) to
FDA. By law, FDA must issue a final determination within 30 days after
receiving the recommendation of an Accredited Person. 510(k) submitters
who do not wish to use an Accredited Person may submit their 510(k)s
directly to FDA. FDA data shows that third-party reviews are somewhat
more rapid than an FDA review in some instances. Third-party 510(k)s
submitted to FDA are also exempt from any medical device user fee that
would otherwise apply.
As of April 15, 2008, FDA has accredited 16 third-party
organizations to conduct quality systems inspections of certain medical
device establishments. Individuals from eight of these organizations
have completed FDA's training requirements and FDA has cleared these
individuals to conduct independent inspections. Through April 15, 2008,
accredited organizations have conducted six inspections. Although few
inspections have been conducted to date, changes specified by the Food
and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, also known as FDAAA,
have the potential to eliminate certain obstacles to manufacturers'
participation in FDA's programs for inspections by accredited third
parties.
CDRH established the Medical Device Fellowship Program, also known
as MDFP, to increase the range and depth of collaborations between CDRH
and the outside scientific community. The MDFP offers short and long-
term fellowship opportunities for individuals interested in learning
about the regulatory process and sharing their knowledge and experience
in the many specialized fields that concern medical devices. Physicians
with clinical or surgical expertise, engineers in biomedical,
mechanical, electrical and software areas, and individuals from many
other scientific disciplines have participated in the fellowship
program. Opportunities are available for students in many other areas
as well. This collaboration improves FDA's review processes, postmarket
surveillance, and science base, all of which contribute to efforts to
ensure patients and health care professionals have timely and continued
access to safe and effective medical devices.
role of physicians in medical device development
Question. As you know, I've been very interested in the medical
device user fee program and I have asked many questions about the
performance of the program since it was enacted. In addition, this
subcommittee has shown a significant amount of support for this program
by providing inflationary increases to fully fund the program.
The role of physicians in medical device development and
utilization is often not well understood. Can you comment on the role
that physicians play in the development of new technologies? Does FDA
ever require device companies to train physicians in the use of new
technologies?
Answer. A physician may play any number of roles in product
development and use, including developer, researcher, investigator,
instructor, as well as end user. For example, a physician may identify
a problem in medical care, which could initiate the development of a
new device. Physicians may also be involved in the conduct of research
on a device, including serving as primary investigators, on
Institutional Review Board committees, or as monitors of large clinical
trials. A physician serving as an investigator may participate in data
collection and data analysis for a device premarket submission and may
also represent the company in presenting this information to FDA. Once
a device is cleared or approved for marketing, physicians may also have
a role in teaching other physicians about device use, for example, as a
means of promoting safe and effective use.
Yes, FDA has required training as a condition of approval included
in premarket approval application orders. For example, carotid stent
approval orders require that labeling specify the training requirements
that apply to practitioners before they may use these stents. Also,
many firms voluntarily provide training for physicians.
office of generic drugs productivity
Question. The subcommittee is sympathetic to the workload that the
Office of Generic Drugs (OGD) is facing. We all understand and
appreciate that generic drugs are cost-effective alternatives that save
consumers billions of dollars a year and we appreciate the work that
OGD is doing.
With respect to FDA's performance goals, in your most recent budget
justification, you indicate two factors have served to lower your
productivity. You said that the move to the White Oak campus is
``expected to cause a disruption in productivity.'' You also indicated
that working under a Continuing Resolution during the First Quarter in
fiscal year 2008 has caused a delay in hiring and training new staff at
OGD.
Given that you have now announced OGD's move to White Oak, please
provide the Committee with an update on your projected productivity at
OGD? In addition, we would appreciate your providing an update on the
number of new staff hired and trained with the funding the Committee
provided last year.
Answer. OGD will remain in its current Metro Park North buildings
for the immediate future. OGD currently occupies three buildings on
that the Metro Park North complex.
Overall productivity remains high. However, it is still difficult
to keep pace both with the incoming applications and with other matters
requiring OGD resources such as Citizen Petitions, lawsuits challenging
the approval of generic drugs, and providing guidance to the industry.
In the period from October 1, 2007 through April 15, 2008, OGD has
been able to hire 31 new staff representing a variety of scientific and
clinical expertise. These new hires are undergoing training. Once that
training is completed, OGD expects them to make significant
contributions to review performance.
generic drug application actions
Question. You have advised the Committee that the OGD target is
1,900 actions for fiscal year 2009, including approvals, tentative
approvals, not approvable, and approvable actions on applications. You
have also said that your target approval time for the fastest 70
percent of original generic drug applications approved for the fiscal
year 2003-2005 cohort is 17.8 months, an increase of 1.8 months from
the fiscal year 2002-2004 cohort of 16.0 months. This, of course, is
contrasted with the statutory review time of 6 months.
Will the new staff you have hired and trained affect these
projected times?
Answer. OGD believes that it will make the goal of 1,900 actions in
fiscal year 2009. The Office is on track to exceed the fiscal year 2008
goal of 1,780 actions. As recently hired staff becomes fully trained,
OGD will be more confident in its ability to reach these goals. Current
performance is based on many overtime hours.
The fiscal year 2003-2005 cohort approval time is 16.6 months. The
cohorts for subsequent years are not sufficiently populated to make a
determination. OGD does know that its yearly median time to approval
has increased due to the escalating workload. OGD continues to endeavor
to take first action (approval, not approval, or tentative approval)
within the statutory timeframe but the volume of applications often
thwarts OGD efforts.
As background regarding Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA)
review times, the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act states in section
505(j)(5)(A), ``Within 180 days of the initial receipt of an
application under paragraph (2) . . . the Secretary shall approve or
disapprove the application.'' Therefore, either an approval or not
approval or similar action not resulting in approval is considered by
FDA to be an action that meets this statutory timeframe. FDA makes
every attempt to meet this statutory timeframe. However, for a number
of reasons it is not always possible to do so. After receiving a
disapproval action, manufacturers frequently resubmit applications that
address the deficiencies identified in the disapproval action.
Question. Can you provide the Committee with information on the 30
percent of generic drug applications that are outside your ``70 percent
measure'' . . . For example, could you provide us with information on
the most speedily approved and the most delayed in approval ANDAS (e.g.
how fast ANDAs outside the 70 percent cohort have been approved, and
how long others have been delayed)?
Answer. Generally, the quickest ANDA approvals or tentative
approvals have been applications submitted under the President's
Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Traditionally, the review of
these applications is expedited.
In general, applications that take longer to review and approve are
from less experienced manufacturers, cover highly complex products or
dosage forms, or are related to products that are the subject of
Citizen Petitions challenging FDA's approval requirements for the
drugs. Applications can also take longer to approve if concerns are
raised during facility inspections. For example, applications from one
firm were on hold for about 2 years because the manufacturer had been
unable to address inspection issues. These cases can delay a number of
applications and affect the overall average time to approval. In
addition, delays are often caused by the applicants themselves. For
internal business reasons, firms may not place high priority on certain
applications and may not respond to deficiency letters in a timely
fashion. This can considerably delay approval time.
Also, please note that some applications may never be approved
because the applicant cannot demonstrate to OGD that the proposed
product meets all of the requirements for approval. It is important to
understand that part of OGD's mission is fulfilled by preventing
inferior, unsafe, and dangerous products from entering the market.
Whether a product is approved and how quickly it is approved is
controlled by both OGD and other supporting FDA organizations, and the
applicants themselves. Poor submissions or inadequate proposed products
can result in substantial delays to approval time or in a proposed
product never being approved.
Question. How long have the oldest ANDAs which are still under
review been pending before the FDA?
Answer. There are two unapproved applications for a product that
were submitted 8 and 9 years ago. However, that product has a long and
complicated regulatory history that has affected the review of the
applications. The next oldest applications were received about 4 years
ago. Action on those applications has not occurred because FDA must
consider issues raised in citizen petitions that relate to the
approvability of the products.
Also, please note that some applications may never be approved,
because the applicant cannot demonstrate to OGD that the proposed
product meets all of the requirements for approval. It is important to
understand that OGD's mission is fulfilled by preventing inferior,
unsafe, and/or dangerous products from entering the market. Whether a
product is approved and how quickly it is approved is controlled by
both OGD (and other supporting FDA organizations) and the applicants
themselves. Poor submissions and/or inadequate proposed products can
result in substantial delays to approval time or a proposed product
never being approved.
Let me now turn to one example of what appears to be an extremely
long delay in approval of an Abbreviated New Drug Application that has
been brought to my attention. We are aware that the agency has had
under review for several years one or more ANDAs with respect to
enoxaparin, a low molecular weight heparin, which, some scientists
believe has a better safety profile.
Question. Given the recent heparin recall, without revealing any
confidential information, could you outline the efforts the agency is
making to approve generic substitutes on a priority basis, if any? Is
the agency close to giving final approval to generic alternatives?
Answer. OGD has not approved an abbreviated application for
enoxaparin. Therefore, the Office may not discuss the manner in which
any review is handled nor may OGD indicate how close any potential
approval might be. OGD will expedite the review of any new applications
for heparin in an effort to alleviate a possible shortage situation.
However, we cannot comment on the existence or status of pending
applications.
Question. If a shortage of any drug becomes critical, what steps is
the agency taking to make certain adequate alternative supplies are
available to patients? Are generic alternatives included in these
steps?
Answer. It has been the practice in OGD to expedite reviews of
applications for products that may prevent or remedy potential
shortages or in matters affecting the public health. This practice is
reflected in a Manual for Policies and Procedures for OGD which states:
``Certain applications may be identified at the time of submission for
expedited review. These include products to respond to current and
anticipated public health emergencies, products under special review
programs such as the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief
(PEPFAR), products for which a nationwide shortage has been identified
. . . ''
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Arlen Specter
generic bioequivalence
Question. The FDA's Office of Generic Drugs has not provided a
public process for the development of new bioequivalence methods for
locally acting drugs. Bioequivalence is used to ensure that a generic
drug will be equivalent to a brand name drug. FDA should not develop
new scientific methods without transparency, or use those methods to
review drug applications until the methods have undergone public and
peer review.
In a May 1, 2007 policy statement, the FDA stated that the
development of ``methods for the assessment of bioequivalence of
locally acting drugs'' is an area where ``additional discussion and
collaboration about the science'' are needed. The expected result of
that statement would be an open public process when developing new
bioequivalence methods for locally acting drugs. However, the approval
process for Vancocin and Lidoderm continue to be developed without
transparency.
Generic drugs are an important part of our healthcare system.
Currently, over 60 percent of the prescriptions written in the United
States are for generic drugs. Critical to ensuring the safety and
effectiveness of generic drugs is the science used to establish
bioequivalence of these generic drugs. I have spoken with you on a
number of occasions regarding the need for a public process for
development of new bioequivalence methods for locally acting drugs.
Further, I have sent five letters regarding this issue. They were sent
on: December 29, 2006, April 3, 2007, September 26, 2007, and March 28,
2009. On March 28, I sent two letters one regarding locally acting
drugs the other specifically on Lidoderm.
Will you commit to developing a process that ensures public review
of the data and rationale behind new bioequivalence methods for locally
acting drugs before those new methods are used to review or approve
generic products?
Answer. In response to your April 3, 2007 letter, FDA advised that
notice-and-comment rulemaking is not necessary to ensure that the
standards applied by FDA to the approval of generic vancomycin products
are scientifically sound and have been thoroughly reviewed by
appropriate medical and technical experts. Since the passage of the
Hatch-Waxman amendments in 1984, FDA determined the bioequivalence
criteria for hundreds of products without notice-and-comment
rulemaking. These products included products to treat cancer, HIV/AIDS,
and other serious diseases. Just as in assessing whether the sponsor of
an innovator drug has submitted adequate studies to establish that its
product is safe and effective, FDA relies on the most up-to-date and
rigorous science available in assessing whether an Abbreviated New Drug
Application, known as an ANDA, sponsor has submitted adequate evidence
of bioequivalence.
FDA can obtain public input regarding applicable bioequivalence
criteria through a number of mechanisms. Currently, whenever possible,
FDA is making bioequivalence recommendations available to industry as
guidance, to assist in the development of new generic products. The
guidance is initially available in draft and public comment is invited.
FDA develops guidance based on procedures set forth in regulations
which establish Good Guidance Practices. As a general matter, these
regulations provide for a process by which the public can comment on
draft guidance and suggest alternative methods. FDA has also sought
input from the Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Science on
recommendations for bioequivalence studies for locally acting drugs
related to the products you mentioned. We are considering holding an
additional Advisory Committee meeting in the near future at which these
issues will be examined. As we have stated in the past, we continue to
consider your concerns as we address these scientific challenges.
pre-emption
In recent years, the FDA has made clear in final and proposed
regulations, and in amicus briefs submitted to courts, the agency
believes its decisions regarding approval of drugs, medical devices,
and the labels on the drugs and devices pre-empt State law tort claims
against manufacturers. On this basis, many courts are dismissing
negligence and failure to warn claims against drug and device
manufacturers if the FDA has approved the device, drug or label. Some
argue that State tort claims are the only means for consumers to seek
redress for injuries caused by insufficient warnings on drugs or
malfunctioning devices.
Question. Given the FDA's unsatisfactory track record of making
certain that drugs are safe and that consumers or physicians are warned
of all possible consequences of taking drugs, how can you justify the
FDA's recent attempts at asserting pre-emption of State tort claims?
What is the harm in allowing the injured, or families of those who have
died, from seeking redress based on State law?
If the courts continue relying on rules and regulations issued by
the FDA and dismiss cases on pre-emption grounds, the FDA really needs
to ensure that it is making the correct decisions. The American people
will be counting on the FDA more than ever before.
Answer. FDA shares your concerns about drug safety and the ability
of consumers to seek redress for injuries caused by drugs and devices.
However, FDA is also concerned that State product liability lawsuits
that challenge FDA's careful determination of safety, efficacy, and
appropriate labeling can have detrimental effects on public health in a
number of ways. Examples of detrimental effects include limiting
patient and doctor choices, decreasing patient access to beneficial
drugs, and creating confusion over warnings or statements that can
deter the use of beneficial drugs.
It is vital to public health that labeling neither underwarns nor
overwarns. The public health risks associated with overwarning can be
as great as the health risks associated with underwarning. Overwarning
can cause patients not to use beneficial medical products and doctors
not to prescribe them. Underutilization of a product based on
dissemination of scientifically unsubstantiated warnings, so as to
deter patients from undertaking beneficial, possibly lifesaving
treatment, could frustrate the purposes of Federal regulation as much
as overutilization resulting from a failure to disclose a drug's
scientifically demonstrable adverse effects. Further, allowing
unsubstantiated warnings may also diminish the impact of valid warnings
by creating an unnecessary distraction and making even valid warnings
less credible.
In making these crucial balancing decisions, FDA abides by
standards set forth in regulations and guidance documents that are
issued through a public process. FDA is the scientific regulatory body
that is publicly accountable for effectively executing its mission of
protecting and promoting the public health. FDA believes that State
court actions that undermine FDA decisions may have the consequence of
serving to hinder, rather than help, public health.
Question. Does the FDA have the resources to adequately protect
consumers of drugs and medical devices? Given the recent, highly
publicized safety issues with drugs and medical devices, how can you
assure the American people that the drugs they are prescribed are safe
enough to justify pre-empting State law and denying access to the
courts when people are injured or killed?
Answer. Congress has charged FDA with the responsibility to ensure
that drugs, biologics, and devices are safe and effective, and that the
labeling of these products adequately informs users of the risks and
benefits of the products. FDA considers not only complex clinical
issues related to the use of a product in study populations, but also
practical public health issues about the use of a product in day-to-day
clinical practice. FDA examines the nature of the disease or condition
for which the product will be indicated, and the need for risk
management measures to help assure that the product maintains a
favorable benefit-risk balance. FDA believes, based on the authority
that Congress has given it and the scientific expertise that resides in
the Agency, that it is uniquely qualified to make important judgments
about the safety, effectiveness, and labeling of medical products.
FDA extensively reviews drugs and devices for safety and efficacy
using standards specified in the law. FDA doctors, chemists,
statisticians, microbiologists, pharmacologists, and other experts
evaluate whether a product is safe and effective. In addition to its
comprehensive pre-market review of medical product safety and efficacy,
FDA engages in post-market surveillance to detect and respond to
emerging information about products after they have been on the market.
Manufacturers must review and report to FDA any adverse events
associated with use of a drug in humans, and must periodically submit
any significant new information that may affect FDA's previous
conclusions about the safety, effectiveness, or labeling of a drug.
Device sponsors have similar obligations. FDA is currently modernizing
its post-marketing surveillance and risk communication efforts through
implementation of the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of
2007 and other major initiatives. FDA believes its teams of scientists
are unsurpassed in ensuring that labeling meets patients' needs.
On September 27, 2007, the President signed the Food and Drug
Administration Amendments Act into law, also known as FDAAA. FDAAA
reauthorized two important user fee programs, the Prescription Drug
User Fee Act, also known as PDUFA, and the Medical Device User
Modernization Act, also known as MDUFMA. PDUFA and MDUFMA provide FDA
with the resources to assure the safety and effectiveness of human
drugs and medical devices. For fiscal year 2008, FDA will receive
$459.4 million in PDUFA fees and $48.4 million in MDUFMA fees. These
additional resources will help FDA to achieve its mission of assuring
the safety and effectiveness of human drugs and medical devices.
CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS
Senator Kohl. This hearing is recessed.
[Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m., Tuesday, April 15, the hearings
were 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 2009
----------
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 2009
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
repeatedly rejected proposal to divert food aid funding to cash
assistance programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The ad hoc coalition is composed of the America Cargo Transport
Corp., American Maritime Congress, American Maritime Officers, American
Maritime Officers' Service, American Soybean Association, Global
Container Lines Ltd., Global Food and Nutrition Inc., International
Food Additives Council, International Organization of Masters, Mates &
Pilots, Liberty Maritime Corporation, Maersk Line, Ltd., 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,
Seafarers International Union, Sealift, Inc., Tosi Maritime
Consultants, LLC, Transportation Institute, United Maritime Group, LLC,
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council, USA Rice Federation, U.S. Dry Bean
Council, 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:
--Meeting America's humanitarian obligation to sustain international
aid programs, with U.S. participation in such programs
constituting more than 50 percent of all food aid worldwide.
--Employing food assistance programs overseas as stepping stones for
economic growth and development, helping break the cycle of
hunger and poverty.
--Employing food assistance programs to demonstrate American
compassion for disadvantaged populations, thereby enhancing
goodwill toward America.
the sharp decline in food aid
Food aid has enjoyed broad, bipartisan support for many decades.
The strength of our commitment has made the United States the world's
leading supplier of humanitarian assistance. American food aid has
saved countless lives while bolstering American agriculture and helping
aid recipients strengthen and stabilize their economies.
In recent years, however, food aid shipments have declined sharply.
Food aid shipments have decreased 71 percent, from 9.1 million tons in
1999 to a low of 2.7 million tons in 2007, as illustrated in the
following chart:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Source: United States Maritime Administration.
In short, food aid shipment levels are now less than one third of
what they were a decade ago. Therefore, 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 2009
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 (Public Law 480) Title II program, which the
administration proposes to further reduce by $439 million from the
actual fiscal year 2007 levels. Moreover, under the President's budget,
Title II food aid would be reduced by up to $305 million and converted
to overseas aid purchases at the discretion of the Administrator for
USAID. The reduction will almost certainly violate the statutory
minimum of 2.5 million metric tons of food aid required by Title II.
The administration has requested $100 million for the McGovern-Dole
International Food for Education and Child Nutrition Program
(``IFEP''), representing approximately 70,000 tons of commodities. This
proposal represents a 22 percent decrease in food shipped from last
year's proposal of 90,000 tons shipped under McGovern-Dole.
Lastly, the administration has signaled, once again, that no
surplus commodities will be made available for donation in fiscal year
2009 under the authority provided by Section 416(b) of the Agricultural
Act of 1949. This represents another year of diminished reliance on the
successful 416(b) program, which is funded through the Commodity Credit
Corporation (``CCC''). As USAID has explained, the mothballing of
416(b) has resulted in the decline of overall food aid resources
available and additional pressures to re-direct Title II non-emergency
program resources to emergency programs.
The administration's recommendations, taken together, would lead to
significant reductions in food aid. For the reasons set forth below,
the coalition urges this subcommittee to sustain Title II funding,
reinvigorate the Title I program, and reject, for the fourth time, the
administration's proposal to divert up to 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 million to 6 million metric tons
of grain equivalent in each fiscal year. In fiscal year 2009, this
would require restoration of Title I funding, an increase in funding to
meet the minimum 2.5 million metric tons required by statute, and
greater use of existing authorities of the CCC.
USDA's fiscal year 2009 Budget Summary justifies the elimination of
Title I as necessary because recipient countries have been more
interested in direct grants under Title II than concessional sales
under Title I.
In order to ensure that countries with the direst need have
sufficient donated food aid, the coalition recommends that USDA offer
the Title I concessional sales program to countries that can afford it.
Among the countries receiving Title II-funded grants in recent years,
some reasonably could afford to make the transition from grant
assistance to concessional sales, using the direct loan authority of
Title I.
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 the Food for Progress (``FFP'') program. There is strong
demand for Title I funding channeled through FFP: For fiscal year 2007,
100 proposals were submitted by PVOs and 16 by governments, but only 11
new proposals were approved.
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.
agriculture appropriations to foreign growers and manufacturers. This
Committee wisely rejected this proposal during each of the last three
budget cycles and it should emphatically reject it once more.
The administration's proposal for a new ``local purchase'' program
would require new legislative authority. However, after extensive
consideration, the Agriculture Committees wisely declined to create
such a program inside Public Law 480 during recent debate on the Farm
Bill--neither the House nor the Senate versions pending before the
conference includes such an initiative in Public Law 480.
Moreover, a local purchase program inside Public Law 480 would be
redundant. USAID already has existing authority that it uses for local
purchases through the International Disaster and Famine Assistance
Program (``IDFA'') pursuant to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The
Foreign Operations appropriators provided new funds for local purchase
through the IDFA in 2008 and the administration has proposed continuing
the program under that existing authority in fiscal year 2009.
The wisdom of local purchase remains in question. The experts agree
that relying upon underdeveloped local food markets seriously risks
destabilizing them by spiking local food prices and widening the circle
of food insecurity. Local purchase also raises serious food safety
issues such as aflatoxin poisoning. Lastly, diverting large sums of
cash into places such as sub-Saharan Africa raises real concerns about
corruption and abuse.
In addition to being an unwise policy, the administration's
proposal is politically unsound. As the Congress admonished the
administration when it first proposed the 25 percent diversion of
Public Law 480, the proposal ``place[s] at risk a carefully balanced
coalition of interests which have served the interest of international
food assistance programs for well more than 50 years.'' The European
experience is telling: When the Europeans migrated to local purchase,
their contributions to world hunger relief dropped dramatically. The
world's hungry cannot afford for us to follow in their footsteps.
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 to responsible levels so
that the unique efficiencies of the program are not lost and
more people can be fed.
--The Title II program should be increased to $1.8 billion in order
to satisfy the 2.5 million MT required by statute, and
responsibly increased to $2 billion over time.
--In committee report language, the Committee should reiterate its
fiscal year 2003 directive to the administration to make
greater use of existing CCC authorities to expand food aid to
regions in critical need, and once more explicitly reject the
administration's proposal to convert Public Law 480 into a
redundant ``local purchase'' initiative.
The food aid programs save lives. They have been the bulwark of
American humanitarian assistance since the days of the Marshall Plan,
and they deserve the support of your subcommittee, the Congress, and
the entire Nation.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Farm Bureau Federation
The American Farm Bureau Federation has identified three general
areas for increased emphasis and funding for USDA programs in the
fiscal year 2009 agriculture spending bill. They are:
--Programs that strengthen rural communities.
--Programs that expand export markets for agriculture.
--Food safety and protection programs.
Within these categories, we would like to call your attention to
specific programs deserving of your support.
Programs that Strengthen Rural Communities
Business and Industry (B&I) Direct and Guaranteed Loans finance
business cooperatives and industry acquisition, construction,
conversion, expansion, and repair in rural areas. Loan funds can be
used to finance the purchase, and development of land, supplies and
materials, and pay start-up costs of rural businesses.
Broadband Loans and Grants support acquisition and construction of
broadband facilities in under-served rural areas that are currently at
a disadvantage in gaining access to these newer technologies, in part,
because the costs per user are higher than in more urbanized areas.
The Enhancement of Access to Broadband Service in Rural Areas
program provides loans, grants, and loan guarantees to construct,
improve and acquire facilities and equipment to provide broadband
service to rural areas with less than 20,000 residents.
Value-Added Agricultural Production Grants provide grants to assist
farmers and ranchers in creating greater value for agricultural
commodities. A portion of the funding is reserved for the establishment
of Agricultural Demonstration Centers, which provide training and
technical assistance to new or expanding value-added agricultural
enterprises.
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants provide
financial assistance to rural community facilities, e.g., schools,
libraries, hospitals and medical centers. These programs help rural
schools and hospitals obtain and use advanced telecommunications for
health and educational services.
Community Facility Direct and Guaranteed Loans are made for
constructing, enlarging or improving essential community facilities in
rural areas and towns with populations of less than 20,000.
Applications for health and public safety projects receive the highest
priority.
The Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program offers grants,
guaranteed loans and combination grant/guaranteed loans to help
agricultural producers and rural small businesses purchase and install
renewable energy systems and make energy efficiency improvements in
rural areas.
The Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) program supports
economic development and resource protection. This program, in
cooperation with rural development councils, helps local volunteers
create new businesses, form cooperatives, develop marketing and agri-
tourism activities, improve water quality and flood control, improve
leadership and other business skills, and implement renewable energy
projects.
The Revolving Fund (RFP) Grant Program helps communities acquire
safe drinking water and sanitary, environmentally sound waste disposal
facilities. With dependable water facilities, rural communities can
attract families and businesses that will invest in the community and
improve the quality of life for all residents.
Programs that Expand Export Markets for Agriculture
The Market Access Program, the Foreign Market Development Program,
the Emerging Markets Program and the Technical Assistance for Specialty
Crops program are effective export development and expansion programs.
These programs have resulted in record increases in demand for U.S.
agriculture and food products abroad.
Public Law 480 programs serve as the primary means by which the
United States provides needed foreign food assistance through the
purchase of U.S. commodities. In addition to providing short-term
humanitarian assistance, the program helps to develop long-term
commercial export markets.
The International Food for Education Program is an effective
platform for delivering severely needed food aid and educational
assistance.
As trade between countries increases, so too does the threat of new
invasive and noxious pests that can destroy America's agricultural and
natural resources. Animal Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Plant
Protection and Quarantine personnel and facilities, especially the
plant inspection stations, are necessary to protect U.S. agriculture
from costly pest problems that enter the United States from foreign
lands.
APHIS trade issues resolution and management activities are
essential for an effective response when other countries raise pest and
disease concerns (i.e., sanitary and phytosanitary measures) to
prohibit the entry of American products. APHIS must be active at U.S.
ports and in overseas locations to monitor pest and disease conditions,
negotiate trading protocols and to intervene when foreign officials
wrongfully prevent the entry of American imports.
APHIS Biotechnology Regulatory Services (BRS) play an important
role in overseeing the permit, notification and deregulation process
for products of biotechnology. BRS personnel and activities are
essential to ensure public confidence and international acceptance of
biotechnology products.
Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS) staffing is needed to expand
services to cover all existing and potential market posts. We urge
continued support for the Office of the Secretary for cross-cutting
trade negotiations and biotechnology resources.
The U.S. Codex Office is essential to developing harmonized
international standards for food and food products. Codex standards
provide uniformity in food rules and regulations by allowing countries
to adopt similar levels of safety protection for consumers while
concurrently facilitating transparency in food trade.
The Chemical Use Survey conducted by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service is the only crop-complete, publicly available source
of information on actual on-farm pesticide and fertilizer usage. In the
2008 and 2009 budget cycles, USDA chose to not conduct the Chemical Use
Survey allegedly due to lack of adequate funding. Survey data are
critically needed by public and private interests to assess real world
chemical use. The data improve the accuracy and effectiveness of
analysis of risk and environmental exposures, and are used to defend
the safety of U.S. farm products in export markets.
Food Safety and Protection Programs
The continued safety of food is absolutely crucial to the public,
production agriculture and the food industry. Agencies responsible for
food safety lack the resources they need to reasonably establish
safety, especially food imported from other countries. While food
imports have increased about 50 percent in the past 5 years, the number
of FDA food import inspectors has fallen about 20 percent. It is
essential that the funding for the Food and Drug Administration's food
protection functions be set at $812 million, $192 million more than
last year.
Increased funding for USDA's Food Safety Inspection Service also is
imperative. Specifically, we urge an increase to at least $952 million,
up from $930 million, for FSIS with a focus on full staffing and
training of inspectors. FSIS is in the midst of a 60-day enhanced
surveillance program to verify and analyze humane animal handling
activities in all federally inspected establishments. If the
investigation determines that more welfare inspections are necessary,
we support increased funding beyond the above request to hire the
necessary number of additional inspection personnel.
AFBF has serious concerns about the administration's request for
new user fees for inspection activities. Food safety is for the public
good and as such, it is a justified use of public funds.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Forest & Paper Association
On behalf of the American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA), I am
pleased to submit the following testimony regarding the fiscal year
2009 U.S. Department of Agriculture budget. AF&PA is the national trade
association of the forest products industry, representing forest
landowners, pulp, paper, paperboard, and wood products manufacturers.
Our companies are in the business of producing products essential for
everyday life from renewable & recyclable resources that sustain the
environment. The forest products industry accounts for approximately 6
percent of the total U.S. manufacturing output and employs more than a
million people with an estimated annual payroll exceeding $50 billion.
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 2009 appropriations for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture.
cooperative state research, education, and extension service (csrees)
There is a critical need to focus resources on research and
outreach that address forest productivity, wood utilization,
nanotechnology, and conversion of wood to produce bioenergy/
bioproducts. This practical research and outreach will advance our
capacity to produce healthier, faster-growing forests and
environmentally-sustainable products, and will also contribute to the
stewardship of the Nation's nonFederal forestlands. CSREES and its
partnering universities play a key role on-the-ground in meeting this
need.
--McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry Research Program.--AF&PA is
concerned with the President's fiscal year 2009 request of
$19.4 million and recommends instead that the program be
maintained at the fiscal year 2008 enacted level of $24.8
million. This program is a Federal-State partnership for
university research on forest resources and supports cutting-
edge research on forest productivity, wood utilization, and
development of new technologies. AF&PA opposes the President's
proposal to divert 62 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 provide
a 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
the Agenda 2020 Technology Alliance, such as the Pine Genome
Initiative and nanotechnology research. Working in partnership
with universities and the private sector, Federal funding for
the Agenda 2020 program supports research to develop and deploy
wood production systems that are ecologically sustainable,
socially acceptable, and economically viable, in order to
enhance forest conservation and the global competitiveness of
forest product manufacturing and biorefinery operations in the
United States.
--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
for this program in order to support 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 ecological
and economic damage and threaten further damage to trees in our
forests and communities. 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. Specific funding
recommendations include:
--$5 million for Sirex woodwasp (zero was enacted in fiscal year
2008)
--$45 million for Emerald ash borer ($15 million over fiscal year
2008 enacted)
--$30 million for Asian longhorned beatle ($10 million over fiscal
year 2008 enacted)
--$10 million for Sudden oak death ($5 million over fiscal year
2008 enacted)
food and drug administration (fda)
--Food Contact Notification (FCN) Program.--AF&PA urges Congress to
support the FDA's proposed fiscal year 2009 budget of $182
million for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN), which includes the resources needed to continue
operation of the Food Contact Notification program (FCN). 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 2009 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 and crop pollination throughout the country. The purpose of
this statement is bring to your attention unprecedented threats to
American beekeepers and to U.S. agriculture and to request that you
dedicate significant new funding to expand vitally needed honeybee
research.
In early 2007, the National Research Council at the National
Academy of Sciences characterized the beekeeping industry as having
serious problems and being in ``crisis mode''--a point echoed and
emphasized in the USDA action plan regarding recent honeybee threats.
As you know, the situation for beekeepers has only gotten worse in the
past year as the still-mysterious condition known as Colony Collapse
Disorder (``CCD'') continues to devastate large populations of
honeybees, with no imminent signs of relief. Despite extensive,
coordinated work over the last year by experts from government,
academia and the private sector, the causes and solutions for CCD have
yet to be identified, and funding for research is running out. New
funding is urgently needed to support the Agricultural Research Service
(``ARS'') and other Department of Agriculture programs to address CCD
and other serious threats to honeybee health. In addition, new funds
are required to support the private and academic sectors in their vital
and groundbreaking research on CCD and other health-related challenges.
In past fiscal years, this subcommittee has supported the
beekeeping industry through funding for agricultural research
activities. 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 honeybee research. Such support has
helped the ARS to address some of the most critical research needs of
the industry. For this past support, the AHPA and its many members
thank you sincerely.
As I speak to you today, U.S. beekeepers are facing the most
extraordinary challenges. CCD is ravaging bee colonies across the
United States. In 2007, some beekeepers experienced losses up to 90
percent of their bee populations. In 2008, preliminary surveys by USDA
scientists indicate that the impact this year is likely to be even more
severe. The Department's experts estimate that at least 37 percent of
U.S. commercial honeybees are likely to fall victim to CCD in 2008. For
example, one of our AHPA members with significant operations in
California has already reported losses of 66 percent of his entire bee
population.
The causes of CCD are still unknown. CCD may be caused by a
complicated mix of factors, including the stresses caused by continuing
infestations of mites and pests, recent imports of foreign honeybees
and by the high demands of pollination services today. However, CCD's
effects are well known. Hundreds of news articles and many in-depth
media reports have chronicled a looming disaster facing American
beekeepers and the producers of over 90 fruit, vegetable and fiber
crops that rely on honeybee pollination.
Over the past year, Congressional leaders and the administration
have significantly underscored the priority of honeybee health through
significant new authorizations in the pending Farm Bill and in proposed
increases for honeybee research in the fiscal year 2009 budget.
Moreover, experts in the academic and private sectors and U.S. farm
leaders have repeatedly been emphasizing the need to make research on
honeybee health a much higher national priority.
All of these developments point to a reality that all of us can no
longer afford to ignore--the fact that U.S. honeybee research has been
substantially under funded for many years. The emergence of CCD shines
a bright light on the inadequacies of current honeybee research,
particularly on the lack of capacity to address new challenges and to
take long-term steps to assure honeybee health. In saying this, we do
not mean to diminish the vital, ongoing work of ARS and other honeybee
scientists. They do their job and they do it very well. In recent
years, however, honeybee research has become largely confined to four
ARS laboratories. Universities and the private sector have
substantially scaled back their efforts due to a lack of available
funds. Moreover, ARS laboratories lack sufficient resources even for
current honeybee research priorities. For example, we understand that
ARS currently lacks funds even to test high priority CCD samples that
ARS scientists have already collected.
To meet the needs of the American beekeeper and to stave off a
pending agricultural crisis for growers and consumers, we respectfully
urge the subcommittee to appropriate $20 million in new research funds
dedicated toward CCD and other honeybee health research projects. As
you know, the Senate version of the 2008 Farm Bill includes an
authorization of $100 million over 5 years for such initiatives. A $20
million appropriation in fiscal year 2009 would reflect that
authorization, and would provide government, academic and private
sector researchers with the vital resources needed to combat CCD and
other emerging threats and assure long-term honeybee health. Such
funding would be a prudent investment in the U.S. farm infrastructure,
which, along with U.S. consumers, derives tens of billions of dollars
of benefit directly from honeybee pollination.
Finally, we specifically suggest increased funding in the amount of
at least $250,000 for promising honeybee genome research at the ARS
laboratory in Baton Rouge. Genome research is likely to be central to
resolving mysterious threats such as CCD and to ensuring bee health and
productivity for generations to come.
We understand that the administration's fiscal year 2009 Budget
would make permanent prior funding levels for certain critical honeybee
research conducted at the four ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories, and
would add $800,000 in new funding dedicated to combating the grave
threat posed by CCD. We appreciate and support the administration's
proposal to make permanent baseline funding for the ARS research
laboratories. We also support the administration's proposal to increase
funding for CCD research. However, we believe strongly that an increase
in $800,000 does not come close to meeting the growing demands imposed
by CCD and other threats to honeybee health. The significant
authorizations for honeybee health research in both the House and
Senate versions of the Farm Bill also show that the authorizing
committees, as well as Congress as a whole, agree that substantial new
resources are needed.
We also understand that the administration proposes to close the
Honeybee Research Laboratory in Weslaco, Texas. We respectfully but
strongly oppose the administration's proposal. The four ARS Honeybee
Research Laboratories provide the first line of defense against exotic
parasitic mites, Africanized bees, viruses, and brood diseases.
Equally, the laboratories are needed to respond to new pests, pathogens
and other conditions such as CCD that pose very serious and growing
threats to the viability and productivity of honeybees and the plants
they pollinate. At a time when there is an urgent need to ramp up
research on honeybee health, it would be unwise to close the Weslaco
facility.
Traditionally, each ARS lab has focused on specific research
disciplines, resulting in expertise that is difficult if not impossible
to transport to other laboratories. The Weslaco facility specializes in
essential research on parasites and necessary inter-governmental
cooperation exercises aimed at preventing the importation of foreign
born diseases. Although we have been assured that the Weslaco funds
would be re-distributed among the remaining three ARS laboratories, a
disruption of this magnitude runs directly counter to the current
critical needs of the beekeeper industry. In 2009, we need to
accelerate existing research and substantially ramp up our research
capacity to address current and emerging threats. Closing Weslaco would
only reduce honeybee research capacity and distract current scientists
from important ongoing work.
the importance of honeybees to u.s. agriculture
Honeybees are an irreplaceable part of the U.S. agricultural
infrastructure. Honeybee pollination is critical in the production of
more than 90 food, fiber, and seed crops and directly results in more
than $15 billion in U.S. farm output. The role of pollination is also
vital to the health of all Americans given the dietary importance of
fruit, vegetables and nuts, most of which are dependent on pollination.
Honeybees are necessary for the production of such diverse crops as
almonds, apples, oranges, melons, blueberries, broccoli, tangerines,
cranberries, strawberries, vegetables, alfalfa, soybeans, sunflower,
and cotton, among others. In fact, honeybees pollinate about one-third
of the human diet.
The importance of this pollination to contemporary agriculture
cannot be understated. In fact, the value of such pollination is vastly
greater than the total value of honey and wax produced by honeybees.
More than 140 billion honeybees, representing 2 million colonies, are
transported by U.S. beekeepers across the country every year to
pollinate crops.
The importance of honeybees--and the U.S. honey industry which
supplies the honeybees for pollination--is illustrated by the
pollination of California's almond crop. California grows 100 percent
of the nation's almond crop and supplies 80 percent of the world's
almonds. Honeybees are transported from all over the Nation to
pollinate California almonds, which is the largest single crop
requiring honeybees for pollination. More than 1 million honeybee 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.
Many other U.S. agriculture producers require extensive honeybee
pollination for their crops, including blueberry, avocado, and cotton
growers. Cattle and farm-raised catfish industries also benefit from
honeybee pollination, as pollination is important for growing alfalfa,
which is fodder for cattle and farm-raised fish. As OnEarth magazine
noted recently, the fate of California's almond crop rests ``on the
slender back of the embattled honeybee.''
threats to u.s. honeybees
Since 1984, the survival of the honeybee has been threatened by
continuing infestations of mites, pests and other conditions for which
appropriate controls must continually be developed by scientists at the
four ARS laboratories and other highly qualified research institutions.
These longstanding and worsening infestations have caused great strain
on the American honeybee to the point where some U.S. honey producers
have felt the need--for the first time in over 80 years--to import bees
from New Zealand and Australia for pollination. The strain exerted by
infestations has only been exacerbated over the past 2 years by the
emergence of CCD. Ironically, leading scientists and industry leaders
have concluded that there is likely a correlation between the
introduction of foreign bees and the emergence of CCD.
CCD remains a mystery to both beekeepers and scientists, and ARS
researchers and other researchers will need significant new resources
to determine the causes of CCD and to develop effective treatment
strategies. This research is complex, as there are a wide range of
factors that--either alone or in combination--may be causes of this
serious condition. Areas for research 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.
ongoing and new critical research
AHPA, others in the industry, and leading scientists believe that
an important contributing factor in the current CCD crisis is the
longstanding, substantial under funding of U.S. bee research. In recent
years, the Federal Government has spent very modest amounts at each ARS
Honeybee Research Laboratory--for a sector that directly contributes
$15 billion per year to the U.S. farm economy.
Worse still, funding amounts have not been increased to account for
growing bee health concerns. USDA honeybee researchers remain under
funded. As noted above, current funding shortages have caused important
CCD-related bee samples to go untested. Additionally, despite their
ability to provide significant and innovative new research on emerging
bee threats, researchers in the academic and private sectors also lack
the necessary financial resources for these vital tasks. With the
emergence of CCD, there is a serious gap between the threats faced by
U.S. honeybees and the capacity of our researchers to respond. Closing
this gap will require significant new resources. It is estimated that
each new scientist, technician and the support materials that they need
will cost an additional $500,000 per year.
To address these challenges, the AHPA respectfully requests an
appropriation in fiscal year 2009 of at least $20 million to be
dedicated to combat CCD and conduct other essential honeybee research.
We recommend that such funding be allocated consistent with the
authorizations provided in the 2008 House and Senate Farm Bills. It is
particularly noteworthy that, of all the ``high priority'' items listed
in the Senate Farm Bill, honeybee health research was the only item
provided with a dedicated authorization amount. Accordingly, the AHPA
strongly supports Senator Tim Johnson's request that the subcommittee
make significant dedicated allocations for honeybee research, including
$5.64 million to ARS facilities (no less than $3.08 million of which
should be designated for research at the four ARS Honeybee Research
Laboratories), $1.79 million to an ARS Area Wide CCD Research Program
divided evenly between the Beltsville, MD and the Tucson, Arizona
research laboratories, $10.26 million to the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (``CSREES'') to support
governmental, academic and private sector research, and $2.31 million
to the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Together, we believe
that this funding would represent an appropriate commitment to existing
research and provide the infusion of necessary new funds to combat CCD
and assure the long-term health of U.S. honeybee colonies.
Since the beekeeping industry is too small to support the cost of
needed research, publicly-funded honeybee research by the four ARS bee
laboratories is absolutely key to the survival of the U.S. honey and
pollination industry. 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 honeybees. Tracheal
mites are another contributing factor to the loss of honeybees.
Tracheal mites infest the breathing tubes of adult honeybees 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 honeybee bacterial disease that
has become resistant to antibiotics designed to control it, and a
honeybee fungal disease for which there is no known treatment.
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.
As previously mentioned, the cause or causes of CCD are unknown.
Thus, pest, viral and bacterial disease research takes on added
significance. First, pest, viral and bacterial disease research may
itself provide insight into the discovery of CCD's root causes. Second,
whether pests and bacterial diseases are directly a factor in CCD or
not, they nonetheless continue to threaten bee population health and
vitality. Given CCD's particularly devastating impact on bee
populations, even greater emphasis must be placed on mitigating known
threats in order to achieve the overall goal of ensuring adequate honey
production and pollination capacity.
In addition to pest and bacterial disease research, the sequencing
of the honeybee genome in 2006 at Baylor University has opened the door
to creating highly effective solutions to bee health and population
problems via marker-assisted breeding. Marker-assisted breeding would
permit the rapid screening of potential breeders for specific DNA
sequences that underlie specific desirable honeybee traits. The
sequenced honeybee genome is the necessary key that will allow
scientists to discover the important DNA sequences.
Because of the sequenced honeybee genome, it is now possible to
apply molecular biological studies to the development of marker-
assisted breeding of honeybees. 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.
Additionally, this new sequencing capacity may prove central to
identifying both the cause of and solutions to CCD. New pathogens have
recently been identified in the United States that are thought to be
associated with CCD. Genetic research can be utilized to determine
whether a comparative susceptibility to such pathogens exists among
various bee populations, and if so, can serve to facilitate breeding
with enhanced resistance.
The ARS Honeybee Research Laboratories work together to provide
research solutions to problems facing businesses dependent on the
health and vitality of honeybees. The key 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 Honeybee 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 Honeybee 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. Given the multi-factor
research capacity needed to address the scourge of CCD, it is important
that each research laboratory is permitted to continue and expand upon
their unique strengths.
And while to date the four ARS Research Laboratories have been the
backbone of American Honeybee research, we do not believe that those
four facilities alone-even when fully funded-will have the capacity to
meet today's research needs. This is why last year, after analyzing the
new and serious threats to U.S. honeybees, Congress, representatives of
the farm sector and leading researchers developed the research
priorities that were incorporated into both the House and Senate
versions of the Farm Bill and in separate House and Senate pollination
legislation. In addition to increased resources for ARS research, these
experts pressed for new funding, through CSREES, for government,
academic and private sector research. They also urged new bee
surveillance programs through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service to address the current alarming lack of accurate information
about the condition of U.S. bee colonies.
One particularly effective way of adding needed capacity and
innovative expertise in the effort to ensure honeybee health would be
to reinvigorate private sector and university bee research initiatives.
For many years, these sectors played a vital role in honeybee research,
and many leading Universities have significant bee research
capabilities. In recent years, non-Federal agency research has
substantially declined due to a lack of support for such initiatives.
Funding the 2008 Farm Bill authorization of $10.26 million for the
Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Services (CSREES) would go a long way toward achieving this
goal.
CSREES is tasked with advancing knowledge for agriculture by
supporting research, education, and extension programs. Funds may be
channeled through the Department to researchers at land-grant
institutions, other institutions of higher learning, Federal agencies,
or the private sector. The requested funding for CSREES would provide
important flexibility in allocating badly needed Federal dollars among
government, private sector and university researchers. The recipients
would provide more widespread research on honeybee biology, immunology,
ecology, and genomics, pollination biology, and investigations into the
effects on honeybees of potentially harmful chemicals, pests, other
outside influences, and genetically modified crops. The result of such
funds would be to ensure flexible financing with a comprehensive plan
for battling CCD, pests, and other ongoing and future honeybee threats.
Additionally, the same coalition of experts identified a need for a
honeybee pest and pathogen surveillance program. Although significant
data exists on American honey production, comparably less and lower
quality data exists on beekeepers and bees. Providing $2.31 million
under the 2008 Farm Bill authorizations to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service at the Department of Agriculture would allow the
Department to utilize such data to better respond to pest and disease
outbreaks, and to compile data that may better enable prediction of new
threats. Given the roughly $15 billion added to the U.S. farm economy
each year by honeybees, this is certainly a worthwhile investment in
the honeybee and pollinator industry.
conclusion
In conclusion, we wish to thank you again for your past support of
honeybee research 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 $20 million in new funding for CCD and
other honeybee research spread among the four ARS Honeybee Research
Laboratories, other ARS research facilities across the country, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service at the
Department of Agriculture, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service. In addition, AHPA opposes the proposed closure of the Weslaco
ARS research laboratory, and supports the administration's proposal to
make permanent baseline funding levels at each of the ARS Honeybee
Research Laboratories. Finally, AHPA specifically requests an increase
of $250,000 for the genome research project at the ARS Baton Rouge
Honeybee Research Laboratory.
Only through critical 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. I
would be pleased to provide answers to any questions that you or your
colleagues may have.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC) and the 31 Tribal
Colleges and Universities (TCUs) that comprise the list of 1994 Land
Grant Institutions, thank you for this opportunity to share our funding
requests for fiscal year 2009.
This statement is presented in three parts: (a) a summary of our
fiscal year 2009 funding recommendation, (b) a brief background on
Tribal Colleges and Universities, and (c) an outline of the 1994 Tribal
College Land Grant Institutions' plan for using our land grant programs
to fulfill the agricultural potential of American Indian communities,
and to ensure that American Indians have the skills and support needed
to maximize the economic development potential of their resources.
summary of requests
We respectfully request the following funding levels for fiscal
year 2009 for our land grant programs established within the USDA
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)
and the Rural Development mission area. In CSREES, we specifically
request: $5.0 million for the 1994 Institutions' competitive extension
grants program; $3.0 million for the 1994 Institutions' competitive
research grants program; $3.342 million for the higher education equity
grants; $12 million payment into the Native American endowment fund;
and in the Rural Development--Rural Community Advancement Program
(RCAP), that $5.0 million be provided for each of the next 5 fiscal
years for the TCU Essential Community Facilities Grants Program. RCAP
grants help to address the critical facilities and infrastructure needs
at the colleges to increase our capacity to participate fully as land
grant partners.
background on tribal colleges and universities
The first Morrill Act was enacted in 1862 specifically to bring
education to the people and to serve their fundamental needs. Today,
over 140 years after enactment of the first land grant legislation, the
1994 Land Grant Institutions, as much as any other higher education
institutions, exemplify the original intent of the land grant
legislation, as they are truly community-based institutions.
The Tribal College Movement was launched 40 years ago with the
establishment of Navajo Community College, now Dine College, serving
the Navajo Nation. Rapid growth of TCUs soon followed, primarily in the
Northern Plains region. In 1972, six tribally controlled colleges
established the American Indian Higher Education Consortium to provide
a support network for member institutions. Today, AIHEC represents 36
Tribal Colleges and Universities--31 of which comprise the current list
of 1994 Land Grant Institutions located in 11 States. However, with the
passage of the Farm Bill reauthorization, the 1994 Institutions expect
to welcome another AIHEC member institution, Ilisagvik College in
Barrow, AK, as the 32nd tribal college (1994) land grant institution.
Our institutions were created specifically to serve the higher
education needs of American Indian students. They serve many thousands
of Indian full- and part-time students and community members from over
250 federally recognized tribes.
The 1994 Land Grant Institutions are accredited by independent,
regional accreditation agencies and like all institutions of higher
education, must undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their
accreditation status. TCUs serve as community centers by providing
libraries, tribal archives, career centers, economic development and
business centers, public meeting places, and child and elder care
centers. Despite their many obligations, functions, and notable
achievements, TCUs remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher
education in this country. Most of the 1994 Land Grant Institutions are
located on Federal trust territory. Therefore, states have no
obligation, and in most cases, provide no funding to TCUs. In fact,
most States do not even provide funds to our institutions for the non-
Indian State residents attending our colleges, leaving the TCUs to
assume the per student operational costs for non-Indian students
enrolled in our institutions, accounting for approximately 20 percent
of our student population. This is a significant financial commitment
on the part of TCUs, as they are small, developing institutions and
cannot, unlike their State land grant partners, benefit from economies
of scale--where the cost per student to operate an institution is
reduced by the comparatively large size of the student body.
As a result of 200 years of Federal Indian policy--including
policies of termination, assimilation and relocation--many reservation
residents live in conditions of poverty comparable to those found in
Third World nations. Through the efforts of Tribal Colleges and
Universities, American Indian communities are availing themselves of
resources needed to foster responsible, productive, and self-reliant
citizens. It is essential that we continue to invest in the human
resources that will help open new avenues to economic development,
specifically through enhancing the 1994 Institutions' land grant
programs, and securing adequate access to information technology.
1994 land grant programs--ambitious efforts to reach economic
development potential
In the past, due to lack of expertise and training, millions of
acres on our reservations lie fallow, under-used, or have been
developed through methods that have caused irreparable damage. The
Equity in Educational Land Grant Status Act of 1994 is addressing this
situation and is our hope for future advancement.
Our current land grant programs remain small, yet very important to
us. It is essential that American Indians explore and adopt new and
evolving technologies for managing our lands. With increased capacity
and program funding, we will become even more significant contributors
to the agricultural base of the Nation and the world.
Competitive Extension Grants Programs.--The 1994 Institutions'
extension programs strengthen communities through outreach programs
designed to bolster economic development; community resources; family
and youth development; natural resources development; agriculture; as
well as health and nutrition education and awareness.
In the fiscal year 2008, $3,298,000 was appropriated for the 1994
Institutions' competitive extension grants. Although initially
appropriated at the same level as fiscal year 2007, due to the
perennial across-the-board rescission now routinely imposed, our
programs have a decreased baseline each year. Without adequate funding,
1994 Institutions' ability to maintain existing programs and to respond
to emerging issues such as food safety and homeland security,
especially on border reservations, is severely limited. Increased
funding is needed to support these vital programs designed to address
the inadequate extension services that have been provided to Indian
reservations by their respective state programs. It is important to
note that the 1994 extension program does not duplicate the Federally
Recognized Tribes Extension Program, formerly the Indian Reservation
Extension Agent program. 1994 Tribal College Land Grant programs are
very modestly funded. The 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions
have applied their ingenuity for making the most of every dollar they
have at their disposal by leveraging funds to maximize their programs
whenever possible. Some examples of 1994 extension programs include:
United Tribes Technical College in North Dakota is providing health and
wellness education and outreach to students and their families, with a
focus on ensuring that young mothers understand the importance of good
early childhood nutrition. Lac Courte Oreilles Ojibwa Community College
in Wisconsin is strengthening the household economies of local
reservation communities by offering financial education curriculum in
managing budgets, saving for the future, and understanding the credit
basics. These are just two examples of the innovative programs being
conducted at 1994 Institutions. To continue and expand these successful
programs, we request that the subcommittee support this competitive
program by appropriating $5.0 million to sustain the growth and further
success of these essential community-based extension programs.
1994 Competitive Research Program.--As the 1994 Tribal College Land
Grant Institutions enter into partnerships with 1862/1890 land grant
institutions through collaborative research projects, impressive
efforts to address economic development through land use have emerged.
The 1994 Research program illustrates an ideal combination of Federal
resources and tribal college-state institutional expertise, with the
overall impact being far greater than the sum of its parts. We
recognize the severe budget constraints under which Congress is
currently functioning. However, $1,533,000 appropriated in fiscal year
2008 is grossly inadequate to develop capacity and conduct necessary
research at our institutions. The 1994 Research program is vital to
ensuring that TCUs may finally be recognized as full partners in the
nation's land grant system. Many of our institutions are currently
conducting applied research, yet finding the resources to conduct this
research to meet their communities' needs is a continual challenge.
This research authority opens the door to new funding opportunities to
maintain and expand the research projects begun at the 1994
Institutions, but only if adequate funds are secured and sustained. A
total research budget of $1,533,000, for which 31 institutions compete
for funding, is clearly inadequate. Priority issue areas currently
being studied at 1994 Institutions include: sustainable agriculture
and/or forestry; biotechnology and bioprocessing; agribusiness
management and marketing; plant and animal breeding and aquaculture
(including native plant preservation for medicinal and economic
purposes); human nutrition (including health, obesity, and diabetes);
and family, community, and rural development. Two examples include: The
College of Menominee Nation in Wisconsin is collecting and analyzing
data concerning forest health and sustainability that will help its
tribal forest managers meet the growing demand for forest products
while protecting the woodlands environment for future generations. Fort
Berthold Community College in North Dakota is conducting agricultural
trials to determine the economic feasibility of local Juneberry
production. Juneberries are an important source of nutrition in many
tribal communities. These are two examples of 1994 Research projects.
We strongly urge the subcommittee to fund this program at a minimum of
$3.0 million to enable our institutions to develop and strengthen their
research capacity.
1994 Institutions' Educational Equity Grant Program.--This program
is designed to assist 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions with
academic programs. Through the modest appropriations first made
available in fiscal year 2001, the TCU Land Grant Institutions have
begun to support courses and to conduct planning activities
specifically targeting the unique needs of their respective
communities.
The 1994 Institutions have developed and implemented courses and
programs in natural resource management; environmental sciences;
horticulture; forestry; and food science and nutrition. This last
category is helping to address the epidemic rates of diabetes and
cardiovascular disease that plague American Indian reservations. If
more funds were available through the Educational Equity Grant Program,
Tribal College Land Grant Institutions could devote more of their
endowment yield dollars to supplement other facilities projects needed
to address their continuing and often critical infrastructure needs. We
request that the subcommittee appropriate $3,342,000--returning the
program funding level to the pre-across-the-board rescission level that
was once again imposed on non-defense appropriated funding--to allow
the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions to build upon their
courses and successful activities that have been launched.
Native American Endowment Fund.--Endowment installments that are
paid into the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions' account
remain with the U.S. Treasury. Only the annual interest yield, less the
USDA's administrative fee, is distributed to the 1994 Institutions. The
USDA has reported the latest gross annual interest yield to be
$3,209,000. After the USDA's administrative fee of $128,360 is
deducted, the net interest yield is $3,080,640, which is the amount
available to be distributed among the eligible 1994 Tribal College Land
Grant Institutions, by statutory formula. Despite an appropriated
payment of $11,880,000 into the corpus, the amount available to be
distributed to the 1994 Institutions in 2008 is $38,988 less than the
net yield distributed in spring of 2007. In addition to the reduced
interest yield available, historically USDA's administrative fee
amounts to a payment that is larger than the amount paid to 75 percent
of the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions. While we have not
yet been provided with this year's distribution breakdown of amounts to
each of the 1994 Institutions we fully expect similar results. We
respectfully ask that the subcommittee review the Department's
administrative fee and consider reducing it for the 1994 Endowment
Program, so that more of these already limited funds can be utilized by
the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions to continue to conduct
vital community-based programs.
Just as other land grant institutions historically received large
grants of land or endowments in lieu of land, this endowment assists
1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions in establishing and
strengthening their academic programs in such areas as curriculum
development, faculty preparation, instruction delivery, and to help
address critical facilities and infrastructure issues. Many of the
colleges have used the endowment in conjunction with the Education
Equity Grant funds to develop and implement their academic programs. As
earlier stated, TCUs often serve as primary community centers and
although conditions at some have improved substantially, many of the
colleges still operate under less than satisfactory conditions. In
fact, most of the TCUs continue to cite improved facilities as one of
their highest priorities. Several of the colleges have indicated the
need for immediate new construction and substantial renovations to
replace buildings that have long exceeded their effective life spans
and to upgrade existing facilities to address accessibility and safety
concerns.
Endowment payments increase the size of the corpus held by the U.S.
Treasury and thereby increase the annual interest yield disbursed to
the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions. These additional funds
would continue to support faculty and staff positions and program needs
within 1994 agriculture and natural resources departments, as well as
to help address the critical and very expensive facilities needs at
these institutions. Currently, the amount that each college receives
from this endowment is not adequate to address both curriculum
development and instruction delivery, and completely insufficient to
address the necessary facilities and infrastructure projects at these
institutions. In order for the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions to become full partners in this nation's great land grant
system, we need and, through numerous treaty obligations, are due the
facilities and infrastructure necessary to fully engage in education
and research programs vital to the future health and well being of our
reservation communities. We respectfully request the subcommittee fund
the fiscal year 2009 endowment payment at $12.0 million--returning the
payment amount to the pre across-the-board rescission level imposed
each year on non-defense appropriated funding.
Rural Community Advancement Program (RCAP).--In fiscal year 2008,
$4.0 million of the RCAP funds appropriated for loans and grants to
benefit federally recognized American Indian tribes were targeted for
essential community facility grants for TCUs. This is a decrease of
$414,000 from the fiscal year 2007 funding level. Currently, this
program requires that the TCU Essential Community Facilities Grants be
subject to the Rural Development graduated scale for determining each
institution's share of non-Federal matching funds. The scale dictates
the TCU share to be 25, 45, 65, or 85 percent of the grant award. At a
minimum, a TCU has to pay a non-Federal match of 25 percent of the
grant. Tribal colleges are chartered by their respective tribes, which
are in a government-to-government relationship with the Federal
Government. Due to this relationship, tribal colleges have very limited
access to non-Federal dollars making non-Federal matching requirements
a significant barrier to our colleges' ability to compete for these
much needed funds. The 2002 Farm Security and Rural Investment Act
(Public Law 107-171) included language limiting the non-Federal match
requirement for the Rural Cooperative Development Grants to no more
than 5 percent in the case of a 1994 institution. We seek to have this
same language applied to the TCU Essential Community Facilities grants
so that more 1994 Institutions are able to participate in this much
needed program. We urge the subcommittee to designate $5.0 million each
year of the next 5 fiscal years to afford the 1994 Institutions the
means to aggressively address critical facilities needs, thereby
allowing them to better serve their students and respective
communities. Additionally, we request that Congress include language
directing the agency to limit the non-Federal matching requirement for
this program to not more than 5 percent, to help all of the1994 land
grant institutions to effectively address critical facilities and
construction issues in their communities.
conclusion
The 1994 Land Grant Institutions have proven to be efficient and
effective vehicles for bringing educational opportunities to American
Indians and the promise of self-sufficiency to some of this Nation's
poorest and most undeveloped regions. The modest Federal investment in
the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant Institutions has already paid great
dividends in terms of increased employment, education, and economic
development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and
fiscal sense. American Indian reservation communities are second to
none in their potential for benefiting from effective land grant
programs and, as earlier stated, no institutions better exemplify the
original intent of the land grant concept than the 1994 Land Grant
Institutions.
We appreciate your support of the 1994 Tribal College Land Grant
Institutions and their role in the Nation's land grant system and we
ask you to renew your commitment to help move our students and
communities toward self-sufficiency. We look forward to continuing our
partnership with you, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the other
members of the Nation's land grant system--a partnership with the
potential to bring equitable educational, agricultural, and economic
opportunities to Indian Country.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our funding proposals to
the subcommittee. We respectfully request your continued support and
full consideration of our fiscal year 2009 appropriations
recommendations.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Sheep Industry Association
The American Sheep Industry Association (ASI) is a federation of
state member associations representing 70,000 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 sheep
operations and inventory by strengthening the infrastructure of the
industry primarily through the programs of USDA, APHIS, Veterinary
Services and Wildlife Services, as well as targeted research and
education being 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 opportunities.
We appreciate this opportunity to comment on the USDA fiscal year
2009 budget.
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)
Scrapie
The American Sheep Industry Association believes that the
administration's request of $17.487 million is an inadequate level of
funding if scrapie eradication is to be achieved in the reasonably near
future. ASI urges the subcommittee to increase the funding for scrapie
eradication by at least $11.2 million beyond the administration's
request for a total of $28.687 million in fiscal year 2009.
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 4 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. Through a 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 included expanded slaughter-
surveillance and diagnostics, the costs are, as expected, escalating.
ASI has made it clear to USDA that the appropriations requests of
recent years have been inadequate for successful eradication of
scrapie. When the scrapie eradication program was first being
implemented in 2000, USDA/APHIS projected the cost to be $170,259,083
over the first 7 years of the 10-year eradication program with a peak
in cost at $31,974,354 in the 5 year and projected funding decreasing
afterwards. At the end of 2007, $110,283,000 (not counting rescissions)
has been spent and peak-year funding was only $18.6 million in 2006
(see exhibit A ``Scrapie Funding Comparisons'').
The program cannot function properly without sufficient funding for
diagnostic support, surveillance, and enforcement of compliance
activities that are dedicated to scrapie eradication as an animal
health priority. We believe that funding the scrapie eradication
program at an appropriate level will help provide for an achievable
eradication program and eventually 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. Without strong, appropriately-funded scrapie
programs at the State level, eradication will not become a reality.
Only a fraction of what USDA/APHIS projected for State scrapie
cooperative agreements has been spent. In addition to recommending
funding of $28.687 million for fiscal year 2009, we urge the
subcommittee to send a clear message to USDA to (A) make scrapie
eradication a top disease eradication priority within USDA and the
APHIS field staff with a focus on animal identification compliance and
enforcement; and (B) increase the slaughter-surveillance numbers so
that the disease can be found and dealt with wherever 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 Services' 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 requests the subcommittee to eliminate the administration's
proposed $2.78 million decrease to Wildlife Services operations for
``cost share reduction.'' Such a reduction would place a larger burden
on the livestock industry, as well as county and State government
cooperators which already fund far more of the livestock protection
programs than does Federal sources. ASI also requests the subcommittee
to either eliminate the proposed $5.34 million increase for Wildlife
Monitoring and Surveillance and the Oral Rabies Vaccination Program, or
increase the budget by that amount. As it stands in the administration
budget, the $5.34 million is an unfunded mandate and will require
Wildlife Services to redirect the funds from the other operational
programs such as livestock protection.
We urge the subcommittee to fund the livestock industry's request
for the western region of Wildlife Services operations of livestock
protection at $19 million and the eastern region at $3.6 million.
The western region requires an additional $8.3 million to meet the
$19 million Federal sourced level 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.
The eastern region requires $3.6 million of increased
appropriations to meet the need of the eleven states that participate
in livestock protection programs with only $878,000 in current funding
($650,000 of which is non-Federal). The $3.6 million needed for the
Wildlife Services Eastern Region would help fund livestock predation
protection programs in Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia,
Mississippi, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky,
and Wisconsin.
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 2009 of the importance of aerial
hunting as one of Wildlife Services' 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. ASI is concerned about the recent crash that
resulted in two fatalities and requests the subcommittee to consider
including $1 million to replace seven aircraft in the Wildlife
Services' fleet that are over 35 years of age.
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. Last year funds were reduced in
Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming by 25 percent, and the fiscal year 2009
budget recommends an additional 50 percent reduction. ASI urges the
subcommittee to restore the wolf control funds in these three States to
the fiscal year 2007 level of $1.5 million. Mexican wolves in Arizona
and New Mexico are expanding their ranges and Wildlife Services cannot
keep pace with the control requirements. We encourage the subcommittee
to provide an additional $500,000 to these two States for control
activities. The wolf program of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan was
also reduced by 25 percent and needs to be restored to the $1 million
annual appropriation.
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.
wildlife services methods development
The sheep industry considers control of canid predation on sheep as
a major concern and believes an array of control tools and
methodologies, which includes predacides, is critical. Weather
conditions, topography, different species of predators, vegetation
cover, and government regulations all pose situations in which one tool
may not work for a period and another tool must be employed. ASI
supports the development of additional tools that are effective in
controlling predation. The USDA, APHIS, Wildlife Services, Methods
Development Center is currently evaluating a theobromine and caffeine
mixture as a possible tool for predation management. The mixture
induces mortality in coyotes with minimal pre-mortality symptoms. The
mixture is selectively toxic to canids and is present in high
concentrations in the extract of tea, coffee, and cocoa plants. Because
theobromine and caffeine are readily available to persons and pets, the
medical community has developed antidotes. The agency estimates that it
will cost $1.5 million to complete field studies and other EPA
registration requirements. ASI urges the subcommittee to recommend
funding for this research and registration effort in the fiscal year
2009 budget.
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.
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 jointly 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 recommend a bold investment in sheep and wool
research.
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 industry global
competitiveness due to animal health and trade issues related to
endemic, exotic and wildlife interface disease issues. The continued
and expanded support of animal disease research is urgently needed to
protect the U.S. livestock industry. Scrapie, the Transmissible
Spongiform encephalopathy of sheep, remains an industry priority and we
respectively request that the subcommittee urge ARS to continue
important research aimed at rapid diagnostic methods and the role of
other small ruminants as environmental sources of the TSE agent in
transmission of TSEs within the United States and the world to further
understand the basis of genetic resistance and susceptibility to this
devastating disease.
Due to the extreme importance of Agricultural genomics in enhancing
the global competitiveness of sheep production and the recent progress
toward acquiring the sheep genome, we respectively request that this
initiative be expanded to include sheep genomics. Endemic, exotic and
domestic agricultural animal--wildlife interface infectious diseases
continue to impose significant impact on the economy of animal
agriculture and related food supply. Most recently the presumed
infectious disease risk associated with contact between domestic and
bighorn sheep has led to significant economic hardship. Genomics
represents a unifying tool for many scientific disciplines and is
capable of providing research resolutions to the most difficult disease
and resulting economic losses. Genomic research efforts should be
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 unifying 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 portion 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 should be aided by this genomics
approach. Early detection of susceptibility and resistance will lead to
practical intervention strategies. With this in mind, we respectively
request that the subcommittee support a ``Genomics Competitive Global
Health'' initiative by enhancing the ARS, Animal Disease Research
Unit's budget by $1 million to use in collaboration with Utah State
University, the University of Idaho, the United States Sheep Experiment
Station, Dubois and Washington State University. This initiative is to
apply the emerging sheep genomic tools to research directed at
resolving important disease problems and their resulting economic
losses.
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 $400,000
as a targeted increase for the ARS USDA-Eastern Regional Research
Center (ERRC) at Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania 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)
A virtual map of the sheep genome has recently been completed. The
virtual map provides a good low-resolution picture of the sheep genome.
It is largely a result of genome mapping efforts (human, bovine, and
mouse) and provides a solid starting place for a higher resolution
sequence of the sheep genome. A more complete sheep genome sequence is
now essential because, as expected, there are significant
inconsistencies in the virtual map that will hinder the use of SNPs in
animal or population evaluations. The USDA Animal Genomics Strategic
Planning Task Force recently released a ``Blueprint for USDA Efforts in
Agricultural Animal Genomics''. In this document, it is stated: . . .
sheep . . . should have a high quality draft genome sequence
(approximately 6X). This level of genome sequence quality is necessary
for accurate functional genomics studies as well as comparative
analyses''. By investing in sequencing the sheep genome now, the United
States helps insure our competitive position in the global marketplace
for sheep, wool and their products. We urge the subcommittee to remind
USDA/CSREES that sheep genome sequencing should be a high priority for
the National Research Initiative (NRI) competitive grants program.
The Minor Use Animal Drug Program 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
administration's request for fiscal year 2009 of $582,000 for this
program, and we urge the subcommittee to recommend that it be funded at
least at this level 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 funding
be restored for this program at the level of $1.5 million in 2009 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 as
well as the environment.
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 level of $298,000 for
fiscal year 2009.
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 (2006) of $194,000 for the
Livestock Marketing Information Center (LMIC) in fiscal year 2009. The
coordinating office for this national Land Grant University directed
effort is located in Lakewood, Colorado. As in the past, line-item
funding should be directed through the USDA CSREES.
food and drug administration, center for veterinary medicine
The Minor Use & Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004 included a
provision to make competitive grants available to fund studies to
support new animal drug approval for new animal drug products for minor
use and minor species indications that have already obtained
``designated'' status. This grants program parallels the human orphan
drug grants program. The final rule became effective October, 2007 for
the administration of this program. All drugs labeled for sheep fall
under the minor-use category, therefore this program should be very
helpful to our industry. ASI appreciates the administration's request
of $1 million for this program and we urge Congress' support.
EXHIBIT A--SCRAPIE FUNDING COMPARISONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS
Year projections in Funds received
2000 by APHIS \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000.................................... .............. $12,991,000
2001.................................... $6,310,778 3,024,000
2002.................................... 20,000,000 9,122,000
2003.................................... 20,438,943 15,373,000
2004.................................... 30,056,592 15,607,000
2005.................................... 31,974,354 17,768,000
2006.................................... 30,794,507 17,911,000
2007.................................... 26,994,991 18,487,000
2008.................................... 26,994,991 17,980,000
2009.................................... 26,994,991 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not count rescissions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
(FASEB) is grateful for the opportunity to submit testimony for the
record in support of the vital research programs of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA). FASEB comprises 21 scientific
societies representing more than 80,000 life science researchers, and
our mission is to advance biological science through collaborative
advocacy for research policies that promote scientific progress and
education and lead to improvements in human health. FASEB enhances the
ability of biomedical and life scientists to improve--through their
research--the health, well-being and productivity of all people.
Greater investment in basic and applied agricultural research is
essential, as threats proliferate and demands for a more nutritious
food supply continues to increase. The USDA funds research through its
intramural arm, the Agriculture Research Service (ARS), and competitive
grants program, the National Research Initiative (NRI). The ARS support
allows optimization of the competitive funds offered through the NRI by
providing essential research facilities via its research centers across
the country. These symbiotic programs provide the infrastructure and
continuous generation of new knowledge that allow for rapid progress
towards meeting national needs.
A recent report by the Economic Research Service (ERS) found
``strong and consistent evidence that investment in agricultural
research has yielded high returns per dollar spent'' citing mean rates
of returns of 53 percent.\1\ However, our Nation's investment in
agricultural research has been declining (Figure 1), threatening our
ability to sustain the vitality of our research portfolio. The NRI has
not yet reached even half of its initial authorization of $500 million,
and ARS funding has been waning. Continuation of this neglect will
inevitably undermine the success of the USDA's research programs. Thus
it is imperative that the breadth and competitive nature of the NRI
portfolio be maintained and expanded to ensure our Nation's excellence
in agricultural research and the well-being of all Americans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fuglie, KO and Heisey PW. (2007) Economic returns to public
agricultural research. USDA Economic Research Service, Economic Brief
#10. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EB10/
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1.--Research at the USDA has been declining in relation to total
Federal spending on non-defense research & development (R&D), putting
our competitive portfolio of agricultural research at serious risk.
Agriculture and the research which advances it remain of crucial
importance to our economy and quality of life. Research supported by
USDA contributes to our understanding of the nutrition that underlies
our health; it protects human life and our food supply from pandemic
disease and introduced pathogens; it allows us to respond quickly to
emerging issues like Colony Collapse Disorder or foot-and-mouth
disease; and has led the way in development of bioenergy resources.
Below are a few examples of the important contributions resulting from
USDA-funded research.
Human Nutrition, Health, and Policy
Nutrition is the foundation upon which human and animal health is
built, and whose mysteries fascinate the American people like no other
aspect of science. This is perhaps most evident in the daily news
stories that seek to uncover the optimal diet required to maximize
health or minimize risk of disease. Research has identified the
critical role that nutrition plays in a myriad of health conditions,
from cancer to heart disease to diabetes. Perhaps the most striking
evidence of the importance of nutrition to health is the alarming
increase in the rates of obesity in this country, especially in
children and adolescents. Further research is essential as we seek to
understand the causes, both innate and environmental, of this public
health crisis.
The USDA is uniquely positioned to conduct nutrition and food-
related research because of its singular perspective on the entire food
system, from crop to livestock to food supply to human consumption. No
other agency has the capacity to understand the connections among food,
the food supply and its production, and the health of our Nation.
Through its research programs, the USDA is making the connection
between what we eat and the healthfulness of our lifestyle.
--Folate and Colon Cancer.--Folate, a B-complex vitamin, is strongly
implicated in the prevention of colorectal cancer. It has been
estimated that the risk of developing colorectal cancer in
people consuming the largest amounts of dietary folate is 30-40
percent lower than in people consuming less folate. NRI-
supported scientists are investigating the mechanisms by which
differences in folate intake can protect against cancer and
other diseases, which may provide evidence for increasing the
Dietary Reference Intake values for folate. This is a necessary
first step in developing effective public health measures which
would use folate as a cancer preventive measure and improve the
health of the Nation.
--Obesity.--Our country is facing a rising storm of health problems
related to increasing rates of obesity, in both adults and
children, including diabetes, hypertension, and heart disease.
The direct and indirect costs of obesity represent a $100
billion annual burden on the U.S. economy. The USDA is funding
cutting edge research at universities across the Nation, where
scientists are examining genetic and metabolic factors that
influence obesity, including the balance of protein, fat, and
carbohydrate, dietary calcium and milk intake, the roles of the
hormones leptin and ghrelin, as well as the effects of
conjugated linoleic acid, and new and genetically modified
foods. Unique research projects linked to dietary interventions
are being carried out in rural towns in three States in the
West, in African American communities in the South, and in
Native American communities.
--Functional Foods for Disease Prevention.--Antioxidants have been
shown to be of primary importance in preventing age-related
disease and health problems, including cancer and coronary
heart disease, two of our Nation's leading causes of death.
USDA-funded scientists are working to develop functional foods,
rich in antioxidants, which could provide nutritional benefit
while protecting against disease. Scientific data suggests that
processing of wheat could maximize the antioxidant capacity of
this cornerstone of our food supply. Researchers have developed
a processing procedure to enhance the antioxidant availability
in wheat-based food ingredients that involves no chemical or
organic solvents and generates no waste. These processing
procedures require no special equipment or operation and may be
easily scaled up for commercial production.
Safety of Our Food Supply
Over the past year, our national attention has focused on food
safety and the security of our food supply. The research programs of
the USDA are at the forefront of developing new technologies to protect
our food supply and discovering new ways to detect and neutralize
threats to our crops, livestock, and food products. Research activities
range from food-borne illnesses to microbial resistance to food
processing safety to biosecurity at our borders. Moreover, projects
funded by NRI and ARS are addressing concerns not only related to our
domestic supply of foods, but also those items that we import from
international partners. As the United States forges new ties and
reinforces existing relationships in our increasingly global economy,
it becomes even more critically important to ensure agricultural
research is delivering the knowledge to protect our citizens and the
foods they eat.
--International Food Safety.--Concerns have been raised about the
safety of food products and goods imported from other Nations.
Researchers at the University of Minnesota are setting up
models to examine the role of the role of imported food
products in the local and global dissemination of food-borne
pathogens. Using epidemiological data, these models will enable
development of intervention to reduce the risk of disease
outbreaks due to food imports. Meanwhile, another team of NRI-
funded scientists is developing edible food sensors, made of
luminescent nanoparticles. These tiny sensors will be able to
screen foods for a host of safety and quality issues, from
presence of bacteria and toxins to pH, in a rapid, easy-to-use
and inexpensive manner.
--Preventing Salmonella Outbreaks.--The multibillion dollar American
poultry industry loses 10 to 15 percent of its potential income
to disease annually. Additionally, microbes that infect poultry
represent a major human health risk, particularly Salmonella
which causes over one million cases of illness and results in
500 deaths in the United States each year. Using sophisticated
DNA technologies, USDA-funded scientists are identifying the
genes related to disease resistance and response in poultry.
Understanding the genetic basis for the immune response to
Salmonella and other diseases may lead to breeding of disease-
resistant birds, as well as vaccine development.
--Biohazard Detecting Cloth.--Through use of nanotechnology, NRI-
funded scientists at Cornell University have created a cloth
that has the ability to detect bacteria, viruses, and other
biohazards. When the cloth contacts a contaminant or hazardous
substance, a dye is released, providing a rapid response test
that allows visualization of the threat with the naked eye.
This has applications in detecting foodborne diseases at food
preparation or manufacturing sites, screening for bioterror
agents like anthrax, and even confirmation that operating rooms
or medical facilities are clear of pathogens.
Responding to Emerging Threats
When beekeepers across the country began to report the alarming and
mysterious loss of 50-90 percent of bees from their hives, the USDA
took the lead in mobilizing research resources to find the source of
what is now know as Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD). This is only one
example of how a unique and emerging agricultural threat can swiftly
challenge our Nation's economy, health or food supply. A new outbreak
of foot and mouth disease in Europe, the looming specter of pandemic
avian flu, and the continuing threat of mad cow disease all illustrate
the need for the research resources required to address new and
emerging pathogens and diseases. Only with an adequately funded
agriculture research infrastructure can our Nation be prepared to react
and rapidly counter threats to our health and food supply.
--Virus Implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder.--Scientists funded by
the USDA have recently announced discovery of a virus that may
be linked to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), which has
decimated bee colonies across the country. Bees are essential
for the pollination of nearly 100 fruit and vegetable crops
worldwide, and play an integral role us U.S. agricultural
products representing an estimated economic value of more than
$14.6 billion. Identification of Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus
(IAPV) as a marker for CCD is a breakthrough step in solving
this major agricultural problem. The USDA has also announced a
strategic CCD Research Action Plan which will focus, among
other things, on ways to improve the general health of bees to
reduce their susceptibility to IAPV, CCD, and other disorders.
--Avian Influenza.--Avian influenza is a threat to both the
multibillion dollar U.S. poultry industry and to human health.
A major challenge in dealing with this disease is being able to
differentiate between infected birds and vaccinated birds, as
well as to be able to rapidly differentiate between different
strains of avian flu. Through DNA microarray technology, USDA
funded scientists are developing fast and accurate tests that
will be cost effective for producers and allow more rapid
response to outbreaks of avian influenza worldwide.
Bioenergy and Climate Change
Bioenergy has the potential to not only reduce our dependence on
foreign oils but to provide a clean, sustainable fuel source that may
help mitigate global climate change. The USDA funds research projects
that produce science-based knowledge and technologies supporting the
efficient, economical, and environmentally friendly conversion of
biomass, specifically agricultural residuals, into value-added
industrial products and biofuels. Furthermore, USDA-funded research is
responding to the issue of climate change by contributing to our
understanding of the causes and effects of this phenomenon and how to
best protect our natural resources. Agricultural and forestry resources
are vitally important to both our development of biobased resources and
our ability to address the threat of climate change. As such,
agricultural research is essential to addressing these national
priorities.
--From Switchgrass to Biofuels.--Switchgrass has great potential to
be a major biofuel source for the United States--it grows
quickly, is readily adaptable to diverse conditions, and it
efficiently captures the energy of the sun, converting it to
cellulose which can be used as a clean alternative fuel source.
Unlike other crops, we know very little about the genetics of
switchgrass, information that is critical for enhancing
breeding and maximizing the potential of this important
bioenergy crop. University of Georgia scientists, funded by the
NRI, are creating a genetic resource library and mapping out
genetic traits that will allow producers to select lines with
higher biofuel potential.
--Cost effective Biodiesel.--Biodiesel is a clean burning and
renewable fuel produced from plant oils and animal fats.
Unfortunately, biodiesel is currently expensive to produce
because of high feedstock costs, high manufacturing costs, and
the requirement to dispose of a low-purity glycerol byproduct.
NRI-funded researchers are seeking ways to improve the
biodiesel production process and develop alternative approaches
for the byproduct glycerol. Through use of sophisticated
distillation technologies and catalysts, they are developing
manufacturing process that will lower the costs of producing
biodiesel, lead to a better-quality biodiesel product that
exceeds current standards, reduce waste formation, and
eliminate the troublesome by-product.
--Predicting the Effects of Climate Change.--Global climate change is
likely to affect the croplands on which we are dependent for
food. At the USDA's Rainfall Manipulation Plots facility,
researchers are able to alter temperature and precipitation
over grasslands to simulate estimated climate change outcomes.
These long-term studies are providing invaluable information on
how crops will react to complex ecosystem changes associated
with climate change. Understanding the impact of this
phenomenon can greatly enhance the ability of producers and
policymakers to prepare for or mitigate negative effects.
A Vision for the Future
The focus on agricultural research resulting from reauthorization
of the Farm Bill presents a unique opportunity to strengthen and
enhance our national system of agricultural research.
--National Institute of Food and Agriculture.--FASEB fully endorses
the establishment of a National Institute for Food and
Agriculture (NIFA), within the USDA, dedicated to funding
competitive, peer-reviewed basic research in agriculture. This
is an unparalleled opportunity to enhance our system of
supporting high quality, fundamental research, allowing
advancement of current knowledge and bolstering the superiority
of American agriculture. However, in order to ensure success of
such an endeavor, NIFA must be fully funded, in contrast to the
current trend of underfunding that has plagued current
agricultural research programs.
The United States is Best Served Through Investment in Agricultural
Research
From the critical basic research supported at universities
throughout the Nation to the important work carried out by the Human
Nutrition Research Centers, USDA research programs deserve to be
supported at the highest level possible. We must maintain and magnify
the breadth and competitive nature of the agricultural research
portfolio, to ensure the United States' economic vitality and the well-
being of all Americans.
faseb federal funding recommendation
FASEB supports funding the USDA's National Research Initiative
Competitive Grants Program in fiscal year 2009 at the $257 million
level recommended in the President's 2008 budget and the Agricultural
Research Service at $1.377 billion, which restores the fiscal year 2005
level, adjusted for inflation.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) appreciates the
opportunity to submit testimony in support of increased appropriations
for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for fiscal year 2009. The
ASM continues to believe that the FDA budget request is below the
amount required to ensure that public health is protected through
research and science based regulatory activities. The FDA regulates
products worth nearly $1.5 trillion annually, about 20 percent of
consumer spending in the United States. Repeated reports of
contaminated or otherwise defective foods and other products, both
domestic and imported over the past year, illustrate the crucial need
for a strong FDA.
The administration's proposed fiscal year 2009 FDA budget requests
nearly $2.4 billion, a net increase of $130 million, or 5.7 percent
over fiscal year 2008. The request includes $1.77 billion in budget
authority and $628 million as industry user fees. The budget plan funds
a full time equivalent staff increase of 526, a much needed addition to
the FDA's over extended workforce. It also includes funding increases
earmarked for food safety activities and for medical product safety and
development, identified by the Agency as two priority initiatives for
fiscal year 2009.
The ASM believes that greater investment in the FDA is required and
recommends that Congress increase the FDA budget by $375 million.
Challenges confronting FDA, such as rapidly changing new product
technologies, recently led Agency leadership to solicit a year long
evaluation of the science underlying the FDA's broad sweeping directive
to safeguard consumers. Released last November, the study report
decries the deteriorating state of FDA science and calls for a doubling
of agency funding over the next 2 years, conclusions supported by the
ASM and others concerned by chronic shortages in FDA budgets and
personnel. The report, FDA Science and Mission at Risk, found that the
number of appropriated personnel in 2007 was roughly the same as 15
years earlier. It describes 20 unfortunate years of fiscal neglect,
during which 123 additional statutes have been enacted increasing the
FDA's already heavy workload.
As the Nation's scientific regulatory agency, the FDA must stay at
the leading edge of science and technology. In 2007, U.S. consumers
purchased roughly $2 trillion worth of imported products from 825,000
importers, shipped into the country through more than 300 ports of
entry, elements of the inexorable shift toward economic globalization.
The FDA assures the safety, efficacy, and security of many of these
products, including human and animal drugs, biological products,
medical devices, and more. Its mission also encompasses regulating vast
numbers of domestic products and most of the Nation's food supply,
educating the public with accurate, science based information, and
encouraging innovation in medicines and other goods for public
consumption. Each year, FDA review prompts multiple recalls of
unacceptable or fraudulent products. The agency also evaluates an
impressive list of new products, which last year included approved
treatments for HIV infection, breast cancer, and hemophilia.
Protecting America's Food Supply
The proposed fiscal year 2009 FDA budget allocates $662 million for
food protection activities, a $42.2 million increase over fiscal year
2008, in part to support the Protecting America's Food Supply
initiative to improve FDA efforts against foodborne illnesses. In
November 2007, the FDA presented its new food protection plan,
coordinated with the just released strategic plan of the Interagency
Working Group on Import Safety. Using a risk based approach to identify
potential threats to the food supply before problems arise, the FDA
food protection plan will emphasize early intervention and reprioritize
food safety issues to better utilize limited agency resources. The
budget increase also will help facilitate new agreements just reached
with China that address import safety issues, two Memoranda of
Agreement on food, feed, drugs and medical devices signed last
December.
From production to consumption, the life cycle of the U.S. food
supply typically involves a series of processes, facilities, and human
handlers, opening multiple opportunities for contamination and
foodborne illnesses. Outbreaks associated with fresh leafy greens and
packaged dairy are recent examples. Last year, peanut butter
contaminated with Salmonella bacteria in the processing plant sickened
more than 300, hospitalizing at least 50 patients and forcing costly
recalls. In March 2007, the FDA released its Final Guidance for Safe
Production of Fresh-Cut Fruits and Vegetables as one step to address
the growing problem of microbial contamination of fresh produce. In
fiscal year 2008, Federal economists expected U.S. agricultural imports
to reach a record $75 billion. Food imports have risen sharply in the
past 5 years, increasing by over 10 percent a year at twice the
historical rate of import growth. Rising food imports and other factors
guarantee that problems will persist and the FDA must heighten its
vigilance over the Nation's food supply.
In January 2007, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) designated
the Federal oversight of food safety as a high risk area for the first
time, warning that related Federal programs are ``in need of broad-
based transformation'' to reduce risks to public health and to the
economy. In its evaluation report, the GAO pointed out that the FDA,
responsible for regulating about 80 percent of the U.S. food supply,
receives only about 24 percent of Federal expenditures for food safety
inspection. Each month, FDA field inspectors reject hundreds of import
shipments deemed filthy, decomposing, contaminated with drug residues,
or otherwise unfit. Unfortunately, inspectors evaluate roughly 1
percent of the estimated 9 million food and food ingredient shipments
entering the United States annually, as staff shortages coincide with
rapidly expanding import numbers.
In 2006, the FDA's Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
(CFSAN) regulated an estimated $417 billion worth of domestic food and
$49 billion worth of imported food, as well as $60 billion in cosmetics
and $18 billion in dietary supplements. The $182 million proposed for
CFSAN in fiscal year 2009 is an increase of $10 million over fiscal
year 2008 and includes an additional 31 full-time employees, for a
total of 811 FTEs to handle the workload. Increases for CFSAN also will
target five areas for improvement: preventing contamination, prevention
through mitigation, import enhancements, surveillance, and prevention
through research.
Modernizing Medical Product Safety and Development
Under the administration's fiscal year 2009 proposal, the FDA's
Medical Product Safety and Development initiative receives an
additional $17.4 million to enhance the safety of human and animal
drugs, blood, human tissues, and medical devices. The broad ranging
initiative will address both imported products and the need for more
new product innovation among U.S. industries. The proposed budget
increase also will help implement the Food and Drug Administration
Amendments Act enacted by Congress last year that sets new requirements
for FDA food, drug and medical device programs. The budget increase
will be distributed among the FDA centers and field activities
specifically assigned oversight of human drugs, biologics, animal drugs
and feeds, medical devices and radiological health, or toxicological
research. Current programs need additional funding for modernizing
laboratories, hiring more field staff, and improving import safety. The
total fiscal year 2009 budget authority proposed for initiative related
programs is $887 million, to be supplemented by $21.5 million in user
fees.
The recently released report on FDA science provides compelling
arguments that the FDA regulatory system responsible for this
initiative is overloaded and underfunded. The importance of a fully
funded FDA is clear, based on the statistics. In 2006, the Center for
Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) regulated manufacturers with
sales of $110 billion. The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
(CDER) oversaw $275 billion in pharmaceutical sales, 2,500 U.S.
manufacturers, and 2,500 foreign manufacturers. The Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) typically reviews more than
800 new products every year. The Center for Veterinary Medicine is
responsible for products tied to more than 10 billion food producing
animals, 200 million pets, and more than 90,000 manufacturers.
Each year, the FDA reviews new products and evaluates questionable
consumer goods under its huge mandate to protect and improve public
health. In 2007, the agency's field force investigated pet food
contaminated by tainted wheat gluten imported from China, with more
than 100 brands of food recalled by manufacturers. The FDA also
approved a unique 2 hour blood test that marks a significant advance in
rapidly detecting drug-resistant staph infections. CDER approved a
total of 88 new products, including the first drug to treat all degrees
of Alzheimer's disease and a new breast cancer drug that can replace a
current one poorly tolerated by many patients. It also approved or
tentatively approved 682 new, less costly generic drugs, a 33 percent
increase over the previous year. This February, FDA advisors endorsed a
new formula for next year's flu vaccine that, unlike most years'
vaccines, would include all new influenza virus strains. Through its
CBER programs, the FDA improves donated blood supplies by assessing
additional testing as needed, in fiscal year 2007 approving screening
tests for West Nile virus, Chagas disease, and early detection of
hepatitis C virus and HIV-1.
ASM Recommendation for the FDA in Fiscal Year 2009
The FDA already regulates more than 375,000 facilities worldwide in
nearly 100 countries. The volume of FDA regulated imports has doubled
over the past 5 years. Approximately 15 percent of the U.S. food supply
is imported and for some items like seafood and fresh fruit, market
share reaches 60 to 80 percent. If current market trends persist, the
beleaguered agency's workload will continue to expand rapidly inside
the United States and elsewhere. It is essential that FDA science
capabilities, research and field personnel, and infrastructures also
expand to meet these challenges. Although the administration has
proposed an increase of $130 million for the fiscal year 2009 budget
for the FDA, this budget increase is still inadequate. The ASM believes
the FDA could use a $375 million increase based on the professional
judgment budget of the FDA Science Board. We believe the Science Board
Report has provided a sound basis for the allocation of new resources
for the food supply, biological sciences with emphasis on drug safety,
science reorganization, scientific capability including training and a
visiting scientist program, and information technology.
______
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 2009 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
environmental well-being.
Agricultural research is vitally important for the improvement of
animal and plant health, food safety, and the environment. In the
September 2007 report, ``Economic Returns to Public Agriculture
Research,'' the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) reviewed over 35
economic studies of the social rate of return to investments in
agriculture. The report shows the average rate of return on public
investment in agriculture research is 45 percent per every dollar
invested. These returns are shared by all levels of the agricultural
continuum, from producers to consumers.
The ASM is concerned with the President's fiscal year 2009 funding
proposal for the National Research Initiative (NRI). The NRI is the
USDA's competitive, peer-reviewed grants program that supports
extramural research. USDA research efforts in food safety, animal
disease, alternative fuels, the environment, and other strategic areas
are producing tangible returns on Federal investments. Although the
fiscal year 2009 proposal provides an increase of $67 million over
fiscal year 2008, it directs $61 million of the increase to the
transferred integrated programs and biofuel research, providing the NRI
with an actual increase of only $6 million for its base programs if the
integrated programs are flat funded.
We urge Congress to provide a 10 percent increase for the NRI in
fiscal year 2009. The ASM recommends $270 million for the NRI in fiscal
year 2009. This recommended funding level will provide a 10 percent, or
$19 million, increase for the NRI base programs, and cover the directed
funding included in the fiscal year 2009 administration request of $42
million for the proposed transfer of integrated programs, and $19
million for bioenergy research.
The ASM is also concerned with the President's fiscal year 2009
requested 10 percent cut for the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
from fiscal year 2008. The ARS is USDA's primary intramural research
program, which conducts research to develop practical solutions to
agricultural problems of high national priority including fundamental,
long-term, high-risk research that the private sector will not do. The
ASM urges Congress to provide at least $1.185 billion for the ARS in
fiscal year 2009, the same level as fiscal year 2008.
Food Safety
Strong support for the NRI and ARS is needed to provide the
fundamental research essential to creating efficient and effective
technologies for the protection of human health and improving the
safety of agricultural products. This research is critical to
developing the interventions needed to substantially reduce the 76
million cases of foodborne illness in the United States that occur each
year. Changes in society, technology, our environment, and
microorganisms themselves are affecting the occurrence of foodborne
bacterial, viral, and mycotic diseases. For example, E. coli O157 first
emerged in the 1980s and spread through complex ecologies to
contaminate a growing variety of foods. Multi-drug resistant Salmonella
are a growing challenge to human and animal health. Infections of
animals like anthrax, leptospirosis, and brucellosis can spread to
humans by direct contact and by less obvious routes. Microbial
adaptation is leading to the introduction through animals and foods of
new or previously unrecognized human pathogens.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
approximately 76 million people suffer from foodborne disease per year,
and in 2006, approximately 1,250 foodborne disease outbreaks were
reported. Investment in research is necessary for improving the
identification of these pathogens, for developing a better
understanding of the pathways by which these pathogens make people and
animals sick, and using this information to improve prevention.
Additionally, research finds ways to develop and evaluate better
methods for surveillance, investigation, and prevention.
As microbes adapt, 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) and the Collaboration on Animal Health Food
Safety Epidemiology (CAHFSE) program to generate data that will guide
the development of appropriate interventions in the food production
chain to minimize and contain antimicrobial resistant bacterial
pathogens in the food supply.
Through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS), the government is ensuring the Nation's food quality,
providing safety interventions, and contributing to pathogen reduction.
The ASM supports the President's fiscal year 2009 requested increases
for FSIS and APHIS of 2 percent and 6.3 percent above fiscal year 2008,
respectively.
In addition to greater investment in research, it is important that
the USDA collaborate with other agencies, such as the CDC, FDA, NIH,
EPA, and NSF to ensure that the best research is funded and contributes
to the food safety strategies of all the Federal agencies.
Bio-Based Products
Agricultural research is a critical component of discovering
biobased products such as polymers, lubricants, solvents, composites,
and energy. The ARS and NRI address research related to biobased
products that focuses on developing biofuels and bioenergy; better,
more efficient, and environmentally friendly agricultural materials;
bio-based products that replace petroleum-based products; and new
opportunities to meet environmental needs. These efforts include
developing, modifying, and utilizing new and advanced technologies to
convert plant and animal commodities and by-products to new products
and by developing energy crops as well as new crops to meet niche
market opportunities. Microbial research is essential to understanding
and creating efficient biomass conversion and production methods, to
developing new crops from which environmentally friendly and
sustainable products such as paints and coatings can be made, and to
producing fuels and lubricants, new fibers, natural rubber, and
biobased polymers from vegetable oils, proteins, and starches.
Most of the world's energy needs are currently met through the
combustion of fossil fuels. With projected increases in global energy
needs, more sustainable methods for energy production must be
developed, and production of greenhouse gases will need to be reduced.
There is continued need for fundamental microbial research that will
improve biomass characteristics, biomass yield, and sustainability;
energy sources that are environmentally friendly and renewable; and
that will enhance our understanding of the impact that removing biomass
for energy and other products has on the sustainability of soils and
water.
As the development and use of biofuels and bioenergy expands, other
aspects of food production will be affected such as increased corn
prices for livestock production and decreased exports of agricultural
commodities. The ASM urges the USDA to expand further research programs
on alternative bioenergy production such as cellulose-based
fermentation that would identify new resources and methods that would
not compete with the food system. These fermentation methods will
require increased investment in identifying and understanding novel
microbial pathways for cellulosic degradation.
Greater support for the NRI and ARS is essential to address the
challenges of the emerging biobased products industry with programs
that support research, development, and demonstration. The ASM also
encourages greater collaboration between and support for the USDA and
the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science on biomass research.
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
microorganisms and the development and implementation strategies,
tools, and technologies to make currently available genome sequences
more valuable to the user community. The availability of genome
sequences provides the foundation for understanding how microorganisms
function and live, and how they interact with their environments and
with other organisms. The sequences are available to and used by the
investigator community to address issues of scientific and societal
importance including: novel aspects of microbial biochemistry,
physiology, metabolism, development and cellular biology; the diversity
and the roles microorganisms play in complex ecosystems and in global
geochemical cycles; the impact that microorganisms have on the
productivity and sustainability of agriculture and natural resources
(e.g., forestry, soil and water), and on the safety and quality of the
Nation's food supply; and the organization and evolution of microbial
genomes, and the mechanisms of transmission, exchange and reshuffling
of genetic information. This genomic information is also important for
the development of new strategies for converting cellulosic biofuel
materials into useful and cost-effective energy sources.
In fiscal year 2008, as a result of a reduction in funding by the
NSF, this program received a 30 percent cut, to a total of $10 million.
The ASM urges Congress to increase support for the USDA genomics
initiative to restore it to full funding.
Soil Processes
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 and protecting the
Nation's natural resources, soil, water, and the food supply.
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 system is developed, it may prove
to be effective in dealing with a variety of pathogens, including
Salmonella, enteric parasites, and viruses. The ASM urges Congress to
increase support for the NRI to continue and expand on opportunities in
soil processes research that are critical for human and animal health
and environmental well-being.
Conclusion
The ASM urges Congress to increase research funding for the USDA.
The ASM is concerned that we are losing ground in the important field
of agricultural research. Research in the biological and agricultural
sciences is vital to the Nation's ability to meet current and future
challenges ranging from the food supply and safety, to cost-effective
solutions for energy and environmental challenges.
The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
fiscal year 2009 appropriation for the USDA.
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society for Nutrition (ASN)
The American Society for Nutrition (ASN) appreciates this
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2009
appropriations for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
specifically, its research programs. ASN is the professional scientific
society dedicated to bringing together the world's top researchers,
clinical nutritionists and industry to advance our knowledge and
application of nutrition to promote human and animal health. Our focus
ranges from the most critical details of research to very broad
societal applications. ASN respectfully requests $1.377 billion for
ARS, with $120 million of the total allocated to the Human Nutrition
Research program. We request $257 million for the National Research
Initiative in fiscal year 2009.
Basic and applied research on nutrition, food production, nutrient
composition, food processing and nutrition monitoring is critical to
American health and the U.S. economy. Awareness of the growing epidemic
of obesity and the contribution of chronic illness to burgeoning health
care costs has highlighted the need for improved information on dietary
intake and improved strategies for dietary change. Demand for a safer
and more nutritious food supply continues to increase. Preventable
chronic diseases related to diet and physical activity cost the economy
over $117 billion annually, and this cost is predicted to rise to $1.7
trillion in the next 10 years. Nevertheless, funding for food and
nutrition research at USDA has not increased in real dollars since
1983! This decline in our national investment in agricultural research
seriously threatens our ability to sustain the vitality of food,
nutrition and agricultural research programs and in turn, threatens the
future of our economy and the health of our Nation.
USDA historically has been identified as the lead nutrition agency
and the most important federal agency influencing U.S. dietary
patterns. Through the nutrition and food assistance programs, which
form roughly 60 percent of its budget, USDA has a direct influence on
the dietary intake (and ultimately the health) of millions of
Americans. It is important to better understand the impact of these
programs on the food choices, dietary intake, and nutritional status of
those vulnerable populations which they serve. Research is the key to
achieving this understanding, and it is the foundation upon which U.S.
nutrition policy is built.
USDA is in full or in part responsible for the development and
translation of federal dietary guidance, implementation of nutrition
and food assistance programs and nutrition education; and, national
nutrition monitoring. The USDA Human Nutrition Research programs ensure
nutrition policies are evidence-based, ensure we have accurate and
valid research methods and databases, and promote new understanding of
nutritional needs for optimal health.
ARS Human Nutrition Research Program
USDA has built a program of human nutrition research, housed in six
centers (HNRCs) \1\ geographically disperse across the Nation and
affiliated with the ARS, which links producer and consumer interests
and forms the core of our knowledge about food and nutrition. These
unique centers are working closely with a wide variety of stakeholders
to determine just how specific foods, food components, and physical
activity can act together during specific life-stages (e.g. prior to
conception, in childhood, in older adult years) to promote health and
prevent disease. The HNRCs are a critical link between basic food
production and processing and health, including food safety issues. The
center structure adds value by fully integrating a multitude of
nutritional science disciplines that cross both traditional university
department boundaries and the functional compartmentalization of
conventional funding mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Of the six HNRCs, three are fully administered by ARS and are
located in Davis, CA, Beltsville, MD, and Grand Forks, ND. The other
three are administered through cooperative agreements with Baylor
University Medical Center in Houston, TX; Tufts University in Boston,
MA; and, the University of Arkansas in Little Rock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
An important basic premise of research in the HNRCs is that many
chronic diseases, such as diabetes and obesity, can be prevented by
lifestyle issues, the most important of which are: consuming
appropriate amounts of a well-balanced, healthful diet; and regularly
engaging in adequate levels of physical activity. Using state-of-the-
art facilities and a concentration of critical scientific teams, the
HNRCs are conducting the highest quality translational research. Also
of importance are the long-term experiments involving the derivation of
dietary reference intake values and nutrient requirements of
individuals. Often compared to the intramural program at the National
Institutes for Health, these centers tackle projects that are unlikely
to be funded through other means, such as through competitive grants or
by industry.
The proposed 10 percent cut to ARS in fiscal year 2009, coupled
with flat-funding of the Human Nutrition Research program for over 5
years, seriously jeopardizes the future of the centers, their important
research projects, and the critical infrastructure provided by the USDA
from which the HNRCs and scientists benefit. Specifically, the
President has proposed eliminating the center located at Grand Forks,
ND. We are concerned about the proposed elimination of this center, as
it represents the only HNRC that (1) is located in a major agricultural
area; (2) focuses on research in rural areas, where obesity and its co-
morbidities, as well as food insecurity, are most prevalent; and (3)
partners with Native American communities and tribal colleges to
address obesity, diabetes, heart disease and depression in high-need,
under-served communities. At a time when the health of our Nation,
especially its youth, faces significant challenges largely associated
with nutrition and physical activity, we cannot afford to lose any of
our HNRCs. In fact, $9 million in additional funds is needed across the
six HNRCs to ensure they can continue current research projects and to
restore purchasing power lost to inflation over years of flat budgets.
ASN supports the inclusion of $12.2 million in the President's
fiscal year 2009 budget proposal for health and obesity prevention
research to address the efficacy of the healthful eating and physical
activity patterns set forth in the Dietary Guidelines in preventing
obesity in the U.S. population. However, funding for this research
should not come at the expense of other important ARS nutrition
research programs. Rather, this funding should be in addition to that
which is allocated to existing research programs.
Another example of the unique nutrition research at ARS is the
nutrition monitoring program, ``What We Eat in America'' (WWEIA). This
program allows us to know not only what foods Americans are eating, but
also how their diets directly affect their health. Information from the
survey guides policies on food safety, food labeling, food assistance,
military rations, pesticide exposure and dietary guidance. In addition
to having an impact on billions of dollars in federal expenditures, the
survey data leverages billions of private sector dollars allocated to
nutrition labeling, food product development and production. Despite
this, WWEIA has been flat-funded at $11.5 million for over 12 years.
The USDA budget for WWEIA must be increased two-fold to $23 million.
Otherwise, we risk losing this national treasure if we do not restore
lost funding and strengthen it for the future.
National Research Initiative competitive grants program
The National Research Initiative (NRI) funds cutting-edge,
investigator-initiated agricultural research, supporting research on
key issues of timely importance on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis.
The NRI aims to improve the Nation's nutrition and health through two
objectives: (1) to focus on improving human health by better
understanding an individual's nutrient requirements and nutritional
value of foods; and (2) to promote research on healthier food choices
and lifestyles. Projects funded by the Human Nutrition and Obesity
program are leading to a better understanding of the behavioral and
environmental factors that influence obesity, and to the development
and evaluation of effective interventions. For example, NRI grants have
funded nutrition education interventions focusing on the reduction of
childhood obesity in low-income families.
Despite an initial authorization of $500 million per year, funding
for the NRI has yet to reach $200 million, and less than $20 million
was available in 2007 for the Human Nutrition and Obesity program. If
America is to maintain the most nutritious, most affordable, and safest
food supply in the world, funding levels need to be increased towards
the NRI's authorized amount, lest continued neglect undermine the
success of these valuable programs. The breadth and competitive nature
of the NRI portfolio should be maintained and expanded to ensure this
critical investigator-initiated research continues to improve the
health of all Americans.
The NRI and the Human Nutrition Research Program under ARS are
symbiotic programs that provide the infrastructure and generation of
new knowledge that allow for rapid progress towards meeting national
dietary needs. These programs allow USDA to make the connection between
what we grow and what we eat. And through strategic nutrition
monitoring, we learn more about how dietary intake affects our health.
ASN thanks your Committee for its support of the ARS and the NRI
Competitive Grants Program in previous years. If we can provide any
additional information, please contact Mary Lee Watts, ASN Director of
Public Affairs, at (301) 634-71112 or [email protected].
______
Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science
Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
Dear Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Bennett and Members of the
Subcommittee, The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
America, and Soil Science Society of America (ASA-CSSA-SSSA) are
pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for fiscal year
2009. ASA-CSSA-SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight agriculture budget for
fiscal year 2009. We also recognize that the Agriculture Appropriations
bill has many valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the
efforts of the subcommittee to fund mission-critical research through
the USDA-Cooperative State, Research, Education and Extension Service
as well as its intramural research portfolio funded through the
Agricultural Research Service. We are particularly grateful to the
subcommittee for funding the National Research Initiative at $191
million in the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill. For the
Agricultural Research Service salaries and expenses, ASA-CSSA-SSSA
recommend a funding level of $1.124 billion for fiscal year 2009, a 7
percent increase over the President's recommended fiscal year 2009
($1.037 billion) funding level and 8.4 percent above fiscal year 2008
enacted. ASA-CSSA-SSSA also recommend a total funding level of $46.752
million (the fiscal year 2008 enacted level) for ARS Buildings and
Facilities which would prevent closure of the 11 ARS facilities. For
the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service, we
recommend a funding level of $753 million, a 5 percent increase over
fiscal year 2008 ($688 million). We recommend funding levels stay at
$3.4 billion for the Natural Resources Conservation Service in fiscal
year 2009. Specifics for each of these and other budget areas follow
below.
With more than 25,000 members and practicing professionals, ASA-
CSSA-SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in the
United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences. ASA-
CSSA-SSSA play a major role in promoting progress in these sciences
through the publication of quality journals and books, convening
meetings and workshops, developing educational, training, and public
information programs, providing scientific advice to inform public
policy, and promoting ethical conduct among practitioners of agronomy
and crop and soil sciences.
agricultural research service
ASA-CSSA-SSSA applaud the Agricultural Research Services' (ARS)
ability to respond quickly and flexibly to rapidly changing national
needs. With more than 22 National Programs, ARS and its 2,100
scientists located at 100 research locations, including a few
international facilities, works to ensure that Americans have reliable,
adequate supplies of high-quality food and other agricultural products.
ARS accomplishes its goals through scientific discoveries that help
solve problems in crop and livestock production and protection, human
nutrition, and the interaction of agriculture and the environment.
Therefore, ASA-CSSA-SSSA strongly oppose the President's fiscal year
2009 proposal to cut ARS funding for salaries and expenses to $1.037
billion, further reducing funding by $91 million (-8 percent from
fiscal year 2008 enacted -$1.128 billion), as well as the elimination
of 11 ARS facilities totaling more than 354 staff years (more than 4
percent of fiscal year 2008 total staff years), an approximate cut of
$33.5 million. These ARS facilities including--Brawley, CA;
Brooksville, FL; Watkinsville, GA; Morris, MN; Grand Forks, ND;
Coshocton, OH; East Lansing, MI: Lane, OK; University Park, PA;
Weslaco, TX; and Laramie, WY--conduct research critical to the
development and transfer of solutions to agricultural problems of high
national priority and provide information access and dissemination to:
ensure high-quality, safe food, and other agricultural products; assess
the nutritional needs of Americans; sustain a competitive agricultural
economy; enhance the natural resource base and the environment; and
provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and
society as a whole. ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the subcommittee to act
judiciously and not implement such drastic funding cuts for this
critical intramural research agency. For total Agricultural Research
Service budget funding, ASA-CSSA-SSSA recommend a funding level of
$1.124 billion for fiscal year 2009, a 7 percent increase over the
President's recommended fiscal year 2009 ($1.05 billion) funding level
and 8.4 percent above fiscal year 2008 enacted.
cooperative state research, education, and extension service (csrees)
ASA-CSSA-SSSA are very concerned with the downward trend in funding
for the research component of CSREES's Strategic Objective 6.2: Enhance
Soil Quality to Maintain Productive Working Cropland, which as has seen
funding cut from $34.53 million in fiscal year 2007 to $30.293 in
fiscal year 2008, a 12.3 percent decrease! Further, ASA-CSSA-SSSA
strongly oppose the president's proposal to cut this important research
program by an additional 15.4 percent (-$4.67 million) in fiscal year
2009, bringing funding down to $25.62 million.
Hatch and McIntire-Stennis Formula Funding
ASA-CSSA-SSSA understand that the shift of earmarked funds to Hatch
formula funding (Hatch formula funding reached a record $322.6 million)
and McIntire-Stennis (McIntire-Stennis was funded at $30 million) which
occurred in fiscal year 2007, would and did not occur again in fiscal
year 2008, with funding reduced to $195 million for Hatch and $25
million for McIntire-Stennis. Nevertheless, the need has never been
greater to enhance funding for Hatch and McIntire-Stennis formula
funding if we are to maintain the research capacity at our Nation's
Land Grant Universities and Colleges of Agriculture necessary to keep
American agriculture competitive. Therefore, ASA-CSSA-SSSA strongly
oppose the President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposal, which further
recommends cuts to both Hatch (to $139 million, a decrease of $56.6
million from 2008 enacted) and McIntire-Stennis (down by $5.3 million
to $19.5 million from 2008). ASA-CSSA-SSSA proposes a 10 percent
increase in fiscal year 2009 funding levels from fiscal year 2008
levels for Hatch (bringing funding to $215 million) and McIntire-
Stennis ($27 million) programs in order to keep America agriculture
competitive.
ASA-CSSA-SSSA also oppose the administration's proposal to change
the methodology for distributing Hatch formula funds, where 70 percent
of funding ($98.3 million) versus 25 percent in fiscal year 2008 will
be directed towards a multistate, competitively awarded grants program.
As well, we oppose the administration's proposal to change the
methodology for distributing McIntire-Stennis formula funds where 67
percent of funding ($13.1 million) versus 25 percent in fiscal year
2008 will be directed towards the multistate, competitively awarded
grants program. Such drastic changes would be detrimental to the entire
USDA research portfolio. Because of their timing and potential regional
and intra-state impacts, much of the infrastructure needed to conduct
competitively funded research could be compromised if formula funds
were to be redirected as proposed, and could irreparably damage
programs housed at each land-grant university. This would mean a huge
and potentially damaging loss of national infrastructure to conduct
agricultural research. The private sector depends heavily on the
agricultural technology and training provided by the U.S. land grant
system, and the impact of such a drastic transfer of formula funds to a
competitive grants program would affect not only the viability of U.S.
industry but also the health and survival of millions of people across
the globe. Moreover, investments in formula funded research show an
excellent annual rate of return.
Cooperative Extension Service
Extension forms a critical part of research, education and
extension program integration, the hallmark of CSREES which is not seen
in other agencies. Unfortunately, the Smith Lever 3(b) and 3(c) account
has been flat-funded (in constant dollars, this account has seen a
gradual erosion in funding), in recent years. ASA-CSSA-SSSA support
$474 million (an increase of $17.6 million or 4 percent over fiscal
year 2008 enacted, and $42.2 million or 10 percent over the president's
fiscal year 2009 recommendations) for the continuing education and
outreach activities of the Extension System. Specifically, ASA-CSSA-
SSSA support $300 million for Smith-Lever Formula 3(b) & (c), an
increase of $26.8 million or 10 percent over fiscal year 2008 enacted.
National Research Initiative
ASA-CSSA-SSSA strongly endorse the President's proposed fiscal year
2009 budget increase of $66 million for the National Research
Initiative Competitive Grants Program (NRI) which would bring total
funding for this important research program to a record $257 million in
fiscal year 2009. However, we do not support the President's proposal
to transfer Hatch funding or $42.3 million in funding from Sec 406
(Integrated Research, Education, and Extension program) into the NRI.
This transfer may result in the loss of critical programs such as the
Organic Transitions Program. ASA-CSSA-SSSA do support the
administration's proposal to include additional funding of $19 million
for the Departments' bioenergy and biobased fuels research initiative.
ASA-CSSA-SSSA request that any new monies appropriated for the NRI,
as requested by the administration, allow the Secretary the discretion
to apply up to 30 percent towards carrying out the NRI integrated
research, extension and education competitive grants program.
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Programs.--ASA-CSSA-
SSSA applaud the subcommittee for the 17 percent increase in fiscal
year 2008 SARE funding; however we oppose the administration's request
to cut funding for SARE by more than $5.2 million. At a minimum, the
subcommittee should continue to fund SARE at the fiscal year 2008
enacted level of $14.4 million.
Organic Farming Transition Program.--ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the
subcommittee to fund the Organic Farming Transition Program at $5.0
million in fiscal year 2009, rejecting the President's proposed
transfer of the program.
Indirect Costs.--ASA-CSSA-SSSA applaud the administration's
proposal to eliminate the indirect cost cap on the NRI which will
broaden its appeal by putting the NRI on equal footing with other
Federal competitive grants programs such as those of NSF and NIH.
However, we are concerned that new funding was not provided to cover
this change, which would effectively result in either fewer grants
being awarded, or actual research monies reduced.
Agrosecurity.--ASA-CSSA-SSSA endorse the administration's request
($2.0 million) for the Agrosecurity Curricula Development, which we
consider to be a critical new initiative. Recent security threats
facing America require new and expanded agricultural research to
protect our Nation's natural resources, food processing and
distribution network, and rural communities that will secure America's
food and fiber system.
Higher Education.--ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the subcommittee to fund the
Institution Challenge Grants at $6.7 million which will restore some of
the funding lost due to the 2006 rescission and 2007 Continuing
Resolution. We applaud the administration's budget request of $4.4
million for the Graduate Fellowships Grants.
natural resources conservation service
Conservation Security Program
The Conservation Security Program provides financial and technical
assistance to producers who advance the conservation and improvement of
soil, water, air, energy, plant and animal life, and other conservation
purposes on Tribal and private working lands. Since 2004, over 22.4
million collective acres of soil management activities have resulted in
an increase of over 11 millions tons of carbon sequestration on over
22.4 million collective acres. ASA-CSSA-SSSA urge the subcommittee to
fund this important working lands conservation program as an uncapped
mandatory program, as intended in the 2002 Farm Bill legislation.
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
The Environmental Quality Incentives Program provides technical
assistance to eligible farmers and ranchers to address soil, water,
air, and related natural resource concerns on their lands in an
environmentally beneficial and cost-effective manner. ASA-CSSA-SSSA
oppose the president's proposed $201 million cut which would bring
total funding for EQIP down to $1.05 billion.
marketing and regulatory program
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
In a strengthening global economy, it is essential the government
take action to prevent disease transference from non-native soils. ASA-
CSSA-SSSA endorse the President's proposed increase of the Plant and
Disease Exclusion program to $398 million.
Bioenergy
Impacts from increased biofuel production will not only impact soil
and water resources, but also agricultural markets. Therefore ASA-CSSA-
SSSA commend the President's proposed increase of $0.4 million for the
Economic Research Service and $1.8 million for the National
Agricultural Statistics Service to study the potential effects and
monitoring of biofuel expansion.
A balance of funding mechanisms, including intramural, competitive
and formula funding, is essential to maintain the capacity of the
United States to conduct both basic and applied agricultural research,
improve crop and livestock quality, and deliver safe and nutritious
food products, while protecting and enhancing the Nation's environment
and natural resources. In order to address these challenges and
maintain our position in an increasingly competitive world, we must
continue to support research programs funded through the Agricultural
Research Service and Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service. Congress must enhance funding for agricultural
research to assure Americans of a safe and nutritious food supply and
to provide for the next generation of research scientists. According to
the USDA's Economic Research Service (Agricultural Economic Report
Number 735), publicly funded agricultural research has earned an annual
rate of return of 35 percent. This rate of return suggests that
additional allocation of funds to support research in the food and
agricultural sciences would be beneficial to the U.S. economy. We must
also continue support for CSREES-funded education programs which will
help ensure that a new generation of educators and researchers is
produced. Finally, we need to ensure support for CSREES-funded
extension programs to guarantee that these important new tools and
technologies reach and are utilized by producers and other
stakeholders.
As you lead the Congress in deliberation on funding levels for
agricultural research and conservation, please consider American
Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science
Society of America as supportive resources. We hope you will call on
our membership and scientific expertise whenever the need arises. Thank
you for your thoughtful consideration of our requests. For additional
information or to learn more about the American Society of Agronomy,
Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America
(ASA-CSSA-SSSA), please visit www.agronomy.org, www.crops.org or
www.soils.org or contact ASA-CSSA-SSSA Director of Science Policy Karl
Glasener ([email protected], [email protected], or
[email protected]).
______
Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
animal and plant health inspection service (aphis)/animal welfare act
(awa) enforcement
Administration Request--$21.522 Million--SUPPORT
Over the past decade, the Committee has responded to the urgent
need for increased funding for the Animal Care program (AC) to improve
its inspections of more than 14,000 sites, including commercial
breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses, and airlines, to
ensure compliance with AWA standards. AC now has 105 inspectors,
compared to 64 inspectors at the end of the 1990s. In 2006, they
conducted more than 20,000 inspections, involving over 1 million
animals in research facilities alone. This budget request of
$21,522,000 will sustain the progress that has been made, as well as
enable AC to hire more inspectors to handle its burgeoning
responsibilities as the number of licensed/registered facilities
continues to increase.
aphis/investigative and enforcement services
Administration Request--$13.694 Million--SUPPORT
APHIS' Investigative and Enforcement Services division is essential
to meaningful enforcement of the AWA. Among other things, it
investigates alleged violations of the AWA and undertakes appropriate
enforcement action. Of the $13,694,000 for IES in the President's
budget, $725,000 will be used to improve enforcement of federal animal
welfare laws. The volume of animal welfare cases is rising
significantly as new facilities become licensed and registered and AC
is able to conduct more inspections.
agricultural research service/nal/animal welfare information center
(awic)
Administration Request--$0 OPPOSE NEEDED--$1.8 Million Line Item
It is disturbing that the President's budget proposes elimination
of the Animal Welfare Information Center. This would be a serious
mistake that would adversely impact the welfare of animals used in
research--and the quality of the research produced using animals.
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 fact, the AWIC was established by Congress under the Improved
Standards for Laboratory Animals Act (the 1985 amendment to the Animal
Welfare Act) to serve as a clearinghouse, training center, and
educational resource for institutions using animals in research,
testing and teaching. 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, Institutional Animal Care and
Use Committee (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
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, see ttp://
www.awionline.org/pdf/Senate_AG_AWIC_SignOnMar08.pdf. 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, with over 4 million hits in fiscal year
2007, a 10 percent increase over fiscal year 2006. 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 2007, in addition to hundreds of
millions of kbytes of information downloaded from the website, more
than 70,000 hard copies, paper and CD, were distributed as well. In
fact, the number of CDs distributed increased 46 percent between fiscal
year 2006 and fiscal 2007. AWIC staff provided over 1,300 personal
reference services. They conducted 10 formal ``IACUC 101'' training
workshops. Twenty-five exhibitions and/or presentations were conducted
at such venues as the 6th World Congress on the Use of Animals in
Research, Teaching, and Testing (Japan 2007), 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, 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 to assisting with
compliance with the AWA but also to 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 reject ARS' attempt
to eliminate AWIC. On the contrary, it is essential to provide an
appropriation of $1.8 million 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 nonaffiliated
members (i.e., members from the community charged with
representing the communities' concerns for the welfare of 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.
Among other endeavors, the $1.8 million would be used as follows:
To support the addition of two much-needed positions 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; workshops, in
conjunction with Animal Care, to assist licensees and registrants
frequently cited for AWA violations; informational workshops at
research institutions across the country and locally at the Center;
training for the NAL staff; acquisition of, including electronic access
to, data; and the overhead that must be provided to the Agricultural
Research Service and the National Agricultural Library.
It is ironic that at the same time as the administration calls for
eliminating AWIC, it seeks additional funding for the Agricultural
Network Information Center (AgNIC), which provides ``quick and reliable
access to quality agricultural information and sources'' and in which
AWIC is a key partner and participant. The budget also proposes to
improve information services for veterinary practitioners, but, by
zeroing out AWIC, it in fact deprives those same veterinary
practitioners--from those who treat companion animals and farm animals
to those who are responsible for the welfare of research animals--of a
vital and heavily utilized resource.
Overall, ARS seeks ``an increase of $1 million for the continued
improvement and expansion of products and services delivered by the
National Agricultural Library . . .'' In fulfilling its Congressional
mandate, AWIC serves this purpose effectively and efficiently and meets
Performance Measure 2.1, which requires that the services and
collections of the NAL continue to meet the needs of its customers.
AWIC's value to the research community, other entities that must comply
with the Animal Welfare Act, and the general public justifies not
elimination but rather this modest proposed increase in its budget and
its designation as a separate line item in the budget.
aphis/animal care's enforcement of the horse protection act (hpa)
Administration Request--$499,000--Support
Additional Request of $251,000, plus a one-time infusion of $1 million
More than 35 years ago Congress adopted the HPA, 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, which is
considered attractive by certain sectors of the equestrian community,
despite the pain it causes to the horses in question.
The most effective method to reduce soring and the showing of sored
horses are to have Animal Care (AC) inspectors present at the shows
where sored horses are exhibited to enforce the HPA (under which civil
and criminal penalties may be assessed). Oftentimes, as soon as an AC
inspector arrives at such a show, there is a rush to put horses back
into trailers and haul them away so that any signs of soring cannot be
detected. 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. Yet AC was able to attend just 32 of 865
events in fiscal year 2004 (the last year for which we have
comprehensive figures)--less than 4 percent of all shows.
In fact, lack of financial support has made it necessary for Animal
Care to rely heavily on the Tennessee Walking Horse industry to assume
responsibility for enforcement of the HPA. This is the very same
industry that created the need for the HPA and has turned a blind eye
to compliance with the law since its passage in 1970. Under the Act
``Designated Qualified Persons'' (DQPs) are assigned by USDA as
``inspectors'' from industry to assist AC in identifying sored 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 DQP
inspections.
According to USDA, 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 eventually
canceled the Shelbyville (TN) Celebration, the prestige event in the
walking horse industry, after USDA inspectors disqualified seven of the
ten finalists because of soring. This was an unprecedented action by AC
and is a testament to USDA's commitment to vigorous enforcement of the
HPA, despite threats to its inspectors and insufficient resources.
Currently just eighteen individuals are disqualified from
exhibiting horses under the HPA. Further, 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 and authorize the funds to enable such enforcement.
An appropriation of at least $750,000 ($251,000 above the amount
included in the President's Budget) is essential in fiscal year 2009 to
permit AC to increase attendance at shows to ensure compliance with the
Horse Protection Act. 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.
strengthened enforcement of humane methods of slaughter act (hmsa) by
the food safety and inspection service (fsis)
Congress has provided generous support for enforcement of the HMSA
beginning in 2001. Yet a new report, Crimes Without Consequences: The
Enforcement of Humane Slaughter Laws in the United States, http://
www.awionline.org/farm/humane_slaughter_report.htm, demonstrates the
low priority FSIS places on humane treatment of animals at slaughter.
Further, it would appear that despite the clear direction that monies
should be used to hire new staff to work in the slaughter plants
observing the handling, stunning and slaughter of live animals, FSIS
has failed to do so. Seventeen veterinarians were hired by FSIS with
funding from Congress, but the majority of their time is spent on other
tasks.
Animals are suffering needlessly because FSIS is not assigning
individuals the sole responsibility of HMSA enforcement and placing
them full-time (not full-time equivalent) in the plants where they can
remain focused on assuring the welfare of live animals and immediately
respond by stopping the line if they observe any apparent violations of
the law. Egregious acts are occurring that could be prevented by a
solid FSIS presence. Live conscious animals are being shackled, hoisted
and cut or rolled into scalding tanks. An inspector in Missouri noted a
hog whose feet had been removed, yet the animal was moving and appeared
to be gasping for breath. Another inspector in an Arkansas plant noted
that: ``At approximately 1:00 p.m. [a Holstein cow] had a 1 cm hole in
its forehead from a captive bolt stunner. At 1:10 p.m. the cow had not
been moved and was breathing regularly. An establishment employee tried
to re-stun the animal twice but the hand held captive bold stunner did
not fire.''
Between 2002 and 2005, only 42 enforcement actions beyond issuances
of deficiency reports for noncompliances with humane slaughter laws
were taken. Crimes are going undetected, unrecognized or merely
unreported--and even in the case of those that are reported,
appropriate remedial action may not be taken. For the period October 1,
2006 to September 30, 2007, humane handling and slaughter was the
subject of only 1.9 percent of all USDA verification procedures, 0.6
percent of all noncompliance records, and 17 percent of all plant
suspensions.
We oppose the installation of cameras in plants as an alternative
to the presence of inspectors. Cameras cannot possibly catch all of the
activity including the movement of animals off of trucks and through
the stunning and slaughter process. Some plants have multiple lines and
multiple shifts of employees. Who is going to watch all of the footage?
And if violations occur, by the time they are noted it will be too late
to help the animals who have already suffered before being killed. This
proposal sounds more like a desperate attempt to dupe the public into
believing that the problem has been taken care of, rather than a real
solution.
Additional funding might permit the hiring of full-time inspectors
devoted to ensuring humane treatment of live animals. However, does
FSIS have the will? We are gravely concerned that it does not.
______
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 2009
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. We are concerned
that the NRI has suffered from flat funding since fiscal year 2007. We
urge the subcommittee to provide a 10 percent increase for the NRI in
fiscal year 2009. CoFARM recommends $270 million for the NRI in fiscal
year 2009.
This recommended funding level will provide a 10 percent, $19
million, increase for the NRI base programs, and cover the directed
funding included in the fiscal year 2009 administration request of $42
million for the proposed transfer of integrated programs, and $19
million for bioenergy research. A 10 percent increase to the NRI will
(1) restore funding to this important program; (2) restore lost
purchasing power that this erosion of funding has caused; and (3)
provide investments that begin to truly meet the food, energy, and
environmental challenges facing the Nation.
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.
The NRI funds the most cutting-edge agricultural research within
the United States. In the September 2007 report, ``Economic Returns to
Public Agriculture Research,'' The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS)
reviewed over 35 economic studies of the social rate of return to
investments in agriculture. The report shows the average rate of return
on public investment in agriculture research is 45 percent or for every
dollar spent on agricultural research, the return is approximately $10.
These returns are shared by all levels of the industry, from producers
to consumers. However, if America is to maintain the most abundant,
most affordable, and safest food supply in the world, funding levels
need to be increased towards the NRI's authorized amount of $500
million.
Because of the federal investment 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 United States 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.\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``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.
The NRI supports research on key issues of timely importance
relevant to agriculture, economics, energy, the environment, food, and
nutrition on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis. CoFARM encourages you
to help move American agricultural research forward through your strong
fiscal support of the USDA NRI program.
We urge you to provide $270 million for the NRI in fiscal year
2009, which will help to 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.
Please contact the Chair, Whitney Tull, at [email protected] with any
questions.
______
Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
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. Now it is anticipated that
Congress will this year with the passage of a new Farm Bill further
define how the Colorado River Basin States can cost share in a newly
designated ``Basin States Program.''
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 3 fiscal years, for the first time,
funding almost reached the needed level. State and local cost-sharing
is triggered by the Federal appropriation. In fiscal year 2008, 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 2008 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 3 decades ago, much has been
learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. The
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has conducted studies on the
economic impact of these salts. Reclamation recognizes that the damages
to United States water users alone are hundreds of millions of dollars
per year.
The Forum is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona,
California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming. The Forum
has become the seven-state coordinating body for interfacing with
Federal agencies and the Congress in support of the implementation of
the Salinity Control Program. In close cooperation with the EPA and
pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, every 3 years the
Forum prepares a formal report evaluating the salinity of the Colorado
River, its anticipated future salinity, and the program elements
necessary to keep the salinity concentrations (measured in Total
Dissolved Solids--TDS) at or below the levels measured in the river
system in 1972 at Imperial Dam, and below Parker and Hoover Dams.
In setting water quality standards for the Colorado River system,
the salinity concentrations at these three locations in 1972 have been
identified as the numeric criteria. The plan necessary for controlling
salinity and reducing downstream damages has been captioned the ``Plan
of Implementation.'' The 2005 Review of water quality standards
includes an updated Plan of Implementation. In order to eliminate the
shortfall in salinity control resulting from inadequate Federal funding
for a number of years from the USDA, the Forum has determined that
implementation of the Program needs to be accelerated. The level of
appropriation requested in this testimony is in keeping with the agreed
upon plan. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages
from the higher salt concentrations in the water will be more
widespread in the United States and Mexico.
Concentrations of salts in the river cause $330 million in
quantified damages and significantly more in unquantified damages in
the United States and result in poorer quality water being delivered by
the United States to Mexico. Damages occur from:
--a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased
water use for leaching in the agricultural sector,
--a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and
dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
softeners in the household sector,
--an increase in the use of water for cooling, and the cost of water
softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
commercial sector,
--an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
and an increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector,
--a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the
utility sector,
--difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
disposal costs due to accumulation of salts in groundwater
basins, and
--increased use of imported water for leaching and cost of
desalination and brine disposal for recycled water.
For every 30 mg/L increase in salinity concentrations, there is $75
million in additional damages in the United States. The Forum,
therefore, believes implementation of the USDA program needs to be
funded at 2.5 percent of the total EQIP funding.
Although the Program thus far has been able to implement salinity
control measures that comply with the approved plan, recent drought
years have caused salinity levels to rise in the river. Predictions are
that this will be the trend for the next several years. This places an
added urgency for acceleration of the implementation of the Program.
State Cost-Sharing and Technical Assistance
The authorized cost sharing by the Basin States, as provided by
FAIRA, was at first difficult to implement as attorneys for the USDA
concluded that the Basin States were authorized to cost share in the
effort, but the Congress had not given the USDA authority to receive
the Basin States' funds. After almost a year of exploring every
possible solution as to how the cost sharing was to occur, the States,
in agreement with Reclamation, State officials in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming and with NRCS State Conservationists in Utah, Colorado and
Wyoming, agreed upon a program parallel to the salinity control
activities provided by the EQIP wherein the States' cost sharing funds
are being contributed and used. We now have several years of experience
with that program.
The Salinity Control Act designates that the Secretary of the
Interior provide the coordination for the Federal agencies involved in
the salinity control program. That responsibility has been delegated to
the United States Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). BOR administers the
Basin States cost sharing funds that have been used in the Parallel
Program. The BOR requested that there be enacted clearer authority for
the use of these funds. In response, there is a provision in the Farm
Bill now under consideration that would create a ``Basin States
Program'' that will replace the Parallel Program.
With respect to the use of Basin States' cost sharing funds in the
past, 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
has expended 40 percent of the funds available on these needed support
activities made possible by contracts with the NRCS.
______
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 2009. 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 three years the Forum prepares a formal
report analyzing the salinity of the Colorado River, anticipated future
salinity, and the program elements necessary to keep the salinity
concentrations (measured 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 $376
million in quantified damage in the United States (there are
significant un-quantified 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 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
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 2009
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 2009, 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 the Colorado River Commission of Nevada
Dear Chairman Kohl: As a Nevada representative of the Colorado
River Basin Salinity Control Forum, the Colorado River Commission of
Nevada (CRC) is writing in support of full funding of the Department of
Agriculture's fiscal year 2009 appropriations for the Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and recommends that this Committee
advise the administration that 2.5 percent of the EQIP funds be
designated for the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. The
CRC believes this is the appropriate future level of funding as long as
the total EQIP funding nationwide is around $1 billion.
Salinity remains one of the major problems in the Colorado River.
Congress has recognized the need to confront this problem with its
passage of Public Law 93-320 and Public Law 98-569. Your support of the
current funding recommendations for the Colorado River Basin Salinity
Control Program is essential to move the program forward so that the
congressionally directed salinity objectives are achieved.
______
Prepared Statement of Easter Seals
Easter Seals appreciates the opportunity to report on the notable
accomplishments of the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education, and
Extension Service (CSREES) AgrAbility Program and request that funding
for the AgrAbility Program be increased to $5 million in fiscal year
2009. We are also pleased to request a $2 million appropriation for the
Grants for Expansion of Employment Opportunities for Individuals with
Disabilities in Rural Areas within USDA Rural Development. We are also
pleased to share information about other areas where we support USDA
activity to provide services to rural residents with disabilities.
agrability
What is AgrAbility?
The AgrAbility Program is an essential, unduplicated, hands-on
resource for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities and
their families. AgrAbility is the only USDA program dedicated
exclusively to helping agricultural producers with disabilities. It
demonstrates the value of public-private partnership by securing
donations of funds, talent, and materials to magnify the impact of a
modest Federal investment. The fiscal year 2008 appropriation of $4.759
million is funding 21 projects serving 24 States.
AgrAbility is a program authorized through a provision in the 1990
Farm Bill that provides information and technical assistance to
farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities. Congress began
funding the project in 1991 and has continued to do so each year since.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture Cooperative State Research,
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES)--a network that links
research, science, and technology to meet the needs of people where
they live and work--administers the AgrAbility Program. CSREES awards
program funds though a competitive grant process to land-grant
universities that have partnered with at least one nonprofit disability
service provider to provide education and assistance to agricultural
workers with disabilities and their families.
A network comprised of a National AgrAbility Project and numerous
State AgrAbility Projects provides program services in over half of the
States in the U.S. Currently, State-level USDA-funded AgrAbility
projects serve clients in: California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,
Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming. In addition, previously USDA-funded projects in Illinois,
Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina and Texas continue to serve
agricultural workers with disabilities and their families.
The National AgrAbility Project partners, University of Wisconsin-
Extension, Cooperative Extension Service and Easter Seals, collaborate
to support State AgrAbility Project activities. The State projects
provide the direct on-site services to farmers, ranchers, and
farmworkers with disabilities and other chronic health conditions.
AgrAbility Project services are available to people of all races,
creeds, genders, abilities, and national origins. The project staff
works with operators regardless of the size of their operations or
extent of their resources.
Why is AgrAbility Needed?
Agricultural production is hazardous. Over 700 farmers and ranchers
die in work-related incidents yearly and another 120,000 workers
sustain disabling injuries from work-related incidents (National Safety
Council, 2002). In addition, the USDA National Agricultural Statistics
Service estimates that more than 200,000 farmers, ranchers, and other
agricultural workers experience lost-work-time injuries and
occupational illnesses every year, approximately 5 percent of which
have serious and permanent results. Off-farm incidents; health
conditions, such as heart disease, arthritis, or cancer; and aging
disable tens of thousands more. Nationwide, approximately 288,000
agricultural workers between the ages of 15 and 79 have a disability
that affects their ability to perform one or more essential tasks
(Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999).
Additionally, like their urban counterparts, approximately 20
percent of children and other family members in agricultural families
have disabilities, such as cerebral palsy, mental retardation, and
epilepsy. Physical and attitudinal barriers often prevent these
children and adults from participating fully in farm and ranch
operations, and from engaging in social and recreational activities
enjoyed by other rural residents.
For most of the over three million Americans earning their livings
in agriculture, the work is not just their livelihood--it is their way
of life--a productive and satisfying way of life of which they are very
proud. This is also true for the majority of people with disabilities
or chronic health conditions who work or live in agricultural settings.
These people want to find ways to accommodate their disabilities and
continue to farm. All too often, however, they are frustrated in their
attempts. Rural isolation, limited personal resources, limitations in
rural health delivery systems, and inadequate access to agriculture-
oriented assistance, are among the obstacles they face.
How Does AgrAbility Help?
The AgrAbility Project offers education and assistance to help
identify ways to accommodate disabilities and chronic health
conditions, eliminate barriers, and create a favorable climate among
rural service providers for people with disabilities. AgrAbility helps
to prevent people from being forced out of agriculture because of their
disabilities and provides them with ideas for safe, affordable
solutions that allow them to maintain their businesses and rural
lifestyles.
Who Does AgrAbility Serve?
Farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers involved in all types of
production agriculture who have any type of disability (physical,
cognitive, or sensory) or chronic health condition may receive
services. Family members who have a disability or chronic health
condition may also receive assistance.
Who are the AgrAbility Clients?
AgrAbility serves people with all disabilities and people of all
ages. Rick Eberhart of Ogema, Wisconsin is a great example. Growing up
a city boy, Mr. Eberhart knew farming was in his future thanks to
summer visits to his uncle's farm. When a banker told an 18-year-old
Eberhart that he wouldn't be able to own a farm unless he had a
relative to inherit from, Eberhart took that as a personal challenge to
prove the banker wrong.
Eberhart started out with 80 acres that had not been farmed for 18
years. Through hard work, long hours, an off-farm job and sheer
determination, Eberhart did prove the banker wrong about his future in
farming. However, he's experienced many obstacles on the road to owning
his now 137-acre dairy farm.
At a glance, Eberhart appears to have no physical ailments, but
nearly 5 years ago, he was diagnosed with a form of Leukemia. Three
months later, he received a bone marrow transplant, and doctors gave
him a 20 percent chance of survival. At the time of his diagnosis,
Eberhart had no energy to perform even the simplest task on his farm;
just walking the length of a cattle trailer exhausted him.
After the transplant, he spent 39 days in the hospital and only had
about an hour's worth of energy before becoming exhausted after he
returned home. Eberhart initially called AgrAbility of Wisconsin when
he was diagnosed, but he was very apprehensive. According to Eberhart,
``I thought it was just another bunch of people collecting a
paycheck.'' When he came home from the hospital he asked himself why he
was beating his head against the wall trying to farm with his physical
limitations, and decided to sign up for AgrAbility services.
After being added to the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation's
(DVR) waiting list, he was contacted by Carlene Volbrecht, Rural
Rehabilitation Specialist for the Easter Seals Wisconsin FARM Program
(ESW). ``When I was finally contacted, I knew there was a light at the
end of the tunnel,'' Eberhart explained.
Volbrecht and Gwen Steele, a DVR counselor, worked together to find
the assistive technology that would work best to help Eberhart with his
day-to-day activities. Eberhart's rotational grazing program requires
maintaining and moving fence line, as well as collecting cattle from
the pasture. He had also developed a higher sensitivity to the weather
as a result of his cancer. Thus, Volbrecht suggested a utility vehicle
with a cab. After test-driving several models, Eberhart found the
Bobcat manufacturer's utility vehicle worked best for entering,
exiting, and moving around the farm. Eberhart purchased a silo unloader
at an auction to eliminate the need to climb the silo, but was unable
to install it himself. With DVR's help, the unloader was professionally
installed. DVR also helped Eberhart purchase an electric feed cart. The
electric cart decreases the labor required to feed the cattle inside
and outside. To further assist Eberhart, a concrete pad will be added
to the barnyard. This will allow Eberhart to easily move the feed cart
to feed cattle outside.
Bedding cattle required Eberhart to climb into the mow, drop bales
into the barn below and shake the straw out by hand. To reduce the
amount of energy needed to carry the straw bales and bed, Volbrecht
suggested fixing the current bedding chopper and installing cow mats in
the barn to reduce the straw needed on a daily basis.
With the help of AgrAbility and DVR, Eberhart found it was easier
to complete his daily tasks. Currently, he can work for about three and
a half hours before he needs to rest. His goal is to continue to build
up his strength so he can work longer hours doing what he has always
loved. Eberhart admits, ``If it hadn't been for Easter Seals [AAW and
DVR], I probably would have given up.''
What Services Do AgrAbility Clients Receive?
AgrAbility clients benefit from partnerships between the extension
services at land-grant universities and nonprofit disability service
organizations. Together members of each AgrAbility Project staff
provide clients with direct on-site assistance that includes the
following activities.
--Assessing agricultural tasks and providing guidance on how to
restructure them to accommodate the clients' disabilities.
--Reviewing agricultural worksites and equipment and making
suggestions for modifications.
--Identifying ways to prevent secondary injuries and disabilities.
--Coordinating needed community resources and services by
--putting them in touch with community volunteers who have the
ingenuity and contacts to augment AgrAbility project
support;
--linking them to a network of engineers, health and rehabilitation
service providers, agricultural experts, product
manufacturers and suppliers, educators, skilled tradesmen,
and other rural resources; and
--helping them access existing services within public agencies,
including State vocational rehabilitation agencies and
assistive technology centers, to maximize benefits
available to them.
--Referring individuals and family members to and facilitating
participation in peer support groups.
How Does Collaboration Benefit Clients?
The AgrAbility projects build collaborations with State offices of
vocational rehabilitation, State assistive technology projects, and
farm and community business organizations, such as agricultural
cooperatives, Farm Bureau, or Lion's Club. AgrAbility clients benefit
from the added expertise and resources such collaborations bring to the
projects. Many AgrAbility projects have developed contractual
arrangements with their State's vocational rehabilitation office that
provide a win-win for the client, the project, and the State.
What Services Does the National AgrAbility Project Provide?
The National AgrAbility Project staff provides training and
technical assistance, and information on available resources to the
State AgrAbility project staffs through a variety of means, including:
--annual National AgrAbility Project Training Workshops,
--toll-free telephone consultations,
--an online library of technical resources, and
--collaboration on and presentations at statewide educational
activities.
In addition, the National AgrAbility Project staff:
--provides direct technical consultation on developing assistive
technology solutions to clients, rehabilitation engineers, and
fabricators;
--presents information about AgrAbility at national agricultural and
health-related events; and
--develops and disseminates new educational materials relevant to
farming and ranching with disabilities.
These and other activities all help to meet the goal of promoting
awareness that with technical assistance, information, and education
farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities can successfully
continue to do the work they know and love.
How are Federal Resources Maximized and New Resources Secured?
National and State project staffs seek to form partnerships and
alliances with corporations and organizations that will help expand the
reach and services of the program. Additional efforts are made to
secure financial and in-kind contributions to augment the base funds
provided through the USDA-SREES grants. These efforts help maximize the
Federal support and invest community and corporate leaders in the
mission and work of the AgrAbility Project--Promoting success in
agriculture for farmers, ranchers, and farmworkers with disabilities.
Such efforts also provide these leaders with a tangible way to give
back to the rural communities in which they live and/or conduct
business. By supporting the AgrAbility Project, they are helping their
customers who face the challenges of accommodating their disabilities
while continuing to work in agricultural production.
Funding Request
The need for AgrAbility services has never been greater, and its
accomplishments to date are remarkable by any standard. More States
than ever are applying for funding in every competitive grant cycle and
outstanding State projects are not being funded. Easter Seals is proud
to contribute to the ongoing success of the USDA-CSREES AgrAbility
Program. Please support the allocation of at least $5 million for
AgrAbility in fiscal year 2009 to ensure that this valuable public-
private partnership continues to serve rural Americans with
disabilities and their families. Thank you for this opportunity to
share the successes and needs of the USDA AgrAbility Program.
grants for expansion of employment opportunities for individuals with
disabilities in rural areas
Easter Seals strongly believes that rural residents with
disabilities need to have access to the services and supports that help
them live, learn and play in their communities. About one in five
Americans lives in a rural area. Of that number, an estimated 12.5
million are people with disabilities. Compared with metropolitan areas,
the following is true for rural America.
--The incidence of disability and chronic health conditions is higher
--Gaps in service delivery systems and infrastructure are more
prevalent
--Average incomes are lower and job opportunities fewer
--The percentage of older adults is higher
--Service providers often lack capacity to assist residents properly
--Physical and attitudinal barriers are more wide-spread
There is also a significant impact on the community when families
are thrust into the caregiving role. Too often, this results in a
gainfully employed person leaving the workforce or even leaving a
community to a more urban or suburban area to find services and
supports.
To that end, Easter Seals asks Congress to support all rural
residents with disabilities by focusing on the needs of rural residents
with disabilities in all USDA programs and by creating unique resources
within USDA that will support people with disabilities in rural
communities. This includes strengthening access to services so that
rural residents with disabilities can get the services they need to
contribute to the economy and social success of rural communities.
The Senate version of the Farm Bill reauthorization, currently
being debated includes authorization for a new program within USDA
Rural Development titled ``Grants for Expansion of Employment
Opportunities for Individuals with Disabilities in Rural Areas'' in
Section 379E of the bill. This program is greatly needed in rural
communities and will help enhance the ability of small business owners
in rural communities to be better equipped to recruit, employ and
retain employees with disabilities and will enhance self-employment and
entrepreneurship opportunities for rural residents with disabilities.
The mechanism to achieve this goal is the development of national
technical assistance and education resources through grants to national
nonprofit organizations with a strong history of serving rural
residents with disabilities and a close relationship with USDA.
Funding Request
The need for support to increase employment opportunities for rural
residents with disabilities is significant and growing. Easter Seals is
proud to contribute to the increase in attention to services and
supports that are needed and currently lacking in rural communities for
residents with disabilities. Please support the allocation of at least
$2 million for the ``Grants for Expansion of Employment Opportunities
for Individuals with Disabilities in Rural Areas'' in fiscal year 2009
to ensure that this valuable public-private partnership can be
initiated. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Florida State University
Florida State University is requesting $5,000,000 in fiscal year
2009 for the Risk Reduction for Agricultural Crops Program and
$2,000,000 for the Apalachicola River Coastal Watershed/Marine
Environment Initiative from the from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension
Service (CSREES)/Federal Administration Account.
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. Since
2005, FSU students have won more than 30 nationally competitive
scholarships and fellowships including 2 Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman
Scholarships, Goldwater, Jack Kent Cooke and 18 Fulbright Fellowships.
At Florida State University, we are 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 two important projects we are
pursuing this year. The first involves mitigating climate impact for
agriculture.
The current drought, which is one of the worst in recent history,
has had a significant impact on the water resources in Georgia, Alabama
and Florida. It has reemphasized the vulnerability of the citizens to
climate variability and climate extremes. The Federal Government can
reduce these risks by using modern technologies such as climate models,
which can predict future climate, and decision support tools to help
mitigate some of these uncertainties and provide adaptation strategies
for the agricultural and environmental sectors. The Southeast Climate
Consortium (SECC), which encompasses Florida State University,
University of Florida, University of Miami, University of Georgia,
Auburn University, and University of Alabama at Huntsville, has been at
the forefront of research and extension for the application of climate
predictions to risk reduction for agriculture and natural resources.
With support from USDA and NOAA, the SECC has developed new methods to
predict the consequences of climate variability for agricultural crops,
forests, and water resources in the southeastern 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, FSU will provide the climate forecasts and risk
reduction methodology. UF and UG will translate this climate
information into risks and environmental impacts on agriculture and,
with Auburn, will work with Extension to provide info to the ag
community. UM will provide economic modeling. Together we are
developing new tools to help minimize climate risks to water quality
and quantity. FSU, on behalf of the SECC, seeks $5.0 million in fiscal
year 2009 for this activity. These tools and application of agriculture
and natural resources has strong support of extension programs.
New tasks this year include developing improved methods to forecast
droughts for agriculture and forest producers to manage resources to
reduce risks of losses and environmental damage; developing
partnerships and methods for incorporating climate forecasts into
agricultural and water policy decisions; and initiating the development
of a decision support system for climate forecasts to water resources
management, especially for agricultural water use. We are requesting
$5,000,000 in fiscal year 2009 for this important project.
Our second project involves the health of our Gulf ecosystem.
FSU is proposing an interdisciplinary research project to
investigate the linkages between Apalachicola river flow, fishery
production, and ecosystem health in the northeastern Gulf. By
establishing ecological linkages between river flow, coastal food webs
and fisheries, research proposed by the Florida State University will
inform policies on the conflicting demands on water use that span
ecological, social, and jurisdictional boundaries. In effect, this
research will focus on revealing the linkages between the Apalachicola
River and the immense productivity of the region from inshore to
nearshore and even offshore regions.
The proposed research will increase our understanding of linkages
between coastal watersheds and the marine environment, which will lead
to an increased capacity to forecast the ecosystem responses to
anthropogenic stressors and the consequences of those responses. FSU
proposes to:
--Characterize Apalachicola river flow and its interactions with
nearshore and offshore shelf waters in the northeast Gulf of
Mexico on seasonal, annual, and decadal time scales.
--Establish ecological linkages between river flow, nutrients, and
phytoplankton production that support coastal food webs and
fisheries (e.g., oysters, groupers) in the northeastern Gulf.
--Develop models that can be used by decision makers to evaluate the
consequences of altered river flow for fishery production and
ecosystem health.
--Systematically inform coastal managers and others charged with
protecting and regulating water use, water quality, and habitat
protection of our research findings and their relevance for
decision making.
Recent national attention has focused on the management of the
Apalachicola drainage system because of the current drought conditions
over the southeastern United States and conflicts over water use in the
watershed. This debate has highlighted the need for effective science
than can be used to inform policy decisions. This project will directly
address these key issues. We are requesting $2,000,000 for this
project.
Mr. Chairman, these are projects that will have a great impact on
our country and I appreciate your consideration.
______
Prepared Statement of Food & Water Watch
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Bennett and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Wenonah Hauter and I am executive director of
the nonprofit consumer organization Food & Water Watch. We were founded
in November 2005 and we work on food policy and water infrastructure
issues. I welcome this opportunity to comment on the President's
proposed fiscal year 2009 budget as it applies to the agencies under
your jurisdiction.
USDA--Food Safety and Inspection Service
We commend the subcommittee for its work to require the Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) to submit its proposals on risk-based
inspection (RBI) for processing facilities to the USDA's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) for a review before the agency proceeded with
implementation of the new inspection scheme. As most consumer groups
suspected, the agency was racing toward implementing RBI without having
the necessary data upon which to make its policy assessments. As you
know, the OIG released a 142-page audit report in December 2007 that
outlined the problems with the agency's current information technology
infrastructure and made 35 separate recommendations for the agency to
implement before it could proceed with its RBI program.\1\ While the
agency and the OIG reached management decision on all of these
recommendations, FSIS is notorious for not implementing OIG
recommendations in a timely fashion. It will require intense oversight
by the subcommittee to ensure that FSIS implements OIG's
recommendations. Since the implementation of RBI is dependent upon the
development of the Public Health Information Structure (PHIS), we urge
the subcommittee to request a detailed accounting of this new IT system
because the agency has not been forthcoming about the final cost for
creating PHIS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/24601_07_HY.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With regard to the agency's Public Health Based Inspection System
in Poultry Slaughter (PHBISPS), we view this as an expansion of the
pilot project that the agency has conducted since 1999 called the
HACCP-based Inspection Models Project (HIMP). We urge the subcommittee
to proceed cautiously with funding PHBISPS for several reasons: (1) the
agency still has not conducted a full evaluation of HIMP which was
promised to stakeholders before any expansion; (2) the agency has been
slow to respond to a 2006 Freedom of Information Act Request by FWW for
the non-compliance records from the plants enrolled in HIMP; (3) as was
the case with the agency's RBI in processing proposal, there seems to
be a data quality issue with PHBISPS which was raised at the February
5-6, 2008 meetings of the National Advisory Committee on Meat and
Poultry Inspection; \2\ (4) recently there was a major Class I recall
involving one of the plants enrolled in HIMP that calls into question
whether the privatization of poultry slaughter inspection is protective
of public health.\3\ Associated with PHBISPS is the Salmonella
Initiative that was announced in February 2006.\4\ The subcommittee
should scrutinize this proposal from a number of standpoints. First,
the Salmonella Initiative is designed to reward poultry slaughter
facilities that exceed the FSIS salmonella performance standard, a
standard that has not been updated in nearly a decade, by reducing the
level of pathogen testing. Second, the agency will permit at least five
facilities to request waivers of certain regulations, such as line
speeds, if they exceed the salmonella performance standard. The agency
has not taken into account the impact on inspector plant worker safety
with these proposals. In 2005, the Government Accountability Office
issued a report that recommended that line speeds be studied from an
occupational safety perspective.\5\ To our knowledge, the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration has failed to do that. In February
2008, the Charlotte Observer ran a six part series on the plight of
employees who work in poultry processing.\6\ Yet, FSIS seems to be
oblivious that what it is proposing with its Salmonella Initiative
could lead to increased occupational hazards to workers in the poultry
industry and to their own inspection workforce. We strongly urge the
subcommittee not to fund this proposal until all of these issues are
fully evaluated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See transcripts http://www.fsis.usda.gov/About_FSIS/
NACMPI_Transcripts/index.asp
\3\ March 14, 2008 recall of 943,000 pounds of poultry products
from Cagle's. Inc., http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/
Recall_010_2008_Release/index.asp
\4\ See http://www.fsis.usda.gov/News_&_Events/NR_022306_01/
index.asp
\5\ See http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0596.pdf
\6\ See http://www.charlotte.com/poultry/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would also like to call to the Subcommittee's attention the
response to a FOIA request we filed last year that details on a monthly
basis for fiscal year 2007 the level of in-plant inspection vacancies
broken down by FSIS district.\7\ We commend the subcommittee for
addressing this issue during the fiscal year 2007 appropriations
process, yet some FSIS districts still are experiencing double-digit
vacancy rates--with the Albany district experiencing a 20.25 percent
vacancy rate at the end of fiscal year 2007. While the agency has
worked very hard to fill those vacancies, it is also facing an exodus
of inspection personnel who are either retiring or leaving the agency
voluntarily.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/food/foodsafety/meat-
inspection_1/FOIA.pdf/view
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We would also like to call to the Subcommittee's attention the
results of a 2007 survey of FSIS inspectors conducted by Food & Water
Watch and the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Local Unions. A
survey was mailed to nearly 5,700 FSIS inspectors in February 2007 and
we received 1,320 responses. Among the more disturbing results were:
--Over 70 percent of the inspectors said staffing shortages impacted
their physical and mental health;
--Nearly 80 percent of slaughter and combination plant inspectors
believed that current line speeds were so fast that it made it
difficult for them to catch adulteration on carcasses;
--More than half of slaughter and combination plant inspectors
responded that less than half of the regulatory violations they
observed were actually recorded on non-compliance reports;
--Nearly 90 percent of slaughter and combination plant inspectors
reported that off-line inspectors (those inspectors responsible
for writing non-compliance reports) have been pulled to cover
vacancies on the slaughter line (where they cannot write the
reports);
--Nearly 40 percent of inspectors who were on patrol assignments
stated that not all processing plants in their circuit were
visited at least once per shift and over three-quarters of
those inspectors stated that those plants were not visited at
least once daily;
--Nearly 70 percent of inspectors said that plants were not always
clean at the start of operations.
The agency had a very trying year. We are currently in the midst of
the largest meat recall in the Nation's history involving 143 million
pounds of beef and beef products that were processed at the Hallmark/
Westland Meat Company in California. In 2007, there were sixty-one
recalls or public health alerts issued by the agency. So far in 2008,
there have been another 10 recalls. It is very troubling to us that in
spite of this less than stellar track record, top agency personnel
received over $311,000 in performance bonuses in fiscal year 2007. We
strongly urge the subcommittee to evaluate how the bonus program is
administered at FSIS because we believe that the money would be better
served in addressing staffing shortages in the field.
We also urge the subcommittee to investigate why the proposed rule
to list retail consignees on FSIS recall press releases--a regulation
proposed by FSIS on March 7, 2006 and whose comment period closed in
June 2006--still has not received final clearance. We strongly believe
implementation of such a rule would assist the agency in recovering
recalled meat and poultry products.
The subcommittee should also be made aware that our organization
filed a petition with FSIS on January 29, 2008 to revoke Canada's
equivalency status to export meat and poultry products.\8\ We cited
repeated food safety violations found by FSIS auditors in their annual
visits to Canadian meat and poultry plants and an increase in recalls
of meat and poultry products that originated in Canada and made their
way into U.S. commerce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/world/global-trade/
foodandglobaltrade/usda-petition-against-risky-canadian-meat-and-
poultry
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also request that the subcommittee investigate the status of an
application made by an Australian beef company to export its products
to the United States using a controversial privatized inspection
system. We understand that FSIS approval of that application is
imminent.
Lastly, we oppose the imposition of $96 million in licensing and
performance fees proposed by the administration. The functions
performed by this agency are of a public health nature and its
functions should be financed through general Treasury funds.
agricultural marketing service
While the focus of any investigation on the lapses at the Hallmark/
Westland Meat Company needs to be on the FSIS inspection procedures,
the audit procedures employed by the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) also deserve scrutiny. AMS approves vendors who can sell their
commodities to the various nutrition programs it operates, including
the National School Lunch Program, and enters into contracts with those
vendors. For ground beef products, the contract specifications clearly
state that humane handling practices need to be adhered to and that no
meat from non-ambulatory animals can be harvested for USDA nutrition
programs.\9\ It is clear that Hallmark/Westland failed to meet both of
those requirements. We urge the subcommittee to secure the AMS audit
reports from Hallmark/Westland. We have attempted to secure AMS audit
reports in the past and have been denied access on the grounds that
they are considered to be proprietary information. We also believe the
subcommittee should evaluate how AMS makes its ``Supplier of the Year''
awards, since Hallmark/Westland received that award for the 2003-2004
school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See http://www.ams.usda.gov/lscp/beef/LSP_SB_TRS_GB-
O7%20APPROVED_08_13_07.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, we urge the subcommittee to use its oversight to
ensure that the long-delayed country of origin labeling program is
finally implemented. We applauded the inclusion of COOL in the 2002
Farm Bill but have been frustrated by the delays in its implementation.
We believe that labeling provides consumers with vital information they
need to make informed choices about where their food is from, in
addition to giving producers an opportunity to distinguish their
products in an increasingly international marketplace. Consumer support
for COOL has been strong for years, and demand for information about
where food is from has only increased in the wake of scandals about
imported food.
The House version of the 2007 Farm Bill included language that
clarifies the intent of the 2002 Farm Bill and addresses many of the
concerns expressed by industry that have historically opposed mandatory
labeling. No matter what the outcome of the current Farm Bill process,
we urge the subcommittee to instruct the agency to implement mandatory
COOL for meat and produce on schedule by September 30 and to closely
follow the COOL provisions and report language from H.R. 2419.
Consumers have waited long enough to find out where their food comes
from. Further delays in providing country of origin labeling are
unacceptable.
food and drug administration
We were disappointed by the paltry increase proposed by the
administration for the food safety functions of the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA). The increase barely covers annual inflationary
costs--in spite of assurances by Health and Human Services Secretary
Michael Leavitt in December 2007 that FDA would receive a substantial
increase in the 2008 budget. While we recognize that FDA's food safety
programs are under-funded, we also believe that there needs to be
scrutiny of its management structure because we sense that FDA is
extremely top-heavy and is missing an appropriate sense of urgency for
the need to put more resources into the field. Agency officials have
repeatedly stated that putting more inspectors in the field will not
solve the current food safety crisis.\10\ We do not subscribe to their
assessment. The agency currently has a staff of over 10,000 employees
but we do not know what these people do. FWW has attempted to find out
exactly how many FDA inspectors there are by filing a FOIA request for
the work plans of the FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs, but our
request has been rejected. We are currently exploring legal action to
obtain those documents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health/jan-june07/
foodacheson_06_08.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the agency has put forth its ``Food Protection Plan,'' we
believe that it is riddled with problems and it suffers from a lack of
detail and transparency. The agency claims that it will use a risk-
based inspection model to conduct food inspections. When pressed about
the data sources for evaluating risk and constructing their inspection
system, agency officials admit that FDA has very few from which to
draw. Second, the agency wants to use ``third party certification'' as
a way to avoid increasing its own inspection workforce. We are
adamantly opposed to the privatization of food inspection. This is a
public health function that should be the government's responsibility--
not the responsibility of a multi-national corporation that has profit
as its driving motivation.
Third, we are especially troubled by the January 29, 2008 testimony
given by Lisa Shames, Director of GAO's Natural Resources and Resources
Division, before the House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
in which she said: ``FDA officials have declined to provide specific
information on how much additional funding it believes will be
necessary to implement the Food Protection Plan, saying that finalizing
the amounts will take place during the budget process. Similarly, the
Food Protection Plan does not discuss the strategies it needs in the
upcoming years to implement this plan. FDA officials told us that they
have internal plans for implementing the Food Protection Plan that
detail timelines, staff actions, and specific deliverables. While FDA
officials told us they do not intend to make these plans public, they
do plan to keep the public informed of their progress. Without a clear
description of resources and strategies, it will be difficult for
Congress to assess the likelihood of the plan's success in achieving
its intended results.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-oi-
hrg.012908.Shames-Testimony.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is truly appalling. How can we trust the same people who
brought us to the current crisis to develop and execute plans in secret
without the benefit of public and congressional scrutiny? These are
some of the same individuals who were advocating the closure of FDA
laboratories and who received exorbitant bonuses for their outlandish
proposals. We strongly urge the subcommittee to compel FDA officials to
make the details of their Food Protection Plan public so that there is
the benefit of congressional and public scrutiny of their proposals.
Lastly, as we detailed in our 2007 report, Import Alert,\12\ FDA's
program to oversee the safety of seafood imports to the United States
does not live up to the standard that Americans expect from their
government. Inadequate funding and a poorly designed inspection program
contributed to FDA physically inspecting less than 2 percent of the
nearly 860,000 imported seafood shipments in 2006. Only 0.59 percent of
shipments were tested for contaminants in a laboratory.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/fish/copy_of_pubs/
reports/import-alert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical inspection gives the greatest assurance of detecting
safety issues in seafood products, so the low rate of inspection raises
concerns about the safety of imported seafood sold in U.S. restaurants
and grocery stores. At the same time, in foreign aquaculture facilities
the use of numerous antibiotics, fungicides, and pesticides, many of
which are not approved for use in the United States, is on the rise. In
June 2007 the FDA issued an import alert for five seafood products from
China due to chemical contamination. However, it is not just China;
veterinary drug residues are being detected on imports from more
countries and more types of seafood.
Seafood products are responsible for 18 to 20 percent of the
outbreaks of foodborne illness that affect one in four Americans, or 76
million people every year. Trends in the global production of seafood--
aquaculture now produces half of the world's seafood--make now the
critical time for FDA to increase physical inspection of imported
seafood. There is currently a new bill in the Senate Commerce
Committee, the Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, which would
allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to ramp up
efforts on seafood inspections. However, we believe that this is not
the appropriate focus for an agency that is already over-extended and
under-funded on its core programs. Rather, FDA, the agency
traditionally responsible for seafood inspections, needs a better
inspection regime and adequate resources to implement it. We urge the
subcommittee to work with the agency to develop an effective seafood
safety program.
______
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 these main themes:
First, we strongly recommend continued funding for certain high-
value, on-going research that the Congress has previously approved for
BARC. Yet, this crucially needed on-going research is marked for
termination in the President's fiscal year 2008 budget. We discuss the
basis and rationale for our recommendation in Part I, below.
Second, we recommend and endorse continued full support for
redirected research in the President's budget. We briefly expand the
basis of our support in Part II.
Third, we will offer a brief comment on the proposed relocation
staff and program from the Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center
to Beltsville in Part III.
Part I. High-Value Research Marked for Termination
Animals Biosciences & Biotechnology Laboratory (ABBL)--
$8,401,123.--ABBL's research mission is to improve the genetic,
reproductive, and feed efficiency of livestock and poultry. A dedicated
staff of 32 employees, of which 13 are research scientists, are
addressing a number of cutting-edge research issues: using pig
embryonic stem cells to enhance disease resistance in pigs and for
clinical use in human liver rescue devices; designing novel
antimicrobial proteins for treatment of human (methicillin-resistant
staph aureus) and animal (bovine mastitis) diseases; identifying
genetic markers to reduce fetal pig mortality. This cutting-edge work
is well regarded in the greater scientific community. Loss of this
funding will essentially close out the only research of this type in
ARS. It has been suggested that a reason for the proposed closure is
inadequacy of facilities. But in the judgment of highly qualified
scientists, inadequacy of facilities is simply not an issue.
The research in this laboratory is both basic and applied and is
valuable to all of the animal industries. The research addresses the
very issue of genetic improvement of animals for those traits that are
most desirable to consumers and profitable for producers. In addition,
this research has proven to be very valuable to the biomedical
community because the information obtained is useful to promote human
health. Restoration of funding for this invaluable research is
critically needed.
Biomedical Materials in Plants--$1,808,253.--Plants can be used as
factories to manufacture vaccines and other pharmaceuticals for animals
and humans. This research focuses on development of tobacco as a crop
with this beneficial use. We recommend restoring full funding.
Bioremediation Research--$118,167.--Munitions storage sites and
bombing ranges in parts of the United States have left huge tracts of
soils and lands contaminated by highly toxic residues from such
explosives as TNT. Those soils and lands now are limited
environmentally for commercial or agricultural purposes. These funds
support ongoing research to determine if forage plants can remove TNT
and its metabolites from contaminated sites. Beltsville is a world
recognized leader in the field of bioremediation. This work is not done
anywhere else in ARS. We recommend funding for this research.
Foundry Sand By-Products Utilization--$680,205.--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 that this research continue.
Poultry Diseases--$434,934.--Coccidiosis, a parasitic poultry
disease, costs the industry almost $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 prevention
and control. We recommend that this research continue.
Potato Diseases--$64,545.--These funds are used for research
activities on genetic improvement of potato and for diseases of potato.
While a small amount of money, these funds are used to supplement
ongoing efforts in this important area. We recommend that this research
continue.
Part ll. Redirected Research
The budgetary items listed here have not appeared in our testimony
of previous years. In terms of overall BARC funding, they are revenue
neutral. Essentially, these are ``new'' programs replacing similar but
lower-priority, on-going programs that would be closed out. Ideally,
all the research programs, new and old, would continue. All are
important lines of research, and we would prefer to see new funding
rather than redirection. Nevertheless, BARC can manage within these
redirections if there is no option. We strongly support funding for
this research.
Crop Health--$947,322.
Obesity Prevention Initiative--$1,937,649.
Food Safety--$1,045,629.
Crop Genetic Improvement--$938,385.
Part III. Relocation Staff and Program From the Grand Forks Human
Nutrition Research Center to Beltsville
The fiscal year 2009 budget also proposes to relocate a significant
number of staff and program from the Grand Forks Human Nutrition
Research Center to Beltsville. We are neutral about this redirection.
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 Izaak Walton League of America
The Izaak Walton League of America appreciates the opportunity to
submit testimony concerning appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for
various agencies and programs under the jurisdiction of the
subcommittee. The League is a national, nonprofit organization founded
in 1922. We have more than 36,000 members and nearly 300 chapters
nationwide. Our members are committed to advancing common sense
policies that safeguard wildlife and habitat, support community-based
conservation, and address pressing environmental issues. The League has
been a partner with farmers and a participant in forming agriculture
policy since the 1930s. The following pertains to conservation programs
administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The League believes Congress should prioritize investment in
conservation programs in order to protect natural resources and to meet
the demonstrated demand for conservation services. Two of every three
eligible applicants for Federal conservation programs are being turned
away due to lack of funding. Over the 5-year term of the 2002 Farm
Bill, $13.5 billion in requests from more than 487,000 farmers and
ranchers went unfunded. During the same period, Congress cut funding
for conservation by more than $5 billion below levels authorized by the
2002 farm bill.
Prioritizing funding for conservation is even more important in
light of recent developments in the agricultural economy. Land values
have skyrocketed more than 50 percent in the past 3 years and continue
to climb. As land prices rise, the purchasing power of each
conservation dollar decreases. Record prices for crops are also driving
a land rush. The push for increased production is threatening the
conservation gains that have been achieved through the Conservation
Reserve Program and Wetlands Reserve Program. Additionally, expanding
production highlights the necessity of boosting the Conservation
Security Program, which promotes farming practices that protect
wildlife and natural resources.
Finally, in the broader scope, USDA researchers have identified
additional positive opportunities for prioritizing conservation.
Specifically, natural amenities such as pleasant landscapes and
opportunities for outdoor recreation generate economic growth in rural
areas. According to USDA's Economic Research Service: ``Natural
amenities are highly correlated with population and employment growth--
they even shape agriculture . . . [The] number of farms has increased
in counties with high levels of natural amenities.'' The conservation
programs that protect and enhance natural resources also protect and
enhance rural economies.
The League is concerned that the administration has proposed to
significantly cut funding for critical conservation programs. We
recognize the challenges and uncertainty the subcommittee faces as
negotiations over a new farm bill drag on. We profoundly hope that a
new farm bill will be enacted before the subcommittee marks up its
bill. As the subcommittee develops the fiscal year 2009 Agriculture
bill, the League appreciates the opportunity to address funding for
specific conservation programs.
usda farm service agency, conservation reserve program (crp)
The administration requests $1.95 billion for fiscal year 2009 down
from approximately $2 billion in fiscal year 2008. Grain prices have
reached record levels and land values are experiencing correspondingly
dramatic increases. Reducing CRP funding would exacerbate current
conditions while even level funding will not allow USDA to enroll as
many acres due to rapidly escalating land prices. In order to maintain
core acreage, the League encourages the subcommittee to appropriate at
least $2 billion for CRP in fiscal year 2009.
usda natural resources conservation service, wetlands reserve program
(wrp)
The administration requests $181 million down from $455 million
appropriated for this fiscal year. Furthermore, the budget indicates
that funds will not be requested for fiscal year 2010 and beyond
because authority for the program would expire unless a new farm bill
is enacted. This is a particularly damaging blow because the
administration provided full funding in the past 2 years to achieve the
WRP's goal of 250,000 restored wetland and upland acres per year. The
League urges the subcommittee to provide $455 million in fiscal year
2009.
usda natural resources conservation service, conservation security
program (csp)
The President's budget proposes to cut the program below baseline
funding. If approved, this would effectively prevent new enrollments.
CSP applies to the full spectrum of working agricultural lands from
cropland to pasture to rangeland. In the program's first 3 years,
contracts were signed with more than 19,000 producers nationwide who
agreed to implement conservation practices on over 15.6 million acres.
Moreover, as detailed in League-supported research, CSP pays for
practices that provide substantial wildlife benefits. In case studies
from Missouri and Minnesota, for instance, 88 and 85 percent of CSP
payments, respectively, supported practices that provide wildlife
habitat benefits. The importance of CSP is growing in direct proportion
to the current market-driven expansion of agricultural production. The
League encourages the subcommittee to appropriate $444 million for CSP
in fiscal year 2009, which is equal to the baseline established by the
Congressional Budget Office. This level of support would enable the
program to serve eligible farmers and ranchers nationwide who want to
participate.
usda natural resources conservation service, wildlife habitat
incentives program (whip)
Although Congress appropriated $85 million for WHIP in fiscal year
2008, the administration is proposing to terminate it. WHIP provides
technical and financial assistance to landowners and others to develop
upland, wetland, riparian and aquatic habitat areas on their property.
According to USDA, between 2002 and 2006, the program established 1.8
million acres of habitat. However, during that same period, eligible
applications totaling $136 million were turned away due to lack of
funds. We urge the subcommittee to reject the administration's proposal
and to appropriate at least $85 million for WHIP in fiscal year 2009.
usda natural resources conservation service, grassland reserve program
(grp)
The administration proposes to terminate this program as well.
Unfortunately, GRP was not funded under the fiscal year 2008 omnibus
appropriations bill. Like WHIP, demand for GRP is overwhelming. In the
space of 2 years, USDA had to turn away approximately 16,500 eligible
participants seeking to protect 11 million acres of crucial grasslands.
Without a pledge of support from the White House, providing protection
for grasslands--one of the most threatened ecosystems globally--will be
entirely up to Congress during the appropriations process. Although
IWLA supports GRP funding in the farm bill at $240 million annually, we
urge the subcommittee to provide at least $50 million in its bill to
maintain the vital service performed by this program.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Energy
Officials
Chairman Kohl and members of the Subcommittee, I am Dub Taylor,
Chairman of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).
NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding of the Energy
Title (Title IX) of the 2002 Farm Bill, especially Section 9006.
Section 9006 provides funding for energy efficiency and renewable
energy efforts for farmers, ranchers and rural small businesses. We
strongly recommend funding of no less than $60 million for Section
9006, and we would certainly urge consideration for $5 million of
funding for the Section 9005 energy audit/assessment program within
this funding level. NASEO has worked with farmers, our State
agricultural agencies and rural interests to promote this successful
program. As we face dramatically increasing energy bills for all
sectors of the economy, it is critical that we do more to address the
energy problems of rural America.
Chairman Kohl, we know that you recognize the importance of the
agricultural energy programs, as well as the State energy activities.
All the State energy offices are indebted to you for your contribution
to a broad-based national energy policy.
As the debate continues over the new Farm Bill, we strongly urge
you to fund the critical energy programs within the 2002 Farm, and we
hope a robust energy title will be passed as part of the new Farm Bill.
We hope that in calendar year 2009 (and hopefully fiscal year 2009),
Congress and the administration will jointly push forward with a
comprehensive energy funding program, including robust appropriations
for the agriculture sector. Greater energy efficiency and renewable
energy use in the farm sector will help create jobs, reduce climate
change, increase agricultural productivity and improve the environment.
If significantly increased energy funding can be provided for the
energy title of a new Farm Bill, then we would hope that rural schools
and other public institutions could be covered by Section 9006. This is
the approach offered by Senator Harkin in the so-called ``REAP'' bill.
This could effectively combine with efforts through the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Bill, such as the State Energy
Program, biorefineries, expanded alternative fuels programs,
alternative fuels infrastructure, etc. On the tax side, a long-term
extension of the production tax credit and investment tax credit for
renewable energy, energy efficiency tax credits and deductions and
other related programs, could combine with these appropriations and
energy policy changes to bring about significant improvements in our
Nation's approach to energy.
In fiscal year 2007, $73 million was requested from applicants for
Section 9006 loans and grants. In fiscal year 2008 Congress provided
$36 million for the Section 9006 program. A minimum of $60 million for
this effort in fiscal year 2009 is necessary to maintain the momentum
and expand participation. We hope for even more funding in the future.
The Nation cannot afford any greater lag in funding the energy
provisions of the Farm Bill. With gasoline prices approaching $4/
gallon, diesel prices even higher, propane prices used for crop drying
and rural domestic energy use at historically high levels, this
appropriations bill must be a vehicle for an aggressive change in
energy policy to implement the authorization bills. The country cannot
wait.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Universities
and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Board on Natural Resources (BNR)
We thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. We request
the following funds within the Cooperative State Research, Education
and Extension Service: $30.008 million for McIntire-Stennis Cooperative
Forestry (McIntire-Stennis); $8 million for the Renewable Resources
Extension Act (RREA); and $256.5 million for the National Research
Initiative (NRI). In fiscal year 2008, McIntire-Stennis received $24.8
million, while the administration's fiscal year 2009 request is $19.5
million. In fiscal year 2008, RREA received $4.008 million, while the
administration's fiscal year 2009 request is $4.052 million. In fiscal
year 2008, NRI received $190.9 million, while the administration's
fiscal year 2009 request is $256.5 million.
NASULGC BNR requests funding support for the McIntire-Stennis
program at $30.008 million, the same level of support provided in
fiscal year 2007.
America is blessed with tremendous forest resources--approximately
one-third of our landmass is forested. In the coming years as we
develop cellulosic ethanol, the Nation will likely rely more and more
on our forests for fuel stocks. Sustaining these forests in a healthy
and productive condition is a national priority demanding a strong,
continuing commitment to scientific research and graduate education.
Principal financial support for university-based forestry research
and graduate education comes from the McIntire-Stennis program.
McIntire-Stennis funds are currently distributed according to a
statutory formula to each of the 50 States, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
Virgin Islands, with a dollar-for-dollar match required from the
States.
Congress has recently recognized the need to expand the McIntire-
Stennis program and provided funding of $30 million in fiscal year 2007
and $25 million in fiscal year 2008. The schools and colleges of
forestry and natural resources responded in 2007 by producing a
McIntire-Stennis strategic plant. Unfortunately, the President's fiscal
year 2009 budget would cut McIntire-Stennis funding by $5 million
(compared to fiscal year 2008) and make $12 million of the remainder
subject to new competitive multistate procedures.
If enacted, these changes could result in as much as a 74 percent
reduction to some universities. We deplore these cuts and ask that you
reject the administration's proposal.
As outlined in the 2007 strategic plan, McIntire-Stennis funding is
critical to:
--Deliver scientific results and management technologies to forest
land owners, managers, and policy makers;
--Prepare the future workforce in forestry and related natural
resource science for the 21st Century.
NASULGC BNR requests funding support for the Renewable Resources
Extension Act (RREA) program at $8 million.
In the U.S., 58 percent of the forest is held in private
ownerships--mostly individual and family forests. These ownerships
total nearly 291,000,000 acres. Given the geographic breadth of private
ownerships and the astounding 10,000,000+ owners, informed stewardship
of these forests promotes a secure future for the environmental and
economic well-being of all our Nation's forests.
In 1978 Congress recognized that private forest and rangeland
owners contribute significantly to the Nation's vitality and enacted
RREA. This decree called for ``expanded extension programs for forest
and rangeland resources:'' to enhance the sustainability of these
renewable natural resources.
Today with the support of RREA, 69 land-grant universities provide
educational programs to empower private forestland and rangeland owners
in the many counties and parishes across our Nation. Landowners'
ability to efficiently manage their properties is strengthened through
educational workshops and seminars related to the eight RREA strategic
issues: (1) Forest stewardship and health; (2) Wildlife and fisheries
resources; (3) Rangeland stewardship and health; (4) Invasive species;
(5) Economic opportunities; (6) Forestland conversion and
fragmentation; (7) Diverse audiences; (8) Public policy and
participation.
Many landowners are interested and adopt new practices once they
know and understand them. Education can lead to properly applied and
sustainable practices.
Recent reported outcomes from the program include:
--937 income-generating businesses created or expanded;
--2,390 new jobs created;
--27,300 landowners increased their awareness of forest or rangeland
resources;
--21,100 landowners implemented at least one new renewable resource
practice;
--$17,810,000 estimate dollars earned or saved by landowners;
--$198,571,756 earned or saved by loggers adopting new harvesting
technologies.
Every Federal dollar spent in RREA leverages from $5-15 from State,
county, and other sources.
Continued and increased funding will allow for:
--Equitable funding to the 1890 land-grant institutions and an
increase in competitive funding;
--Create virtual centers of excellence with teams of USDA Forest
Service scientists and Extension educators to develop extension
programs and applied research for complex forest and rangeland
ecosystems issues, such as climate change and bioenergy;
--Implement landscape-scale projects to compliment county- and State-
based programs;
--Use of new techniques to segment the audience and use stewardship
messages that have meaning for them;
--Continued use of proven educational settings for selected
audiences: workshops, field days, schools, printed
publications;
--Expanded use of new technologies: web-based learning centers,
webinars, podcasts, eXtension, mobile networking, Web 2.0
tools, print-on-demand.
NASULGC BNR requests funding support for the National Research
Initiative (NRI) program at $256.5 million.
The United States has a university-based system that integrates
agriculture, health, and environmental research with higher education
and public outreach activities. This unique system is a partnership
between America's land-grant and related universities and the USDA's
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES).
Some CSREES programs are administered under formulae that provide
each State and territory with sufficient funds to underwrite vital
agriculture and natural resources research stations and extension
offices. However, many other programs--most notably the National
Research Initiative--require scientists and professionals from
universities across the Nation to compete directly against each other
in peer-reviewed competitions.
Both Congress and the administration have recognized the enormous
value of CSREES competitive programs in recent years by providing
modest increase to the NRI. However, much more must be done:
--American's farmers and foresters need additional genomic data and
biotechnology tools to expand food and fiber production,
process, and international trade;
--U.S. healthcare professionals need greater insight into the
relationships between diet and health;
--Extension specialist and their clients need expanded knowledge
about water quality to help protect the environment and
safeguard our food system;
--University educators need additional funding to train new
generations of food, agriculture, and natural resources
scientists (many of whom are turning to better-funded
disciplines).
We urge you to support these important forest and natural resources
programs.
About NASULGC
NASULGC is the Nation's oldest higher education association.
Currently the association has over 200 member institutions--including
the historically black land-grant institutions . . . located in all 50
States. The Association's overriding mission is to support high quality
public education through efforts that enhance the capacity of member
institutions to perform their traditional teaching, research, and
public service roles.
About the Board on Natural Resources
The Board's mission is to promote university-based programs dealing
with natural resources, fish and wildlife, ecology, minerals and
energy, and the environment. Most NASULGC institutions are represented
on the Board. Present membership exceeds 500 scientists and educators,
who are some of the Nation's leading research and educational expertise
in environmental and natural-resource disciplines.
This testimony was developed for the BNR by the Chair of the BNR's
Forestry Section, Dr. George Hopper, Dean, College of Forest Resources,
Director, Forest and Wildlife Center, Mississippi State University.
Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with the
Committee.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Commodity Supplemental Food Program
Association
The Honorable Herb Kohl, Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I
am Matt Gassen, 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 93 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
agencies contract with community and faith based organizations to
warehouse and distribute food, certify eligibility and educate
participants. The local organizations build broad collaboration among
non-profits, health units, and Area Agencies on Aging so that seniors
and others can quickly be qualified for enrollment 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 targeted to 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 2007, 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 2009.
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 39 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 2008 is $18.57, 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 2009 would
eliminate CSFP completely, and would eliminate all of this effort and
support of those 39 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 the 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 473,473 mothers, children and seniors
currently receiving benefits, 20,500 low-income participants currently
waiting in 5 new States and 104,137 seniors waiting in current States
for this vital nutrition program.
There is no discernible plan to address the long-term needs of
those affected by the elimination of CSFP. The proposed transition plan
provides that seniors being removed from CSFP will be provided a Food
Stamp Program (FSP) benefit of $20 per month for up to 6 months, or
until the participant actually enrolls in the FSP, whichever comes
first. 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. Also of
importance is the fact the CSFP covers the non-WIC eligible populations
of post-partum mothers from 6monts to 1 year and children up to age 6.
As referenced earlier, CSFP provides a food package that costs USDA
about $19 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
respectfully requests that the Senate Agriculture Appropriations
Subcommittee take the appropriate actions to funding CSFP for fiscal
year 2009 at $175 million as illustrated below:
To continue serving the 473,473 needy seniors (93 percent of
participants), women, infants and children (7 percent of participants)
currently enrolled in CSFP--$142 Million.
To meet USDA's commodity procurement expenses--$0.7 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)--$6.2 Million.
To serve an additional 104,137 individuals among of our nation's
most vulnerable individuals in the 32 States with existing programs and
documented additional needs--$23.4 Million.
Total Appropriation needed to maximize this program's effectiveness
in serving 617,251 seniors and women and their infants and young
children challenged by hunger--$175 Million Total.
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;
--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. We appreciate the continued support from so many diverse
senators and attach the letter currently being circulated in support of
our program by Senators Stabenow and Domenici. A final, signed copy of
the letter should soon be submitted to your committee from your
colleagues.
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 $4108,235 $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
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.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians
On behalf of the tribal nations of the National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI), we are pleased to present our recommendations
on the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget for Indian programs.
Agriculture is the second leading employer in Indian Country, and
is the backbone of the economy for approximately 130 Native American
Tribes. During the last agriculture census in 2002, American Indians
operated 56.8 million acres of land and sold $1.64 billion of
agricultural products, including $781 million of crops and $857 million
of livestock.\1\ Agriculture will continue to be an economic driver on
Indian Reservations, and USDA programs and services will continue to
play a crucial role in the progression of economic development, and
agriculture and natural resource programs throughout Indian Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 2002 National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
nutrition assistance
The Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations (FDPIR)
provides food assistance to nearly 250 tribes across the country in
lieu of participation in the Food Stamp Program. FDPIR is more than
simply a supplemental program, in many cases it is the sole source of
food for low income tribal members living on or near geographically
isolated reservations.
Historically, food packages have included what remains of Federal
commodity programs, such as bleached flour, sugar, potatoes, corn, and
butter. The immediate and drastic shift from healthy subsistence and
traditional foods to foods high in sugar, starch and fat created a
quiet epidemic across Indian reservations: diabetes and obesity. It is
imperative that food assistance to Indian tribes be improved to deliver
better foods to improve human health for tribal members receiving foods
from FDPIR.
For decades the USDA's answer to Tribal requests for the inclusion
of healthier and more traditional Native foods in the FDPIR food
packages has been that the program has insufficient funds. The FDPIR is
a crucial program for Indian Tribes, and increased funding is needed to
improve the nutrition content of food packages and offset rising
transportation and maintenance costs.
The FDPIR budget includes the costs of program administration by
the Indian Tribal Organization (ITO) or State agency, food storage,
food delivery, vehicle maintenance, employee salaries, nutrition
education as well as the purchase of foods for distribution.
--NCAI urges Congress to increase funding to FDPIR above $90 million
to support this essential program for Indian tribes.
extension indian reservation program (eirp)
Congress mandates and funds research and extension services in
every county in the Nation except on Indian reservations. The Extension
Indian Reservation Program (EIRP) provides the only Federal source for
funding to cover the cost of placing extension agents on Indian
reservations. Indian reservations have only had access to USDA Offices
since 1990, when EIRP was established to provide Indian farmers and
ranchers direct access to USDA programs and information. EIRP was
authorized to deliver USDA offices on 85 large reservations. Funding,
however, has remained low, at only $3 million for fiscal year 2007-
2008, and only provides the Federal match for 31 USDA offices, well
short of the 85 that were intended.
--NCAI asks that the EIRP program be funded at $8 million a year to
improve USDA services to Indian tribes by placing more
extension agents on reservations.
indian land acquisition program
Tribes have been subjected to a myriad of Federal policies that
have distributed and redistributed our homelands into an often
confusing array of checkerboard land ownership, which significantly
stunts efficient agricultural and economic development in Indian
Country. USDA provides loans to tribal governments to purchase ``highly
fractionated'' lands under a process delineated in the Indian Land
Consolidation Act Amendments of 2004. These loans allow tribes to
purchase parcels of land that are considered ``highly fractionated,''
defined as lands that have over 100 individual owners or where no one
owner owns more than 10 percent of the parcel). Fractionated land
hampers agriculture by taking land out of production while
simultaneously becoming grounds for invasive species. Moreover,
tracking fractionated land costs the Federal Government significant
amounts of money annually, taking away from providing beneficial
services to Indian communities. It was estimated in 2002 that it would
cost just over $2 billion to consolidate all fractionated interests.
--The Indian Land Acquisition Program was authorized at $12 million a
year, but has never been funded over $2 million. NCAI requests
that this program be funded at $12 million in order to tackle
one of the most pressing and longstanding problems in Indian
Country.
outreach to socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers (2501 program)
The 2501 Program provides outreach and technical assistance to
Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, including Indian tribes.
This has been the primary source of outreach from the USDA to many
minority farmers, and helps to promote agriculture to rural
communities. Most tribal communities do not have access to USDA
offices, and the 2501 Program provides an opportunity for small
communities to participate in agriculture.
--The 2501 Program, Outreach to Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers, should be funded at $15 million to improve USDA
delivery to tribal communities.
1994 (tribal colleges & universities) land grant institutions
Tribal Colleges are the heart and soul of higher education in
Indian Country. They are considered one of the most important steps in
revitalizing education, culture and language, and the economy in Indian
Country. Nonetheless, despite their many obligations and roles, TCUs
remain the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in this
country.
Over a dozen years since securing land grant status TCUs have yet
to be recognized and funded as full partners in the nation's land grant
system. Funding at the requested levels is a small but critical first
step in addressing disparities that currently exist in the land grant
system, and with supporting higher education for Native Americans.
(Chart adjusted from March 12, 2008 NCAI Budget Recommendations)
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year 2009
Program name 2008 NCAI request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 Institutions' Extension Program.. $3.221 $5
1994 Institutions' Equity Grant 3.342 3.3
Program..............................
1994 Institutions' Endowment Fund..... 11.880 12
1994 Institutions' Research Program... 1.544 3
1994 Institutions' Community 4 5
Facilities...........................
Tribal College Essential Community 4 5
Facilities Program--(Rural
Development).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Prepared Statement of the National Corn Growers Association
The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) appreciates the
opportunity to share with the subcommittee our energy and water
development appropriations priorities for fiscal year 2009, and we
respectfully requests this statement be made part of the official
hearing record. In general, our agriculture appropriations priorities
include support for the Plant Genomic Research, APHIS Biotechnology
Regulatory Service, FAS SPS Issues Resolution, FAS Market Access
Program, National Corn to Ethanol Research Center, Ethanol Co-product
Utilization, and the Value-Added Product Market Development Grant
program.
NCGA's mission is to create and increase opportunities for corn
growers. NCGA represents more than 33,000 members and 48 affiliated
state organizations and hundreds of thousands of growers who contribute
to state checkoff programs.
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 $16.306 million for
the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's Biotechnology
Regulatory Service program as well as the separate funding stream
requested in the budget from the Office of the Secretary that allows
for additional potential funds towards the same. This funding request
is $4.578 million more than the fiscal year 2008 enacted BRS budget of
$11.728 million. 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 for the Foreign
Agricultural Service (FAS) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) program.
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.
National Corn to Ethanol Research Center
In 2007, fuel ethanol production from corn generated 6.5 billion
gallons of ethanol, displacing 5 percent of petroleum imports. Economic
forecasting estimates that the United States is capable of producing in
excess of 15 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.
The (NCERC) houses a state-of-the-art pilot plant which mimics the
commercial production of fuel ethanol. Updated baseline data is
continuously re.quired to be reflective of industry changes and their
impact on ethanol 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
researchers as well as ethanol plant operators. The baseline data
generated by NCERC provides a critical benchmark for 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. The rapid growth and expansion of the ethanol industry has
created a need for thousands of qualified plant process operations
personnel. The NCERC has created a unique Education and Workforce
Training Program to address this need. The initial launch of this
program, in January 2007, saw 24 displaced auto workers and skilled
trades-people successfully complete a comprehensive 5-day ethanol
process operator training program. In the past calendar year, the NCERC
conducted six installments of Workforce Training with 150 persons
successfully completing 50 hours of training in the ``Fundamentals of
Applied Ethanol Process Operations''.
More so, NCERC is well-positioned to train an immediately
productive workforce as it plays a unique role in serving the
educational mission of the university NCERC provides a year-long,
hands-on workforce training program to student interns while conducting
commercial testing trials. Since opening in late 2003, nearly 45
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 16 million tons of DDGS was fed domestically or
exported in 2007, 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
Since its establishment, the Value-Added Producer Grants Program
has been a tremendous success. This matching fund program has provided
grants to over 900 individual producers, producer-controlled
organizations and farmer cooperatives across the Nation since its
inception.
With those funds, recipients are empowered to capitalize on new
value-added business opportunities that would have otherwise gone
unexplored. Their successes have translated into greater and more
stable income for producers from the marketplace. It has also served to
promote economic development and create needed jobs, especially in
rural areas where employment opportunities are often limited. Potential
technologies include processing identity-preserved corn varieties and
adding value to the non-fermentable components of the corn feedstock.
The benefits of this program far exceed the cost. Given its track
record of success, we believe that strong justification exists to
provide full funding for USDA's Value-Added Producer Grants Program.
Thank you for the support and assistance you have provided to corn
growers over the years. Please feel free to contact Jon Doggett at 202-
628-7001 if you need any additional information.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, we would like to thank
you for your continued leadership and support for U.S. agriculture. The
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives (NCFC) appreciates this
opportunity to submit its views regarding the fiscal year 2009
agriculture appropriations bill, and respectfully requests this
statement be made part of the official hearing record.
NCFC represents the interests of America's farmer cooperatives.
There are nearly 3,000 farmer cooperatives across the United States
whose members include a majority of our Nation's more than 2 million
farmers.
We believe that our farmer cooperative members offer the best
opportunity for America to realize the farmer-focused ideal of American
agricultural policy. These farmer cooperatives allow individual farmers
the ability to own and lead organizations that are essential for
continued competitiveness in both the domestic and international
markets.
America's farmer-owned cooperatives provide a comprehensive array
of services for their members. These diverse organizations handle,
process and market virtually every type of agricultural commodity
produced. They also provide farmers with access to infrastructure
necessary to manufacture, distribute and sell a variety of farm inputs.
Additionally, they provide credit and related financial services,
including export financing.
In all cases farmers are empowered, as elected board members, to
make decisions affecting the current and future activities of their
cooperative. Earnings derived from these activities are returned by
cooperatives to their farmer-members on a patronage basis thereby
enhancing their overall farm income.
America's farmer cooperatives also generate benefits that
strengthen our national economy. They provide jobs for nearly 250,000
Americans with a combined payroll over $8 billion. Many of these jobs
are in rural areas where employment opportunities are often limited.
Congress faces many challenges in the current budget environment
and we appreciate the difficulty of your task. However, we want to
emphasize the continued importance of policies under the current Farm
Bill that promote an economically healthy and competitive U.S.
agricultural sector.
These programs serve a variety of purposes including: meeting the
food and fiber needs of consumers worldwide, strengthening farm income,
improving our balance of trade, promoting rural development, and
creating needed jobs.
There is a long history of congressional support for farmer
cooperatives, recognizing that they serve a variety of essential
functions for American agriculture. Some of these functions include:
enhancing producers' overall income, managing their risk, capitalizing
on new market opportunities, and helping individual farmers work
together to compete more effectively in a global economy.
Given these vital tasks that farmer cooperatives perform on behalf
of their members, it is extremely important that they retain the
flexibility to modernize and adapt to the current and future
marketplace confronting U.S. agriculture. Accordingly, in addition to
supporting basic farm and commodity programs under the current Farm
Bill, we recommend the following:
USDA's Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RB-CS)
Several years ago, the Cooperative Service was eliminated as a
separate agency within USDA. Since that time, the focus of research,
education and technical assistance for farmer cooperatives has eroded.
Funding for such purposes has generally been provided through the
salary and expense budget relating to rural development.
For fiscal year 2009, the administration's budget proposal provides
$700 million in both budget authority and program level for salaries
and expenses for the rural development mission area, compared to $685
million for fiscal year 2008.
Since there is no separate line item relating to programs in
support of farmer cooperatives, we recommend that specific language be
included, as Congress has approved in the past, relating to farmer
cooperatives. Those directives should ensure that programs to encourage
the development and continued competitiveness of farmer cooperatives be
given a high priority.
Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants
USDA's Value-Added Agricultural Product Market Development Grants
Program encourages and enhances farmer (and farmer cooperative)
participation in value-added businesses. These new ventures are
intended to help producers capture a larger share of the value of their
production and improve their overall income from the marketplace. These
activities also promote economic development and create needed jobs in
rural areas.
The program is administered on a matching-fund basis, thereby
doubling the impact of such grants and helping encourage investment in
rural America. As a cost-share program, it has served as an excellent
example of an effective public-private partnership. Despite abbreviated
funding levels, successful applicants have brought a number of self-
sustaining products to market with the initial help of this program.
Since the program's inception, NCFC has been a leader of a
coalition of farmers, cooperatives and related rural interests that
utilize and strongly support the Value-Added Agricultural Product
Market Development Grants Program. Given the importance and success of
the program in promoting efforts by farmers to develop new, higher-
value products and sustainable increases in farm sector income, the
coalition is recommending an increase to $60 million annually in
mandatory spending under the upcoming Farm Bill. We are hopeful that
the subcommittee will look favorably upon the full level of mandatory
funds authorized under that upcoming legislation.
Commodity Purchase Programs
USDA annually purchases a variety of commodities for use in
domestic and international feeding programs, including the school lunch
program. NCFC strongly supports such programs to: (1) meet the food and
nutrition needs of eligible consumers and (2) help strengthen farm
income by encouraging orderly marketing and providing farmers with an
important market outlet, especially during periods of surplus
production.
In addition to providing needed funding for such programs, it is
important to ensure that farmers who choose to cooperatively market
their products should remain fully eligible for them. Similarly, farmer
cooperatives should not be limited or excluded from utilizing these
programs, and must remain fully eligible.
As you are well aware, decades of public policy has reinforced the
fact that the cooperative stands in the shoes of its farmer-owners, as
they act for their mutual benefit. This is consistent with USDA's
historical mission in support of such cooperative efforts and essential
to ensure the continued availability of high quality products on a
competitive basis.
We urge the committee to again include provisions to ensure
continued eligibility by farmer cooperatives to the benefit of their
farmer members.
B&I Loan Guarantee Program and Farmer Cooperatives
Access to equity capital is one of the major challenges facing
farmer cooperatives. A successful resolution of this challenge is
essential in helping farmers capture more of the value of what they
produce beyond the farm gate.
In approving the current Farm Bill, Congress made a number of
changes to USDA's Business and Industry (B&I) guaranteed loan program
to better meet the needs of farmer cooperatives and their farmer
members. These included changes to allow farmers to qualify for
guaranteed loans for the purchase of stock in both new and existing
cooperatives to provide the equity capital needed to encourage more
involvement and participation in value-added activities.
For fiscal year 2009, the administration's budget proposal provides
an overall program level of $700 million, which represents a decrease
from the $993 million in loans estimated to be guaranteed in fiscal
year 2008. Accordingly, we recommend that resources be increased to at
least the fiscal year 2008 estimated level.
Rural Business Investment Program
The Rural Business Investment Program was authorized under the
current Farm Bill to help foster rural economic development by
encouraging and facilitating equity investments in rural business
enterprises, including farmer cooperatives. Again, providing improved
access to equity capital is essential if farmers are going to be able
to capitalize on value-added business opportunities through farmer
cooperatives. For these reasons, we urge that the program be fully
funded as authorized and implemented as Congress intended.
USDA Export Programs
We would also like to take this opportunity to express our strong
support for USDA's export programs. These programs are vital to
maintaining and expanding U.S. agricultural exports, counter subsidized
foreign competition, meet humanitarian needs, protect American jobs,
and strengthen farm income.
NCFC is a longstanding member of the Coalition to Promote U.S.
Agricultural Exports. That coalition is urging that mandatory funding
for the Market Access Program be provided at $325 million, together
with $50 million for the Foreign Market Development program, under the
upcoming Farm Bill. We urge that the subcommittee support the full
authorized funding levels for these essential programs.
In addition, we urge full funding for the Export Credit Guarantee
Programs, the Export Enhancement Program, Dairy Export Incentive
Program, Technical Assistance for Specialty Crops, Food for Progress,
as well as Public Law 480 and other food assistance programs, including
McGovern-Dole.
Food Aid
NCFC is a member of the Food Aid coalition and strongly supports
their testimony. Public Law 480's long history of success has created
significant congressional and private sector confidence in the program.
Farmer cooperatives have seen these benefits first-hand through our
involvement in agricultural development programs with international NGO
ACDI/VOCA.
With that background, we urge the subcommittee to reject any
proposals to divert funds from Title 1 and Title II of the Public Law
480 program. Though we recognize that the Europeans maintain a
different policy in regard to their food aid programs, it is unwise to
undermine our strong position in the World Trade Organization
negotiations by unilaterally amending Public Law 480.
Foreign Agricultural Service
Additionally, we also want to take this opportunity to urge support
for needed funding and resources for USDA's Foreign Agricultural
Service. This funding is crucial if we are to continue to effectively
carry out such programs and to provide the technical assistance and
support needed to help maintain and expand U.S. agricultural exports.
Research
Another important area of emphasis when it comes to enhancing the
global competitiveness of farmer cooperatives and American agriculture
is research. NCFC supports the National Coalition for Food and
Agriculture Research's goal of doubling Federal funding over the next 5
years.
Conservation
We also want to express our strong support for important
conservation and related programs administered by USDA's Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Many of these programs were
significantly expanded under the current Farm Bill and provide
financial and technical assistance to help farmers and others who are
eligible to develop and carry out conservation and related activities
to achieve important environmental goals.
NRCS is also the lead technical agency within USDA offering ``on-
farm'' technical and financial assistance. We strongly support such
programs, involving technical assistance activities that may be carried
out in partnership with the private sector involving farmer
cooperatives.
Farmer cooperatives have invested heavily in developing the
technical skills of their employees to help their farmer members
address environmental concerns. It is estimated that 90 percent of all
members of the Certified Crop Advisor (CCA) program, for example, are
employed by the private sector and majority of those are employed by
farmer cooperatives.
It is important that USDA have the resources to provide these
important funds and that the Department continues to refine the
technical service program (TSP).
Conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, for
the opportunity to share our views. We look forward to working with the
committee to ensure continued benefits for rural communities,
consumers, American agriculture and our Nation as a whole.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse
Programs for Small and Rural Communities
Summary
The National Drinking Water Clearinghouse (NDWC) asks for your
continued support for our work to assist small and rural communities in
the United States in maintaining safe, affordable drinking water. We
request a total of $2 million in fiscal year 2009 to support our
regular outreach programs under the NDWC ($1.6 million) and for a
focused activity called Special Services to Small Communities ($0.4
million). Our nation-wide services provide information, technical
assistance, training, education, and outreach to citizens, government
officials, service providers, and regulators for communities with
populations of 10,000 or less. The NDWC is supported through the
Technical Assistance and Training grants administered under the USDA
account for the Rural Community Assistance Program (RCAP). The first
two pages of our testimony outline the need and justification for our
services. The remainder of the testimony provides descriptive
information about the NDWC and Special Services programs.
program need and justification
Need for Federal Programs
The recent media attention given to reports of large amounts of
pharmaceuticals found in our drinking water has lead to a public outcry
for more stringent treatment of drinking water and wastewater and the
implementation of higher standards for water quality. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water survey conducted in 1999
indicated the need for drinking water systems and/or system upgrades to
be $48.1 billion for communities of 10,000 or less, and $31.2 billion
for communities of 3,300 or less. Regardless of community size, water
systems are required to comply with regulations mandated by the Safe
Drinking Water Act to ensure safe drinking water to the populace.
The expense of upgrading or installing new water systems is a
progressively heavy financial burden on smaller communities. With their
limited resources, these communities often lack a solid financial base,
adequate equipment, and properly trained water system operators. Faced
with regular turn-over in personnel due to constraints on salaries and
their lower budgets for installing infrastructure, small and rural
communities require Federal services such as training for technical
personnel and community officials and information on low-cost options
for system designs and maintenance if these communities are to keep
expenses within their budget. Without adequate water resources, these
communities are not able to grow and prosper. Safe, affordable water
infrastructure is an investment in the economic viability and public
health of rural America.
Program Justification
To assist small and rural communities address their drinking water
challenges, the Technical Assistance and Training [TAT] grants program
was started under USDA's Rural Community Advancement Program. The TAT
program makes it possible for small and rural communities to maximize
their investments in water infrastructure through assistance provided
to them for technology selection, operation and maintenance, capacity
development, and asset management.
Funding for drinking water and waste water assistance is mandated
through the Farm Bill (e.g. the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development
Act). The administration requests funding for these assistance programs
through the TAT account. However, the amount of funding that the
administration requests for the TAT program has been decreasing each
year while inflation pressures require the need for more funding just
to maintain the same level of effort. The programs of the NDWC provide
cost-effective solutions to help small community water systems meet the
challenges they face, improve their abilities to comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and protect public health.
Given the integral role that the NDWC plays in implementing the
USDA mandate in providing drinking water assistance services, we seek
continued congressional support to maintain our level of activity and
are requesting a congressionally directed appropriation through the
RCAP TAT program for $2 million. By providing Federal funds to support
the NDWC programs, the U.S. Government benefits through the economy-of-
scale of supporting one organization (the NDWC) to develop a suite of
assistance packages offered free to small communities which do not have
the extensive resources needed to develop such programs and services
from their own budgets.
ndwc and special services program descriptions
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse Program
For 17 years, the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse at West
Virginia University has helped small and rural communities with their
water infrastructure management. We have provided assistance in utility
security issues since 2001. The NDWC is currently funded at
approximately $1 million from fiscal year 2007 funds. fiscal year 2008
funding is pending and would be allocated in September, 2008.
The NDWC provides a range of assistance for small and rural
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. Our comprehensive web site and databases with
thousands of entries provide round the clock access to contemporary
information on small water systems. 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. Our
services are structured to be of assistance to callers from any
community across the Nation and are well received by small community
officials and service providers.
Special Services to Small Communities Program
In addition to the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse's
knowledge base and technical support, the NDWC is expanding its
assistance to underserved communities through technical field support.
Underserved communities populate rural Appalachia, the Mississippi
Delta, and the U.S.-Mexico Border communities, or ``Colonias,'' and
Native American Tribes. The NDWC's funding currently does not provide
for direct services to underserved communities. To initiate this
program, West Virginia University has provided internal funding to
pilot an effort to honor requests for site specific technical support.
This support has given small and very small communities assistance
through site assessments and feasibility studies that they might not
otherwise be able to access for planning needed infrastructure
improvements, their financing, and management. We are requesting
congressional support for this program which could then be offered free
of charge on a wider scale to selected communities across the Nation.
We would appreciate your continued support for the valuable
services provided by the National Drinking Water Clearinghouse. Thank
you for the opportunity to offer testimony on the USDA programs.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2009 funding for
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). We appreciate
the Subcommittee's past support and respectfully request your approval
of $4 million through the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
fiscal year 2009 appropriation.
This funding request is well within the authorized levels and would
allow the Foundation to uphold our mission and expand our successful
partnership with NRCS. Mr. Chairman, I want to make one very important
point: we are asking for your support of a well-established
conservation program with national significance. The Foundation is an
honest broker for the Federal agencies and we have a remarkable track
record of bringing private partners together to leverage Federal funds
and maximize conservation impacts.
During fiscal year 2000-2006, the Foundation received an average
appropriation of $3 million annually to further the mission of NRCS
through a matching grant program focused on private lands conservation.
We respectfully request that the subcommittee restore the NRCS
appropriation for the Foundation in fiscal year 2009 to expand our
partnership with NRCS. Together, NRCS and the Foundation have supported
nearly 500 grants to conservation districts, universities, Resource
Conservation and Development Councils, and non-profit organizations who
partner with farmers, ranchers, and foresters to support conservation
efforts on private land. Through these efforts, the Foundation
leveraged $21 million in NRCS funds into more than $85 million to
conserve fish and wildlife habitat, reduce agricultural runoff, and
remove invasive species in 49 States, the Caribbean, and the Pacific
Islands.
Since the Foundation's establishment by Congress in 1984, the
Foundation has built strong partnerships with Federal agencies by
convening cooperative efforts to further the conservation of fish,
wildlife and plants. In addition to NRCS, the Foundation works closely
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Department of
Interior agencies, U.S. Forest Service, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency,
among others. While the Foundation's Congressional charter requires a
minimum of a 1:1 match for federally appropriated dollars, three or
more matching dollars are typically leveraged from the non-Federal
sector for conservation projects. Therefore, a NRCS appropriation of $4
million in fiscal year 2009 has the potential to turn into $16 million
or more for on-the-ground conservation. Funds appropriated by this
subcommittee are fully dedicated to project grants and do not cover any
overhead expenses of the Foundation.
The Foundation continues to excel in grant-making while providing
thought leadership, accountability and sustainable conservation
outcomes. Our unique ability to organize Federal agencies and private
partners to work together to achieve mutual conservation goals through
on-the-ground and in-the-water grant programs is notable and there is
significant potential to advance these efforts in fiscal year 2009 and
beyond.
Renewal of NRCS funding for the Foundation will attract private
sector interest in conservation through corporate sponsorship and
direct gifts. With past support from NRCS, the Foundation was
successful in attracting $750,000 of matching funds through the Kellogg
Foundation to support innovative and sustainable conservation
activities on agricultural lands. The Foundation also has strong
partnerships with Anheuser-Busch, Southern Company, and the McKnight
Foundation, all of whom have a special interest in conserving habitat
on private agricultural lands.
Reinstatement of NRCS appropriations will encourage new corporate
partnerships to further leverage Federal funds for fish and wildlife
conservation on private lands. Through our targeted grants, the
Foundation strategically invests Federal funds entrusted to us to
achieve measurable success in ``moving the needle'' on collaborative
conservation objectives over the next 5 to 10-year period.
Conserving Fish, Wildlife, Plants and Habitats
Fiscal year 2009 appropriations through NRCS will be focused on
mutually agreed upon projects across the country according to our
Keystone Initiatives and the objectives of the Foundation's Special
Grant Programs, which are specific to a geographic area, group of
species, or conservation concern. 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 Foundation continued
implementing a new strategic plan and developing targeted Keystone
Initiatives, with the goal of achieving sustainable and measurable
conservation impacts.
Four Keystone Initiatives were launched by the Foundation in 2007:
(1) Birds (2) Wildlife and Habitats (3) Fish and (4) Marine and Coastal
Conservation. 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. Achieving
success through our Keystone Initiatives will also help to fulfill the
objectives of the National Fish Habitat Action Plan, North American
Waterfowl Management Plan, and Partners in Flight, among others.
With NRCS appropriations, the Foundation can accelerate our
collaborative efforts to achieve long-term conservation impacts for
fish and wildlife through our Keystone Initiatives. Increased funding
in fiscal year 2009 will also help to strengthen the Foundation's
Special Grant Programs, a few of which are highlighted below:
--The Great Lakes Watershed Restoration Fund is a partnership between
NRCS, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service,
Environmental Protection Agency, and NOAA to promote ecosystem
restoration in the Great Lakes watershed. Since 2005, the
Foundation has leveraged $1.9 million in Federal funds with
$3.8 million in partner contributions and matching funds to
support 36 projects throughout the watershed. In 2008, the
program is anticipated to award an additional $1.5 million to
restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat in the Great
Lakes Basin. In January, the Foundation announced a new
corporate partnership with ArcelorMittal, an international
steel company, which will provide an additional $2.1 million
over 3 years for our grant-making in the watershed and help to
implement the habitat objectives of the Great Lakes Regional
Collaboration.
--The Upper Mississippi River Watershed Fund was established in
partnership with the U.S. Forest Service and NRCS to restore
and protect the forest ecosystems and watersheds of the Upper
Mississippi River drainage area. Intensive land use and
expanding navigation of the river have transformed the river
and its watershed. Forest restoration and sustainable
stewardship is critical to the area's fish and wildlife
populations and the ability to address water quality issues.
Projects emphasize restoration of bottomland hardwoods,
wetlands, and riparian areas to benefit migratory birds,
amphibians, fish and other aquatic species. Since 2006,
$600,000 in Federal funds was leveraged with $1.4 million in
non-Federal funds to support eight projects in five States of
the Upper Mississippi River Watershed.
--The Chesapeake Bay Stewardship Fund is a partnership among NRCS,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and
the U.S. Forest Service to restore and protect water quality
and vital habitats within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. As part
of the Fund, the Foundation administers EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Target Watershed Grants and Small Watershed Grants. In 2008,
the Foundation will also partner with NRCS to manage $5 million
through their Chesapeake Bay Conservation Innovation Grants
program. By convening Federal partners through the Fund, the
Foundation serves as a ``one-stop-shop'' for grantees and plays
an important role in maximizing conservation outcomes.
Other Special Grant Programs, including the Pulling Together
Initiative, Bring Back the Natives, Coral Reef Conservation Fund, and
the Delaware Estuary Watershed Grant Program, continued positive
results in 2007 with grantee requests far exceeding available funds. As
mentioned, the Foundation is successfully building bridges between the
government and private sector to benefit NRCS's mission. With support
from this Subcommittee, we can accelerate our investment in common-
sense, innovative, cooperative approaches that directly benefit diverse
habitats, water quality and quantity, and a wide range fish and
wildlife species.
A Tradition of Successful and Accountable Performance
Since 1984, the Foundation has awarded nearly 9,500 grants to over
3,000 organizations in the United States and abroad and leveraged--with
its partners--more than $400 million in Federal funds into over $1.3
billion for conservation. NFWF is recognized by Charity Navigator with
a 4-star rating for efficiency and effectiveness.
The Foundation has taken important strides to improve our grant
review and contracting process to ensure we maximize efficiency while
maintaining strict financial and evaluation-based requirements.
Interactive tools through our website have improved communication with
our stakeholders and helped to streamline our grant making process. We
expect that as of spring 2008, the Foundation will be operating under a
paperless application system.
Grant-making through our Keystone Initiatives and Special Grant
Programs involves a thorough internal and external review process. Peer
reviews involve Federal and State agencies, affected industry, non-
profit organizations, 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, according to our Congressional Charter, 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.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued
support and hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the
Foundation in fiscal year 2009.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Organic Coalition
Chairman Kohl, Ranking Member Bennett, and Members of the
Subcommittee: My name is Steven Etka. I am submitting this testimony on
behalf of the National Organic Coalition (NOC) to detail our requests
for fiscal year 2009 funding for several USDA marketing, research, and
conservation programs of importance to organic agriculture.
The National Organic Coalition (NOC) is a national alliance of
organizations working to provide a voice for farmers, ranchers,
environmentalists, consumers, cooperative retailers and others involved
in organic agriculture. The current members of NOC are the Beyond
Pesticides, Center for Food Safety, Equal Exchange, Food and Water
Watch, Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, Midwest Organic
and Sustainable Education Service, National Cooperative Grocers
Association, Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance, Northeast
Organic Farming Association-Interstate Policy Council, Rural
Advancement Foundation International-USA, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists.
We urge the Subcommittee's strong consideration of the following
funding requests for various USDA programs of importance to organic
farmers, marketers and consumers:
USDA/Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Organic Standards--Request: $6 million.
In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, funding of $2.026 was appropriated
for the National Organic Program within the AMS budget. For fiscal year
2008, in keeping with the President's budget request for the program,
$3.18 million was appropriated for the National Organic Program. The
President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposes that the National Organic
Program be funded at $3.98 million.
With the rapid expansion of the organic market in the United States
and abroad, the tasks facing the National Organic Program are numerous,
yet the resources of the agency are few. The responsibilities of the
NOP staff are exploding, as they attempt to enforce the standards
governing the growing organic sector. If the funding for this program
does not expand significantly to meet the growing needs, we fear that
the important work of the NOP will suffer, the integrity of the organic
standards will be jeopardized, and public confidence in the USDA
organic label will be eroded.
Without a doubt, Congress has been very responsive to the funding
needs of the NOP in recent years, in most cases fully funding the
increases proposed by the President's budget each year. However, we
believe that funding increase requested in the President's budget this
year may not be adequate to address the exploding growth of the organic
sector.
Some of the difficulties that the NOP has faced in implementing and
overseeing the organic standards can be attributed to budget problems.
Rulemaking efforts important to organic farmers, consumers, processors
and retailers are languishing. For example, USDA has been promising for
nearly 2 years to move forward on the proposal of a new, updated
pasture standard to govern organic livestock, yet no formal action has
taken place. Also, a regulation to clarify the standards for origin of
livestock in organic dairy operations is also greatly needed.
In addition, some unfulfilled statutory requirements are still
unanswered, despite Congressional prodding.
Specifically, the Senate report language in fiscal years 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 called on the NOP to establish an on-going
Peer Review Panel, as called for in Section 2117 of the Organic Foods
Production Act of 1990 and Section 205.509 of the Organic rule, to
provide oversight and advice to the NOP regarding the accreditation
process for organic certifiers.
In recognition of the growing pains that the NOP was experiencing
in implementing the new organic standards, the agency wisely sought
outside advice for recommendations for program improvements. The NOP
contracted with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to
perform an outside audit of the agency, the results of which were
presented in late 2004. The ANSI audit noted numerous technical and
procedural deficiencies in the NOP's operations and suggested
corrective actions in several areas. In addition, USDA's own Inspector
General's office released an audit report regarding the National
Organic Program in July of 2005, which was very critical of the
National Organic Program's operations, and also suggested several
corrective actions that could be taken by the Agency to resolve the
problems. The Members of the National Organic Coalition concur with the
recommendations of the ANSI and Office of Inspector General (OIG)
audits, and believe that if the NOP were to implement these
recommendations, it would be a significant step to resolving many of
the concerns that have been raised by the organic community regarding
the NOP's operations. However, it is unclear whether these
recommendations are being implemented. We believe that the House and
Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittees should be kept informed
by NOP with regular reports on their progress in complying with these
recommendations.
In order to provide the National Organic Program with greater
resources to fulfill these required tasks, and for certifier training,
National Organic Standards Board support, enforcement, and rulemaking
processes, we are requesting $6 million for AMS/National Organic
Program, and we are also requesting that the following report language
be included:
The Committee is aware that an audit performed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) in 2004 and by the USDA Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in 2005 made strong recommendations about
changes needed in the administration of the National Organic Program.
The Committee expects the Agency to take the necessary actions to
comply with these recommendations, and to provide a detailed written
report to the Committee by December of 2008 regarding progress in
implementing these recommendations. The Committee also notes that the
agency is long-overdue in publishing regulations for new, updated
pasture standards for organic ruminants, and that conflicting standards
governing the origin of livestock used in organic dairy operations may
require rulemaking on that topic as well. The Committee hopes to see
action taken by NOP on these matters during fiscal year 2009. Finally,
the Committee expects the NOP to work closely with the National Organic
Standards Board to implement the accreditation Peer Review Panel
requirements of OFPA and USDA's organic regulations.
USDA/Organic Data Initiatives
Authorized by Section 7407 of the 2002 Farm Bill, the Organic
Production and Marketing Data Initiative States that the ``Secretary
shall ensure that segregated data on the production and marketing of
organic agricultural products is included in the ongoing baseline of
data collection regarding agricultural production and marketing.'' The
pending 2008 Farm Bill includes draft language continues and enhance
this data collection effort as well. As the organic industry matures
and grows at a rapid rate, the lack of national data for the
production, pricing, and marketing of organic products has been an
impediment to further development of the industry and to the effective
functioning of many organic programs within USDA. Because of the multi-
agency nature of data collection within USDA, the effort to improve
organic data collection and analysis must also be undertaken by several
different agencies within the Department:
Economic Research Service (ERS)
Collection and Analysis of Organic Economic Data--Request:
$750,000.
Since fiscal year 2006, Congress has appropriated $500,000 to
USDA's Economic Research Service to continue the collection of valuable
acreage and production data, as required by Section 7407 of the 2002
farm bill.
Because increased ability to conduct economic analysis for the
organic farming sector is greatly needed, we request $750,000 to be
appropriated to the USDA ERS to implement the ``Organic Production and
Market Data Initiative'' included in Section 7407 of the 2002 Farm
Bill.
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)
Organic Price Collection--Request: language supporting continued
funding from RMA to AMS for organic price collection.
Accurate, public reporting of agricultural price ranges and trends
helps to level the playing field for producers. Wholesale and retail
price information on a regional basis is critical to farmers and
ranchers, but organic producers have fewer sources of price information
available to them than conventional producers. Additionally, the lack
of appropriate actuarial data has made it difficult for organic farmers
to apply for and receive equitable Federal crop insurance. AMS Market
News is involved in tracking product prices for conventional
agricultural products. During the last couple of years, the Risk
Management Agency (RMA) has provided some funding to the AMS, through a
Memorandum of Understanding, to begin the collection of organic price
data for a few selected commodities. We request that the Committee
express its support for the continuation and expansion of this MOU
between RMA and AMS.
USDA/CSREES
Organic Transitions Program--Request: $5 million.
The Organic Transition Program, funded through the CSREES budget,
is a research grant program that helps farmers surmount some of the
challenges of organic production and marketing. As the organic industry
grows, the demand for research on topics related to organic agriculture
is experiencing significant growth as well. The benefits of this
research are far-reaching, with broad applications to all sectors of
U.S. agriculture, even beyond the organic sector. Yet funding for
organic research is minuscule in relation to the relative economic
importance of organic agriculture and marketing in this Nation.
The CSREES Organic Transition Program was funded at $2.1 million in
fiscal year 2003, $1.9 million in fiscal year 2004, $1.88 million for
both fiscal years 2005 and 2006, and $1.855 million for fiscal years
2007 and 2008. Given the rapid increase in demand for organic foods and
other products, and the growing importance of organic agriculture, the
research needs of the organic community are expanding commensurately.
Therefore, we are requesting that the program be funded at $5 million
in fiscal year 2009, consistent with the funding providing in the
House's initial fiscal year 2007 Agriculture Appropriations bill. In
addition, we are requesting that the Organic Transition Program remain
a separate program, and urge the Committee to reject the
administration's proposal to subsume the funding for this program with
the NRI.
USDA/CSREES
National Research Initiative (NRI)--Request: Language directing
CSREES to add a new NRI program area to foster classical plant and
animal breeding.
In recent decades, public resources for classical plant and animal
breeding have dwindled, while resources have shifted toward genomics
and biotechnology, with a focus on a limited set of major crops and
breeds. Unfortunately, this shift has significantly curtailed the
public access to plant and animal germplasm, and limited the diversity
of seed variety and animal breed development. This problem has been
particularly acute for organic and sustainable farmers, who seek access
to germplasm well suited to their unique cropping systems and their
local environment. Without renewed funding in this arena, the public
capacity for plant and animal breeding will disappear.
In fiscal years 2005, 2006, and 2007, the Senate Agriculture
Appropriations Subcommittee included report language raising concerns
about this problem, and urging CSREES to give greater consideration to
research needs related to classical plant and animal breeding, when
setting priorities within the National Research Initiative. Despite
this report language, research proposals for classical plant and animal
breeding that have sought NRI funding in the recent years have been
consistently declined. Further, the shift in NRI toward work on
genomics and biotechnology continues, to the exclusion of classical
plant and animal breeding.
Both the House and Senate versions of the Farm Bill include
language to make classical plant and animal breeding a priority within
the CSREES competitive grant process. The House version includes this
language in the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems
(IFAFS) program, whereas the Senate version includes this language
within the National Research Initiative (NRI). Whichever version of the
language is enacted in final Farm Bill, it will be very helpful to have
the point reiterated by the Appropriations Committee.
Therefore, we are encouraging the inclusion of strong report
language in the CSREES section of the fiscal year 2009 Agriculture
Appropriations bill, to reiterate that CSREES should be making
classical plant and animal breeding a priority.
The following report language is offered as a suggestion, though it
may need to be modified based on the outcome of the Farm Bill:
Section X of the X Act of 2008 (H.R. 2419) specifies that CSREES
make classical plant and animal breeding activities a priority within
the (NRI or IFAFS) program. The Committee strongly concurs with the
intent of this section, and requests a report from the agency as to its
plans for implementing the intent of this important requirement
USDA/CSREES
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE)--Request: $15
million (Chapter 1) and $5 million (Chapter 3).
The SARE program has been very successful in funding on-farm
research on environmentally sound and profitable practices and systems,
including organic production. The reliable information developed and
distributed through SARE grants have been invaluable to organic
farmers. We are requesting $15 million for Chapter 1 and $5 million for
Chapter 3 for fiscal year 2009.
USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA)--Request:
$3 million.
ATTRA is a national sustainable agriculture information service,
which provides practical information and technical assistance to
farmers, ranchers, Extension agents, educators and others interested in
sustainable agriculture. ATTRA interacts with the public, not only
through its call-in service and website, but also provides numerous
publications written to help address some of the most frequently asked
questions of farmers and educators. Much of the real-world assistance
provided by ATTRA is extremely helpful to the organic community. As a
result, the growth in demand for ATTRA services has increased
significantly, both through the website-based information services and
through the growing requests for workshops. We are requesting $3
million for ATTRA for fiscal year 2009.
USDA/ARS
Organic Agricultural Systems Research--Request: Devote ARS research
dollars commensurate with organic's retail market share.
USDA research programs have not kept pace with the growth of
organic agriculture in the marketplace. Although organic currently
represents roughly 3.5 percent of total U.S. food retail market, the
share of USDA research targeted to organic agriculture and marketing is
significantly less. With regard to ARS specifically, efforts have been
made to devote greater resources to organic research. In fiscal year
2007, ARS expended approximately $15 million on organic research. While
this figure is an increase from previous years, a ``fair share'' of
expenditures would be closer to $40 million annually using organic's
retail market share as a basis of comparison. In fact, both the House
and Senate versions of the Farm Bill include Sense of Congress language
that ARS funding should be dedicated to organic research at a rate
commensurate with organic's retail market share.
Not only is organic research not receiving an appropriate share of
research dollars, but the ARS research location cuts proposed in the
President's fiscal year 2009 budget would result in a disproportionate
cut in ARS research. Specifically, much of the flagship organic
research being conducted by ARS originates from the Orono, Maine,
University Park, Pennsylvania, Urbana, Illinois and Morris, Minnesota
research locations. All of these locations are slated for closure under
the President's budget request.
Therefore, we are requesting that language be added to the fiscal
year 2009 Agriculture Appropriations bill to require ARS to devote
dollars toward organic research at a rate commensurate with organic's
retail market share, and to reject the President's proposal to close
the Orono, Maine, University Park, Pennsylvania, Urbana, Illinois and
Morris, Minnesota research locations.
USDA/NRCS
Conservation Security Program--Request: No Funding Limitation.
USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service
Value-Added Producer Grants--Request: $40 million.
The Conservation Security Program (authorized by Section 2001 of
the 2002 farm bill) and the Value-Added Producer Grant (authorized by
Section 6401 of the 2002 farm bill) have great potential to benefit
organic and conventional producers in their efforts to conserve natural
resources and to explore new, value-added enterprises as part of their
operations. Unfortunately, while these programs were authorized to
operate with mandatory funding, their usefulness has been limited by
funding restrictions imposed through the annual appropriations process.
We are urging that the Conservation Security Program be permitted to
operate with unrestricted mandatory funding, and that the Value-Added
Producer Grant Program receive an appropriation of $40 million for
fiscal year 2009.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify and for your
consideration on these critical funding requests.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Potato Council
My name is Ed Schneider. I am a potato farmer from Pasco,
Washington and current Vice President, Legislative/Government Affairs
for the National Potato Council (NPC). On behalf of the NPC, we thank
you for your attention to the needs of our potato growers.
The NPC is the only trade association representing commercial
growers in 50 States. Our growers produce both seed potatoes and
potatoes for consumption in a variety of forms. Annual production is
estimated at 437,888,000 cwt. with a farm value of $3.2 billion. Total
value is substantially increased through processing. The potato crop
clearly has a positive impact on the U.S. economy.
The potato is the most popular of all vegetables grown and consumed
in the United States and one of the most popular in the world. Annual
per capita consumption was 136.5 pounds in 2003, up from 104 pounds in
1962 and is increasing due to the advent of new products and heightened
public awareness of the potato's excellent nutritional value. Potatoes
are considered a nutritious consumer commodity and an integral,
delicious component of the American diet.
The NPC's fiscal year 2009 appropriations priorities are as
follows:
potato research
Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES)
The NPC urges that Congress not support the President's fiscal year
2009 budget request to eliminate the CSREES Special Grant Programs. The
Potato Special Grant 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 2009. The Congress appropriated
$1,482,000 in fiscal year 2006 and recommended the same amount in
fiscal year 2007. However, the program only received $1,112,000 in
fiscal year 2008 which was further reduced by the across-the-board cut.
The House Subcommittee recommended $1.4 million while the Senate
Subcommittee recommended only $750,000. 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 Congress provided funds for a number of important ARS potato
research 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.
In addition, the Potato Cyst Nematode Laboratory at Cornell
University is structurally deficient and may lose its Federal license
to operate as a quarantine facility. Its demise would not only
jeopardize New York agriculture but also put the U.S. potato industry
at risk. Equally important is the risk to the Western United States
from the Idaho and Alberta outbreaks. There is also a need for a
similar facility in Idaho. A coordinated National Program is critical
if export markets are to be maintained and this quarantined pest is to
be contained.
The NPC urges that $2.5 million per site be provided for the
construction and/or the expansion of such a facility at each location.
As an expansion of the Insect Containment Facility at Cornell
University (CU), the eastern facility could be operated similarly to
the current facility. A potential scenario might envisage a new
facility built on CU-donated land with the State of New York providing
continued maintenance and utility support and ARS providing research
program support. The Western facility could be constructed on
University of Idaho land where an existing nematologist is present and
a core ARS presence already exists.
Both species of Potato Cyst Nematode (PCN), Golden and Pale, are
quarantine pests of potatoes. The Golden nematode was discovered in New
York in 1941. The Pale Cyst Nematode was discovered in Idaho in 2006.
The Pale Cyst Nematode has also been detected in potato production
areas in Alberta, Canada that supply seed potatoes primarily to the
Northwestern United States, but also to States such as Florida and
North Carolina. Eradication of PCN is difficult because PCN cysts
remain viable in the soil for 20 plus years and can be found at soil
depths up to 40 inches.
The Quarantine and Management program in New York has confined the
nematode to limited acreage for 60 plus years due to yearly surveys by
APHIS and New York State Ag and Markets, and the implementation of
effective management plans developed by ARS and Cornell University
scientists. The continued success of the program has been challenged by
a recent discovery of a new race of PCN in New York and first-time
discoveries of PCN in Idaho, Quebec and Alberta. If PCN expands into
other States, the entire U.S. potato industry will be affected, not
only from direct damage by the pest (up to 80 percent yield loss), but
more importantly, by embargoes disrupting interstate and international
trade.
Breeding nematode resistant potato varieties is the cornerstone of
the New York PCN research team. Access to resistant varieties allows
continued production and international marketing of New York potatoes.
The New York PCN research team, currently the only one in the United
States, is uniquely positioned to develop potato germplasm with viable
broad spectrum and durable resistance to PCN and to provide material to
other breeding programs in the United States and Canada. Already the
New York PCN team has been a major resource for establishing PCN
detection programs in Idaho and Quebec, and is providing leadership,
resources and expertise to a newly established U.S. PCN working group
and to Canadian provincial agencies. Almost 60 percent of the U.S.
potato production is in the Pacific Northwest. Without a program to
test for resistance as part of the Northwest Potato Breeding program,
to support the current containment and eradication program in Idaho and
to aggressively survey for possible infections from Alberta, the entire
U.S. industry is at risk.
The PCN Laboratory at Cornell is the only U.S. facility that
conducts laboratory and greenhouse research on PCN. It is structurally
deficient and in danger of being denied its Federal license to operate
as a quarantine facility. Constructed as a temporary building prior to
1960, Cornell University engineers have determined that major
renovations are not economically feasible. Its demise would put New
York agriculture and the U.S. potato industry at risk. Similarly,
without a Western facility to conduct this research under Western
growing conditions, over 60 percent of the U.S. production is in
jeopardy.
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 the authorized level determined
by the final version of the new Farm Bill.
Foreign Agriculture Service (FAS)
The NPC supports the President's fiscal year 2009 budget request of
$279 million for salaries and expenses of the USDA Foreign Agriculture
Service. This level is the minimum 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.
However, this minimal budget request does not allow for expanded
enforcement activities to assure that various trade agreements are
being properly implemented. The Congress should consider increasing the
budget request to allow for more FAS trade enforcement activities.
food aid programs
McGovern-Dole
The NPC supports the administration's fiscal year 2009 budget
request of $108 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.
The administration's request is only $800,000.
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 yet been
adequately addressed.
Pest Detection.--The NPC supports $45 million for fiscal year 2009
which was the administration's budget request for fiscal year 2008.
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, and funds many cooperative pest
and disease programs. The administration's fiscal year 2009 request is
reduced to $31 million.
Emerging Plant Pests.--The President requests $145 million in
fiscal year 2009 which the NPC supports. However, this budget request
includes only $7.7 million for potato cyst nematode regulatory, control
and survey activity. The NPC urges that this program be increased to at
least the fiscal year 2008 level of $9.5 million.
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 2008 and the President requests $19 million in fiscal year
2009. 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. The NPC also urges that additional funds be appropriated so
that the agency can continue its vegetable pesticide use surveys, which
provide valuable data to the EPA for use in registration and
reregistration decisions for key chemical tools. NASS has discontinued
these chemical use surveys for fruits and vegetables.
USDA IR-4 Program
For fiscal year 2009 the administration requests $14.795 million
for CSREES programs and $4.545 million for ARS programs. The NPC
supports this as a minimum. The Program received $11.3 million for the
CSREES and $3.8 million for ARS.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Telecommunications Cooperative
Association
The ubiquitous deployment of state of the art communications
infrastructure that is capable of ensuring all Americans have access to
the array of communications services that are so essential to our
national, economic, and personal security remains a critical national
priority.
With this in mind, obviously the communications infrastructure and
community development financing programs that are operated under the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and
Rural Business Cooperative Service (RBCS) are without question more
important today than ever before.
Congress and the President alike continue to uniformly advocate the
necessity of making advanced broadband services available to every
American--including those in the most remote far reaches of our vast
Nation. Accomplishing this objective will require the ongoing
dedication and commitment of the industry as well as the continuing
availability of the strong financing programs that exist within the RUS
and RBCS today.
Consequently, NTCA strongly urges policymakers to adopt the
following specific fiscal year 2009 funding recommendations for these
critical programs.
Rural Utilities Service
--Support the provisions of the President's budget proposal calling
for the required subsidy to fully fund the RUS
Telecommunications Loan Program's Hardship Account at a $145
million level, Cost of Money Account at a $250 million level,
and the Guaranteed Account at a $295 million level.
--Support the provisions of the President's budget proposal calling
for the required subsidy to fund the RUS Distance Learning,
Telemedicine, and Broadband Program's Broadband
Telecommunications Loan Account at $297,923,000 and opposing
the President's proposed rescission of the Account's unexpended
subsidy amounts from prior fiscal years.
--Request an additional $15 million over the President's budget
proposal to maintain funding for the RUS Distance Learning,
Telemedicine, and Broadband Program's Telemedicine and Distance
Learning Grants Account at the fiscal year 2008 appropriated
level of $35 million.
--Reject the President's budget proposal to zero out the Distance
Learning and Telemedicine Loan Account under the Distance
Learning, Telemedicine, and Broadband Program, and instead
provide a level of subsidy to sustain this loan account at a
$30 million level.
--Oppose the President's proposed cut of $804,000, from $38,623,000
to $37,819,000, for administration and staffing at the agency.
Considering all the new responsibilities the agency has taken
on and that policymakers want the loanmaking process to move
faster, the agency needs more, not fewer, resources.
Rural Business--Cooperative Service
--The Rural Economic Development Grants Program and the Rural
Economic Development Loans Program that are both authorized
under Section 313 of the Rural Electrification Act are programs
that should be under the purview of the RUS rather than the
RBCS as they are authorized by the act established to provide
financing options for rural telecommunications and electric
utilities. In addition, these Section 313 programs have
traditionally been funded in part via interest earnings that
are associated with loan prepayments by rural
telecommunications and electric borrowers of the various RUS
financing programs. The Section 313 loan and grant programs now
under RBCS were moved there during the mid-1990s reorganization
of the USDA purely as a means of providing the newly formed
RBCS with enough programs to administer to legitimize its
creation. Sadly the impact of this move has been for the
program to move out of the view of the very borrowers it was
intended to be available to and who largely fund it via their
cushion of credit prepayment interest earnings.
--Preserve the Rural Economic Development Loan Program at an
appropriate level corresponding to the need and interest that
exists in RUS borrower communities for such assistance.
--Oppose the provisions of the President's budget which seek to
permanently cancel and sweep the funds derived for the Rural
Economic Development Grant Program Account from the Section 313
cushion of credit payments.
--Encourage the Committee to include the following suggested language
to prohibit the sweeping of interest earned on cushion of
credit payments to the Treasury or other USDA programs:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none of the funds
appropriated or otherwise made available in this Act may be
used to transfer or sweep to the Treasury or other USDA
programs any funds derived from interest on the cushion of
credit payments, as authorized by Section 313 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936.
______
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 2009
budget for turfgrass research within the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS) at Beltsville, MD. Also, 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. 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.
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.
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 the Members'
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 2009 the funding appropriated in
fiscal year 2008 for Beltsville, MD, ($490,000) within the Agricultural
Research Service. I also request the Subcommittee's support of ongoing
research programs at Beaver, WV and Logan, UT @ $450,000 each.
Thank you very much for your consideration and support.
______
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 2009 requests an appropriation of $1.05 billion for EQIP,
with the actual amount to be set by the new Farm Bill. I urge the
subcommittee to support an appropriation of at least $1.05 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. Now, Congress is considering enactment of a new Farm
Bill to further define how the Colorado River Basin States can cost-
share in a newly designated salinity control program known as the
``Basin States Program.''
Bureau of Reclamation studies show that quantified damages from the
Colorado River to United States water users are about $376,000,000 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 $1.05 billion accomplishes the needs 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 2008 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 $1.05 billion in fiscal
year 2009 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 Organic Farming Research Foundation
The Organic Farming Research Foundation (OFRF) appreciates the
opportunity to present our funding requests for the fiscal year 2009
Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related Agencies Appropriations
Bill. OFRF is a grower-directed, non-profit foundation working to
foster the improvement and widespread adoption of organic farming
systems. Organic agriculture plays an important and growing role in
U.S. agriculture. Relatively modest investments in organic research and
education can significantly increase the economic benefits and
environmental services provided by organic systems. As a result, we
urge the subcommittee to provide additional resources for organic
agriculture in fiscal year 2009.
As the subcommittee begins to fashion an fiscal year 2009
Appropriations Bill, we ask that the subcommittee take note of a new
report and recommendations by the USDA National Agricultural Research,
Extension, Education and Economics (NAREEE) Advisory Board. The
Advisory Board has noted and endorsed the initial efforts of the REE
agencies to address organic research and education needs, and
``encourages further development of [these] programs.'' \1\ A number of
specific recommendations are made, including the creation of a National
Program Leader for Organic Agriculture within USDA-CSREES. The
recommendations have been transmitted to Secretary Schafer and the
Agriculture and Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and House
for further consideration and action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Report and Recommendations from a Focus Session on Organic
Agriculture Conducted at the Advisory Board Meeting held in Washington,
D.C. on October 29-3 1, 2007''. Page 3. National Agricultural Research,
Extension, Education and Economics Advisory Board. Transmitted to the
Agriculture Secretary and Senate and House Committees on Agriculture,
and Appropriations, March 5, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, the President's fiscal year 2009 budget submission
for emerging organic REE programs is completely at odds with the NAREEE
Advisory Board's recommendations for greater investigation and
development of organic agriculture. Not only does the administration's
budget not include an increase in resources for organic research, but
it actually proposes severe cuts to current funding levels for organic
research, including zero funding for the two main organic research
grant programs. As the current funding levels for organic research are
already severely inadequate to begin with, we urge the subcommittee to
reject the administration's proposed cuts and allocate modest increases
for organic research in fiscal year 2009.
Organic product sales are rapidly approaching 4 percent of the
domestic food retail market, yet USDAREE expenditures directed
explicitly to research and information programs for organic agriculture
in fiscal year 2007 reached only slightly above 1 percent of total REE
spending. This discrepancy in the share of research funding spent on
organics is detrimental to an industry that relies intensively on
management and information for its success. By rejecting the
administration's proposed cuts to organic research and providing modest
increases as outlined below, the subcommittee can help address this
discrepancy and promote progress towards the ``fair share'' benchmark
for organic research.
usda-cooperative state research, extension and education service
Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative (OREI) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Organic Agriculture Research and Extension Initiative
(OREI) is authorized by Section 7218 of the Farm Security and Rural
Investment Act of 2002 which amended Section 1672B of the Food,
Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (7 U.S.C. 5925b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request--Protect mandatory funding.
OREI is USDA's premier competitive research and education grant
program specifically dedicated to investigation of organic agriculture.
Due to its success, the program is slated to receive an increase in
mandatory funding in the 2008 Farm Bill and we ask that the
subcommittee protect the funding level prescribed in the final bill.
Even if OREI were to receive the highest number proposed in the Senate
Bill ($16 million) the program would still be less than 0.7 percent of
total USDA-REE expenditures in fiscal year 2007, but would mark an
important step towards reaching the fair share benchmark.. If the
program receives a mix of mandatory funding and an authorization for
appropriations, or receives only an authorization for appropriations we
ask that the Subcommittee provide discretionary funds to the program.
Organic Transitions Research Program (ORG \3\)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The Organic Transitions Program (ORG) is authorized by Section
406 of the Agricultural Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act
of 1998 (AREERA) (7 U.S.C. 7626).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request: $5 million.
The Organic Transitions Research Program is one of only two USDA
competitive grant programs dedicated to organic research and education.
This competitive grants program funds integrated (research, extension,
and higher education) projects that specifically focus on helping
farmers overcome the production and marketing challenges of
transitioning to organic production. ORG-funded projects are currently
underway in 15 States. The program is working to deliver the knowledge
farmers need to successfully transition to organic production, but the
number of funded projects still falls far short of meeting the needs of
producers across the country.
After reaching its highest level of funding of $2.1 million in
fiscal year 2003, the Organic Transitions Research Program has suffered
a sustained cut over the last 5 years. The House of Representatives
recognized this imprudent treatment of the Organic Transitions Program
by approving $5 million for the program during fiscal year 2007
appropriations deliberations. The subcommittee should begin with this
figure in formulating its fiscal year 2009 legislation.
usda--agricultural research service
Organic Agricultural Systems Research
Request:
--Restore funding to specific organic research projects proposed for
elimination.
--Direct ARS to continue increasing the size and breadth of its
organic systems research portfolio.
--Provide $100,000 to disseminate research results through the
National Agriculture Library's Alternative Farming Systems
Information Center.
Although Agricultural Research Service spending on direct organic
research reached 1.5 percent in fiscal year 2007, it is still far short
of achieving the fair share goal of matching the organic share of the
domestic food retail market, which is now approaching 4 percent. In
fiscal year 2009, instead of closing this gap, the President's budget
would actually widen it by cutting funding to some of the most
important ARS research being conducted on organic systems, as part of
an overall 7.5 percent cut in the ARS budget. Specific organic research
projects marked for elimination in the President's proposal include:
the Pasture Systems and Watershed Management Research at University
Park, PA; Invasive Weed Management Research at Urbana, IL, and the New
England Plant Soil and Water Research at Orono, ME. We request that the
Subcommittee include continued funding for the organic research
projects/units that are slated for cuts; and include strong report
language directing the agency to continue the growth of its research
activity directly focused on organic agriculture.
Subcommittee efforts to direct increased ARS spending on organic
research will likely be supported by a Sense of Congress provision set
to be included in the 2008 Farm Bill, encouraging ARS to spend a fair
share of its research dollars on organic research. Intent to increase
funding for the National Agriculture Library's Alternative Farming
Systems Information Center will also likely be part of the provision.
As a result, we urge the Subcommittee to act upon the intent of
Congress and include strong report language directing ARS to increase
its expenditures towards a fair share for organic research, with a
portion of the increase for usage by National Agriculture Library's
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center to disseminate research
results. This recommendation is also included in the NAREEEAB report in
recommendation #4.
usda--economic research service/national agricultural statistics
service/agricultural marketing service
Organic Data Initiative \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Organic Data Initiative is authorized by Section 7407 of
the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Request: $1 Million.
Data on prices, yields and markets are vital to farmers who are
planning what to plant, accessing markets, and applying for crop
insurance. Unfortunately, the organic sector is still without vital
comprehensive data on par with what is provided by USDA for
conventional agriculture, putting organic farmers at a great
disadvantage. Despite the growing demand and need, funding for organic
data collection has remained stagnant. Although the final 2008 Farm
Bill may include some mandatory funding for organic data collection, we
urge the Subcommittee to provide additional discretionary funding to
help address the large backlog of work that is needed to provide a fair
playing field for organic producers.
The data collection and analysis is a cooperative effort among
various agencies. For purposes of the Organic Data Initiative,
allocation of funds among agencies should be at the discretion of the
Secretary.
Organic agriculture is one of the fastest growing segments of
American agriculture, but it has not received the level of support that
it deserves. The 2008 Farm Bill will likely provide important increases
to organic programs, but it will still fall far short of providing a
fair share for organic agriculture. It is our hope that the
Subcommittee will work to close the fair share gap by protecting any
gains made in the 2008 Farm Bill, rejecting the President's fiscal year
2009 proposed budgetary cuts to organic programs, and providing long
overdue increases in the organic programs under the Subcommittee's
purview for fiscal year 2009.
Disclosure.--Organic Farming Research Foundation was a
subcontractor for a grant awarded by the USDA-CSREES Integrated Organic
Program. Grant #2207-01384. ``Midwest Organic Research Symposium.''
______
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 2009 loan levels for the telecommunications loans
program administered by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the
following amounts:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Telecommunication hardship loans........................ 145
Treasury telecommunications (cost of money) loans....... 250
FFB telecommunications (guaranteed) loans............... 300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, OPASTCO requests that the distance learning,
telemedicine, and broadband program be funded at sufficient levels.
OPASTCO is a national trade association of more than 600 small
telecommunications carriers serving primarily rural areas of the United
States. Its members, which include both commercial companies and
cooperatives, together serve over 5.5 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 carriers will be hard pressed to continue deploying
the infrastructure necessary to achieve policymakers' goals.
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 optics, packet
switching and transmission, and digital subscriber line (DSL)
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 Communications Commission's (FCC) September
2004 report on the deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability, the Commission 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
October 2007 release of statistics on high-speed connections to the
Internet 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
carriers 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. For example, the availability of
broadband connections can make it possible for rural residents to
telecommute to otherwise far-away jobs. A modern telecommunications
infrastructure can also enable existing businesses in rural areas to
grow and expand as well as attract new businesses to the area.
Certainly, telecommunications plays a major role in any rural
community's economic development strategy.
It is important to note that even after a broadband-capable network
has initially been deployed in a rural area, the modernization effort
is not over. Continual investment is crucial, because the broadband
networks that are deployed today are not the networks that will enable
rural areas and the rest of the country to compete globally 5 years
from now. Broadband is an evolving concept, subject to constant changes
in technology and consumer expectations. As the services and
applications that ride over the broadband infrastructure become more
bandwidth intensive, carriers will need to expand their broadband
network capabilities in order to make these new tools available to the
businesses and residences in their areas. The evolving nature of
broadband requires continual investment, and the telecommunications
loans program will enable rural telecommunications carriers to do so.
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 sufficient 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 specialized 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 2009.
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 and upgrading 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), minerals, 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 that is encouraged to eat more vegetables. 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 for all economic strata of U.S.
society.
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 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. Baby
carrots were founded on 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.
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 and marketability of pickling
cucumbers and other vegetable products. 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 Sugar Beet and Bean Research Unit has developed a
number of innovative engineering technologies for rapid, nondestructive
measurement and inspection of postharvest quality of tree fruits and
vegetables, including 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.
Recently, an advanced hyperspectral imaging system was developed for
automated detection of quality/defect of pickling cucumbers.
Currently the location's cucumber postharvest engineering research
is grossly under funded. It is crucial that additional funds be
provided so that the location can hire a research engineer to carry out
research on postharvest sorting, grading and handling of pickling
vegetable products at full scale. With the increasing demands from
consumers and the government's regulatory agencies for high quality and
safe food products, it is crucial that an effective quality inspection
and assurance system be implemented throughout the handling steps
between harvest and retail. While new sensors and automated inspection
systems are being used in many pickle processing facilities, there
still exists considerable room for improving existing technologies and
developing new and more efficient sensors and automated methods for
postharvest handling and processing of pickling vegetables. Methods
currently available for measuring and grading quality of cucumbers and
other vegetables are still ineffective or time consuming. Labor
required for postharvest handling and processing operations represents
a significant portion of the total production cost. 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 and achieving labor cost
savings.
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 during the past 3 years, 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 was completed in July 2004.
Construction of the head house was completed in 2006. The initial phase
of the greenhouse complex is now under construction with an expected
completion date in late spring 2008. 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.
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 $500,000 for its establishment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Construction Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greenhouse........................ Needed.............. $7,794,000
---------------
Appropriations to Restore......... .................... 7,794,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New scientific staff needed Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plant Pathologist (cucumber Needed.............. 500,000
disease).
---------------
New Funds Needed.................. .................... $500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Food Fermentation Laboratory, Raleigh, North Carolina
The current funding for the laboratory is $1,274,000. 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 2009. 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific staff Current status Funds needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbiologist.................... Active.............. $318,500
Chemist........................... Active.............. 318,500
Food Technologist/Biochemist...... Active.............. 318,500
Microbial Physiologist............ Active.............. 318,500
Fiscal Year 2009 Post-doctoral or Needed.............. 200,000
Predoctoral Research Associates.
---------------
Total Funding Required...... .................... 1,474,000
Presidential Budget (fiscal .................... 1,274,000
year 2009).
---------------
New Funds Needed............ .................... 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vegetable Crops Research Laboratory Unit, Madison, Wisconsin
Current base funding for three scientists is $868,757, of which
$200,000 was added in fiscal year 2002. Emerging diseases, such as
downy mildew of cucumber, threaten production of the crop in all
production areas. Therefore, we request an additional $200,000 to fully
fund the scientists and support staff, including graduate students and
post-doctorates for new research searching for genetic resistance to
emerging diseases.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Staff in Place Current Status Funds Needed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Geneticist........................ Active.............. $320,000
Horticulturist.................... Active.............. 320,000
Geneticist........................ Active.............. 320,000
---------------
Total Funding Required...... .................... 960,000
Presidential Budget (fiscal .................... 868,757
year 2009).
---------------
Appropriations to Restore... .................... 91,243
New Funds Needed............ .................... 200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 2009. Thus, the restoration of the funds
proposed for reduction, is urgently requested. We request a $291,243
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Staff in Place Current Status Funds 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 83rd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 21,
2008, 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 2009 budget for NRCS indicates a
decrease of $142,641,000 (15 percent decrease) from what Congress
appropriated in fiscal year 2008, $943,414,000. In addition, the
administration eliminated three crucial programs: Watershed & Flood
Prevention Operations, Watershed Survey & Planning and RC&D. Along with
drastic reductions in the other programs, NRCS manpower for fiscal year
2009 would have to decrease by over 1,500 staff years, if the
President's budget is implemented. This is unacceptable.
This means that NRCS conservation 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 $794,773,000, which is a decrease of $45,553,000 million from
what Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2008. 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 three 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 $30 million
enacted in fiscal year 2008, but we remind you that no funding was
provided in fiscal year 2007, the year Congress turned over the budget
to the administration--we can not allow that to happen again. 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
2009.
--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 2009.
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 $65 million be appropriated to provide financial
and technical assistance to those watershed projects where sponsors are
prepared (35 percent cost share) to commence rehabilitation.
Watershed Survey and Planning.--In fiscal year 2006, $6.1 million
was appropriated to support this extremely important community program.
Again, no funding was provided in fiscal year 2007 and Congress did not
provide funding for fiscal year 2008. 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 and Congress has decided not to fund 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 2009 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, but
not this year. Their budget proposal zeroes out this important program.
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. We are truly surprised the
administration would do this.
We request that $51 million be appropriated for this program, at
the same level as in fiscal year 2008.
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 83rd Annual Meeting in Shreveport, Louisiana on February 21,
2008, 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 2009 APPROPRIATIONS--NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS)
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year RRVA 2009 Pres. 2009
Discretionary Accounts 2008 Approp Request Budget
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conservation Operations......................................... 840,326 930,000 794,773
Watershed & Flood Prevention Operations......................... 30,000 190,000 ..............
Walnut Bayou Irrigation Project, AR......................... .............. 4,000 ..............
Red Bayou Irrigation Project, LA............................ .............. 1,600 ..............
Watershed Rehabilitation........................................ 20,000 65,000 6,000
Watershed Survey & Planning..................................... .............. 35,000 ..............
Maniece Bayou Irrigation Project, AR........................ .............. 200 ..............
North Wallace Lake Watershed, LA............................ .............. 250 ..............
Resource Conservation & Development............................. 51,088 51,000 ..............
Healthy Forest Reserve Program.................................. 2,000 5,000 ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: The President's fiscal year 2009 budget is 15 percent less than Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2008!
______
Prepared Statement of the Society for Women's Health Research and
Women's Health Research Coalition
On the behalf of the Society for Women's Health Research and the
Women's Health Research Coalition, we are pleased to submit testimony
in support of increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), 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, 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. Unfortunately, the present state of the FDA does not
permit for scientific growth or adequate food and drug protection. In
reality, the FDA infrastructure is failing and it cannot prepare for
the future as it is still trying to catch up from the past. It has been
chronically under funded and lacks strength in areas needed most,
specifically information technology (IT). The administration's current
proposed budget of $1.72 billion, a $50 million increase for fiscal
year 2009 does not even begin to address the major short falls of the
FDA. Therefore, the Society urges Congress to provide the FDA with an
increase of $380 million, bringing the FDA's fiscal year 2009 budget to
$2.1 billion. This increase in funding would be a major stepping stone
for the FDA to start rebuilding its infrastructure so it may provide
citizens with the food and drug protection promised in its mission, and
begin to address the shortage of resources and failing IT systems.
In addition, many Offices and Centers within the FDA have suffered
under the chronic underfunding. The Office of Women's Health (OWH) is
one such example. To address years of flat funding, we recommend that
Congress increase funding for OWH. OWH's women's health programs, often
conducted with the Agency centers, are necessary if we are to maintain
any focus on women's health within the FDA. They are critical to
improved care and increased awareness of disease-specific impacts to
women. OWH endeavors to ensure, for example, that sex and gender
differences in the efficacy of drugs (such as metabolism rates),
devices (sizes and functionality) and diagnostics are taken into
consideration in reviews. Therefore, we strongly urge Congress to
support a $6 million budget for OWH for fiscal year 2009 within the
budget for the FDA. In addition, we also recommend that the current
budget is not only increased in the future, but should also never be
less than the administration's current proposed budget of $5 million
for fiscal year 2009.
fda information technology systems
Under recent evaluation by the Science Board to the FDA, the FDA's
IT systems were found to be inefficient and incapable of handling the
current demands placed on the Agency, thus preventing the FDA from
fulfilling its mission to protect its citizens. Equipment is outdated,
often unsupported by maintenance, and regularly breaks down. While 83
percent of the budget goes towards workforce support, IT is privately
contracted out to keep costs lower. The IT system simply cannot keep up
with current scientific data and market trends, and will only continue
to worsen as server age beyond usefulness increases, and serviceability
and email networks fail multiple times per day for a system that needs
to function 24/7.
The antiquated nature of the IT systems makes the agency unable to
conduct safety analyses for product marketing applications, track the
natural history and disease models for rare disorders, and access huge
amounts of clinical data. In addition, one central database does not
exist, therefore the system cannot query a centralized repository for
all relevant facts about a certain product including where, when and
how the product was made. There is a desperate need to create one
single database for all relevant information to be stored across
agencies, so as to maximize functionality not only of FDA but of
expected research and analysis needed by the American public.
Estimations have shown that it would take $200 million ($40
million/year) over the course of 5 years to begin the process of
improving the IT system. However, with the administration's proposed
fiscal year 2009 budget of only $50 million for the entire agency, this
update will be close to impossible. It is up to Congress to address the
shortfall to the FDA and provide it a $380 increase to begin IT
transformation among many other improvements.
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 provides scientific and policy
expertise on sex and gender sensitive regulatory and oversight issues;
endeavors to correct sex and gender disparities in the areas for which
the FDA is responsible--drugs, devices, and biologics; and monitors
women's health priorities, providing both leadership and an integrated
approach across the FDA. 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 previous 5 years, OWH had been provided a flat budget of $4
million. That 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.)
Despite the $1 million increase the OWH received for fiscal year
2008, it has been flat lined for fiscal year 2009. The OWH is in
desperate need of increased funding so that it may not only continue
work on current projects, but also expand for the future.
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, supporting 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 FDA to provide insight on
regulatory questions pertinent to women's health. All contracts and
grants are awarded through a competitive process. A large number of
these studies are published and appear in peer reviewed journals.
OWH funds 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. Most recently, they
participated in a Sister-2-Sister Women's Heart Day conference in
Washington, DC.
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 completed medication charts 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.
OWH continues to improve the health of women through new research
initiatives. Most recently, they have conducted projects addressing the
participation of women and racial minorities in clinical trials for
diabetes mellitus medications. They have collaborated with Pharmacy
Choice, Inc. to create a web portal solely dedicated to FDA consumer
health education materials, providing access to fact sheets and
medication guides.
As a result of the FDA antiquated IT system, combined with the
inability to keep pace with IT 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. While $500,000 was granted for this
project, the OWH was unable to design a system to communicate with the
current IT system and could not access data that remained in a paper/
manual process. The reason for this and other projects failures is
attributed to the severely inadequate IT system at the FDA.
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 that it 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.
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 inclusion of women in study populations by itself is
insufficient to address the inequities in our knowledge of human
biology and medicine, and only by the careful study of sex differences
at all levels, from genes to behavior, will science achieve the goal of
optimal health care for both men and women. Sex differences play an
important role in disease susceptibility, prevalence, time of onset and
severity and are evident in cancer, obesity, 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. Furthermore,
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 delivering
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.
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 in
order to identify important sex 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 the patient.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we thank you and this Committee for
its strong record of support for the FDA and women's health and your
commitment to OWH. We recommend that you increase the overall fiscal
year 2009 budget for the FDA by $380 million, so that it may
dramatically improve upon current operations while also rebuilding its
IT infrastructure. Secondly, we urge you to allocate $6 million for the
Office of Women's Health for fiscal year 2009, and to ensure that
future budget appropriations for the OWH are never below current
funding levels. We look forward to continuing to work with you to build
a healthier future for all Americans.
______
Prepared Statement of the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
Thank you for the opportunity to present our funding requests for
the fiscal year 2009 Agriculture, Rural Development, FDA and Related
Agencies appropriations bill.
The Sustainable Agriculture Coalition is an alliance of national,
regional, and local grassroots farm, rural, and conservation
organizations that together advocate for public policies that support
the long-term economic, social, and environmental sustainability of
agriculture, natural resources, and rural communities.\1\ Through our
member organizations, we work with and represent thousands of farmers
and other rural citizens who are engaged in creating a more sustainable
farm and food system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Our member organizations include: the Agriculture and Land
Based Training Association, American Natural Heritage Foundation,
California FarmLink, C.A.S.A. del Llano (Communities Assuring a
Sustainable Agriculture), Center for Rural Affairs, Community Alliance
with Family Farmers, Dakota Rural Action, Delta Land and Community,
Inc., Ecological Farming Association, Future Harvest/CASA (Chesapeake
Alliance for Sustainable Agriculture), Illinois Stewardship Alliance,
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, Iowa Environmental Council,
Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation, Izaak Walton League, Kansas Rural
Center, Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture, Land Stewardship
Project, Michael Fields Agricultural Institute, Michigan Integrated
Food and Farming Systems, Michigan Land Use Institute, Midwest Organic
and Sustainable Education Service (MOSES), The Minnesota Project,
National Catholic Rural Life Conference, National Center for
Appropriate Technology, Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture
Society, Ohio Ecological Food and Farm Association, Organic Farming
Research Foundation, Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable
Agriculture, Practical Farmers of Iowa, Rural Advancement Foundation
International-USA, Sierra Club Agriculture Committee, Washington
Sustainable Food and Farming Network, and the Union of Concerned
Scientists (Food and Environment Program).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you begin work on the fiscal year 2009 appropriations bill, we
want to applaud the subcommittee for reversing many of the damaging
proposals made in the USDA budget request for fiscal year 2008 in
conservation, research, marketing, and rural development. We also
welcome the subcommittee's decision in the current fiscal year bill to
keep cuts to a minimum for mandatory farm bill conservation, research,
and rural development programs. We remain tremendously disheartened by
the nearly $6 billion that has been gutted from mandatory conservation
spending since passage of the 2002 Farm Bill, with the majority of cuts
coming through regular and emergency supplemental appropriations bills
and some by way of budget reconciliation. While the absolute amount is
greatest for conservation, the limitations on mandatory spending in
research and rural development have been even greater on a percentage
basis. Over a third of total mandatory spending in conservation, rural
development, and research has been cut and reallocated to other uses,
despite the underlying programs being meritorious and greatly
oversubscribed. We, therefore, encourage you to continue the practice
started in the fiscal year 2008 bill of being modest and discriminating
in limitations to mandatory spending.
csrees programs
Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (SARE) Program.--We
urge you to support an appropriation of $20 million in fiscal year 2009
for the SARE competitive grants program, divided between research and
education grants ($15 million) and extension and professional
development grants ($5 million). SARE is a regionally-delivered
national competitive grants program that funds farmer-driven, outcome-
oriented research, education, and outreach on agricultural production
practices and market-based initiatives that are environmentally sound
and profitable for farmers and ranchers and their communities. The
program is responsible for many of the systems and practices being
utilized by farmers today to farm in concert with the environment while
increasing farm income and providing consumers with high quality
nutritious foods. With continued and enhanced investment, the program
will help create a more sustainable farm and food system for a new
generation of farmers and consumers.
We applaud the subcommittee for increasing the SARE budget in
fiscal year 2008. After 4 years of repeated small cuts, the increase
could not have come at a more important moment, as the program is now
in its 20th year of operation and demand for the program continues to
grow. While we truly hoped the program would reach $20 million for the
20th year, we also truly appreciate the increase to $19 million in
fiscal year 2008.
We urge you to reject the President's fiscal year 2009 proposal to
severely cut program funding to 20 percent below the lowest level of
funding the SARE program has received in the last 5 years and urge the
subcommittee to provide an increase from $19 million to $20 million in
fiscal year 2009. Over the next few years, we strongly urge an
increased commitment to SARE in the context of a more balanced approach
to overall competitive grants funding and consistent with sustainable
agriculture's expanding role within our food and farming system and
with the program's award-winning and cost-effective delivery of
services.
Organic Research.--Although the organic share of the domestic food
retail market is currently approaching 4 percent, USDA spent a little
less than 1.5 percent of its total research budget on organic research
in fiscal year 2007, representing just the first time USDA spending on
organic research reached above 1 percent. Despite this discrepancy, the
President's fiscal year 2009 budget proposes zero funding for the two
main organic research programs--the Organic Agriculture Research and
Extension Initiative (OREI) and the Organic Transitions Program (ORG).
At this writing, it appears likely that OREI will continue to
receive mandatory funding in the 2008 Farm Bill, in which case we ask
that the subcommittee protect that funding level and reject any
limitation provisions. On the other hand, if the program does not
continue to receive mandatory funding, we urge you to provide
discretionary funding. The Organic Transitions Program is not dependent
upon the outcome of the Farm Bill and relies on appropriations. We urge
the committee to include $5 million in fiscal year 2009 for Organic
Transitions Research. The combined funding would still be far short of
a fair share for organic research, but would constitute a strong
movement in the right direction.
Furthermore, we oppose the President's request to transfer most
Section 406 integrated program activities, including Organic
Transitions, into the National Research Initiative (NRI). While we
support expanding resources for the NRI and increasing the NRI's
attention to integrated programs, we do not believe ending important
existing integrated programs in water quality, organic transition, pest
management, and other topics and simply consolidating them at NRI
without a clear plan for enhancing these program functions is good
policy or good process.
National Research Initiative (NRI).--We strongly support the
President's request to increase from 22 percent to 30 percent the set-
aside within the NRI competitive grants program for integrated and
applied research supporting the goals and priorities of the Initiative
for Future Agriculture and Food Systems (IFAFS). We support a funding
increase in the NRI provided that the percentage for integrated
projects consistent with IFAFS is raised to at least 30 percent.
Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program (BFRDP).--The
BFRDP was authorized in the 2002 Farm Bill but unfortunately, to date,
has not received any appropriations. The House version of the 2008 Farm
Bill would provide the program with $15 million in annual mandatory
funding. If the House prevails in conference, we urge you to protect
this vital new program and keep it clear of limitation provisions. If,
however, mandatory funding is not provided in the Farm Bill, we urge
you to provide the program with significant discretionary funding.
New farm entry rates have decreased dramatically and there are
twice as many farmers over the age of 65 than under the age of 35. The
BFRDP, a competitive grants program supporting education, extension,
and technical assistance initiatives directed at new farming
opportunities, can help address these challenges. The BFRDP supports
collaborative local, State, and regionally-based networks and
partnerships to supply financial and entrepreneurial training,
mentoring and apprenticeship programs, ``land link'' programs, and
education and outreach activities to assist beginning farmers and
ranchers, including targeted funds for socially disadvantaged
producers. The program would be the very first program for beginning
farmers at USDA other than debt financing credit programs.
Outreach and Assistance for Socially Disadvantaged Farmers and
Ranchers (Section 2501).--For the past 16 years, the Section 2501
program has provided much-needed technical information and training to
socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. Since its inception, the
program has served more than 100,000 rural constituents in more than
400 counties and has effectively reduced the decline in the number of
minority farmers. In spite of this success, and a 2002 Farm Bill
authorization of $25 million per year, the program has never received
more than $7 million in funding in any 1 year. As a result, many
farmers who qualify for assistance under the program have been unable
to receive it. For fiscal year 2009, we recommend $10 million in
funding for Section 2501. The House version of the 2008 Farm Bill would
provide the program with $15 million in annual mandatory funding. If
the House prevails in conference, we urge you to protect that funding
level.
Rural Entrepreneurship Education and Enterprise Facilitation
Program.--The 2008 Farm Bill will likely include a new program subject
to appropriations to provide educational resources and services to
rural areas to foster entrepreneurial strategies to rural development,
with the stated goal of creating jobs, spurring community innovation,
and increasing the start-up rate and reducing the failure rate of small
businesses. With a goal of creating entrepreneurial networks, providing
technical training, and conducting applied research, the program will
also provide a complement to the Rural Mircoenterprise Assistance
Program, which seeks to target specific individuals who have already
opened a small business, or are poised to do so. We urge the committee
to fund this program at $4 million for fiscal year 2009.
ams programs
Farmers' Market Promotion Program (FMPP).--The FMPP provides grants
on a competitive basis to agricultural cooperatives, local governments,
non-profits, economic development corporations and other entities to
establish, expand, and promote local farmers markets and other forms of
direct farmer-to-consumer markets. Prior to fiscal year 2006, AMS
resources for direct marketing were limited to technical assistance,
with no financial assistance available to expand direct farmerto-
consumer links that increase farm profitability, consumer health and
well being, and community development. Bipartisan support for this
program resulted in Congress providing $1 million in first-year funding
for fiscal year 2006, and the same for both fiscal year 2007 and fiscal
year 2008. In just its first year of funding, the program received 367
applications for grants totaling $19.9 million. An allocation of $5
million in fiscal year 2009 will begin to fill a major gap in marketing
assistance and help complete the AMS direct marketing toolbox. It is
also quite possible that the 2008 Farm Bill will provide mandatory
funding of an equivalent amount, in which case we urge you to protect
that funding and to not limit it in any way.
farm service agency
Direct Farm Ownership and Direct Operating Loans.--Direct loans
play a very significant role in helping beginning farmers and ranchers
get established in agriculture and deserve continuing support. The
pending 2008 Farm Bill will modernize and update the loan limitation
level for both types of loans and also create a parallel increase in
the authorization for appropriation in order to not have the per loan
limit increase shrink the number of borrowers served. The new Farm Bill
will also include expansion and improvement of the conservation loan
program, a provision sponsored by the chair of this subcommittee. In
light of those changes in the Farm Bill, we strongly urge you to adopt
a program funding level of at least $300 million for ownership loans
and $650 million for operating loans for fiscal year 2009.
natural resources conservation service programs
Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP).--In our view, the CSP is
the most important and innovative of all agricultural conservation
programs. The CSP is crucial to agriculture's world trade agreement
objectives and to equalizing support across the whole range of U.S.
agriculture and orienting that support to the public good. The CSP
correctly focuses attention on working farm and ranch land
conservation, and emphasizes conservation systems that also maximize
off-farm environmental benefits.
The CSP has unfortunately been made subject to limitation
provisions in previous appropriations bills as well as in supplementals
and in budget reconciliation. We thank you for allowing the program to
move forward in fiscal year 2008 without a limitation. We urge you to
continue in that new pattern and to reject the President's fiscal year
2009 request to return to a limitation on mandatory spending which in
this case would cut the program by $141 million. We strongly recommend
that the CSP not suffer any limitations in fiscal year 2009 and be
allowed to fulfill its promise without any further appropriation
restrictions throughout the term of the new farm bill cycle.
Wetlands Reserve Program (WRP).--The 2008 Farm Bill will
reauthorize the WRP and provide it with a new mandatory-funded acreage
cap. We hope the Farm Bill will continue to provide sufficient
resources to enroll 250,000 acres of restored wetlands each year. We
also hope and urge the subcommittee to allow the program to move
forward without limitations on the mandatory funding provided by the
Farm Bill. The WRP is the frontline in the Nation's efforts to achieve
no-net-loss or hopefully positive wetland and associated habitat and
water quality and conservation gains.
rural business cooperative service programs
Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) Program.--
We recommend $3 million in fiscal year 2009, a slight increase over the
$2.6 million the program received in fiscal year 2008. Originally
authorized as part of the research title of the 1985 Farm Bill and
about to be newly authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill, ATTRA provides
readily accessible sustainable and organic farming information to
farmers and ranchers nationwide. ATTRA' professional staff answers a
wide variety of agronomic, livestock, marketing, and entrepreneurial
questions from farmers and ranchers. ATTRA launched a National Farm
Energy Initiative in 2006 to help farmers better understand how they
use energy, and how to best manage energy use to reduce operating
costs. Modestly increasing ATTRA's funding will ensure the Energy
Initiative continues to provide efficient, accurate, and timely
information to farmers seeking to increase agriculture-based energy
sources, and create sustainable economic growth in their communities.
Value-Added Producer Grants Program (VAPG).--We urge you to support
funding in fiscal year 2009 for the VAPG program at the $40 million
level provided by the 2002 Farm Bill or whatever mandatory funding
level is provided in the 2008 Farm Bill. If mandatory funding is not
provided through the 2008 Farm Bill, we urge you to provide
discretionary funding at no less than $30 million.
The VAPG is a competitive grants program administered by the Rural
Business Cooperative Service. The program makes grants to producers and
producer-owned entities to develop value-added businesses and thereby
enhance farm income, rural self-employment opportunities, local
economic development, better consumer food choices, and natural
resource protection. Value-added products include those converted from
raw products through processing to increase market value through higher
prices, expanded markets, or both. Products are also considered value-
added if they possess incremental value resulting from inherent
attributes such as geographical location of production, environmental
stewardship, food quality or safety, or seek to communicate these
attributes through labeling or certification activities.
Rural Microenterprise Assistance Program.--The Rural
Microenterprise Program is very likely to be authorized in the 2008
Farm Bill, and may also receive mandatory funding. We urge the
subcommittee to fund this program at $10 million in fiscal year 2009
should the Farm Bill fail to provide mandatory funding. The program
would provide technical and financial assistance to rural ``micro-
enterprises''--especially economically disadvantaged entrepreneurs not
otherwise able to access credit. The program would provide direct
training and technical assistance as well as low interest loans and
grants to individuals currently operating, or seeking to operate, small
businesses. Commonly recognized as the single most effective method of
promoting rural economic development, small business growth will be
supported through targeting individuals who have already opened a small
business or are poised to do so.
______
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 2009 items of great importance to The
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and its 10.5 million
supporters nationwide.
enforcement of animal welfare laws
We thank you for your outstanding support during recent years for
improved enforcement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of key
animal welfare laws and we urge you to sustain this effort in fiscal
year 2009. 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) food safety risks to consumers from sick animals who can
transmit illness, and injuries to slaughterhouse workers from suffering
animals; (2) 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 bird flu; (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 2009:
food safety and inspection service/humane methods of slaughter act
(hmsa) enforcement
We Request Funding and Language to Ensure Strengthened HMSA
Enforcement.--The Nation was shocked by the findings of our recent
undercover investigation that revealed egregious abuse of ``downer''
cows too sick and injured to stand and walk on their own--by a company
that was the #2 beef supplier to the National School Lunch Program and
had been honored by USDA as ``Supplier of the Year'' for the 2004-2005
academic year. Unfortunately, the blatant and recurrent violations of
food safety and humane rules documented in our 6-week hidden camera
investigation were not reported by 5 USDA inspection personnel at the
plant. This situation has focused national attention on the urgent need
for more effective USDA oversight of humane handling and food safety
rules. We urge the Committee to make this a high priority in order to
better protect consumers and animals. In particular, we urge your
consideration of the needed reforms outlined later in this testimony.
aphis/animal welfare act (awa) enforcement
We Request That you Support the President's Request of $21,522,000
for AWA Enforcement Under the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (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 14,000 sites,
including commercial breeding facilities, laboratories, zoos, circuses,
and airlines, to ensure compliance with AWA standards. Animal Care now
has 105 inspectors (with 6 positions in the process of being filled),
compared to 64 inspectors at the end of the 1990s. We are pleased that
the President's fiscal year 2009 budget recommends an increase of
$1,024,000 (counting allowance for pay costs) to cover hiring new
inspectors to handle additional responsibilities as the number of
licensed/registered facilities continues to grow.
aphis/investigative and enforcement services
We Request That you Support the President's Request of $13,694,000
for APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES).--We appreciate
the Committee's consistent support for this division, which handles
many important responsibilities, including the investigation of alleged
violations of the AWA and the initiation of appropriate enforcement
actions. The President's budget recommends an increase of $1,343,066
(counting allowance for pay costs) for IES in fiscal year 2009, of
which $725,000 will be used to improve enforcement of Federal animal
welfare laws. The volume of animal welfare cases is rising
significantly as new facilities become licensed and registered.
office of inspector general/animal fighting enforcement
We Request That You Support the President's Requested Increase of
$6,274,852 for the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to Maintain Staff,
Improve Effectiveness, and Allow Investigations in Various Areas,
Including Enforcement of Animal Fighting Laws.--We appreciate the
Committee's inclusion of funding and language in recent years for
USDA's OIG to focus on animal fighting cases. Congress first prohibited
most interstate and foreign commerce of animals for fighting in 1976,
tightened loopholes in the law in 2002, and established felony
penalties in 2007. We are pleased that USDA is taking seriously its
responsibility to enforce this law, working with State and local
agencies to complement their efforts. The Michael Vick case is the
highest profile example of new Federal efforts that have helped shine a
spotlight on the barbaric practices of dogfighting and cockfighting.
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 9 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 is a sound investment for the Federal
Government to increase its efforts to combat illegal animal fighting
activity. We also support the OIG's auditing and investigative work to
improve compliance with the humane slaughter law and downed animal
rules.
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 Each
of Fiscal Year 2006 and Fiscal Year 2007, and $869,000 in Fiscal Year
2008.--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 at FSIS (Food Safety and Inspection
Service) 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. To
ensure adequate oversight of humane handling and food safety rules,
FSIS must be able to fill vacancies in inspector positions. Veterinary
school graduates face a crushing debt burden of over $100,000 on
average, and the lowest pay of any of the medical professions, with an
average starting salary of $46,000. 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. We hope you will build on the
initial funding provided in order 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 $996,000 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 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 $251,000 Above the
Amount Requested by the President for Fiscal Year 2009) 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
gait of Tennessee Walking Horses and gain an unfair competitive
advantage at industry horse shows, unscrupulous trainers use a variety
of methods to inflict pain on sensitive areas of horses' feet and legs.
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 arrive. 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 percent 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 thermography
machines, that would enhance the ability of USDA inspectors to detect
evidence of soring.
downed animals and bse--needed reforms to address problems revealed by
hsus undercover investigation
Close Loophole.--An unequivocal, truly comprehensive ban on the
slaughter of downed animals for human consumption is needed to protect
food safety and animal welfare. The current protocol that allows
inspection personnel to ``determine on a case-by-case basis the
disposition of cattle that become nonambulatory after they have passed
antemortem inspection'' is unrealistic, unworkable, and reckless. It
places an impossible expectation on inspectors, who can't accurately
determine the reason(s) an animal became non-ambulatory. Injury and
illness are often interrelated--an animal may stumble and break a leg
because of a disease that causes weakness and disorientation. Of the
BSE cases identified in Canada and the United States to date, 13 out of
16 have involved downers, and at least 3 of these were identified as
downed due to injuries, including the 2003 U.S. case (``calving
injuries'') and a 2005 case in Canada (``slipped on ice/broken leg'').
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 it is to rely on inspectors trying to sort out which downers
are ``safe.'' Besides the heightened incidence of BSE, downers may also
be at higher risk for other foodborne transmissible pathogens,
including E. coli and Salmonella, which kill hundreds of Americans
every year, as these animals often lie in bacteria-laden waste and may
have higher levels of intestinal pathogens due to stress.
From an animal welfare perspective, a comprehensive ban is needed
because a downed animal with a broken leg suffers just as much as a
sick one if he or she is dragged through a slaughterplant--maybe even
more, when one considers how painful fractures are. A ban on use of all
downers for human food would also provide an incentive for producers to
treat animals humanely and prevent farm animals from going down. Even
before the 2004 administrative ban, USDA estimated that only 0.4
percent to 0.8 percent of all cows processed annually were non-
ambulatory. A clear downer ban would encourage producers and
transporters to engage in responsible husbandry and handling practices,
so that this percentage could 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 90 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 pushed by forklifts en route to the
food supply. When that fact came to light in December 2003, USDA's
prompt announcement to ban all downer cattle from human food calmed
consumers. More than 99 percent of the more than 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.
Unfortunately, as we have learned from a January 2006 audit by the
USDA Office of Inspector General and further from our late 2007
investigation, the loophole in administrative policy has substantially
undercut the agency's so-called ``ban.'' It has created financial
incentives for precisely the abuses that were documented in our
undercover footage. A highly visible and vigorously enforced total no-
downer rule is the right policy. For the animals, removing current
incentives that encourage workers to try every cruel tactic imaginable
to move downers to the kill box will alleviate suffering. If crippled
animals cannot be sold for food, slaughterplants have no reason to
prolong their misery to try to get them through the slaughter process.
Closing the loophole will also establish incentives for all involved in
the production chain to minimize hazards that can cause animals to
become downed in the first place, and make clear that there is no value
to sending an already downed animal to a slaughterplant.
USDA can revise its rule immediately, restoring the language it
promulgated in January 2004. And the Congress can pass legislation to
codify a clear no-downer policy.
Strengthen Enforcement.--The USDA must rework its inspection
program to ensure meaningful compliance. We recommend a combination of
measures. More inspectors observing live animals are needed, and all
inspectors should be trained and directed to monitor the treatment of
live animals to ensure that they are handled humanely. Inspectors must
understand that their oversight responsibilities begin at the moment
animals arrive at slaughter premises, including when the animals are on
trucks at slaughter facilities. An inspector should meet each truck
when it arrives on the premises and should order the immediate humane
euthanasia and condemnation of any cattle who are non-ambulatory.
Egregious conduct such as forcefully striking an animal with an object,
dragging an animal, ramming or otherwise attempting to move an animal
with heavy machinery, or using electric shock, water pressure, or other
extreme methods should be explicitly prohibited and those policies
established in a formal rule to take effect immediately. Inspections
should be unannounced and not on a predictable schedule. They should
include undetectable inspections through video surveillance accessible
for viewing by independent third parties. Slaughterplants should be
required to install video cameras that would allow for viewing of all
of the animal handling prior to slaughter. Finally, it would be helpful
to rotate inspectors to ensure that they do not become too close with
plant personnel.
Establish Criminal Penalties.--Current Federal law does not provide
for criminal penalties, even in cases of repeat or egregious offenses,
for violations of humane handling standards.
Ensure Humane Federal Procurement.--H.R. 1726, the Farm Animal
Stewardship Purchasing Act, would set basic animal welfare standards
for producers who sell food to the National School Lunch Program and
other Federal programs, including requiring veterinary treatment or
humane euthanasia for downed animals.
In addition to the downer and humane slaughter issues, we hope the
Committee will 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 2009 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 respectfully urge
Congress to reject the ARS plan to eliminate AWIC; rather, it is
essential to provide an appropriation of $1.8 million in fiscal year
2009 to support ongoing services as well as critically needed expansion
and other improvements to meet the 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 2009. 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 2009 budgets for the Animal Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Cooperative State Research,
Education and Extension Services (CSREES), and Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The Wildlife Society represents over 8,000
professional wildlife biologists and managers dedicated to sound
wildlife stewardship through science and education. The Wildlife
Society is committed to strengthening all Federal programs that benefit
wildlife and their habitats on agricultural and other private land.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The Wildlife Society is concerned that the fiscal year 2009 budget
request would decrease the operations subactivity of Wildlife Services
by $1.66 million and redirect $5.34 million. This would effectively
reduce by $7 million Wildlife Services' ability to control wildlife
damage to agriculture, aquaculture, forest, range, and other natural
resources; control wildlife-borne diseases; and control wildlife at
airports. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends that Congress
increase the appropriation for this subactivity by $7.0 million to
account for these reductions and redirections. We also recommend that
Congress provide an additional $300,000 to fully fund uncontrollables.
We appreciate the recognition of the need to safeguard our Nation
against highly pathogenic avian influenza and applaud the added fiscal
resources to address this critical issue. The potential for this
disease to spread to the North American continent and severely impact
wildlife, domestic poultry, and humans highlights the importance of
continued surveillance and monitoring during the coming years. The
fiscal year 2006 supplemental and subsequent appropriations have
allowed State fish and wildlife agencies to provide much-needed
resources to ensure a coordinated, continent-wide effort. This effort
must continue to ensure that America's citizens and resources are
protected. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends an increase to $10
million for surveillance and monitoring of avian influenza.
The Wildlife Society is concerned about the proposed 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 control or eliminate and will require more, not less,
fiscal resources to accomplish. We recommend Congress restore
brucellosis funding to $11 million in fiscal year 2009 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 between 2004 and 2006 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 incidence of the disease. The Wildlife
Society is very concerned by the proposal to cut this budget by $7.3
million, and by the proposed State match requirement. Such a
requirement could result in many States no longer being able to perform
CWD surveillance of wild cervids, reducing our capacity to prevent the
spread of the disease. The Wildlife Society recommends increasing
Chronic Wasting Disease funding to $20 million in fiscal year 2009.
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 2009 reflects a decrease for
the McIntire-Stennis Cooperative Forestry program. The proposal would
also direct 67 percent of program funding to a multi-State research
program. 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 be unable to meet future forest-product needs. Replacement of
McIntire-Stennis funding with competitive grants will leave long-term,
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 2009 budget to $25 million, an
amount more consistent with historic levels.
The Wildlife Society supports the administration's request of $257
million for National Research Initiative Competitive Grants. However,
this includes an increase of $19 million for bioenergy and biofuels
research and a redirection of $42 million for water quality, food
safety, organic transitions, and pest management. 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 2008 levels. The Society also notes, that
if not done properly, biofuels production could have a negative effect
on wildlife resources.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Reauthorization of the Farm Bill is expected to be completed in the
first half of 2008. Until such a reauthorization is passed, we are
operating under the program and funding levels created or reauthorized
in the 2002 Farm Bill. The Farm Bill conservation programs are now more
important than ever given huge backlogs of qualified applicants for
these programs, increased pressure on farmland from the biofuels boom,
sprawling development, and the ongoing declines in wildlife habitat and
water quality. The Wildlife Society recommends that the Farm Bill
conservation programs be funded at the levels mandated in the 2002 Farm
Bill until the current Farm Bill reauthorization is completed.
The fiscal year 2009 budget should anticipate the authorization of
new enrollments in the Grasslands Reserve Program, a strong
Conservation Security Program, and should fully fund the remaining
programs at their mandatory spending levels:
--Conservation Reserve Program--39.2 million acres
--Grasslands Reserve Program--$50 million
--Wetlands Reserve Program--250,000 acres
--Wildlife Habitat Incentive Program--$85 million
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 University of Southern Mississippi and the
Mississippi Polymer Institute
Mr. Chairman, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, 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 continued support of the Institute
and its work. This testimony includes an update of the Institute's
achievements since my testimony of approximately 1 year ago. Our
efforts focused principally on two areas for commercialization. One
involves our novel, agricultural-based inventions in emulsion
polymerizations, and the second was to produce a commercial quality,
formaldehyde-free, soybean based adhesive for composite board
materials, specifically, particleboard. During the past year, we made
significant advances in emulsion polymerization technology, and in the
refinement of soy adhesive utility. Particleboards made in our
laboratory with the soy adhesive (formaldehyde free) exceed all
required specifications for particleboard manufacture. Both
technologies described above are ready for commercialization and future
efforts will focus on movement of each technology into the market
place. We therefore respectfully request $2.0 million in Federal
funding to more fully exploit the potential of commercializing the
technologies described herein. I will discuss the progress for each
thrust to provide maximum clarity to our past efforts.
Three patent applications were generated in 2007. Additionally in
2007, four manuscripts were published, thirteen presentations were
given, and one student won a research award. We remain energized,
active, and successful at utilizing funding to increase the value of
agricultural products and co-products, as they are valuable
alternatives or supplements to petroleum-derived materials. Both
technologies noted above depends on use of agricultural materials as
primary building blocks, and clearly offers opportunities for ag-
derived materials as a basic feedstock in the polymer industry. Both
are groundbreaking technologies and one only has to consider the use of
formaldehyde-free adhesives as the ultimate example. It is well known
that formaldehyde is a carcinogen and we have developed an alternative
to formaldehyde in the form of soybeans. The recent focus on FEMA
trailer contamination simply amplifies what the scientific community
has known for years; formaldehyde is a carcinogen and should not be
used in composite board manufacture. Our patented technology remains
the only performance proven alternative 100 percent formaldehyde free
based on an agricultural product, i.e. soybeans.
Our 2007-08 work also included several pilot plant trials and
statistical validation for commercial scale production of vegetable
oil-based monomers and polymers. Vegetable oil macromonomers (VOMMs)
have proven value for the manufacture of zero volatile organic content
(VOC) paints and coatings. Navy Haze Gray paints, manufactured via our
novel technology, free of VOC content, and matching and/or exceeding
all performance requirements will be applied shipboard within weeks of
this testimonies writing.
This past year's work has resulted in the discovery of methods to
tailor polymers with desired use properties, a key to widespread
utilization in other areas of need.
Vegetable Oil Macromonomers (VOMM) Research and Development
In the past year, vegetable oil macromonomer synthesis was moved
from the traditional laboratory research category to pilot plant
trials. Specifically, VOMMs of soybean oil, high oleic safflower oil,
safflower oil, sunflower oil, and coconut oil were scaled, synthesized,
and evaluated for utility. This work validates the commercial viability
and amplifies the value of this technology for many vegetable oil
types. Specifically, our work has shown that it is possible to
manufacture polymers that flow and level easily at room temperature,
yet will harden upon ambient conditions and achieve high performance
characteristics. This is clearly a step change in tailoring polymer
performance. This technology is now mature enough to take its rightful
place in commercial markets.
The example below was provided in past testimonies yet remains
valid today. It summarizes opportunities and impact potential for
biobased VOMM polymers. 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). Only a 1 percent share of this
market would require manufacture of 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 of
soybeans. It would not be unrealistic to expect that in five years, a
market share of 5 percent could be achieved and thus require
consumption of 447,700 bushels of soybeans for high performance, value-
added decorative and protective coatings. The environmental impact
potential to reduce volatile organic emissions by 3.6 million lbs per
year at only a 1 percent market share (data 250 g/L VOC 3.78L/gal, 1.81
million gallons and 1 percent market share) is magnanimous.
Formaldehyde-Free Soy Based Adhesives
During the last year, our efforts increased the amount of soy
protein in the adhesive formulation from 28 percent to 55 percent. In
2006-2007, the main barrier to commercialization and processing was the
soy protein adhesives solids content at less than 28 percent, making it
difficult to transport, handle, and utilize efficiently, and that
barrier to commercialization was overcome. As the utility of the
experimental adhesive increases it is important to keep in mind that
our platform is the only patented technology to our knowledge that is
solely based upon soybean protein and is 100 percent formaldehyde free.
An estimated 150,000 FEMA trailers were distributed in Mississippi,
Louisiana, Florida, Alabama, and Texas following hurricanes in 2005. In
May 2006, the Sierra Club, a public interest group conducting indoor
air testing in Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-issued
trailers in Louisiana and Mississippi reported that in Mississippi, 29
of the 31 trailers (94 percent) tested had indoor levels of
formaldehyde in excess of that identified by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC)
as triggering adverse health effects in humans. In Alabama and
Louisiana, 83 percent of the 52 trailers were above the OSHA specified
limit of 0.10 parts per million, 4 were at the limit, while 13 percent
were below the limit. Formaldehyde concentration as high as 0.34 parts
per million was found in one trailer--a level nearly equal to what a
professional embalmer using industry-proscribed safety equipment would
be exposed to on the job.
Our efforts remain focused on creation of technology platforms
facilitating commercialization of alternative agricultural crops for
use in the polymer industry. The reasons for these efforts are made
clear when it is realized that the polymer industry maintains its
position as the single largest consumer of petroleum chemical
intermediates in the world. The finite supply, and increasingly higher
costs of petroleum resources, demands alternatives be developed. Thus,
the theme of our work is to develop high performance and
environmentally responsible technologies from agricultural
intermediates. In this way, we as a Nation will 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 The University of Southern Mississippi, we are making a
difference by showing others what can be accomplished if appropriate
time, energy, and resources are devoted to understanding the immense
value of ag-based products. For more than 40 years, I have watched the
evolution of polymers where almost each new product introduced into the
market place 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
time for agricultural materials to make significant inroads as
environmentally-responsible, biodegradable, and renewable raw
materials. Our national needs and economy cannot wait; we must act now.
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 the use of ag-based industrial materials.
The prior sentence was included in my last five 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 jobs that are not easily
exported to foreign lands
--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 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 commercialize
technologies. For instance, 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.
Since our testimony last year, our commercializing efforts have
shown that sustained work will expand the viability of agricultural
crops as industrial intermediates. 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
$2.0 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. 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 USA Rice Federation
This is to convey the rice industry's request for fiscal year 2009
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 global advocate for all segments of
the U.S. rice industry with a mission to promote and protect the
interests of producers, millers, merchants and allied businesses. 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 2009 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 Bill. 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 Farm Bill
reauthorization currently underway.
A list of the programs the USA Rice Federation supports for
appropriations in fiscal year 2009 are as follows:
funding priorities
Research and APHIS
The Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center should receive
continued funding at the fiscal year 2008 approved level, which was
$7.775 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.
For the Western Regional Research Center, in Albany, California, we
support the administration's budget proposal for the Renewable Energy
Resources project within the Agricultural Research Service (ARS)
account. We understand a portion of the funding 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. We support increased funding for FMD as
being considered in the pending farm bill, but for fiscal year 2009,
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. Again, we support increased funding for MAP as being considered
in the pending farm bill, but for fiscal year 2009, 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 Safety
Food safety, including the safety of imported food, is one of the
national issues that deserves significantly more funding. The USA Rice
Federation appreciates greatly the increased funding that Congress
appropriated for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) fiscal year 2008
food safety purposes and accompanying report language directing the use
of some of the funds to hire more domestic and imported food
inspectors. We urge Congress to continue this funding direction by
appropriating significant increases for the agency's fiscal year 2009
food safety personnel, programs, and related technology, including
continuing to ensure the safety of imported food.
Significant funding increases would allow the FDA to help reassure
consumers and speed innovation in food safety and technology. A
significant increase would permit FDA to administer its food safety
inspections and other related activities more fully and effectively,
speed approvals for safe, new food technologies and products, and
provide leadership in protecting the food supply from intentional
threats.
Food Aid
We urge the subcommittees to fund Public Law 480 Title I. No Title
I funding was provided in fiscal year 2008. At a minimum, fiscal year
2009 funding should be the same as 2006, the last year in which the
program was funded. Public Law 480 Title 1 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
2009 at the increased level of $1.8 billion in order to satisfy the 2.5
million MT required by statute. We encourage the subcommittees to fund
Title II at this 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 2008 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 $300 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 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 2009 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.
Supporting the President's budget request of $297,923,000 and the
associated funding subsidy, as required, for broadband
telecommunications loans.
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 $20 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 services, outside plant must be modernized to accommodate
technologies such as Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) or even fiber optic
connections to the Internet, 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 telecom 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 2009, 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 $297,923,000, the amount
recommended in the President's budget. 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.
Congress Should Adopt the Farm Bill, H.R. 2419, to Improve the
Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Broadband Program.--Both the House
and Senate versions of the Farm Bill better target the scarce resources
dedicated to extending broadband deployment to high cost rural areas.
They accomplish this by prioritizing lending to areas with no broadband
service and by tightening up the definition of rural area for purposes
of the lending program. Furthermore, both bills increase the
availability and feasibility of RUS broadband loans, thereby better
directing loan funds to areas that are more challenging to serve and
are therefore most in need of government assistance. Both bills modify
or eliminate the statutory exclusion of companies with more than 2
percent of that Nation's access lines from the broadband program. The
language in the current statute 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, both bills modify the statutory requirement that
the term of broadband loans cannot exceed the expected useful life of
the facilities being financed--a policy change which will decrease the
size of periodic loan repayments and enhance loan feasibility without
harming the government's loan security. 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.
Improving the Effectiveness of the RUS Broadband Program
Redirecting Broadband Program Funding to Unserved Areas.--Absent
adoption of a new Farm Bill this year with reforms to the RUS broadband
program, RUS could still make substantial improvements to the operation
of the broadband loan program through adoption of new rules. 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''.
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.
Elimination of the 7 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 7 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
7 percent cap on cost-of-money insured loans in fiscal year 2009.
Recommended Loan Levels
USTelecom recommends that the telephone program loan levels for
fiscal year 2009 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...................... 297,293,000
---------------
Total............................................. 987,293,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loans and Grants for Telemedicine and Distance Learning
USTelecom supports the inclusion of $20 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 2009 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 2009 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 WildEarth Guardians
Re: Request to cut Funding for the USDA-APHIS-WS's Wild Carnivore-
Killing Program
We the 30 undersigned organizations, and on behalf of our 10.9
million members across the Nation, respectfully submit the following
request that lethal predator control funding be discontinued for the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)--Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS)--Wildlife Services (WS). Most Americans
strongly support protection of wildlife, endangered species, and
carnivores. Several reasons for discontinuing Federal support for
predator control exist. Predator control activities are (1) generally
ineffective and ecologically harmful; (2) fiscally irresponsible; (3)
inhumane and against the public's interest; and (4) a national security
hazard. It is time for a change that reflects these facts and that
embodies a more enlightened set of values, the weight of public
opinion, and public safety.
The WS's Program is Ineffective, Ecologically Harmful, & Fiscally
Irresponsible
Large-scale predator eradication is biologically harmful,
economically expensive, and inherently non-selective (Treves and
Karanth 2003, Mitchell et al. 2004, Stolzenburg 2006). In fact, there
is no correlation between the number of coyotes killed and the number
of lambs lost (Knowlton et al. 1999, Mitchell et al. 2004). Lethal
predator controls do little to benefit the sheep industry; market
forces--primarily the price of hay, wages, and lambs--play a far
greater role in the decline of the sheep industry than do predators
(Berger 2006).
On behalf of agribusiness, over 100,000 native carnivores such as
coyotes, bobcats, foxes, bears and wolves are killed each year (in
fiscal year 2006, WS killed 117,113). The numbers of predators killed
to protect livestock is highly disproportionate--one study showed that
somewhere on the order of between 1.5 to 9.7 million animals were
killed for the benefit of agricultural interests ``without cause,'' or
indiscriminately, by Federal agents during the period 1996 to 2001
(Treves and Karanth 2003). These high levels of predator killing have
been aptly dubbed the ``sledgehammer'' approach to wildlife management
(Logan and Sweanor 2001, Mitchell et al. 2004, Stolzenburg 2006).
Lethal controls, including poisons, are unselective for specific
animals, and are used to remove the most individuals from an area
(Mitchell et al. 2004). Yet carnivores are important ecosystem actors.
Native carnivores such as wolves, mountain lions, and coyotes increase
the richness and complexity of animal life and indirectly contribute to
better ecosystem function.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Prior to 1995 in Yellowstone National Park, elk had decimated
willow and aspen stands. When wolves were reintroduced, elk were forced
to be more mobile to avoid predation. With less elk herbivory, willow
and aspen communities returned. Beavers followed; they used the new
trees and shrubs to build their dams and lodges. Those structures not
only brought water from underground to the surface, but made water flow
more dependable. As a result, neotropical and water-wading birds and
moose populations increased and diversified (Smith et al. 2003).
Secondly, the presence of mountain lions in desert ecosystems can have
the same top-down effects resulting in increased biological diversity
and functionality of rare riparian systems (Ripple and Beschta 2006).
Third, coyotes regulate populations of medium-sized carnivores such as
skunks, raccoons, and house cats. Thus coyotes indirectly benefit
ground-nesting birds (Crooks and Soule 1999) and make rodent species
diversity more robust (Henke and Bryant 1999). Mezquida et al. (2006)
found that coyotes indirectly benefit sage grouse populations--a
species on the brink.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Between 2004 and 2006, WS killed 6,156,223 total animals to protect
agricultural interests--at an average annual cost of $100 million.
(Table 1.) Most animals were killed with lethal poisons, others with
traps and guns. Many were shot from aircraft (see www.goAGRO.org). In
the past decade, Wildlife Services has killed an increasing number of
species that are protected under the Endangered Species Act.
TABLE 1.--WILDLIFE SERVICES' ANNUAL BUDGET & KILLS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total animals Total killed Mammals killed
Year Budget killed per hour Mammals killed per hour
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004............................ $101,490,740 2,767,152 316 179,251 20
2005............................ 99,792,976 1,746,248 199 170,814 19
2006............................ 108,590,001 1,642,823 188 207,341 24
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheep and Cattle Losses from Predators are Miniscule and do Not Justify
Wildlife Services' Aggressive Killing Schemes
Despite calls from agribusiness for more WS's funding, Congress
should consider the tiny effect predators have on livestock; instead, a
reduction in is justified. The USDA's own data show that few cattle and
sheep die from predation (see Tables 2 through 5).
Every year the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service
(NASS) reports on the U.S. cattle and sheep production inventory. Every
5 years, NASS counts unintended cattle and sheep deaths from predation,
weather, disease, and other causes. The most recent report released for
cattle deaths is 2006 and, for sheep, 2005. The reports reflect data
from the previous calendar year.
In 2004, sheep producers raised 7,650,000 animals nationwide (USDA
NASS 2005b) (USDA NASS 2005b). Native carnivores and domestic dogs
killed 3 percent of the total production, or 224,200 sheep (USDA NASS
2005c). In comparison, 5 percent of sheep died from illness,
dehydration, falling on their backs or other causes (USDA NASS 2005c)
[Tables 2 & 3].
TABLE 2.--SHEEP AND LAMBS PRODUCED IN 2004 & TOTAL UNINTENDED MORTALITY
TOTAL SHEEP & LAMBS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Total number total
production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total sheep & lambs produced in the U.S. 7,650,000 100
Total predator-caused sheep deaths...... 224,000 2.9
Total sheep deaths from other causes.... 376,100 4.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TABLE 3.--OTHER CAUSES OF SHEEP MORTALITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illness/disease......................................... 159,350
Lambing................................................. 53,400
Unknown................................................. 48,100
Old age................................................. 39,900
Weather................................................. 39,450
Starve, dehydrate, fire................................. 19,400
Poison.................................................. 10,300
On their back........................................... 3,800
Theft................................................... 2,400
---------------
Total............................................. 376,100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Colorado Woolgrowers website claims that Colorado is the fifth
largest sheep producer in the U.S. (CWGA 2008). A report by the
Colorado Agricultural Statistics Service (July 2007) shows that the
sheep industry decline 48 percent since 1990. Even Colorado WS admits
that ``the sheep and wool market had declined making it uneconomical to
raise sheep'' (WS June 2005 CO PDM EA at 11, emphasis added). Yet, WS
provides devoted attention to protecting sheep--an industry hammered by
global markets, not predators.
In 2005, U.S. producers raised 104.5 million head of cattle (USDA
NASS 2005a). Of the 104.5 million cattle that were produced in 2005,
190,000 (or 0.18 percent) died as the result of predation from coyotes,
domestic dogs, and other carnivores (USDA NASS 2006). In comparison,
livestock producers lost 3.9 million head of cattle (3.69 percent) to
maladies, weather, or theft (USDA NASS 2006) [Tables 4 & 5].
TABLE 4.--CATTLE & CALVES PRODUCED IN 2005 & TOTAL UNINTENDED MORTALITY
TOTAL CATTLE (BEEF, DAIRY, ETC.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of
Number total
production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cattle (beef, dairy, etc) produced 104,500,000 100
Predator-caused cattle deaths........... 190,000 18
Cattle death from other causes.......... 3,861,000 3.69
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Public's Interest in Wildlife & Balancing the Economic Equation
According to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) (2004), ``ranching
tends to be a low- or negative-profit enterprise, and public land
ranchers are no exception.'' The BLM (2004) adds, ``data show that
operations in all regions had, on average, negative returns.'' The
Federal agency charged with managing most of the ranches in the West
acknowledges that ranching is a poor way to make a living--even when
grazing fees are enormously subsidized by the government, and even
though Wildlife Services provides heavily subsidized predator-control
activities.
The impulse to ranch, suggests the BLM, is not for profit but for
social considerations such as ``family, tradition, and a desirable way
of life'' (USDI BLM 2004). There are roughly 23,000 public lands
ranching permittees. In one study of Forest Service and BLM ranchers,
two general groups of ranchers emerged: hobby ranchers, which
represented 50.5 percent of the total, had diversified income sources,
and generally had small operations; and, secondly, dependent ranchers,
who represented 49.5 percent of the total, were more dependent on
ranching income, and ran larger operations which used public lands
(USDI BLM 2004). Thus, most ranchers in the West are in the business
for pleasure and social reasons, or as a hobby, but not to make a
living. Compare 23,000 ranching permittees, half of which are hobby
ranchers, with the number of other citizens who appreciate wildlife and
spend billions to engage in their various recreational pursuits. [Table
6].
TABLE 5.--CATTLE DEATHS FROM ALL OTHER CAUSES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Respiratory problems.................................... 1,110,000
Digestive problems...................................... 648,000
Calving................................................. 572,000
Unknown................................................. 474,000
Weather................................................. 275,000
Other................................................... 271,000
Disease................................................. 174,000
Lameness/injury......................................... 132,000
Metabolic problems...................................... 78,000
Mastitis................................................ 67,000
Poison.................................................. 39,000
Theft................................................... 21,000
---------------
Total............................................. 3,861,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Interior, FWS et al. (2007) reported that in
the United States in 2006, 12.5 million people hunted, 30 million
fished, but 71.1 million people watched wildlife (USDI FWS 2007).
[Table 6.] The wildlife-watching group increased substantially from the
2001 study, while the number of hunters and anglers declined (USDI FWS
2001a). The $100 billion spent annually to pursue these pursuits is
enormous, especially when compared to the flagging ranching sector.
The fundamental question with regards to wildlife management in the
agricultural sector is this: Do taxpayers owe agribusiness a living? If
so, at what cost to the public's interest in wildlife protection?
Americans should not be required to further subsidize unnecessary
predator control activities serving a select segment of the population.
Given that the entire public lands ranching community is made up of
23,000 permittees and that more than half of those produce livestock
for social and not economical reasons, WS's funding should, in fact, be
reduced, and the predator-control program eliminated.
Wildlife-Killing Programs are Inhumane
Humaneness issues vex WS. WS's own agents admit they have had
``diminishing acceptance''--even among wildlife colleagues--when it
comes to ``guns, traps, and poisons'' (US GAO 2001). Muth et al. (2006)
studied the response of over 3,000 wildlife professionals and found
that most favor a ban on trapping. That is because these kill methods--
particularly poisons and traps--are inherently indiscriminate, can be
excruciatingly painful, stressful, and injurious (Mason and Littin
2003, Littin and Mellor 2005, Muth et al. 2006, Iossa et al. 2007).
Wildlife Services is a National Security Hazard
WS has failed numerous Federal audits that put the public at risk.
In 2002, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) found that ``APHIS
could not account for 60 pounds of strychnine-treated bait and over
2,000 capsules containing sodium cyanide'' (USDA OIG 2002). The
following year, APHIS-WS could account for these toxins, but failed to
put in place an ``adequate chemical inventory and tracking system''
(USDA OIG 2004). In her 2002 statement before Congress, Joyce
Fleishman, Acting Inspector General for the USDA reported, ``we found
that APHIS lacks adequate accountability and control over hazardous
pesticides and drugs maintained by some of its State offices for use in
wildlife damage control'' (Fleischman 2002).
In a 2004 OIG report, Assistant Inspector General Robert Young
found that WS could not ``fully account for its inventories of
hazardous pesticides and controlled drugs'' and that the materials were
stored in unsafe and insecure ways leaving hazardous material
``vulnerable to undetected theft and unauthorized use, and may pose a
threat to human and animal safety'' (USDA OIG 2004).
TABLE 6.--NATIONAL SURVEY OF FISHING, HUNTING, AND WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED
RECREATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No
participants Expenditures
(million) (billion)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hunters................................. 12.5 $22.9
Anglers................................. 30.0 42.2
Wildlife watchers....................... 71.1 45.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2005 and 2006, the USDA OIG failed APHIS in two audits because
the agency was not in compliance with the Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act. In the first, the OIG found that APHIS had not secured
``dangerous biological agents and toxins'' (USDA OIG 2006a). In the
second, the OIG found that APHIS-WS was not in compliance with
regulations; unauthorized persons had access to toxicants; individuals
using toxicants had inadequate training; and that inventories of
hazardous toxicants were open to theft, transfer, or sale (USDA OIG
2006b). Of the sites OIG visited, none were in compliance (USDA OIG
2006b).
In its November 5, 2007 stakeholder newsletter, WS issued an
astonishing revelation:
In the wake of several accidents in WS' programs, WS is conducting
a nationwide safety review focusing on aviation and aerial operations,
explosives and pyrotechnics, firearms, hazardous chemicals,
immobilization and euthanasia, pesticides, vehicles, watercraft, and
wildlife disease activities. The review will be conducted by subject
matter experts from WS, Federal and State government, and private
industry. We expect the review to be completed in the next year.
(Emphasis added.)
WS experienced two aircraft crashes in 2007 as part of its aerial-
gunning program. The June, Utah event ended in two fatalities, and the
September, Texas one resulted in two serious injuries (see
www.goAGRO.org). WS's news of a ``wake of several accidents'' comes on
the heels of several failed Federal audits relative to WS's storage,
inventory, and access to its toxics supply.
After WS's November 2007 disclosure, Sinapu (n/k/a WildEarth
Guardians) and PEER requested that WS conduct the national safety
review with public transparency. WS dismissed our concerns. In a
November 14 response, Deputy Administrator William Clay wrote that the
agency itself would select auditors who ``demonstrated professional
expertise'' and who were ``unaffiliated'' with the agency. WS plans to
embed the outside auditors with an agency insider. Mr. Clay told Sinapu
and PEER that the public would have the opportunity to ``read the final
[national safety review] document'' upon completion.
Congressional Precedent for Reform & Conclusion
Through a plethora of investigations, committee reports and
attempts at reform over a period of eight decades, the agency that
kills wildlife to benefit agribusiness has only limited its activities
when compelled to do so. Congress has played an important role in
making reform happen.
In 1964, Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall's Advisory
Board on Wildlife and Game Management, issued the ``Leopold Report''
(named for its chairman, Dr. A. Starker Leopold, son of pioneering
ecologist Aldo Leopold). The Leopold Report described the killing
agency as a ```semi-autonomous bureaucracy whose function in many
localities bears scant relationship to real need and less still to
scientific management''' (Robinson 2005). The Leopold Report offered
reform recommendations to Congress.
In 1971, Secretary of the Interior C. B. Morton convened another
investigative committee, this time, chaired by Dr. Stanley A. Cain. The
207-page ``Cain Report'' lamented that the predator--control program
``contains a high degree of built-in resistance to change'' and that
monetary considerations that favored the livestock industry served to
harm native wildlife populations (Cain et al. 1971). The Report called
for substantive changes to wildlife management regimes by changing
personnel and control methods, valuing ``the whole spectrum of public
interests and values'', and asserting protections for native wildlife
(Cain et al. 1971, Robinson 200).
Without firm Congressional resolve, the USDA-WS will continue to
test limits that are beyond the pale. WS's sloppy practices have
resulted in failed safety audit after failed audit. The agency's
``sledgehammer'' approach cannot be justified by its numerous costs and
risks. Sheep and cattle losses from predators are insignificant, 3
percent and .18 percent, respectively, and yet $100 million is spent
each year to kill millions of animals in a way that many find abhorrent
and disagreeable. It is taxation without representation, to paraphrase
a founding father. Compare the ranching industry's 23,000 public lands
permittees to the 71.1 million people who spend $54.7 billion to watch
wildlife each year. Our request presents Congress with a unique
opportunity to trim the Federal budget, protect public safety, and
conserve native wildlife populations.
______
Prepared Statement of the Ag Council of California; Agricultural
Cooperative Council of Oregon; Blue Diamond Growers; CalCot; CoBank;
Colorado Cooperative Council; Diamond Foods, Inc.; GROWMARK; Kansas
Cooperative Council; Land O'Lakes; Meadowbrook Farms Cooperative;
National Corn Growers Association; National Council of Farmer
Cooperatives; National Grape Cooperative Association/Welch's; Olive
Growers Council of California; Sunkist Growers, Inc.; SunMaid Growers
of California; Sunsweet Growers, Inc.; Texas Agricultural Cooperative
Council; Valley Fig; and WineAmerica
Dear Chairman Kohl and Ranking Member Bennett: In advance of the
fiscal year 2009 Agriculture Appropriations Bill, we are writing to
urge your strong support for full funding for USDA's Value-Added
Producer Grants Program.
Since its establishment, the Value-Added Producer Grants Program
has been a tremendous success. This matching fund program has provided
grants to over 900 individual producers, producer-controlled
organizations and farmer cooperatives across the Nation.
With those funds, recipients are empowered to capitalize on new
value-added business opportunities that would have otherwise gone
unexplored. Their successful, self-sustaining products have translated
into greater and more stable income for producers from the marketplace.
It has also served to promote economic development and create needed
jobs, especially in rural areas where employment opportunities are
often limited.
The benefits of this program far exceed the cost. Given its track
record of success, we believe that strong justification exists to
provide full resources to this important program.
Your leadership and support on this issue would be greatly
appreciated.
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Ad Hoc Coalition, Prepared Statement of.......................... 171
Ag Council of California, Prepared Statement of.................. 294
Agricultural Cooperative Council of Oregon, Prepared Statement of 294
American:
Farm Bureau Federation, Prepared Statement of................ 174
Forest & Paper Association, Prepared Statement of............ 176
Honey Producers Association, Inc., Prepared Statement of..... 177
Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of.... 182
Sheep Industry Association, Prepared Statement of............ 186
Society for:
Microbiology, Prepared Statements of...................195, 197
Nutrition (ASN), Prepared Statement of................... 199
Society of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of................... 202
Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of.................. 205
Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
Questions Submitted by......................................81, 150
Statements of................................................2, 100
Blue Diamond Growers, Prepared Statement of...................... 294
CalCot, Prepared Statement of.................................... 294
CoBank, Prepared Statement of.................................... 294
Coalition on Funding Agricultural Research Missions, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 208
Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 46
Colorado:
Cooperative Council, Prepared Statement of................... 294
River:
Basin Salinity Control Program, Prepared Statement of.... 211
Board of California, Prepared Statement of............... 213
Commission of Nevada, Prepared Statement of.............. 215
Conner, Chuck, Deputy Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Craig, Senator Larry, U.S. Senator From Idaho:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 45
Questions Submitted by....................................... 95
Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of........... 202
Diamond Foods, Inc., Prepared Statement of....................... 294
Dyer, John, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Operating Officer, Food
and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services....................................................... 99
Easter Seals, Prepared Statement of.............................. 215
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
Prepared Statement of the...................................... 191
Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
Questions Submitted by........................................72, 137
Florida State University, Prepared Statement of.................. 219
Fong, Phyllis K., Inspector General, Office of the Inspector
General, Department of Agriculture, Prepared Statement of...... 13
Food & Water Watch, Prepared Statement of........................ 220
Friends of Agricultural Research--Beltsville, Prepared Statement
of............................................................. 224
GROWMARK, Prepared Statement of.................................. 294
Glauber, Dr. Joseph, Chief Economist, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
Submitted by................................................... 72
Izaak Walton League of America, Prepared Statement of............ 225
Johnson, Senator Tim, U.S. Senator From South Dakota:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 3
Questions Submitted by....................................... 75
Kansas Cooperative Council, Prepared Statement of................ 294
Kohl, Senator Herb, U.S. Senator From Wisconsin:
Opening Statements of........................................ 1, 99
Questions Submitted by......................................52, 121
Land O'Lakes, Prepared Statement of.............................. 294
Meadowbrook Farms Cooperative, Prepared Statement of............. 294
Mississippi Polymer Institute, Prepared Statement of............. 282
National:
Association of State:
Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of.................. 227
Universities and Land-Grant Colleges (NASULGC) Board on
Natural Resources (BNR), Prepared Statement of......... 227
Commodity Supplemental Food Program Association, Prepared
Statement of............................................... 229
Congress of American Indians, Prepared Statement of.......... 235
Corn Growers Association, Prepared Statements of...........236, 294
Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Prepared Statements of.....238, 294
Drinking Water Clearinghouse Programs for Small and Rural
Communities, Prepared Statement of......................... 241
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of.......... 243
Grape Cooperative Association/Welch's, Prepared Statement of. 294
Organic Coalition, Prepared Statement of..................... 245
Potato Council, Prepared Statement of........................ 248
Telecommunications Cooperative Association, Prepared
Statement of............................................... 251
Turfgrass Federation, Inc., Prepared Statement of............ 252
New Mexico Interstate Stream Commission, Prepared Statement of... 255
Olive Growers Council of California, Prepared Statement of....... 294
Organic Farming Research Foundation, Prepared Statement of....... 256
Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small
Telecommunications Companies, Prepared Statement of............ 259
Pellett, Nancy C., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Farm
Credit Administration, Department of Agriculture, Prepared
Statement of................................................... 30
Pickle Packers International, Inc., Prepared Statement of........ 260
Red River Valley Association, Prepared Statement of.............. 265
Schafer, Hon. Ed, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
of Agriculture................................................. 1
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Statement of................................................. 4
Society for Women's Health Research and Women's Health Research
Coalition, Prepared Statement of............................... 269
Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of........... 202
Specter, Senator Arlen, U.S. Senator From Pennsylvania, Questions
Submitted by..................................................90, 168
Steele, Scott, Budget Officer, Office of the Secretary,
Department of Agriculture...................................... 1
SunMaid Growers of California, Prepared Statement of............. 294
Sunkist Growers, Inc., Prepared Statement of..................... 294
Sunsweet Growers, Inc., Prepared Statement of.................... 294
Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, Prepared Statement of......... 272
Texas Agricultural Cooperative Council, Prepared Statement of.... 294
The Humane Society, Prepared Statement of........................ 276
The Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of...................... 280
Turman, Richard, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Food and
Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services... 99
USA Rice Federation, Prepared Statement of....................... 284
United States Telecom Association, Prepared Statement of......... 286
University of Southern Mississippi, Prepared Statement of........ 282
Valley Fig, Prepared Statement of................................ 294
WildEarth Guardians, Prepared Statement of....................... 289
WineAmerica, Prepared Statement of............................... 294
von Eschenbach, Andrew C., M.D., Commissioner, Food and Drug
Administration, Department of Health and Human Services........ 99
Prepared Statement of........................................ 104
Statement of................................................. 101
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Office of the Secretary
Page
Additional Committee Questions................................... 51
AMS Audits....................................................... 64
African:
Stem Rust Research........................................... 84
Wheat Stem Rust.............................................. 39
Agriculture Research Funding..................................... 50
Audits of Slaughter Plants....................................... 33
Colombia:
Free Trade Agreement (FTA)................................... 83
Trade Agreement.............................................. 47
Colony Collapse Disorder.........................................72, 91
Varroa Mites................................................. 58
Commodity:
Crop Payments................................................ 73
Prices...................................................38, 42, 81
Supplemental Food Program............................61, 74, 80, 90
Condition of the Farm Credit System.............................. 32
Conservation..................................................... 48
Cuts......................................................... 74
Funding...................................................... 49
Reserve Program (CRP)........................................ 88
Corporate Activities............................................. 32
Country of Origin Labeling.......................................64, 79
Dairy Prices and Nutrition Programs.............................. 62
Effect of High Commodities Demand................................ 55
Emerson Trust.................................................... 57
Examination Programs for FCS Banks and Associations.............. 30
Exclusion of Potatoes from WIC................................... 96
Export Credit Guarantee Program.................................. 90
Farm Bill........................................................ 43
FSIS:
Budget....................................................... 89
Humane Methods of Slaughter.................................. 89
Vacancy Rates................................................ 65
Farm Service Agency (FSA) Information Technology (IT):
Problems..................................................... 60
System....................................................... 86
Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation........................ 33
Fiscal Year:
2007 Accomplishments......................................... 30
2008 WIC Budget.............................................. 52
Food:
Aid ``Safe Box''............................................. 85
Costs for WIC Program........................................ 41
Regulations.................................................. 94
Safety:
Budget Request........................................... 48
Inspection User Fees..................................... 95
Stamp Participation.......................................... 83
Hallmark/Westland Recall......................................... 95
Humane Slaughter.................................................52, 72
Improving USDA Management........................................ 24
Mission of the Farm Credit Administration........................ 30
National:
Animal Identification System.................................56, 87
Arboretum.................................................... 63
Organic Program Reorganization............................... 64
Veterinary Medical Service Act............................... 96
OIG:
Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request.............................. 27
Report....................................................... 34
Organic Pasture.................................................. 62
Penalties for Slaughter of Nonambulatory Animals................. 73
Potatoes and WIC................................................. 63
Protecting the Integrity of USDA Benefit and Entitlement Programs 18
Public Law 480 Title II:
Budget Request............................................... 37
Grants....................................................... 36
Supplemental Requests........................................ 81
Recalled Meat.................................................... 35
Regulatory Activity.............................................. 31
Research Funding................................................. 50
Resource Conservation and Development Program (RC&D).............61, 75
Rice Stock Reporting............................................. 81
Risk Based Inspection............................................ 64
Rural:
Development and Rental Assistance--Absence of a Sound
Strategy................................................... 59
Housing and the Sub-Prime Housing Crisis..................... 59
Safety, Security, and Public Health.............................. 14
Stem Rust Research............................................... 40
Tart Cherries.................................................... 62
The Stewardship of USDA's Natural Resources...................... 26
Timeline for Development and Implementation of the Proposed
Public Health Risk-Based Inspection System, Public Health
Information System and Poultry Slaughter Rule.................. 65
U.S. Beef Products............................................... 95
Varroa Mites..................................................... 59
WIC:
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget...................................... 89
Food Costs................................................... 83
Monthly Report and Fiscal Year 2009 Budget................... 85
Program...................................................... 35
World/Domestic Food Supply.......................................53, 54
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
Active Ingredients.............................................113, 115
Additional:
Committee Questions.......................................... 121
Staff........................................................ 118
$375 Million................................................. 108
Tools........................................................ 136
Beyond Our Borders.............................................109, 114
Breast Implants.................................................. 148
Budget Request Increase.......................................... 103
Canadian Drugs................................................... 114
China Office..................................................... 118
Cost of Living and Critical Path................................. 103
Counterfeits..................................................... 116
Critical Path.................................................... 110
Activities................................................... 159
Data Center...................................................... 112
Drug Safety--Imports............................................. 130
Estriol.......................................................... 130
FDA:
International Offices........................................ 151
Science Board Recommendations................................ 121
Field Exams/Samples.............................................. 128
Food:
Protection:
And Import Safety........................................ 103
Plan...................................................127, 130
Safety:
GAPS..................................................... 137
Research................................................. 160
Foreign Inspections.............................................. 114
Funding Absorption............................................... 109
GSA.............................................................. 111
Generic:
Bioequivalence............................................... 168
Drugs......................................................117, 129
Application Actions...................................... 166
Citizen Petitions........................................ 161
Global Supply Chain.............................................. 113
Guidance Development............................................. 137
Heparin:
And Drug Facility Inspections................................ 150
Foreign Inspections.......................................... 112
IT Investments................................................... 158
Implementation of the FDA Amendments Act of 2007................. 162
Increased Products and Responsibilities.......................... 107
Indoor Tanning Devices........................................... 116
Information Technology........................................... 111
MDUFMA........................................................... 133
Medical:
Device Review Performance.................................... 162
Product Safety............................................... 129
Mercury Testing.................................................. 130
Modernization of Information Technology (IT)..................... 102
Necessary Resources.............................................. 108
New Staff........................................................ 117
Office of Generic Drugs Productivity............................. 166
Other Foreign Offices............................................ 119
Overall FDA Funding.............................................. 152
Overseas Staffing................................................ 127
Pay Costs......................................................127, 158
Post-Market:
Safety....................................................... 119
Surveillance of Silicone Breast Implants..................... 132
Pre-Emption...................................................... 169
Product Safety................................................... 103
Rapid Response Teams............................................. 103
Reports.......................................................... 132
Request for Additional Resources................................. 102
Role of Physicians in Medical Device Development................. 166
Science Board.................................................... 107
Sunscreens....................................................... 117
Third Party Certifications....................................... 128
Track and Trace.................................................. 115
United States Versus Canada...................................... 115
User Fees........................................................ 103
Warfarin......................................................... 110
White Oak and Information Technology............................. 111
-