[Senate Hearing 110-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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:
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/
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.